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

[Nevo]

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.

Bringing up the book does establish that Stark isn't out to "attack" the Church, as USU78 seems to think. And Stark's "discredited" projection was based on the Church maintaining the same growth rate it had had since 1830. Well, that stopped in the mid- to late-90s as I recall, which was after Stark made his prediction.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Some groups redefine words as a way to establish and solidify their own exclusiveness or uniqueness. Such use of language is called jargon. The Evangelical Protestant redefinition of cult strikes me as an instance of jargon.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Bringing up the book does establish that Stark isn't out to "attack" the Church, as USU78 seems to think. And Stark's "discredited" projection was based on the Church maintaining the same growth rate it had had since 1830. Well, that stopped in the mid- to late-90s as I recall, which was after Stark made his prediction.

Something can appear to be something it's not: I can create an impression by my use of words that is quite at odds with what I'm actually saying.

Winston Churchill's response to the Japanese declaration of war is a beautiful example of this. High-sounding, ueber-polite, yet the intent is deadly.

By using the term "deviant" in association with a religion he doesn't like, but whose growth figures he is impressed by, he makes the rhetorical point that Church growth would be a VERY BAD THING because the Church is a VERY BAD THING.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bringing up the book does establish that Stark isn't out to "attack" the Church, as USU78 seems to think. And Stark's "discredited" projection was based on the Church maintaining the same growth rate it had had since 1830. Well, that stopped in the mid- to late-90s as I recall, which was after Stark made his prediction.

Whatever. The purpose of this thread is not to re-explore the verity of Stark's projections. The purpose is to discuss the esoteric nature of one Evangelical's definition of cult.

[3DOP]

This definition as given above represents a recent use of a word that isn't even necessarily pejorative. I have come across the word numerous times where a Catholic author is referring to our own beliefs that have caused a devotion or practise:

Moreover, the Five Wounds of Christ are honoured by a Mass and an Office, and on account of these wounds we venerate also the feet, hands and side of the most loving Redeemer, these parts of our Lord's most holy body being held more worthy of a special cult than the others, precisely because they suffered special pains for our salvation, and because they are decorated with these wounds as with an illustrious mark of love.

So well-grounded are these foundations that it is not a little surprising that the cult of St. Joseph was so slow in winning recognition.

I grabbed those two "positive cults" off of a google search of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Following is an example of a needed qualifier in the event that a particular cult is to be considered in a negative sense:

One of the great works of the prophets was to stamp out this immoral cult on the soil of Palestine. Israel came in contact with Beelphegor at Settim, on the plains ...

Notice the necessary qualifier "immoral".

On the other hand, you can't argue against popular use of a word. The word has taken on a meaning that deviates significantly from what it meant in 1913 when the Encyclopedia was published. Catholics can talk among ourselves about "the cult of our Lady" or "the cult of St. Joseph". But if we use the word as it has come to be understood we will be grievously misunderstood by a modern irreligious worldview which think it means "crazy religion", and can be applied to anybody who lets their faith affect their life outside of church.

Zacharias' beliefs and practices could be considered cultish in this pejorative sense by those who have no religious beliefs. In a pluralistic society it seems impossible that there could be a consensus regarding what groups are cults in this pejorative sense.

Edited September 6, 2012 by 3DOP

[Lightbearer]

I always marvel at the need to label the Saints as a "cult." No matter how you claim to define it the truth is the word cult has gained a very negative connotation. When one says the word cult, images of Jim Jones or David Koresh come to mind. The idea of brainwashing and mind control comes to the hearer. That is exactly the response that those who use the word desires. They want to inspire fear or hatred in the hearer. This poisoning the well is the intended purpose of the use of this term. Their motives are in all probability sincere. They do not want to loose ground, they cannot admit to Mormonism's claims because if they do, then they become by definition Apostate in nature. They are in the position the Cheif Priests of the Jews were at the time of Christ. In fact Saints of the former days had to deal with this very charge:

"But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."

(New Testament | Acts 28:22)

Apparently these people considered it a "sect" so did that mean they considered it a splinter group of Judism? Or were they a group that had a "new revelation" that "deviated" from the Law of Moses?

Of course "traditional christianity" will never accept the restoration because it would destroy their religious claims. So if they want to call me a member of the "cult of Jesus Christ" restored in the last dispensation, I will accept it. But the problem is the term if used publicly could harden peoples hearts so they will reject the truth because they are blinded by the craftiniess of men.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

Do either or both if you like. I am hesitant to try to answer your question if I don't know what kind of source you would consider acceptable.

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

[Nevo]

By using the term "deviant" in association with a religion he doesn't like, but whose growth figures he is impressed by, he makes the rhetorical point that Church growth would be a VERY BAD THING because the Church is a VERY BAD THING.

CFR that Stark "doesn't like" the LDS Church and thinks its growth "would be a VERY BAD THING." You obviously known nothing about him or his writing.

Stark and Bainbridge's definition of cult movements is about as neutral as one could expect to find. Stark describes early Christianity as a "cult movement" too, so Mormonism is in good company.

[Tacenda]

http://www.rickross....rningsigns.html

"Potentially unsafe groups or leaders "come off very nice at first, they go for vulnerable people who are looking for answers, lonely, what you'd call 'normal people.' They're very good at what they do and can get people to believe anything. You might think you'd never get taken in, but don't

bet

on it."

-- Margaret Singer, Ph.D.

http://forum.rickross.com/list.php?14

A comment from the Cult Education Forum.....

As a Christian for a couple of years I was hugely excited when I heard that a Calvary chapel was to be planted in Bristol, my home town. Unfortunately my subsequent experience was much like many others I have since read on here. The pastor required that his 'flock' do everything that he said, and made ridiculous requirements upon their time to the detriment of family life. It was all very subtle, but if you did not comply then basically you were treated as a second rate christian and given the cold shoulder. It seems the minions sent over from America to teach us 'little people' were products of some bible college in Siegen Germany where they memorise Chuck Smith tapes prior to being unleashed onto the unsuspecting populace. The man sent was ill equipped, clearly had little or no knowledge of how o plant let alone run a church and the whole thing was a disaster.

Needless to say I, along with the rest of the six strong congregation saw through the power hungry pastor and one by one left. Shortly afterwards the pastor left with his tail between his legs. However another guy did take over...I am staying well away. THIS GROUP IS A CULT STAY AWAY THEY ARE HARMFUL!

Edited September 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[danielwoods]

Nevo, on 06 September 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

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.

Right, where the claim of the LDS is that the "primitive" (foundational) Christianity is different from the "Mainstream ("traditional") Christianity" based largely on revelation. And so, those who are persuaded by this claim, are LDS.

[ERayR]

Some groups redefine words as a way to establish and solidify their own exclusiveness or uniqueness. Such use of language is called jargon. The Evangelical Protestant redefinition of cult strikes me as an instance of jargon.

Sure does hinder meaningful dialog.

[Saints Alive]

Can anyone honestly say that those who label The Church a cult do it for any other reason than to give a code word that automatically gives negative connotations to the audience? Sure once they are called out on it they will say it fits based on this or that definition and there is no offense meant but that has came off as hollow to me. My favorite juxtaposition is LDS vs "bible believing Christians" which obviously implies that LDS don't believe in the bible.

[Carborendum]

As stated earlier, the Latin root for "cult" is similar to "culture" and "cultivate".

Cult=Religious

Culture=Social

Cultivate=Agricultural

All meant to make a change deeper than the surface. Cult was, simply put, a religion. But the definition went through some changes over the past century.

CHANGE #1:

In 1932 a sociologist named Howard P. Becker decided to separate the "mystical" from mainstream faiths. So, he called the mainstream faiths "religions" and others as "cults". At first it was not meant to be derogatory. He simply needed a different word to describe the non-organized religions. In fact, most of his classifications had more to do with "organized religion" vs. individual practice rather than the "mystical" nature of the religion.

CHANGE #2:

Eventually, this referred to deviant religions.

CHANGE #3:

In the 1960s another change occurred. There was a spike in "new religions". Some were quite insipid (Jim Jones). Others were harmless enough. But "cult" came to mean "religion of recent origin". At this time the LDS were still largely unknown. So, when someone came across a Mormon, they were lumped in with these other "new religions". It is important to note that the connotation of "deviant" or even "evil" was still a strong part of the word "cult".

After a while a lot of these new faiths fell into obscurity or died out completely. Some are fairly strong, but still not well known. The one faith above all others that not only survived this period of being labelled a cult, but thrived despite it, was the LDS faith.

Since this name-calling was largely propagated by the evangelical population, there was a problem. Since the definition at the time was "new religion", many were startled to find that we'd been around for 140+ years. While they still considered this fairly recent, it was still too long to say it was just a "fad religion" which was also a connotation that came with this definition. Many just didn't buy it.

CHANGE #4:

One would think that they would forget about it and say,"Well I guess we can't call them a cult, but I still don't like them." But no. They decided that hatred was the way to go. So, the question was,"How can we continue using this word that carries with it so much hate and evil connotation when they don't fit the definition?... We need to change the definition! That's easy enough to do. And if we say the Bible says so, then we can get all of Christianity to go along with us."

"OK, so, they're a cult. And cult means a purported Christian religion that differs from accepted Christianity. And, of course, WE will define what accepted Christianity is, so there's no problem there. Now, what beliefs of Mormons differ from ours? The Trinity? Great. That's one. What else..."

Eventually, they no longer cared much what they had already believed for centuries. They changed even some aspects of their own faiths to try to be different from Mormons. In reality, Christians of 200 years ago had beliefs that were much closer to modern LDS faith than today's evangelical Christians.

Bottom line: They don't like us, so they call us a cult. It has no basis in a real definition of any kind.

Those who are friendly to Mormons (while respectfully disagreeing) tend not to use that word.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Carborendum

[maklelan]

Scott,

You asked:

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

I don't think a normative source is necessary. How about a source that is providing such a definition completely non-antagonistically? The academic sense of the word refers to ritual and practice in any religion. The pejorative sense is a modern innovation of sectarianism that is arbitrarily defined according to whatever group an author wants to denigrate. Such usage is name calling and absolutely nothing more. Other modern concoctions of the notion of "theological cults" are nothing more than attempts to sneak in the pejorative baggage associated with the term without the associations with violence.

[USU78]

CFR that Stark "doesn't like" the LDS Church and thinks its growth "would be a VERY BAD THING." You obviously known nothing about him or his writing.

Stark and Bainbridge's definition of cult movements is about as neutral as one could expect to find. Stark describes early Christianity as a "cult movement" too, so Mormonism is in good company.

How to respond to a CFR about the plain use of loaded words as rhetorical weapons . . . I'm thinking of my class in persuasive writing from Prof Crockett at USU back in 1977 +/- . . . we used a lot of examples from great speakers from the '30s and '40s to show how one uses rhetoric to persuade. I think she died. I know Lenin and Tito and Goebbels and Churchill and Mao have all died. All amazing speakers. All highly skilled in rhetorical persuasion.

And none of them wrote a book on rhetoric.

You want I should quote Aristotle?

[Rob Bowman]

Let's look at some definitions of the word cult in recognized, non-evangelical reference works:

• American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, definition #1: "a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect."
  
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary, definition #3: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents."
  
• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions: "CULT, collective veneration or worship. In the West, cults are usually thought of as groups that have deviated from normative religions."
  

These definitions correspond quite well to the way evangelicals typically use the word when they refer to the LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, and other such groups as "cults." The term in this context expresses the view that such groups have deviated from the normative form of Christianity, that they teach false versions of the Christian religion, and that they are theologically unorthodox. One may not like the word, and one may of course disagree with the theological perspective from which evangelicals make their assessment of such groups, but the use of the term cult in this way is validated by some credible reference works.

It is also worth pointing out that the English word cult did not gain currency as a standard word until relatively recently. The word cult does not appear in Perry's 1788 Royal Standard English Dictionary or in Webster's 1828 Dictionary. As best I can tell, the modern usage of the word really develops in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and one can begin to see occurrences of the word cults to denote false or extremist religions especially in the early decades of the twentieth century. I was able to find a few references to Mormonism as a "cult" in more or less this sense in the first decade of the twentieth century. Perhaps the earliest well-known use of the term cults in a Christian work critiquing various unorthodox religious groups was Van Baalen's 1938 book The Chaos of Cults (later entitled The Chaos of the Cults).

Given the common association of the word cult in the general populace with criminally deviant religious groups like Jonestown, my own opinion and practice is that evangelicals should avoid using the term in a theological sense, at least where the likelihood of being misunderstood is minimal. But those evangelicals who use it this way are not assuming a non-standard definition.

[Nevo]

How to respond to a CFR about the plain use of loaded words as rhetorical weapons . . . I'm thinking of my class in persuasive writing from Prof Crockett at USU back in 1977 +/- . . . we used a lot of examples from great speakers from the '30s and '40s to show how one uses rhetoric to persuade. I think she died. I know Lenin and Tito and Goebbels and Churchill and Mao have all died. All amazing speakers. All highly skilled in rhetorical persuasion.

And none of them wrote a book on rhetoric.

You want I should quote Aristotle?

Evidently your classes at the USU didn't include one in sociology. Sociologists do not use the term deviance as a "rhetorical weapon." The object of Stark and Bainbridge's discussion of sects and cult movements was not "rhetorical persuasion" but rather scientific description. A deviant group is simply one that departs from the norm; no value judgment is implied. As Stark explains in his book The Rise of Christianity, cult movements are not "new organizations of an old faith; they are new faiths, at least in the society being examined.... [A]s new faiths, cult movements violate prevailing religious norms and are often the target of considerable hostility" (33; emphasis added).

Stark himself has no antipathy toward Mormons (quite the opposite, actually). The book I linked to earlier in the thread that collects his writings on Mormons was edited by Reid Neilson, then a professor in the BYU Religion department. Neilson is currently the Managing Director of the Church History Department. That should tell you something. Stark is not the anti-Mormon demagogue you suppose him to be.

[maklelan]

Let's look at some definitions of the word cult in recognized, non-evangelical reference works:

• American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, definition #1: "a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect."
  
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary, definition #3: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents."
  
• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions: "CULT, collective veneration or worship. In the West, cults are usually thought of as groups that have deviated from normative religions."
  

First, these definitions just register usage. "Ain't" is in the dictionary too, as is "irregardless." Notice, next, that the definitions refer to value judgments. They don't define "cults" according to necessary and sufficient features, they just define them as religions that other religions view a particular and denigrating way. In other words, they don't help you identify cults on your own. They only tell you why others identify religions as cults. Cults are religions your religion doesn't like. Mormonism would not qualify as a cult by any of these definitions unless you appealed to their categorization on the part of someone as "spurious" or "unorthodox," which then falls back on negative value judgments. As I said, the words as it is used by Evangelicals is a usage that simply is not appealed to to refer to specific religions in non-pejorative contexts.

These definitions correspond quite well to the way evangelicals typically use the word when they refer to the LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, and other such groups as "cults."

So then Evangelicals acknowledge that when they call another church a "cult," the term is only accurate because Evangelicals judge Mormonism to be spurious, unorthodox, extremist, or false (all subjective value judgments). In other words, it has nothing to do with specific aspects of Mormonism, and it's not an objective categorization. If I call a group a cult, I can never be wrong, since all that is required is that I feel the group is spurious, unorthodox, extremist, or false. How is that a useful category?

The term in this context expresses the view that such groups have deviated from the normative form of Christianity, that they teach false versions of the Christian religion, and that they are theologically unorthodox.

These are all entirely subjective judgments. Evangelicalism is a deviation from the normative Christianity of five centuries ago, and even more so from the normative Christianity of 2,000 years ago. It is incredibly unorthodox according to the same, and teaches false versions of the Christian religion. The same could be said of all Christianity from Christ to after the Reformation from a modern Evangelical's point of view. No one could insist these usages are wrong, since the definition refers only to one group's perspective on another, not on any objective criteria. The term is entirely useless to someone not just looking to condemn another religion.

One may not like the word, and one may of course disagree with the theological perspective from which evangelicals make their assessment of such groups, but the use of the term cult in this way is validated by some credible reference works.

Only if you mean validated in the sense that it is a word that has a consistent usage. It's certainly not validated as a word that has any place in respectful or academic discourse. It's a value judgment, not an objective descriptor.

It is also worth pointing out that the English word cult did not gain currency as a standard word until relatively recently. The word cult does not appear in Perry's 1788 Royal Standard English Dictionary or in Webster's 1828 Dictionary. As best I can tell, the modern usage of the word really develops in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and one can begin to see occurrences of the word cults to denote false or extremist religions especially in the early decades of the twentieth century.

The word in English was used to refer to worship beginning in the early seventeenth century. It fell from general usage in the eighteenth century, but regained momentum in the mid-nineteenth century in reference to ancient ritual observances. It comes from the Latin cultus (care, labor, cultivation, culture, worship, reverence) through the French culte, which was also a common word in the early seventeenth century. The usage in reference to devotion to a person or thing dates to 1829. According to Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk, it means "An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree.

I was able to find a few references to Mormonism as a "cult" in more or less this sense in the first decade of the twentieth century. Perhaps the earliest well-known use of the term cults in a Christian work critiquing various unorthodox religious groups was Van Baalen's 1938 book The Chaos of Cults (later entitled The Chaos of the Cults).

Given the common association of the word cult in the general populace with criminally deviant religious groups like Jonestown, my own opinion and practice is that evangelicals should avoid using the term in a theological sense, at least where the likelihood of being misunderstood is minimal. But those evangelicals who use it this way are not assuming a non-standard definition.

Evangelicals are the ones who standardized that usage. They are the world's main purveyors of Christian sectarianism.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Cults are religions your religion doesn't like. Mormonism would not qualify as a cult by any of these definitions unless you appealed to their categorization on the part of someone as "spurious" or "unorthodox," which then falls back on negative value judgments. As I said, the words as it is used by Evangelicals is a usage that simply is not appealed to to refer to specific religions in non-pejorative contexts.... The term is entirely useless to someone not just looking to condemn another religion....

The rest of your post offers variations on this same theme.

Let's get some perspective here. Is the term apostasy a useful term? Is it objective? Is it ever anything but pejorative? Isn't the term apostasy subject to the very same criticisms you make against the term cult?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Calm]

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.

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2012/09/04

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Cults are religions your religion doesn't like.... According to Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk, it means "An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree."

I don't agree with Pentecostalism on some things. I definitely disagree with Catholicism on some things. There are some denominations I don't like but consider legitimate Christian denominations. If I disagree with these groups and even dislike some of them, why don't I regard them as cults? Why, in fact, do I deny that they are cults?

[shalamabobbi]

These are all entirely subjective judgements. Evangelicalism is a deviation from the normative Christianity of five centuries ago, and even more so from the normative Christianity of 2,000 years ago. It is incredibly unorthodox according to the same, and teaches false versions of the Christian religion.

So the evangelicals are the cult and the LDS are the return to the normative religion of 2000 years ago? Sweet..

Following the lead of Robert Smith I'll say "Thank you Rob for your concern for my eternal welfare - but don't bother to pass the plate."

[shalamabobbi]

If I disagree with these groups and even dislike some of them, why don't I regard them as cults? Why, in fact, do I deny that they are cults?

Hold the presses! Rob is admitting himself into evidence..

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

The rest of your post offers variations on this same theme.

Let's get some perspective here. Is the term apostasy a useful term?

Yes. It refers to a falling away from a religion or ideology. The term "apostate" is far more common in scholarship, but leave-takers from religions frequently self-identify as apostates. It can, of course, be used pejoratively, but it does not have to be. Sociologists have described apostasy as one of three primary kinds of exits from religious movements. The other two are defection and whistleblowing. See this text as an example of "apostasy" and "apostate" in academic usage. Note, too, the way the word "cult" is used in that publication.

Is it objective?

It can be.

Is it ever anything but pejorative?

Yes.

Isn't the term apostasy subject to the very same criticisms you make against the term cult?

No.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

I don't agree with Pentecostalism on some things. I definitely disagree with Catholicism on some things. There are some denominations I don't like but consider legitimate Christian denominations. If I disagree with these groups and even dislike some of them, why don't I regard them as cults? Why, in fact, do I deny that they are cults?

Because you find some social or rhetorical value to not labeling them as such. There are certainly numerous Evangelicals who are happy to label each of those groups a cult, and according to the definition you wish to promote, you can't really tell them they're wrong. You don't wish to condemn those religions, and that's your prerogative, but others do, and that's their prerogative.