Christian Movementarians

After a distressing day of job-hunting yesterday, I turned to the Simpsons for solace. Often the most intelligent program on American television, as well as being the longest running series, the Simpsons frequently hits religion with a few good-natured and well deserved whacks. Last night I watched The Joy of Sect from season nine. It has been a few years since I’ve seen the episode, and I was pleasantly surprised how it correlates with the overall theme of this blog.

Although the episode ends with a normalcy returning to Springfield after the appearance of a cult called the Movementarians, the parallels between the cult and Rev. Lovejoy’s church are numerous and poignant. This perhaps hits too close to reality for many religious believers — what separates a “cult” from a “church” is more a matter of perspective than a matter of practice or accident.

Even early Christianity had considerable connection to and similarity with Gnosticism. When religions collide, they must emphasize their distinctiveness to survive. Like biological organisms, those that meet the needs of their societies (“the fittest”) survive, while others go extinct. It seems to me that the main cause of religious violence is the need to claim exclusive access to the truth. People are not comfortable believing a religion that might be proven wrong. Like the Simpsons they wish everything will return to normal at the end of the day.

The very definition of normal

6 thoughts on “Christian Movementarians

  1. Keith

    Was this also the case with ancient religions in ancient (Akkadian etc) Mesopotamia or were they more inclined to syncretism? Does syncretism prevent the sort of violence you describe?

    Good luck with the job-hunting, btw, love this blog.

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      The need to exclaim exclusive truth seems to be a characteristic of monotheism. Polytheistic religions such as those of ancient Mesopotamia sometimes syncretized, sometimes simply added foreign gods to their own collections of deities, and sometimes supposed foreign gods had no power in their own land. My understanding of the situation in the polytheistic world of yesteryear is that violence tended to be less a matter of religious motivation. There was still violence, of course, but it derived from other sources (need for resources, greed, etc.). Today what makes religious violence so bad is that it sanctifies the act of violence against “heathens” or “pagans.” Syncretism may alleviate this kind of violence, but it is almost impossible in a monotheistic system.

      Like

    • I don’t think that holds up. I know many Protestants who would define Roman Catholicism as a “cult.”

      “Church” and “cult” are often just indicative of ingroup vs. outgroup. Same way with words like “ritual,” “magic” or that favourite of American Fundagelicals: “relationship.” Just another way to separate “us” vs. “them.”

      Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      Thanks, Jim (and Keith).

      I’ve been looking for 17 years, so I’m not about to quit just yet. I do advise all potential grad students in religious studies, however, to choose a more sensible area of study!

      Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.