Chapter 5 of McGuire’s “Religion: The Social Context” discusses the dynamics of religious collectivities. In the chapter, McGuire describes the types of collective stances: the churchly stance, sectarian stance, denominational stance, and the cultic stance. Upon reading the descriptions of each, I was most intrigued by the sectarian stance because of the fact that I once belonged to a church that could fall under this grouping. The books says that sectarian religious collectivities “consider themselves to be uniquely legitimate” and they are in a relatively “negative relationship with the dominant society.” The groups separation from the larger society is both to protect the believers from the “evils of society’s ways,” but also as an effort to “structure believers’ lives to protect them from immoral thoughts and actions.” Sectarian groups have historically separated themselves from the dominant society and have also limited their members from participating in secular things like watching tv, listening to “worldly” music, and so on. The church I used to attend was very much like this, where we were completely separated from the world. Stepping out of it now, I understand why it was a part of our belief system, but it nonetheless perplexed me as to why sectarian groups— like my church— haven’t died out. Why is it that sectarian groups persist despite them separating themselves from society? I feel as though that could have a negative impact and may even create hostility from those who are not part of a religious group, resulting in a decline in support for those religious groups who fall under the sectarian category.

In the reading for this week, McGuire discusses the impacts of meaning on belief systems. Chapter two explains how religious people give an experience its meaning by the choice of their interpretations of that experience; people associate meaning with events to help them understand the event itself. Specifically, meaning is significant in religious institutions as it is the church’s members who keep the meanings of their beliefs consistent and alive. If such members were to simply not exist, the meanings of those beliefs could be gone or could be skewed to signify something completely different than its original given meaning. Though a foreign concept to me, “Plausibility structures,” or the social interactions within a network of persons sharing a meaning system, plays an interesting role in the significance of belief systems. The structure protects those with same beliefs and fosters it because there are no outside beliefs that may change or challenge the current meaning of the beliefs already held. Being with people of the same faith engenders the same or similar beliefs, but it can become challenging in a situation of religious exile. McGuire explains that for exiles, they become cut off from members of their society but are also cut off from the social support for their meaning system. Ultimately, this means that there is less protection for the beliefs of the exile as well as less protection for the person. I had never thought about the idea of cutting someone off from a meaning system— it allows one to be exposed to other beliefs that may not align with their own, one can encounter different interpretations of those same beliefs, or they can also encounter ridicule for their beliefs. Having a homogenous group of people allows them to create a space where similar meanings are associated to their beliefs, ultimately allowing those beliefs to stay consistent.