|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
The literal and traditional meaning of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same" 32. In English, it remains neutral and a technical term within this context to refer to the "cult of Artemis at Ephesus" and the "cult figures" that accompanied it, or to "the importance of the Ave Maria in the cult of the Virgin." This usage is more fully explored in the entry Cult (religious practice). In non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a case where English speakers might use the word "sect", as in "Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are sects (or denominations) within Christianity". In French or Spanish, culte or culto simply means "worship" or "religious attendance"; thus an association cultuelle is an association whose goal is to organize religious worship and practices. The word for "cult" in the popular English meaning is secte (French) or secta (Spanish). In German the usual word used for the English cult is Sekte, which also has other definitions. A similar case is the Russian word sekta.
DefinitionsDictionary definitions of "cult"
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary definitions are:
For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are:
British "sect" formerly included a contextually implied meaning, of what "cult" now means[1] in both USA and the UK. Some other nations still use the foreign equivalents of old British "sect" ("secte", "sekte", or "secta", etc.) to imply "cult".[4] Both words, as well as "cult" in its original sense of cultus (e.g., Middle Ages cult of Mary), must be understood to correctly interpret 20th century popular cult references in world English. Theological definitionConservative Christian authors, especially Protestants Evangelicals, define a cult as a religion which claims to be in conformance with Biblical truth, yet (in their view) deviates from it. By this definition, a cult would be a group which calls itself Christian yet deviates from (what they see as) a core Christian belief, e.g. the Trinity. Walter Martin, the pioneer of the Christian countercult movement, gave in his 1955 book the following definition of a cult:
Author Robert M. Bowman Jr. defines cult as
In theology, particularly Catholic theology, cult is a liturgical term, from the Latin, colere, to devote care to a person or thing, that is, to venerate, worship. "Cult" is the root of the term "culture," or "the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations..." [5]. Cult in theology then refers to:
Sociological definitions of religionAccording to what is one common typology among sociologists, religious groups are classified as ecclesias, denominations, cults or sects. A very common definition in the sociology of religion for cult is one of the four terms making up the church-sect typology. Under this definition, a cult refers to a religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs. This is distinguished from sects, which have a high degree of tension with society but whose beliefs are traditional to that society, and ecclesias and denominations, which are groups with a low degree of tension and traditional beliefs. According to Rodney Stark's the Theory of Religion, most religions start out their lives as cults or sects, i.e. groups in high tension with the surrounding society. Over time, they tend to either die out, or become more established, mainstream and in less tension with society. Cults are new groups with a novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to (what the sect views as) their original purity.[2] Since this definition of "cult" is defined in part in terms of tension with the surrounding society, the same group may both be a cult and not a cult at different places and times. For example, Christianity was a cult by this definition in 1st and 2nd century Rome, but in fifth century Rome it is no longer a cult but rather an ecclesia (the state religion). Or similarly, very conservative Islam would (when adopted by Westerners) constitute a cult in the West, but the ecclesia in some conservative Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban). Likewise, because novelty of beliefs as well as tension is an element in the definition: in India, the Hare Krishnas are not a cult, but rather a sect (since their beliefs are largely traditional to Hindu culture), but they are by this definition a cult in the Western world (since their beliefs are largely novel to Christian culture). The English sociologist Roy Wallis[3] argues that a cult is characterized "epistemological individualism" by which he means that "the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member." Cults, according to Wallis, are generally described as "oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive", making "few demands on members", without possessing a "clear distinction between members and non-members", having "a rapid turnover of membership", and are transient collectives with vague boundaries and fluctuating belief systems Wallis asserts that cults emerge from the "cultic milieu". Wallis contrast a cult with a sect that he asserts are characterized by "epistemological authoritarianism": sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy. According to Wallis, "sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation and their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'".[4][5] Definition of 'cult' according to secular oppositionSecular cult opponents define a "cult" as a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Here are two definitions by Michael Langone and Louis Jolyon West, scholars who are widely recognized among the secular cult opposition:
Michael Langone has attempted to address the issue of multiple definitions of "cult".[6] A more purely sociological definition was proposed by T. Robbins and D. Anthony (1982:283, quoted in Richardson 1993:351):
The common anti-cult definition summarised,
Definition of 'cult' in popular cultureIn his book In Our Time, Tom Wolfe defines a cult as a religion without political power. Differing opinions of the various definitionsUnlike popular definitions, sociological definitions exclude considerations of harm and abuse and are not used in a pejorative manner. According to professor Timothy Miller from the University of Kansas, in his 2003 Religious Movements in the United States, during the controversies over the new religious movements in the 1960s, the term "cult" came to mean something sinister, generally used to describe a movement that was at least potentially destructive to its members or to society, or that took advantage of its members and engaged in unethical practices. But he argues that no one yet has been able to define "cult" in a way that enables the term to identify only problematic groups. Miller asserts that the attributes of so-called cults (see cult checklist), as defined by cult opponents, can be found in groups that few would consider cultic, such as Catholic religious orders or many evangelical Protestant churches. Miller argues: If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of the racial term for African Americans[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source]—it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content. 31 Due to the usually pejorative connotation of the word "cult", new religious movements (NRMs) and other purported cults often find the word highly offensive. Some purported cults have been known to insist that other similar groups are cults but that they themselves are not. On the other hand, some skeptics have questioned the distinction between a cult and a mainstream religion. They say that the only difference between a cult and a religion is that the latter is older and has more followers and, therefore, seems less controversial because society has become used to it. See also anti-cult movement and Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The cult debate
This section describes a 1970s sociological phenomenon known as the cult debate also called cult war. History of debateAs the Vietnam war wound down in the early 1970s, and the US public's preoccupation with the so-called Red Menace declined, a new idée fixe arose in its place: what it saw as the menace of cults.[7] Throughout the decade, various organizations both dangerous (Charles Manson's "The Family") and harmless (Hare Krishna) came to the forefront of debate over the changing mores of US society. Newspapers and broadcast news, as well as religious leaders and parents who worried over losing their teenaged and college-aged children to the Youth Movement of the 60s and 70s, frequently focused attention on groups they described as "dangerous cults."[citation needed] While some of these groups were, in fact, notoriously criminal, engaging in behavior such as murder (Manson), kidnapping and armed robbery (Symbionese Liberation Army), prostitution and child sexual abuse (Children of God), and enforced separation from family members (various), others were culpable of nothing more "dangerous" than indoctrination of adherents into religious faiths or groups whose doctrines seemed unfamiliar, strange or even heretical to outsiders.[citation needed] Some of the groups that entered the national cult debate in the early and mid 1970s were Erhard Seminars Training (est), Exclusive Brethren).[citation needed], Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and Transcendental Meditation (TM). Connotative changeDuring the period, the word "cult" lost its traditional meaning (a system of religious worship[7]) and came to be associated with concepts such as brainwashing, mind control, coercive recruiting tactics and sex abuse.[citation needed] These negative associations were cemented in 1978 with the Reverend Jim Jones and the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple. During this period, certain religious clerics and lay members of some evangelical Christian groups took advantage of this wave of publicity, and began using the term "cult" as a pejorative to describe any religious faith group whose doctrines or theology were different from their own.[citation needed] Members of "anti-cult" ministries began publishing and distributing disparaging checklists with titles such as "Checklist of Cult Characteristics"[8], [9], [10], [11] where each entry on the checklist described unique beliefs or doctrines of a target religious faith. By disparaging doctrines such as Mariology or Antitrinitarianism, these groups attempted to calumniate even large, established faiths such as Roman Catholicism and Mormonism with the label "cult."[citation needed] Post-debate changeAcknowledging the now-disparaging connotation of the once-useful term "cult," some scholars of religion and sociology began in the 1980s to use the term "New Religious Movement" to describe smaller and newer religious faith groups. Whilst not in common use -- due in some measure to its unwieldy name -- the newer term has wide currency in the academic community, including amongst religious scholars.[citation needed] Non-religious groups characterized as cultsAccording to the views of what some scholars call the "Anti-Cult Movement," although the majority of groups to which the word "cult" is applied are religious in nature, a significant number are non-religious.[citation needed] These may include political, psychotherapeutic or marketing oriented cults that are organized in a manner very similar to their religious counterparts.[citation needed] The term has also been applied to certain channelling, human-potential and self-improvement organizations, some of which do not define themselves as religious movements although they clearly draw on ideas derived from various religions.[citation needed] Groups that have been labeled as "political cults," mostly far-leftist or far-rightist in their ideologies, have received some attention from journalists and scholars but are only a minute percentage of the total number of alleged cults in the United States. Claims of cult-like practices exists for only about a dozen ideological cadre or racial combat organizations, although vague charges have been leveled at a somewhat larger number. See Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. [12] Both Tourish and Wohlforth are former members of Trotskyist sects who now attack their former organizations and the Trotskyist movement in general.[8] The idea seen in political discussions that is closest to the idea of a political cult is that of a personality cult. The idea of a political cult tends to invalidate any strong or committed belief in any political system, policy, or leader, and thus raises philosophical questions about the nature of society.[citation needed] Although most groups labeled as political cults involve a "cult of personality", the latter concept is a broader one. It has its origins in the excessive adulation said to have surrounded Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.[citation needed] It has also been applied to several other despotic heads of state. It is often applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders, and sometimes in the context of certain businessmen, management styles, and company work environments. The use of this term in its broadest sense serves as a reminder that cultic phenomena (as opposed to full-blown "cults") are not just found inside small ashrams and splinter churches but also are spread throughout mainstream institutions in democratic societies as well as permeating in a far more toxic form the governments and ruling parties of some nondemocratic societies.[original research?] Societal and governmental pressuresAmerican novelist and critic Tom Wolfe gave the definition of cult as a religion which has no political power, implying that there is no functional difference between religions and cults except their acceptance within the general community and the way they are perceived by others.[citation needed] Many majoritarian religions generally have their doctrinal tenets legitimized by society in one way or another (and by the state in some countries although not in most modern democracies), while groups with non-mainstream beliefs may experience social and media disapproval either permanently (if their beliefs and practices are just too unorthodox) or until either the group, or society, or both, evolve in a converging way resulting in a higher level of social acceptance.[citation needed] In the 19th century The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) were singled out by the U.S. government, which even sent the U.S. Army against them in 1857. This military action has been referred to as the Utah War although no battles occurred. The US Army's charge was to depose Brigham Young as Governor of the Utah Territory and install a more acceptable, non-Mormon individual, Alfred Cumming. The motivation for this action was a rumor that the Mormons were planning to rebel against the United States government. When it became clear that the rumor was false and that President Buchanan had ordered military action without verifying his sources, the incident became known as "Buchanan's Blunder." The question of social acceptance should not be confused, however, with that of governmental acceptance. Most governmental clashes with groups alleged to have cult-like characteristics in the United States in recent years have been the result of real or perceived violations of the law by the groups in question.[citation needed] There have been no well documented recent cases of the U.S. government persecuting a supposedly cult-like group based solely on its religious beliefs. It has been argued that the "brainwashing" ideology promulgated by theorists in the anti-cult movement has been a key contributing factor in recent violent events, including the deaths of close to 100 members of the Branch Davidian group in Waco, Texas.[9] Revelations in the 1970s by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee investigating the FBI's COINTELPRO program revealed extensive evidence that the Agency had engaged in an illegal, large-scale covert program which included portraying various political dissident organizations as violent criminals and extremists as a prelude to and justification for crackdowns on these groups.[10] It is also possible that negative perceptions of a group by prosecutors could make them more quick to prosecute than they might otherwise be; the income tax case against Reverend Moon is sometimes cited as such an incident.)[11] In addition, the United States has never had an established church. Groups characterized as cults or as having non-mainstream beliefs have often been able to gain political clout; for instance, the Unification Church (by way of ownership of the influential newspaper, the Washington Times), and Scientology (by way of its Hollywood connections, which some observers have suggested gave it clout with the Clinton administration).[citation needed] A 1996 French Parliamentary Commission issued a report unofficial translations, in which a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) was reprinted. In it were listed 173 groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, the Theological Institute of Nîmes (an Evangelical Christian Bible college), and the Church of Scientology. Members of some of the groups included in the list have alleged instances of intolerance due to the ensuing negative publicity. Although this list has no statutory or regulatory value, it is at the background of the criticism directed at France with respect to freedom of religion. The "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects/Cults" (MILS) was formed in 1998 to coordinate government monitoring of sect (name given to cults in France). In February 1998 MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. The president of MILS resigned in June under criticism and an interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects. In November the Government announced the formation of the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES), which is charged with observing and analyzing movements that constitute a threat to public order or that violate French law, coordinating the appropriate response, informing the public about potential risks, and helping victims to receive aid. In its announcement of the formation of MIVILUDES, the Government acknowledged that its predecessor, MILS, had been criticized for certain actions abroad that could have been perceived as contrary to religious freedom. On May 2005, former prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published on the parliamentary report of 1966 should no longer be used to identify cults. [12] Study of alleged cultsAmong the experts studying alleged cults and new religious movements are sociologists, religion scholars, psychologists, and psychiatrists. To an unusual extent for an academic/quasi-scientific field, however, nonacademics are involved in the study of and/or debates concerning alleged cults, especially from the "anti-cult" point of view.[citation needed] These include investigative journalists and nonacademic book authors (who sometimes make positive contributions by methods such as examining court records and studying the finances of groups, which academics are not accustomed to doing),[not specific enough to verify] writers who once were members of purported cults, and professionals who work with ex-members of alleged cults[citation needed] in a practical way (for instance, as therapists) but are not university affiliated. Less widely known are the writings by members of organizations that have been labelled cults, defending their organizations and replying to their critics (such works are less well known, in part, because they have to contend against popular conceptions of cults and also because they are usually published by the purported cult itself rather than by mainstream publishers).[citation needed] Nonacademics are sometimes published, or their writings cited, in the Cultic Studies Journal (CSJ), the journal of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), a group that is strongly critical of groups they identify as cults. In addition, nonacademics, including former group members, lawyers who have litigated against groups, psychotherapists who treat former members, and others with personal knowledge or experiences, often give presentations at ICSA conferences. It should be noted that sociologist Janja Lalich began her work and conceptualized many of her ideas while an "anti-cult" activist writing for the "CSJ" years before obtaining academic standing, and incorporated her own experiences in a leftwing political group into her later work as a sociological theorist. The hundreds of books on specific groups by nonacademic critics (as well as the hundreds by current members defending or elaborating their organization's doctrines) comprise a large portion of the currently available published record on alleged cults. The books by "anti-cult" critics run the gamut from memoirs by ex-members, which may take the form either of thoughtful analyses or of "cult captivity" narratives (or a bit of both), to detailed accounts of the history and alleged misdeeds of a given group written from either a tabloid journalist, investigative journalist, or popular historian perspective.[citation needed] The work of several non-academic authors is cited in this article. Journalists Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman wrote the book Snapping, which set forth speculations on how mind control works that have been criticized by some psychologists and praised by others. Others mentioned in this article include Tim Wohlforth (co-author of On the Edge and a former follower of British Trotskyist Gerry Healy); Carol Giambalvo, a former est member; activist and consultant Rick Ross; and mental health counselor Steven Hassan, a former Unification Church member and author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, who, like Ross, runs a business specializing in servicing people involved with alleged cults or their family members.[13][14] Another example is the work of journalist/activist Chip Berlet, without whom the study of "political cults" might scarcely exist today.[citation needed] Barbara G. Harrison's Vision of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be regarded as an example of a serious study by an ex-group member (she was raised as a Witness) whose thinking transcends the "cult captivity" genre.[original research?] Current members of the Hare Krishna movement as well as several former leaders of the Worldwide Church of God also have written with critical insight on "cult" issues, using terminologies and framings somewhat different from those of secular experts but well within the circle of rational discourse.[original research?] Members of the Unification Church have produced books and articles that argue the case against excessive reactions to new religious movements, including their own, with intellectual rigor and a sense of history.[citation needed] Within this larger community of discourse, the debates about "cultism" and specific groups are generally more polarized than among scholars who study new religious movements, but there are heated disagreements among scholars as well. What follows is a summary of that portion of the intellectual debate conducted primarily from inside the universities: Alleged cults, NRMs, and the sociology and psychology of religionThe problem with defining the word cult is that (1) the word cult is often used to marginalize religious groups with which one does not agree or sympathize, and (2) accused cult members generally resist being called a cult. Nearly all academic researchers of religion and sociology prefer to use the term new religious movement (NRM) in their research on religious groups that may be referred to as cults by other academics, non-academics and the media. However, some researchers have stated[citation needed] that this is an imperfect replacement for the term cult because some religious movements are "new" but not necessarily cults, and have expanded the definition of cult to include those which are not religious or overtly religious. Furthermore, some religious groups commonly regarded as cults are in fact no longer particularly "new"; for instance, Scientology and the Unification Church are both over 50 years old; and the Hare Krishna came out of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a religious tradition that is approximately 500 years old. When a group (and generally one with teachings regarded as out of the mainstream) practices physical or mental abuse, some mental health professionals may use the term cult. Others prefer more descriptive terminology such as abusive cult or destructive cult. Since cult critics using these terms rarely mention any alleged cults except abusive ones, their use of the two terms is in effect redundant. The popular press also commonly uses these terms. Not all sectarian groups labeled as cults or as "cult-like", function abusively or destructively to any degree greater than many mainstream social institutions, however, and even among those cults that psychologists believe are abusive to an exceptional degree, few members (as opposed to some ex-members) would agree that they have suffered abuse. Other researchers like David V. Barrett hold the view that classifying a religious movement as a cult is generally used as a subjective and negative label and has no added value; instead, he argues that one should investigate the beliefs and practices of the religious movement. 9 Some groups, particularly those labeled by others as cults, view the designation as insensitive and may feel persecuted by opponents; those opponents may in fact be affiliated with organizations that are self-defined as anti-cult (or strongly critical of cults).[13] Even when no affiliation with such a group exists, the opponents of a particular cult will usually be influenced to varying degrees by the anti-cult movement's ideas — which are summarized in this article in the sections "Definition by secular cult opposition" and "Definition by Christian anti-cult movement." Groups accused of being "cults" or "cult-like" often defend their position by comparing themselves to more established, mainstream religious groups such as Catholicism and Judaism. The argument offered can usually be simplified as, "except for size and age, Christianity and Judaism meet all the criteria for a cult, and therefore the term cult simply means small, young religion." According to the Dutch religious scholar Wouter Hanegraaff, another problem with writing about alleged cults comes about because they generally hold belief systems that give answers to questions about the meaning of life and morality. This makes it difficult not to write in biased terms about a certain group, because writers are rarely neutral about these questions. In an attempt to deal with this difficulty, some writers who deal with the subject choose to explicitly state their ethical values and belief systems.[citation needed] For some scholars, psychologists and researchers, usage of the word "cult" applies to groups perceived as exhibiting a pattern of abusive and over-controlling behavior towards members, and not to a belief system.[attribution needed] For members of competing religions, use of the word remains undeniably pejorative and applies primarily to rival beliefs (see memes), and only incidentally to behavior. It should be noted that there is no clear, causal connection between extremist belief and the formation of a "destructive cult." Most far-right hate groups are not cults, although they have pathological ideas and are frequently violent. Some groups regarded as cults have relatively benign belief systems.[citation needed] In the sociology of religion, the term cult is part of the subdivision of religious groups: sects, cults, denominations, and ecclesias. The sociologists Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge define cults in their book, "Theory of Religion" and subsequent works, as a "deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices", that is, as new religious movements that (unlike sects) have not separated from another religious organization. Cults, in this sense, may or may not be dangerous, abusive, etc. By this broad definition, most of the groups which have been popularly labeled cults fit this value-neutral definition. Related ResearchThe following research examines phenomena related to people's reactions to groups identified as some other form of social outcast or opposition group. It relates to the visceral opposition that some religious groups evoke in their opponents. Reactions to social out-groupsA new study by Princeton University psychology researchers Lasana Harris and Susan Fiske shows that when viewing photographs of social out-groups, people respond to them with disgust, not a feeling of fellow humanity. The findings are reported in the article "Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuro-imaging responses to Extreme Outgroups" in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society).[15] According to this research, social out-groups are perceived as unable to experience complex human emotions, share in-group beliefs, or act according to societal norms, moral rules, and values. The authors describe this as "extreme discrimination revealing the worst kind of prejudice: excluding out-groups from full humanity." Their study provides evidence that while individuals may consciously see members of social out-groups as people, the brain processes social out-groups as something less than human, whether we are aware of it or not. According to the authors, brain imaging provides a more accurate depiction of this prejudice than the verbal reporting usually used in research studies. Political partisans and closed-mindednessRecent research reveals that political partisans ignore facts that contradict their own sense of reality,[16] according to a report on research by Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University
Simply put, the emotional considerations overwhelm critical thinking. If anything, the rational part of the mind works to rationalize the emotional conclusion that was reached in advance. Thus, in the end, extremes in partisan politics form one of the bases for a "political cult", where rational thinking and discussion only takes place within narrow us-versus-them parameters, and where emotion-based assumptions and/or unquestioned ideological dogma dominate the political organization, facilitating the other questionable activities cited above and elsewhere.[original research?] This framework can be extended to provide an explanation of an important aspect of cult-like activity more generally, although it also presents a means for criticism of some counter-cult organisations as well (and perhaps of the larger cult/anti-cult debate).[original research?] Christianity and definitions of "cults"Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox, conservative, or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible, put additional revelation on a similar or higher level than the Bible, or had beliefs and/or practices deviant from those of traditional Christianity. Some examples of sources (with published dates where known) that documented this approach are:
Theories about joining alleged cultsMichael Langone gives three different models regarding joining a cult 30:
According to Gallanter 11, typical reasons why people join alleged cults include a search for community and a spiritual quest. Jeffrey Hadden summarizes a lecture entitled "Why Do People Join NRMs?" (a lecture in a series related to the sociology of new religious movements 12) as follows:
Stark and Bainbridge have questioned the utility of the concept of conversion. They suggest, instead, that the concept of affiliation is a more useful concept for understanding how people join religious groups. 13 LeadershipAccording to Dr. Eileen Barker, new religions are in most cases started by charismatic leaders whom she considers unpredictable. According to Mikael Rothstein, there is in many cases no access to plain facts both about historical religious leaders and contemporary ones, though there is an abundance of legends, myths, and theological elaborations. According to Rothstein, most members of any new religious movement have little chance of a personal meeting with the Master (leader) except as a member of big audience when the Master is present on stage. See also Role of charismatic figures in the development of religions
Development of groups characterized as cultsCults based on charismatic leadership often follow the routinization of charisma, as described by the German sociologist Max Weber. The death of the founder may lead to a succession crisis. In their book Theory of Religion, Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge propose that the formation of cults can be explained through a combination of four models:
Relationships with the "outside world"Barker wrote that peripheral members may help to lessen the tension that exists between some groups and the outside world. 27 In the case where members live in intentional communities, custody disputes (if one parent leaves and one stays) may be a source of confrontation between the cult and the outside world.
Genuine concerns and exaggerations about "cults"The stigma surrounding the classification of a group as a cult stems from the purported ill effect the group's influence has on its members, and, critics of media sensationalism add, from exaggerated portrayals of weirdness in media stories. The narratives of ill effect include perceived threats presented by a cult to its members (whether real or perceived), and risks to the physical safety of its members and to their mental and spiritual growth. Anti-cultists in the 1970s and 1980s made heavy accusations regarding the harm and danger of cults for members, families of members, and societies. The debate at that time was intense and was sometimes called the cult debate or cult wars.[citation needed] Much of the actions taken against alleged cults have been in reaction to the harm or perceived harm experienced by some members due to their affiliation with the groups in question. Many commentators have pointed out that not all groups called cults are dangerous. Over a period of time, some minority religious organizations that were at one point in time considered cults have been accepted by mainstream society, such as Christian Science in the USA. Christian Science has been the focus of controversy in recent years over its policy of encouraging members to use prayer for healing in place of traditional medical treatment for themselves and their children, but the media has generally treated this as a specific doctrinal issue — like the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood — rather than suggesting that Christian Science is a cult that controls all aspects of a member's life. Documented crimesImage:Jim Jones brochure of Peoples Temple.jpg Brochure of the Peoples Temple, portraying its founder Jim Jones as the loving father of the "Rainbow Family". Certain groups that have been characterized as cults, such as Heaven's Gate, Ordre du Temple Solaire, Aum Shinrikyo, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in Uganda, the Church of the Lamb of God of Ervil LeBaron, and the Peoples Temple have posed or are seen as potentially posing a threat to the well-being and lives of their own members and to society in general; these organizations are often referred to as doomsday cults by the media, and their mass suicides and mass murders are well-documented. According to John R. Hall, a professor in sociology at the University of California-Davis and Philip Schuyler, the Peoples Temple is still seen by some as the cultus classicus 25, 26, though it did not belong to the set of groups that triggered the cult controversy in United States in the 1970s. Its mass suicide on November 18, 1978 led to increased concern about cults. Other groups include the Colonia Dignidad cult (a German group settled in Chile) that served as a torture center for the Chilean government during the Pinochet dictatorship. In 1984, a bioterrorist attack involving salmonella typhimurium contamination in the salad bars of 10 restaurants in The Dalles (a city in Oregon) was traced to the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Osho group.[14][15] The attack sickened about 751 people and hospitalized forty-five; none died. It was the first known bioterrorist attack of the 20th century in the United States, and is still known as the largest germ warfare attack in the U.S. Eventually Sheela and Ma Anand Puja, one of Sheela's close associates, confessed to the salmonella attack and to attempted poisonings of county officials. The BW incident is used by the Homeland Defense Business Unit in Biological Incidents Operations training for Law Enforcement agencies.[17]PDF The Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, by members of Aum Shinrikyo has also raised awareness of the danger posed by some groups. Aum Shinrikyo had a laboratory in 1990 where they cultured and experimented with botulin toxin, anthrax, cholera and Q fever. In 1993 they traveled to Africa to learn about and bring back samples of the Ebola virus.[18] On March 27, 2007, a couple from Georgia, Sonya and Joseph Smith, members of the Christian Remnant Fellowship Church, a cult which advocates the severe "Weigh Down Diet"[19] as well as strict corporal punishment, were convicted of felony murder in the beating death of their eight year old son because they believed him to be a "soldier of the devil". The boy, Josef Smith, was physically assaulted by his parents, locked in a closet for hours at a time while forced to pray to Jesus, and died after being confined to a wooden and wicker box. The parents were sentenced to a mandatory life sentence for felony murder, another 30 years for convictions on two cruelty to children charges, 10 years for a false imprisonment conviction, and 12 months for reckless conduct, to run concurrently.[20] Warren Jeffs, of Hildale, Utah, the polygamist sect leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is currently charged with two counts of rape as an accomplice in the spiritual marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin in 2001. Jeffs also faces felony sex charges in Arizona for his alleged role in two underage marriages and is under federal indictment for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. As of March 2007, no trial dates have been set. | ||||||||||||||
