Introduction
Ecclesiology
“The branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church”
= “mandir-ology”
Order of presentation:
Context of religious history
Context of the sociology of religion
Gaudiaya history
ISKCON history
Where we are now
Where do we go from here?
I will likely raise more questions than I’ll answer
This seminar—I apologize—is by design meant to be informative and analytical, rather than inspirational.
I was ready to give a seminar about sastra, but the organizers suggested I teach about something social and controversial. So here we are.
And I trust that the other courses, by way of balance, will provide the inspiration we most certainly need.
Global historical framework
The appearance of competitors, schisms, and heresies are features common to religious groups generally, as well as to political parties, social-welfare groups, business organizations, and other human associations.
I’m going to talk a fair amount about heresy and schisms because most of ISKCON’s Gauòéya competitors owe their existence, or at least their recent capabilities, to ISKCON itself.
What is a heresy?
Tamal Krsna Goswami quotes a good summary from a scholar, Joseph Tyson, who says:
The word heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning ‘choice.’ It had been used to designate the particular teachings of philosophical schools, and it denoted the opinions that each one had chosen. Christian writers began to use the term and soon gave it a pejorative significance. To them it indicated that a person had chosen a human opinion and rejected divine revelation. In this sense heresy has an evil significance, and the heretic is considered evil.
The medieval church defined heresy as “an opinion chosen by human perception, founded on the scriptures, contrary to the teachings of the church, publicly avowed, and obstinately defended.”
What is a schism?
The word schism comes from a Greek word meaning “to split.” A schism occurs when a group splits.
What happens here is not that a person or group rejects what the tradition or the organization stands for.
That’s apostasy—rejecting or denying the ideal, and dropping out.
On the contrary, in a schism each side claims to represent that ideal more authentically.
For example, one devotee who left ISKCON and joined another Gauòéya group condescendingly ends an article by saying he hopes for ISKCON’s “gradual and welcome return to the fold of orthodox Gaudiya Vaisnavism.”
Virtually all religious groups have dealt with schisms, heresies, and denominational competition
Jews
Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and so on.
Muslims
Sunis, Shiites, Sufis, Druze, and so on
Buddhists
Mahayana and Hinayana (= Theravada)
Mahayana divides into Madhyamika and Vijïanavada
And later we get “Pure Land,” Zen, and so on.
Neo-Confucians
One study I went through found splits there too
Christians
Early Christianity—within the first few hundred years—was marked by intense struggles to define itself,
There were hot controversies involving what in ISKCON we call “papers”—with sharp arguments, fiery rhetoric, attacks on personal character, and so on
There was internal political intrigue
There was some fun, too
“In Antioch, the Syrian capital, a group of Arian priests disguised as laymen employed a prostitute to creep into an anti-Arian bishop’s bedchamber while he slept so that he could be accused of fornication and discredited. But they did not consider that the lady in question might have a mind of her own.
“The scheme backfired when, at the last minute, she declined to play her assigned role and exposed the plotters instead.” (Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God)
There were committees and councils
There were prohibitions, sanctions and expulsions
There were riots
There was violence
Moving into the Middle Ages—that is, from about 500 to 1450—we again find intense controversies, with heresies, trials, excommunications, and schisms.
In the 16th century we get the Protestant Reformation, dividing the Christians of Western Europe into Protestants and Catholics
And then the Protestants divide still further
In America, from the beginning, we find profuse diversity.
And in the words of one scholar, schism “pervades the annals of American religious history.” (Numerich, Old Wisdom)
One book “tells the story of how traditional biblical feminists split off from the more progressive biblical feminists in the mid 1980s over the issue of inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Church.”
And the Episcopalians have lately been through turmoil over the ordination of gay bishops
Within Hinduism, of course, we have a multiplicity of schools
And—narrowing in on just one—among the followers of Ramanuja, for example, we find endless conflict between two sects: the Tenkalai (Southern) and Vadakalai (Northern)
In the words of Mudumby Narasimhachary (writing in ICJ)
“The heads of these two sects . . . were contemporaries who lived in the thirteenth century. Although they were on friendly terms during their lifetime, their followers in succeeding centuries became bitter critics of each other’s tradition. . . . For an impartial observer, however, the acrimonious debates and criticisms that are extending even now are out of place and unwarranted since, after all, they both represent the same sampradaya of Ramanuja. What we now have is the small Srivaisnava community raising narrow domestic walls that are, in fact, doing great injustice to the spirit of Ramanuja, who strove all his life to bring harmony (samanvaya) among several sections of society.”
As for schisms within Gaudiya Vaisnavism, we’ll come to that later.
Now let’s look more closely at the shape of heresy and schism within Christianity
Not because their history is any worse than anyone else’s but simply because its context may be somewhat familiar, because a lot has been written about it, because it’s distant enough to look at dispassionately, and because I’m sure you’ll notice some interesting parallels.
Here are some illuminating statements about Late Medieval heresies from Gordon Leff, an authority on the subject (Heresy in the Later Middle Ages)
“. . . [H]eresy, far from being alien to Christian society, had its source in the tensions between Christian precept and religious practice; it differed from orthodoxy in the means which it sought to overcome them.” p. vii
“[I]nitially at least, heresy was a deviation from accepted beliefs rather than something alien to them: it sprang from believing differently about the same things as opposed to holding a different belief. . .
[H]eresy during the middle ages was an indigenous growth; its impulse was invariably the search for a fuller spiritual life, and it drew upon the common stock of religious concepts to implement it. Whatever its forms, medieval heresy differed from orthodoxy and mere heterodoxy less in assumptions than emphasis and conclusions. It became heresy from pressing these too far.”
“What ultimately turned it into heresy was the failure to gain ecclesiastical sanction. It was usually then, in a group’s subsequent development as a proscribed sect, that its original impulse took on a directly anti-sacerdotal character. In doing so it inevitably changed. What. . . began as an accentuation of a particular aspect of belief, or life, became a rival outlook; its adherents came to regard themselves as Christ’s true apostles and their struggle against the church as part of the wider struggle between the forces of Christ and Antichrist.” p 2-3
Among the traits of the heresies was “the sense of election common to most sects. If they were social outcasts, they were also God’s chosen, the true defenders of Christ’s law.” p 7
“In the cycle from heterodoxy to dissent a sect inevitably underwent a change. Once proscribed, its members became social outcasts, at war with authority, whether waged clandestinely or openly. This in turn coloured its outlook[,] which became more extreme and directly anti-ecclesiastical.” p 12
In the words of two modern sociologists, “Mere disagreement or dissent is more likely to be transformed into an actual movement when religious authorities define such disagreement as ‘heresy.’ ” (Kniss & Chaves, restating a finding by Zald & McCarthy)
SEE “IN PURSUIT OF THE MILLENNIUM”
Heresies were various
Some of them concerned large philosophical questions: Is Jesus man or God?
Others concerned matters of practice
Some views that started as heretical were later adopted as orthodox
But heresies could be alarmingly decadent
For example, one that caught my eye was a specimen from the 13th and 14th centuries called the “Free Spirit” heresy
In the 13th century, fourteen followers of the theologian Amalric of Bena began to preach that “all things are One, because whatever is, is God.”
Since all is God, there can be no sin, and any action whatsoever can be permitted.
The Christian soul, identical with God, is beyond Good and Evil.
Such a man’s desires, whatever they might be, are absolute, and absolutely deserve to be gratified.
To restrain oneself from those desires, in fact, is a sin.
The literature therefore tells us that men and women of this persuasion—like the sahajiyas of India—would engage in systematic immortality, which they regarded as divine.
Some of the early Christian attitudes towards heresy may also seem familiar.
S.L. Greenslade (in Heresy and Schism in the Later Roman Empire) begins by quoting the Medieval Dutch theologian Erasmus: “ ‘Few Paris theologians like Beda’s bitterness. How can you win if you drive those who disagree with Luther into his camp? Hatred like this made Arius a heresiarch, drove Tertullian out of the Church. This is the way to make heretics.’
“So Erasmus, and elsewhere he reflects how he exposed himself to the charge of heresy by trying to be just to heretics. He was kinder than Tertullian, who had no mercy for them. Heresy [so said Tertullian] is the devil’s work, one of the manifold ways he attacks truth. It is evil, it is sin; it is worse than schism, it is blasphemy, a kind of adultery, . . . More properly, it is demonic. . .
“Not only the fiery Tertullian so speaks. To Irenaeus the peace-lover heretics are self-condemned since they oppose their own salvation, they are blasphemous, they are slippery snakes, they will go to eternal fire. . . . To Origen the truth-seeker they are traitors.”
It’s fairly typical, by the way, to misrepresent what the heretics actually say
“That orthodox characterizations of heresy are historically inaccurate is not a very surprising or controversial assertion. In some cases, the degree of heresiographical distortion is so great that the modern historian has trouble matching heresiographers’ accounts of a heresy with the surviving literature emanating from the refuted group. Moreover, the extent of distortion tended to increase over time.” (The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns, by John B. Henderson)
The Church had to deal with questions of authority
Facing factionalism, some early Christian leaders “stressed order, obedience,” and the rights of the ministers: “Hold to your bishop, whatever he approves pleases God.”
Another approach was to place trust in the consensus of important churches: “Where many churches plainly agree, they must be right.”
Another approach was to reach decisions through church synods or councils.
These approaches had their dangers. Couldn’t the bishops be wrong? Couldn’t the important churches be mistaken in their consensus? Wasn’t there the prospect that the opinions of church leaders might eventually triumph over scripture? And what about individual freedom?
But Greenslade comments “the early Church could probably not have preserved its identity and saved itself from syncretism” without this sort of confidence in the authority of its leaders.
The Church asserted itself to be the one, indivisible authority
For Cyprian (died 258), “the Church is by nature one and cannot be divided.” And so, according to Greenslade, “This apostolic Church confidently declared itself alone the divinely guaranteed instrument of salvation. . . No plurality of churches was acknowledged.”
According to Augustine, just to abandon the church was in itself heretical. “Inveterate schism amounts to heresy.”
Yet Greenslade comments, “Subsequent history brings out the threat of a conforming, mechanical Christianity lurking in this institutional confidence. Already, indeed, Clement and Origen were more interested in teachers than in bishops, in Christians of advanced spiritual understanding than in those who worked their passage obediently through the practical life to salvation — an attitude which might set ecclesiological problems.”
So again we see a tension. And Greenslade comments that in the early days, “Institutions proper to the mission had to be developed, and risks intrinsic to institutional life were taken: the danger of codification in thought and practice, of undue submission to authority, of complacency, of getting by on minimum standards for salvation. One can fairly ask how far devotion to the person Christ had been exchanged, before the third century ended, for devotion to a Christian system. . . “
Here are some other ways the Church, in the fourth century, tried to keep unity
Early on, they followed a principle: One city, one church and one bishop (even when the city was large).
So the local church was one. It was part of a larger, pan-Christian church. And it saw itself as taking part in the “greater community” of those who had already attained perfection and ascended to heaven.
Unity also lay with the martyrs, and with living ascetics.
And later they had one liturgy. And of course one scripture.
Unity also stemmed from collegiality among church leaders.
They had councils, in which they “defined the limits of belonging.” If you didn’t belong, you were out.
The Church later became identified with the Roman Empire, and that too helped define its unity.
And later papal authority asserted itself as another standard of unity.
Positive benefits of heresy
1. It tests the faithful (and separates the wheat from the chaff).
2. It testifies to the status of orthodoxy as rich, or important, and so on.
3. It contributes to the vigor of orthodoxy, thus mitigating against complacence.
4. It “stimulates the clarification and even the constitution of orthodox doctrine.” It helps the group articulate its beliefs.
5. “The threat, real or imagined, posed by [heretics] strengthens group solidarity and boundary definition, as well as provides a scapegoat to explain reversals suffered by the group without admitting weakness vis a vis an external foe.”
6. A shared disgust at the actions of deviant members provides a source of unity for the conformists.
7. For the reasons above, it helps the group retain members.
For further insight about these points, I’d like to deviate a bit from Christianity to Judaism. A scholar named Phil Zuckerman wrote a book called Strife in the Sanctuary, a study of a schism in a modern American Jewish community. He observes:
“Whenever social groups exist, be they religious, political, or otherwise, little else so stimulates group cohesion and enlivens a sense of purpose among members as when there is someone or something to be against. . . .
“As Meredith McGuire (1997:173) notes, ‘The sectarian orientation thrives on a sense of opposition. Ironically, backlash movements often inadvertently contribute to the cohesion of the very groups they attack.’
“. . . We’re back to the Jewish man stranded on the desert island who had to build himself two bamboo synagogues, one to belong to, and one to be opposed to.
“Sociologists of religious schism must always be aware of the fact that the schismatic process, while overtly one of division and apparent communal breakdown, is also one in which the personal and group identities of those involved are actually strengthened.
“We must also recognize that the two oppositional groups in a given schism are always bound to one another in a dance—a dance of division, to be sure—but a dance none the less, in which almost every move by one group is in direct relation to the moves of the other. In the process of this schismatic dance, each group’s motives and goals are directly related to the other group’s, so that the outcome of the division is one in which each group’s identity is to a large degree shaped in reaction to the other’s.”
Let’s move from schism to competition, and from the Middle Ages to post-revolutionary America in the 1800s
This is from an article by Richard Carwardine in a book called Unity and Diversity in the Church
“. . . church leaders in the early republic were operating in something close to a free market in religion, and the most ambitious of them seized their opportunities to evangelize, and to establish regional and national networks, with an appetite, enterprise, and vision matched by few of their contemporaries. They were energized by a concern to rescue souls from what they saw as a post-revolutionary spiritual decline, to stall the advances of deism and liberal religion, and to cultivate a Christian citizenry as the best defence of republicanism.
“The era also saw a new style of ministry, one more concerned with making converts and promoting revivals than with theological speculation, and one ever more sensitive to the needs of their congregations in an age of increasing lay self-confidence. . . . [T]he churches that burgeoned were not those which sought to impose from above the ideas of an intellectual elite but rather the more populist denominations, especially Methodists, Baptists, and other New Light churches, which spoke to the people in a language they wanted to hear.
“A striking feature of the spiritual market was intense competition amongst Protestant denominations, most sharply expressed in ministers’ frequent complaints of ‘proselytism’, or stealing of converts. The loudest protests emanated from the Methodists, who were the most successful of all denominations in generating revivals, targeting penitents, and harvesting members, and were consequently the most vulnerable to poaching.”
One preacher complained, “Some professed ministers of the gospel of Christ. . . would rejoice more to gain one Methodist, or Methodist convert to their party, than they would over two sinners brought home as wandering sheep from the Savior’s fold. . . . Indeed, . . . what would some other churches do if it were not for the fruit of Methodist labors?”
“The character, timing, and intensity of this interdenominational rivalry varied considerably from region to region.”
“Whatever the context, denominational rivalries were based on more than mere jealousy, though there was some truth in the observation of a renegade Episcopalian that the reason for the great hostilities of other Protestants to the Methodist Episcopal Church was its continued prosperity, sufficient to make it the largest denomination in the country by 1830. Antipathies found their most intense expression in discussions over doctrine and the conduct of evangelism, but they could take on an extra edge when reinforced by loyalties of class, ethnicity, and region. . . .
“The principal features, then, of American religion in general, and of Protestantism in particular, in the years between the founding of the Republic and the Civil War were voluntarism, aggressive denominationalism, intense competition, zealous evangelism, and barely checked institutional proliferation and diversity.”
Nonetheless, “Millennial aspiration and heightened spiritual intensity often prompted co-operation.” In one instance, a young Methodist missionary wrote, “In the missionary field we met as brethren, laborers with God in one common cause. No controversy between ourselves on non-essential doctrines, and no seeking of the supremacy one over the other [was] apparently thought of.”
In another instance, where different denominations came together, one revivalist wondered “why persons differing in theory upon doctrinal points in religion, and belonging to different denominations, will often, for a time, walk together in great harmony and affection.” It was, he said approvingly, “because they feel deeply, and feel alike. Their differences are in great measure lost or forgotten while they fall in with each other’s state of feeling.”
Sometimes when people would move geographically they would join a different church, just because it was available.
And various denominations who on doctrinal grounds had previously criticized the techniques of the Methodists now would up adopting them. Market-driven economy.
For some time the Protestants—facing a large national influx of Catholics—came together in a united front.
But denominationalism and sectarianism soon reasserted its prominence. Especially intense was the competition between the Methodists and Baptists. It was aggressive and often bitterly acrimonious, complete with language and metaphors of violent battle and blowing adversaries “sky high.” Preachers of every denomination would condemn the doctrines of the others. Carwardine presents, in some detail, the astonishingly nasty polemics—well, not so astonishing when we compare them to what we sometimes see today.
Sociological framework
Features of post-charismatic movements
Charisma is the personal magic of a leader who arouses special loyalty, inspiration and enthusiasm.
So a charismatic movement is one with such a leader at its head.
Typically, the charismatic leader is a revolutionary. He stands opposed to the established order and routine. He seeks to bring about profound changes.
The followers are intensely devoted to him. They accept his words as true. They sacrifice and dedicate themselves for his cause.
But charisma is tumultuous, unstable. For the charismatic influence to endure, it must eventually make its way to stability.
This journey towards stability is what’s known as “the routinization of charisma.”
From tumult and revolution, we have to come to order, to standards, to an everyday routine. So gradually the charismatic movement becomes an institution.
Problems of succession
This picture of charisma and its routinization derives especially from the venerable Max Weber, a German sociologist active at the juncture of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Weber writes:
“Perhaps the most critical test of a group’s routinization is the way it handles the issue of succession. When the charismatic leader dies, the group may quickly disperse. However, many people have a vested interest in the survival of the group [They care about the mission, and they’ve invested their time, energy, and money] and will seek to ensure its viability. But who will provide the group with leadership? And how will that decision be made?
“The transfer of power to the next designated leader has important implications for the subsequent evolution of the group. First, the charisma which was once identified with a personality must be associated with the religious ideology and with the religious organization. The group, the body of beliefs, and perhaps a written record (scripture) become sources of veneration. The more stable source of authority in itself changes the character of the group. Second, a decision-making process [whatever it may be] must be sacralized as the divinely appointed method of choosing a successor. . . . In any event, the followers must recognize the new leader or leaders as the legitimate heir(s) to leadership. Otherwise, the group may be torn by schisms as various splinter groups identify different persons as the rightful leader.
“The new leader or group of leaders is not likely to possess the same sort of unquestioned authority that was vested in the personhood of the original leader. Some of the awe and respect will have been transferred to the teachings and to the continuing organization itself. The rules and values of the group must be attributed with transcendent importance in and of themselves. Commitment is now to the organization and to the ideology of the movement, and the authority of the new leader(s) may be restrained by these stabilizing forces. No longer are the sayings of the leader taken as true simply because that person said them. They must be evaluated in the light of what the original leader said and did.”
Sound familiar?
Dilemmas
Ok, let’s suppose the group survives and proceeds down the road from being an upstart sect to becoming a well-established church, a stable institution.
In the words of another sociologist, Thomas O’Dea, writing in the 1960s:
“Religion both needs most and suffers most from institutionalization.”
“While institutionalization is necessary, it tends to change the character of the movement and to create certain dilemmas that all routinized religions face.”
Now let’s look at those dilemmas
The dilemma of mixed motivation
The movement starts with “single-minded and unqualified devotion to the leader and to his or her teachings. The followers are willing to make great sacrifice to further the cause, and they willingly subordinate their own needs and desire for the sake of group goals. However, with the development of a stable institutional structure, the desire to occupy the more creative, responsible, and prestigious positions can stimulate jealousies and personality conflicts. Concerns about personal security within the organization may cause members to lose sight of the group’s primary goals. Mixed motivation occurs when a secondary concern or motivation comes to overshadow the original goals and teachings of the leader. Conventions of clergy sometimes debate pension plans and insurance programs more heatedly than statements of mission.”
This is a dilemma because the institution must in fact provide for the economic security and well-being of its full-time people (and others).
The Symbolic Dilemma
The group needs a common set of symbols to express its world view and ethos. But as the members project their subjective feelings onto those symbols (or symbolic behaviors), things may come to the point where those symbols no longer carry meaning and power for them. Members may then feel apathy or even antagonism toward those symbols.
Does a danda, or tilaka, or a dhoti, still carry the same symbolic power as before?
The Dilemma of Administrative Order: Staying flexible versus elaborating policy
As the group grows into an institution, “it may develop national offices and a bureaucratic structure.” It establishes rational policies and regulations to clarify relationships between various statuses and offices. Things may become unwieldy and overcomplicated. Too much red tape. And “attempts to modify or reform the structure may run into severe resistance by those whose status and security in the hierarchy may be threatened. Resolution of the dilemma of administrative order may be impeded by the existence of mixed motivation. Many persons within the hierarchy may view reorganization as a threat to their own security or positions of power and prestige.”
Again, it’s a dilemma because you need effective administrative structures.
The Dilemma of Delimitation: Defining the point versus substituting the letter for the spirit
As we institutionalize, “the religious message is translated into specific guidelines for everyday life. The general teachings about the unity of the universe or about the love of God must be translated into concrete rules of ethical behavior.”
But again it’s a dilemma: “The abstract moods, motivations, and concepts must be made concrete so that common lay people can comprehend their meaning and implication for everyday life.” But “later generations may become literalistic and legalistic” about the rules and “miss the central message.”
The Dilemma of Power: Conversion versus coercion
To “stay together and sustain its common faith,” the group must ensure conformity to its values and norms. Occasional deviations may not be threatening, but large-scale disregard of them becomes threatening. So “most of the beliefs, values, and norms of the faith must be adhered to most of the time.”
In the early stages, most members adhere to the rules due to their personal loyalty to the charismatic leader, or due to their personal mystical experience, or for some other strongly internalized reason. “But later generations, who have grown up within the religious organization, may never have personally experienced anything that compelled them to accept the absolute authority of the faith in their own lives—or the authority of the religious hierarchy to interpret the faith. They may be inclined to challenge official interpretations.”
To “maintain the integrity of the organization and ensure consensus in their basic world view, religious organizations may resort to coercive methods of social control.” Loss of privileges. Shunning. Excommunication. And so on.
The Dilemma of Expansion: Communalism versus rational structure
In the beginning, everyone knows everyone else, and there’s a close sense of community. But as the group expands this closeness starts to wane. And the group has to “develop rational structures and procedures for decision-making.” This can undermine the sense of communalism, of belonging.
So whereas people first committed themselves out of strong feelings, now you have to appeal to their commitment to the ideals or ideology—or to what’s in it for them personally: “What do I stand to gain?”
“This would seem to play into the dilemma of mixed motivation in a very direct way. When the individual’s commitment hinges in large part on the question ‘What’s in it for me?’ the problem of mixed motivation has become a reality.”
Then again, some people get frustrated with the impersonality of highly bureaucratized religion.
Some may feel the need for closer interpersonal ties.
Some may chafe at what seems to them a lack of spontaneity and fellowship.
Developing “congregational groups” may help fulfill the need for that sense of belonging. But even your congregational structure will need a bureaucracy. So what do you do?
When all the people no longer know one another, this “in itself means a change in the group’s character.”
People start focusing on specialized tasks. The common member no longer knows what’s going on in other parts of the organization. “Some individuals or special groups gain almost autonomous control over their own area or department, and they may use that platform to influence the policies, budget allocations, and goals of the entire organization.”
Often, ordinary members don’t even know who the leaders of their church’s various divisions are or be fully aware of what policy decisions their church is making. “Nonetheless, those policies are implemented with the aid of donations by local churches. While common members provide the financial support, an elite group of people, unknown to most of the laity, decide how to spend it.” This, of course, can cause conflict, “especially if the elite supports causes that the laity oppose.”
Institutionalization as a mixed blessing
In the words of O’Dea, “The process of institutionalization is a mixed blessing (or perhaps a necessary curse).”
Though the group needs to institutionalize, as it does so it runs into the various problems we’ve talked about.
And “avoiding these problems by avoiding institutionalization is simply not an option; rather, renewal movements, revivals, and other processes of regeneration are the means by which religious groups seek to overcome these dysfunctions.”
Further: “. . . the rebellion against routinization is one reason for the development of new sects. Much of the internal conflict and many of the schisms in denominations are due to the need for regeneration and a need to restate the faith in terms that are compelling to a new generation facing different problems of social meaning.”
This does not mean, however, that every movement proclaimed for renewal is equally valuable. It’s not that Ravindra-svarupa Prabhu’s “guru reform” movement and K. Swami’s “hooded priest” thing or K.K. Desai’s “end-of-the-disciplic succession” are all on the same level. (You might remember some of the “renewal movements” declared heretical in Christianity. It’s not that they were all so great.)
Sustaining plausibility
If a charismatic movement is going to survive, it also needs to sustain the idea that its world view is plausible, or in fact uniquely realistic.
If objective events or scientific interpretations make your world view seem unrealistic, that world view is going to have a hard time.
For example, if you’ve predicted the end of the world on July 19, 1894, on July 20 you may face a credibility problem.
The sociologist Peter Berger has given a lot of attention to what he calls “plausibility structures”—but I’m going to skip that here and go on to other matters.
Mobilization of resources
Finally, the movement has to be able to mobilize resources
financial support
political influence
favorable public attitudes (legitimacy)
the time and energy of members
cultural resources (ideas, symbols, and so on)
There’s a lot more to be said about the “resource-mobilization perspective”—but again I’ll have to leave that aside, perhaps for some other seminar.
The sociology of intra-religious conflict
Conflict can occur at different levels
The local, congregational level
The national or international “denominational” level
The concerns and dynamics at these two levels are likely to differ
(Obviously, the second is more severe)
Potential fault lines
between different nationalities
between groups of different social status or class
Between racial groups
between family people and ascetics
between age groups: generations
between people on different sides of an issue
between theological liberals and conservatives
between a trained professional clergy and the laity
Conflict brings about change
It can bring about change within a religious group.
It can bring about splits and schisms.
It can bring about a change in the greater surrounding society.
What forces bring about schisms?
According to one model—this comes from K. Peter Takayama—schism takes place when “external environmental changes”—things happening outside the group, such as cultural or moral changes—“act as catalysts to internally generated and unresolved strains, producing crisis.”
According to this view, the major conditions for schism are not so much matters of doctrinal purity as these:
1. a high degree of environmental permeability (a lot of stuff can filter in from outside) and
2. ideological concern regarding the legitimacy of organizational authority and the behavior of the leadership.
According to another analysis—this one from John Wilson—the key feature for schism is structural strain, or the “disjuncture between norms and values or between roles and norms.”
Here’s an analysis from Fabio Sani and John Todman, psychologists at the University of Dundee
“When members of a subgroup believe that a new norm fundamentally changes a central aspect of group identity, they will tend to believe that the group identity as a whole has been subverted.” (“Hey, this isn’t the group I joined.”)
This affects how they think and act. First, they may come to believe they won’t be allowed to dissent. They’ll come to think, “Because our understanding of what the group stands for is totally at odds with the positions endorsed by the group as a whole, we’re going to be silenced and marginalized.” And this belief that they have no voice will make them feel still more strongly that the larger group is no longer a unified whole.
How do they react? “Clearly, their objective now is to restore their voice and to be part of a uniform group. However, they cannot comply with the mainstream position, as that would mean accepting an undesired identity. As a result, the most logical option is to consider the possibility of leaving the group.”
In fact, by forming a breakaway group, or joining an existing group whose values match their own, the dissenters may again feel part of an unified whole. And so they may express schismatic intentions.
I would add: If you want people to drop out of a group, one strategy is to promote the belief that a central aspect of the group’s identity has been compromised or subverted.
Whether that belief is warranted or not doesn’t matter. If you can persuade people that it has, your strategy may succeed.
Another possible direction (the other side of the same coin): Two groups that broadly agree in their values and objectives may seek to become part of a new, more inclusive group and in this way establish a new and broader identity.
Another writer, Bryan Hillis, places emphasis on the content of a disagreement, what it is the parties are arguing about:
“when a schism takes place, both sides in the dispute have to be able to argue that they alone are the ones remaining faithful to the religious content of the tradition. . . . Parties in the dispute can justify the schismatic action only when they can claim themselves as the true adherents to the original tradition. Remaining in fellowship with the other party then becomes an offence to the tradition or to the goals of the tradition, and the dissenting group leaves to pursue its vision of the tradition. In sociological terms, schism acts as a ‘tension-reducing agent.’ ”
For example, one devotee who left ISKCON and joined another Gauòéya group condescendingly ends an article by saying he hopes for ISKCON’s “gradual and welcome return to the fold of orthodox Gaudiya Vaisnavism.”
What comes after a schism?
More schism.
In the words of one scholar, "Organizational problems and dilemmas. . . are always with or upon organizations. It is one of the consistent emphases of the sociological literature on sects that schismatic sects are likely in time to face many of the same problems to which they originally reacted by separation, because of the development of their own organizational form—which may occasion new separations." (Louis Schneider, Sociological Approach to Religion. Wiley: 1970)
Schism gives birth to schism gives birth to schism
Contributions from “conflict theory”
Our understanding of conflict has much to gain from the writings of Lewis Coser, author of The Functions of Social Conflict, who himself drew from an earlier writer, Georg Simmel.
Let’s look at some of his point.
“Conflict within a group. . . may help to establish unity or to re-establish unity and cohesion where it has been threatened by hostile and antagonistic feelings among the members.”
But not every conflict does that. Whether it helps or not depends on what the issues are and the social structure of the group.
First, the issues:
When internal conflicts “concern goals, values or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relationship is founded,” they’re likely to be helpful. Such conflicts help the members readjust norms and power relations to what they feel to be their needs.
But when parties clash because they “no longer share the basic values upon which the legitimacy of the social system rests,” the conflict threatens to disrupt the structure.
Now, social structure:
Will the conflict help the members come to better terms with one another, or will it tear the group apart? This depends in large part on how well the group is equipped for tolerating conflict, allowing it to be expressed, and dealing with it.
When a group is closely knit and its people are deeply involved and they interact a lot, the group will tend to suppress conflict. Sounds good? No.
When you’re tight in a group like that, you get lots of love and lots of friction, because there’s lots of opportunity for both. But because hostile feelings seem to threaten the closeness of the group, the group tends to suppress them rather than let them be expressed or acted out. So what happens? The feelings build up, till they finally break out.
And then they’ll be really intense. Why? Two reasons:
First, the conflict won’t just aim at resolving the immediate issue; all the grievances that built up but couldn’t be expressed will emerge.
Second, because the group members are so deeply involved—because they’ve committed to the group their whole personality—they’ll throw their whole hearts into the struggle. After all, their whole identity is on the line.
And so: The closer the group, the more intense the conflict.
When the people in a group are less heavily involved, conflict is less likely to blow things apart. Lots of conflicts will arise, but lots of little ones are better than one big one. And by dealing with the smaller conflicts as they come, you’re more likely to be focusing on the problem at hand—the “facts of the case”—instead of a whole history of pent-up frustrations.
(Think of tremors and earthquakes.)
Now, let’s look not only within the group but at how it fares with what’s around it.
When a group is fighting with forces from the outside, it wants you to get involved heart and soul. It lays claims to your whole personality. So when a conflict appears within the group, everyone gets worked up. Such groups, therefore, “are unlikely to tolerate more than limited departures from group unity.”
On the contrary, they strengthen social cohesion by unifying against dissenters. Such groups tend to suppress conflict, and where it occurs it leads the group to break up through splits or through the dissenters’ withdrawal, voluntary or forced.
(This puts us on a pretty serious fault line.)
Groups that aren’t always fighting with the outside world ask less of you, and they’re more likely to be flexible, giving more space for multiple internal conflicts that blow off steam and make the group more stable.
When a group has flexibility, its internal conflicts crisscross one another.
People get somewhat involved in one, somewhat in another, holding hands sometimes with one subgroup, sometimes another, so no big split emerges.
Rather, the conflicts, given room for expression, help balance things and make for stability.
Old norms are revitalized, or new ones appear, helping the group adjust to changing conditions.
Meanwhile, the rigid groups, by suppressing conflict, smother a useful warning signal and set themselves up for a catastrophic breakdown.
Groups can defuse discontent and hostility through “safety-valve” institutions, which keep the status quo largely intact but allow the release of tension.
This is less than fully satisfying for the individual or fully useful for the institution, but it’s a lot better than earthquakes or perpetual hostility.
Conflicts with outsiders
Suggestion boxes
Istagosthis (gripe sessions)
We can identify two types of conflict: realistic (or functional) and unrealistic (or dysfunctional). Realistic conflict arises when people clash over claims that have a specific content; unrealistic, when the only content is the hostility and aggression itself.
The more rigid the group, the more you need those safety-valve institutions to deal with unrealistic conflict.
In short, conflict itself can be helpful. What threatens the cohesiveness of a group is not conflict but a rigidity that bottles it up until it breaks out and threatens to break the group apart.
A few more points about conflict
Another Coser insight:
Ideological concerns and the appeal to those concerns can have a powerful influence in a conflict.
When you feel you’re representing not merely yourself but a larger group, and you’re fighting not just for yourself but for the ideals of the group, the conflict is likely to be more radical and merciless.
You embody the purposes and power of the group, you’re loyal to the group, you sacrifice for the group, the group’s victory will be your victory, and threats to the group are threats to your very self. It’s a formula for a bitter struggle.
In the words of one scholar, “Mere personal feuds or even power struggles usually cannot evoke such a high degree of intransigence and vituperation as can religious or ideological confrontations where the individual sees himself as ‘the bearer of a group mission.’” (John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy)
And of course those feelings can be manipulated. Even with my self-serving motives, I may falsely gain public legitimacy by appealing to a higher purpose.
Conflict and particularism
Particularism—a group’s insistence that its members have exclusive possession of truth, knowledge, and goodness— “tends to encourage a militance on behalf of one’s beliefs, and this makes it easier for religious leaders to mobilize followers around the cause. Particularism thrives on opposition, for the in-group needs an out-group with which it can compare itself and against which it can define its membership. If no out-group exists, the tendency is to create one.”
“On the other hand, loyalties with other groups—friendships, family relationships, business partnerships, social and ethnic affiliations, and so on—tend to weaken hostility towards the members of competing religious groups.” (Keith A. Roberts, Religion in Sociological Perspective)
By the way: Conflicts are most likely to arise when tangible resources are involved: men, money, property, and so on.
Competition in the “religious marketplace”
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark have argued that competition spurs religious activity.
#1. To the degree that a religious economy is unregulated, it will tend to be very pluralistic.
“Because religious markets are composed of multiple segments or niches, with each sharing particular religious preferences (needs, tastes, and expectations), no single religious firm can satisfy all market niches. More specifically, pluralism arises in unregulated markets because of the inability of a single religious firm to be at once worldly and otherworldly, strict and permissive, exclusive and inclusive, expressive and reserved, or (as Adam Smith put it) austere and loose, while market niches will exist with strong preferences on each of these aspects of religion.”
#4 To the degree that religious economies are unregulated and competitive, overall levels of religious commitment will be high.
“(Conversely, lacking competition, the dominant firm(s) will be too inefficient to sustain vigorous marketing efforts and the result will be a low overall level of religious commitment. . . )
“This . . . also suggests that individual religious groups will be more energetic and generate higher levels of commitment to the degree that they have a marginal market position—lack market share. That is, other things being equal, small religious minorities will be more vigorous than will firms with a large local following. Thus, for example, Roman Catholics will be more active, the less Catholic their community.”
Historical Background before ISKCON
In the context of traditional Hinduism and Vaisnavism, Lord Caitanya’s movement is often presented as being a “reform movement”
It de-emphasized caste
It gave less importance to ritual
It emphasized kirtana
And, especially, it promoted “ecstatic love,” following in the footsteps of the gopis, as the ultimate goal of life.
Diversity during Caitanya’s time
Non-Gaudiya movements
Vallabha Acarya and his followers
South Indian Vaisnavas
Gaudiya groups
The diverse “branches of the Caitanya tree”
Different emphasis in Vrndavana and Bengal
Different “branches of the Caitanya tree”
Different “moods” (e.g., cowherd boys of Nityananda)
Murari Gupta as follower of Rama
Svakiya and parakiya followers
Manipuri Vaisnavaism
Schismatic and heretical movements after Caitanya
Sons of Advaita Acarya split off (Cc. Adi 12.8–12)
Sahajiyas
Historically, Gaudiya Vaisnavism was spread and sustained with minimal formal institutionalization
There were sampradäyas sustained through lines of guru-parampara.
There were texts, pilgrimages, and shared rituals.
There were interpretive authorities like the six Gosvamis and Krsnadasa Kaviraja
There were councils, as at Keturi
But little in the way of formal institutions
And of course there were diverse movements—especially the sahajiyäs—we would regard as seriously deviant
More formal organizations start with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura (Nama-hatta) and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (Gauòéya Math)
The movement started by Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura can itself be seen as a “reform movement” within Gauòéya Vaisnavism
It has been criticized—and still is—as being a “deviation” both from Hindu orthodoxy and from the standard Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition
Yet it has spread Krsna consciousness all over the world
Schism within the Gaudiya Math
As Srila Prabhupada relates, during Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s presence, “all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. . . . He did not instruct a particular man to become the next äcärya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of äcärya, and they split into two factions over who the next äcärya would be.”
Srila Prabhupada therefore later started ISKCON.
He was resisted, by the way, for not acting under the authority of the Gaudiya Matha.
And his godbrothers sometimes criticized him for the adaptations he made in order to spread Krsna consciousness in the West.
ISKCON and historical developments during Srila Prabhupada’s presence
After Srila Prabhupada began ISKCON, it had a virtual monopoly on Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the West.
Over time, some competitors appeared
In the late 1960s, the leader of one Gaudiya Math reinitiated one of Srila Prabhupada’s early Western disciples in India and appeared to have designs on two others.
During Srila Prabhupada’s presence, other Gaudiya Maths seemed to make little effort to recruit Western followers.
Two or three devotees split off and joined a line of Gauranga-nagaris.
Another became a student of a local Vrindaban Vaisnava scholar.
An early split-off from within ISKCON was Siddha-svarupa Ananda’s group in Hawaii—the “Haribol” people. They kept a connection with Srila Prabhupada but distanced themselves from ISKCON and had their own standards and strategies.
They became critical of the mainstream ISKCON activities—especially aggressive book distribution—and for some devotees represented an alternative choice to affiliate with.
According to a letter I received in 1992 from Pusta Krsna Prabhu, when he was Srila Prabhupada’s secretary in the mid-1970s Srila Prabhupada became aware of a plan to assassinate Siddha-svarupa. When Srila Prabhupada heard of this he said, “That is Vaisnava aparadha.”
After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance
Heterodox movements within ISKCON
Kirtanananda Swami introduced innovative practices and attire, disputed various GBC decisions, competed for followers and funds, and gradually split off entirely.
Other ISKCON gurus, though staying within the fold, were often perceived as having co-opted the resources of ISKCON that lay within their sometimes vast domains and having become the leaders of personality-centered movements unto themselves.
In some cases—Hamsaduta, Harikesa—these gurus spun out of ISKCON entirely and for some time became ISKCON’s competitors.
We’ve also seen the introduction of “New Age” and therapy-based orientations (Radhadesh)
Some small-scale spinoffs
Satya-narayana (JIVA)
Jagannatha Dasa (upstate NY)
Krishna-Balarama Swami (Vrindaban)
Largely in response to ISKCON’s “zonal guru” system and the falldowns of some of ISKCON’s gurus, some devotees distanced themselves from ISKCON and aligned themselves with Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja.
Initially they tried to bring about a change in ISKCON’s policies. When this brought no result, they formed a loosely organized alternative association of devotees.
They became energetic in publishing.
They actively recruited ISKCON devotees or those in orbit of ISKCON.
In some places, they competed with ISKCON for prospective members.
They made an issue of certain questions of doctrine (mainly the fall of the jiva).
They challenged ISKCON’s understanding and policies regarding gurus and initiation.
In this regard, they sometimes sought to engage the ISKCON GBC either in dialogue or debate.
Eventually they challenged the wisdom of the GBC’s decisions and the integrity of some of its members.
To get back on course, they said, the GBC should take guidance from Srila Sridhara Maharaja.
Eventually even some GBC members distanced themselves from the rest of the GBC and professed loyalty to Srila Sridhara Maharaja.
The GBC and its members responded competitively
They published counter-propaganda.
They challenged the group’s ideological positions
They denounced the breakaways as disloyal to ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada
They questioned, even denigrated, Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s authority, philosophical fidelity, and personal integrity
They accused Srila Sridhara Maharaja of being responsible for the “zonal äcärya system”
They ostracized the group’s leaders, banned their publications, and forbid ISKCON members from having anything to do with these now “disloyal” members
Eventually, the GBC sent a delegation to apologize personally to Srila Sridhara Maharaja
Compelled by documentary evidence, they published resolutions acknowledging that they themselves were responsible for the zonal guru system, which he had in fact advised against.
In the wake of successive falldowns of high-profile ISKCON gurus, some devotees sought guidance and eventually initiation from Srila B.P. Puri Maharaja.
In Italy, in particular, a group that formed around him grew at odds with the local ISKCON leadership and a struggle ensued concerning the group’s legitimacy within ISKCON. This later spawned a dispute over a valuable ISKCON property.
Another group formed around Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja.
Ananta Dasa Babaji
Srila B.V. Tirtha Maharaja, a disciple of Srila Madhava Maharaja, one of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers, has also visited America and other foreign countries and had some influence.
And Vaisnavas from other Gaudiya Maths have also found some response in the West.
Gosvamis from ancient Vrindaban temples, especially Radha-Ramana, have journeyed to the West
Again in response to perceived anomalies in the institutional role of ISKCON’s gurus, various “rtvik movements” appeared
Yasodanandana Dasa and Kailash Candra Dasa were early exponents of one brand of rtvik philosophy.
An early group, the “New Jaipur” community, openly challenged the GBC, mainly through their journal, “The Vedic Village Review.”
In North America, the local GBC arranged a debate in San Diego between the group’s leaders and some leaders from ISKCON.
The GBC rejected the debate itself as “unauthorized.”
And finally the international GBC declared the group’s doctrines deviant and expelled its principal members.
A later group, the “ISKCON Reform Movement”—or “ISKCON Revival Movement,” as it now likes to call itself—espousing a somewhat different brand of rtvik doctrine, sprang up later.
The group has been vigorous in promoting its views through publications, especially through “papers” and a long tract called “The Final Order.”
One affiliate gained legal and administrative control of ISKCON’s center in Bangalore, India.
Another for some time exercised control over ISKCON’s center in Calcutta.
One affiliate established itself as an alternative movement in New York City.
Another has recently taken control of ISKCON’s center in Long Island, New York.
Meanwhile, Yasodananda Dasa has established a small “Hare Krishna Society” in Los Angeles, opposed to ISKCON yet at odds with the “final order” people.
International Society for Divine Love
This outfit is something of an ISKCON knockoff
They came to the US in 1981
Their goals are “to reveal the eternal knowledge of the Upanisads, the Gita, and the Bhagavatam, etc., and to impart the practical process of divine upliftment called ‘raganuga-bhakti’ or ‘divine love consciousness’ ”
They have lots of Radhe Radhe, and so on.
It’s headed by one Swami Prakashananda Saraswati
He follows the line of “Bhakti-yoga Rasavatara Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj”
As ISKCON has New Vrindaban, in 1990 they started a “Barsana Dham” near Austin, Texas.
Their leaders, last time I looked, seemed to be mainly Western “sannyasinis.” But these days the outfit seems to be courting more of an Indian audience, so on their website, at least, no sannyasinis are to be seen.
They claim to follow the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Interestingly, ISKCON has offered them virtually no response.
Diverse groups today
Affiliated with Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja
After Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s disappearance, entered a post-charismatic phase.
Several leaders fell down
The movement went through a fair amount of fragmentation
They lost a lot of force
Several still remain active
Govinda Maharaja & Pusta Krsna
Janardana Maharaja (Former Panca-dravida Swami)
Paramadvaiti Swami
Narasimha Maharaja
Tripurari Swami
Srila Narayana Maharaja’s group
Entering the post-charismatic phase
Showing signs of schismatic tendencies and personal and organizational insecurity
But likely to persist, even if in a fragmented and diminished form
Srila Puri Maharaja’s group
Other Gaudiya groups
Siddhasvarupa’s group
Still active in Australasia
have been quite innovative in their marketing
and quite successful, from what I hear
Rtvik groups
Declining in market share
But well entrenched
And the continuing falldown of ISKCON leaders keeps reinforcing the credibility of their product, even among ISKCON’s own senior salesmen
Radha-kunda bäbäjés
Unaligned groups of householders
Perhaps burned by ISKCON or distrustful of it.
Want economic and personal independence.
They may be spiritual “consumers,” ready to buy from whoever offers what appears the best deal.
Issues of tension to observe (future schisms?)
Role of women (half the population, after all)
Attitude towards gays
Attitude towards academic qualification
Strictness / leniency regarding rules and lifestyles
Literalism v. modernism
Competing claims to authentically represent the tradition
Degree of control by congregations rather than priests and officials
Generational differences
Racial and cultural differences
Indian / Western
Black / white, North American / Hispanic, and so on
Class distinctions (upper, middle & lower)
Note that all of this takes place against the background of pressures for secularization from the environment
Features of the Environment
The market is open
There is no way to accomplish territorial hegemony—that is, to keep competitors out of the market
“It’s a free country.” Legal restrictions won’t work.
In Vrindaban, and to a lesser extent in Mayapur, and in large cities, everyone is exposed to everything
Books and other publications are freely available
The internet is everywhere
Competitors have no reason to accede to polite requests to “stay off our turf”
And salesmen can find almost anywhere a hospitable potential customer willing to provide at least a temporary base.
Householders, even ISKCON householders, are financially independent
This makes them free to choose from competing spiritual alternatives
ISKCON has only limited ability to exercise any sort of coercive authority.
The second generation is not necessarily committed to one supplier
The barriers to cross-sectarian marriages are weak
Second generation members looking for a second-generation devotee spouse will find the available pool already small, and sectarian concerns only make it smaller. Such concerns may not matter to them enough to block an otherwise suitable match.
Beyond ISKCON’s existing borders, there is a large potential market
Organizational status of ISKCON
Nearly three decades of scandals have slashed the perceived value of ISKCON’s organizational product, especially in regard to gurus and institutional leaders.
Especially in America and Europe, ISKCON is low on personnel, especially committed personnel
Its marketing efforts in the West are weak
It’s sorting through all the usual post-charismatic dilemmas
In the West again, it has largely turned toward the Indian market
On the positive side, its administrative structure seems to have become more stable and mature
ISKCON has successfully fended off several major threats to its very existence
Several of its leaders command widespread respect
That several leaders have passed away in good standing, or even gloriously, has helped its credibility
It has had good success in India, among Indians abroad, and in certain geographical markets
The Indian market has brought it good resources
It has lately shown some gains among its 2nd generation
Internal educational initiatives have made good progress
Strategies available
Neutral and combative responses
Ignore competitors altogether, thereby giving them no importance
Try to discredit their product
Issue oral criticism and warnings, in classes, meetings, and so on, about their people and their teachings
Publish responses: papers, books, e-mail exchanges, online articles
Ban their books
Ban association, restrict interactions
Deny them our resources: jobs, schools, and so on
Refuse to sell them our books
Exclude them from our properties and functions
Expel their customers (members initiated outside)
Confront competitors legally
Exclude them from territory: Try by one means or another to keep competitors out of local markets
Accommodative and assimilative responses
Offer apologies and seek to reconcile past disputes
Relax the borders
Allow members of other groups to participate in ISKCON functions
Make it easy for former members to be reassimilated
Cooperative and ecumenical responses
Pursue mergers
A curious sociological finding is that mergers, at least on the denominational level, actually increase the likelihood of schisms. Identities and relationships are redefined, resources redeployed, and this creates temporary instability from which schism can arise. (Sutton & Chaves 2004)
The Christian “ecumenical movement” has largely failed
Maintain group identity but participate in a larger overarching poly-group association
Sarasvata Vaisnava Association
Enjoys ISKCON participation and sponsorship
Has a largely ISKCON-controlled agenda
It’s only minimally active
Seems deliberately constructed so as to provide only limited, though cordial, interaction
Effectively, limited to West Bengal
Respects and maintains the status quo of the power relations between its participants
Provides no status for ISKCON breakaway groups
Though promoting cooperation, it is in some quarters distrusted by the perception that its leading proponent is a politically shrewd member of ISKCON’s power elite
World Vaisnava Association
Has the commendable goal of promoting broad-based inter-group cooperation
Seeks to establish legitimacy for breakaway ISKCON groups, who are its main sponsors
Seems to have the unstated objective of readjusting and redefining the power relations between ISKCON and other societies, essentially by moving ISKCON downward and others upward
By its name and positioning, it seems to seek for itself a worldwide catholic role that ISKCON, though so far unable to implement, has envisioned for itself
Though promoting cooperation, it is held back by the widespread perception that its main proponent, a former ISKCON member, is politically shrewd and aggressively competitive and opportunistic
Form collaborations
“Sister society” proposals
A barrier here is that to accept a “sister society” is to accept that such a society legitimately exists, and ISKCON is unwilling to admit that any breakaway society has legitimacy
ISKCON has concerns about any “authority” whose influence might dilute that of Srila Prabhupada or ISKCON’s own authority structure
Concerning the spiritual authorities they respect, “sister societies” have formerly articulated positions that ISKCON finds unacceptable and have yet to clearly present new formulations that ISKCON might accept
The prospective sister societies have used their association with senior Gaudiya authorities as a marketing tool to assert the superiority of their product, whereas ISKCON has marketed the superiority of its exclusive adherence to Srila Prabhupada.
How could ISKCON accept a sister society without compromising what it perceives to be its unique selling proposition?
A dilemma for ISKCON, however, is that by appearing to be isolated from other members of the tradition it reinforces the claims of its competitors to more broadly and authentically represent that tradition.
The dilemma for the competitors, of course, is that they are denied full access to the resources of what is now the main institution within the tradition, and their spiritual master’s institution at that.
ISKCON is naturally concerned about losing existing customers, who for the “sister societies” appear to be the main target market.
Competitive response
Improve your product, your marketing, and your customer service
Example: Leicester. Because one breakaway group was using the ISKCON name and preaching, Pradyumna felt inspired to stoke up the preaching there.
The role of the bishop (or GBC member)
See “Church Schism & Succession” by Mary Lou Steed
Additional ideas
Vigorously promote diversity within ISKCON
In particular, do it through “societies” or “orders” like those in Catholicism
Form a “Bhakti Rakshak” order. This would be open to all the ISKCON-related followers of Srila Sridhara Maharaja.
They would continue to belong to their own organizations.
They would not be under the authority of the GBC
They would be welcome to participate fully in ISKCON activities, lead kirtana, give class, and so on
Their connection to Srila Sridhara Maharaja would be respected.
