Wait, It's A Cult?

[ZNPaaneah]

Did the article refer to any verses from the New Testament to support this definition? I see many NT verses concerning false prophets and how to recognize them, but the only reference I see to a "cult" is the early church. Wasn't the early church referred to as a cult?

Couldn't you classify the Catholic church as a cult based on this definition with their "all knowing leadership"?

Couldn't you classify the Protestant churches as cults based on this definition with their "new and better way"?

Who judges if your interpretation is giving the scriptures "an added twist"? Wouldn't that be an "all knowing leadership"?

Didn't all Christian groups assert that prior understanding was wrong? Luther did that. Calvin did that. Who didn't?

It seems to me the true measuring stick is the apostle's fellowship. Do you receive it yes or no? The reason for such a complex and convoluted definition is because the authors know that on many different issues "fundamental" christian groups do not accept the apostle's fellowship.

[OBW]

And there Z goes again. If the word is not used in the scripture it can't be used.

The problem with looking at the list is that, by definition, there is an aspect of many of those in play for any Christian group. At least in a small way.

But to be a "cult of Christianity" it has to be something beyond the basic.

For example, having strong leadership that is followed is actually important. But leadership that is unwilling to accept question or criticism is a problem. Even the RCC is not as hard about things as the so-called local churches.

And there is a difference between a novel notion "springing" off of a scripture that is made into a "great idea." It is when it becomes an important doctrine held up as a differentiator or a "must believe" that it becomes a problem.

But when the special leader spends the bulk of his teaching emphasizing the differentiators — the peculiarities that others will not accept — and scares his people into staying or being "bankrupt" relative to Christ, then you are getting there.

Of course, using the term "cult" is problematic in discussions with the people who are mired in a system that you want to say is one. Just saying the word tends to cause their ears to close to further input. So even if it is a classic cult, there is little benefit in tossing the word around.

As a note, I recently heard my dad say that someone he used to do some service with at the LRC here would occasionally say that he was sure he was going to the little dark room for 1,000 years. That is the lot for anyone who is not just absolutely rock-solid on fire for the LRC. At least his understanding of it.

Some may argue that this is not the teaching of Lee or the LRC, but it must be because of the number of people who grind it out year-after-year, hanging on in the hopes of avoiding the LRC's purgatory. Or when they can't do it any more, they just give up on everything and stay home depressed. Hard to say that the definition of "cult" doesn't apply in a case like that. When so many of your members are in that kind of state, there is something seriously wrong and it isn't just those poor downtrodden members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did the article refer to any verses from the New Testament to support this definition? I see many NT verses concerning false prophets and how to recognize them, but the only reference I see to a "cult" is the early church. Wasn't the early church referred to as a cult?

Originally Posted by OBW

And there Z goes again. If the word is not used in the scripture it can't be used.

We have had this conversation for years.

ZNP has good reasons to adhere to the scriptures.

My reason for rejecting the C-label for the LC's is simple: Contemporary American semantics indicate that people's lives are at risk in cults. Over 90% of Americans do NOT consider Catholics, Mormons, or JW's to be cults. Branch Davidians, People's Temple, and Hale-Bops yes, but not Christian groups which have existed for decades without any signs of imminent danger.

Like ZNP and the Bible, we Christians should identify False Teachers and Prophets along with their false teachings and prophecies, rather than tagging whole collections of people. We also should expose evil deeds, especially by the leadership, which damage their mostly unsuspecting members, rather than group generalizations which are so easily disproved.

I think that more Americans see Islam as a religious cult than with any of these "mainstream" pseudo-Christian groups like the Mormons. One of them ran for president if you remember. If we "loosen" the cult definition to include all groups like the LC's, then we must include the RCC and every other abusive group.

The Christianity Today article does not describe "cults" per se, but congregations with abusive leaders that lord it over the church of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had this conversation for years.

I know we have. And if you really read what I said, it was that despite falling deep into the characteristics, using the term is not helpful. For the reasons I stated and the reasons you did including the popular thought that only the dangerous cults should have that title.

ZNP has good reasons to adhere to the scriptures.

I am not saying to ignore scriptures. But the position that the only way to see error is in the terms in which they are stated in the bible is to presume that the ways in which to err are limited to those seen in the bible.

The problem is that periodically someone will come across this as a potential discussion topic. And just as true as it is that the label drives off those we are trying to reach, just throwing up a brick wall to at least a brief discussion is equally dismissive to the ones who are considering it. Rather than just dumping on the subject, explain what is both right and wrong about it. Right in that it does collect a grouping of factors together. But wrong in that it shortcuts the discussion on specific issues into just a label.

Add to that the problem with those who will just turn us off because of the label and there is very good reason to try to keep the discussion short. Show why it is not a helpful endeavor. That some people read things into it that are not true is valid, but not the only reason to refrain. Make this discussion just like any other. Divorce the factors from a single discussion of a label by creating separate threads for each relevant factor. (Ignore the ones that simply don't apply.) Let the discussion find its way.

So, again, you are correct that dropping a MOAB (like the "c" word) into the discussion is rarely helpful. It mostly drives the lurkers away. Drake and Evangelical try hard to do that without us helping.

But equally problematic (and a little like a MOAB) is the declaration that the discussion should simply stop because we've has this discussion before or it is "unscriptural." A few of us have had the discussion. But if you look at the number of people observing v the number logged-in, I bet that many of them were not here when that happened. And despite the archives, I've gone back to find threads that I remember and sometimes can't find them. What about someone who doesn't know that we've covered this before? At least find it yourself and point them to it. If they end out posting to it, it is going to be on the front page again anyway.

We can't just lash out at the periodic discovery of the idea. It is worth more than a fight to shut it down. Make the case that "cult" doesn't just mean Branch Dividians or a Jonestown massacre. Make the case that while popular use of the term has limited its understanding and range of meaning, it is not so simple or extreme. Sort of like other words, such as "gay." (There's a whole decade in the 1800's that now has a moniker that is completely misunderstood.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know we have. And if you really read what I said, it was that despite falling deep into the characteristics, using the term is not helpful.

Sorry Bro. I read your first and last paragraphs and assumed the rest.

So much for my training in writing class eons ago.