Some thoughts on cults

[ViaCrucis]

What is a cult anyway?

In my younger days I read several books about "cults", Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults is what immediately comes to mind. In the particular tradition of the Evangelical counter-cult culture a cult is more-or-less defined as a religious sect with aberrant or heretical theology. A definition that I've seen some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists apply to Roman Catholics just as equally as to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Largely as the standards often used are what is standard American Evangelicalism, one of the newest kids on the block in the history of the Christian faith.

And that seems problematic, if a "cult" is largely defined entirely by the subjective views of a particular sect or particular tradition then it really just becomes "Anything different than me and mine is a cult."

When people study the sociology of religion the term "cult" is, in fact, used; but it is used sociologically rather than theologically. There are certain distinctive elements which are looked for that define a cult, such as controlling behavior of the members, granting unusually high power, authority, and lack of accountability to its leader or leaders. Those sorts of things. This changes the dynamics a bit, because the actual theology of any given group is somewhat irrelevant; it isn't whatever things a group believes that another group thinks is "weird" that determines what is or isn't a cult, it is instead the potential of harm that a group puts upon its members. Something far more measurable and objective.

Because, from where I sit, there are plenty of aberrant and heretical theologies out there. From a position of historical orthodoxy the Word of Faith Movement and its Prosperity doctrines is no less heretical and a divergence from historical orthodoxy than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreso, very often such large prosperity churches do seem to have many of the characteristics of a cult. Such prosperity preachers who self-designate themselves often as apostles and/or prophets will antagonistically identify themselves as being anointed by God and to speak against them is to speak against "God's anointed" which will bring destruction and damnation to the critic.

Further, let's talk about organizations such as Mars Hill, at least when Mars Hill was under the totalitarian grip of Mark Driscoll. This might be more of a local thing as it was based out of Seattle and I'm a Washingtonian, but I'm sure many hear have heard of Driscoll or heard of the terrible things that came out of that organization/church. For all intents and purposes Mars Hill was a just a standard Evangelical/Fundamentalist church with a quasi-Calvinist theology and thus pretty well in line with the standard of what is orthodox; here is an example of a cult that could blend in to the great American Evangelical landscape. And, yes, Mars Hill is--or at least was--a cult, a highly destructive and totalitarian cult.

The Church of Scientology is a cult, not because of the stuff about Xenu, but because of the CoS's destructive, authoritarian, and--frankly--evil ways of doing business.

Heterodoxy is not the same thing as a cult.
Nominal orthodoxy is no safeguard against cultishness.

There are plenty of heterodox groups which are not cults.
There are plenty of orthodox groups which are cults.
And, further, as in the case of the CoS a cult doesn't even need to be nominally Christian to fit the description--a cult doesn't even need to be explicitly religious in nature to be a cult.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

Excellent post!

In regards to Prosperity doctrines, I find Triumphalism to be a very dangerous heresy whether found in Christianity, Islam or any other religion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Excellent post!

In regards to Prosperity doctrines, I find Triumphalism to be a very dangerous heresy whether found in Christianity, Islam or any other religion.

I'd agree, specifically in regard to the heresy of Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TasteForTruth]

Threads that expose all religions as cults typically get little attention. Chalk it up to the pride of man getting in the way of man admitting that he calls the other guy's religion a cult on the basis of his pride. One of those vicious-cycle, double-standard-like things...

 

[drstevej]

Chalk it up to the pride of man getting in the way of man admitting that he calls the other guy's religion a cult on the basis of his pride.

But calling all creeds an abomination is a first principle of Smithism.

 

[TasteForTruth]

But calling all creeds an abomination is a first principle of Smithism.

Attributing Christ's words to Joseph Smith is comfortable way to dismiss their truth. Or so I presume.

 

[Ironhold]

Plus, whenever people start trying to lob the word "cult" around, they really should make sure that their own faith system doesn't run afoul of their personal definition.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Attributing Christ's words to Joseph Smith is comfortable way to dismiss their truth. Or so I presume.

Given that Jesus would have been familiar with and agreed with the Sh'ma, I think it's fairly safe to say that He never suggested that creeds be done away with.

Creedalism has been a staple of the Christian Church since the beginning, from the Sh'ma of Judaism to the basic confession of faith, "Jesus Christ is Lord". Proto-creeds such as the St. Irenaeus' Symbol of Faith or St. Hippolytus' baptismal creed are pretty good examples of how creedalism developed into the Old Roman Symbol--and its much later medieval form, the Apostles' Creed--all of which are prototypical of what would be laid down at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in the 4th century.

Christianity simply doesn't exist without creeds, Christianity is utterly dependent upon its confession, on its Credo.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TasteForTruth]

Given that Jesus would have been familiar with and agreed with the Sh'ma, I think it's fairly safe to say that He never suggested that creeds be done away with.

Creedalism has been a staple of the Christian Church since the beginning, from the Sh'ma of Judaism to the basic confession of faith, "Jesus Christ is Lord". Proto-creeds such as the St. Irenaeus' Symbol of Faith or St. Hippolytus' baptismal creed are pretty good examples of how creedalism developed into the Old Roman Symbol--and its much later medieval form, the Apostles' Creed--all of which are prototypical of what would be laid down at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in the 4th century.

Christianity simply doesn't exist without creeds, Christianity is utterly dependent upon its confession, on its Credo.

-CryptoLutheran

I have no interest in debating Christianity's dependence on creeds. And as for what Jesus did and didn't say, well, the LDS religion exists because it claims Jesus said something that others don't believe he said. So there is little point arguing what will always be an irreconcilable point. Would you agree?

 

[Norah63]

Is trinity a cult?

 

[RDKirk]

What is a cult anyway?

In my younger days I read several books about "cults", Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults is what immediately comes to mind. In the particular tradition of the Evangelical counter-cult culture a cult is more-or-less defined as a religious sect with aberrant or heretical theology. A definition that I've seen some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists apply to Roman Catholics just as equally as to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Largely as the standards often used are what is standard American Evangelicalism, one of the newest kids on the block in the history of the Christian faith.

And that seems problematic, if a "cult" is largely defined entirely by the subjective views of a particular sect or particular tradition then it really just becomes "Anything different than me and mine is a cult."

When people study the sociology of religion the term "cult" is, in fact, used; but it is used sociologically rather than theologically. There are certain distinctive elements which are looked for that define a cult, such as controlling behavior of the members, granting unusually high power, authority, and lack of accountability to its leader or leaders. Those sorts of things. This changes the dynamics a bit, because the actual theology of any given group is somewhat irrelevant; it isn't whatever things a group believes that another group thinks is "weird" that determines what is or isn't a cult, it is instead the potential of harm that a group puts upon its members. Something far more measurable and objective.

Because, from where I sit, there are plenty of aberrant and heretical theologies out there. From a position of historical orthodoxy the Word of Faith Movement and its Prosperity doctrines is no less heretical and a divergence from historical orthodoxy than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreso, very often such large prosperity churches do seem to have many of the characteristics of a cult. Such prosperity preachers who self-designate themselves often as apostles and/or prophets will antagonistically identify themselves as being anointed by God and to speak against them is to speak against "God's anointed" which will bring destruction and damnation to the critic.

Further, let's talk about organizations such as Mars Hill, at least when Mars Hill was under the totalitarian grip of Mark Driscoll. This might be more of a local thing as it was based out of Seattle and I'm a Washingtonian, but I'm sure many hear have heard of Driscoll or heard of the terrible things that came out of that organization/church. For all intents and purposes Mars Hill was a just a standard Evangelical/Fundamentalist church with a quasi-Calvinist theology and thus pretty well in line with the standard of what is orthodox; here is an example of a cult that could blend in to the great American Evangelical landscape. And, yes, Mars Hill is--or at least was--a cult, a highly destructive and totalitarian cult.

The Church of Scientology is a cult, not because of the stuff about Xenu, but because of the CoS's destructive, authoritarian, and--frankly--evil ways of doing business.

Heterodoxy is not the same thing as a cult.
Nominal orthodoxy is no safeguard against cultishness.

There are plenty of heterodox groups which are not cults.
There are plenty of orthodox groups which are cults.
And, further, as in the case of the CoS a cult doesn't even need to be nominally Christian to fit the description--a cult doesn't even need to be explicitly religious in nature to be a cult.

-CryptoLutheran

Good post. I've had thoughts that circled in the same direction, but it's good to see them posted for discussion.

Interesting, though, how most of the responding posters so far seem to have utterly missed your point, especially the very cogent recognition of the Mars' Hill situation.

We're talking about defining "cult" in terms of how the organization is structured and operated rather than its doctrine per se (although doctrine can determine how its run).

A congregation with an acceptably orthodox doctrine might still be run like a cult. Having been in the military, my family has moved frequently and thus been in a good many different congregations and visited a good many congregations.

One of the things we look for is whether a congregation has relationships with other congregations. A pastor that has no relationships with surrounding pastors or worse, attempts to sequester his members from Christians outside the congregation is a big red flag IMO.

I'm going to repeat this for emphasis:

There are plenty of heterodox groups which are not cults.
There are plenty of orthodox groups which are cults.
And, further, as in the case of the CoS a cult doesn't even need to be nominally Christian to fit the description--a cult doesn't even need to be explicitly religious in nature to be a cult.

 

[Niblo]

Hello ViaCrucis,

Thought provoking post, but I have to pull you for writing: ‘In my younger days….…’

This term is reserved for us Fogeys…..not to be used by Spring Chickens like you.

Have a great day.

 

[LoAmmi]

I would say the description people give of practices has a lot to do with how they are perceived.

Imagine if I described to you a group that gathered once a week to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their founder. Sounds like a scary bunch, doesn't it?

 

[drstevej]

Attributing Christ's words to Joseph Smith is comfortable way to dismiss their truth. Or so I presume.

Prove the "Personage" was Jesus.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Prove the "Personage" was Jesus.

Prove that Jesus is resurrected and I will.

 

[drstevej]

Prove that Jesus is resurrected and I will.

You might start with my friend's book:

Jesus on Trial, David Limbaugh

 

[Niblo]

To drstevej and taste for Truth:

Gentlemen,

Please allow me to butt in on your conversation.

I was a committed Christian for almost sixty years, until the time I could no longer accept certain doctrines that I had championed for all of this time.

Your current ‘prove this’……no…..’prove that’ conversation serves no useful purpose, since neither of you are going to give way (or to see any good reason why you should). I beg you not to go on wasting each other’s time. Please agree to differ; and leave it to the Beloved.

Thank you.

Paul

 

[smaneck]

But calling all creeds an abomination is a first principle of Smithism.

Actually, I think it only calls Christian creeds an abomination.

But since your Bible calls catfish an abomination, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[com7fy8]

One basic thing I have been told is that a cult is a group of people who deny that Jesus is "God". And they claim the Bible but do not go by what it says. And they control their members. They might make some person or thing the "enemy" and keep a lot of attention on that enemy and make a project of criticizing that enemy, and this keeps attention away from how their own leader or leadership is wrong.

Of course, by the way, any of us can do this, our own selves > I mean, how we can be so busy pointing the finger at someone else so we and others don't notice how we ourselves are wrong.

Also, I see how a cult can have very different things and standards and requirements so they can say, only we have this and this is essential and so you need to join us.

But a Christian denomination can do this, too > having more or less unique practices and beliefs and saying they are so important and no one or not everyone else has them and so you need to join that denomination. So a denomination can be cultic.

But in our relating we can show off things about ourselves, which we value, in order to attract people to us, so we can have people who want what we want so we can use them. But using favorite people for what we treasure is not loving them. Jesus wants us to love any and all people > Matthew 5:46. So, we each can be cultic by being in-crowding and favoritistic, picking and choosing who is worth loving and forgiving so we can use those people.

And in a cult there can be isolation in different ways.

But a basic is denying that Jesus is God, and not going by the Bible. So, this could include a lot of publicly accepted religious groups and philosophies, like Judaism and Islam and "New Age".

"Salvation by works" is another thing that can be in a cult, or in a denomination; but also . . . any of us can have our ways of dictating what people have to do to be saved and real Christians.

But I think a "true cult" can be one that counterfeits Christianity, by somehow changing from who and how Jesus is, and with this not going by God's word, pushing things which the Bible does not require, and having close control of members, with isolation.

But ones in denominations can diminish who Jesus is, simply by making Him theoretical, mainly a doctrine, and not making a point of dealing with how He is our example which is required of us >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Ones can make a project, instead, of saying oh we're not perfect, we can't be like Jesus, when in fact the Bible and His example require that we love like Jesus has loved us. And this is possible with God who is able to cure our character so we become "as He is", 1 John 4:17 says, "in this world." And Paul says how this can be done, in Philippians 2:14-16 . . . how God in us (Philippians 2:13) succeeds in us with us

Therefore, there are people who diminish who Jesus is, by staying away from how He is our example, and instead the push their doctrine and belief stuffing of verse arguing.

They might openly say "Jesus is God", but represent Him in ways the Bible does not represent how He is Lord and God's own Son. This can be done by denominations or individual pastors. I know one pastor who seems to me to have said that Jesus did not have connection with our Father so Jesus could get His teaching from the Father; he said he thinks Jesus could have traveled to the East in order to get His education. Yet, this ordained minister is a mainstream denomination's pastor and well-reputed for always visiting anyone he hears is in a hospital. And he claims to highly regard a Protestant reformer named in his denomination's name, but I do not think that reformer would agree with him . . . if the reformer was by the Bible; because the Bible clearly says that Jesus said "'I and My Father are one.'" (John 10:30) And Jesus said, "the Father who dwells in Me does the works," in John 14:10. So, I think this "proves" that Jesus was in connection with our Father.

And Jesus is our example, how we need to do everything in connection with and submission to our Father in us > Galatians 2:20, Philippians 2:13. So, a cultic person can deny this so he or she can lead someone away from how God would personally guide that person. And can't any of us avoid being submissive to our Father . . . so that in our "free will" we can be choosing things we want? So, we can be cultic, too, our own dictators!!

In denominations there are members who think they know what all people in their groups believe. One time, I tested this, about what members think about the communion bread and drink. A guy promoting the denomination had told me they all believe such and such. So, I asked a man nearby what he believed, and he said he did not know about what the bread and drink are. But the one I would say is a cultic member was trying to speak for everyone.

This is another cultic thing > how leaders expect everyone to be the same. They can be very smiling and talking nicely in public, but not spend time actually getting to know someone and one's unique needs and ways and feelings and interests. They can have a one-size-fits-all way with their people. A lording-over leader (1 Peter 5:3) might not spend time with you unless something is wrong or he or she wants something. There are "even" Bible believing leaders who can be cultic like this.

So, we need to check our own selves, about how any of us can be cultic >

> by not representing how Jesus really is, but instead being unforgiving and isolating ourselves from ones Jesus wants us to share with and reach with His love and example;

> by being stubborn to hold on to things we learned while we were not mature, maybe denying correction because it would mean our idol leaders were wrong in what they taught us while we were new believers > yes, I see how ones can make an idol of their teachers and groups, and stubbornly hold to what they were capable of believing while immature or not even Christians;

> picking and choosing who is good enough for us to love, having favoritism, though Jesus has plainly said > "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

> making someone else our main enemy, so we can point our finger away from how we ourselves need correction; I keep discovering how I have been my own main problem!!

So, a point is that if other humans have been able to get into cults, we ourselves also are not perfect; so yes we can fool our own selves and make our own selves our dictators and cult leaders of our own selves!! And then we are in deception so we are easier to fool, by others. So, most of all, we need to get real with God, ourselves.

And Jesus says, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (in Luke 9:23) And learn how to love any and all people, like Jesus wants. Or - - we "could" be making ourselves and our little church and family in-crowds a sort of a cult.

My own self is my real enemy. By being weak in selfish loving for my treasure pleasures and favorite people, I am weak enough to be hurt and stay unforgiving. And cult people can play me with whatever I treasure which is not God's will. Also, by the way, if I am under the power of money, I can be controlled by whoever controls the money. So, we need to be wise to our own selves, and wise to whatever we treasure for pleasure (1&2 Corinthians, both verse 6:12 ); and get real correction > Hebrews 12:6-11 > so there isn't anything that Satan and wrong people can use as bait to control us.

 

[smaneck]

Given that Jesus would have been familiar with and agreed with the Sh'ma, I think it's fairly safe to say that He never suggested that creeds be done away with.

I think by 'creeds' here Christian denominations are meant. If recall the story correctly Joseph Smith was trying to decide which church to join when he has a vision telling him that they are all abominations.