Cultism

Cultism and the ICC

Introduction
One of the most heated topics concerning the International Churches of Christ is the concept of cultism. Here I will discuss cultism in general, the various criteria for "cults" that have been offered by some, and how these might compare to the ICOC and historic Christianity.

The Label
The term "cult" clearly has a negative connotation in our society today. It labels a group as weird, bad and to be avoided, as in its use concerning groups such as The People's Temple (Jim Jones), The Branch Davidians (David Koresh), Heaven's Gate and others. The term is intended to conveniently reduces a complex circumstance to an easy label, avoiding an honest and thoughtful discussion of individual issues surrounding that group. Consider the following story:

In a midwestern suburb a religious organization called Eckankar had scheduled an informal meeting for the public in the community room of a local bank. Following the publication of a story in a major local newspaper describing Eckankar as a "religious cult," the bank changed its mind and withdrew its approval of the use of the room by the group. "We weren't aware they were considered a cult," explained the bank's branch manager ("A Guide to Cults & New Religions," by Ronald Enroth and others, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1983 p.9).

While I recognize that there are destructive religious groups (and don't endorse the beliefs of Eckankar), using the "cult" term seems designed to influence people (like this bank branch manager) to reach a conclusion without the messy details of actually thinking about the subject matter at hand. Whoever instigated the article on Eckankar in this case received exactly what was hoped for: a stigmatization of a religious group. The bank manager didn't object to any characteristics of Eckankar; he or she may not have even cared about those things. But the resulting action was based upon one thing: the "cult" label. A thinking person who values and respects the rights and beliefs of others (even if he doesn't agree with those beliefs) must look past labels and consider characteristics if he wants to know the truth about a particular religious group.

The Label and The Critieria
LaVonne Neff makes some interesting comments concerning cults from a historic point of view, which I will quote at length here:

At different times and in different places, Lutherans and Mennonites and Methodists have also been called cults. For that matter, so has the entire Christian church. A cult is a small group that considers a larger group to be dead wrong. The first Christians criticized both pagan Rome and traditional Judaism. Lutherans broke with the Renaissance papacy, Mennonites stood apart from all institutionalized sixteenth-century churches. And Methodists combatted the moral laziness they saw in eighteenth-century Anglicanism.
Some cults have, in the long run, built up the Christian church by giving it more zeal, fresh insights, stronger commitment. Others have separated from the Christian church either to create rival institutions or to quietly fade away. To the church, however, any cult is a potential threat because it is an accusation. It is saying that the church is inadequate or wrong.

Obviously the church, made up of human beings, is often inadequate and sometimes wrong. Merely pointing out the church's faults does not make a group evil or dangerous. The biblical prophets, after all, did not mince words. So how can Christians evaluate cults, new religions and other groups that share cultic characteristics? (Enroth, op. cit., p. 191-192.)

Neff illustrates the problem from a religious point of view-- groups that find traditional religion inadequate get labeled cultic, but God has also used such groups throughout history for his purposes. And this raises the question: how do you discern between something that is different, good and of God and something that is different but not good and not of God? And how does one rise about the age-old human inclination that moves some people to dismiss a challenge (perhaps by labelling the challenger) instead of heeding the message when it is right? Enter the list of "cult criteria."

Cult Criteria
Every author and "expert" weighing in on the subject of cultism offers a list of "cult characteristics." According to this paradigm, there are two primary steps along the way towards identifying groups as cultic.

Define a generic, objective criteria to define cults.
Evaluate the practices of a particular group against the cult criteria.

This whole "criteria approach" sounds scientific and above the complaints of petty bias, at least on the surface. But there are serious problems with each of these steps.

Begging the Question
The way some of these criteria are found is shocking. Researchers take groups that they consider "cultic" or "objectionable" (and different from themselves, I might add), identify charcteristics that are objectionable (or simply different), and proclaim these characteristics as the "objective criteria of a cult." In logic, this is a fallacy known as "begging the question," assuming that which is to be proven. And what does it "prove?" That anyone sufficiently different from them is a cult-- exactly the expected result! How convenient-- but entirely unscientific. As alluded to above, the demonizing of different groups is hardly a new thing in the history of Christianity (for more, see the article on the history of persecution and criticism. and an interesting cartoon that also makes this point). But beware of criteria that cite deviation from someone's status quo as the mark of a cult.

Cultism from a Religious Point of View
A good example of the criteria that the religious cult-watchers employ is given by Ronald Enroth. Some of these criteria- especially the notion of authoritarianism and an esoteric flavor- are certainly warning signs for any group, while the others may show signs of the "begging the question" fallacy. But we need to evaluate the characteristics of a group and weigh them against the Bible and not a man-made "cult criteria" to test if these are righteous or not.

Totalism and Cultism from a Psychological Point of View
Smart researchers-- including those with a religious motive for assigning the "cult" label-- reject the often biased and self-serving "cult" labels from the religious world that are described above. Instead, they consider the work of psychologists and/or sociologists. For example, Robert J. Lifton analyzed experiences from Communist China "brainwashing" camps and arrived at eight criteria that defined the Communist Chinese totalist and thought reform experience. He expressed these criteria in terms that could be applied to any manipulative and totalistic group.

Similarly, Steven Hassan utilized his experience as a former "Moonie" and in working with others in harmful groups and defined four critera oriented around the "control" aspects of "destructive cults." Wisely, he recognizes that "control" can be either good or evil, and that "control" is present in many areas of life. He considers the undermining of personal integrity in decision-making the definitive mark of a destructive cult (Hassan, p.55).

Because these methods yield an attractive list of criteria that at least seem more scientific, both Hassan's and Lifton's items merit a closer look than the biased methods of most religious researchers.

Remember the Bible and Sound Scientific Study
A word of caution: people who would accept these criteria as though they has either Biblical or scientific authority. Neither are these the product of serious Scriptural study or the product of unambiguous and solid scholarly and scientific research. Even their proponents would agree that these criteria are simply attempting to get a handle on an extremely complex sociological phenomenon. They would recognize that many "normal" organizations do indeed meet many of the criteria-- rendering the criteria relatively useless and downright misleading when handled in a casual or careless manner.

In terms of the Bible, we should remember that the Bible judges all of us; it is not up to us to judge the Bible. Now if what the Bible calls men to do is the same as what these researchers call "cultic," what should man do? Should he obey what the Scriptures teach and endure the abuse of being called cultic? Should he do what fits in with the crowd and avoids criticism, on that basis alone? The answer is obvious: he must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Accordingly, it is important to take these criteria and compare them to the ministry of Jesus and/or the early church. In doing so, one will see that Christianity is indeed "cultic" in a very real sense because of the unique claims of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that Jesus was abusive or deceptive (though he was accused of all sorts of things), but it does show that people must consider these criteria and the Biblical record of Christianity very carefully. It is my hope that you will carefully evaluate my analysis of Hassan's and Lifton's efforts in these areas.

Final Comments on Cultism
In my opinion, this whole "cult issue" is largely irrelvant, usually trotted out by an opponent hoping for an "easy victory" over a particular group using a cheap ad populum argument. In this regard the media is often an unwitting accomplice, sacrificing integrity to its own god of more readers and higher ratings.

In my opinion, the thinking person must dismiss the usage of the term "cult" (as convenient and attractive as it may be) as an appeal to sensationalistic fears and emotions without regard for facts and truth concerning specific groups and issues.

It is far wiser and more appropriate to consider the Biblical mandates for Christianity and consider applying them to life rather than to consider worldly criteria for the social structure of the church. After all, what God says and what we do about his words is what matters. What other people say about what God has said and what his followers do is fundamentally irrelevant. Those who find "cultic tendancies" in any church (including the ICOC) would do well to consider whether or not these characteristics are a part of the Biblical mandate for Christianity and go from there.