An Evangelical'S Definition Of Cult: How Normative Is It?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just watched this YouTube video featuring Ravi Zacharias, a popular traveling Evangelical preacher, responding to a question about Mormonism.

At 3:38, Zacharias gives a definition of cult as it pertains to Mormonism. He defines the word as "that which claims to be rooted in historical Christianity but has deviated from or abandoned the finished work of Christ or compromised on His person."

The trouble is, I cannot find any source online or in print that corresponds with the definition that Zacharias gives here. Here, for example, is how dictionary.com defines the word.

To his credit, at 7:05, Zacharias differentiates between how the term cult is generally applied and how he has defined it. He says it is to be used in a setting of theological debate, dialogue and discussion and is not to be carelessly thrown around in a general setting, this because of the baggage it carries.

My contention is that it ought not be applied at all to a faith group such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because relatively few people — even among Zacharias's own Evangelical persuasion — understand it to have the strict definition he gives it.

My question is this: Can anyone here cite a normative source that gives cult the esoteric definition that Zacharias has given it?

[Freedom]

A cult is defined as any religion who's beliefs differ from those of the person who is labeling them as a cult.

[Freedom]

Just to add, I wonder why he feels it is ok to add the teachings of Paul if, as he says, we are not to deviate from the finished works of Christ?

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You asked:

My question is this: Can anyone here cite a normative source that gives cult the esoteric definition that Zacharias has given it?

What in your opinion would qualify as "a normative source"?

[ERayR]

To me this just underscores the problem with allowing anybody to redefine and use words to suit their agendas. Words mean things and when this indiscriminate redefinition goes unchecked we can no longer communicate because we no longer know what the words mean.

Edited September 6, 2012 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

You asked:

What in your opinion would qualify as "a normative source"?

Are you asking me to define the term, or do you want me to provide examples?

[Scott Lloyd]

To me this just underscores the problem with allowing anybody to redefine and use words to suit their agendas. Words mean things and when this indiscriminate redefinition goes unchecked we can no longer communicate because we no longer know what the words mean.

Indeed.

One thing that strikes me about the definition Zacharias gives is how highly subjective it is. He would apply it to Mormons, while Mormons would not accept that definition as a description of themselves. Moreover, Mormons might regard post-apostolic Christianity — including Evangelical Protestantism — as deviating in some respects from the work or words of Christ, though we do not call other faith groups "cults."

Edited September 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Yup. Sounds like a production of "group think" by Evie Protestant watchdogs upset at the loss of sheep to Sheepstealers.

[DBMormon]

Cult = a group of people who believe differently then me and whom I don't like

How's that?

[ERayR]

Cult = a group of people who believe differently then me and whom I don't like

How's that?

How about this?

cult

  Example Sentences Origin

Edited September 6, 2012 by ERayR

[Bill Hamblin]

Cult derives from the Latin cultus, which means literally means "that which is cultivated," but figuratively a system of worship, ritual, veneration, etc. Religions aren't cults. They have cults--that is a way of cultivating God through worship and ritual.

[DBMormon]

How about this?

cult

  Example Sentences Origin

This was on your link

4. sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure

but we have a very dynamic organizational structure so that tends to take credence from that word applying to us.

Edited September 6, 2012 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

Cult derives from the Latin cultus, which means literally means "that which is cultivated," but figuratively a system of worship, ritual, veneration, etc. Religions aren't cults. They have cults--that is a way of cultivating God through worship and ritual.

This is what I would call a normative definition.

[Scott Lloyd]

This was on your link

but we have a very dynamic organizational structure so that tends to take credence from that word applying to us.

Dictionary.com had a number of varying definitions for the word — which dictionaries tend to do — but none of them resemble the definition that Zacharias gave.

[Nevo]

My question is this: Can anyone here cite a normative source that gives cult the esoteric definition that Zacharias has given it?

Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, two sociologists of religion, explain the difference between sects and cults as follows:

"Both cults and sects are deviant religious bodies—that is, they are in a state of relatively high tension with their surrounding sociocultural environment. However, sects have a prior tie with another religious organization. To be a sect, a religious movement must have been founded by persons who left another religious body for the purpose of founding the sect. The term sect, therefore, applies only to schismatic movements.... Because sects are schismatic groups, they present themselves to the world as something old. They left the parent body not to form a new faith but to reestablish the old one, from which the parent body had drifted....

Cults...do not have a prior tie with another established religious body in the society in question. The cult may represent an alien (external) religion, or it may have originated in the host society, but through innovation, not fission. Whether domestic or imported, the cult is something new vis-a-vis the other religious bodies of the society in question. If domestic—regardless of how much of the common religious culture it retains—the cult adds to that culture a new understanding or insight justifying the claim that it is different, new, 'more advanced.'... Cults, then, represent a deviant religious tradition in a society. In time, they may become the dominant tradition, in which case there is no longer much tension between them and the environment, and they become the church or churches of that society....

To sum up, sects are breeds of a common species.... Cults are a different species and occur by mutation or migration.

(The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation, 25-26)

By this definition, Ravi Zacharias is not incorrect in labeling Mormonism a cult since it does actually deviate from mainstream ("traditional") Christianity and presents itself as a new revelation.

[USU78]

Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, two sociologists of religion, explain the difference between sects and cults as follows:

By this definition, Ravi Zacharias is not incorrect in labeling Mormonism a cult since it does actually deviate from mainstream ("traditional") Christianity and presents itself as a new revelation.

"Deviant" is a rather suggestive word, don't you find? I find its usage by those two nimrods offensive.

[Nevo]

"Deviant" is a rather suggestive word, don't you find? I find its usage by those two nimrods offensive.

Stark and Bainbridge are "nimrods" because they use the word deviant to describe a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding culture? I think you're overreacting.

(I guess you won't be buying this.)

[USU78]

Stark and Bainbridge are "nimrods" because they use the word deviant to describe a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding culture? I think you're overreacting.

(I guess you won't be buying this.)

Being unpopular is not the same thing as being deviant. Deviant is an attack word, designed to create an impression of evil. Don't let's get sidetracked from the power of words to convey meaning . . . "Deviant" is extraordinarily strong for what it allegedly was employed to convey.

And, no, I ain't buyin'

[Scott Lloyd]

Stark and Bainbridge are "nimrods" because they use the word deviant to describe a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding culture? I think you're overreacting.

(I guess you won't be buying this.)

Given that Stark has been discredited in his projections about the rate of membership growth in the Church, I don't know that bringing up this book does much to establish his credibility.

[ERayR]

This was on your link

but we have a very dynamic organizational structure so that tends to take credence from that word applying to us.

Do you consider exclusive as bad? I would say one must be exclusive. I tend to exclude things that do not help me become a better person. It's called choices.

[Scott Lloyd]

By this definition, Ravi Zacharias is not incorrect in labeling Mormonism a cult since it does actually deviate from mainstream ("traditional") Christianity and presents itself as a new revelation.

It would be more accurate to say that Mormonism presents itself as a revealed restoration of "primitive" (foundational) Christianity, as per the Sixth Article of Faith.

[ERayR]

Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, two sociologists of religion, explain the difference between sects and cults as follows:

By this definition, Ravi Zacharias is not incorrect in labeling Mormonism a cult since it does actually deviate from mainstream ("traditional") Christianity and presents itself as a new revelation.

But that definition is a redefining to suit an agenda.

[ERayR]

Stark and Bainbridge are "nimrods" because they use the word deviant to describe a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding culture? I think you're overreacting.

(I guess you won't be buying this.)

No because the define cult as deviant.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that definition is a redefining to suit an agenda.

And hence, is not normative, which is the point I started out from.

[ERayR]

And hence, is not normative, which is the point I started out from.

Yup and supports my point that as long as we allow the redefinition of words to suit agendas we will not be able to communicate.