New Religion, Minority Faith or Cult?

You be the judge

There are many ways to define the term "cult". One very broad definition is: "any religion that focuses on worship of a particular person or deity" (Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions 7th ed. p. 494)  By this definition, the term can apply to all religions though typically the term is more limited to those religions which especially worship or follow a living person. Thus "cult" might be defined as "founded by a charismatic leader, a person whose powerful personality is the focus of the followers." (The Sacred Quest, p. 94) This would apply to many "new" religions as well as to times in the past when now ancient religions were new and the founder was still living (e.g. the followers of Jesus before and shortly after he died would rightly be called a "cult" in the more generic/academic sense). In terms of ancient religions, the term "cult" also applies in a non-judgmental academic sense to any of the "mystery cults" of ancient Greece or Mithraism or the various Egyptian religions focused on a specific deity (e.g. Isis). 

Today the term "cult" is most usually used for new religions that are suspect to suggest they are "bad" - i.e. a pejorative use of the term. In Jesus' day, this would have been how his following was looked upon by outsiders. Today, some examples of religions that are often referred to as "cults" by outsiders (in a derogatory manner) include: Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Hare Krishna, the Branch Davidians, Scientology, the "Moonies" (Unification Church). Perhaps the most extreme example of a cult (a religion gone bad) was Jim Jones' People's Temple. But most so called "cults" are not bad at all. Their detractors just want to make them out as such. Even the ones that go bad, do not generally start out that way. Jim Jones' group was not always a dangerous, mind controlling organization. It started out as a church with high virtues (reaching out to the idealistic young as an integrated inner city church in the 1950's when segregation was the norm). David Koresh's group actually started out as part of the Branch Davidian subgroup of Seventh Day Adventists. 

Thus I always hesitate when I hear the term "cult" being used. More often than not it is misused. Many times any new or unfamiliar religious organization is labeled a "cult" without learning much about it. This is a tough issue to make any blanket statements about. I advise looking at the web site: www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu. They outline quite well the difficulties involved in this issue. If we want to be academic about it: the term "cult" can apply to any group with a charismatic leader and blind followers. But that need not mean it is something bad that they should get out of. That description can apply to many accepted religions.

Think about Jesus and his following when he walked the earth, and even those who turned to worshipping him after his death. That fits the stated definition of a cult. But when a new religion outlives its founder (as Christianity and Mormons have but as the Waco group, Heaven's Gate, and Jim Jones' People's Temple did not) and survives for say, one hundred years or more and gradually makes its way into the mainstream of a society (it took Christianity about four centuries before it was fully accepted in ancient Roman society), then it is no longer considered a "cult" (expect by dogmatic outsiders). (Note the distinction between a group being considered a cult and actually being one).

Another distinction that might be made between a cult and sect or new religion is to see if it is harmful to the mass of its followers (ReligiousTolerance.org distinguishes between "doomsday" and "harmless" cults). The Mormons did not end up dead like the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Another source has identified five characteristics of cults: 

• cults tend to centralize power in the hands of a single individual or small group that is considered beyond question

• they treat all questions about the group and its beliefs as intolerable challenges to the group's authority and authenticity

• they demean all those who do not share their beliefs and sow fear and mistrust amongst their believers about all such people

• they typically cut off all or most opportunities for members to interact freely with those outside the group

• they take revenge upon those who choose to leave the group in ways which include cutting them off from all relationships with those who remain inside, confiscation of material goods and even physical harm

These five characteristics seem pretty straightforward. I might suggest that for a group to be a "cult" in the truly negative sense of the word, it would have to have all five characteristics (rather than just one or another of them). And if there is any doubt about a given group being a cult or not, the fewer of these characteristics the group has, the more doubt we should have that it is not a "cult".

There are any number of factors that go in to making a group a "dangerous" cult:

• charismatic leadership is one

• strict rules of behavior is another

• being closed to the outside world is a third

• communal living is a fourth factor

Any of those factors can exist in many groups without making them cults. It does seem that as the number of factors increases, so too does the danger.

Television evangelists are charismatic leaders but that does not make their following a cult. Billy Graham is not a cult leader. The Amish live in a closed society but they are not a cult. Many churches and other religions have strict behavior rules like no dancing and no makeup and even women not being in church when menstruating but that does not make them cults. Life in a monastery is closed off from the larger society, is communal living, and has many rules of daily life dictated for the monks (when to rise, eat, work, pray, sleep). We would hardly consider monastic life as being a "cult". There are more factors than just the four I've mentioned (see this list of cult characteristics). But keep in mind that for every one of these characteristics, somewhere there is an established and respected religion that also shares these characteristics (see comments below). 

Many people think the Hare Krishna group is a cult. Why?

• Because they have heard the group referred to as a cult.

• Because it seems that they brainwash people.

• They pretty well control their members.

• Because you have to conform to the way they want you to look and dress as well as tell you what to say and do.

How do we know this about them? From exaggerated hearsay?
The Hare Krishna group is actually a Hindu sect (ISKCON - International Society for Krishna CONsciousness). Many of the things people think is true about them are not true. Do they really "brainwash" people? Is this any different than the indoctrination that most religions put their members through (we are all being indoctrinated when, as children, we attend Sunday school)? Many religions place certain controls and restriction on their members in terms of what they can eat, how they should dress and act. Maybe we think of ISKCON as a cult because it is not common to this part of the world (especially so when they first started here in the 1960s). But that does not make it a cult. If it did, then Christianity would be a cult in their part of the world. They are a very charismatic group. But so are many Christian churches.

For many people today still, anything outside the norm of the majority is a "cult". This is why it's so important to do your own investigation before taking someone else's word for it. Make your own educated judgment. Don't even trust the media to know what it's talking about. The media is often biased and sometimes even ignorant. Every source of information offers a certain perspective. The stories we get from the insider will be very different from the stories we get from the outsider. Who are we to trust for the truth?

You have to decide for yourself - don't let the media decide for you. Don't let mass opinion decide for you (then you too are being "brainwashed"). In order to decide for ourselves we must educate ourselves: do research, make sure the sources know what they are talking about, get all sides of a story before passing judgment.

Some websites on cults:

Religioustolerance.org Cultmenu: contains many sub-pages examining this controversial issue. This site also describes various religious groups often called "cults" that may or may not actually be deserving of the negative connotation given them by this label. Read the objective facts about these groups and judge for yourself - don't take someone else's word for it.

Why the Mormon Church is Not a Cult: in the process of explaining why LDS is not a cult, the author of this article identifies several common characteristics of cults. We might use this article as a guideline when it comes to questioning whether any given religious group is truly deserving to be labeled a "cult".

For a scholastic examination of the issue check out: Cult Group Controversies: Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" by Jeffrey K. Hadden (University of Virginia professor)

Regarding the list of 15 "cult characteristics" found at the above noted site, I make the following observations:

Many of these characteristics are found in groups which are not generally considered "cults"? How many of these characteristics might be found in Judaism, Christianity or Islam or certain of the sects or denominations of these or other legitimate religions? 

Having any of these characteristics does not automatically mean a given religious group is a "cult" in the negative sense of the term. For instance: 

1. Many religions, especially eastern ones, have living gurus with followers. This does not mean they are all cults.

2. The Amish discourage doubt and questioning and any Catholic child knows the wrathful eye of a nun when asking too many questions. This does not make these religions cults.

3. Buddhism and other Eastern religions practice meditation and chanting, Pentecostals and other Christian charismatics "speak in tongues". These are well regarded spiritual practices in many religions. The presence of this trait does not automatically mean the group is a cult. It just means it’s different from what you consider the "norm".

4. The Amish, Hasidic Judaism, monastic communities and certain conservative Christian churches all dictate the everyday lives of the faithful. Even more religions have similar guidelines, not from living leaders but from writings left behind from leaders of long ago. This does not mean these groups are cults; they just follow a more disciplined way of life.

5. Judaism claims to be "God’s Chosen" and Christians are out to "save the world". This does not make these religions cults. Jesus was a Messianic leader in his day and Hinduism has claimed many avatars, why could there not be such today?

6. Judaism, especially in Israel, the Amish and other "separatist" denominations and many fundamentalist and conservative, as well as minority groups in many religions hold an "us-versus-them" mentality. This does not mean they are all cults.

7. And just who is the Pope accountable to? The Catholic church is not a cult

8. The use of drugs and drink have an ancient history of use for inducing trance states and bringing on spiritual visionary experiences. The Native Americans are not a cult nor is Judaism or any of the Christian faiths that use wine in scared celebrations. Some religions consider dancing as immoral but many spiritual traditions have used dance to both express as well as create spiritual experience. Indian Tantric practices have a long history of using sexuality as a spiritual practice. Although such practices have often been questioned by the mainstream of the respective faiths, sometimes sexuality and gluttony are used to celebrate life or to desensitize us to physical pleasures. Unusual practices do not automatically mean a group is a cult.

9. Many in the Catholic church, as well as other religions, have felt guilt by the standards of their doctrine. This does not make them cults.

10. Anyone who comes to a new perspective on and direction in life due to spiritual awakening will often give up personal goals and activities that were of interest prior to their "conversion". Not all spiritually motivated change of values are due to cult activity.

11. Christians evangelize and proselytize seeking converts to the faith. This does not make this religion a cult.

12. Christian churches collect money as a regular part of their worship and the Catholic church is especially rich as are some other denominations. This does not make them cults.

13. People who become religious would naturally want to make their spiritual lives the primary concern of their daily activity. Not all religions are cults.

14. The Amish, the Hasidic Jews, some Catholics (monastics), evangelical Christians, and others tend or prefer to live and socialize only with those in their own group. These religions are not cults.

15. The Amish may be shunned if they leave the group. Many "Born Again" Christians cannot imagine any other way to live and believe. These are not cults.

So apparently not one (or even a few) of these characteristics alone is unquestionably an indication of a cult. However, when a given group has a significant number of such characteristics it might be cause for more critical examination of the group. Note the guidance given at this site: "this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult." However, if you check many of these items, and particularly if you check most of them, you might consider examining the group more closely." This is a call for critical examination, not automatic name-calling.