Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Cult - Part 1 of 4

When I began considering this post, I wanted to make certain I understood precisely what a cult is.  I scoured the web looking for definitions.  I looked at legal definitions, dictionaries, and searched through the FBI website.  What I found is that there are a variety of meanings depending on one's outlook.  I found the best comprehensive treatment of the definition of the word "cult" here at www.spiritwatch.org/cultdef.htm.  But before I get into what I am going to say, let me first mention the four primary outlooks for defining a cult (from spiritwatch.org):

  1. Journalistic - tends to be sensational [examples could include Waco and Ruby Ridge]
  2. Theological - based on a standard of orthodox truth
  3. Sociological - describes groups that self-consciously oppose the mainstream of culture
  4. Psychological - based on a standard of psychological manipulation and coercion
To some the definition of a cult includes that it is small and/or on societal fringes.  If this is the case, then Mormons would not be considered a cult because of their size and influence.  Neither would the Church of Scientology or the Christian Science people.  But, the Amish could be because they are in small groups, shut themselves out of mainstream culture, and exert little influence on society at large.  Clearly, the Amish are fairly benign.  I have heard them mocked or considered to be strange and goofy, but never accused of being a cult in the way most people consider a cult to be.

We also have the expression "cult following" to describe a group of very loyal fans or devotees of something or someone or some group.  The expression by no means is designed to imply that those in the "cult following" are actually cult members.  For example, among Catholics, various saints and Mary have a cult following.  These devotees are still considered Catholics by the Catholic Church itself.

Cults come in all shapes and sizes.  There are relatively benign cults, and there are very militant cults.  There are truth cults and there are apocalyptic cults.  Thus, a better definition than just the dictionary is needed in figuring out what a cult is, and is it dangerous.

For the purposes of this post, and all follow-up posts, I will default to the definition as outlined in spiritwatch.org. The following list of seven elements of a cult are from an amalgamation of principles set forth by Dr. Paul Martin and Steve Hanson, both well known experts on cults. All the credit goes to spiritwatch.org for the wording and compilation of this list:
A cult is any group or organization which has:
  1. A centralized form of  leadership that rules with unquestioned authority
  2. A body of convictions, beliefs, and practices set forth boldly as "the truth"
  3. A compelling presentation of the group vision to prospects that is inviting and challenging
  4. A series of manipulative socializing sessions to instill psychological dependence on the group
  5. A definable process of group dynamics used to unethically control and manipulate members
  6. A history of abuses of authority by group leaders freely using deception and fear tactics  
  7. A history of psychological and spiritual abuses of group members that destroy lives
Further, cults are not limited to fringe groups.  They can and are found among those people and assemblies most people would not necessarily consider to be cults. 

So, where am I going with this?  Some of you have already guessed.  If I haven't made enemies up to now with my various postings, I am about to do so.  Based on the criteria set forth, I am going to submit that extreme Independent Fundamental Baptist groups are nothing less than cults.

I am not accusing every IFB church of being a cult.  There are good IFB churches out there.  Though many are guilty of fostering a graceless environment, while unbiblical and sad, that in and of itself is not enough to denounce them for being a cult.  No, the cult aspect comes into play in the extremism many foster.

Cult Element #1: A centralized form of  leadership that rules with unquestioned authority

The Independent Fundamental Baptist church finds itself more prone to this type of problem simply from the standpoint of it being independent.  As such, each church is accountable only to itself, and there is no outside accountability except for the rare and loose church associations of like minded ministers who understand the importance of accountability.  However, the effectiveness of these are limited to the honesty and integrity of the pastors involved.  The effectiveness is further reduced by the nature that these associations are loose and voluntary and hold no real power or authority to forcibly remove a fellow minister from office.

Attempts at internal accountability and checks and balances are made, most commonly through a board of deacons, who often both call the pastor and have authority to dismiss him.  Aside from the numerous problems this arrangement poses, the ambitious pastor can influence the selection of deacons so as to have greater influence over the decisions of the board.  Should this happen, then it is all but impossible to remove a sitting pastor.

Once entrenched, such a pastor, backed by a corrupted deacon board, will systematically begin the elimination of opposition.  The majority of the sheep will most likely blindly follow him, because he will not exert full authoritarian control overnight, giving him time to slowly brainwash the sheep.  Should any members of the church or deacons question him, depending on the type and amount of questioning, various degrees of pressure are placed on the identified "trouble maker."  This can take the form of anything from a private talk to open humiliation and false accusations to public defamation, and in really extreme cases, vandalism, physical assault, and even death threats.  Such individuals, if he/she can be persuaded to "drink the cool aide," are restored to fellowship but carefully watched.  All others are often driven out of the church, and the remainder of the congregation commanded to have no further dealings with them.

When such a pastor senses that the time is right, he will begin to consolidate his power.  This can take the form of evangelists or other respected pastors brought in to preach on the authority of the pastor, or even the pastor himself  conducting a "Bible study" to this effect. However it is done, the result is that the sheep are taught that the pastor is the sole authority on matters of faith and practice, and he alone is the final arbiter on what the Bible really teaches.  His authority and accuracy from the pulpit cannot be questioned.  He will bully the congregation from the pulpit, and the sheep are afraid to stand up for themselves because the pastor makes it sound like God is on his side, and to defy the pastor is to defy God.  He may even come up to individuals and tell them that God told him to tell them to do something.  Because he is seen as a man of God and of the Word, worthy of respect and obedience, he will not be questioned, or at least those so confronted will be afraid to question him.

Because such a pastor has no check to his power, his abuses may grow, which can including moral lapses, some of which may also be against the law, and in many cases he will be able to mount a defense, either from the Bible, or through a sob story on how he is able to excuse his actions.  He will beg for forgiveness with tears for any moral lapses in judgment, and when he is restored to his position as pastor, he will be emboldened all the more in his excesses.

Not all such pastors have an agenda, nor are they all morally lapse.  I know of some once good men who have been influenced over the years by a poor choice in friends or conferences, and slowly became authoritarian.  Others are taught in Bible college of the authoritarian nature of the pastor.   Most authoritarian pastors are merely dictatorial and not morally corrupt. 

However, one of the greatest injunctions from a human standpoint I have against such authoritarianism from pulpit is that it draws to that church other men of like mind, who rule their homes with an iron fist.  It is among such followers where the greater degree of moral degeneracy can be found, whether it be alcoholism, physical - emotional - psychological abuses, or sexual immorality to include pornography and affairs, and even pedophilia.  Such abuses, if discovered in these cult churches, are often swept under the rug or outright defended by others in the church, including the pastor.

Now to consider this matter from the Word of God. I use the ESV, by the way.

Matt 20:25-28 (cf. Mark 10:42-45)
1 Timothy 3
2 Timothy 2
Titus 2, 3

The Word puts considerable constraints on pastoral authority. He is to be a servant leader who rightfully divides the Word to his charges and feeds them what they require, not what they desire. The pastor is not given the authority to compel any sheep, but to lead them willingly. He is not to seek inordinate gain from his position, but accept the position with a proper humility, not forgetting that he himself is under the authority of Christ and His Word. The pastor is not to be a dictator to his congregation, benevolent or otherwise, but he is to lead by example and exhort his charges to godly living and good works. The pastor has been given authority in spiritual matters and a corresponding responsibility, seeing as he will give an account to Christ for the discharge of his duties and for the state of his flock.

I take exception to the thought which appears to be a premise among some that a pastor is always working in accordance with God's will and the congregation is the one who resists the work of the Holy Spirit when a problem arises.  This premise is false.  The pastor is also prone to error, and because of spiritual pride he is the one more likely to resist the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that the pastor should be a puppet and a "yes man." No church should have the right to dictate to the pastor what is and is not to be proclaimed from the pulpit, save that it be nothing less than the "whole counsel of God," but godly and learned men in the congregation should hold the pastor accountable, confronting him if necessary, and they should be the ones to begin the process of dismissing an errant and unrepentant pastor should such a desperate and heartbreaking need arise.

No person or church should ever build around any person a personality cult. Our loyalty is to Christ alone, not to a mere mortal. Should that mere mortal and the Word of Christ differ, Christ should be followed without exception, regardless of earthly consequences. In order for this to transpire, the people must be in the Word and know what it says and means, hence the importance of a godly pastor/teacher, and an inner drive in the congregation much akin to that of the Bereans. Without a knowledge of the Word, the people will fall for every wind of doctrine, and the church will lose its efficacy and be prone to being taken over by the Enemy of our souls.

    6 comments:

    1. FULL DISCLOSURE: The section after the list of Scriptures is copied, with some modification, from a FaceBook post I made on February 24, 2010, in response to a question on pastoral authority. This may sound proud and vain, but I will save what I consider to be memorable posts for future use. Why re-write from scratch something I already said well? I never dreamed I'd use it like this.

      ReplyDelete
    2. Jonathan: excellent presentation. You have done your homework and I, for one, will look forward to reading the rest of your expose'. Also, I do not do FB but if something is yours then should an apology be necessary? Only if you quote someone else I would think. But those are my thoughts. Blessings Lion.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Hey Bill! I wasn't trying to apologize. I just have a thing now for openness. It is my original work, but I did use it elsewhere first. I'm sure it doesn't matter, but the disclosure and reference lets my conscience rest.

      ReplyDelete
    4. I'm on my way out the door for a full day of commitments, but wanted to say I look forward to the rest of the series. I was raised in IFB churches, and my father was the pastor for a number of those years. The worst church for control, intimidation, and manipulation, though, was an independent Bible church in which the pastor, though claiming he had men in the church who "functioned as" elders and deacons, completely dominated (and continues to dominate) the power in the church.

      ReplyDelete
    5. Looking so very forward to your continued presentation of this topical thread.

      I will be taking notes.

      ReplyDelete
    6. I have researched some of this as well...will be reading any future posts. I noticed you asked for ideas or topics we would like to see you discuss, I have a question. According to the Bible,if a church teaches the true doctrines of the faith,but perhaps tends to be a little controlling with standards and such, is there harm in continuing to attend? If so...what are the long term difficulties?

      ReplyDelete