我發現雖然在學術圈裡可以把宗教團體分成「教派」、「分派」與「新派」，實際上這樣的分類根本無法面對某些宗教團體，因為沒有一個宗教願意被貼上「分派」或「新派」的標籤。如果以歷史脈絡來分析，就會發現這些都是相對的詞，他們都是動態的定義，也就是說必須在特定的脈絡上定義這三個詞的關係。因此我建議對宗教有同理心的學者，在使用這些敏感詞彙的時候，應該儘量有完整的敘述。 另外我認為把分派與神秘主義截然劃分是徒勞無功的，因為內在神秘的宗教經驗往往是形成分派的主因之一，無須單獨劃分一派。而許多分派已經傳了數代，信徒就在這樣的宗教環境下長大，卻仍然具有強烈的分派性格，沒有走回主流教派的形式。當然，分派和新派在形成之知一會被認為是新奇、自創、反常規、甚至是怪異的宗教團體，然而這些信徒們必須相信他們是真正受啟示者，甚至是被揀選的少數才能積極火熱的傳下去，否則像陳恆明的飛碟會不到幾年就瓦解了。

Academically, I agree with Start’s denomination / sect / cult typology. I also agree with Stark and Bainbridge’s assertion that denominations are established and stable religious groups which include a majority of the members in a society. Sects are deviant religious organizations that break ties with established denominations. Cults, on the other hand, are religious groups with novel, peculiar, innovative beliefs and practices. Nevertheless, I find that no new religions would consider themselves as sects or cults. In this paper, I will analyze the relationship between new religions and mainstream denominations. I suggest that we should define the relative terms “sect” and “cult” both dynamically and contextually.