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

[zerinus]

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]

Ah, I didn't know you had beaten me to it!

[Gervin]

The Protestantism, and especially the Evangelical variety of it, are the biggest cults of all.

You are loved, zerinus.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Gervin

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

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?

The usage was not as widespread as it is today, nor were texts discussing cults particularly popular until they started providing a fundamentalist foundation for understanding the events of the mid- to late-twentieth century. I was not referring only to Jonestown and the others, but to incidents like those. The interest in "cults" exploded after the 60s and 70s precisely because of the anti-cult and countercult movements, and the events of Jonestown, et al. I don't think we'd have people calling Mormonism a cult on national television without those events.

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.

How have I misrepresented him? I explained that he was critical of the psychological approaches ("deprogramming," etc.). Are you trying to say that Jonestown and the other events had no influence on his definition and description of "cults"? I don't have a first edition of the book, so I can't see how much his position changed as a result of those events.

You wrote:

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"),

Why is "heretical" not sufficient alone?

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.

I don't know any academics who use the term "cult" in the sociological sense except for sectarians and anti- or countercultists. Can you point me in the direction of academics who use the term in a purely secular and academic sense?

You wrote:

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

No, the anti-cult movement absolutely did not use the term in that sense, and they were the most public proponents of the term. Even within the countercult movement there was a great deal of rhetorical overlap with the anti-cult movement.

You wrote:

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.

And despite this you want to argue that fundamentalists on our side of Jonestown et al. use the term free from any rhetorical influence from those events? They use it to mean exactly what it meant 60 years ago, and only what it meant then?

You wrote:

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.

But you still appear to be arguing against the thesis of that publication. Do you no longer agree with it?

You wrote:

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.

And I suggest that his use of the word is irresponsible. if the word requires an explicit clarification of the sense every time it's used, is it really that useful a word? The vast majority of Evangelicalism, in my experience, is happy for the semantic associations, and they are my primary concern.

[Vance]

Bump.

[Vance]

Bump.

[Calm]

I admire persistence.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

In answer to my CFR that evangelicals widely believed and some still believe that Mormons have horns, you wrote:

An evangelical believes it's a big enough myth to refute it: http://www.equippingchristians.com/Myths-About-Mormons.php

Did you bother to read the article you're citing? Here is what the author says (my emphasis):

Myth #1. Mormons have horns.

Fact: Only if they are in marching band or drive working vehicles. NOTE: Myth #1 is meant to be humorous. I read comments on an LDS discussion board by Mormons who were debating whether or not evangelicals really believe this. I have never personally heard anyone seriously believe Mormons have horns. When I was LDS, it was rumored that in some Christian circles there were those who actually believed Mormons have horns; however, since becoming a part of the Christian community I have never heard anyone make that assertion. Whether or not this myth was was ever circulated as a genuine concern about Mormons, I couldn't say.

Your second citation also did not show that evangelicals ever actually believed that Mormons have horns, or that any evangelicals think this today.

[goambinna]

Cults like these are designed to take time and money from good people.

I did not realise I was in a cult until a friend put me on to

http:///www.bible-truths.com

I took months to come out of its false teaching and beliefs

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I assume that your "bumps" are in reference to the following question you asked:

Ok, So . . .

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

I didn't answer your question for three reasons: (1) it is vague, (2) it assumes that all or even most evangelicals characterize the Catholic Church as apostate, and (3) and it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

For the record, I as an evangelical do not regard the Catholic Church as "apostate," but I do regard it as severely compromised by false doctrine and other types of corruption. "Apostasy" would mean that the Catholic Church had abandoned the Christian faith. I don't think this is the case. Regrettably, many Catholics individually are apostate (but so are many Protestants), and many more don't even know enough about the faith to have fallen away from it. But the institution itself, though corrupt and compromised in severe ways, is not, in my opinion, "apostate." So I disagree with those evangelicals that describe Catholicism as apostate, even though I often agree with their specific criticisms of Catholic doctrine and religion.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

One other thing: I realize that you were probably responding to my comment that I was "concerned" about the Mormon description of all Christian churches other than itself as part of the Great "Apostasy." In that statement, I was using the word concerned to mean that this usage was the subject of my comments. I was not criticizing or complaining about the Mormon usage of the term. I was, however, pointing out that it is clearly pejorative, with a similar (not identical) meaning to the theological sense of the term cult. This is why your question about evangelical views of Catholicism was off-topic: it had nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is the fact that Mormons use clearly pejorative language to describe other forms of Christianity, even as they complain about evangelicals using pejorative language to describe Mormonism. See this post here where I made this same point to you more briefly.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cults like these are designed to take time and money from good people.

I did not realise I was in a cult until a friend put me on to

http:///www.bible-truths.com

I took months to come out of its false teaching and beliefs

So are you claiming you convereted to the LDS church. That is good to hear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

calmoriah,

In answer to my CFR that evangelicals widely believed and some still believe that Mormons have horns, you wrote:

Did you bother to read the article you're citing? Here is what the author says (my emphasis):

Your second citation also did not show that evangelicals ever actually believed that Mormons have horns, or that any evangelicals think this today.

Rofl. That is kind of funny. I never once heard this on my mission. I had elders claim that some "investigators" asked "were are your horns". But I have never personally come accross this one. I am sure some one some were said it. I doubt it was ever wide spread.

[Vance]

Vance,

I assume that your "bumps" are in reference to the following question you asked:

Nah, I gave up on you answering the simple and straight forward question. I was looking for your response to Mak's last post.

I didn't answer your question for three reasons: (1) it is vague, (2) it assumes that all or even most evangelicals characterize the Catholic Church as apostate, and (3) and it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Nice spin.

1) It isn't vague.

2) Nah, it just assumes that some evangelicals characterize the Catholic Church as apostate. Which can be demonstrated.

3) Not at all. I shows how you have painted yourself into a corner and must do a lot of spinning in an attempt to extricate yourself, thus providing great entertainment.

For the record, I as an evangelical do not regard the Catholic Church as "apostate," but I do regard it as severely compromised by false doctrine and other types of corruption.

Other evangelicals do.

"Apostasy" would mean that the Catholic Church had abandoned the Christian faith. I don't think this is the case.

Other evangelicals do.

But the institution itself, though corrupt and compromised in severe ways, is not, in my opinion, "apostate." So I disagree with those evangelicals that describe Catholicism as apostate, even though I often agree with their specific criticisms of Catholic doctrine and religion.

Nice spin.

Corrupt and compromised but not apostate?

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

Regarding the use of the term cult prior to the rise of widespread media coverage of such groups as Jonestown, you wrote:

The usage was not as widespread as it is today, nor were texts discussing cults particularly popular until they started providing a fundamentalist foundation for understanding the events of the mid- to late-twentieth century. I was not referring only to Jonestown and the others, but to incidents like those. The interest in "cults" exploded after the 60s and 70s precisely because of the anti-cult and countercult movements, and the events of Jonestown, et al. I don't think we'd have people calling Mormonism a cult on national television without those events.

I have the advantage here not only of being a member of the evangelical community you are criticizing but of having studied the history of evangelical responses to heretical groups. The popular interest in cults outside evangelical circles did explode after the 60s and 70s, more precisely after the Jonestown event in 1978 (which is when the secular media really began focusing on "cults" and when secular anti-cult groups appeared). But texts discussing "cults" (in reference to theologically heretical groups) were extremely popular among evangelicals before that event. Walter Martin's book The Kingdom of the Cults was published in 1965 and went through 24 printings by 1977. Your speculation that we wouldn't "have people calling Mormonism a cult on national television without those events" pertaining to sociologically deviant religious sects (what secular media commonly call cults) is just that, speculation.

Again, I'm not promoting the use of the term cult as a label for all heretical groups. I've been very clear in saying I think it would be better if evangelicals didn't use the term that way. But many do, and what I've tried to do here is not to defend their usage as the best usage but to explain that their usage is not intended to characterize heretical groups like the Mormons as criminally dangerous.

You wrote:

And despite this you want to argue that fundamentalists on our side of Jonestown et al. use the term free from any rhetorical influence from those events? They use it to mean exactly what it meant 60 years ago, and only what it meant then?

Often, yes. I agree that the secular or sociological usage can get mixed up with the theological usage, and as I've said repeatedly this is a good reason to avoid using the term in the theological sense. I also agree that some people use the term in a way that in effect characterizes groups called cults as deviant sociologically as well as theologically. So no, I'm not claiming that every evangelical uses the term only in a theological sense or that none of those for whom that sense is primary combine it with the secular usage.

You wrote:

But you still appear to be arguing against the thesis of that publication. Do you no longer agree with it?

I don't understand why you think so. I have not defended the use of the term as a label for heretical sects; I have simply argued that it is wrong to generalize about all or most evangelicals who use the term as using it in the way you claim.

You wrote:

The vast majority of Evangelicalism, in my experience, is happy for the semantic associations, and they are my primary concern.

That is the sort of unwarranted generalization I am criticizing.

[DialseHes]

yeah, i know some individuals who have had their lifes destoyed going to this cult

They choose on weak ladies and make them slaves to the church (cult)

They make you consider everything you're doing is for God and God will bless you

in every approach of your life in case you put them first

I know Pastor John Mcmartin likes to say, "it not about you"

Individuals who suppose twice turning into becoming a member of one of these cults

[Storm Rider]

yeah, i know some individuals who have had their lifes destoyed going to this cult

They choose on weak ladies and make them slaves to the church (cult)

They make you consider everything you're doing is for God and God will bless you

in every approach of your life in case you put them first

I know Pastor John Mcmartin likes to say, "it not about you"

Individuals who suppose twice turning into becoming a member of one of these cults

I did not understand one thing you wrote. Could you please try again.

[Tacenda]

Dup

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I did not understand one thing you wrote. Could you please try again.

I understood it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Duplicate

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

Cults like these are designed to take time and money from good people.

I did not realise I was in a cult until a friend put me on to

http:///www.bible-truths.com

I took months to come out of its false teaching and beliefs

I know, the cult of sock-puppetry is a terrible soul-destroying scourge, I hope your Odyssey out of its false teaching and beliefs continues to inspire millions in their quest for truth.

Edited October 2, 2012 by volgadon

[shalamabobbi]

I know, the cult of sock-puppetry is a terrible soul-destroying scourge, I hope your Odyssey out of its false teaching and beliefs continues to inspire millions in their quest for truth.

Offer him pie..

[altersteve]

Offer him pie..

No one can say no to pie, especially to a pie that looks as delicious as that.

[Vance]

The popular interest in cults outside evangelical circles did explode after the 60s and 70s, more precisely after the Jonestown event in 1978 (which is when the secular media really began focusing on "cults" and when secular anti-cult groups appeared). But texts discussing "cults" (in reference to theologically heretical groups) were extremely popular among evangelicals before that event. Walter Martin's book The Kingdom of the Cults was published in 1965 and went through 24 printings by 1977. Your speculation that we wouldn't "have people calling Mormonism a cult on national television without those events" pertaining to sociologically deviant religious sects (what secular media commonly call cults) is just that, speculation.

Sorry, but your feeble attempt to link "evangelical circles" to "on national television" is just too funny. Martin's book may have been popular in some "evangelical circles" but it had nothing to do with "national television". Perhaps smaller viewership outlets like the 700 club or Jim and (then wife) Tammy Bakker shows talked about it in the mid to late 70's, but "on national television"? :rofl:

Edited October 4, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Sorry, but your feeble attempt to link "evangelical circles" to "on national television" is just too funny. Martin's book may have been popular in some "evangelical circles" but it had nothing to do with "national television". Perhaps smaller viewership outlets like the 700 club or Jim and (then wife) Tammy Bakker shows talked about it in the mid to late 70's, but "on national television"? :rofl:

I didn't make the link; maklelan did, referring to an evangelical referring to Mormonism as a cult (in a theological sense) this year, 2012, in the context of explaining his opposition to Romney.

You really should see someone about those uncontrollable giggles of yours. You might be in danger of a gelastic seizure.

[Tacenda]

Check out this test to see if you're in a cult that isn't good.

www.goodcultbadcult.com

My score was 60% and it said I was at risk. I guess it's all in how one might perceive things. Everyone is different.