<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Often polemical/contradictory -- elsewhere sound/interesting
Review: Begins with hot-headed academic axe-grinding. Tone gets more reasonable as book progresses. The authors repeatedly assert that persons of faith are more "truly scientific" in their study of religion than non-believers, that irreligious scholars cannot truly grasp religion and are thus inherently less qualified to study it than scholars of faith -- all of which is pithy, preening nonsense. If only people of faith are capable of studying religion, does that mean that only farmers can study farming, cops study policing, unions members study unions, racists study racism? If so, let's just give up on this whole social science thing and stare at our belly buttons! The bottom line is that religious people have a unique perspective on religion that the outsider cannot ever grasp, and conversely, the outsider sees things in a way the believer cannot; neither has a monopoly on truth, and both veiwpoints are essential. To earnestly suggest that only scholars of faith are to be trusted is not only self-serving and ad-homonym in nature, but it is downright frightening. One supposes that if Stark and Finke had their way, we'd all have to display our recently validated "faith certificates" before being allowed to get through the doors of the next SSSR! And be forewarned, they have an overt penchant for Protestant Christians, so if you happen to be a witch from Sweden, look out! The authors constantly declare that religion is RATIONAL. But what is "rational," exactly? Rational is one of those words like "beautiful" -- meaning so many different things to so so many different people. Is falling in love rational? Sitting in traffic everyday? Wearing a rabbit's foot? Denying penicillin to your dying child because your religion forbids it? Arguing that religion is "rational" is banal and ultimately teaches us nothing. All this insistence on RATIONAL and yet one wonders -- would the authors contend that ANY belief without evidence/data is rational, or just "religious" belief? Would someone who blindly accepts Freud's theories be considered "rational" in their eyes? Why then is someone considerd "rational" who blindly accepts the theories of Joseph Smith? Indeed, if one person belives something for which there is no evidence and that no one else belives, we call that person self-delusional, insane, or irrational. And yet if 200 or 20,000 people suddeny share the very same belief, we call them "religious" and rational. Go figure. On this whole rational matter, the authors clearly protest too much. The authors do a great and convincing job of digging deep and revealing the "real"/social causes of various religious phenomenon, such as Moonie conversion, Mormon growth, high US religion rates, etc. -- but in doing so, they flatly contradict themselves; they earlier chide scholars for dismissing religious explanations in favor of searching for the "real" causes of religious pheonomenon. Stark and Finke thus do (very successfully!) exaclty what they had earlier criticized in others. I really liked chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 8 was most interesting, and Chapter 9 was solid and intelligent. I learned a lot by the end -- but was distracted by all the initial arrogance and persistent internal contradictions. The book would have been much more powerful and convincing as sound social science had the first chapters with all their silliness and condescension been edited out.
Rating: 
Summary: Tainted but worthwhile
Review: My thinking on the subject of church dynamics has been strongly influenced by other works of Stark (The Rise of Christianity) and of Stark and Finke (The Churching of America). This latest in their combined efforts is also quite good. HOWEVER, I have found that a conservative bias is beginning to show. In my opinion, they have let biases against Liberal Theology taint an excellent exposition of research. I will support this statement with an example. They have some excellent numbers which compare the success of Evangelical ministers with in the United Methodist Church to Ministers within the UMC which were co-officiants at a particular homosexual union ceremony. The data clearly indicates that there is stronger growth among the Evangelical ministers. This is used as evidence that "Liberal" (whatever that abused word means) theology is damaging to church growth. I would believe that a better interpretation of this is: Those who go to pick apples get more apples than those who simply seek to polish apples. As long as Stark and Finke stick to their last, they are wonderful, but when they wander over trying to do theology they faulter. I would encourage anyone who is interested in Church Growth and Dynamics to buy this book, but please be sure to be on the alert for the conservative bias.
Rating:
Summary: A Solid Rational Choice Perspective
Review: This authors of this book do not, as one reviewer rather superficially whined, claim that the religious perspective is the only valid perspective from which religion can be observed. Their argument is more simply for the validity or "rationality" of the religious perspective. They rightly dismiss the secularization thesis, and contend that religion is here to stay. Furthermore, as an enduring component of human life, religion (and the religious person) deserves to be treated with an appropriate seriousness. The scientific study of religion has for too long been plagued by the presupposition that all religion and religious sentiment is based on illusion or foolishness/irrationality. Stark and Finke, however, give religion and the religious person the respect they deserve by taking their claims at face value. There is no argument for the existence of God (or the validity of any particular truth-claims); instead, the authors put forth an argument for the validity and genuineness of religion as an enduring human construct. The question of transcendence they do not even approach. Finally, it should be noted that Stark and Finke do us a great service by specifying what they mean when they use terms like "religion," "miracle," "prayer," and, yes, "rational." Let there be no mistake: this book is written from the perspective of rational choice theory, and that can be distasteful to many--especially when the subject is religion. But Stark and Finke go a long way toward making their thoughtful, honest and cogent perspective more palatable to the rest of us.
<< 1 >>
|
