Definitions of religion

The way we define religion lays the foundation for how to understand its role in

developmental thought. Substantive definitions are concerned with the content of religion- what religion is, and which elements it consist of. Such definitions often refer to a

transcendent reality, and tend to focus on theoretical statements about religion instead of considering the effect that religion has in different situations (Furseth & Repstad 2006:16).³⁹

Functional definitions try to discern how religion functions- what it does, and in which ways it influences or affect people or communities (Furseth & Repstad 2006:16). Some may be very broad and include movements or practices that are not normally conceived of as religious, for example sport-fans or humanists. Because in such definitions, the essence of religion is not in its content but lies in the functions religion has in peoples or communities lives.⁴⁰

Many definitions of religion scope either too broad or too narrow (Furstad and Repstad 2006:23-24). The concept of religion, however, is far too complex to be explained in just a few sentences. We are dependent then on having different definitions, which together shed light on the different aspects and functions of religion, and contribute to our growing understanding of the phenomenon. A fruitful definition which entail aspects of both, is that of Bruce Lincoln who identify four characteristics, namely 1) religions claim to truth based on transcendental authority through a transcendental discourse 2) its set of practices which are the embodiment of the former discourse, 3) its community, which constitute their identities on the basis of the two former, and 4) the existence of some kind of institution (loose or very

38 The LWF- publication “Mission in context” emphasizes that mission thus encompasses ecological questions, communitarian ones (such as social, political, cultural, economic), as well as the whole human being (spiritual, mental, relational and environmental needs) (Messenger 2004:34-35)

39 For some substantive definitions, see Furseth & Repstad 2006:16-20

40 For examples of functional definitions, see Furseth & Repstad 2006:20-22)

38 rigid) that regulate, reproduce and modify all the three former characteristics (Lincoln

2006:5-7).

3.2.1 Religion as tradition

The way in which we define religion, is crucial for our investigation of its influence on, and place in development theory. With Deneulin & Bano, I would submit that religion, in this regard, is best defined as a tradition of thought, along the lines of Alasdair MacIntyre, who states that such a tradition of thought is an

Argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics and enemies external to the tradition who reject all or at least key parts of those

fundamental agreements, and those internal, interpretative debates through which the meaning and rationale of the fundamental agreements come to be expressed and by whose progress a tradition is constituted. (MacIntyre in Deneulin & Bano 2009:61- 62)

The strength of this approach to religion is that it is not identified as a set static set of beliefs and traditions which can be analysed concerning their influence or relationship to other spheres of social reality (such as development). Religion in large, is not this. When considering Christianity, which is the most relevant religion in this project, there is a considerable internal diversity with regards to beliefs and traditions. Also within Christian traditions, differences are common. The evangelical tradition is a prominent example (Deneulin & Bano 2009:79-80). Deneulin and Bano continue to state that the major difference between religious and non-religious traditions of thought is that the religious ones also include an agreement on the existence of, and relation to, a transcendent reality (Deneulin & Bano 2009: 62-63). By defining religion as a tradition of thought, we open up for the possibility that religion can, and do, change and evolve. In this thesis, religion as a

tradition encompassing the four main characteristics named by Bruce Lincoln will provide the basic understanding of religion. ⁴¹

41 Though religion is the central term in this thesis, the term spirituality will also be used, then pointing to the transcendent reality to which religion relates.

39

3.2.2 Secularization theory

In addition to how we define religion, the place of religion in society is debated. Many definitions, especially functional ones, suggest that religion do contribute to shape and influence social reality. The view that religion is, in fact, such a force is becoming more usual.

This has not always been so. As modernity became more and more influential in Western Europe, a body of literature called the “secularization theory” achieved near paradigmatic status within the sociology of religion. Very shortly, this theory identifies a close correlation between religion and modernity. As modernity grows, religion loses its social significance, both in society and for individuals (Berger 1999:2).⁴² The roots of these thoughts can be traced back to the fathers of sociology of religion, Max Weber and Emile Dürkheim, who both suggested an inverse relationship between these two concepts (Deneulin & Bano 2009:52-53).

However, starting with the Iranian revolution in 1979, several events in the 80s suggested that the public role of religion was not over (Casanova 1994:3), and made sociologists of religion question their own paradigm. Casanova explains that the most striking phenomena was “the revitalization and the assumption of public roles by precisely those religious traditions which both theories of secularazation and cyclical theories of religious revival had assumed were becoming ever more marginalized and irrelevant in the modern world” (Casanova 1994:5). This in turn diminished the influence of old secularization theory, and many sociologists, like Peter L. Berger, either modified or changed their

positions (Berger 1999:2-3).

Today, the debate is more concerning religions role in the public sphere. Some sociologists, such as Steve Bruce, contend that religion is still losing ground and is becoming more a matter of the private sphere (Furseth & Repstad 2006:99). Others argue for the continued role of religion also in the public sphere (Furseth & Repstad 2006:99-100).

42 When one refers to the secularization theory, it should be mentioned that there are several facets of it, and therefore several secularization theories, both historic and contemporary ones. An elaboration of them can be found in Furseth & Repstad 2006:82-96. The presentation given above is meant to introduce and shortly define central characteristics of historic secularization theory.

40 Casanovas famous theory of the deprivatization of religion is a good example in that

tradition.⁴³