Who are you Calling a Cult?

By Amie May

My son went to church with a friend one Sunday. He came away feeling afraid.

The church leadership claimed that illness is a result of sin and that humans are inherently sinful. Therefore, humans are sick by their very nature. Seemingly, the church leaders have stepped outside of themselves and declared a war on their own humanity. My son was not frightened by the ideas themselves; he knows better. He was frightened by the self-destructive violence harbored in this leadership and the unquestioning silence found among the congregation.

All people will eventually be confronted with the question of allegiance to authority. To what degree will you simply accept the word of authority figures? It is an issue in family relations, politics, and especially religion.

Many organizations tag religious movements that differ from their own as ‘cults.’ It is, then, easy to dismiss someone believed to be in a ‘cult’, where people can be irrational and/or programmed with propaganda. You can feel superior to the ‘cultist’ because you have the mental capacity and moral strength to avoid cult membership.

But is the protest against cults a displacement of one's own self-loathing? Could this fascination with cults be a projection of one's own unconscious self-evaluation?

In its broadest sense, a cult is simply a system of beliefs and rituals often headed by a charismatic leader or leadership. With that broad definition, practically any group (religious or otherwise) would qualify – especially the ones with likable people taking the initiative. However, there is a narrower sense of ‘cult’ referring to an association that employs techniques injurious to healthy individualism.

Ideological Totalism

In his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. describes what he calls “ideological totalism.” Ideological Totalism utilizes definable tactics that are not found in healthy religious or nonreligious groups and organizations. We can notice eight of them.

First, Ideological Totalism begins with environmental (or “milieu”) control. The leadership works to limit an individual’s exposure to the outside world. The “outside world” includes what a person sees, hears, reads, writes, experiences, or expresses. The techniques used to achieve this goal can range from confinement to a single housing to confinement to a single ideal.

Environmental control offers cult leadership the atmosphere to penetrate the “inner self” of the individual in order to influence the person’s own inner dialogue through “mind control,” “brainwashing,” or “thought reform” (much like the Soviets who sent people to the gulag for “reeducation”). The leadership defines for the individual what is true and not true and considers it their duty to create the surroundings to nurture this “truth.” In this way, they become the dominating force in every facet of the individual’s life thereby constructing a person as they see fit.

Second, the leaders themselves may believe that they have been commissioned by God, history, or other supernatural forces to carry out a specific imperative. This anointed work is more important than the dignity and welfare of human beings. To question the leadership (whether by thought or by action) is considered to have originated from a “lower purpose” such as selfishness, pettiness, or evil supernatural forces.

As a result of prolonged exposure to the leadership’s desires, the individual abandons hope apart from the imperative. They become subordinate to it, feeling utterly helpless without it and meaningless apart from it.

Third, within the cult’s world, distinct lines are drawn between good and evil, pure and impure. The good and pure are identified wholly with the leadership’s Totalistic Ideology. Anything in contrast, must be eliminated though coercion, threats (explicit or implied), or violence.

The leadership suggests that an individual’s state of impurity makes them a danger to themselves and to others. The individual should expect punishment and/or humiliation for such an impure state with the alleged goal of making purification (“We punish you because we love you”).

Shame and guilt become a key means connecting the individual to the leadership. The individual, identifying with the ideals of the leadership as the arbiter of all that is good and evil in the world, judges himself according to the standards set down by the leadership. With the tool of judgment, the leadership reserves the Divine right and power to forgive or withhold forgiveness of any trespasses. In this, the individual’s esteem is demeaned all the more, and any thought contrary to standards as defined by the leadership commonly results in strong feelings of guilt and fear.

Fourth, “cults of confession” require the adherents to confess their impurities while the leadership is exempted from the practice. The individual, ashamed and convinced of her guilt, confesses her “impure” deeds and thoughts. She may even confess to things that she has not done or thought. This cycle of confession often escalates into a grandiose competition among the membership – who can be the “best of the worst.”

Fifth, as the individual acknowledges her personal “impurities” (as defined by the leadership), she begins to look upon them as originating from outside influences, those that are beyond the borders of the imposed environment. The individual’s defenses against the pain of supposed impurities lash out at those outside influences. The result is an “at war” attitude. The individual is at war within herself, at war with the external influences, and sometimes even at war with being at war. The individual sees the leadership and group identity as the only sure defense against the evil outside world.

Sixth, groups immersed in Totalizing Ideology develop a restrictive language. Common words become filled with new meaning as defined by the leadership. Through such ‘predefinitions,’ an individual’s capacity to think freely is greatly limited, and outsiders are prevented from understanding the “true” meaning of things. Also, the restrictive language enables them to deal with complex human issues in coded ways. In this way the group can reduce complex issues to simplistic formulas.

How might, after all, a person embrace their freedoms when their leadership has predefined ‘freedom’ as ‘evil’? How could one encourage individualism when it is predefined as rebellion against the collective?

Seventh, within the cult’s world, doctrine supersedes human experience. The doctrine is understood to be more valid, truer, and more real than human character or experience. One’s emotions and life story become defined through the leadership’s interpretative grid. If a person experiences pain, the leadership (or indoctrinated individual) defines that pain in terms of official dogma. Again, the individual is impersonalized, and his/her feelings are neatly cataloged.

The person living beneath this doctrinal bondage is constantly thrust into the critical thought process: “I do this, therefore I am good/bad.” The individual ends up defining his/her own personal worth, goodness, and correctness in terms of adherence to and Performance of the will of the leadership. Whether religious or nonreligious, this is nothing less than dehumanizing bondage.

Ultimately, the leadership dictates who is and who is not worthy of existence. That ability is built upon the premise that there is a single “plumb line to truth,” “one path to true existence,” “one valid mode of being,” and that all else is false and perverse. Average members of the group feel privileged to be acknowledged by the leadership thereby becoming a part of something sacred and a guardian of the truth. I call this tactic “mine-ness.”

Knighted as “keeper of truth,” the individual becomes grounded in the foundation defined by the leadership. Rather than outgrowth and experiencing the world, they close off and become unreceptive of unauthorized ideas. Constricted spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually, they remain in a child-like state.

Eighth, challenging the leadership becomes emotionally impossible. Because the leadership controls the environment, owns a Divine endorsement, classifies right and wrong, enforces the code of behavior, and even defines language, the individual is left emotionally unable to question the leadership or to hold them accountable for their actions.

Here and Now

While some groups label others as ‘cults,’ Ideological Totalism sounds very much like what is found inside the doors of many organizations today. Could it be that Totalistic Ideology, for example in the name of Christ, is holding people hostage? Let’s apply the eight criteria to what we find in some churches. I’ll speak from my personal experience; you can determine for yourself how yours compares to mine.

First, is there an attempt at controlling people’s environment? Consider the emphasis leaderships place on attendance and participation in their own specific activities. Attend all the worship services you can. Join small groups. Get active in the church’s programs. Commit to multiple ministries. (At some point they end up serving the programs versus the programs serving them!)

Does this limit people’s exposure to the outside world? Have you noticed how some leaderships encourage their memberships to avoid divergent voices? Don’t listen to certain music. Don’t watch certain movies. Stay away from SpongeBob.

After prolonged exposure to these repeated messages, a person might begin to believe, “If pastor Nick thinks that cartoon might endanger my soul, then I’d better shun it.”

Second, do leaderships believe themselves to be appointed by God or history to carry out a specific plan? I’ve heard countless leaders describe their call and anointing—how God selected them to teach the word, to build the church, to lead the flock. I have a friend who attended a popular Christian men’s conference a couple of summer’s ago. The theme of the conference was “For Such a Time as This.” My friend listened to the speaker inspire the audience by telling them that God was about to do a great work though this group at this point in history. Does that fit the criteria?

Third, do certain leaderships draw lines in the sand determining what is good and what is evil?

In my experience, that’s what most sermons happen to be. The congregation is informed that certain behaviors please God while others draw his ire. So, be careful little eyes what you see.

Fourth, do churches require their members to confess their faults while exempting the leaders from the same? I have two words for you: altar call. I’ve sat through many church services where we have sung all 853 verses of Just As I Am in hopes of some poor soul coming forward to repent of his wicked ways. I’ve heard ministers instruct anyone who might have (through sins of commission or sins of omission) brought reproach upon the church to take a seat in the front row, tell everyone their dastardly deeds in gruesome detail, and let the entire congregation hug you after the closing prayer. (The hugs were their way of saying, “Wow! I’m glad I’m not you.”)

A friend of mine tells the story of watching a guilt-ridden 16 year-old boy repent of being on a church league basketball team; his evil transgression was that the team belonged to a rival denomination. I guess that is a combination of criteria one and three.

Do churches exempt their leaders from publicly confessing their faults? The only time I’ve witnessed church leaders admitting their wrongdoings is when they have been caught in the act.

Fifth, do people within even traditional Christianity tend to see their struggles originating from outside sources? And does this mindset result in an “at war” mentality?

Go to your local Christian bookstore and visit the “spiritual warfare” section. It is likely one of the largest areas in the entire store. You will find books describing how your anxiety, addiction, sickness, disgruntled spouse, weight, hair loss, and computer problems are the result of demonic forces vying for your soul. The only possible solution is to take up spiritual arms and do battle. For less than twenty dollars, you can even buy a spiritual warfare video game.

Also, do you recall the immediate aftermath of September 11? Certain traditional church leaders blamed the tragedy on what they considered to be America’s immorality. The crashing of planes into towers was God’s judgment on the nation. Other prominent leaders claimed that Islam was a demonically inspired religion and should be attacked. Does that sound like attributing hardships to outside influences?

Sixth, do many churches use restrictive language?

Well, how’s your ministry? Have you been born again? Are you into contemporary worship, or do you prefer traditional? Are you a prayer warrior? Are you asking God to guide, guard and direct you? Have you received the second blessing? Are you spirit filled? Are you living a purpose-driven life? How’s your quiet time? How’s your walk with the Lord? Do you know Jesus?

Seventh, does any of Christianity teach that doctrine supersedes human experience?

I’ve sat through church services where the pastor spoke about “good” people who have not subscribed to his particular steps to salvation will be condemned for eternal damnation regardless of how good they were. More recently, two famous Evangelical leaders appeared on the Bill O’Rielly show asserting that many bad Christians will be raptured while many good non-Christians will be left behind for the tribulation.

Have you ever heard traditional Christian leadership assert that pain is judgment from God; anger is evil; sexual desire is sinful; defiance is of the devil; love is a just a ‘feel good’ emotion; your marriage is not recognized in the eyes of God; you don’t love your children if you don’t spank them? Doctrinal definitions often restrict people from loving other human beings.

Leaderships that utilize Totalizing Ideology lay claim to all truth, whether mystical or scientific. Harkening back to my son’s experience in the church on Sunday, he was told that science was evil and false. He easily recognized that Tylenol helps headaches, and glasses correct poor eyesight. Yet, whether defining science or dismissing it the pastorate allowed absolutely no room for knowledge outside the confines of its predetermined ideals.

Eighth, do most lay Christians have the capacity to challenge their clerical leadership? When the ordinary members begin to desire individualism, freedom, and things that differ from what their leadership dictates, does the leadership seek to eliminate the threat?

I am aware of a man whose twelve-year-old stepdaughter was recently baptized. He inquired of the pastor who baptized the girl without parental permission. The pastor rebutted the man with an irate tirade insulting the man for being uneducated and daring to question his actions. The rest of the congregation voiced their support for the pastor.

Conclusion

Totalizing Ideology in whatever form robs individuals of their personal identity while leaving them with a delusion of wholeness. Instead of standing in judgment of others they accuse of being cults, it would behoove organizations and its leaders to spend more time in self-reflection and come to terms with their own self-understanding.