UNIVERSAL DEFINITION
IDENTIFYING A CULT
CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from.
THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'
A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.
Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.
Hi Hollie: I went round and round with Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses trying to address the issue of why Christians considered JW a cult, but not other denominations.
I had found a link to an in-depth sociological explanation of the difference between being a cult and being cultic.
With JW this was a very hard distinction to make. Most reports on JW will outright call it a cult, so I had to look even deeper.
I decided I agreed with the deeper assessment in detail that defined JW as cultic or cultlike. It had the qualities of being a cult but did not meet the requirements in full.
Other church denominations will vary.
The main difference is being "required to join THEIR group and only follow THEIR leadership as the ONLY WAY"
while denominations that are not cultish would say as long as you follow the laws
you can be independent or part of any group, with or without a leader.
To be fair to both political, religious and also nonprofit or business corporations that could abuse power,
I decided the best way is to apply the same standards of due process/individual rights as with govt.
So if a collective group acts as judge jury and executioner without due process, right to defense,
checks and balances by separation of powers, and doesn't let people represent themselves to redress grievances,
then it is abusive. It does not matter if it is political or religious or corporate entity for whatever purpose:
the issue is if people are abusing collective authority to oppress the same Bill of Rights of individuals.
With Jehovah's Witness, they have a set in house process for redressing grievances
where the Elders have more authority than the individuals and the group can pressure members
to be shunned and are pressured to limit their information to just the group's own published sources.
So there is not equal freedom of speech, press, right of association (they are not to attend any other church groups
but can only attend their own meetings and home studies), equal right to petition the Elders, etc.
They are not allowed to study or practice "spiritual healing" which they are taught is demonism,
so there is a limit on free exercise of religion.
If JW is not a full blown cult, but is considered cultlike or cultic, then the other denominations of Christianity which are more open to free association and information, and not limited to which teachers they follow, are certainly not cults.
The same things that cause religious abuse are what our Bill of Rights were written to prevent
that cause political abuse of collective authority.
I find the Democrat Party gets just as cultish, that if you do not vote and follow the party line,
you can find yourself ostracized from the group as Joseph Liebermann was.
Like the JW if policy is going to be reformed, it has to be done from within following the chain
of command and having the agreement of the higher ups who control the party as a collective identity.
So when I compare the dangers of religious or political abuse,
I find the political groups, the corporations giving money to fund campaigns,
the legal system with judges and lawyers with their own conflicting interests,
and the media which receives millions if not billions in campaign spending,
to be the bigger threat because this influences MANDATORY laws that ALL people are required to follow.
The religious groups commit abuses that affect their members, and yes, the reported
sexual abuses of the JW, LDS and Catholic church does violate criminal laws and affect the greater public safety.
But those religions are options to follow.
The political groups that use cultish tactics make MANDATORY decisions in Courts and Congress
that are NOT optional but come with fines and punishments if people do not obey these rulings.
So that to me is more dangerous.
I find it DISINGENUOUS if people only go after Religious abuses
but don't EQUALLY go after Political abuses of authority that are just as cultish,
but more dangerous since abuses are harder to check and these are mandatory authorities for the public to follow.
I have looked very deeply into this whole issue of whether religions are cults.
No, they are not all cults, as long as you are free to join or not join any group or follow any teaching or teacher.
The JW are the most clear example of how a group can be cultlike and still not be a full-blown cult.
They are very very close, and have a lot of the cult traits.
So if you can understand the difference in why JW are not a complete cult,
then you can see why other groups are and aren't in comparison with JW.
That was the toughest example I looked into, because to anyone else it looks like a cult!
Very interesting and important issue,
thanks for bringing this up.
If we all looked into what causes and prevents abuse of collective power,
we would all be like Constitutionalists demanding checks and balances.
And no, you don't have to join any one group or follow any one leader
to follow natural laws under the Constitution. I believe you can follow
any belief or none at all by free exercise of religion as free will,
and as long as you respect the same rights, freedoms and protections
of others under these laws, then we can all be equal under law.
So you can be of any affiliation or be independent and we could
redress any grievances so any problems or abuses can be corrected or prevented.
I use those standards to check any other group, whether political religious or corporate,
against abuses that violate individual rights and freedoms, not just religious groups!!!
