The analysis of sectarianism has topical relevance today, and increasingly so. However, the scarcity and insignificance of the responses to the challenge of sectarianism create the impression as if, for some unknown reason, the historical churches would avoid this challenge. They usually satisfy themselves with emphasizing the dangers of sectarianism and the sweeping condemnation of sects - which, although often true, does not delve into the depths of the phenomenon; and does not help those who it is intended for to understand; or they point to the heretical nature of individual sects, the distortions in their teachings, their lack of catholicity, and usually do not omit the self-critical observation that in terms of trust and faith, community, and devotion, we too can learn a lot from them. However, this is far too little. The present study does not wish to deal with doctrinal issues or the specifics of individual sects, but restricts itself solely to a general phenomenological description of sectarianism, naturally revealing the appropriate causes and drawing conclusions.
The historical churches of today - and increasingly the historical religions too - only touch upon the surface of people, are only superficially related to them, leaving the center of their being untouched. However, people crave something to touch them fundamentally and strikingly from the inside, at the center of their life imagination. That's why they watch movies, read books, and travel to unknown, distant countries. They crave touch. And they would expect this from their religion, their faith as well. However, if their religion, into which they were born, does not provide this opportunity, or even if they do not experience the need for their essential touch from their religion, but see that it is satisfied with superficial connection, then they try to quench the thirsty longing at the center of their being in other ways. If it doesn't work in a legitimate way, it's good in an illegitimate way too. And this is the sect.
The sect does not just touch the person on the surface. It reaches deep and grips at the center. Penetrates to the core. Up to the center, which for millennia has been accustomed to not remaining untouched - and is now untouched and empty. From this comes a blind and helpless thirst that makes it vulnerable and defenseless against anything that promises to grip it. Today, religion or no religion, people are empty and untouched, and can hardly wait to be touched and seized within. This is what every sect unconsciously knows, this is what every sect unconsciously builds on.
The sect as a phenomenon in its current form is completely new, one could say, a product of the last four hundred years, but its most developed forms are being created in front of the person at the end of the twentieth century. The sect as such was unknown in medieval Europe, unknown in Christian antiquity, and to this day unknown in the religious world outside Christianity. What, however, were known even under the name of "sect" were religions, religious trends, heresies, secret or exclusive religious societies, circles gathered around masters and prophets - and not sects. The sect is not just a small heretical religious community - this in itself is not a sect even if it strives for exclusivity. If we wanted to convey the otherness of the sect, fundamentally and radically different from previous religious phenomena, we would almost have to say that while the latter are offshoots of a religious tradition but grow out of it, the sect settles on this traditional trunk like a foreign parasite. This results in the very well observable feature that one parasite - contrary to doctrinal appearance - has much more kinship with another parasite at the religious phenomenological level than with the religious tradition that carries it. It can therefore be stated without further ado that from this perspective a Christian sect is closer to a Hindu sect than to its own "mother religion". The essence of the sect is not formed by the doctrinal substance, but by the form in which it appears: it is the form that makes it a sect. Never and nowhere did a religious trend or heresy become a sect simply by choosing its doctrines - however eccentric or even vulgar these doctrines may be.
The sect fundamentally differs from all previous religious phenomena. Essentially, it is insensitive to numbers, that is, its sectarianism is not related to how many followers it has. There are very small religious communities in which the traces of the sect are undetectable, while there are sects of millions and very large numbers of sectarian communities, often in the thousands. However, it is a general principle that smaller communities tend to show sectarian traits more than larger ones, which they tend to shed in proportion to their growth. Similarly, the doctrine is not a defining factor, but rather the mode and form of representing that doctrine. It is not inconceivable that while two religious communities profess the same teaching, one is based on traditional religiosity, while the other is a sect, although the latter always tries to provide some kind of distinguishing doctrinal mark, however insignificant, and then hypertrophy its importance. Of course, one should not overlook the fact that in terms of these distinguishing doctrinal signs, the "mother religion" itself is usually to blame, as it has partially or completely eliminated them. The dogmatized historical religions had to decide for a preferred alternative, and to eliminate the other or the rest, that is, to declare their representation as heresy. The contradictions and contradictions are undogmatizable, and this is partly true for complementary aspects as well.
The historical and intellectual roots of the sect are undoubtedly European, and to the extent that Christianity is responsible for European civilization, they are Christian. Just as "Enlightenment", institutional atheism, epidemic sexism, secularism, and liberalism are unimaginable without Europe, so is sectarianism; and just as A. Schmemann sees the stepchild of Christianity in secularism, the phenomenological monstrosity of European religiosity (or lack thereof) can be recognized in sectarianism. The religious roots of intolerance are particularly characteristic of the West, but they are increasingly gaining strength in the East as a result of their encounter with the West, and it is not difficult to predict that religious intolerance will increasingly characterize the East in the near future – precisely because of the religious liberalization of the West. It's interesting how most sects today almost ignore the gospels, while Paul's letters constitute the primary area of references. This is an unconscious acknowledgment that while the former are useless from a sectarian point of view ("who is not against you, is with you"), the latter have a layer that can be used in this regard ("stand before him, whether it is convenient or inconvenient"). Religious liberalism, which penetrates religions in the guise of secularism, does not increase tolerance but reduces awareness of differences between religions, and thus the differences themselves.
From this point of view, the American origin of the majority of sects is not accidental, as it is notoriously the most secularized country in the world. American sects fundamentally differ from their Russian counterparts (Philippovites, Skoptzis, Khlysts, Dukhobors), which are much more exclusive and secret religious societies, often with pre-Christian religious roots. However, the American sect not only bears the traces of the counteraction to secularism but also the traces of Americanism. Its member often dresses according to the latest male fashion and is, to put it mildly, not a fan of poverty. American hypercapitalism usually finds its match in the sect, and it is not uncommon for a newly converted sect member to start a business at the same time as their conversion. Business success validates the conversion, as Max Weber already explained in connection with Protestantism. And here we can't even speak of a backlash, because the vast majority of sects are direct descendants of Protestantism, where the idea of earthly reward came from Old Testament Judaism. From this point of view, the heightened philo-Semitism of the latest "fundamentalist" sects is not surprising. They are politically more liberal than conservative, and liberalism is a staunch advocate of secularism: let the historical values of religion, thousands of years old, perish. Thus, the sect reveals its ambivalent relationship with secularism, of which it is both a victim and an accomplice. This peculiar relationship to secularism is what "fundamentally" distinguishes Christian fundamentalism from Islamic fundamentalism, which is the sworn enemy of all secularism, and thus can be considered fundamental in itself.
Although the present writing tries to refrain from discussing the specifics of individual sects, in connection with the above, a few words about the so-called Krishna Consciousness movement are in order, which is considered a frivolous and tradition-alien heresy in its home country, India, and which has declared war against the sects (!) of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The real source of this multifront war against these four "sects" is the despair into which the Hindu world has been driven by the fact of Christianity's global spread, which was particularly significant in the South and East Asian region; furthermore, the realization that traditional Hindu religiosity cannot fight against Christianity. Of course, even for this realization, a sufficiently westernized consciousness was needed, that is, surrender to the Western concept of competition. However, the reform of traditional Hindu religiosity – if this reform was aspiring to significant missionary successes in the West – could only go in one direction, namely roughly towards the doctrines of traditional Christianity and the forms of sectarian Christianity. The Krishna Consciousness movement recognized that if it wants to have a chance in the religious world market (and the movement itself - as one of its founders says - "gradually becomes the most popular movement in the world"), then it must appear with roughly the same merchandise and packaging as Christianity and its sectarian versions. This assimilation, which is a peculiar unintentional proof of the superiority of Christianity (and thus it is not the orthodox-traditional form of Hindu religiosity, but the Krishna Consciousness movement that surrenders to Christianity), manifests itself firstly in the doctrinal content of the movement (personal God, who incarnates; the highlighted role of love), and secondly in its form (striving for exclusivity, agressive proselytism). The Krishna Consciousness movement has more or less become the paradigm of all sectarian movements coming from the East, and it is astonishing how the successors of the former closed circles, gathered around gurus, who selected their members very strictly, i.e., esoteric and exclusive religious-initiatic groups – mostly broken off to the West – become propagandist, expansive, and "community-like" sects that engulf and digest everything and everyone.
What is shocking about the sect and the sectarian is the unwavering certainty, the elemental absence of doubt, with which they can present the most absurd and most stupid views. Usually - it can be added: - this is mistakenly considered faith, even "great faith". Anyone who can represent colossal nonsense with such unwavering certainty tends to make even the most sober intellect stop and think. Therefore, personal commitment to the doctrine is an indispensable condition for successful proselytism, because such statements would never be taken seriously by someone who just reads them. If there was only one sect in the world, one might be inclined to believe that the zeal of the proclamation validates the truth of the proclaimed doctrine: However, the fact that the majority of sects proclaim principles that are diametrically opposed to each other does not allow this. Those who join a sect and adopt its worldview (although this is not a matter of "joining" and "adopting the worldview", but rather of being sucked in, falling into it), should at least think responsibly about this. Because he "chooses" the sect, the exclusivity; but why he chooses exactly that sect and that exclusivity is usually completely obscure, because the "choice" is totally accidental. Anyone who is capable of self-reflectively observing themselves during the undoubtedly very short process of being swept into a sect should ask themselves the question: Why exactly this one, when the others could also exert a similar intensity of attraction on me? What justifies this as opposed to the others, which also have "great faith", where I would also feel just as familial among them, which could also captivate me and turn me inside out (see conversion), just like this sect? Unfortunately, the intense subjective experience of the trends does not validate their substantive authenticity - and the same can be said about miracles. The author of these lines has therefore dared to suggest on several occasions, albeit not in appropriate forums, that the first world congress of sects should be held in order to clarify the relationship between sects. It is worth noting in this context that no sect ever polemicizes with another sect, but only with its own "mother religion", or other religions, and this reveals a remarkable self-awareness on their part.
If we accept that the basis of thinking is internal doubt, questioning, and discussion, then the sectarian is the par excellence creature incapable of thinking. This is because he is "happy", and happy people, as La Rochefoucauld also observed, are unwavering in their thoughts, because they believe that it is precisely their thoughts that make them happy. The fact that other "happy sectarians" owe their happiness to other thoughts, of course, does not arise as a problem. The sectarian, however, is not simply happy, but makes a kind of sport of it, and is capable of emphasizing his own happiness to the point of tastelessness. His eleventh commandment is "keep smiling", and there really is a sectarian who perhaps only gets rid of the grin frozen at his conversion on his face during the night. The sectarian is happy because he "found" it, found what his brother left outside the sect has not yet found, found the answer to all his questions (of course, all at once), that is, "became certain", and now he wants to pass on this certainty. Anyone who wants to understand the extreme proselytism and aggressive propagandism of the sect is on the wrong track if he seeks the roots in the selfless desire to spontaneously pass on the found happiness and certainty. Behind the sect's insatiable hunger for people, there is probably the realization that the best defense is offense: because the defensive sect is exposed to the danger of thinking. Secondly, the reasons lie in the unlimited predominance of quantitative thinking. Every sect sees itself as the hopeful heir to the newest world religion and proves its worth to itself through the continuous increase of its followers. Every sect makes it a point to mention during introductions how many followers it has amassed across numerous countries and how many languages its books have been translated into. In contrast, the quality sensitivity of a sect asymptotically approaches zero. It's beneficial if a person has no individual qualities, as these can only act as obstacles, hindering one's dedication and conversion to the sect. Before the eyes of a sect, it is the image of an ant colony made up not of individual entities, but of interchangeable units. The quality difference that ordinarily exists between two people is not between two members of the same sect, but rather between two different sects. Thus, a sect is a caricature of a community, as a true community is based on qualitatively differentiated individuals, while a sect consists entirely of quantitatively homogeneous homunculi. Where individual quality manifests, the sect begins to crumble. The sect is the apotheosis of qualitylessness.
Most victims of sects are young; some of these are so-called "seekers," while others are more or less deviants who, entangled in the nets of subcultures, gradually sink to the bottom of society. The converted drug addict or alcoholic is common, and what no influence or therapy could achieve, the sect accomplishes in minutes; and of course, it attributes this to its extraordinary nature. How it is possible that other sects with entirely different doctrinal bases have similar successes, of course, does not present a problem this time either. In this regard, it's worth noting that psychology knows that an obsession can only be displaced by another obsession. Since it is not people who have obsessions but obsessions that have their people (that is, the ownership relationship is reversed contrary to appearances), here giving up drugs is not an autonomous act of the person, but – one could almost say – an agreement between obsessions: I will leave if you agree to replace me. Just as the shy and foolish patient gradually becomes uninhibited under the influence of analysis, so the victim possessed by the sect's obsession suddenly becomes verbose. The jumped self-confidence, of course, has no more basis than before, it's just that the sect has surgically removed from him the consciousness of his own intellectual insignificance. This is how that characteristic sacred chatterbox of nearly every sectarian is created, who with unimaginable superiority and irrefutable self-confidence can speak about things of which he otherwise knows astoundingly little.
What is extremely important to see clearly in these cases: in the sect, it is never about the autonomous act and capability of the person, as in traditional religions, but about being moved by an implanted obsession, a real psychic possession. What lives in most people as fear of sects is precisely this fear of possession and being possessed, fear that the center of one's life imagination will be occupied by a sectarian obsession. Because one knows that the empty center of one's being craves something with which it can identify, but also knows that this would have unforeseeable, and – once the obsession is admitted – uncontrollable consequences. One fears that suddenly one will lose the ability to control oneself, yet one's deepest desire is also directed towards this. One fears and is attracted at the same time; just as a person with acrophobia simultaneously fears and is drawn towards the depth. One knows that if one takes just one more step, one will begin to fall uncontrollably, and the next day, one will sell all one's books.
Somewhere in this lies the explanation for why people with often sharp critical sense and excellent intellect – after their conversion – become victims of the most vulgar thoughts and the grossest errors, thoughts and errors whose anomalies they previously easily recognized. The rationale that is armed against external attacks can hardly defend against suggestions coming from the non-rational center of the human being: it bows before its "bread-giving master" and serves him. Therefore, the sect never tries to touch the central and irrational core of a person through the intellect, but through this nucleus, it "blows up" – almost instantly, not bothering with the details – that intellectual castle which often took decades of careful work to build.
To engage in a doctrinal battle with sects would be naive on the part of traditional churches and religions. The real sectarian can never be cornered doctrinally: at the last moment, through a 'deus ex machina', he always manages to escape. What's amazing in him is that the slightest doubt about his own thoughts never awakens and cannot be aroused in him. He doesn't even consider the theoretical possibility that he might be wrong, therefore he is completely good-natured in his logical death jumps, or which is the same, he takes himself extremely seriously at these times. Therefore, the most effective method is preventive enlightening work. However, the spread of sects will continue, and even intensify, as long as traditional religions are unable to grasp the person at the center of his life's imagination, as long as the minimalism will prevail, which reduces the Christian life to mere "obligations" and "prohibitions", the fulfillment of which – as the renowned Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemann writes – "in the least degree does not prevent our 'good believers' from actually living a completely secularized life, and adhering to criteria and norms that are almost entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel."