The functionalist synthesis in the sociology of religion has disappeared ... Functionalism provided a privileged methodological stance from which the sociologist could interpret and transcend the accounts of groups and individuals. As a trained interpreter. the sociologist could provide a coherent text of a community’s beliefs, but as one skilled in delving below surface appearances the sociologist could also identify ‘latent’ functions and, in the process, call into question a community’s account of its own life. These methodological approaches are still adopted, but the sociologist does not enjoy a privileged position from which to put them together. The result is parallel and competing perspectives without a single viewpoint (Fenn 1982:101).

To abandon functionalism is therefore to abandon a privileged methodological stance and a synthetic theoretical viewpoint. Some might therefore argue that sociologists of religion have exchanged their functionalist birthright for a mess of ethnomethodological and philosophical pottage. It is unlikely that sociologists of religion will abandon the search for a privileged standpoint from which to improve on the accounts that others, lay or professional, give bf their religious activities. The claim that a sociologist’s account of a given religious group or practice is an improved and not merely adequate translation of that group’s own experience and understanding rests on the sociologist’s more direct and complete access to common sources of knowledge (1982:123—4).