The term "Cult" defined and Related Issues

Political Correctness and its Influence in the Church

I was on-line in a newsgroup and the topic was "cults." I was blown away by some of the correspondence among the participants. One person suggested that a certain group was a cult, and this person was blasted by many of the other participants. Some of their comments were:

"How dare you call them a cult!"

"What gives you the right?!"

"You are being unloving."

"Who made you God?!"

"It is not only unkind to call other groups cults, it is judgmental, and Jesus said that we are not to judge others!"

"I am shocked that anyone would call another group who love Jesus a cult!"

The fact that some of those who made these comments were pastors makes it all the more sad. I am constantly amazed by the sheer ignorance of Christian people about the issues and theology regarding cults.

Contrary to popular religious-PC belief, it is not necessarily unloving to say that a certain group is a cult anymore than it is unloving to say that two plus two equal four. Some groups are cults by definition, and it's as simple as that. It is simply a fact.

Apparently, the problem is more than simple theology; for many people, it is an issue of semantics . . . and while both of them (theology and semantics) will be briefly addressed below, I am more saddened by those who mess up their theology than their semantics.

THE SEMANTICS
There are, basically speaking, three kinds of cults:
1. Cults by sociological definition — Social Cult
2. Cults by theological definition — Theological Cult
3. Cults by both sociological and theological definition — Social & Theological Cult

The main problem of the semantic issue is that many think that a cult is one that is sociologically a cult and nothing else. What I mean by this is that some (even some Christians) think that as long as a group does not fit the sociological definition of a cult, then it is not a cult, even if its theology is non-Orthodox.

Social Cult
1. They often have a "sacred text" other than the Bible.
2. They often have a charismatic leader to whom the followers are accountable for every aspect of their lives.
3. They are often communal and deny their followers contact with those outside of their group: this often includes no contact with family members.
4. They often preach the imminent end of the world in some cataclysmic (stockpile guns and food) fashion, and only they will be saved.
5. They often teach that they are the only group that is going to heaven.
Some people have added other things as well, e.g., brain washing, certain clothes to be worn, and many more.

However, a sociological cult can be far less involved than everything listed above. And, many times people in cults will say, "We're not a cult! We don't fit the sociological definition of a cult because we do not have all of these things (like the ones listed above) in our church."

No "Cult-O-Meter"
There is no absolute formula that one may turn to for an analytical score to see if a group is a cult or not. We do not have a sort of "Cult-O-Meter" that we can use. So, we cannot say that this particular group scored a 77 percent therefore it is a cult, while this other group only scored a 68 percent, so it is not a cult.

Shall we simply conclude that a certain group must not be a cult because it has only 2 of the 5 things listed above? Of course not. There are degrees of error, and thus degrees of cult-like aberrations.

There are full-blown cults (100%), and there are groups that are cult-like (30%?) but still quite dangerous.

One Local Christian Church and its Cult-like Tendencies
There was a Christian church (not a cult) in my town that got so led astray by the pastor that they had slipped into some strange sociological, cult-like aberrations. After it was apparent that they could not stop what was going on, some of the more discerning people of the congregation left the church.

However, many who remained in the church fell prey to the pastor's Machiavellian tactics, and soon they were breaking off communications with family members who had left the church. Furthermore, some of the "faithful" reported that they were willing to follow this man be he right or wrong.

One person actually gave an illustration that was both shocking and revealing. He said that as far as he was concerned, the pastor was the "pilot of their spiritual plane" that they were all in, and even if the pastor crashes the plane, he (and his family) would go down with the pastor in a blaze of fire and destruction. Talk about mindless commitment.

Please remember, this was a Christian church, with orthodox Christian doctrines. In fact, I attended this church for several years before all of this weird stuff started happening. You see, they did not have a "sacred text" other than the Bible. The pastor knew proper theology (fairly well), and he had graduated from an accredited Christian Bible college. He did not preach the stockpiling of guns and food. He did not teach that they were the only group that was going to heaven. He did not required his people to wear orange robes.

But . . .

. . . they did have a charismatic leader (the pastor) to whom the followers were accountable for spiritual aspects of their lives. And, though the leader did not force them, he did suggest to them to cut off "spiritual contact" with those outside of their group, and he further suggested to "the faithful" that they "stay away from" all of those "rebellious people" who left the church, and this included, in many cases, their own family members. I remember the heartbreak of some of the Christians who left the church and came to me for counseling. Some of them complained that their own children (grown-children) would no longer listen to their concerns about this "pastor" (who, by the way, purchased a Th.D. degree from a diploma mill for $250 and went by the title "doctor").

And, there was more, but space prohibits the full listing of the problems.

So, this all leads to the question: was this church a cult? In my opinion, I would not call this church a cult (remember, this is a Christian church by doctrine and history and affiliation), but I would certainly say that it had sociological cult-like aberrations that were seriously dangerous both spiritually and, for many, psychologically.

However, many of the Christians in this church were under the mistaken impression that to be a cult (or even cult-like) the followers must eat junk food, sell their possessions and give it to the leader, wear orange robes, and shave their heads. Since none of them were doing these things, they believed that their church was fine, and their "pastor" was not cult-like.

I predicted (not as a prophet but as an observer) that this cult-like church would "crash" and many people would be hurt. It did and many were. The district officials of the denomination finally stepped in and attempted to set things right. Sadly, for many of the aggrieved, the district action was too little too late.

CULTS
Erroneously, most people only think of groups like the Moonies when they think of cults. And while the Moonies are a cult, many groups that are less obvious are still cults (or at least cult-like, and very dangerous). I have personally known of only one solidly Christian church that became cult-like (the one mentioned above), but I have heard of other Christian churches over the years that succumbed to a robust leader who took the church in a sociologically cultic direction. Also, I have met several Christian pastors in solidly Christian churches who--having many of the sociological personality earmarks that under the right conditions--could become a cult-like leader demanding uncritical allegiance. And, sadly, I know of many undiscerning Christians who would be easy picken's for such "leaders."

So, even though the sociological defining of a cult can seem sort of nebulous at times, please understand that there are sociological cults that actually have correct theology. And right now, as I type this CT, there are Christian churches that are cult-like and dangerous.

Theological Cult
This one seems easy enough to understand and define, but amazingly many Christians (including many pastors) have no real understanding of what theological peculiarities make a cult. One might attempt a reversal of the order: in other words, rather than defining what a theological cult is, one might be better off to explain what makes Christianity Christian . . . then, anything that does not fit into that definition is outside the pale of Christianity, and, thus, by definition a theological cult.

Dr. Millard J. Erickson, Ph.D. (dean and professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary) defines a cult as a group that is heretical in one or more significant respects. This easily falls in line with my statement above: what makes Christianity Christian? If a group teaches something that is not in line with the essence of Christianity in one or more significant respects, then it is a cult.

Note carefully, that the requirement is numerically only one . . . they do not have to deny every aspect of the Christian faith to be a cult. One will do. Furthermore, according to Erickson, the issue of something being heretical simply means, "Pertaining to any view that has been officially condemned by an authoritative body." Now, some people just don't get this, but it is really very simple. If an authoritative body says that something is heretical, then it is heretical. What people often do not get is how some group can say that something else is heretical. But, again, this is also simple . . . let me illustrate.

It's in the DNA
The children born to Lyle and Harriet Walston (that includes me) form an authoritative body of "Walston siblings" . . . together, we have the right to determine who is (and is not) part of that sibling group . . . in other words, if Joe Johnson starts claiming to be one of the offspring of Lyle and Harriet Walston, the REAL children of Lyle and Harriet Walston have the right to oppose Joe Johnson's claim. Why? Because, we (Shirley, Janice, Vicky, and Rick) are by definition--and DNA--the children of Lyle and Harriet Walston. So, if someone "outside" of the "Walston siblings" starts claiming to be a child of Lyle and Harriet Walston, we "Walston siblings" are going to have something to say about those claims. You see, there are certain standards that one must meet to be one of the "Walston siblings." Some of these standards have to do with parentage, genes, DNA, history, and more. If a person does not meet these standards, he is heretical . . . he is not part of the group. Simple as that.

Likewise, an authoritative body of "Christian siblings" have, long ago, set the standards of family-ship. The basic doctrines of what makes Christianity Christian were hammered out long ago and set down for all to see. (By the way, it would do every Christian well to take at least one course in the historical development of Christian theology.)

The Trinity -- A DNA Doctrine
What right-thinking Christian would deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is a significant tenet of the Christian faith? It is what I call a DNA Doctrine. In other words, it is fundamental to who and what a Christian is.

In every systematic theology produced by an orthodox Christian writer (a true "Christian sibling"), the DNA Doctrine of the Trinity is always depicted as a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. You see, part of what makes a Christian a Christian is believing in what is Christian. (You may want to slowly re-read that last sentence.)

Dr. James White, Th.D. (Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and professor of apologetics with Columbia Evangelical Seminary) writes this statement about the doctrine of the Trinity in his doctoral dissertation: "We withhold fellowship from groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses because they reject the Trinity and replace it with another concept. We hang a person's very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine" (you may see his whole Th.D. dissertation in book form: THE FORGOTTEN TRINITY, published by Bethany House Publishers).

Dr. Norman Geisler, Th.D., Ph.D. (apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary) states that, "No doctrine is more fundamental to the Faith than the Trinity" (see, THE FORGOTTEN TRINITY).

Kerry McRoberts (M.A., M.C.S., professor of Bible and theology at Trinity Bible College) says, "Non-Trinitarian views, such as Modalism and Arianism, reduce the doctrine of salvation to a divine charade. All of the basic Christian convictions centering on the work of the Cross presuppose the personal distinction of the three members of the Trinity. . . . The doctrine of salvation is contingent upon the cooperation of the distinctive members of the Triune God (e.g., Eph. 1:3-4). Therefore, a conscious renouncing of the Trinity doctrine seriously jeopardizes the hope of one's personal salvation" (Systematic Theology, A Pentecostal Perspective, Logion Press)

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder and first president of Fuller Theological Seminary) has written: "The denial of Trinitarianism as seen in contemporary unitarianism inevitable affects other vital doctrines including the doctrine of salvation and the whole plan of God for the redemption of mankind" (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 , Victor Books).

The late Dr. Walter Martin (apologist and founder of Christian Research Institute) explained that when the doctrine of the Trinity was denied, then the second person of the Trinity is perverted, and then he is no longer the same Christ taught to us in the Bible. Martin points out that the Apostle Paul himself warned that there was "the other Jesus." In fact, Paul says that some people preach a "different Jesus," and that they also preach a "different spirit" and a "different gospel" (2 Cor 11:4). Do Christian pastors really have to be told this? Martin states:

For it is axiomatic that if the doctrine of Christ Himself, i.e., His Person [which includes His being the second person of the Trinity] nature and work are perverted, then the identity of the life-giver is altered, then the life which He came to give is correspondingly negated" (The Kingdom of the Cults, Bethany House Publishers).

Thus, if the life that the Second Person of the Trinity came to give is negated, salvation is negated.

I could go on and on with quotes from biblical scholars who all agree that the Trinity is a DNA-Doctrine. The DNA-Doctrine of the Trinity is so fundamental to Christianity, the burden of proof is upon those who say that people can be saved while denying the Trinity, not upon those who say that a negation of the Trinity is ultimately a negation of salvation.

You've Got to be Kidding Me!
Interestingly, some older theology texts do not talk about the necessity or cardinal nature of the doctrine of the Trinity. In most cases, the authors simply assumed the gravity of this doctrine, and they assume that their readers will already be aware of the gravity of this doctrine. Thus, I have seen some older books on the cults in which the author will simply point out that a certain group does not believe the Trinity doctrine.

However, many Christians today--sadly, including many pastors--must actually be told that this is a fundamental issue! I remember talking with one pastor about a cult that denies the Trinity doctrine (as well as some other cardinal tenets), and when I pointed out to him that this particular group denies the Trinity, he said, "But they still believe in the same God, they just see him as a unity rather than a trinity." I said, "You've got to be kidding me. The same God who is completely different?" You see, that's not even logical, let alone theological.

The Point
So, the point is this, if a group denies what the authoritative Christian body has said is Christian, then this group is not Christian: thus, it is a cult.

Now, let me quickly add that you do not have to agree with all of the doctrines of that "authoritative body." You do not have to accept the DNA Doctrines of Christianity, but if you do not, then do not call yourself by that name (i.e., Christian). You see, people may choose, as many have done, to believe something else. But to call yourself a Christian and at the same time deny the very DNA Doctrines that make one a Christian is both a misrepresentation and misleading. That would be like me calling myself a Mormon . . . it would be both a misrepresentation and misleading. Besides, why do cultists like the name Christian so much when they deny the very beliefs that make a person Christian? Go figure.

A "Christian cult" (strange term) is a cult by the very fact that they do not believe the same as do the members of that "authoritative body." A "Christian cult" does not accept the DNA Doctrines of Christianity.

And, it is not that all cults reject all of the DNA Doctrines. In fact, some cults accept many of the DNA Doctrines but reject only one or two. These cults are often the most pernicious because they fool so many people. Take for instance the United Pentecostals . . . many Christian people uncritically accept this cult as a part of the Christian church. But, they (the UP's) deny the DNA Doctrine of the Trinity (and thus, according to Walter Martin--and logic--they pervert the Person of Christ and negate salvation). For those who have looked deeper into their theology, they have discovered that the UP's also deny basic soteriological DNA Doctrines as well; so they are a cult based upon more than simply this one DNA Doctrine: the Trinity.

Another Illustration
Perhaps this will be clearer: I would not be offended if the Mormon church told me that I was not a Mormon. After all, don't they have the right to set their beliefs as an authoritative body of their own belief systems? Do they also not have the right to reject pretenders? So, if I started going to a Mormon Church and started calling myself a Mormon, but if I continued to believe as I now do, the Mormon Church would have every right to tell me that I am not a Mormon precisely because I do not believe in their doctrines.

If a Baptist church started billing themselves as a Mormon Church and started advertising themselves as such but continued to teach Orthodox Christian doctrines, the Mormon church would have every right, from their perspective, to call that Baptist church a non-Mormon cult. The Mormon church would have every right to express their disapproval of the Baptist church now calling itself Mormon.

Well, if this is okay, i.e., if the Mormons have the right to define who and what they are (established by their own doctrines) and if they have the right to reject the pretenders, then why do some people become offended by Christians saying that certain people or groups are not Christians? We have set our DNA Doctrines . . . if people do not believe them, then they are not Christians. It seems simple to me.

If Joe Johnson claims to be an offspring of Lyle and Harriet Walston but does not have the Lyle and Harriet Walston DNA, then we Walston siblings (who do have the Walston DNA) have every right to say that Joe is a fraud.

If a group denies DNA Doctrines that make Christianity Christian (like the doctrine of the Trinity), then the Christian church has every right to stand up and say, "This group is a pretender. It is not a sibling because it does not believe in those DNA doctrines that make Christianity Christian." And, remember this . . . all it takes is the rejection of one DNA Doctrine.

Social & Theological Cult
When most people think of a cult, they think of this kind: cults by sociological and theological definition like Moonies and Rajneeshes. You know the types. The Moonies shave their heads and wear robes and beg for money at airports and on street corners.

Thus, when someone says that the Mormons are a cult, some people become upset because they think that cults shave their heads, wear funny robes, and beg for money . . . and, since the Mormons don't do that, then they are obviously not a cult, and to say that they are is not only inaccurate but unkind.

But, remember, there are different kinds of cults, and the Mormon church is a "theological cult." So, while the Mormon church does not display the extreme sociological cult-like aberrations, i.e., they do not make their people shave their heads and wear robes, and while most Mormon people are good family people and good citizens, the fact remains that they are not a part of the Christian church because they deny many DNA Doctrines of Christianity.

Some of you may remember the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-1990), a cult leader who was born in Kuchwara, a town in India. Well, Mr. Bhagwan brought his cultic religion to the beautiful state of Oregon and accumulated quite a following of believers, who called themselves Rajneeshes. Again, this was an extreme theological cult (denying every Christian DNA Doctrine) and an extreme sociological cult, making its devotees become slavish followers of Mr. Bhagwan. So, when someone like me says that the United Pentecostals are a cult, some people complain and point out that the UP's do not look like nor act like the Rajneeshes; therefore, according to them, the UP Church is not a cult. But, again, we must understand what semantical use is being employed when someone says that a certain group is a cult.

But, They Don't Look Like a Cult
Now, my point is this: some people have a narrow idea as to what a cult is. Too often when people think of cults, they think only of the cult mentioned above under number three (like Moonies and Rajneeshes). But, a cult does not have to be a mind-coercive, sociologically aberrant group. It can be a nice bunch of people, like the United Pentecostals or Mormons, who simply reject the orthodox teachings of the Christian church.

Not Always Used in a Pejorative Sense . . . Sometimes it's Just Descriptive
So, in academic and theological circles, the use of the term "cult" is not always meant to conjure up horrid pictures of shaved heads, weird robes, and frenzied worshipers. Sometimes it is simply an analytical statement of differentiation. A pastor once told me that he is uncomfortable calling non-Christian groups cults. Perhaps the reason why is because he has he has limited the concept of "cult" to only its sociological factors.

Let's Summarize
So, as stated above, there are, basically speaking, three kinds of cults:

Social Cult: Cults by sociological definition. This is like the local Christian church (mentioned above) whose DNA Doctrines were right but their social actions were not, i.e., they are coercive and controlling.

Theological Cult: Cults by theological definition. This is like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the United Pentecostals whose social actions are right, but their doctrines are not.

Social & Theological Cult: Cults by both sociological and theological definition--like the Moonies and the Rajneeshes whose social actions are wrong, coercive, and controlling and whose doctrines are also wrong.