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

[DBMormon]

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.

so again I can say it simpler -

DB Dictionary = A group of people who believe differently then you and whom you do not like.

Every church you would use this term cult for also fits this definiton which simply makes the term biased and mean spirited and any person willing to use it obviously is willing to continue the prejudice. Would Christ and his followers in early christianity be a cult under your terms... yes that is what they were considered... but it was wrong and to use words knowing they have multiple meanings and knowing others will define it by those other meanings says more about the person saying it then the group it defines

Edited September 8, 2012 by DBMormon

[Carborendum]

Rob,

I've only got time right now for the first definition.

a. A religion or religious sect generally considered ...

Here is the first problem with these definitions. Who says it is "generally considered" so. Jews consider all of Christianity to be false and extremist. Buddhists, Muslims, & Hindus outnumber Christians worldwide. They all consider all of Christianity to be false. Most of them consider us extreme.

If you want to add "in a given location or region" to the definition, what you are really saying is "might makes right". Just because there are fewer of us than you, you consider us "extreme". Of course we consider each other false. That is the nature of an exclusive religion.

with its followers often living in an unconventional manner

What we do now was quite common a couple centuries ago. It was considered moral to live chaste lives, refrain from alcohol, etc. Other things we do are not that unconventional.

under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

What charismatic leader? I certainly don't see any of our church leaders as "charismatic". At least, no more charismatic than I would see a corporate head or office manager.

[shalamabobbi]

What charismatic leader? I certainly don't see any of our church leaders as "charismatic". At least, no more charismatic than I would see a corporate head or office manager.

Maybe Rob finds them to be charismatic in comparison with himself..

Edited September 8, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[ERayR]

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

Is he intimating being an expert on cults?

[Vance]

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?

Is it because you don't hate them as much?

[Carborendum]

OK. I have time for the other definitions.

a religion regarded as unorthodox

Pretty much the same comments as "unconventional".

or spurious

In other words--"We don't like you"

CULT, collective veneration or worship.

Yea, what religion doesn't fit this definition?

In the West, cults are usually thought of as groups that have deviated from normative religions.

In other words "We don't like you or agree with you." So, if you don't agree with us or like us you can call us a cult. It still has no basis in an exact logical definition that is proveable. Only opinions, tastes, judgment. Oh how much evangelicals judge.

The term in this context (indicates)

1) ...deviated

2) ...teach false versions of the Christian religion

3) ... theologically unorthodox.

1) So if we follow the doctrine that Christ taught, then Christianity deviates from that, you can call *us* deviants? Love that logic. You can call us throw-backs or outdated, archaic, obsolete... But to call us deviants when we follow the Bible more closely than you do, and claim we don't believe in the Bible as strongly as you do, doesn't make sense.

2) And who decides which version is "false"?

We have a prophet and claim individual revelation from God. You claim all you have to do is read the Bible--then ignore anyone else's interpretation that contradict yours. All the time, depending on the arm of flesh.

I listen to God. You listen to the precepts of men. Which has a greater claim to know what is true or false?

3) We are, if anything, TOO orthodox. To call us unorthodox is counterintuitive and requires active ignorance.

Admit it. You only call us a cult because of the evil connotations.

I'll also address your argument about "apostate". On one hand, I'll partially agree with you. There are parallels you can draw here. On the other hand, I usually reserve such a label for those who "actively" rebel against the faith.

We don't actively *rebel*. We just have different ideas than you do. There are many in our faith that I've come across that hold beliefs that have NO basis in any reason or established theology. But do I call them apostate? No. I say they're misled. They're not thinking things through. They just don't understand...

I also wonder why you don't consider Catholics of various sects to be cults. They certainly have a lot of beliefs WAY outside the norm. How many others believe in transusbstantiation? But do we use terms like "Jesus-Eaters"? No. Why not? It is true isn't it? It doesn't matter. To use a term is spurrious and serves no purpose in rational dialogue. But for some reason, evangelicals consider it useful. Gee, I wonder why.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

Regarding the use of the term apostasy, you wrote:

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.

I am concerned here about the LDS use of the term "apostasy" to characterize all of Christianity from sometime in the early centuries (usually in the second, third, or fourth century) until Joseph Smith. That usage is obviously pejorative, it is one that everyone so characterized would not use to identify themselves, and it is based entirely on the LDS theological perspective. As best I can tell, this usage is subject to the identical criticisms you leveled against the evangelical use of the term cult to denote heretical groups.

[Antoni]

My rule of thumb for a cult is "something that is easy to join but hard to leave".

VERY few religious groups are cults in that case.

To use the label against a group that to your way of thinking is unorthodox isn't helpful and is basically scaremongering.

I think many religious groups have cultic tendancies, such as shunning (which doens't have to be formal, but can happen "unofficially"), it's a fine line between be cautious and being cultic.

However it's an easy label to splash about and as most evangelicals are fearful of any group that isn't like them, it's a rather quick and easy fear label to give.

[Antoni]

ps that rule above for cults was taught to me at an Evangelical Bible College

[Vance]

I am concerned here about the LDS use of the term "apostasy" to characterize all of Christianity from sometime in the early centuries (usually in the second, third, or fourth century) until Joseph Smith.

Are you concerned about the Evangelical or Protestant use of the term "apostasy" to characterize the Roman Catholic Church?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Are you concerned about the Evangelical or Protestant use of the term "apostasy" to characterize the Roman Catholic Church?

The issue I am addressing is the use of the term as a pejorative based on a particular theological perspective. Maklelan professes to view any such terminology to be purely subjective and inappropriate. So I am asking him about a term that is used in LDS discourse precisely the same way. I don't have an a priori objection to the use of the term, as maklelan does.

[Vance]

The issue I am addressing is the use of the term as a pejorative based on a particular theological perspective.

Ok, So . . .

Are you concerned about the Evangelical or Protestant use of the term "apostasy" to characterize the Roman Catholic Church?

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Regarding the use of the term apostasy, you wrote:

I am concerned here about the LDS use of the term "apostasy" to characterize all of Christianity from sometime in the early centuries (usually in the second, third, or fourth century) until Joseph Smith. That usage is obviously pejorative, it is one that everyone so characterized would not use to identify themselves, and it is based entirely on the LDS theological perspective. As best I can tell, this usage is subject to the identical criticisms you leveled against the evangelical use of the term cult to denote heretical groups.

Broadly speaking, yes, it is the same type of judgment, which is one reason I don't use it that way in any contexts even remotely academic, but "apostasy" does not import anything at all comparable to the vitriolic and vituperative semantic baggage that does "cult." If you want to call Mormonism apostate or heretical that's fine, and it would be correct according to your theology. That doesn't bother me, largely because it's not the same kind of depraved rhetoric to which the use of the word "cult" appeals. It's one thing to say you think another religion is heretical. It's another thing entirely to link them with mass murder, suicide, and other atrocities, irrespective of whatever semantic prophylactic you pretend the qualifier "theological" provides. If Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, Manson, Ruby Ridge, and Heaven's Gate were never associated with the word "cult," it would not be used today to describe Mormonism. Certainly you're aware that the majority of the "cult" rhetoric that fundamentalism aims at Mormonism incorporates comparisons with those groups. "Cult" is just a theological four-letter word. "Heretic" or "apostate" has some actual semantic significance.

Edited September 10, 2012 by maklelan

[maklelan]

Vance,

You asked:

The issue I am addressing is the use of the term as a pejorative based on a particular theological perspective. Maklelan professes to view any such terminology to be purely subjective and inappropriate. So I am asking him about a term that is used in LDS discourse precisely the same way. I don't have an a priori objection to the use of the term, as maklelan does.

No, the two words are not at all used in "precisely the same way."

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Broadly speaking, yes, it is the same type of judgment, which is one reason I don't use it that way in any contexts even remotely academic, but "apostasy" does not import anything at all comparable to the vitriolic and vituperative semantic baggage that does "cult." If you want to call Mormonism apostate or heretical that's fine, and it would be correct according to your theology. That doesn't bother me, largely because it's not the same kind of depraved rhetoric to which the use of the word "cult" appeals. It's one thing to say you think another religion is heretical. It's another thing entirely to link them with mass murder, suicide, and other atrocities, irrespective of whatever semantic prophylactic you pretend the qualifier "theological" provides. If Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, Manson, Ruby Ridge, and Heaven's Gate were never associated with the word "cult," it would not be used today to describe Mormonism. Certainly you're aware that the majority of the "cult" rhetoric that fundamentalism aims at Mormonism incorporates comparisons with those groups. "Cult" is just a theological four-letter word. "Heretic" or "apostate" has some actual semantic significance.

You stepped into it this time. Dan, evangelicals were calling Mormonism a "cult" long before any of those groups came on the radar. Here is when these groups began making headlines: the Manson Family (late 1960s), Jonestown (mid to late 1970s), Ruby Ridge (early 1990s), the Branch Davidians (early 1990s), and Heaven's Gate (1997). Jan Karel Van Baalen first published The Chaos of Cults, which included a chapter on Mormonism, in 1938. Walter Martin published his book The Rise of the Cults, which included Mormonism, in 1955, and the first edition of his book The Kingdom of the Cults was published in 1965.

These authors did not use the word cult with the connotations or associations that have become attached to it in the secular media especially since Jonestown. They used it to denote a heretical religion -- one that self-identifies as Christian or as in some way connected with Christ but which teaches heretical doctrine. And that is still the way evangelicals typically use the term when referring to Mormonism and other heretical forms of Christianity.

You appear so intent on dismissing the sincerity of evangelicals who use the term cult in this way that you fall into palpable falsehood and internal incoherence. If the word cult is informed by its use for such groups as you mention, then evidently it does mean something, albeit something you would find offensive if applied to Mormonism. Clearly, your argument presupposes that the term cult means something like "a religious group guilty of committing atrocities or posing a threat to commit such atrocities." That is the way many people use the term today, and it is not a purely subjective meaning as you had previously alleged -- nor does it make sense to claim that academics could never refer to "cults" in that sense.

Finally, you are laboring under the misapprehension that I am advocating the use of the term cult for Mormonism. I am not. It is never a term of choice that I use to label Mormonism. I actually wrote a book that was published twenty years ago (Orthodoxy and Heresy) in which I suggested that although evangelicals were used to using the term in the sense of a heretical religion, it might be better to avoid that usage because the term had been co-opted by the secular media for criminally dangerous religious groups. So I've been on record on this issue for a very long time. But I must protest when you and others try to smear your evangelical critics as hatemongers or whatever because of their quite innocent use of the term cult in reference to such groups as Mormonism and Unity School of Christianity. The fact that after all this time that usage is still on the books in standard dictionaries proves that this particular anti-anti-Mormon polemic, as my Southern friends would say, won't hunt.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

You stepped into it this time. Dan, evangelicals were calling Mormonism a "cult" long before any of those groups came on the radar.

I know. This was already discussed, wasn't it? That doesn't mean anyone would be using it today. The anti-cult and countercult movements developed in the 1960s and 70s and was widely popular in the 1970s-1990s. The vast, vast majority of Evangelicals today who use the "cult" script are directly descended from one or both of those movements. Even Martin discusses, "the initial surge of interest during the decade between 1975–1985 in the psychology of cult involvement." It was this pseudo-psychology that gave the countercult movement an air of legitimacy, which is the only reason it made ground with the US government and the courts. Martin also calls hostility toward those who reject their interpretations "one of the basic problems all cultists face in interpersonal contact." He also states, "cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level." Is this claim a part of his original publications, or is this an aspect of cults that developed later? It gets more explicit, though: "If the tragedy of Jonestown on November 18, 1978, when over 900 cult followers of “Rev.” Jim Jones committed forced suicide, has taught us anything, it is the despair and isolationism of cultists." And again: "It is important for us to remember that the cultic psychological patterns evidenced in manic proportions at Jonestown and in Waco are present to some degree in each and every cult." (I'd also like to point out a comment of Martin's that literally made me laugh out loud: "First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts." Ha!) The countercult and anti-cult movements are directly aimed at exactly the kind groups epitomized by Koresh, Jonestown, and the rest. Without those movements and the violence associated with them, the movements never would have gotten off the ground and we simply wouldn't be talking about it today. Martin's texts would have never regained relevance, and they would never have been revised and republished over and over again. While he criticizes the anti-cults movements, he certainly benefited from them, and he absolutely shaped his definition of "cult" around the events of the 1970s-1990s.

Here is when these groups began making headlines: the Manson Family (late 1960s), Jonestown (mid to late 1970s), Ruby Ridge (early 1990s), the Branch Davidians (early 1990s), and Heaven's Gate (1997). Jan Karel Van Baalen first published The Chaos of Cults, which included a chapter on Mormonism, in 1938. Walter Martin published his book The Rise of the Cults, which included Mormonism, in 1955, and the first edition of his book The Kingdom of the Cults was published in 1965.

These authors did not use the word cult with the connotations or associations that have become attached to it in the secular media especially since Jonestown.

The very connotations and associations that give it the rhetorical power the majority of Evangelicals are looking for. Do you really think the word "cult" would be so popular without those groups? Would you like me to link you to as many Evangelical sites as I can that use them as epitomes of cultishness and as analogous to Mormonism?

They used it to denote a heretical religion -- one that self-identifies as Christian or as in some way connected with Christ but which teaches heretical doctrine. And that is still the way evangelicals typically use the term when referring to Mormonism and other heretical forms of Christianity.

Even Walter Martin and many, many others were happy to incorporate those groups into their discussion of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You appear so intent on dismissing the sincerity of evangelicals who use the term cult in this way that you fall into palpable falsehood and internal incoherence.

I have no doubt that some Evangelicals are sincere in the notion of a theological cult, but I also know that they cannot possibly be ignorant of the baggage they're importing. In my experience, the vast majority are perfectly happy with it.

If the word cult is informed by its use for such groups as you mention, then evidently it does mean something, albeit something you would find offensive if applied to Mormonism.

I don't find much offensive, but I certainly find it juvenile, irrespective of the religion to which it is applied.

Clearly, your argument presupposes that the term cult means something like "a religious group guilty of committing atrocities or posing a threat to commit such atrocities."

Not that it means that, but that it activates that semantic domain.

That is the way many people use the term today, and it is not a purely subjective meaning as you had previously alleged -- nor does it make sense to claim that academics could never refer to "cults" in that sense.

No academics would be taken seriously who used it that way. "New Religious Movement" is the accepted and neutral academic terminology, and it is used precisely because it avoids activating those pejorative semantic domains.

Finally, you are laboring under the misapprehension that I am advocating the use of the term cult for Mormonism. I am not. It is never a term of choice that I use to label Mormonism. I actually wrote a book that was published twenty years ago (Orthodoxy and Heresy) in which I suggested that although evangelicals were used to using the term in the sense of a heretical religion, it might be better to avoid that usage because the term had been co-opted by the secular media for criminally dangerous religious groups. So I've been on record on this issue for a very long time.

I appreciate that you were cognitive of the problems with that usage, and that you were sensitive to it, but the countercult and anti-cult movements used it well before the media did, and they were the main proliferators of it. Also, it seems you're defending those Evangelicals whose response to your book was "go pound sand." Do you think that's because the word has some kind of mystical utility, or just because the associations are convenient? The word certainly has quite a bit more sting because of them, and that's really the only reason I can think of for such reluctance to give up the word. "Heretics" just doesn't perk up the public ears like "cult."

But I must protest when you and others try to smear your evangelical critics as hatemongers or whatever because of their quite innocent use of the term cult in reference to such groups as Mormonism and Unity School of Christianity.

If they've had their own telling them for twenty years now not to use the word because of its semantic shackling to such groups, then they can hardly be presumed to be innocently using the term in its purely theological sense. As I said, the vast majority of the discussion I've seen by Evangelicals explicitly invokes the connection with those groups. Evangelicals know what associations are going to be made by the public.

The fact that after all this time that usage is still on the books in standard dictionaries proves that this particular anti-anti-Mormon polemic, as my Southern friends would say, won't hunt.

The fact that Jeffress had to go on TV to explain that he didn't mean a "sociological cult" but a "theological cult" is quite a clear indication of what people think when they hear the word "cult."

[Calm]

never mind, should have read a few more posts first....

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

I think Southern Baptists are a cult!

Did you know they worship snakes in their meetings? Ooooh! And they started their religion just so they could keep slaves. And were closely involved with the KKK. And they don't want their students to go to non-Baptist schools. They worship the Bible. And they worship another Jesus, not the same Jesus. They call their Jesus Jeeeeezus. And reject science.

See. Anyone can do it. It's easy. And it's all bogus [language Mr. Hamblin -Ares]

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ares

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

If you aren't too busy, could you please explain the point of your post? Remember, I have specifically stated that I do not advocate calling Mormonism a cult.

I think Southern Baptists are a cult!

Did you know they worship snakes in their meetings? Ooooh! And they started their religion just so they could keep slaves. And were closely involved with the KKK. And they don't want their students to go to non-Baptist schools. They worship the Bible. And they worship another Jesus, not the same Jesus. They call their Jesus Jeeeeezus. And reject science.

See. Anyone can do it. It's easy. And it's all bogus [language Mr. Hamblin -Ares]

[Calm]

Bill,

If you aren't too busy, could you please explain the point of your post? Remember, I have specifically stated that I do not advocate calling Mormonism a cult.

Read the OP. This thread is not specifically about you.

PS: Yes, I know I am not Dr. Hamblin, only having been one of his students and even just unofficially auditing that class. However, I think it is pretty obvious to anyone actually following the whole thread what his point was.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

I know. This was already discussed, wasn't it? That doesn't mean anyone would be using it today.

I find your reasoning here convoluted at best and in fact incoherent. If evangelicals were using the word cult in a theological sense for four decades before Jonestown, why would they stop using it in that sense afterward? Yet you claim that evangelicals today use the word in this way only because of its secular use prompted by Jonestown and such events. This doesn't make any sense that I can see.

You give some selective quotations from Walter Martin and ignore other statements from the same pages that don't fit the narrative you're trying to construct. You might at least have told people what you were quoting (Martin's chapter on "the psychological structure of cultism" in Kingdom of the Cults). Those who want to get the whole story should read Martin for themselves. I don't agree with everything he said, but that is the nature of things, and the point remains that your characterization is a caricature based on selective citation.

You wrote:

No academics would be taken seriously who used it that way. "New Religious Movement" is the accepted and neutral academic terminology, and it is used precisely because it avoids activating those pejorative semantic domains.

You're missing (or avoiding) the point. Not all new religious movements engage in criminal acts. There is a definite difference between Scientology and the Church of Religious Science. Both are new religious movements, both are heretical, and both are "cults" in the theological sense (Scientology because it professes to be compatible with Christianity and calls itself a "church"), but one is a "cult" in the pejorative sociological sense and the other is not. If many academics avoid using the term cult altogether, that is their business, but not all do, and the term has perfectly legitimate meanings.

You wrote:

I appreciate that you were cognitive of the problems with that usage, and that you were sensitive to it, but the countercult and anti-cult movements used it well before the media did, and they were the main proliferators of it.

Again, as a term roughly equivalent to "heretical sect."

You wrote:

Also, it seems you're defending those Evangelicals whose response to your book was "go pound sand." Do you think that's because the word has some kind of mystical utility, or just because the associations are convenient? The word certainly has quite a bit more sting because of them, and that's really the only reason I can think of for such reluctance to give up the word. "Heretics" just doesn't perk up the public ears like "cult."

Actually, it used to be much more inflammatory. Words change. Their associations change. more precisely, their associations change for some people but not for others.

You wrote:

If they've had their own telling them for twenty years now not to use the word because of its semantic shackling to such groups, then they can hardly be presumed to be innocently using the term in its purely theological sense.

You're assuming they all read my book and that they agreed with my suggestion that the term be used only when the group is clearly a cult in the sociological sense. Both assumptions are unwarranted. I'm not that big and not everyone agrees with me.

You wrote:

The fact that Jeffress had to go on TV to explain that he didn't mean a "sociological cult" but a "theological cult" is quite a clear indication of what people think when they hear the word "cult."

Yes (though you should say "many people"), which is why I have taken the position I do. But Jeffress clearly used the word as I explained.

[USU78]

I find your reasoning here convoluted at best and in fact incoherent. If evangelicals were using the word cult in a theological sense for four decades before Jonestown, why would they stop using it in that sense afterward?

This is silly. Justifying the provocative and wrongheaded usage by others because they've been doing it for longer than most Mormons have realized until this thread does not make the usage any less provocative and wrongheaded.

Evie Protestants, in their ignorance, used to claim Mormons had horns [some even still make this claim]. The claim goes back to the XIXth Century, if I'm not misinformed. Long-time usage does not make the insupportable supportable.

[RobertAC]

My understanding of the word "cult" from my high school history teacher is that it simply means a "small religion." From my later encounters with anthropologists, archeologists, and historians, it seems that the word is operationally used in this non-judgmental context to describe ancient religion. Using this definition, historians can point out that, at one time, Christianity was a cult.

[Calm]

Using this definition, historians can point out that, at one time, Christianity was a cult.

Depending on usage, it still is:

http://dictionary.re...browse/cult?s=t

World English Dictionary cult (kʌlt)

— n

1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity

2. a sect devoted to such a system

3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents

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

5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga

6. the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion

7. a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group b. ( as modifier ): a cult show

8. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults: a cult figure

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Vance]

Depending on usage, it still is:

http://dictionary.re...browse/cult?s=t

YUP!!!

Christianity (however you define it) is a cult.