CONTRA EN CULT

[jcr4runner]

Hi Leonidas,

What do you think about ex-members of churches who accuse their former leaders of cult-like activity? What criteria ought to be used to judge these testimonies? Is there a standard of orthodoxy that we ought to apply to "cult watchers"? What about cult watching groups who are not Christian at all?

My view is that one must first be a converted Christian who ascribes to the four ecumenical creeds of the church (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian) the inerrant inspiration of scripture, and a church member in good standing before any testimony concerning what is and what is not a cult or a false religion can be taken seriously.

A few years ago, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was sued by a well-known cult and was forced to disband.

See: http://www.watchman.org/sci/cannews.htm

From a Christian point of view, the problem with CAN is that they used mind control and brainwashing to convince people in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that they had been "brainwashed" by a cult. In fact, CAN itself was a dangerous cult that participated in kidnapping and mind control. The civil courts put a legal end to their activity.

But there are other such groups that operate today. I am all for critiquing churches who have aberrant theology and practices. I have written on cults and what constitutes a cult.

http://forerunner.com/orthodoxy/X0008_7 ... _vs._.html

But there needs to be a bare minimum of orthodoxy and church accountability before Christians let the blogosphere and the liberal press influence our thinking on this important issue.

[jcr4runner]

Notes and observations on the CONTRA EN CULT

I read several threads on the CONTRA EN CULT (as Leonidas calls it) discussion board and initially had these impressions:

1. At first glance, this seems to be a forum for people who want validation for their feelings of hurt and betrayal in having been involved in a hyper-evangelistic ministry that demanded too much from them. The desire to vent is valid and healthy. However, many of the participants are so abusive in tone that they themselves are participating in the same behavior that they condemn. We ought to hold church leaders who have been involved in abuse to a higher standard. But some are accusing others of what they are now doing themselves.

2. I wonder if these people really want validation and healing. Or do they simply want revel in their hurt and anger? I think that I might return to this discussion five years from now only to see the same people calling for the heads of their former leaders. Let's call our former leaders into account. I am all for this. But Christians ought to first use biblical models of direct confrontation, and a call for repentance, reconciliation and restoration. It's almost as if (someone wrote elsewhere) “they have embraced their wounds, are drawing their identity from it, and now they don't even want to be healed or reconciled.”

3. I think the gist of what is being said has some truth in it, but some memories are greatly exaggerated. There is a complete lack of objectivity because of the emotional involvement with past wrongs. I often wonder why some people can't leave a relationship on good terms and simply move on to something that is more spiritually healthy and fulfilling for them.

4. In the same vein, I think the problem with some people is that they will leave a church that “did them wrong,” only to join or form another church that has similar problems. We have to analyze what the problem really was. Einstein said that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” We have to be willing to say, “The problem is not you, it is me.”

Perhaps this can become a forum for people to vent their frustrations. I only suggest that we not stoop to the same level of behavior and cause a "CONTRA" CONTRA EN CULT to be formed!