If you read this blog you know that I am of the opinion that some religions are “brittle,” and internal change can be precipitated by a “tipping point.” Against this is the idea of slow evolution of ideas and groups over time. Obviously all groups evince both characteristics, and words like “fast” and “slow” can be subjective in the context of difficult to measure objects like “culture” or “religion.”
I would like to explore these questions by starting with an analogy that others have used, that Islam by its nature resembles Reformation Protestantism, and in particular, the iconoclastic Calvinist strain in Protestant thought. I have expressed serious reservations about mapping Christian typologies over to Islam, but I will attempt to be as circumspect and general as I can in the following treatment to mitigate charges of hypocrisy.
First, I will tip my hat to Stark & Bainbridges A Theory of Religion, in that though I do not accept all of their propositions about the evolution of religious beliefs in a rational choice context, I think they do offer some insights that are worth examining (this is especially true in the American context of religious pluralism and relative state non-interference in conversion). One of their major points is that religious groups often go from high tension with society at large to low tension as a function of time (tension has a strong inverse correlation with numerical strength and social standing of a given sect and its members).
This tendency of religious groups to shift from “high tension,” that is fundamentalist, to “low tension,” that is mainline, can be seen in many American sects. For instance, American Methodism initially owed its origins to revival movements that today would be more characteristic of Baptists, or even Pentecostals. Similarly, American Presbyterianism was early on characterized by a traditionalist reaction against the liberalism of their Congregationalist theological siblings in New England. Finally, Congregationalism is often said to be the most liberal of American Christian churches, for example the United Church of Christ (the successor national umbrella group to the Congregationalists) ordain homosexuals. But, what many people must recall is that Congregationalists are direct genetic descendents of the Puritanism of the Calvinist settlers of New England! And despite its diverse origins, the post-Christian Unitiarian-Universalist Association in the American context is a direct outgrowth of the early 19th century Congregationalist liberal movement! In such a fashion, one can connect John Calvin in a direct line of ministers to a religious group that accepts pagans within its fold.
Now, there are many conservative Presbyterians, and the Reform/Calvinist movement has produced many traditionalists, from Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantiga, to anti-abortion activist Randall Terry or members of mainline Presbyterian congregations like former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed. But the center of gravity of American Calvinist/Reform believers tends to be less fundamentalist, and more moderate. The Unitarian-Universalist movement is the left-wing outlier, while Christian Reconstructionism can be viewed as the right-wing extreme, even more fundamentalist than Calvin’s original “theocracy” in Geneva in their conception of church-state relations. But, there are more explicit adherents to Unitarian-Universalism in the United States than Christian Reconstructionism (630,000 UUs).
This change in the Calvinist/Reform tinged denominations in the United States reflects a few general dynamics.
1) A sect/cult often starts out with fanatic believers, “die hards” who have little to lose.
2) These people start getting the “word out,” and the rate of growth skyrockets.
3) There is in the general population a fraction of people who are congenial to whatever message/orientation that is being propogated by the new sect and they come on board as they hear about it. This is the initial phase when the rate of growth keeps increasing (the second derivate is going up).
4) There comes a point where the sect is more established. It becomes a “denomination.” The “fanatics” are now in positions of more power & prestige. They have something to lose. There are many more “normal” people in the church, who are changing the internal dynamics. Those who are predisposed to join for whatever reason have heard about it, so the rate of growth slows down over time (the second derivative is dropping).
5) The denomination becomes “established.” People are “born” into the church, and some join for reasons of social networking, it has gained a “high status” in society. There is less pressure to convert others, and the fanatic personality type is a small minority. The rate of growth stops, and the church has reached a “saturation point” or carrying capacity.
6) At this point, a lot of things start happening, the….
A) the “fanatics” who are still around might start a new sect.
B) though the “tenets” or axioms of the church remain the same, the people “re-interpret” them to their own benefit. In this way, the name might remain the same, but the animal has a make-over. This is a dynamic process, the act of attracting new members changes the way the church attacts new members (that is, fewer fanatics are attracted, more social networkers, and the process hits a tipping point beyond which you can’t shift back).
OK, so back to the real world. How does this apply? In the generality, we might use these concepts to interpret news stories about “religious explosions” the world over. For instance-the high growth rates of Pentecostalism in Latin America, Christianity in Korea or Islam among black Americans. News stories often project these numbers outward in a very naive fashion. The number of Latin Americans who are dissatisfied with the Catholic Church is finite. Additionally, the nature of Pentecostalism changes with new members who enter the faith, so the people it attracts is also something that is dynamic and hard to project forward (that is, imaginings of a fundamentalist Protestant Brazil based on 20 years of growth seems unlikely). It seems in South Korea that the past decade has seen a flattening of the growth of Christianity, and many people who “convert” to Christianity are now switching sects, that is, converting from one church to another within the Christian fold (recall that many fundamentalists have a narrow view of who is “Christian,” so a conversion from a liberal Christian denomination to a fundamentalist sect might be thought of as “converting to Christianity” by that respondent). Many of those who were potentional converts have probably converted. Korean Christianity is also now in an internal debate, as its fundamentalism is being challenged by “liberals” (interesting coincidence, but Presbyterianism is the dominant Protestant sect, so you are seeing the same processes that worked in the United States recapitulating themselves).
Finally, let’s move back to Islam. This is a big religion, 1 billion people, and because of the dynamics of Muslim polities, “rational choice” really isn’t much of an option in many of these countries. But looking at American or European Islam, we can apply some of the same principles. As Muslims rise in social status, they should try to reduce tension with the surrounding society, “re-interpret” their texts to be more liberalism friendly, and their rate of growth should drop as there’s less incentive for psychologically deviant individuals to join the confession (since it is now less deviant). Of course, the other direction might also work, where Islam becames the “sect of fanatics” par excellence and as deviants who seek to be at tension with the society around them convert and join, those who want to assimilate drop out, resulting in a tipping point to permanent fundamentalism.
Now, there are some axiomatic issues with Islam, does the interpretation of the Koran as the literal Word of God serve as a block “re-interpretation” and liberalization? I don’t think we should neglect this, human minds tend to want to avoid obvious logical conflicts (or at least explain them away easily), and this is a hard point to work around on first blush. Some Muslim liberals are attempting to formulate such a “work around,” but they need to make it simple enough to convince the masses. Once this “channel” is opened, then the option of wholesale “cracking” of Islam might be foreseeable because of the faith’s weak ecclesiastical structure.
Amen to the last.
Posted by razib at 01:04 PM