Folk Religion And Universal Religion
To successfully develop a general model of religious transformation for the encounter of folk religious societies with universalist religious movements, it is important, first, to avoid attributing pre-conceived Christian notions of religion to non-Christian religions, and second, to consider the categorization of religions into two types based upon fundamental structural differences. These two types may be described as “folk”, “ethnic”, “natural”, religions, and “universal”, “revealed”, “prophetic”, or historical religions. Indo-European religions may be placed in the category of folk religions, whereas, for the purpose of this inquiry, the category of universal religions will comprise Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and the mystery cults of Isis, Cybele, Serapis, Mithras, Eleusis, and Dionysus…
An appropriate starting point for studying the encounter between folk religious societies and universal religions may be an examination of the concept of religion itself. The most common contemporary focus in informal comparative discussions of religion appears to be on belief. One Christian sect differs from another in its beliefs. Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam in its doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. An approach to comparative religion which focusses on doctrinal beliefs is certainly valid when discussing the distinguishing characteristics of revealed, universal religions, and in particularly forms of Christianity. Such a doctrine-centered approach is not, however, well suited to discussions of folk religions, or to comparisons of folk religions and universal religions, since folk religions tend to identify themselves primarily in an ethno-cultural sense rather than a doctrinal sense.
Consequently, when one proposes to discuss a folk religion, or to compare a folk religion with a universal religion, or especially when one proposes to discuss the attempted transformation of a society from a folk religiosity to a universal religion and the concurrent transformation of a universal religion into a folk religion, one must carefully consider the method to be used in studying the interaction between two inherently dissimilar phenomena. In is discussion “Problems of Approach”, the first chapter of his study. Christianizing the Roman Empire, Ramsay MacMullen stresses the importance of this consideration:
Generalizing may conclude that all forms of religion have one common structure: so, a person’s shift of allegiance toward Christianity need have involved only the exchange of one theology or theodicy or liturgy or system of morals for some other that was seen as preferable. Perhaps no one today is likely to make so strange and error, but it is not hard to find it in older authorities otherwise deserving of great respect. Granted, some variations of the generalizing fault are hard to avoid. Even to be recognized, they need a certain degree of detachment form our own ways. We ourselves naturally suppose, immersed as we are in the Judeo-Christian heritage, that religion means doctrine. Why should we think so? In fact, “that emphasis is most unusual seen from a cross-cultural perspective”.
The first step in studying the interaction between a folk-religious society and a universal religion is to acknowledge that the fundamental distinction between a folk religion and a universal religion is one of kind, and not merely of degree. The next step is to devise a comparative methodology that recognizes this distinction. Rudolf Otto’s pioneering approach to the study of religion through the study of that which manifests a sacred character in a particular culture is helpful in this regard. It appears that the primary sacral locus of most folk religions, including indo European religions, is the folk community itself. The sacristy of the community is expressed in ritual ceremony that celebrate its relationship with its own exclusive gods and that “promote a strong sense of in group identification and loyalty.” In contrast, the primary sacral locus of universal religions, such as early Christianity, appears to be the salvation of the individual by access to an existence which transcends that normally associated with a biological [real] view of human life. According to most universal religions, this existence is attainable by all mankind through initiation into a community of belief and adherence to a universal ethical code.
-excerpted from The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James C. Russell (1994)