In the study of sociology, we are presented 3 varying perspectives regarding our interactions with the globe and these in it. Despite the fact that components of all 3 include some bits of truth, it is this author's opinion that the structural-functionalism viewpoint is much more in line with that held inside the sphere of religion. When discussing our roles in this life, the bible clearly states that there are “diversities of gifts… variations of administrations… and diversities of operations”. (I Corinthians 12:four-six, King James Version) It is unfortunate, nonetheless, that a lot of people today have a tendency to concentrate on what other people need to be carrying out, and not on their personal duty. The trouble with Karl Marx's conflict theory is that it focuses solely on one particular aspect of a problematic predicament. In his view, all the wealthy are evil, and all the poor are fantastic. By his considering, if you have nothing at all, it is mainly because these who are wealthy are hoarding it from you, and are by any implies attainable shielding the wealth, and the implies to it, from you. Your only recourse is to rebel and steal what is “rightfully yours”: the Robin Hood complicated, so to speak. Even though this author would in no way argue that all the wealthy have accrued their riches via just implies, he as well would in no way recommend that all the poor are therefore, just mainly because they are becoming held back by the highly effective. Marx fails to take into account that a lot of of the wealthy have gotten that way via tough perform and clever use of their income, and that a lot of of the poor have also entered their state, or remained there, via an irresponsible life style.

In the symbolic-interactionist viewpoint, we are presented with the thought that the symbols, or labels, we location on people today decide how we act toward them. The drawback to this theory is that all through the globe, distinct peoples and cultures will have contradictory symbols when compared with these from other cultures. Even inside a culture, these symbols may well modify in which means more than time. This reality stems in element from the reality that we are taught that there are no absolutes. As a result, we wind up concluding that a thing is ideal, only to modify our thoughts about it when in a distinct location, or even time. Biblically speaking, ideal is ideal and incorrect is incorrect, regardless of exactly where or when you are.

Structural-functionalism is, according to, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a method of interdependent components whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the method.” (“Functionalism”) By method, it is meant any quantity of organizations that have numerous groups or folks, who by necessity, have to act and interact in a distinct manner in order that the organism may well survive. The use of organism right here is in reference to the reality that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people today in a society operating considerably the identical way as the distinct components of a living organism perform with each other. Despite the fact that sociologist Robert Merton did not view people's roles in society as becoming synonymous with the interactions of a living being's organs, he did think that every becoming has its personal crucial part to play. These who fail to play their element are no longer contributing to the functions of a society. They are, rather, adding dysfunctions, which harm the equilibrium of a society. In religion, as in society, members have to act in accordance with their assigned or selected roles if it is to survive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human physique, exactly where every person member of the church has a distinct function. “For as the physique is one particular, and hath a lot of members, and all the members of that one particular physique, becoming a lot of, are one particular physique: so also is Christ. For the physique is not one particular member, but a lot of. If the foot shall say, For the reason that I am not the hand, I am not of the physique is it thus not of the physique?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)

Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competitors for restricted sources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the outcome of the wealthy and highly effective (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into 3 components: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the wealthy controlling the implies of production and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling against the overlords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. Nevertheless, this would not be the finish, for as soon as the synthesis had formed, it would in turn make a further thesis which would sooner or later lead to a further antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts sooner or later resolved themselves, then the fantastic society would have been formed, as every person would now be equal. Religion touches upon this conflict when the bible discusses the appropriate relationships among these of distinct stations. Despite the fact that the bible does indicate we are all equal in the aspect of our righteousness when it says “… there is none that doeth fantastic, no, not one particular.” (Psalm 14:three), it does indicate that in our predicament in life we may well not necessarily be peers with these about us. “But in a fantastic residence there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy two:20) What Marx named the antithesis the bible refers to as rebellion. We need to discover to appreciate exactly where we are and what we have. “… for I have discovered, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content material.” (Philippians four:11) That is not to say that God needs us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is attainable to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable estate. “If a man thus purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and ready unto each fantastic perform” (II Timothy two:21). What these in energy have to also recognize, the impetus to make a improved society is not just on the workers these in charge also have a duty. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal… ” (Colossians four:1).

The symbolic interactionism viewpoint states that we view these people today and points about us primarily based on what symbols we have attached to them. We view people today differently primarily based on whether or not they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other quantity of symbols we have assigned to these about us. One particular caveat of this viewpoint is that meanings of symbols will modify more than time. One particular instance is marriage and divorce. The which means of marriage has changed from two parties uniting in mutual feelings of what they can do for every other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down on as a sign of failure, but rather as a symbol of freedom. In the final handful of years the price of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting households and even buddies. In religion, these identical symbols are utilized nonetheless, mainly because they are designated by God, there is no allowance for modify. “I modify not.” (Malachi three:six) In the region of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no much more twain, but one particular flesh. What thus God hath joined with each other, let not man place asunder.” (Matthew 19:six)

So when contemplating these 3 perspectives from the viewpoint of the bible, which one particular need to we concentrate on? When contemplating the symbolic-interactionist viewpoint, we have to retain in thoughts what the bible says about our relationships with other people. “… whatsoever ye would that males need to do to you, do ye even so to them… ” (Matthew 7:12) “… an elder, but treat him as a father and the younger males as brethren… ” (I Timothy five:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule more than you… salute them that have the rule more than you… ” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “… Worry God. Honour the king. Servants, be topic to your masters with all worry not only to the fantastic and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter two:17) When contemplating the structural-functionalism viewpoint, it is quite crucial to retain in thoughts that our most crucial concern need to be to fulfill our personal responsibilities. Just after he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one particular of them had confronted him wanting to know what a further disciple was going to do, Jesus mentioned to him, “… what is that to thee? adhere to thou me.” (John 21:22)