Definition of a Cult

One of the things that I find as I cruise various anonymous sites is the statement what is the difference between religion and cults? Many people sate that they do the exact same thing and as a result should be put under scrutiny the same way the cult of scientology is being scrutinised. So I have decided to look at what cults are and if the accusation can be levelled at Christianity specifically and any other of the other main stream faiths generally. This definition I will use then from this moment forth.

What is a cult? Well I have done some research and went to one of the best sites for cult information. The Cult Awareness Network is one of the best sites for information about scientology… Sorry I could not resist that one… If you don’t know why statement was funny or why the Cult Awareness Network ISNT the best source for information about scientology or cults anymore then your not really anonymous.

Ok lets start this blog. What really is a cult? It should be pointed out that there is no set definition of the word cult. As stated in one of the books that I have read for this one “one mans cult is another mans religion”. What I am going to do here is try and look at some of the definitions of cult and select the best to use as the definition I will use permanently.

Well lets have a look at some of the definitions of a cult and where the word comes from. Below are listed some of the definitions and I have . The origin of the word “cult”

comes from the Latin "cultis" which denotes all that is involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude. This definition actually denotes what we call denominations and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

(With thanks to www.ex-cult.org)

By this definition I would accept that all religions are cults. In this blog if I think there is something wrong OR that an accusation can be made against Christianity that is justified then I will say it. However I should point out that this is the origin of the word and how it started out. It is not how the word has developed and how it stands at this moment in time. As stated above one mans religion is another mans cult. However this is not a good definition as it doesn’t quantify anything really. I mean for example it just tells us what is involved and nothing of the people inside or how they influence their followers. It is also the start and the origin of the word. Remember tat many words that we use now have different meanings back hundreds of years ago (if you don’t believe me then have a look at the origin of the word policeman and polite and politician ok the last one here probably hasn’t changed that much) … . Lets have look at another definition.

The Christian definition is (with thanks to www.ex-cults.org again)

Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. I.E. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

The problem with this definition is that it excludes any group which is not based upon Christian teaching. It also excludes cults which are not based Christianity and which are based upon principals other than religion (for example scientology). Not entirely sure that this is what we are looking for. OK lets go with the www.ex-cults..org “universal” definition of a cult.

Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be
the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

By this definition it would appear that all cults are religions. But does it make all religions, cults? No. As stated in her book “Cults in our midst” Margaret Thaler Singer states that “a cult can be formed around any content“. Margaret then goes on to define ten major types of cults. These are:

Neo - Christian religious
Hindu an eastern religious
Occult, witchcraft and Satanist
Spiritualist
Zen and other Sino-Japanese philosophical-mystical orientation
Racial
Flying saucer and other outer space phenomena
Psychological or psychotherapeutic
Political
Self help, self improvement and life style systems

As we can see the “universal” definition starts to look ok. Remember a cult can be ANY of the above things. Just because it’s a religion does not make it a cult. Just because it’s a cult doesn’t make it a religion. Now from the information that I have looked at the main belief of any cult is irrelevant. As Margaret states

“in cultic groups the belief system - whether religious, psychotherapeutic, political, new age or commercial - ends up being a tool to serve the leaders desires, whims and hidden agendas”

Now this is could be expanded further to state how this is done, but I think at this moment, in this blog there is no need to go into it further (I will be when I start talking about mind control and indoctrination). Lets go back to the universal definition. Now as stated again in the book “cults in or midst” the leader plays a massive role in what is happening. In fact the leader, and what they teach , will use:

“the ideology (as) a doubled edged sword: it is the glue that binds the member to the group and it is a tool exploited by the leader to achieve his goals”

Now how does this refer to Christianity? Well lets have a little look at what the definition says about the leader and the teaching. Its states that the group:

“has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top”

In the Christian church the minister definitely teaches and there is a pyramid leadership structure of sorts in place. The problem come in when we relate this to the authoritarian aspect and the teaching and guidance coming from the top.

Authoritarian - strict and demanding obedience: favouring strict rules and established authority. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Well most of the churches that I am aware of don’t have anything like this. Strict rules? Demanding obedience? Think of this. Your sitting in church and one of the deacons comes up to you and start screaming in your face about something you have done. What would you do? I would leave. I would go to another church. I would go somewhere that would not do this to me. Remember in a church you are free to come and go as you like. You do not have to be there and you do not have to come back. Any church that demands to much to follow strict rules and total obedience is not a church that you would want to go to. So far this definition is looking a little bit as thought it relating to Scientology far more than to the Church.

As stated above its not the rules and the teaching that’s important. Its how they are used. There are rules and regulations that you have to follow. For example sex before marriage is frowned upon, swearing is also frowned upon as well. But lets be honest just because there are rules and they are enforced does not make it a cult does it? No as stated it is the way in which these rules are put into place. Ok in some Christian sects it can be said that there are rules and norms which are in place to set the leader/minister as the head. Can it be stated that the minister is using the ideology to further his hidden agendas and use it as a tool? Well it can be some times. Remember I said that good or bad I will look at it here. The accusation could be made at the church as a whole.

One example is the Catholic Church. The catholic church still keeps its command structure very much to the popes decrees. Because of the popes orders many people in the catholic church do not use condoms. If the Pope did allow this to happen then it would result in a huge drop in HIV and AIDS related infections and a decrees in the amount of AIDS and HIV related births. If you look at the command structure of the Catholic church, again the priest is still in command of a lot of what happens. Remember a lot of accusations and successful prosecutions have been made against priest for a lot of different acts. These acts were concealed for such a long time because of the way in which the priest is considered.

One of the best ways that I can show that ideology from the church have been used to further the leadership from the church about a hundred years ago. In some churches very early in the 20th centaury would have pulled you up in front of the whole of the church if you had done something wrong. There are many documented accounts that a young lady who had become a mother before marriage would have been chastised in front of the whole church with the whole of the church watching. I do not and will not agree with this. I hate it. Jesus said himself “judge not lest you be judged yourself, and the measure to which you judge will be used against yourself”.

Now to answer these accusations back. The catholic church has started to realise what it is doing with regards to the priest and is putting into place many different safeguards to keep people safe from predators. Not only that but there are many criminal background checks that are now used to ensure that certain people are band from service. Also in the protestant church the act of bringing people out and ridiculing them has long since fallen by the way side. I haven’t seen anything like that and I am quite glad about it.

What makes the difference between the cults attitude and the religious attitude is the transparency. Remember the cult of scientology is renowned for controlling its information. Remember you are not even allowed to know about Xenu until operating thetan something (cant remember off the top of my head). This leads me nicely to the teaching aspect. So far the

All teaching from above is a far stretch of the imagination for any church. Hell even many of the churches that I have been to don’t agree on the same interpretation of the bible! The church that I am in at the moment does even have a permanent minister. How can all my teaching come from the top? Ok I would accept that some of you may say that you are still teaching from the same source and that your ministers are taught to teach the bible in the same way. Not really. Remember the bible is an open document. Anyone can read it and any on can buy a copy. Its origins are open for any one to see and anyone can dispute them.

All of my teaching come from various sources. From different people with a different view. Remember anyone can read the bible in any way they see fit. This would put a massive dent in anyone saying that all of our teaching comes from the top. Remember Martin Luther called for the priesthood of ALL believers. The thought that ALL teaching comes from the top annoys me and sickens me. As the old saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you think that all my teaching has come from my minister than you are SO wrong.

Lets also think about the web and other information sources. If for example I wanted to know about “transubstantiation” (the belief that the bread and wine at the communion table turns into the flesh and blood of Christ when you eat it) I can find lot and lot of sources on this. I do not have to look to one man. If I wanted to find out more about God then I could look to Richard Dawkins if I really wanted (by the way I do not like Dawkins. Not for the obvious, the selfish gene is really good and so is the blind watchmaker). With any cult you do not have the opportunity to go for other sources of teaching or knowledge. Take scientology, you are actively blocked from looking at other sources for fear of being thrown out as a suppressive person.

Now lets go back to Scientology. If you even look at the teaching of L Ron Hubbard (from now on I will only refer to him as LRH) you are called a “squirrel”. This simply means that “profiteers who pervert scientology because of their inability to correctly apply it” (Atack 1990). This would apply neatly to the Authoritarian and the pyramid structure of the cult. The more we look at this definition the more we see the cult accusation towards the church is not that founded. The more we talk about authoritarian and the teaching aspect the more the accusation does not stand.

When we look back at the definition we can see that the more we look at it, the more that the Church (from this moment on I will use the word Church to relate to all mainstream faiths and cult to refer to scientology and other cults of sorts). However the definition has some aspects which are not included. For example the relationships between members, the objectives of the leader, the controlling aspect. I will now look at some of the other aspects of a cult definition.

There are as many churches as there are blades of grass. A good majority of them are not going to have:

authoritarian leadership
all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top
use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

Before you attack me, I am going to cover mind control and thought reform in another blog entry so wait until then. I am waiting to get more information about this topic before I explore it further.

I am going to look at the aspect of cult which I think is the most definitive. Its written by Margaret Thaler Singer. If you not sure who she is then please feel free to look at this link to find out more. In her book “Cult in our Midst” (which a lot of the reference for this book comes from) she examines a whole heap of cults and their origins. I would recommend this book to anyone investigating cults. Anyway I digress.

I am going to write her definition word for word. Here goes:

I prefer to use the term “cultic relationships” to signify a more precisely the process and the interactions that go into a cult. A cultic relationship is one in which a person intentionally induces others to become totally or nearly dependent on him or her for almost all major life decisions, and inculcates in these followers a belief that he or she has some special talent, gift or knowledge.

For our purposes the label cult refers to three factors:

1) Origin of the group and role of the leader
2) The power structure, or relationship between the leader (or leaders) and the followers
3) The use of coordinated program of persuasion (which is called thought reform, or, more commonly, brain washing)

Now I like the way she writes this definition. I love it in fact. When I think of a cult I think of more than just simply someone who turns up at all of the services and someone who wears silly robes as well. I think of someone who has completely no free will and someone who has to rely totally on the cult for everything. This definition certainly covers that aspect of cult life.

Remember we said earlier about transparency? Remember what we said about the way in which Ideology is used? Remember what we said about the relationship of the leader? In this aspect of the cult definition we can se that this is being addressed but is not totally compliant with the structure and so forth.

What I am going to do now is write a definition that I have come to and this will then be the standing definition of the word cult as well.

A cult is an organisation which has been set up in order to help further the aims and the objectives of the leader. The leader will uses values, beliefs and ideology in order to further the leaders aims. The organisation of the cult will be totally lead from the top down and there will be no deviation from the set indoctrination also. All communication, of any sort, will be vetted and only members with enough thought reform will be allowed contact with those outside of the organisation. The cult will also use any tactic it deems fit to stop any and all threats it sees.