From Doug’s blog today:
SBC President says Internet “Filled with Character Assassination”
SBC President, Frank Page says new considerations are necessary in the church to discern how to use the internet for the glory of God. This is evidenced by many uncharitable situations like this one: Southern Baptist Convention President, Frank Page was involved in a blog discussing controversial issues, and reports that “the blog degenerated quickly into a personal attack place”
The Greenville News reports, “The bigger issue, Page said, is that members of local churches have taken to using blogs to carry on bitter debates about problems within their own congregations”. Page pleaded, “For Christ’s sake, for the sake of the lost, stop!”
Do you think Doug is trying to send me a message?
Doug, I will stop blogging when you repent. This is not a personal attack against you. This is not a bitter debate that should have stayed within BCA. It should have been settled within BCA a long time ago, granted, but, Doug, you have a pattern of hurting and abusing fellow believers outside of BCA as well. To the extent that a public person’s influence extends in abuse, a public warning is also necessary to that same extent. Doug, your abuse and tyranny have extended around the globe, your false teachings have extended around the globe. This warning now goes out to that same extent. I would like nothing better than to shut down this blog. The ball is completely in your court, Doug. Help me shut this down by repenting.
August 31, 2007 at 7:45 pm
More and more cult-watch sites, Christian and otherwise, are including Bible-based cult-ish groups as flat-out cults, if enough of the criteria for “cult” are met.
September 1, 2007 at 3:11 am
What is the difference between cult and cultic? (Sociologically speaking) It’s a matter of degree. Defining terms is vital.
Concerning things “cultic”If you’re the average guy (or gal) sitting in a church or a concerned significant other of someone in a group, the first thing you generally notice is that something bothers you about the group. This realization is true of any subtle deception or of insidious problems such as something wrong with your car. You hear an unfamiliar noise and the right side of your brain become sensitized and unconsiously starts putting things together (as a built in defense mechanism). It is a general, intuitive and a type of inductive reasoning. (Like my quote from the Morpheus character in the Matrix film noted in the “Marked” for using the “C” word thread.)
So on this type of general level, the term “cultic” applies. There are very general similarities between the group in question and what is commonly believed about other well-known cults. It is informal and not based upon specific criteria or perhaps only one criterion. People tend to perceive “cultic” as softer and less threatening language than “cult,” connotating somthing like the Amish versus Jim Jones. A term that is perceived as synonymous with “cultic” is “Spiritually Abusive” (discussion of the same dynamics but with Biblical language vs secular) which is also softer langauge, especially more palatable to those who would not readily receive the message about the dynamics of a group if it were flatly declared to be a cult. Also consistent with the term “Spiritual Abuse” and “cultic” used in this sense, the term “aberrant” is often used, indicating that the core teachings are logical (largely consistent with Scripture as Mike has described) but do not represent mainstream, orthodox or conservative interpretation of either doctrine and/or practice.
“High demand group” may also be used in place of “cultic,” “abusive” or “aberrant”, using secular language to describe a group that is highly legalistic and collectivistic; however, all these terms are often used interchangably. It also does not carry the stronger negative connotation of “cult.”
A “cult” implies satisfaction of critera for inclusion within a group of religious movements that holds a much different, extreme social connotation essentially differing only by degree or a commentator’s preference for the term. Most people recognize the term “cult” as synonymous with those in the media and often attach the group with a morally reprehensible leader; however, few people actually know the criteria used to determine whether a group is a cult. The trouble is that many cults and cult leaders, meeting criteria, go unrecognized because their abuses do not extend to the extreme end of suicide on behalf of their followers. Also, their abuses may go unreported in light of the concurrent, very helpful and positive outcomes produced byt the group. This is probably true of multi-layer marketing groups and some of the new age oriented human potential groups. And then we have people like Doug who make very valuable contributions to precious causes, so the abuses and inconsistent behaviors and character traits are likely to be dismissed. Humans like consistency, so our desire to find and maintain consistency overrides our ability to recognize what may be obvious to others who have emotional distance.
“Cult” then, versus “cultic” implies more left-brained, analytical processes and some process of deductive evaluation of specifics, indicating that some informed and expert party/board/conference has evaluated and determined that the group in question is indeed a cult. “Cultic” then preceeds “cult” in most cases. Lifton’s criteria, the psychiatrist who counseled and treated the Korean POWs who were subjected to Chinese thought reform technique provides the definitive standard, as it was the first standard. A group in question need not meet every one of the criteria, but depending on the degree of abuse and the behavioral effects (both through group behavior and through negative/common symptoms in those emerging from the group) all contribute to the applicability of the term. Spiritual abuse can and is used for both “cult” and “cultic” however.
Another consideration is that of the artifice and intent of the group and/or leader. With Doug, in ‘99, I considered him to be “cultic,” demonstrating that I recognized that he was “abberant” in his behavior (as was Gothard). I would also say that the church that I left was a “cult” but that the movements that influenced them were “cultic.” When Doug published his “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” and from his documentable behavior in response to the criticism he received as a direct result, I no longer considered him to be “cultic” but a well-documented, sociological cult. These additional factors demonstrated that his ideology met all the criteria put forth by Lifton in variying degrees. Initially, I only had the collectivisitic and somewhat gnostic characteristics to consider. Publication of the “Tenets” established the authoritarian component that was not readily apparent or well-documented prior to 2003. Jen adds to this growing evidence concerning Doug’s patterns of behavior as well as highlighting the gross lack of accountability on Doug’s behalf.
Lilly Hill notes above: More and more cult-watch sites, Christian and otherwise, are including Bible-based cult-ish groups as flat-out cults, if enough of the criteria for “cult” are met.
“Cultic” certainly connotates something of lesser degree and threat than does the term “cult,” but as our experience with the terminology concerning the modern concept has grown, the terms have become interchagable. Much also depends on the orientation of the person or organization making the declaration. We now have (validated, statistically solid) tools and inventories for evaluating former cult members that were not available even ten years ago in addition to the information from the field of neurophysiology and brain imaging to aid in the determination of these things. It is a more exact science, validated by empirical data, and not just soley determined by someone’s very subjective evaluation. It is also no longer governed by avoidance of negative and emotional connotation but has become more understandable. Our understanding of and successes in the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, battered wife syndrome and the Stanford Prison Experiment has greatly contributed to our understanding of cults. Since the TM craze and the days of the People Temple/Jones, we have all the subsequent groups and their histories, some of which have spanned decades. Take for instance the Applewhite group/Hale Bopp cult. The surviviors have provided a twenty-year historical account of the development and decline of the group. A few weeks ago, the extensive study of the Boston Movement of the International Church of Christ was mentioned on this website.
We have the recent Abu Ghraib accounts and history, giving us additional insight into the irresistable psychology of ethinic/religious/political idealism, isolated authoritarian groups and hierarchical systems in isolation. Not only do we have the activities at the prison to consider, we now have information concerning the responses to the serviceman who reported the abuses. He and his family had to enter wittness protection because of the opposition and emotional responses as they were seen as Anti-American. (Read Zimbardo.)
The landmark cult-exit books have now required second editions and revisions. The science of exit counseling has grown into a discrete and well-established body of scientific knowledge, although most people will recall the “deprogramming” of the early seventies as their standard of comparison. Deprogramming (abduction and intense indoctrination) was in some cases as harmful as the cult and has been shown to be unnecessary. Once you get a person outside of the group and give them perspective/support, (as long as they read and educate themselves in their own recovery efforts), their minds and hearts and spirits heal themselves.
September 1, 2007 at 8:05 am
Cindy, thank you very much for this explanation of cults and “cultic.” This was extremely helpful. I think it was the subjective analysis of stating that someone was in a cult, or led a cult, without any specific definitive behaviors annotated, was what kept me from even considering the possibility of Doug Phillips being a cult leader. Using a checklist (or a combination of such) helps me to be able to make a more accurate observation, rather than merely a personal judgment.
September 1, 2007 at 8:47 am
Jen,
There is a great deal written on the charismatic personality of those who lead hegemonic groups. Feel free to copy this from my site (from Lalich and Landau Tobias on the topic) if you want to examine the “Cult Leader” characteristics.
http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=342775
Here’s ONE SHORT LIST:
* the tendency to hierarchy
* the drive for power (and wealth)
* hostility, hatred, prejudice (“Christian”, non-normatives, et al)
* superficial judgments of people and events
* a one-sided scale of values favoring the one in power
* interpreting kindness as weakness
* the tendency to use people and see others as inferior
* a sadistic-masochistic tendency (You’re gonna pay?)
* incapability of being ultimately satisfied
* paranoia
September 1, 2007 at 8:56 am
Here’s another good list for a point of discussion.
http://board.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?p=11923&highlight=&sid=43e14999a3db09683534caaf8387d754
September 1, 2007 at 11:54 am
From REST Ministries: Recovering from Experiences of Spiritual Tyranny–
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9575/charactr.html
Spiritual Abuse in the Church–
http://www.caic.org.au/zabusive.htm
Stop Spiritual Abuse —
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/articles.html
The Signs Of Spiritual Abuse–
http://www.slm.org/trtdigst/articles/abuse.html
Spiritual Abuse
http://www.watchman.org/profile/abusepro.htm
What Religious Cults Have In Common:
http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=193&Itemid=8
How Cults Work:
http://www.howcultswork.com/
IDENTIFYING A CULT
http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult
Cult Characteristics & Warning Signs:
Characteristics, Definitions, Warning Signs –
lots of links –
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-articles.html
ABOUT CULTS —
lots of links and articles
http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
Cults! An outline analysis of them.–
How Cults work and how to avoid them-
very good information
http://www.carm.org/cults/cultic.htm
The following article is by a professional hypnotist. It is useful to this discussion in viewing how much of hypnotic technique is used in many worship services in many denominations, including, from my experience, SG. used intentionally or not, the effect is still the same.
The Battle for Your Mind
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/sutphen.html