DANGEROUS RELIGION OR

MALIGNED MINORITY?

The recent flurry of media attention devoted to alleged past abuses of students at an Anglican private school in Ontario has brought to our attention yet again both the power and confusion of the “cult” label in our society.  Without explanation and leaning heavily on innuendo, this new four-letter word has spread fear and smear among a religiously skeptical but uninformed public.

Yes, there are cults! But the real question is: what defines them?  A major source of confusion is the absence of any generally accepted definition of the term.  It has been parceled out to different groups, each of which uses it in one way only to have it heard in quite another.  For that reason, what follows is a brief description of four major approaches.

One is sociological (see Stark and Bainbridge)—a cult is a “new religious movement” (NRM) whose teachings and practices are drawn from sources outside the dominant religion of a culture; for example, Scientology in the context of North American Christianity. NRMs range from organized religions (Unification Church) to “followings” of gurus, sometimes referred to as audience or “armchair” cults (Deepak Chopra).

The second perspective is psychological.  Psychologists pay attention to the proselytizing strategies of the groups and nature of the conversions.  Conclusions vary, but some attention is given to brainwashing theories, mind control and “snapping”--in which the convert is often caricatured as weak or emotionally disturbed.

A sub-discipline is the secular anti-cult movement that views these groups, and especially their leaders, as dangerous both to cult members and society in general. An example of this anti-cult movement is the London-based "Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies" that recently issued a report stating that “religious cults” are a threat to society (having in mind the Japanese Aum Shinri Kyo sect).  While there certainly are dangerous cults and more dangerous leaders, they represent a small proportion of religious fringe groups. As well, the brainwashing theories are seriously questioned by many within the scholarly community.

While accurate in some cases, such reactionary theories do not account for the larger picture.  Underneath them lies the assumption that conversions are a sign of pathology.  I remember when psychologists were scurrying around their linguistic labs to see if Pentecostals and Charismatics who spoke in tongues were as emotionally off the wall as their scholarly but conventional opinion had led them to believe.  Fortunately, attitudes changed, probably more quickly than in theological circles.

The third approach, also secular, is conventional or popular culture.  This represents the person on the street for whom the word “cult” engenders fear and contempt.  Any group that is unfortunate enough to be branded a cult will immediately be ostracized as fanatical, extreme and dangerous (and certainly in business only to get your money.)

The danger here lurks in the mob mentality that isolates, marginalizes, stigmatizes, expels and sometimes incarcerates, all in the name of protecting society.  But Christians know of similar “brandings” of fellow believers by oppressive regimes in other parts of the world.  For reasons of both human rights and Christian graciousness it is incumbent upon Christians to be vigilant over our own actions, lest we become accomplices to the spirit of conventional vigilantism.

A fourth perspective is theological. This is the sorting bin for discerning true and false doctrine. Before the emergence in the sixties of new spiritual movements, communes and eastern meditation masters, the church’s preferred label was “heresy.”  But in recent years, the mainline churches have largely ignored the presence of NRMs for two reasons: they have devoted attention to what they deemed to be the more important task of ecumenical dialogue, and some theologians have begun to wear the heresy label more as a badge of prophetic pride than a symbol of derision!

Evangelical Christians represent by far the most persistent response from the Christian community.  Their passion to answer the claims of the cults must be applauded. And through various counter-cult organizations, they provide a valuable service of informing and monitoring the movement of cult groups.

But I am concerned that the frequently indiscriminate use of the term “cult” by some evangelical apologists is designed less to inform than to gain more bang for the emotional buck.  Some seem to hope that such a label will inflict a mortal wound on the group.  Also, the theological lines are often drawn so narrowly that many traditional Christians are surprised to find themselves outside the doctrinally acceptable goalposts.  As one evangelical friend confided to me, the Roman Catholic Church might not be a cult but it certainly has “cultish” beliefs and practices. My other concern is that many of the aggressive recruiting tactics which evangelicals so vigorously attack are neither novel nor unknown to evangelicals themselves.

Let me be clear.  I believe that the orthodox teaching of the Church embodies most faithfully and fully the meaning of the gospel, especially when it is lived. And I believe that Christian leaders must be the watchmen who warn the sheep of impending danger from movements and moguls that would lead them far from Jesus.  But I also believe that, as orthodox Christians, we need to monitor our own premature judgments and simplistic conclusions in our zeal to score a few points against a particular group.

Honesty dictates we acknowledge that mainstream Christian institutions as well as new movements can inflict harm.  But it is irresponsible to hastily confer on Christian groups a label that defines them permanently and absolutely.  The issue to address is abuse and corruption, not identity labeling.  A beginner's list of churchly corruption would certainly include the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, Salem witch trials, residential school scandals, endemic pedophilia, flawed televangelists, to name a few. The Christian Church itself--the bride of Christ--is not a dangerous cult, but its various individuals and institutions can at times be corrupt and harmful.

Our restraint rests in the belief that for the Church, the gospel of Christ holds within it the power to restore, reform, and renew. The chapters of corruption will not have the last word.  And occasionally even questionable religious movements have reformed their doctrines or practices. While we vigorously denounce teaching and practices that lead people far from God, we believe that the "the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save" (Isaiah 59.1).

Christian leaders are called to protect the flock of Christ, teach the gospel, denounce corruption in all forms, but also refrain from labels that speak “Unredeemable.” We can do better than merely comforting ourselves that we have examined the culture and found it wanting.

We can study spiritual movements and the reasons why some find them appealing.  We can guard ourselves against conventional prejudice.  We can remember that a younger generation will be less interested in our labels than in our lives.  And most importantly, we can labour to communicate the gospel to this generation that has yet to hear it as good news.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect.

            (I Peter 3:15)

 

 

 

 

David Reed is an Anglican priest and Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Theology and Research Professor at Wycliffe College, Toronto.