An Interview with Dr. Mathew Schmalz
On November 21, 2019, Siobhan Heekin-Canedy of The Fletcher Forum spoke with Dr. Mathew Schmalz about new religious movements, religious freedom, and the nation-state.
FF: Could you talk about what you mean by new religious movements? Are there certain features that these all have in common? What makes them different from more traditional religions?
MS: Well, I think obviously, their novelty reflects that they are responding to immediate social needs within a particular cultural context, and so to that extent, they reveal or highlight issues of social concern and fissures within the societies in which they take root.
FF: Why are these movements so important in the realm of international affairs?
MS: I think they force us to ask important questions about the relationship between religious expression and national identity. Also, these movements push social boundaries quite intentionally. There is a question of how one gives movements that challenge society the freedom to express themselves, but not at the expense of overarching concerns of social or national identity.
FF: Could you elaborate a little more on this idea of the challenge that new religious movements can sometimes pose to the nation state?
MS: For nations that are developing or very diverse, new religions can in some ways accentuate or intensify feelings of social difference. They can sometimes militate against overarching ideas of national identity; or by the same token, they can take an aspect of national identity and intensify it in a way that might be detrimental, or at least would be impactful, on other minority groups.
FF: You've talked a bit about Jehovah's Witnesses, and how they’ve been targeted for persecution in Russia, for instance. Why do you think Jehovah's Witnesses in particular seem to get targeted in this way?
MS: Well, I think Jehovah’s Witnesses have always been convenient scapegoats since they don't really fight back. They certainly don't fight back physically. Sometimes they litigate, and so because they don't participate in military service or pay obedience to the flag, they're useful targets for governments that want to shore up their notion of national identity and what it is to be a member of a particular society.
FF: You've also spoken about Scientology and how that can be a difficult case for determining what a religion is, or what deserves religious protection. Can you expand on that?
MS: I think Scientology is a very controversial case for a number of reasons. First and foremost, whether or not it's a religion calls into question what people are talking about when they say “religious freedom.” I mean, how do you identify a religious group? Is it simply a group that calls itself religious? A group that believes in God? Academics still have not settled on a particular definition of religion. So that's a very fraught issue of concern. The second issue is that Scientology is particularly controversial because of allegations of secrecy, extorting money from followers, and so forth. It raises the question, even if you are identified as a religion or religious group, how far do your freedoms go?
FF: What do you think the opportunities are for interfaith dialogue between some of these new religious movements and more traditional religions?
MS: It depends. I think a lot of new religions aren't necessarily concerned with inter-religious dialogue. The inter-religious dialogue, however, does give them the legitimacy that they crave. By the same token, established religions are reluctant to engage in dialogue with new religions because it seems to put new religions on the same level as an established national religion. So, I think that question is fraught, but I'm very committed personally to dialogue with new religions and believe they should be taken seriously. They should not just be considered social aberrations or cults.
FF: Do you have any advice for policymakers or future policymakers on how to tackle these thorny issues?
MS: The first and most important piece of advice I'd give is to take believers in new religions at face value. By that, I mean focus on their belief system and assume, at least for the purposes of discussion in policymaking, that these believers actually believe what they say. I think one of the difficulties, particularly for the United States in dealing with new religions like the Branch Davidians or People's Temple, is that the government has seen these new religions as essentially cults that are filled with people who are manipulated by a malevolent, charismatic leader. This has led to assumptions that often lead to violence, as opposed to preventing it.
Mathew Schmalz is professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross. He has written widely on New Religious Movements and has given expert commentary in documentaries for Vice and A &E and given expert commentary for MSNBC, NPR, and HardBall with Chris Matthews. He is also a regular writer for The Conversation and has published numerous opinion pieces on religion and politics in Newsweek, Salon, and The Washington Post, among others. He has received Century, Watson, USED Fulbright, and AIIS Fellowships, and resided in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka for a total of four years as a student and researcher. His publications engage global Catholicism (particularly in South Asia), Catholic theology and spirituality, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. He is co-editor of Engaging South Asian Religions: Boundaries, Appropriations, and Resistances and author of Mercy Matters: Opening Yourself to the Life Changing Gift.
