Sociological perspectives on religion
In the study of sociology, we are presented with three different perspectives regarding our interactions with the world and who is in it. Although parts of all three contain some fragments of truth, it is the opinion of this author that the structural-functionalist perspective is more in line with that which is held within the sphere of religion. When it comes to our roles in this life, the Bible makes it clear that there are “diversities of gifts… differences of administration… and diversities of operations.” (I Corinthians 12:4-6, King James Version) However, it is unfortunate that many people tend to focus on what others should be doing, and not on their own responsibility. The problem with Karl Marx’s conflict theory is that it focuses on only one aspect of a problem situation. In his opinion, all rich people are bad and all poor people are good. According to his thought, if you have nothing, it is because those who are rich are hoarding it from you, and by all possible means they protect you from wealth and the means to obtain it. His only recourse is to go rogue and steal what is “rightfully his” – Robin Hood’s compound, so to speak. While this author would never argue that all the rich have increased their wealth by fair means, he would never suggest that all the poor are like that, simply because the powerful are holding them back. Marx fails to take into account that many of the rich have reached that destination through hard work and clever use of their money, and that many of the poor have also entered, or stayed in, their state through an irresponsible lifestyle.
In the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we are presented with the idea that the symbols or labels we place on people determine how we act towards them. The drawback of this theory is that all over the world, different peoples and cultures will have conflicting symbols compared to those of other cultures. Even within a culture, these symbols can change meaning over time. This fact stems in part from the fact that we are taught that there are no absolutes. So we end up concluding that something is right, only to change our minds about it when we’re in a different place, or even a different time. Biblically speaking, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of where or when you are.
Structural functionalism is, according to dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that sees society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, we mean any number of organizations that have multiple groups or individuals, who, by necessity, must act and interact in a specific way in order for the organism to survive. The use of organism here refers to the fact that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people in a society as functioning in the same way that the different parts of a living organism work together. Although the sociologist Robert Merton did not consider the roles of people in society to be an integral part of the interactions of the organs of a living being, he did believe that each being has its own important role to play. Those who do not fulfill their role no longer contribute to the functions of a society. They are, rather, summation dysfunctions, which damage the balance of a society. In religion, as in society, members must act according to their assigned or chosen roles in order to survive and perpetuate themselves. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, where each individual member of the church has a specific function. “For just as the body is one, and has many members, but all the members of the same body, being many, are one body, so is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? (I Corinthians 1:12, 14 and 15)
Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the result of the rich and powerful (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the rich controlling the means of production and wealth, the antithesis was the rebellion of the workers against the lords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. However, this would not be the end, as once the synthesis was formed, it would in turn create another thesis which would eventually lead to another antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts eventually resolved themselves, then the perfect society would have been formed, since everyone would now be equal. Religion touches on this conflict when the Bible discusses the proper relationships between those of different seasons. Although the Bible indicates that we are all equal in the aspect of our justice when it says “…there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does indicate that in our life situation we are not necessarily the same as those around us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and some for honor and others for dishonor.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx called the antithesis; the bible refers to as rebellion. We must learn to appreciate where we are and what we have. “…because I have learned, in whatever state I find myself, to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That is not to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is possible to get out of our unfavorable state. “Therefore if anyone purifies himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel to honor, sanctified, and fit for the master’s use, and prepared for every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What those in power must also realize, the impetus to create a better society is not only in the workers; those in charge also have a responsibility. “Teachers, render to your servants what is just and just…” (Colossians 4:1).
The symbolic interactionist perspective states that we see the people and things around us based on the symbols we have assigned to them. We see people differently based on whether they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other number of symbols we have assigned to those around us. One caveat to this perspective is that the meanings of the symbols will change over time. An example is marriage and divorce. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties coming together in mutual feelings of what they can do for each other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down upon as a sign of failure, but as a symbol of freedom. In recent years the divorce rate has skyrocketed, separating families and even friends. In religion these same symbols are used; however, because they are appointed by God, changes are not permitted. “I dont change”. (Malachi 3:6) In the area of divorce the Bible says: “Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
So when considering these three perspectives from the Bible’s point of view, which one should we focus on? In considering the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we must keep in mind what the Bible says about our relationships with others. “…whatever you want men to do to you, so do you also to them…” (Matthew 7:12) “…the elder, but treat him as a father, and the young men as a brethren…” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are biblically commanded to “obey those who rule over you… salute those who rule over you…” (Hebrews 13 :17 and 24), and “…Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be subject in all fear to your masters; not only to the good and meek, but also to the brazen.” (I Peter 2:17) In considering the perspective of structural-functionalism, it is very important to keep in mind that our most important concern should be to fulfill our own responsibilities. After having assigned roles to his disciples, and one of them had confronted him wanting to know what another disciple was going to do, Jesus said to him: “… what to you? Follow me”. (John 21:22)
References
functionalism. (North Dakota). Dictionary.com Unabridged version. Retrieved on February 23, 2016 from the Dictionary.com website. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism
What is Conflict Theory? (2016). Investopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp