The following are non-pejorative sociological terms to describe religious movements:
SECT: a deviant religious organization with traditional beliefs and practices.
CULT: a deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices.
SO I guess the difference will be in how someone defines “traditional” and “novel”, and hat those entail.
Reminds me of a discussion I read once about the difference between a dialect and an language.
Someone said once that a language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Maybe a church is a cult with a pension fund for its leadership (or something like that).
And then there is Peoples Temple, which pretended to be a Christian sect, and after Jonestown was called a cult, but was actually nothing more or less than a bunch of America-hating communists. . .
Fascinating story, the Peoples Temple story. I think many people my age (I’m Generation X) don’t know much about it. I can’t believe Jim Jones was on the San Francisco Housing Commission! Actually, come to think of it, I can believe it.
Chaplain,
Here is the problem with those terms. Nobody other than those of us who have studied other religions uses the terms as anything other THAN a perjorative.
I’m pretty sure that the Huckabee story in the NTY this weekend about the LDS and the Christ/Satan brother thing is going to start another round of ‘cult’ comments for the LDS. And nobody will be saying it in a nice way.
My experience has been that sociology has not been all that kind of religion of people of religion despite the generally valid definitions you’ve put forward.
(Full disclosure to everybody else: I’m not LDS. I’m not related to anybody LDS. I’m not formerly LDS. I live in Las Vegas so I obviously know lots and lots of LDS. And I’m not supporting Mitt Romney. I’m NOT forwarding anybody elses agenda. K?)
social scientists don’t get it—
CHURCH = man following God
CULT = man following man
Cult and sect both miss the point — the question is: Are they heretics?