What Is a New Religious Movement?

To ask "what is a new religious movement" is to already place oneself deep within a controversy that exceeds the bounds of mere words. Depending on which authority one consults, one might find all three words potentially threatening, unhelpful, or simply wrong. The following discussion owes much to two excellent chapters in sociologist John A. Saliba's text, Understanding New Religious Movements (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1995), pp. 1-64. Saliba's descriptions, while incomplete (as if any descriptions of this genre can be!) offer a productive introduction into the often confusing terrain of the labels surrounding "NRMs."

"New"

First, depending on one's subjective orientation, "new" may seem inappropriate. Clearly, many of the groups considered "new" today have centuries-old, even ancient antecedents. Even the "New Age" is not all that new, having its roots in Enlightenment esoteric and hermetic ideas which trace all the way to ancient Greece and the philosophy of Gnosticism. Gnostic beliefs, briefly stated, offer the notion that material life is illusory and problematic and that the individual ought to strive to perfect its spiritual aspect, finding and cultivating the "divine spark" within. Gnosticism thus entails a "knowledge" of the divine, a knowledge that is selective and not necessarily available to everyone, hence the "esoteric," or secret aspects of this definition. Critical, however, is the sense that one may strive toward one's own salvation, a notion repudiated to varying extents in the Christian tradition since Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century. One encounters "demons" associated with the material plane, just as one may encounter a spiritual guide like Jesus (although Jesus is not the son of God here). Gnostic beliefs thus introduce an idea called dualism, which divides the world into a material and a spiritual plane, with this division extending to individual bodies and spirits as well (Saliba 8-11, 38-41). In practice, however, it is often difficult to separate Gnostic influences from another ancient philosophy, Platonism. Platonism also emphasizes the essentially corrupted nature of the human realm, and adds that humans are separate from the God-head, and can take action to re-unite with the God-head thus correcting their fallen state. In one form or another, these ancient philosophies often recur in "new" religions.

Also, certain groups such as Pagan witches, or Wiccans, while acknowledging that many aspects of their religious practice are "new," nevertheless maintain that they have resurrected a type of nature-based spirituality that has been largely dormant for several millennia. Thus, while the scholar might examine Wicca and find it largely the creation of the mid-20th century British civil servant/religious innovator Gerald Gardner, a practioner will insist on the pragmatics of her or his ostensibly new means of connecting with quite old religious truths. Whether one considers something new, in other words, must also take perspective into account.

"Religious"

Second, "religious" is a term that many apparently "religious" groups do not acknowledge as pertaining to their own practice. Religion, especially in the writings of Protestant Neo-Evangelicals like Hal Lindsey and his contemporaries, has become synonymous with "superstition." Orthodox practice is not religion, in other words, but what the other folks do most certainly is. Also, groups such as the Raelians, a saucer-sect of mid 1970's vintage, also claim to transcend religion. They are not a religion per se, but a science. That is, many of the more New Age accented NRMs claim a higher scientific truth than what is typically defined as science. Thus for the Raelians, what they do is science, whereas everyone else practices superstitious "religion."

Scholars, too, have debated just what constitutes a religion. Sociologist Peter L. Berger in The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1967) moves between structural and functional definitions. A structural definition tends to emphasize groups that look like religions. Thus a denomination with a traditional church building and Sunday services would clearly qualify. Functional definitions tend to include, to varying extent, those groups that may lack the traditional trappings of a religion but nevertheless function as such. Examples might include various kinds of nationalism, or political movements like Marxism. Scholars tend to move between these two poles depending on the group in question along with other, more pragmatic concerns. Hence, to summarize, "religion" is also a contested word.

"Movement"

Finally, "movement" elicits images of large groups seeking social change that possess some degree of permanence. Many of the groups called NRMs, however, are transitory, and do not last long enough to be considered movements in a traditional sense. Second, some groups lack the centralization to be considered movements. Again, using Wicca as an example, Wiccans work in small groups and pride themselves on their independence. Although certain groups within Wicca such as the Gardnerians and Alexandrians have developed sufficient hierarchical structures to indeed qualify as movements, many American Wiccans are either solitary practitioners or change their affiliations so frequently as to belie the notion of movement. That is, unless one considers Saliba's definition, which would be inclusive of this kind of transitional movement. Saliba notes that joining an NRM represents an important transitional movement for individuals; moreover, as so many NRMs stress the "self" in some capacity, Saliba's definition does appear quite helpful (Saliba 10).

"Cults"

But why NRMs? Why not use other language like "alternative religion," "marginal religion,""intense religions," or even the much stigmatized word, cults? Each of these terms has value, but none of them, including NRM, for that matter, can lay claim to an ideal explanatory status. Any religion can be an alternative to any other in a pluralistic society, and can also appear marginal at some point during its life-cycle. Also, while many new religions do evidence a high level of devotion or intensity, so do many more established groups. Moreover, some groups that scholars would include under the umbrella of new religions are not all that intense, including many "New Agers" who are called, in sociological terminology, veteran seekers, although "religious dabblers" works just as well.

But what about cults? One could discard the term entirely as many scholars have already done, but one cannot overlook the usually negative connotations it has developed in lay usage. Thus a "cult," following a usage popularized by various media outlets, is inherently destructive or at wrong-headed religion. In any event, "cult" involvement carries a tremendous stigma. To join a cult in the popular understanding is to throw away one's future and stake in society in favor of a charasmatic leader who brainwashes his followers into making him (usually him) large sums of money. This cynical view, while not always wrong depending on the specific case in question, does tend to lump many different types of religious expression under one umbrella: wrong, profit-oriented, and socially destructive.

Saliba classifies these aspects into three categories, what he calls the theological, psychological, and sociological definitions of "cults." Theological definitions judge the inherent spiritual value of a group, while psychological definitions measure the effects of cult involvement on indivuals and their social-psychological well-being. Finally, sociological terminology deploys more neutral usages (Saliba 2-8)

Theological Definitions of "Cults"

Theological definitions, according to Saliba, judge cults against a standard that is typically Protestant, meaning Biblically oriented. Cults innovate, contradict, and add to the canonical scriptures, all of which constitute heresy. Saliba points out, however, that many of these "anti-cult" definitions lack sufficient descriptive power. While one could argue that groups such as the Branch Davidians augment the Biblical traditions, others, once again using Wiccans as examples, do not. Moreover, many of the NRMs based upon Hinduism and Buddhism have no relation to the Bible, let along Protestant Christianity (Saliba 2-4). I would add to Saliba's definition, however, another category, the so-called "skeptics." While it is no doubt correct that Protestant groups have much to say on the theological de-merits of NRMs, so do the watchdog groups associated with skeptics and the ACM, or Anti-Cult Movement. These groups also judge the theological validity of NRMs, if only tacitly, by assuming that they are false or otherwise fraudulent scams. Many of these critics would object to any religion that makes a trascendental claim (something beyond what is immediately, empirically, and scientifically available). Thus the cooperation of Evangelical and skeptical groups in the Anti-Cult Movement would seen tenuous at best, as the line between "legitimate" religion and "cult" blurs according to one's perspective.

Psychological Definitions

Second, Saliba discusses psychological definitions. These, he reports, have greater scientific standing because they move beyond normative considerations and measure the impact of cult involvement on the psychological functioning of individuals. Usually, at least as reported in popular media) cults are destructive of the individual will, as members are brainwashed or mentally conditioned by a charasmatic leader. The cult member becomes in this scenario an unwilling dupe, or a "victim" of a greater evil. This definition also assumes that cults are exploitative by nature, and have no psychologically redemptive qualities. By contrast, Saliba notes that some psychologists view cult involvement as a healthy therapy for at least some individuals, as involvement has helped them overcome such problems as drug and alcohol addiction (Saliba 4-7).

Sociological Definitions

Finally, Saliba notes the diversity of sociological definitions. Typically, these follow the "church"--"denomination"--"sect"--"cult" continuum. Churches are well-established religious orthodoxies, whereas denominations are accepted branches. Many sociologists (Saliba cites here Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge) use sect to denote a splinter group from an established denomination, whereas cults are made up of novel elements (Saliba 8). Saliba also points out the Latin meaning of cult, or cultus, which suggests a style of worship for a particular deity (Saliba 1). The worship of Bacchus, for example, would constitute a cult within ancient Roman Paganism. This leads to a final definition of "cult" and "sect." Sociologists also speak of movements as having sectarian cores and a cultic fringes. Commitment levels increase as one reaches the core, hence a cultic orientation would indicate here that one exists on the edge of a movement, lacking the intensity and committment of sectarian members. In sum, cult can refer to the quality of one's religious involvement, but in sociolological language, it may also refer to the quantity, or type of involvement.

Summary

To summarize, I will often use the term NRMs, or New Religious Movements in this course; and, depending on context, we might also deploy different terminology. This is not designed to make something so seemingly simple as a descriptive label so confusing. Rather, it is to introduce the various ways you will hear NRMs described, and to help you evaluate the epistemological baggage each meaning may carry. Finally, it bears repeating that these definitions are not all-inclusive. Some NRMs, for example, may indeed be exploitive, and some sociological definitions may not be as value-neutral as they claim. So you have had fair warning. This may be on the midterm! :)