MennoNet.com

TeleBodyofChrist wrote:My instinct tells me that most groups do not start off with the obvious signs and this happens over time. Most people would not join something that is obviously a cult. A group probably starts off with good intentions but the sinful nature of man gets in the way. Since, the devil is a deceiver they manipulate people gradually into things that they would be willing to do.

That definitely matches my experience with the one church that became a cult.

GaryK wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:

Josh wrote:Really controlling people who assert their authority over others without love.

Authorities who never admit mistakes or repent of sins. Unwillingness to have their claims questioned or to discuss things to see if they are true.

Taking offense when someone asks if something is true rather than providing information. Not correcting things like falsified pictures on websites when they are pointed out. Doubling down on this kind of thing, taking offense that anyone would dare question something even when it has been clearly shown to be false.

Let's see, is this about the 50th time you have let all of us know how you feel about Max?

When I was in that church that became a cult, I had leaders who were real experts at this.

Some of that may come out in my relationship with Max. I don't want to play by the rules he makes up. These things rhyme with what I experienced in that other church. And if we're too "nice" to be able to ask what is true, we're probably not being very nice to other people who aren't as loud about it.

I'd like to have a good relationship. I don't think letting him make up the rules should be a precondition for that relationship. I continue to be open to mediation at any time.

Bootstrap wrote:

GaryK wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:
Authorities who never admit mistakes or repent of sins. Unwillingness to have their claims questioned or to discuss things to see if they are true.

Taking offense when someone asks if something is true rather than providing information. Not correcting things like falsified pictures on websites when they are pointed out. Doubling down on this kind of thing, taking offense that anyone would dare question something even when it has been clearly shown to be false.

Let's see, is this about the 50th time you have let all of us know how you feel about Max?

When I was in that church that became a cult, I had leaders who were real experts at this.

Some of that may come out in my relationship with Max. I don't want to play by the rules he makes up. These things rhyme with what I experienced in that other church. And if we're too "nice" to be able to ask what is true, we're probably not being very nice to other people who aren't as loud about it.

I'd like to have a good relationship. I don't think letting him make up the rules should be a precondition for that relationship. I continue to be open to mediation at any time.

All I'm saying Boot, is that it gets quite wearying to see you constantly hammering away at this. I think others have tried to mediate in the past. IMO MN would be better off if you would just let it go.

GaryK wrote:All I'm saying Boot, is that it gets quite wearying to see you constantly hammering away at this. I think others have tried to mediate in the past. IMO MN would be better off if you would just let it go.

How do we do that without saying that Max has a special dispensation to make up whatever he wants to, and we all agree not to point out where the things he says the Catholic church teaches disagree with official Catholic teaching, not to point out the fake pictures on his website, etc., so that he can comfortably position himself as someone whose authority is not to be questioned? Nobody else seems to need the special protection that Max asks for. And I wonder if it is wise to give it to him.

If we care about truth, perhaps it would be better if people would urge him to respond to basic questions about the claims he presents, so we can determine what is true over time? I think we sometimes enable bad behavior by avoiding confrontation at any cost. And in the long run, that leads to bad blood too.

Back to Disordered Cults:

MaxPC wrote:

RZehr wrote:#2 Leadership with no accountability, without transparency.

RZehr, I agree about the transparency. What model of accountability would be helpful?

Good list, Telebody. I'm going to add a variant the CC has had to deal with: a person who was a part of a recognized organization but who formed a special group around himself. This happened in recent history and he was excommunicated.

MaxPC wrote: RZehr, I agree about the transparency. What model of accountability would be helpful?

Excellent! Let's start there ...

Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform, often used by sociologists in indentifying cultic group behavior:

1. Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

2. Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.

3. Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

4. Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

5. Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

6. Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clich�s, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

7. Doctrine over person. Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

8. Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)

My experience with cultic leaders has been that they tend towards sociopath type behaviour. They are very soft spoken, seem to be very kind, very caring at first. In this way they can manipulate very intelligent people into following and so obtain or increase credibility with the rest of the people. The influence of the sociopath is incredibly powerful; arguing or disputing does little good because he sees himself as being above everything else.

Initially, there will be some kind of dispute between the sociopath and established, conventional leadership. One way to avoid getting caught up is to be very discerning about those who challenge leadership. After someone is caught in the web, attempts to prove them wrong will most often drive them further away from the truth.

I am not an authority on this subject and don't really have hard facts to back up my views.

H.O. And QP: good points.

H.O. brings up an important aspect: charisma of the cult leader. He or she (as the case may be) seeks ways to be the authority with "all the answers in the room" to capture followers and undermine legitimate authority.

Catholic World has had its share of such types as has the other faith groups. I like what Gamaliel says in Acts 5 when he reminds the others that usually within the lifetime of the cult leader, the cult implodes because it was partly based on the leader's personality. For us we see the damage - On the one hand it hurts those who were deceived by the cult leader. On the other, it presents us with a healing ministry opportunity.

[bible]Acts 5,34-39[/bible]

MaxPC wrote:H.O. brings up an important aspect: charisma of the cult leader. He or she (as the case may be) seeks ways to be the authority with "all the answers in the room" to capture followers and undermine legitimate authority.

A cult leader claims to be the legitimate authority. In a cult, the cult leader is the "legitimate" authority, and challenging "legitimate" authority is simply not allowed.

In a discerning group, different people can look at the same issue, share their understandings, compare them, and seek what is true and good. In a cult, someone claims an authority that is not to be questioned, refuses to respond to questions that challenge something he has said, and tries to marginalize anyone who questions his authority. In a discerning group, people respond to each other. In a cult, people are controlled so they don't have to be responded to. Shaming, guilting, shunning, and excluding people are important tools for controlling people in cults. Most people stop asking questions.

In a discerning group, we look to traditional sources of authority and truth, and what each of us say is measured against them. In a cult, the leader himself is a source of authority. If the leader is Jim, it's almost like Jim said it, I believe it, that settles it. Jim is the source of truth. Members will be corrected regularly, but Jim will not be. Members are expected to ask forgiveness, but Jim is not. Members are expected to do things for Jim, but Jim isn't expected to do the same things for other members.

You don't have that in a discerning group of Christians. Everything we say needs to be measured against real sources of truth. No human being is the source of truth.