High Demand Religions?

[steve-in-kville]

Never heard this term until yesterday. This one is new to me. It was a podcast and they were taking an obvious jab at their former Amish upbringing.

[MaxPC]

Periodically, I have found that a new catch-phrase is invented to describe a situation that the inventor finds disagreeable. Now that there is social media and video platforms, those new phrases spread more quickly. Catch phrases are created to shape public and private opinions.

I always question the motives of those who use those catch-phrases. Are they trying to create an adverse public opinion of a person or group? In this case, are they seeking to denigrate the Amish and other groups who expect personal responsibility and discipline from their membership?

[steve-in-kville]

I always question the motives of those who use those catch-phrases. Are they trying to create an adverse public opinion of a person or group? In this case, are they seeking to denigrate the Amish and other groups who expect personal responsibility and discipline from their membership?

Another term that I heard twice last week was "imposter syndrome." That was a new one for me.

[MaxPC]

Another term that I heard twice last week was "imposter syndrome." That was a new one for me.

That is new to me as well. It sounds to me like a similar attempt to denigrate and demonise a person or group. If we are to reach out with the Gospel with credibility, I do not think that coining phrases and labeling groups we do not like will comply with that mission. Pastors and members who choose to rail against others and create discord are undermining their own mission to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. I have seen leadership from many denominations slip into this behavior.

Addendum: just went to my psychology websites and discovered that “imposter syndrome” is a new term being tossed about, much akin to the way in which the term “co-dependent” was bandied some years ago. All of these terms are appearing after I retired.

I am still bothered by the periodic sudden appearance of new labels for the reasons below. Many are attached to newly published books by individuals who seek money, tenure or both. Coin a new label and one is invited to talk shows and interviews with popular magazines with commensurate pay checks.

I can honestly say that some labels only serve some clinical purposes but I do not believe they should be tossed about around potlucks and parties. In my experiences, I certainly do not believe they serve the Gospel.

[Josh]

"Imposter syndrome" means someone who is qualified/competent etc. to do something (typically a job), but feels inadequate and feels like they are an imposter just pretending they are qualified, even though they are actually are.

Max, do you have some other preferred term for it? I have found this term is helpful in helping people struggling in their careers, and it particularly affects women.

[ABC 123]

Where I am now (BMA ish) is less demanding religiously than I had been (Charity ish). Is that what you mean?

[steve-in-kville]

Where I am now (BMA ish) is less demanding religiously than I had been (Charity ish). Is that what you mean?

Or EPMC

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This term has been around for a little while now, in various forms. It has mostly been used by academics to study, discern, and talk about cults. This statement requires a bit of clarification.

In the 60s-80s, there was a huge cultural backlash against the long-entrenching liberalism of western society. Most people remember this as the "hippie" movement or some other such terms. Although there is a lot to it, much of it was dedicated to ideals that promote some form of collectivism, whereas liberalism strongly promotes individualism. While decades before, the national and international Communist parties had been a part of this counterculture, in the hippie era, it was dominated by anarchists and small-c communists (people who lived together in communes). Alongside this were many other sentiments of distrust in American imperialism and many of Americn institutions in general.

Although many of these groups died out as people got disinterested (many hippies refound a love for individualism and acquiring wealth and become yuppies), there were several groups that survived, or formed at the tail end of that movement, and in the 80s, a lot of these fringe counterculture groups ended in disaster. Think the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX or Jim Jones' communal group in Jonestown.
Many of these groups were somewhat religious in nature, most being offshoots of Christian orthodoxy. Because of this, they were labelled "cults". The definition of a cult is essentially an offshoot of a religion that steps just far enough outside mainstream orthodoxy to be branded as a seperate religion, but small enough that they can't yet be called their own religion yet. (Christianity was a cult of Judiasm. Mormonism was a cult of Christianity. Etc.) Labelling them as "cults" helped mainstream Christianity distance itself from these fringe groups that had ended disasterously. The result of this is a redefinition of the word "cult" in common understanding. Rather than an unorthodox religious group, the word "cult" began to be thought of as a group of people that are strongly counter-liberalism; primarily, a sub-society of people that promote collectivist and separatist ideals instead of individualist and conformist ideals. These groups, sociologists say, are inherently dangerous to the liberal idea of individual autonomy, and thus are prone to abusive systems and structures against individuals.

Two terms sociologists use to identify a cult (in the anti-liberal sense, not necessarily in the religious sense) are "High-Control Group" and "High-Demand Group". Either or both of these serve to draw an individual into the collective and make their individual desires subservient to the collective desires. A high-control group has a lot of rules and dictates the proper choices and actions all individuals should make. A high-demand group has a lot of work that requires all hands on deck, making collective action with the group a priority of everyone's time so that time spent with the community outweighs time spent on individual autonomy.

For clarification, sociologists would probably classify the Hutterites as a high-demand group and the Amish as a high-control group. The Hutterites live and work together but actually have comparatively few "rules" dictating life. The Amish have their own families and businesses, but a great amount of rules keep their common life feeling somewhat "together".

This is the first time I've heard the term "high demand religion. I've heard the term "group" to refer to these anti-liberal/anti-individualist groups, because they might not be classifiable as a religion (Jonestown, for example, started off with Christian preaching but eventually dropped any semblance of Christianity of religious beliefs but was still a dangerous situation). I also would not classify Amish as "high demand". If I knew more about them I'd think "high control", not "high demand". "High demand" could be true even in an evangelical megachurches that has tons of services every week and tries to get everyone to participate to the utmost, giving all their time to church. The Amish, in contrast, have a church meeting every other week and tend to give everyone a lot of time to strengthen their families and businesses. That is not "high demand", at least on the level of the religious institution (the church). Maybe Amish families can be "high demand", but that is the family, not the church.

A final qualifier that I am not necessarily espousing these ideas. I'm just reporting on what sociologists are saying. They coined the terms "high demand group" and "high control group" to identify what they call "potentially dangerous cults" and when they say cults, they mean groups of people reacting against the ideals of liberalism, not necessarily anything religious.

[MaxPC]

Excellent expository essay, P+T.

This term has been around for a little while now, in various forms. It has mostly been used by academics to study, discern, and talk about cults. This statement requires a bit of clarification.

In the 60s-80s, there was a huge cultural backlash against the long-entrenching liberalism of western society. Most people remember this as the "hippie" movement or some other such terms. Although there is a lot to it, much of it was dedicated to ideals that promote some form of collectivism, whereas liberalism strongly promotes individualism. While decades before, the national and international Communist parties had been a part of this counterculture, in the hippie era, it was dominated by anarchists and small-c communists (people who lived together in communes). Alongside this were many other sentiments of distrust in American imperialism and many of Americn institutions in general.

Although many of these groups died out as people got disinterested (many hippies refound a love for individualism and acquiring wealth and become yuppies), there were several groups that survived, or formed at the tail end of that movement, and in the 80s, a lot of these fringe counterculture groups ended in disaster. Think the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX or Jim Jones' communal group in Jonestown.
Many of these groups were somewhat religious in nature, most being offshoots of Christian orthodoxy. Because of this, they were labelled "cults". The definition of a cult is essentially an offshoot of a religion that steps just far enough outside mainstream orthodoxy to be branded as a seperate religion, but small enough that they can't yet be called their own religion yet. (Christianity was a cult of Judiasm. Mormonism was a cult of Christianity. Etc.) Labelling them as "cults" helped mainstream Christianity distance itself from these fringe groups that had ended disasterously. The result of this is a redefinition of the word "cult" in common understanding. Rather than an unorthodox religious group, the word "cult" began to be thought of as a group of people that are strongly counter-liberalism; primarily, a sub-society of people that promote collectivist and separatist ideals instead of individualist and conformist ideals. These groups, sociologists say, are inherently dangerous to the liberal idea of individual autonomy, and thus are prone to abusive systems and structures against individuals.

Two terms sociologists use to identify a cult (in the anti-liberal sense, not necessarily in the religious sense) are "High-Control Group" and "High-Demand Group". Either or both of these serve to draw an individual into the collective and make their individual desires subservient to the collective desires. A high-control group has a lot of rules and dictates the proper choices and actions all individuals should make. A high-demand group has a lot of work that requires all hands on deck, making collective action with the group a priority of everyone's time so that time spent with the community outweighs time spent on individual autonomy.

For clarification, sociologists would probably classify the Hutterites as a high-demand group and the Amish as a high-control group. The Hutterites live and work together but actually have comparatively few "rules" dictating life. The Amish have their own families and businesses, but a great amount of rules keep their common life feeling somewhat "together".

This is the first time I've heard the term "high demand religion. I've heard the term "group" to refer to these anti-liberal/anti-individualist groups, because they might not be classifiable as a religion (Jonestown, for example, started off with Christian preaching but eventually dropped any semblance of Christianity of religious beliefs but was still a dangerous situation). I also would not classify Amish as "high demand". If I knew more about them I'd think "high control", not "high demand". "High demand" could be true even in an evangelical megachurches that has tons of services every week and tries to get everyone to participate to the utmost, giving all their time to church. The Amish, in contrast, have a church meeting every other week and tend to give everyone a lot of time to strengthen their families and businesses. That is not "high demand", at least on the level of the religious institution (the church). Maybe Amish families can be "high demand", but that is the family, not the church.

A final qualifier that I am not necessarily espousing these ideas. I'm just reporting on what sociologists are saying. They coined the terms "high demand group" and "high control group" to identify what they call "potentially dangerous cults" and when they say cults, they mean groups of people reacting against the ideals of liberalism, not necessarily anything religious.

[Sudsy]

Another term that I heard twice last week was "imposter syndrome." That was a new one for me.

That is new to me as well. It sounds to me like a similar attempt to denigrate and demonise a person or group. If we are to reach out with the Gospel with credibility, I do not think that coining phrases and labeling groups we do not like will comply with that mission. Pastors and members who choose to rail against others and create discord are undermining their own mission to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. I have seen leadership from many denominations slip into this behavior.

Addendum: just went to my psychology websites and discovered that “imposter syndrome” is a new term being tossed about, much akin to the way in which the term “co-dependent” was bandied some years ago. All of these terms are appearing after I retired.

I am still bothered by the periodic sudden appearance of new labels for the reasons below. Many are attached to newly published books by individuals who seek money, tenure or both. Coin a new label and one is invited to talk shows and interviews with popular magazines with commensurate pay checks.

I can honestly say that some labels only serve some clinical purposes but I do not believe they should be tossed about around potlucks and parties. In my experiences, I certainly do not believe they serve the Gospel.

I personally don't care for the term we often use at church meals called 'potluck'. I prefer 'fellowsip meal'. There are various religions that believe in luck, good or bad, but Christianity does not believe the world is a big game of chance. Scripture talks more in terms of election, foreknowledge and predestination. Just a preference of mine to avoid being associated with chance.