Wait, It's A Cult?

[aron]

For me the clearest indicator is rigid conformity. All LSM "local churches" must be "absolutely identical", with "no differences whatsoever". No difference with whom, you ask? With HQ promulgations. If HQ changes week-to-week, so must the rank-and-file in the hinterlands.

"God" is incarnated in "Christ" who has a "Body" which is the "Church" which must be "one with the apostles", which means whatever the Maximum Brother is thinking today. "Just be a tape recorder", we were repeatedly advised. So "God", operationally, is whatever the Big Boss is speaking today.

Of course the HQ will stress to rank-and-file that this is preferable to the Wild West of Christianity, where every man does what is right in his own eyes. In this case, we in the LSM "local churches" are rather to do what is right in Big Boss' eyes. Somehow that's the solution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

For me the clearest indicator is rigid conformity. All LSM "local churches" must be "absolutely identical", with "no differences whatsoever". No difference with whom, you ask? With HQ promulgations. If HQ changes week-to-week, so must the rank-and-file in the hinterlands.

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

yep! it sure does!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

Really?!? Doesnt the Catholic church allow nonconforming groups? Why the the creation of, say the Jesuit order? What of the Franciscans? Etc etc? A free spirit could exist in the Catholic church, publish personal poems of spiritual musings etc. I don't see any such leeway in the LSM LC. They've made that repeatedly clear.

Same with the Eastern Orthodox. One may present one's ideas to the marketplace; some will gain traction, some not. But the marketplace of ideas ultimately decides. The HQ of course may set parameters for discussion. But within the pale of orthodoxy one may pursue spirituality as one (and one's locally-associated peers) see fit.

A Francis of Assisi or a Desiderius Erasmus could survive in the RCC, albeit often barely so. No chance in the LSM LC. And remember that Francis and Erasmus lived in a different era: 400 years ago, you could also be tortured or killed in Protestant-controlled territory for being non-conformist. The separation of church and state began to change things drastically. By contrast, we see that the LSM LC has only gotten more rigid and inflexible over time - look at the LC assemblies today vs 40 years ago!

I think in the Catholic church, they accept that different peoples have different cultures and cultural expressions. That's allowed and even celebrated. In the LSM LC, only one culture is allowed. Supposedly that's a "heavenly culture" and based on the Bible, but we've seen on this forum repeatedly that where the Bible and LSM LC culture clash, the Bible is dropped like a rock. Conformity is always to the HQ and whoever's pulling the reins there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Really?!? Doesnt the Catholic church allow nonconforming groups? Why the the creation of, say the Jesuit order? What of the Franciscans? Etc etc? A free spirit could exist in the Catholic church, publish personal poems of spiritual musings etc. I don't see any such leeway in the LSM LC. They've made that repeatedly clear.

Same with the Eastern Orthodox. One may present one's ideas to the marketplace; some will gain traction, some not. But the marketplace of ideas ultimately decides. The HQ of course may set parameters for discussion. But within the pale of orthodoxy one may pursue spirituality as one (and one's locally-associated peers) see fit.

A Francis of Assisi or a Desiderius Erasmus could survive in the RCC, albeit often barely so. No chance in the LSM LC. And remember that Francis and Erasmus lived in a different era: 400 years ago, you could also be tortured or killed in Protestant-controlled territory for being non-conformist. The separation of church and state began to change things drastically. By contrast, we see that the LSM LC has only gotten more rigid and inflexible over time - look at the LC assemblies today vs 40 years ago!

I think in the Catholic church, they accept that different peoples have different cultures and cultural expressions. That's allowed and even celebrated. In the LSM LC, only one culture is allowed. Supposedly that's a "heavenly culture" and based on the Bible, but we've seen on this forum repeatedly that where the Bible and LSM LC culture clash, the Bible is dropped like a rock. Conformity is always to the HQ and whoever's pulling the reins there.

I was in the Catholic school thru High School. We all wore the same white shirt, green tie, and dark pants. In high school the same sport jacket. Every Mass was the same, every day, all around the world. The LC had nothing that resembled that, at least where I was. Going back to Francis or Erasmus in the RCC is like going back to Elden Hall in the 60's.

But we should take note that in the LC uniformity and book-writing always take a back seat to subjection. Proof of that can be seen in Chicago (Reetzke writes his own books) and NYC (don't use HWFMR.) Neither were the recent quarantines ever about petty issues like clean sheets or drums. It was a power struggle. Neither Dong nor Chu was ever going to subject himself to some Blended wannabe in Anaheim. Never gonna happen.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was in the Catholic school thru High School. We all wore the same white shirt, green tie, and dark pants. In high school the same sport jacket. Every Mass was the same, every day, all around the world. The LC had nothing that resembled that, at least where I was. Going back to Francis or Erasmus in the RCC is like going back to Elden Hall in the 60's.

But as for the uniform, even the public schools are going that way through elementary and even middle school.

I think that we can find examples within most Christian groups that fit the mold in some way. It is the extremes to which some go on so many of the items that colors it differently.

And I understand your experience with the RCC. But are you just focused on what you took exception with and not the whole? I realize that someone could say the same thing about the LRC, but I find the line to be rather high and the RCC may be under (even if not for lack of trying) it while the LRC is over.

[UntoHim]

I think our friend ZNP has been pray-reading too much of J. Gordon Melton and Hank Hanegraaff (just razzin you Z)

Seriously, Melton and Hanegraaff both came to the nonsensical and absurd notion that since the term "cult" has been misapplied a few times that no group is deserving of being dubbed with the label. They also brought forth this somewhat comical idea that since every religion or sect could be considered a cult by somebody (presumably even by just a few people), then every religion or sect is a cult...and therefore since every religion or sect is a cult then nobody's a cult.

Not to over simplify this matter, I think many reasonable Christian people could, or should, ask the following: "Just WHO is calling WHO a cult?". I mean, if the Moonies or Warren Jeffs' polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints calls some local Baptist church a cult, does that make them a cult? Conversely, if Dr. Walter Martin, the foremost cult researcher in the world, hears about Local Church members marching on Moody church/Bible Institute shouting slogans of "Down with Christianity!", then hears about LC members say "we want to be little Witness Lees" and "we are baby gods!", and then confirms some of the aberrant and divisive teachings of Lee, then declares the Local Church to be "a cult of Christianity", is Dr. Martin unreasonable is making such a declaration?

Yes, yes, I understand that our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church have not marched on Moody church lately. (and let's thank God and some semi-sober minded Local Churchers for this!), and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.

My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.

My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-

I hear what you're saying boss, but it just don't tip the scale for me.

Most Christians don't call the EOC a cult, and they have been teaching deification (man becomes deified) for centuries. Ole Hank, the Bible Answer Man, obviously doesn't think so.

And both the RCC and the Brethren Exclusives love to proclaim their own MOTA equivalent, i.e. the Pope and "our Brother." But who today is warning the nation about them?

This is why I prefer danger to be the key ingredient. It matches the definition most people have.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think our friend ZNP has been pray-reading too much of J. Gordon Melton and Hank Hanegraaff (just razzin you Z)

Seriously, Melton and Hanegraaff both came to the nonsensical and absurd notion that since the term "cult" has been misapplied a few times that no group is deserving of being dubbed with the label. They also brought forth this somewhat comical idea that since every religion or sect could be considered a cult by somebody (presumably even by just a few people), then every religion or sect is a cult...and therefore since every religion or sect is a cult then nobody's a cult.

Not to over simplify this matter, I think many reasonable Christian people could, or should, ask the following: "Just WHO is calling WHO a cult?". I mean, if the Moonies or Warren Jeffs' polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints calls some local Baptist church a cult, does that make them a cult? Conversely, if Dr. Walter Martin, the foremost cult researcher in the world, hears about Local Church members marching on Moody church/Bible Institute shouting slogans of "Down with Christianity!", then hears about LC members say "we want to be little Witness Lees" and "we are baby gods!", and then confirms some of the aberrant and divisive teachings of Lee, then declares the Local Church to be "a cult of Christianity", is Dr. Martin unreasonable is making such a declaration?

Yes, yes, I understand that our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church have not marched on Moody church lately. (and let's thank God and some semi-sober minded Local Churchers for this!), and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.

My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-

I have no issue with using a non scriptural term, which some have concluded is my position.

Likewise, I have no issue with that non scriptural term being "cult".

My issue is that we need a real definition. The definitions I have seen would all classify the early church as a cult, which I feel puts those making these definitions clearly in the camp of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

1. To be a cult you have to have a "false prophet" running it. This was my reference to receiving the fellowship of the apostles. I'm not interested in vague expressions like "giving the Bible verse an extra twist".

2. However, it is not adequate to simply having a teacher who is in error, that would be equivalent to Apollos. You also have to have the abuse of the saints.

So, if you simply had the first point you could claim that the 7th day adventists are a cult, but once you add the 2nd point then it makes it clear the church of Scientology is a cult. Perhaps the Mormons and JW's would also rise to the level of cult. Manson, Moonies, etc would all be cults.

You don't want to wait until they bring out the Kool aid to realize there is an abusive situation, so the precursor is always "making merchandise of the saints".

Now as some have pointed out selling books and tapes is so widespread that is too universal to be useful. So then the basis of making merchandise of the saints has to be a lie. The "cult leader" is going to fabricate some story about aliens picking us up, or bringing in a revolution, or being the closest coworker of the minister of the age.

But the real give away is "you shall know them by their fruit". You could claim that the Catholic church is a cult based on their definition, but is the fruit charity and good works? I recall in the Local church they were specifically taught not to be involved in good works, and any church that tried to have any program other than "supporting the ministry" was dealt with.

When the great leader doesn't want you giving to the poor but rather wants you to have a standing order for the books he sells and that no one wants, that is the biggest take away that this is a false prophet, abusing the saints.