|
|
|
|
Reconceptualizing
the Word "Cult" by Jon Trott [first published in Cornerstone, Issue 122]
The term “cult” has become a catchall word used, as one cynic put it , against any organized group one happens not to like. That isn’t to say that the word originally was so abused. “Cult” is the root of “culture.” Christianity itself was, sociologically speaking, a Jerusalem-based “cult” at one time. Imagine five writers on cults: First , an evangelical counter-cult researcher writes about the Mormon Church as a cult, that is, a group with doctrines claiming Christian roots but which, in historical fact, are neither biblical nor Christian. Second, a Mormon researcher writes about a “splinter group” which claims to be reestablishing Mormonism as it was meant to be by creating plural marriages and refusing to pay taxes; this group is labeled a cult by our mainstream Mormon critic. Third, a psychologist writes an article entitled "Popping,” in which he claims that members of groups both evangelical Christian and Mormon are victims of “thought-reform.” Fourth, a sociologist writes an article in which she suggests all three previous writers are victims of their own cultural prejudices, and that the main cult they all belong to is middle-class America. Fifth, a member of a small religious group writes an article suggesting that the entire world is a satanic cult , and that only his group (which numbers around forty people) will be saved. THE WORD AS A WEAPON The word “cult ,” then, is like a rubber band, so elastic it can be wrapped around nearly anything. And it is invariably used as a weapon against the group it describes. So, can Christians not critique other belief systems at all without somehow becoming intolerant? No, that’s not my point. Rather, accuracy and a certain fairness is what I’m advocating. From our evangelical Christian viewpoint, it is appropriate to critique religious groups from a theological point of view. Such critiques do not pretend to be disinterested (that is, unbiased). We are fellow seekers after God’s truth; therefore, our criticisms of other religious groups should (though sadly often do not) reflect respect for those we disagree with. From here on out , I will use NRM—New Religious Movement— instead of the word “cult .” The term NRM is one used by most scholars studying smaller religious groups here in the United States. Obviously, many groups, such as Scientology or the Mormons, are not really all that new, but until someone coins a better descriptor, I’ll stick with the sociologists of religion. There are a few errors we Evangelicals continue to make regarding NRMs. The first and most glaring error we make is the often unspoken assumption that we have the entire truth and NRM members are lost in error. History teaches us of many evils committed by self-proclaimed Christians with a corner on “the truth.” Humility is in order. We do not “have” truth; at best , if we are in fact following Jesus Christ , Truth has us! As Jesus said of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 NRSV). This concept of truth profoundly influences our approach to NRMs and NRM members; our desire is for them to enter into a relationship that we find all-absorbing. We are in love, and wish to draw them into this love. In short , unlike secular groups sociologists have labeled “anti-cultists,” our goal is evangelism to something and not primarily freeing someone from something: published
in Cornerstone Vol. 30 Issue 122 |
|
