I had the immense privilege this past semester of taking Historical Theology II with Dr. John Hannah. One day, we had a discussion about classic American cults and he talked about common distinguishing factors of these cults of which five major themes were identified.
Now I am not sure anyone reading this would voluntarily enter a cult. If there is an advertisement hung over a building or there were pamphlets distributed that were labeled “cult”, we would probably run as well as if the elements listed below were glaringly obvious. However, one of the deceptive tricks of cults is to gain members by promoting something attractive that will respond to the desires, wants, and lack that individuals experience.
What I found fascinating is that these elements can (and sadly do) exist in some evangelical churches. No, not in full bloom that would label the ministry a cult – there are still beliefs founded on the work and person of Christ. But there are symptoms, I believe, that can create a cult-like ministry. So here are the five points that were raised in our notes and class discussion that I think make a compelling case for cult-like influences, or even worse, may point to the very existence of a “church” being a cult.
1) Time Factor – teaches new ideas: major cults have developed new ideas about what Christianity is that deviates substantially from the historic understanding of the faith of “what has been believed always, everywhere and by all”. Christianity has existed for over 2,000 years. It is founded on the work and person of Christ, and we have his written revelation that provides the foundation according to the apostolic witness. While understanding of that revelation has certainly grown and developed, the foundation has remained the same. The first four centuries experienced a refinement of definition of what exactly is Christianity through the ecumenical councils based on the apostolic witness transmitted through an oral tradition and sacred writings. What is interesting, is that this refining process was a result of unique ideas that were confronting the church at that time.
In the quest for cultural relevance today, tenets of the Christian tradition can be ignored or rejected in favor new ideas about what Christianity is about. Some might go so far as to project error on the work and position of the councils or the process by which key doctrine was established. If church leaders reject that foundation as irrelevant in favor of new doctrines and interpretations, especially where they deviate from what has been handed down, this could be a warning sign.
2) Doctrine Factor – denies some essential of the faith: with cults, some element of the faith is majorly distorted or eliminated, such as sin, grace or Christ.
The cult-like ministry will probably not overtly present distortions. But little twists can be introduced that start to uproot the faith. I believe this is compatible with the time factor, that relies on new ideas and new “revelation” as the presentation of truth. One reason this could happen is by isolating certain passages, lifting them out of context and/or not correlating them to the unified message of scripture.
Doctrine is important. It is not some boring academic exercise but is a set of teachings about the tenets of the Christian faith. Some may even dismiss doctrine as irrelevant and this could be a warning sign. I love what Spurgeon says about this
Some say such and such doctrine need not be preached and need not be believed. If it need not be preached, it need not be revealed. You impune the wisdom of God when you say a doctrine is unnecessary. For you say that God would reveal something that is not necessary.
Moreover, if a ministry determines that essential Christian doctrine is not valid because of some new or unique interpretation, it could be a sign that the interpretation of scripture is askew. I think what is important to realize is that scripture serves as the foundation for all distorted doctrine but whose meaning has been subject to faulty hermeneutics. This makes a solid case for leaders to get properly trained in Bible study methods and hermeneutics, church history and even the original languages to understand what has been handed down based on the complete witness of scripture.
3) Leadership Factor – elevates leadership to the level of authoritative spokesman: Cult movements have risen on the backs of the leaders that have founded them. There is something special about the leadership that addresses the needs and desires of people. Typically, they possess a charismatic personality that facilitates persuasion. People will follow this person unquestioned.
I am not saying that just because a leader has a magnificent presence, they are automatically suspect. Rather, this kind of leadership demands unquestioned obedience. You must believe what this person says as the dispenser of truth. Questioning their authority would be like questioning the very authority of God.
The church receives gifted leaders for the equipping of the saints (Ephesians 4:11-14). Those leaders are to train others regarding their growth and participation in the body of Christ to create maturity. It is not for the sake of promoting the leader, but promoting Christ, as Paul indicates in Colossians 1:28 – “we proclaim him, teaching and admonishing every man, so that we may present every man complete in Christ”. A leader that is truly pointing others to Christ will get out of the way, so that others see Christ and not the leader. That will include teaching the flock to examine scripture for themselves, promoting love and unity among the body that will provoke a willingness to serve other. But if we are talking more about what the pastor said or any other leader that has put himself in an authoritative position, it could be because that leader has exalted their position and teaching over scripture.
4) Biblical Authority Factor – there is a need for additional authority outside of the Bible: usually this has come in the form of direct “revelation” from God that has elevated the leader. It is what I call the Jesus Plus authority, which requires some performance or obedience to a written or verbal code outside of scripture.
The cult-like ministry will tend to undermine the authority of scripture and may have a low view of scripture. This can be intrinsically linked to the leadership factor that makes obedience to the leader on par with obedience to scripture. There may be an insistence that the leaders’ interpretation of scripture is important, which also may be fueled with other requirements that he insists are needed. Because there are extra factors incorporated into the fabric of faith, the members’ faithfulness to the ministry may be contingent on performance and result in a legalistic and grace-less community. Members may get worn out trying to live up to all the standards set for obedience prescribed by the ministry.
By grace are we saved through faith in Christ; it is a free gift due to God’s rich mercies (Ephesians 2:4-9). Sanctification is orchestrated by God in response to him (Philippians 2:12-13) and we are warned in scripture to accomplish ministry through life in the Spirit as opposed to humanly motivated works (Galatians 3:1-5; Colossians 2:16-18). That does not negate our human responsibility but there should be a culture of grace and promotion of brotherly love that encourages support and trust in Christ.
5) Organization Factor – they are the only dispensers of truth. Cults make the claim that they have an exclusive claim on the truth. Cults will insist they everyone else has missed it. This is compatible with the leadership factor whereby the leader has been given some kind of special divine “revelation”.
The cult-like ministry may not be so direct as to proclaim it’s teaching as exclusively true, but it may elevate their teaching above others. There may even be comparison’s drawn to other churches or doctrines, with an emphasis on how good the ministry’s interpretation is and that no one understands “Christianity” better than this particular ministry.
The truth is, only God is truth and he has revealed his truth through scripture. His word is truth (John 17:17) but our capacity is fallible. I believe a pastor that seeks to dispense God’s truth should be on a continual learning path and utilize whatever tools are available to understand God’s word better. While there should be a confidence in scripture, there has to be the humility to recognize that interpretive errors can, and do, occur.
A big warning sign is when leaders insist that they be the only voice of reason and teaching and discourage instruction from other sources. In fact, I would say this is a huge red flag. Why? Because we learn in community and no one person has a corner on truth. I believe the pastor that is committed to seeing his flock grow in grace and the true knowledge of Christ will encourage instruction from other sources, including voices of the past. This is why commentaries and systematic works are so valuable.
In closing, I think the cult-like ministry may take various forms based on one or a combination of these five elements manifested in a range from the mild to the extreme. I am not sure that leaders even set out to establish cult-like ministries but can end up taking detours somewhere along the way that results in ministries with these symptoms. But it ends up having the same devastating impact, nonetheless. I thought this quote is very revealing of cultish lure in this regard,
But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison. (Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory)
51 replies to "Five Signs You Might Be in a Cult-Like Ministry"
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….
FWIW, here are the online memoirs of a former member of the North Texas group we belonged to for 8-1/2 years (our time there overlapped with hers for awhile before we left; unlike her, though, we didn’t live on the Bible School property, though I attended and taught classes there):
http://emkaycomminup.blogspot.com/
(As all blogs go, the posts are in reverse chronological order.)
In her posts she mentions Wendy Duncan, who with her husband helps run an ex-cult support group in Dallas. Wendy wrote her story in her book, I Can’t Hear God Anymore: Life in a Dallas Cult, about her time in Ole Anthony’s group:
dallascult.com/
A key teaching was God’s view of “Delegated Authority.” This was the idea that the pastor had been given the vision for the group, and to question or oppose him was to oppose God Himself. This was explicitly taught via a book that was only allowed to be given to students at the Bible School (I didn’t even know about it until a “defector” gave me a copy), but it undergirded a lot of the things and thinking and explained the total lack of response from the church members when we began asking some questions for which we were never able to get straight answers, as well as the branding of us as troublemakers to be kept away from.
*sigh*
Is this the christian def. of a christian cult? If we look at the secular definition of a cult, would many more Christian churches fit the bill? Even by your def., 3-5 apply to most orthodox Christian churches. You def. is also a bit self selecting. Those other churches are cults, but not ours, trust me – wink, wink.
Eric said
I think this is significant. I admit that my ruminations on the five elements that Dr. Hannah brought up have been somewhat sifted through my own lens of involvement with such ministries. There was a campus outreach ministry I belonged to in the early to mid 80s that exhibited many of the components here especially the one Eric brought up. The core church that established the campus ministry had ministry houses where many singles lived and discouraged dating to the extent that single women would wear wedding bands as an indication that they were married to Jesus. Supposedly God had given the pastor the “revelation” that an old college campus would be theirs. Even after another church brought it, they held all night prayer vigils to reclaim the property. Your reluctance to do so categorized you as “unspiritual” Faithfulness to the ministry, even to the abdication of life responsibilities, was encouraged through endless service. Your commitment to the ministry and pastor’s vision showed your commitment to God. Questioning demonstrated unfaithfulness.
That was only the 3 years I was involved. I have friends who stayed for years and have stories to tell. I’m hoping to get them on here.
Well, at least you made perfectly clear why the scribes and Pharisees called first-century Christianity a cult-like ministry.
There is a difference between being cult-like and merely being heretical. However, I think points 3 and 4 are especially telling. Rooting authority in something which is not historic or apostolic, such as a person or new revelation is bound to lead to cult-like attitudes, even if their doctrine is for the most part correct.
As Helez points out, the Apostles certainly fell in the “danger zone,” however we set the apostles apart for the very reason that they and only they established the doctrine and direction of the church. And, it was their authority as a group, not as individuals.
Helez is right.
Based on this criteria, a Jew living in the 1st century would have seen Christianity as a cult.
I echo those who have pointed out the rich irony of these “cult” criteria. Jesus and his followers perfectly fit the bill as a “cult” from the perspective of a first century Pharisee.
The term “cult” stems from the Latin word for “worship”– cultus– but it has been hijacked by zealous Evangelicals in their quest to marginalize those with whom they disagree. Somehow they have managed to turn a perfectly good word into a pejorative term.
Regardless of whether a 1st century Jew would see Christianity as a cult or not (they would), that’s comparing apples to oranges. Judaism in the first century could not claim to have orthodox, standardized beliefs in the same way Christianity today can claim to. We mostly have the books of the Bible worked out now, which is a big step from 1st century Judaism.
What’s more, Jesus’ movement was not utterly cut off from mainstream Judaism in the beginning. Remember: he went into the synagogues (Pharisee territory) and to the temple (Sadducee territory or common ground). He did not intend to have a private little separatist movement. His intent was to reform Judaism completely. For that reason, it is not fair to say that Christianity is a cult by Lisa’s outlined definitions.
Jesus was a prophet in a time period that accepted prophets. Prophets had the legitimate authority to speak for God. Therefore, a claim to be a prophet *can* allow one to circumvent factor number three. Now, there are certainly false prophets, but that’s a separate issue.
It would seem that early Christianity was a jewish cult (and the only reason it is not now is because it is so big now) with the Apostles as cult leaders.
I think that a few assumptions have to be justified first to avoid this.
Guys, the argument of Christianity being a cult from Jewish perspective is misplaced. We know that’s what they thought (Acts 5:33-39). As Gary pointed out, the premise of the post is built on the orthodox understanding of Christianity and what deviates from that.
Hi Lisa
You wrote: “However, one of the deceptive tricks of cults is to gain members by promoting something attractive that will respond to the desires, wants, and lack that individuals experience.”
But doesn’t Christianity as a whole cater for those sorts of motivations in the first instance? Is not the Christian message intended for all those desiring Christ and wanting to be saved? And just how many newly initiated Christians will have had some prior experience with Christ and or churches?
You wrote: “major cults have developed new ideas about what Christianity is that deviates substantially from the historic understanding of the faith of “what has been believed always, everywhere and by all”. Christianity has existed for over 2,000 years.”
Does your 2,000 year old Christianity include the Great Schism that estranged RCs from Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Protestant reformation that estranges purely faith driven Christians from their “Works based” ones? Actual Christian History does not paint the kind of cohesive picture that you do. There were definitely new ideas about what constituted ‘true’ Christian belief from the historical faith in these two major divisions?
You Wrote:
“It is founded on the work and person of Christ … “
But from whose perspective? Obviously the winners right? And that did not include the Nazarene and Ebionim followers of the Way etc.
The foundation you attribute to the work of Christ could also rightly be interpreted as having been dismantled in the ensuing 400 years by a Church that compromised it’s integrity and origins for the sake of fitting into a paganised Western mindset. It all depends on your choice of Historian I guess.
You wrote:
“The cult-like ministry will tend to undermine the authority of scripture and may have a low view of scripture.”
Well I guess this definitely qualifies the Roman Catholic Church as a cult. Which leaves only the 400 year young…
Lisa wrote:
“Guys, the argument of Christianity being a cult from Jewish perspective is misplaced. We know that’s what they thought (Acts 5:33-39). As Gary pointed out, the premise of the post is built on the orthodox understanding of Christianity and what deviates from that.”
But that begs the question. What is the “orthodox understanding of Christianity”? Those you deem as “cults” consider themselves to be the true form of Christianity. So if we are going to find an objective definition of “cult” that everyone can agree with we have to first convince everyone to agree on what “orthodox” is. Good luck with that!
Art, in response to your comments,
The motivation should be to acquaint people with the Christ in order that they trust him to be their savior. Sadly, we have relied on methods to captivate emotions, which might be confused for actual trust. But I think the difference in the cult, is that the lure is to gain membership to support the organization and their beliefs. Christianity should be gaining membership in support of Christ. In the cult-like ministry, there will possibly be motivation to gain membership to support the local assembly but is still premised on having them trust in Christ. And I am not sure why a new Christian would or should have prior experience. The onus is on the local assembly to educate them.
Very true! This actually could have been a series. But for the sake of brevity, I did not want to go into the splintering of traditions that has occurred, and specifically between EO, RC and Protestantism.
I thought to do a parenthetical to #4 indicating that this would not reference RC. I do not believe it is applicable to RC because there is a high view of biblical authority. The difference is in hermeneutics and the premise that revelation was established in the writings and through the ecclesiastical body.
James, I would use this as a guide
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/essentials-and-non-essentials-how-to-choose-you-battles-carefully-chart-included/
However, the emphasis of the post was not on actual cults, but on how cult-like methodology can infiltrate the evangelical church
Lisa, reading this has reminded me afresh of one person I know who attends a cult church. He was born and raised in this church so he knows no other….although he did attend church with us one time. In his church they teach that the sin of Adam and Eve was adultery. They consider adultery to be the ‘unpardonable sin’ as far as I can tell. I’ve asked myself, “Why would Satan want them to believe that the sin or Eve was adultery?”. I finally realized that what is lost is an understanding of the Fall of man. Furthermore, they believe that just as Jesus lived a sinless life they too will eventually (somewhere in the future of their church) produce offspring who will live sinless lives. The truth is that the trajectory evidences the opposite! This man’s wife left him for another man, and was thus excommunicated. His 14 year old son recently died in an act of disobedience to his father.
At any rate, reading your blog has inspired me to warn him afresh. It’s been awhile since I’ve talked with him about these things. I’ve shared the gospel with him extensively in the past, and he requested a Bible, which I gave him. He was reading it for awhile. Like any cult it’s hard to leave. It would mean for him that he would be entirely ostracized by his entire extended family and his network of friends (all in the cult). Talk about ‘counting the cost….’
All of the teaching of his church is in French, thus all kids grow up going to their French school (side school…they also attend public school for regular education). I attended his son’s funeral. It was so entirely devoid of hope. It ended in a way which was very erie. We followed the casket out of the chapel and stood in darkness as the hurst approached. The only noise was the sound of heels clacking on the slate floors and the weeping of the bereaved mother…..in total darkness.
Eric, I read quite a bit of that blog you linked to. Wow!
The cult that I’ve just mentioned also has had such a leader in it’s origins…one who had a ‘divine revelation’. The cult is French Canadian. There are two main churches in Canada and one in Southern CA.
Susan: From the book the church/cult uses –
“God’s Perspective On Delegated Authority,” the key Scripture text (on the cover page) being: “The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD’s anointed.” (I Samuel 26:11):
Small prayer groups can be a breeding ground for undermining authority and respect for that authority. The prayer requests may not be God-given subjects of prayer, but simply the questionings and reasonings that come from the knowledge of good and evil. Directions of the church, decisions by the pastor and truths shared from the pulpit are all areas where authority could be openly being undermined or questioned. This could lead to a serious lack of respect for authority. While all of these things are discussed in the form of prayer requests and truly done in an attitude of love for “God’s anointed,” yet Satan is secretly at work. They are moving in the principle of Satan (questioning God’s Word, God’s authority and His right to rule), while doing good and showing honor to the person of leadership. (pp. 17-18)
I have seen such “sharing” done in a manner whereby a spirit of love was maintained for the authority in question, and yet, his authority, or respect for that authority, was being torn down. The knowledge of good and evil tells us that “we will respect authority as long as it is right,” but this is not God’s attitude. Noah had openly sinned, it is true. But, the authority requiring respect was not an authority based on Noah’s character or good. Rather it was an authority based on God’s very own authority delegated to him. To disrespect this authority is to disrespect God.
The rule of thumb is this: Any communication of the mouth that questions, disrespects or does not maintain the delegated authority, should be avoided. To cause disrespect to God’s authority in others, is to uncover them and leave them open to attack by the enemy. …
(cont’d)
The knowledge of good and evil will trip us up every time. Before we can please God, we must see that to rebel against God’s delegated authority, even when he is wrong, is to claim to be living for God, while, in reality, we are being ruled by the nature of Satan. … If the failure of man would cause me to hold God’s authority in contempt, then I would rather not see or hear about it. … To sin against delegated authority is to sin against God. (pp. 20-21)
Is it not right to expose sin? Should not the leadership purify the leadership? You would think that God would have been pleased that they [Miriam and Aaron, when they spoke against Moses] were enforcing the law which He had given. Knowledge of good and evil is one thing. However, on God’s list of priorities, maintaining respect for God’s anointed supersedes the pointing out of sin. When you do a good thing out of God’s order, it is no longer a good thing. (p. 23)
Moses was not (sic) a man in authority, and yet under authority. He did not appoint himself to that position—God did. Moses understood that for Aaron and Miriam to rebel against his delegated authority constitutes sin against God’s rule over them. Therefore, he knew that this was not a personal issue, but an issue between God and Miriam and Aaron. He did not interfere; he kept his mouth shut. God did all the talking, for it was God’s choices, wisdom and clarity of vision that they were questioning.*
The only words Moses spoke in this whole situation was, “Heal her, O God, I beseech thee.” He, indeed, was the meekest man in all the earth. He had the Spirit of the Lamb—”the just for the unjust.”
(cont’d)
Moses was God’s covering for the whole congregation. When Miriam stirred this thing up with Aaron, she removed herself out from under that covering and sickness resulted. When we rebel against authority, we do so to our own hurt. Moses was willing to cover her immediately, but the Lord felt she should be shamed for seven days. (p. 26)
The primary principle is this: The man with the oversight has a better view and perspective of the overall situation than anyone else. Whether it seems like he does or not, is not relevant. God has ordained it to be so. … There is no way for those in lesser positions to see the total picture better than the appointed leader. (p. 24)
– – –
FWIW, those of us who left and were saying negative things about the church received an email warning us not to do so, and warning us what happened to Korah when he grumbled against Moses.
Whatever….
Eric, is it the same book that M. James Sawyer mentions here?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/under-cover-authority-obedience-abuse/
Susan:
The pastor (as you know, mentioned by name and church and city in that blog I linked to) even posted on his Webpage a “warning” with the names of some of us who had left the church:
And what were our “unscriptural” crimes for which he was warning the other Christians in town?
* Name 1 (me): Asked about the way the church was being run and about the pastor’s vulgar and inappropriate Web pages, not realizing that to question these things was in violation of “God’s Perspective on DELEGATED AUTHORITY.”
* Name 2: Dutifully worked for years as the pastor’s right-hand “man” and his secretary, and helped organize and establish his Bible School and his band (he played guitar and sang).
* Name 3: Faithfully served with the pastor’s ministry and newsletter, but then asked him about his inappropriate physical relations with women in the Bible School.
* Name 4: Was the pastor’s best friend since childhood and chose to leave the church on his own.
* All of us: Faithfully gave many years and many hundreds and thousands of hours and dollars to the message and work of the church and the pastor and his ministry.
Lisa:
No, the book (more a booklet) in question was written by the pastor of the church himself – “God’s Perspective on DELEGATED AUTHORITY.” I have a photocopy of it. It’s 41 pages long, and since the pastor never wrote “copyright” on it when he had it printed and distributed, I might at some point scan and post it.
I can scan it as a PDF file and that way I could email it to you. You can get my email from my posts here, I assume, if you want to contact me.
Just a quick note Eric, that does not mean it is not legally copyrighted. Intellectual property is covered by copyright laws at the moment of creation (at least that’s the law in the US). There still could be legal issues with posting it.
The problem with #2 is that there are legitimate questions that should be asked about “historical” doctrine. The reformation would never have happened if no one questioned the established “historical” doctrine. I would reject this point if the “new” teaching is based on the biblical text. One man’s orthodoxy is another man’s heresy. Or said another way, heresy is what the other guy believes.
Thanks for the info, Dave.
Eric, I was just looking at the citations of the ‘rebels’. Wow! Especially name #3
Yes, Lisa. I suspect that when you find ministries that abuse their power and elevate the leadership, sexual misconduct is almost always also present.
Kinda like Shakespeare’s “then as surely as the night follows the day.”
*sigh*
I don’t remember if the blog I linked to made mention of that.
We found out about it after we had left. My/our issues were other ones and totally unrelated to any knowledge or suspicion of improper physical relations.
It was and is pretty disgusting and pathetic, esp. if you learn the details/facts.
While copyright is established in U.S. law as soon as the work is created, it is very difficult to prosecute or sue for actual/punitive damages (loss of revenue) if the publication is not marked with the “Copyright (c) 2010 John Q. Public” notice and registered with the Library of Congress. You can also copy a certain percentage of the work under the “educational fair use” provision for purposes of debate/review/teaching.
so glad God saved me from a life-long cult thriving in false doctrine whose only end is death. I came to a point where I was following, or trying, to follow doctrine in a very strict sense. What i would learn is that when you become faithful to a skewed foundation you realize that after a while your strength will eventually give out and a crisis will result. But, thank God, my crisis was God saving me from twisted truth, contaminated by human beings, and he would then lead me on to the Perfect. At the end of the end, I cried out to him and within a week he had someone ready to teach me and lead me into his loving arms. Grace was the first great truth I learned and would begin a new relationship with my God and savior. Its been 6 years I think since I started down road. He continues to lead and teach me according to his unfailing love. In the end, as I look back upon this broken road, there is no one thing that has changed me. I am learning that he is ever-present and it is his hand alone that saves and sanctifies me daily. He is so good, oh man, he is definitely good!
Nathanial,
That was beautiful. Thanks for sharing that.
Hi again Lisa
My perspective is that the explication you give for identifying cults can aptly be used against ‘orthodox’ Christianity. It’s like the political term “terrorism”. The word in itself sits neutrally by definition and has been employed with equal weight for example by the West to describe belligerent Islamic fundamentalists and indeed vice versa to describe Western imperialism.
The word cult therefore can be used by Orthodox and unorthodox Christian elements to describe the other. Accordingly all the ‘symptoms’ of a cult that you supply are equally applicable to your own brand of Christianity.
People’s desires, wants and a search for something that can fill a spiritual ‘hole’ are necessarily the ends the Gospel seeks to do firstly through an acquaintance with Christ. Hence you have simply stated the means by which those objectives are met.
Also, in shifting the focus from the likely-victims of a cult to the motivations of the cult, you simply restate the same problem in regards to what constitutes a cult. People in all Christian churches are motivated to find their emotional or intellectual needs met by moving here and there. Just as RCs in Brazil are moving into emotionally-charged Evangelical churches and vice versa with Evangelicals moving across the Protestant Divide to the RC for intellectual reasons.
Eric, I read your excerpt. The warped-ness of that Logic is so self-serving. I could sense the evil deception just reading it. I wonder why he didn’t include reference to Matt 7:15-20?? I guess he wouldn’t want too many devotees thinking along those lines!
This brings us to next associated problem of doctrinal coherence.
You mentioned in your post that the grand doctrinal ideas of conventional Christianity are ‘interlocked’ so that Soteriology and Christology, and indeed all the other ‘ologies’, present a necessary coherence. Accordingly if you misinterpret one then you will mispresent the whole. Yet, unless you reject that RCs are Christians as many Protestants do, then you will find that the mystical elements of the RC play an important role in the way their doctrines are interlocked. Protestantism (in the main) and in essence reject all of these myticisms along with the associated sacraments (of course the Anglican Church can be excused to a degree). Your appeal therefore to a 2,000 year old coherence of doctrinal beliefs is not based on historical truth.
Furthermore you should remember that Protestantism (at least as far as Luther propounded it) rejected the Authority and Divine perogratives of the Papal cult. But if you are adamant, despite this, that the RC holds a high level of Biblical authority then all true Christians must follow Jesus’ words to ‘eat his flesh and drink his blood’ in Transubstantiative terms for the efficacy of their communion in Christ.
Accordingly labeling other organisations a cult on the basis of their deviation from mainstream or orthodox doctrines does not make your brand of Christianity anymore legitimate than those of Arius, or Sabellius. ‘Mainstream’ doesn’t quarantee anything. The problem of who or what qualifies a cult therefore lies in who actually is qualified to pass that judgment in the first instance. Should it be a religion whose roots are Apostolic in nature or a religion defined and established in the 4th century by a Pagan Emperor for a pagan audience.
By extension the numbers game provides no guarantees either. As you say, cults recruit for increased numbers but this is also true of mainstream Christianity. You only need to look at TV Evangelism to see that in motion today.
Love this post! Having started a “cult”, and having an interest in cults, this is a surprisingly crisp and comprehensive breakdown of cult characteristics.
I’m not sure I can entirely agree with this criteria (and I’ve given myself a few days to mull over it). I think, in one way, that one could be considered cultic with this criteria and of itself. These are my reasons:
1) The church has not always had “it” (the truth) right. While I do believe in the major ecumenical councils, I tend to see them more as doctrinal summaries and less as something one needs to hold to. In other words, they are falsifiable according to new evidence (i.e. new scholarship, Greek/Hebrew etymology and word studies, proper understanding of the history surrounding the councils and Scripture, etc.). I do not mean to over-simplify this point, but will do so for brevity. It also needs to be borne in mind that it took around 1600 years from the birth of Christ until the Protestant Reformation sprung forth, some centuries after Roman Catholicism was developed. Who is to say that Protestants don’t have a few of their own doctrines mixed up? If anything, I think denominationism is evidence that not everyone agrees. As for myself personally, I’m not completely satisfied with the predominant Protestant interpretations, as they leave many Scriptures, I believe, unreconciled.
I also think in some cases, the ecumenical councils did hair split a bit, but its not something I want to go into incredible detail about until I have studied it more.
2) I do believe you protect yourself here (“it could be a sign”, etc.), so I’m not as concerned with this point. I do believe we can argue for essentials. Even more importantly, I believe we should hold everyone to the Word. I also agree that everyone who is going to go into pastoral ministry should study the things that you suggested. Unfortunately, most cults I’ve ran into view these very things as “unspiritual”.
3) Agree.
(continued in next post)
4) This seems like an indirect attack on those who believe in the spiritual gifts. I have no issue with additional revelation, so long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible (I’m even open to the possibility of “new” revelation, as long as it doesn’t attack this base either). I think if one wanted to be too strict on this, they could discount the Old Testament prophets and say their words weren’t Scripture (a view the Sadduccees held in Jesus’ own day). While I wouldn’t equate modern revelation with Scripture, I do think modern revelation can be authoritative to those whom it is given to. Plus, Scripture gives us tests to determine true prophecy from false prophecy. I’ll write something on this eventually, although I think ScottL and Marv are doing a good job on this already.
5) The only authority a Christian is held to are the words of Jesus and the apostles. I think a pastor should encourage his flock to study these words in as pure a fashion as they can (be it through original languages, church history, etc.). But there are plenty “newbies” who think they know it all, too, just because they picked up Strong’s or have a little knowledge. I think Proverbs 11:14 applies here: “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (ESV).
Derek, talk about hairsplitting! As to a couple of your points
1) It was impossible for me to go into a litany of 2,000 years of doctrinal development within the framework of this post. I do believe the councils (primarily first 4) were significant in clarifying essential elements of Christianity. However, the emphasis I was trying to bring up is embodied in the Vincent of Lerins caption of what has been ‘believed everywhere, always and by all’. That does leave a broad range of options. What I was getting it in this section is the rejection of the foundation in favor of something new.
4) Nope, sorry I don’t see this as an attack on continuationism. You said “I do think modern revelation can be authoritative to those whom it is given to.” I don’t think all continuationists would agree with you on this. But I do think it can make a local assembly more susceptible to cult-like influences. How quickly can a ‘prophecy’ by this definition become abused especially given even a shade of delegated authority influence. The problem is not with continuationism but with this definition of it.
Art, I’m not sure exactly what your point is. Nor am I negating that people look to Christianity to fulfill a need. We do have a need! The question is how is the local assembly addressing that need.
As to this point
Luther’s intentions were to reform the church not to reject it. And I would not isolate the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation as a criteria that points to what I am addressing in this post because of the context in which Christian doctrine is established by the RCC, that is the doctrine of the church.
As to this point
We do have an apostolic witness of scripture and tradition that establishes the foundation of Christianity. I don’t really want to address the schism of Protestantism and the RCC in this post because that’s not the point. And I am not saying that mainstream guarantees anything because it is within this framework that the post is addressing.
Why can’t Christians agree on anything the bible teaches. This is why I can no longer believe in anything the bible teaches.
mary 40.: Why can’t Americans/psychiatrists/linguists agree on anything the Constitution/theory of psychiatry/discourse analysis says/teaches/demonstrates? That is why I can no longer believe in anything the Constitution/psychiatry/linguistics says/teaches/demonstrates.
I’m not meaning to be flippant or dismissive of the question, just trying to suggest that the conclusion/response/rejection in toto of what the Bible teaches need not necessarily follow from what is asserted about Christian disunity/disagreement – an assertion that may be too broad.
Hi Lisa
I am not a “Christian” so I am offering a perspective from an external / independent perspective.
When you speak of the ‘apostolic witness’ I assume them to mean the same as doctrinal beliefs. You say ‘oral traditions and sacred writings’ and then ‘councils’. Can you expand on this for me please?
Art,
My apologies, I should not have made the assumption you were a Christian so let me back up a bit. Jesus Christ, God the Son came to earth to 1) reveal God to man and 2) reconcile man to God. What is significant to note is that everything that transpired in the OT was in preparation for his incarnation and his redemptive purpose. In this way, he tells God’s ‘rest of the story’, which is aptly summarized in Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36).
The reason Jesus selected the apostles was so they can be his eyewitnesses that would testify about him after his death, burial and resurrection. So when I say the ‘apostolic witness’ it is in reference to the testimony of Christ, who he is and what he came to do. Keep in mind that the message was passed on via oral tradition. However, as the church grew quantitatively and regionally, letters began to circulate concerning instruction in context of this testimony (epistles) as was the written account of Jesus’ earthly ministry.
We know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that scripture is God-breathed, which he utilized men to accomplish. Therefore, the sacred writings were accomplished under the inspiration of God, but in a way that accounted for man’s perspective. But this all happened in the context of development of the church. Btw, this is the major source of contention between protestantism and RCC, who believes that God provided his authoritative instruction in the context of the church and therefore, the church is the instrument through which salvation is realized. Protestanism is founded on the belief that authority is found in scripture. That does not negate the tradition in which all of this transpired and some have held higher views of tradition than others.
Juxtaposed to the circulation of sacred writings that would come to be recognized as scripture, would be other writings passing on the apostolic witness and church tradition. These are the writings of the early church fathers. There was also the circulation of letters that reflected rising heresies against Christianity. While there was a solid body of letters, now in our NT, that were recognized as scripture by the late 2nd century, there was sort of a validation process (for lack of a better term) that would solidify the canon of scripture we now have known as the NT. This happened in the 4th century (376 I think but will have to look it up).
The heresies would also give rise to the need to clarify the testimony of Christ, his work and person. This occurred through the convening of ecumenical councils, beginning in 325 with Nicea and followed by Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451). There are 3 after this but these were the most significant.
So I think its significant to note the development that served to attest to the faith that was handed down from the beginning. I hope that helps.
I must add my name to the sad litany of those who were once duped by a cult-like group. When I was young I joined a rather zealous group know as the “True Church of Christ” – the name should have been my first clue, “No, really, we’re the TRUE Church . . .”.
And so, with an austere religious spirit they taught that all other denominations are evil, that music is not allowed during worship, that television and radio will send you to Hell, and that you should severely limit contact with your “unsaved” family and friends, and the worst: if you leave this “true church”, the Lord will take away the Holy Spirit and give you a demon instead, like King Saul.
These people have done violence to innocent souls and to the name of our Lord as well.
My greatest embarrassment is that I could ever have been involved with them.
To distinguish a cult from TRUE Christianity is simple, really. The main thing a cult will do is change the Jesus of the Bible and His teachings. That is the common element of cults.
Examples: The Bible clearly states that Jesus is God who became Man. The JW’s claim that He is Michael the archangel and that He was created. The Mormon’s claim that He is also an angel and that He is the brother of Lucifer.
The Bible cleary states that there is only One mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus. Many religions claim that their organization is the mediator. Catholicism teaches that Mary is a ‘co-mediatrix’. The Watchtower Soceity (of the JW’s) claim that they are ‘God’s organization’.
The list goes on and on…
The Bible should be your only authority. It’s doctrines are unmistakeable. If you find yourself not being able to distinguish any of it, it is because you have not relied on God for the answers. I suggest praying for guidance and understanding every time you open your Bible. Put your trust only in the Lord Jesus and no man can take you from the Heavenly Father.
Christianity is: A relationship with Jesus Christ, the One and Only Saviour.
Religions/Cults is: A relationship with man who can save no one.
May the Lord bless you richly in all wisdom and understanding, Amen.
Lisa, rereading this post of yours (since last time you posted it) has really hit me. Much of what you said here is true of the church we finally left. There have been so many subtleties and the changes over the years. The first ten years seemed pretty good in many ways (but there were clues even then), but as the years went by the pastor had gained our confidence and we trusted him. The shift in teaching began to happen about 10-12 years ago. There was a departure from a message of grace. The pastor is not to be questioned. To question is to be spurned. We attended one elder meeting last year. The man who is now the head elder said, “Our job is to make _____ (the pastor) look good.” The gospel has become invisible. There is no interest in evangelism. He rarely allows others to speak at our church. The youth groups no longer go to well-known camps with gospel-cenered messages–instead, they do their own summer camp taught by pastors from the church.
And…the pastor often makes snide comments about those who are concerned about doctrine, from the pulpit. And then there is all of the anger and lying from leadership….and the secretive way they operate— so secretive that several more elders have left since they never knew what the smaller executive elder group was up to and why they were doing what they were doing. When they excommunicated decenters —or as they called them “sinning members” (who’s sin was to disclose their wrong behavior and teaching) they made it appear that all executive elders were in agreement. I just heard that this is not the case. Some EBOE members voted differently. There are always layers of deception and twisting of the facts.
Quest Community Church in Lexington, Kentucky is very cultish. Their idolized leader, Pete Hise, is basically worshipped by the populace. They actually BRAG about the rare occasions he stands at the door to shake hands, like he is a superstar. It is PATHETIC. Anyone who questions finances is shut down and told they are promoting “disunity.” If you leave, those who love bombed you initially will no longer even speak to you. Sad that so many are so vulnerable and desperate to belong.
Actually, there are more factors or signs of a cult-like ministry; however, these 5 Cult-like signs fit the Christian faith and/or religion as a whole as opposed to the rest of humanity.
Whether it is a traditional or a hybrid Christianity, Christianity itself is a social controlling, mind-manipulating and mind-controlling cult, elevating its teachings above empirical evidence and facts, and turning good people into “human-demonizing” religious bigots, who are no longer apart of humanity, but against humanity; and with a form of loving humanity without the essence of true love and peace, but going by what is commanded in a Iron Age book without looking at their own moral compass because their own moral compass is said to be tainted in the nature of sin itself.
It is a cult of self-denial of human nature that is unhealthy for a normal human being living in this modern world today.