Church or cult?

[Josh]

Yeah, that is sort of what I thought.

So, sort of like Compass Foundation?

I'm unclear on if Compass Foundation is actually a foundation or a nonprofit. CloudVeil is. CloudVeil Messenger in particular is free of charge, thanks to the largess of other donor foundations.

Compass Foundation is a much larger organisation with significantly more staff.

[Sudsy]

My main point in that post about the Holdemans is that what one calls a cult others would not. Would some here call the Seventh Day Adventists a cult ?

This article ends with 'Clearly, SDA teaches a false gospel and has many of the hallmarks of a cult.'

https://faithalone.org/blog/is-seventh- ... da-a-cult/

Some might say TULIP Baptists are a cult or any group not believing in OSAS are a cult. Or Charismatics are a cult. Or tongues speaking groups are cults. Or those who use musical instruments are cults. Etc, etc.

One definition is 'a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister' then I suspect all our church groups in some way of another could be called a cult.

[Ken]

My main point in that post about the Holdemans is that what one calls a cult others would not. Would some here call the Seventh Day Adventists a cult ?

This article ends with 'Clearly, SDA teaches a false gospel and has many of the hallmarks of a cult.'

https://faithalone.org/blog/is-seventh- ... da-a-cult/

Some might say TULIP Baptists are a cult or any group not believing in OSAS are a cult. Or Charismatics are a cult. Or tongues speaking groups are cults. Or those who use musical instruments are cults. Etc, etc.

One definition is 'a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister' then I suspect all our church groups in some way of another could be called a cult.

Just having unorthodox beliefs doesn't make a group a cult. They have to be exerting severe control over the members, preventing them from leaving. And generally have some sort of charismatic leader who is running the show. I don't think Seventh Day Adventists or charismatic Christians meet that definition. They don't hold people captive, separate them from their families and the outside world and brainwash them or have authoritarian leaders.

Seventh Day Adventists are like any other mainstream group in that people freely come and go. Mostly go as the are bleeding membership like most mainstream Christian groups, perhaps more so.

[Sudsy]

My main point in that post about the Holdemans is that what one calls a cult others would not. Would some here call the Seventh Day Adventists a cult ?

This article ends with 'Clearly, SDA teaches a false gospel and has many of the hallmarks of a cult.'

https://faithalone.org/blog/is-seventh- ... da-a-cult/

Some might say TULIP Baptists are a cult or any group not believing in OSAS are a cult. Or Charismatics are a cult. Or tongues speaking groups are cults. Or those who use musical instruments are cults. Etc, etc.

One definition is 'a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister' then I suspect all our church groups in some way of another could be called a cult.

Just having unorthodox beliefs doesn't make a group a cult. They have to be exerting severe control over the members, preventing them from leaving. And generally have some sort of charismatic leader who is running the show. I don't think Seventh Day Adventists or charismatic Christians meet that definition. They don't hold people captive, separate them from their families and the outside world and brainwash them or have authoritarian leaders.

Seventh Day Adventists are like any other mainstream group in that people freely come and go. Mostly go as the are bleeding membership like most mainstream Christian groups, perhaps more so.

But this is your definition of a cult, right ? When I look at how various Internet definitions describe it, they are different. They do often speak of strict following a leader but sometimes churches are run by a very small group acting in the same way as a leader. They all speak to me of having control issues.

[Ken]

My main point in that post about the Holdemans is that what one calls a cult others would not. Would some here call the Seventh Day Adventists a cult ?

This article ends with 'Clearly, SDA teaches a false gospel and has many of the hallmarks of a cult.'

https://faithalone.org/blog/is-seventh- ... da-a-cult/

Some might say TULIP Baptists are a cult or any group not believing in OSAS are a cult. Or Charismatics are a cult. Or tongues speaking groups are cults. Or those who use musical instruments are cults. Etc, etc.

One definition is 'a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister' then I suspect all our church groups in some way of another could be called a cult.

Just having unorthodox beliefs doesn't make a group a cult. They have to be exerting severe control over the members, preventing them from leaving. And generally have some sort of charismatic leader who is running the show. I don't think Seventh Day Adventists or charismatic Christians meet that definition. They don't hold people captive, separate them from their families and the outside world and brainwash them or have authoritarian leaders.

Seventh Day Adventists are like any other mainstream group in that people freely come and go. Mostly go as the are bleeding membership like most mainstream Christian groups, perhaps more so.

But this is your definition of a cult, right ? When I look at how various Internet definitions describe it, they are different. They do often speak of strict following a leader but sometimes churches are run by a very small group acting in the same way as a leader. They all speak to me of having control issues.

I copied and pasted the standard four characteristics of a cult upstream from some reference website on cults if there wasn't a link. Not my definition, the standard one.

[Josh]

The definition of words is not what same random webpage claims they are. Words have meanings, and it’s usually not too hard to find the standard meanings.

Some religious groups call anyone who doesn’t share their doctrine a “cult”. I think this is wrong.

[Ken]

The definition of words is not what same random webpage claims they are. Words have meanings, and it’s usually not too hard to find the standard meanings.

Some religious groups call anyone who doesn’t share their doctrine a “cult”. I think this is wrong.

It wasn't a definition. It was a list of characteristics that most cults share: (1) authoritarian control, (2) extremist beliefs, (3) isolation from society, and (4) veneration of a single individual.

Do you think those are off-base? If so, what alternative characteristics would you use to describe actual cults?

[Judas Maccabeus]

While there are other "indicators" of a group's leaning toward cult-like behavior - being "cult-ish" - I would consider the presence of some heretical belief to be a requirement for designation as a cult. Is severe "mind-control" through power structures also required? It does seem that this feature is also nearly always is included.

I have seen “real” cults in action. While all churches that are high involvement have a few of the features of one, the level of autonomy that a local church has prevents it from becoming one. It is not unheard of for a local church to leave a conference if it gets to a point where the majority disagree with the leadership. In a like vein, congregations divide over seemingly small issues. So there is a check on a congregation ever becoming a cult.

I have too, although have never been involved in one myself.

I was approached by "Jesus Only" people while in my Freshman year at Bible institute, then a friend from there came to visit me at the Bible college where I transferred to for my Sophomore year (and on). He was a member of "The Church at Chicago" - The Local Church (Witness Lee). Right off, as he began telling me about it, I thought it was a cult, but at around 2 or 3 in the morning, he had me convinced that his group was just misunderstood and misrepresented by other churches. As I (vocally) accepted that, he made the following comment: he said, "I was also uncertain about them when I first attended one of their meetings, because as I walked in, they were all chanting 'Jesus is watermelon.'" Then I knew. And further conversation with him confirmed it, when he told me that because Jesus has a body, and is seated at the right HAND of the Father, and "God is Spirit", that only the Holy Spirit is truly God, the others just being some sort of "representation" of God (the Spirit). Ironically, I had only recently written a paper for Theology class, that stated that "No Christian heresy or cult has ever denied the deity of the Father." Well, first time for everything, I guess. [I later met a member of The Local Church from a different city, and we visited at length (He had come along with another friend for a weekend visit at my parent's house), and he at least didn't hold to any beliefs I would say were heretical. Just the exclusiveness of being the only true Church in an entire city.]

I also knew a girl there at the Bible college who had been high up in the "Moonies". She was a traveling lecturer, until the lack of proper nutrition put her in the hospital. (One bowl of rice a day, she told me.) The organization paid her hospital bills for the first 2 months, then abandoned her. At that point an aunt of hers, a sister of her mother, took her in. This aunt was a Christian, and she (my friend) also became a Christian. (She had run away from home at 15 years of age, and her parents were Morman, so that was her background.) During the Summer after the school year when we met, she was taken in by "The Children of God". They required her to cut off ties with all family and former friends. She was still a relatively new Christian, and only as time went on did she realize that she had gotten into another cult. She fled them, and checked herself into a program run by the organization started by David Wilkerson. Most of the girls in that home were there for drug abuse or prostitution recovery, but she was not involved in either of those things. She had just realized that her issues with family relationships indicated that she needed more help than she was getting elsewhere. After completing the 6 month program there, she stayed on as staff. I called her a couple of times while she was still in the program, and the person who answered would not admit that she was even staying there, and asked me so many questions that I felt like I was on trial or something. I didn't react well to that, and refused to give them more than my first name. She called me back later, and sort of scolded me for not cooperating, because, she said, people from The Children of God were searching for her, and probably would have abducted her. Some time after that I lost contact with her altogether, but I often think of her, and pray that she is doing well, and in a good Christian congregation.

She sure hit the cycle of 80s cults. Sadly, I saw all three of these back in college. The "Shepherding Movement" was big, in my parts had a distinctly Charismatic flavor. Many evenings my wife and I had someone unloading in our small apartment. It was hard for some of them to get their autonomy back.

[steve-in-kville]

Narcistic leadership will get you close in a hurry.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Narcistic leadership will get you close in a hurry.

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.