ABSTRACT
The rare word ‘fissiparous’ was used by the British sociologist Roy Wallis (1982) to describe a persistent tendency he had observed in new religious movements: to divide and form schisms. While a coherent sociological analysis of the factors which prompt schismatic movements within new religions has yet to be developed, case studies of specific movements show that there are three situations which give rise to schisms: (1) after the death of the charismatic founder a struggle over the succession often ensues, when upstart prophets challenge the administrative leadership, or the designated successor (Lewis and Lewis 2009); (2) when a spiritual leader’s behaviour is deemed to contradict the taboos or moral codes of the community, he/she may be ousted by peers or an executive committee, and schismatic factions may form in protest; and (3) schisms might occur following a disconfirmation of prophecy. Festinger et al.’s (1956) thesis (that, paradoxically, apocalyptic groups actually thrive in the wake of prophetic failure, through a flurry of compensatory evangelical activity) is supported by examples of groups that survived prophetic failure. However, many groups do not survive intact; that is, they fail to weather the anticipated Armageddon (or Parousia) in one piece.
