Cults and Psychology (part 1 of 2)
Written: May 19, 1999
As we approach the millennium, more and more people will be worrying about what are commonly called "cults." There appears to be a feed-back loop operating between cults and times of crisis or change - the times increase tension such that cults prosper, and the cults themselves serve to heighten the tension. But what exactly are cults, and why do they proliferate? What sorts of people are attracted to cults, and why? Are cults dangerous? Beneficial? Or simply neutral? This last point grows increasingly critical, as we have seen quite a few cults which have posed significant dangers to themselves and the people around them. However, we should not let fear get the better of us and cause us to create the problem we're trying to solve.
I'll attempt to explore all of these questions and more in this article. Although I won't be able to exhaustively address the immensely complex issue, I do expect to offer some basic grounding that everyone can use. The available literature relating to cults takes a wide variety of stances, but there are certain things which we should all know. You should look at this as more of a beginning rather than an end - there's more to learn than I can present here, although I can certainly point you in the right directions.
What's in a Name?
Should we even use the term "cult?" There is a great deal of disagreement on this question. On the one hand, it's a common term which everyone recognizes and to which everyone can attach some meaning. On the other hand, most of those meanings are largely negative in nature, thus "cult" has become almost pejorative. Commonly, religious defenders - usually Christian apologists - use the term "cult" as cudgel to attack small religious groups or, even worse, minority Christian faiths which do not adhere to all the traditional Christian doctrines. Thus, even the Mormons are regarded by many as a "cult." (When the Southern Baptists held their convention in Salt Lake City last year, they engaged in extensive efforts to evangelize and convert Mormons).
It is worth noting that many of the features of the "cult" which Christian apologists and anti-cult activists use are eminently applicable to mainstream Christianity itself, and most are applicable to the fundamentalist Christianity which brays the loudest in American culture. In fact, it would not be very difficult at all to describe the earliest Christian community as "cultish" in nature - the only thing stopping most apologists from recognizing this is the fact that contemporary Christians regard that community as having been in possession of the Truth. Thus, for such people, "cult" is merely a term for a False Faith
Instead of using such a loaded word, it would perhaps be better to refer to "New Religious Movements." These groups, normally called "cults," are religious, they are movements, and they are generally new. So New Religious Movements, or NRM, will be the term used throughout this article. Anti-cult prejudice is rampant in American society, and I'll attempt to avoid it as much as possible. From my perspective, so-called "cults" are merely other religions, no better or worse than older, established religions.
Defining Ideas
It's no easy task to isolate exactly what an NRM is supposed to be. Definitions we find vary widely, and much depends upon the author's perspective. In Christian apologetic literature, a strong theological slant is offered. This appeals to many people not only due to its simplicity, but also because it resonates with already-present religious prejudices. Essentially, these definitions all boil down to the assertion that a "cult" is any organized, religious movement which denies or contradicts "basic" biblical doctrines as traditionally interpreted by established Christian denominations. Writers such as the late Walter Martin, who founded the Christian Research Institute in California, and James Sire are good examples of this approach.
But of course, no scholarly or objective approach to NRMs can accept that definition - it is so riddled with flaws as to be unusable. The first and most obvious question that comes to mind is what "Christian orthodoxy" is supposed to be. More salient, perhaps, is the issue of just who gets to interpret what "Christian orthodoxy" is. I'm sure it's no coincidence that anti-cult apologists assume for themselves the burden of this task. Some go so far as to exclude the Roman Catholic Church, thus revealing their prejudices.
Another important issue is that the variety of beliefs in NRMs is totally ignored - they all believe very different things, and thus cannot all be "unorthodox" in exactly the same way. For this reason, we learn nothing about just what these groups are. Simply saying that they are "unorthodox with respect to traditional Christianity" provides us with little information.
Negative Character
It would be more fruitful to examine a set of characteristics which are common to a wide spectrum of so-called NRMs. Those with more characteristics will thus fit within the category easily, whereas those with fewer characteristics could only marginally be called an NRM or "cult." There are a number of negative characteristics which are commonly listed in psychological or sociological approaches to NRMs. Unsurprisingly, these are enthusiastically adopted by anti-cult Christian apologists and added to their theological perspectives.
One pervasive, albeit not universal, characteristic is that of an all-powerful leader who is usually thought to be the Messiah. The Branch Davidians and Unification Church come to mind as obvious examples of religious movements embodying this. Many leaders have become corrupt and megalomaniacal, reaching for financial gain or earthly power. Of course, the members of these groups are not doing anything significantly different from traditional religious groups: they seek to locate the basis for religious authority in faith rather than in empirical evidence.
Faith in David Koresh or >Sun Myung Moon is no less reasonable than faith in Jesus or Allah. Anyone critical of the faith shown by followers of the former two groups would be hypocritical in not raising similar questions about the latter groups. Unsurprisingly, a few Christian apologists who have set out to study "cults" in an effort to refute them and convert their followers have recognized this, and ended up abandoning their own religion. But these are only the most honest and reasonable ones - others manage to blind themselves to the obvious parallels.
Another feature common to NRMs is a very aggressive, and at times dishonest, proselytization of the rest of society. Members of traditional religious group can be quickly put off or even frightened by the fervor with which these new beliefs are promulgated. Others, however, find that same fervor to be exciting and enticing, thus allowing the movement to grow. The Hare Krishnas and their pervasive presence in airports and bus stations is a familiar sight to many Americans. The Mormon church, too, sends out its young people on evangelization efforts around the world and throughout local communities. Whether or not deceptive techniques are ever used is a more serious charge and more difficult to support. Some groups labeled "cults" certainly have, but we can't say that this is true of all. Of course, some mainstream Christian churches have skeletons hiding in their closets, too.
A third characteristic is that the group forms a rigid institution which attempts to control all aspects of a member's existence. The Hare Krishna movement certainly fits within this description in the way it defines what members may and may not do in most aspects of their lives. But is control being dictated from above, or sought out and embraced from below? Sociologist Samuel Wallace has described the idea of the "total institution" which forms an entirely separate social world, defining not only the member's social status and personal relationships, but indeed their very identity as a person.
Often, a total institution is freely chosen by people, perhaps because they have come to fear the freedom and responsibilities outside. In an earlier essay reviewing the book Shopping for Faith: American Religion in the New Millennium by Richard Cimino and Don Lattin, the authors quote one seeker as saying:
If all the gospel of Jesus Christ is going to do is change my Sunday schedule, then I'm not interested. I want something that is gong to change my finances, my sex life, the way I work, the way I keep my house and the way I fix my yard.
Clearly, this is a person desperately seeking a "total institution," and
they are doing so among traditional, mainstream Christian denominations. Once again,
we have to take note of the fact that such "total institutons" are not
at all limited to New Religious Movements. Indeed, it is a common feature found in
religions and religious sects throughout history, and is still extant today.
Positive Character
But not all characteristics are so negative as those described above. Alluded to previously is the great enthusiasm which members tend to experience over their beliefs. People who have grown dissatisfied with traditional religious belief may find the excitement of new religiosities both challenging and promising. Unfortunately, this excitement is not too many steps away from fanaticism, a danger to the believer and those around her.
A further characteristic which takes on larger significance in NRMs than in traditional religions is that of personal experiences. Members of these movements tend to refer often to unique, perhaps ineffable experiences they have had with what they call a "god." They have become transformed by their experiences, and are certain that they could not be mistaken about what has happened. The promise of this is obviously alluring to many people - who wouldn't want to experience another world, another reality? Unfortunately, there are no external criteria by which we can distinguish between an authentic spiritual experience and an inauthentic, perhaps drug-induced experience. The suggestion that we use critical, skeptical thinking to examine such experiences is often met with derision or hostility. Coincidently (or maybe not), all of the above could describe what goes on for many involved with traditional religions as well. They, too, will call upon personal experiences as authentic guides to a spirit world without offering critieria by which their claims might be judged.
Don't miss the other section:
