Comment on “Max Weber on Church, Sect and Mysticism”

THIS BRIEF COMMENT ARGUES FOR THE BASICALLY STRUCTURAL CONCEPTION OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN WEBER'S THOUGHT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TROELTSCH'S. IT ALSO TAKES NOTE OF AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEBER'S & F. TONNIES' VIEWS CONCERNING THE EMERGENCE OF RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA IN SOCIETY. THE TROELTSCH TYPOLOGY WAS NOT INTENDED TO BECOME A SUBJECT OF PRIMARY INVESTIGATION BUT RATHER TO BE INCIDENTAL TO ANALYSIS OF MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS. THOUGH THEY CARRIED STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS, THEY WERE NOT DEFINED IN SOCIOLOGICAL TERMS UNTIL WEBER ELICITED SPECIAL DIFFICULTY IN AN IDEAL TYPE METHOD FOR 'CONSTRUCTING' TYPES BASED 'PURELY ON LOGIC'. THE MAIN CONCERN IS HOW ACTORS, WITH THEIR VARIOUS ECONOMIC & OTHER BIASES ACCEPT, REJECT, OR IGNORE THE 'RELIGIOUS' PHENOMENA. MODIFIED AA.