New big Monotheistic religions

[Byzantion]

Now, what if there are persisting greater religions with sizeable number of followers who came rather late (like Sikhism) ? My requirements are, that the new religion is inspired by one or more Monotheistic Abrahamic religions ( also other borrows too) but is relatively new. The relegion also is heavely shaped by the local culture, mythology and mentality of the people, who spread it and has its own Messiah like figure ( which may be inspired by traditional folklore/religion and Abrahamic Messiahs). Can have a missionary character. For example, what if in the Americas such a mayor religion emerges out of Catholizism and Mezoamerican traditions , that is maintained ( maybe later African folklore and spiritual traditions mixed in) ? Also a religion in Africa , that borrows from Islam and Christianity while have its completely own charakter would be interesting.

 

[Revachah]

Now, what if there are persisting greater religions with sizeable number of followers who came rather late (like Sikhism) ? My requirements are, that the new religion is inspired by one or more Monotheistic Abrahamic religions ( also other borrows too) but is relatively new. The relegion also is heavely shaped by the local culture, mythology and mentality of the people, who spread it and has its own Messiah like figure ( which may be inspired by traditional folklore/religion and Abrahamic Messiahs). Can have a missionary character. For example, what if in the Americas such a mayor religion emerges out of Catholizism and Mezoamerican traditions , that is maintained ( maybe later African folklore and spiritual traditions mixed in) ? Also a religion in Africa , that borrows from Islam and Christianity while have its completely own charakter would be interesting.

That's most of Christianity until quite recently with missionaries from the US ousting indigenist churches.

Islam was like this too pretty much outside the Jihadi states until quite recently as well.

 

[David T]

How "new" does "new" have to be? Do these qualify? (Assuming for the moment that Mormonism is not compatible with small-o orthodox Christianity.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

 

[samcster94]

I think the hypothetical religion similar to OTL Sikhism(Small, but alive in one tiny corner) would almost certainly be Islam-based. A good shot would be in OTL Indonesia, around the time the Dutch East India Company shows up. Somehow, some Sunni cleric comes up with some radical idea critical of Sharia Law and builds enough followers and his successors build a small army. This faith would likely see Mohammed as a major figure, but not the final prophet(Iranian Baha'i also have many of these OTL, but came a bit late).

 

[CountPeter]

How "new" does "new" have to be? Do these qualify? (Assuming for the moment that Mormonism is not compatible with small-o orthodox Christianity.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

Mormonism isn't monotheist.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . shaped by the local culture, mythology and mentality of the people, who spread it and has its own Messiah like figure . . .

In the book The Head in Edward Nugent's Hand: Roanoke's Forgotten Indians by Michael Leroy Oberg, at least some Native Americans had a view of one of the supernatural beings as mischievous and undependable rather than evil, perhaps similar to the idea of the coyote trickster although they did not use that language.*

So, maybe a monotheistic religion not so much into eventual perfection but which matter-of-factly accepts the idea that people are people. And which has insight into the idea that negative prohibitions feed into a self-fulfilling prophecy and are counterproductive. Just like if an old-line Baptist minister spends twenty minutes railing against the evils of cardplaying, well, heck, I could have gone all day without thinking about cardplaying once, just don't remember it being all that exciting, but thanks for kind of reminding me that it sometimes is!

And as far as a Messiah? Well, we tend to be at our best in response to such disasters as earthquakes and floods. It's sudden, abrupt, and when it's over, it tends to really be over (some exceptions of course). We're not at our best in response to droughts and famines. So, maybe the Messiah is a leader who helps people handle famine much better than average and it's talked about for generations. And as a result, his religious teachings are taken much more seriously.

So, a religion which rather takes the approach, if you make a mistake, just try again the next day. A religion very practical in a number of regards.

=========

Now, there's already Santeria, which I think is a mix of Catholicism and native elements. And there's voodoo, which we think of as wholely bad but I don't think the practitioners think of it that way.

But, even the few elements I've sketched out, I don't think there's a current, living monotheistic religion where that's the main approach. And you yourself could probably also sketch out a few different elements and find the same result of no current religion. So, I say, always room for one more!

=========

* Kiwasa. So maybe instead of waging war against ourselves, a more bend-the-path religion.

 

[David T]

Mormonism isn't monotheist.

Mormons would deny that, or at least would at least claim that they have as good a right to be considered monotheists as orthodox Christians do: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

 

[CountPeter]

Mormons would deny that, or at least would at least claim that they have as good a right to be considered monotheists as orthodox Christians do: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

I'm not saying Mormons are polytheists, and living in a house of Mormons who strictly identify as Monolatralists, I would stand by my statement that Mormons are indeed not Monotheists.

 

[Revachah]

=========

Now, there's already Santeria, which I think is a mix of Catholicism and native elements. And there's voodoo, which we think of as wholely bad but I don't think the practitioners think of it that way.

But, even the few elements I've sketched out, I don't think there's a current, living monotheistic religion where that's the main approach. And you yourself could probably also sketch out a few different elements and find the same result of no current religion. So, I say, always room for one more!

It's a Catholic veneer on a Yoruba specific religion.
Voodoo is largely Dahomey with minor KiKongo influence

21 Divisions is more mixed in some groups.

Still it wouldn't be universal, it's steeped within the cosmology of a specific people. Universal pan-africanist faiths could not be actualized until the post-colonial era with Rastafari and that's super fringe and not all that "African" and more so Black.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . it's steeped within the cosmology of a specific people. Universal pan-africanist faiths could not be actualized until the post-colonial era . . .

but Christianity has a lot of specific elements to place and culture, the Sea of Galilee, the Road to Jericho, the idea that most Samaritans are bad, etc,

and it's become worldwide.

 

[Revachah]

but Christianity has a lot of specific elements to place and culture, the Sea of Galilee, the Road to Jericho, the idea that most Samaritans are bad, etc,

and it's become worldwide.

Yes the Christianity component was absorbed NOT a specific ethnic derivation of Christian expression.

That's the reason no single church took over.

 

[CountPeter]

In South East Asia, there is a religion called Cao Dai, which could be described as a fusion between Catholicism and Taoism. Maybe a similar faith could appear earlier?

Also, whilst the Hare Krishna movement road the wave of hippydom, the theology behind the movement had existed since the 1600s, perhaps somehow it could become a thing earlier too?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Yes the Christianity component was absorbed NOT a specific ethnic derivation of Christian expression.

What are you trying to say about "the Christianity component was absorbed"? I'm not at all sure what that's supposed to mean.

If you're trying to say that various cultures adopted Christianity but derived different methods of expressing it, that's true, but virtually all Christian sects still reflect many aspects of first-century Judaea and the early to mid Roman Empire in various aspects (including, significantly, the entire cosmological concept of a single all-powerful God creating and running the world), so I don't think they disprove GeographyDude's point that a religion being born into and influenced by a single culture doesn't prevent it spreading to quite different ones without becoming unrecognizable in the process. Differing cultural practices in practicing Christianity are more of an aesthetic overlay on a core heavily influenced by Judaism than an expression of truly fundamental differences.

A similar example would be Buddhism, which is extremely Indian in origin and yet spread quite well into the very culturally distinct Chinese region, then on to Korea and Japan. Indeed, it even, famously, died out in India afterwards, so that nowadays most Buddhists are not Indian. Although it did of course develop culturally and theologically distinct divisions there, all of these divisions were still heavily indebted to Indian theological and cosmological concepts, not totally independent of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

The Baha'i faith clearly qualifies; it has all the characteristics listed by the OP and specifically claims to be a new faith, not merely a sect of an old one. Even using conservative numbers it has a fairly significant number of adherents worldwide, too.

 

[Timaeus]

Yes the Christianity component was absorbed NOT a specific ethnic derivation of Christian expression.

That's the reason no single church took over.

Hm. Would the modern Filipino agimat be a native expression of folk Catholicism or native religion absorbing Catholic elements?

 

[Revachah]

What are you trying to say about "the Christianity component was absorbed"? I'm not at all sure what that's supposed to mean.

If you're trying to say that various cultures adopted Christianity but derived different methods of expressing it, that's true, but virtually all Christian sects still reflect many aspects of first-century Judaea and the early to mid Roman Empire in various aspects (including, significantly, the entire cosmological concept of a single all-powerful God creating and running the world), so I don't think they disprove GeographyDude's point that a religion being born into and influenced by a single culture doesn't prevent it spreading to quite different ones without becoming unrecognizable in the process. Differing cultural practices in practicing Christianity are more of an aesthetic overlay on a core heavily influenced by Judaism than an expression of truly fundamental differences.

A similar example would be Buddhism, which is extremely Indian in origin and yet spread quite well into the very culturally distinct Chinese region, then on to Korea and Japan. Indeed, it even, famously, died out in India afterwards, so that nowadays most Buddhists are not Indian. Although it did of course develop culturally and theologically distinct divisions there, all of these divisions were still heavily indebted to Indian theological and cosmological concepts, not totally independent of them.


The Baha'i faith clearly qualifies; it has all the characteristics listed by the OP and specifically claims to be a new faith, not merely a sect of an old one. Even using conservative numbers it has a fairly significant number of adherents worldwide, too.

I will put this simply because it seems to be going over your head.

Africans are not unified in culture, even in the (controversial) Supra-linguistic group of Bantu there is no singular Indigenist Church that has taken over nor is there any real reason to. The idea of African identity is modern, notions of Blackness fluid until recently and quite frankly the adoption of Christianity is infused within the cultural fabric of the people.

That infusion is not universal, that is not going to fly. Try making Igbo get with Yoruba influenced Christianity much less a KiKongo or Zulu.

Hm. Would the modern Filipino agimat be a native expression of folk Catholicism or native religion absorbing Catholic elements?

It's not a religion, it's like Gris-gris within Hoodoo practices of Catholic and Protestant faiths. A system of fetish magic and healing.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I will put this simply because it seems to be going over your head.

Africans are not unified in culture, even in the (controversial) Supra-linguistic group of Bantu there is no singular Indigenist Church that has taken over nor is there any real reason to. The idea of African identity is modern, notions of Blackness fluid until recently and quite frankly the adoption of Christianity is infused within the cultural fabric of the people.

That infusion is not universal, that is not going to fly. Try making Igbo get with Yoruba influenced Christianity much less a KiKongo or Zulu.

I am quite aware that there is no such thing as a pan-African culture and that there are, in fact, a very great many distinct cultures in Africa, thanks. My point was that religions that are heavily infused with the specific notions of one culture, such as Christianity with Judaism and (to a lesser extent) Greco-Roman culture, or Buddhism with Indian (and specifically Gangetic) culture have been very successful in spreading to entirely different cultural contexts while still preserving key elements of their backgrounds. Merely because a religion starts in one culture and is strongly associated with that culture in various aspects does not mean that it will not spread provided it meets the real spiritual needs of the people to whom it is spreading, particularly in a way that their existing religious context does not. Of course, they rarely remained particularly unified while doing so, but I don't take that as being particularly essential. What does it matter if there is a Roman Church, a Byzantine Church, an Alexandrian Church, an Armenian Church, if you're interested in the spread of Christianity? They're all still Christian.

Such a spread is, obviously, very unlikely for any kind of African-originated religion in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, if for no other reason than the fact that the colonial powers probably won't like it very much and will try to stamp it out, at least to the extent of preferring Christian missionaries. But cultural differences between the origin point and any nominal points of spread of the religion are, at worst, a very steep slope that the religion will face in spreading, not an absolute barrier.

 

[GeographyDude]

Also, whilst the Hare Krishna movement road the wave of hippydom, the theology behind the movement had existed since the 1600s, perhaps somehow it could become a thing earlier too?

and I think with a belief in reincarnation, right?

I've heard that some branches of Hinduism are more monotheistic, others less, am by no means an expert.

 

[Indicus]

I've heard that some branches of Hinduism are more monotheistic, others less, am by no means an expert.

The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought that has been quite dominant for many centuries believes that all of the gods are one supreme being. Whether or not that qualifies as monotheism is very arguable. But, of course, Advaita Vedanta is over a millennium old, so it's hardly a new school of Hindu thought.

 

[Revachah]

I am quite aware that there is no such thing as a pan-African culture and that there are, in fact, a very great many distinct cultures in Africa, thanks. My point was that religions that are heavily infused with the specific notions of one culture, such as Christianity with Judaism and (to a lesser extent) Greco-Roman culture, or Buddhism with Indian (and specifically Gangetic) culture have been very successful in spreading to entirely different cultural contexts while still preserving key elements of their backgrounds. Merely because a religion starts in one culture and is strongly associated with that culture in various aspects does not mean that it will not spread provided it meets the real spiritual needs of the people to whom it is spreading, particularly in a way that their existing religious context does not. Of course, they rarely remained particularly unified while doing so, but I don't take that as being particularly essential. What does it matter if there is a Roman Church, a Byzantine Church, an Alexandrian Church, an Armenian Church, if you're interested in the spread of Christianity? They're all still Christian.

Such a spread is, obviously, very unlikely for any kind of African-originated religion in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, if for no other reason than the fact that the colonial powers probably won't like it very much and will try to stamp it out, at least to the extent of preferring Christian missionaries. But cultural differences between the origin point and any nominal points of spread of the religion are, at worst, a very steep slope that the religion will face in spreading, not an absolute barrier.

There has been and is no history of any African church spreading beyond as proximal.

Christianity does come from Judaism and it's spread was mostly by former Jews before the sword or trade spread the faith.

There is no surprise that the Roman empire with it's large and spread out Jewish population spread the faith amongst other marginalized communities they engaged and interacted with.

The expansion of Christianity was a matter of conquest by force and economy in West, South and central East Africa. They were not percieved and their traditions and faith were not received in the same light as historic neighbors.

You are waxing poetically yet very obfuscately about processes not in relation to the ethnic and cultural dynamics of the regions you're speaking on and it shows.

 

[GeographyDude]

" . . . Such a spread is, obviously, very unlikely for any kind of African-originated religion in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, if for no other reason than the fact that the colonial powers probably won't like it very much and will try to stamp it out, . . . "

Of course that might end up helping the religion! No guarantee of this. A lot of censorship is bureaucratic and passionless and "successful." But if it's the kind which really rubs people the wrong way as far as being unfair and which feels like bullying behavior, that might raise the profile of the religion and if it seems like it mets spiritual needs which have only gone partially met, well, one just never knows.