Examples of world accommodating new religious movements brent smith dating torrent
Indeed, some have recommended against any future use of the term ‘cult’ by scholars because of the dramatic shift in the meaning of the term (Richardson, 1993a).Instead the term NRM has come to be adopted by those wishing to indicate that they are working from a more scientific perspective on contemporary religious phenomena in the West.World-accommodating movements include Charismatic Renewal (see Charismatic Movements) groups and Pentecostal ones as well.Another oft-used typology was first presented in Robbins et al.
The authors discuss the ‘recomposing’ of RMOs using the six basic elements, and focus on inherent internal and external pressures to change over time, such as the effects of establishing families and having children or the impact of efforts at social control by societal authorities (pp. The dynamic nature of NRMs is illustrated in a number of case studies of such movements and groups which show dramatic changes over time in response to various pressures (see for examples Richardson, 1979; 1985; 1993b).
Dualistic movements and groups ‘affirm traditional moral absolutism and theocentric ethical dualism whilst protecting against permissiveness in all spheres of life’ (Beckford, 19).
Examples are neo-fundamentalist Jesus Movement and Charismatic and neo-Pentecostal Christian groups, which have been relatively numerous, at least within the American context, as well as the Unification Church, one of the more notorious of the NRMs.
The authors claim that the generality, clarity, and intensity of the compensators increased as one moves from audience cult to cult movement.
Audience cults involve consumer activity in which individuals occasionally participate in lectures or other presentations offered by someone claiming to have some sort of truth.(1978), and then developed more fully in other publications (Robbins and Anthony, 1979; Anthony and Ecker, 1987).This typology differentiates between dualistic and monistic movements, and offers several different sub-types within the latter category.The distinction is not an actual typology, but instead represents an ideological position on the part of those using either term (Beckford, 19-17; Dillon and Richardson, 1994; Greil, 1996).