Church or cult?

[Verity]

Thinking of Steve's comment...

How do you define cult?

When does a church become a cult?

Can a church be "just church" to one member yet become a cult to another?

Are there obvious signs/red flags to watch for?

What are your thoughts?

Leadership that is accountable to no one.
Finances that are hidden from the congregation
Promotion of family members to leadership, in spite of qualification.
Claim that leadership has some sort of special "anointing" and are the only one God speaks to.
Misuse of information derived from counseling or confession.

I don't want to say that our conservative groups are cults.... but cult-ish


I forgot about this post I made a while back:

https://milepost81.com/2021/03/12/maybe ... -cult-ish/

Steve, I read this and some of your other posts. I am so sorry. God bless you as you find your identity in Christ.

[Verity]

cult [kult]
(plural cults)
n
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs
3. idolization of somebody or something: extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity (often used before a noun)
a cult following

4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration
5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts (often used before a noun)
cult status

6. ethnology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers
7. elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective


[Early 17th century. Directly or via French from Latin cultus “worship” (the original sense in English ), from colere (see culture).]

Copied directly from the dictionary, the emphasis added is mine.

Do we agree that any religious group has the potential to become cultic if power is abused or truth is distorted?

Not every individual would be susceptible to a cultist tendencies. I personally know hundreds of families who were not harmed by Gothardism, but also know of some who were hurt very badly by him and his organization. Could we discuss that a bit? What makes a person vulnerable to cults or cult-like groups?

[Ken]

Do we agree that any religious group has the potential to become cultic if power is abused or truth is distorted?

Not every individual would be susceptible to a cultist tendencies. I personally know hundreds of families who were not harmed by Gothardism, but also know of some who were hurt very badly by him and his organization. Could we discuss that a bit? What makes a person vulnerable to cults or cult-like groups?

I would not necessarily agree.

True cults perpetuate themselves by forcing their adherents to isolate themselves from the outside world and family. And tend to be centered on the actual veneration of a leader.

I don't think Gothard necessarily qualifies. People read his books and he was influential among a certain set. And he was also abusive. But as far as I know, people were free to come and go from his circle. I think his influence was mainly due to the fact that he told men with a certain mindset what they wanted to hear. So he was more of an enabler. To call it a cult tends to excuse those who got caught up in it and should have known better. Were these people you know who were harmed by Gothardism actually part of his circle? Did he know they existed and exert personal control over them? Or did they just take his lead on their own by reading his books? There is a difference. But then I may not know all that went on in his circles.

A single abusive individual doesn't make a cult, even if they were very influential. For example, John Howard Yoder was extremely abusive and also extremely influential in certain Mennonite circles. But he wasn't leading a cult.

[Verity]

Yes, Ken, they were actually part of his circle. It was nearly impossible for them to leave despite their eyes being opened and their attempts to get out. His control followed those who did get out, in the form of slander and threats. I've watched the same situation played out in Eastern. I want to be clear- NOT every congregation, not every area, not every leader. But too many times to ignore or write it off as someone having a bad day or mental episode.

Isolation can be very real in these circumstances, to the point of phones/computers/mail being monitored and controlled (we are talking about fully capable grown adults). Those who manage to break free typically have outside contacts/support. Threats and gaslighting can be severe enough that even very stable individuals begin to question their sanity and submit to unreasonable control tactics.

[Ken]

Yes, Ken, they were actually part of his circle. It was nearly impossible for them to leave despite their eyes being opened and their attempts to get out. His control followed those who did get out, in the form of slander and threats. I've watched the same situation played out in Eastern. I want to be clear- NOT every congregation, not every area, not every leader. But too many times to ignore or write it off as someone having a bad day or mental episode.

Isolation can be very real in these circumstances, to the point of phones/computers/mail being monitored and controlled (we are talking about fully capable grown adults). Those who manage to break free typically have outside contacts/support. Threats and gaslighting can be severe enough that even very stable individuals begin to question their sanity and submit to unreasonable control tactics.

OK, that does sound more cult-like. I was thinking it was more people who just read his books and were influenced by them to behave badly.

[Ernie]

Leaders that claim that they, are in fact, Apostles will get you there just as fast. I have seen that in my backyard. Ever hear of "Sovereign Grace?" That one blew up bad.

What about ones that think of themselves as apostles, and refer to their leaders as apostles in private, but don't publicly refer to themselves as such to avoid misunderstandings. I know of one such church that did this and it "blew up bad" as well. But I don't know that this would have to be a bad thing as long as they think of themselves as apostles and not Apostles. And as long as they were humble servants under the lordship of Christ.

[RZehr]

Leaders that claim that they, are in fact, Apostles will get you there just as fast. I have seen that in my backyard. Ever hear of "Sovereign Grace?" That one blew up bad.

What about ones that think of themselves as apostles, and refer to their leaders as apostles in private, but don't publicly refer to themselves as such to avoid misunderstandings. I know of one such church that did this and it "blew up bad" as well. But I don't know that this would have to be a bad thing as long as they think of themselves as apostles and not Apostles. And as long as they were humble servants under the lordship of Christ.

Strikes me as odd to have the desire to use a word like apostle but then refuse the Apostle. Doesn't pass the smell test.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

There are generally two definitions of "cult" that are commonly used.

The first is the traditional definition of "cult": a religious sect that holds views which are deemed far to unorthodox by the majority or authorities in the religion.
As an example, in the first-century Roman Empire, a group of Jews began calling themselves "The Way", and proclaiming a certain man, Jesus, to be the Annointed One promised by Israel's prophets, and declaring the way that Israel, and all the world with her, could find salvation. They were tolerated as a sect within Judaism for a time, but after a while, that toleration ended, and the mainstream Jewish community separated themselves from the sect of "Christians"; thus Christianity was a cult of Judaism.
As another example, Joseph Smith was a Christian man who claimed to have divinely received a whole new set of texts from God, and insisted that this new revelation was the next direction for the Christian church. The mainstream of the Christian church rejected these claims, and the sect following this new way (Mormons) were deemed a cult.
Note that, in both these examples, the "cults" are big enough to warrant being their own "religion". Lots of things start as cults, and with time and growth, eventually are no longer deemed a cult but a religion in their own right.

The second definition of cult, one used a lot in common parlance, is something like this: A group of people joined over common beliefs, ideals, or practices which are illiberal, particularly apparent by their practical lifestyle being more defined by, and preferring communion with, their particular in-group over the culture of the national society around them.

By this definition, I think a lot of churches (including many Biblical churches) are viewed as illiberal "cults".
The specifics of liberalism that are often broken are:
(1) Emphasis on the individual. Many cults define themselves by their group/tribe/found-family, rather than by individuals or nuclear-family units. Freedom is for the individual, and it means freedom from anything (even their religious group) defining values for any individuals. The individual has freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of other individuals. Anything that encroaches on this freedom is a cult.
(2) Private property. The institution of private property has arisen in the last 600+ years to be the dominant mode of material relationships between humans in all liberal societies. Any alternate ideas of developing human relationships involving material goods, particularly anything that looks like "community of goods" or "common purse" is incredibly illiberal and deemed as cult behavior.
(3) Rationalism as the rule for defining behavior. Although toleration of religious and supernatural beliefs is a staple of western liberal democracies, these irrational beliefs are expected to have a limited effect of the behavior, habits, and lifestyle of their believers. Dressing in a unique way is a good example of "over the line" for an illiberal cult. Belief in God is encouraged in your heart, but once you start really wearing that faith on your sleeve (pun intended), you're part of a cult.

[Ernie]

Leaders that claim that they, are in fact, Apostles will get you there just as fast. I have seen that in my backyard. Ever hear of "Sovereign Grace?" That one blew up bad.

What about ones that think of themselves as apostles, and refer to their leaders as apostles in private, but don't publicly refer to themselves as such to avoid misunderstandings. I know of one such church that did this and it "blew up bad" as well. But I don't know that this would have to be a bad thing as long as they think of themselves as apostles and not Apostles. And as long as they were humble servants under the lordship of Christ.

Strikes me as odd to have the desire to use a word like apostle but then refuse the Apostle. Doesn't pass the smell test.

In the New Testament there were Apostles appointed by Jesus, and then there were additional apostles. I think of Apostles as those appointed by Jesus and apostles as all the rest. I think it is entirely appropriate to use the word apostle (literally: one who is sent) for anyone who is sent to spread the Gospel. What I have a problem with is using the word Apostle that gives people today the same level of doctrinal and prophetic authority as the 12 that were appointed by Jesus.

[MaxPC]

Leaders that claim that they, are in fact, Apostles will get you there just as fast. I have seen that in my backyard. Ever hear of "Sovereign Grace?" That one blew up bad.

What about ones that think of themselves as apostles, and refer to their leaders as apostles in private, but don't publicly refer to themselves as such to avoid misunderstandings. I know of one such church that did this and it "blew up bad" as well. But I don't know that this would have to be a bad thing as long as they think of themselves as apostles and not Apostles. And as long as they were humble servants under the lordship of Christ.

Strikes me as odd to have the desire to use a word like apostle but then refuse the Apostle. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Likewise. Another observation regarding “new movements”. I use the Gamaliel maxim in Acts 5:39. I wait and watch for the fruits of the movement. Cults will tend to target those who are vulnerable and in emotional pain.