This article was published in the June edition of The Religious Observer. It was one of several articles discussing "Cults within Religion."

In discussing the idea of a cult within modern religion it is important to first inquire if the religious community proscribes a consistent and generally accepted definition of cult. If the religious community does so, it is appropriate to then examine how that definition marries, if at all, with the definition of cult that is often touted in the popular media.

In response to the first inquiry, I believe that the religious community does have a clear definition of what is a cult. The Plain Truth magazine, published an article several years ago entitled, "Behind The Clamor Over Cults." It included a definition of what the cult term once meant: "The word cult derives from the Latin cultus, meaning a system of ritual, ceremony, or liturgy. It originally meant nothing more than a particular body of religious beliefs and practices ..." Religious historians and scholars would also agree that the world's religions all began from a single founding individual's new revelation of God which then evolved from a cultic phase to that of a sect, finally to emerge as an established religion. The late Jesuit sociologist, Joseph Fichter, wrote about how Jesus' early followers constituted a small Jewish cult that evolved over the years into a sect and then a denomination. After forty years, with a foundation in over 160 countries and a community of 3 million well into its third generation, the Unification Church has similarly emerged.

In the weekly religion section of the New York Times, Ari Goldman reported (May of '93) about a joint statement that had been issued by various groups , including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, the National Council of Churches, the Episcopal Church, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the North American Council for Muslim Women. This joint statement came in response to the government's investigation of the tragedy at Waco. They wrote: "Government has no business declaring what is orthodox or heretical, or what is a true or false religion. History teaches us that today's cults may become tomorrow's mainstream religions." In a follow-up report on the use of the term cult (04/24/93), Goldman quoted Dr. Robert C. Fuller, an expert in new religions at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., as saying that the contemporary and popular use of the term cult is "an artifact of the media."

While the definition referred to in The Plain Truth, once prevailed within the religious community, increasingly religious thinkers and writers have expressed alarm at the modern and popular use of the term. The same article pointed out how cult has come to be used "as a derogatory epithet to describe religions rejected by established authorities as unorthodox or spurious." Harvey Cox, Professor of Harvard Divinity School, in addressing the history of religious intolerance in this country wrote: "A couple of generations ago, Jehovah's Witnesses were the main target of prejudice. Now we have the "cults." It seems Americans are never really happy unless there is some unfamiliar religious group to abuse." Or, as Dean Kelley of the National Council of Churches has put it: '"the term cult is simply a derogatory term for a religion we do not understand and do not like." The definition of cult has clearly lost its original scholastic moorings and has become corrupted, particularly in its carry-over into popular culture. So what has happened? Why has the term's original meaning been so radically changed in its transfer from academia to the secular society? Why have the legitimate authorities on religion - historians, scholars, theologians - civil libertarians and other public authorities been displaced in the public debate about so-called cults? Did the media invent this new "artifact" that Dr. Fuller refers to, or did the media acquire this "derogatory epithet" from elsewhere? The answer to these several questions lie in the convergence of two forces: one, the emergence of three radical and vocal anti-cult organizations, the Cult Awareness Network, the American Family Foundation and its offspring, the International Cult Education Program; two, the preoccupation of modern journalism with the lowest forms of entertainment. While the latter is a subject for another day, I would like to use the remainder of this space to address the former.

While the individuals who publicly represent these organizations might in other social contexts appear as rational, sincere, and conscientious, yet in their public persona, Herbert Rosedale (AFF), Marcia Rudin (ICEP), and Cynthia Kisser (CAN), appear debilitated, blinded, and otherwise undermined as a result of their manifest hatred. What appear to be benign organizations contributing to the welfare of society, deeper scrutiny reveals alternatively, a cartel beset and driven by the power of hatred. It is these individuals and their organizations who have usurped the term cult and re-interpreted it for their own use. They frequently allege that there are over 5,000 destructive cults in America. The only surprise is that they claim so few for they have gone beyond the pale of new and proselytizing Christian organizations to now include political parties, self- improvement groups, commercial enterprises, and fan clubs!!

CAN, AFF, and ICEP have served as catalysts for the egregious misrepresentation of otherwise bonafide organizations and religious communities to the American public. They have pursued this endeavor through the exploitation of national tragedies like Jonestown, and more recently the government's actions against the Branch Davidians. They have systematically presented to the American people distilled images of minority religious communities and other organizations elicited from those whom they have so greedily "deprogrammed". They have intentionally and knowingly presented the theories of quacks and the proponents of junk science as tenable and legitimate, while refusing to disclose to the American public the refutations of those same theories by the established scientific and legal communities. For example, CAN's primary resource for the "mind control" theory, Dr. Margaret Singer, has been entirely discredited by her scientific colleagues. In reply, she filed two unsuccessful law suits against the APA and other eminent psychologists who had concluded that her theories were not only without merit but that her methodology was "unscientific."

In the face of universal condemnation from the established religious community in this country they have tried to deny their own anti- religious agenda. They have accused those whom they disdain of illegal and deceptive conduct, while they themselves have engaged in a conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil rights and in a conspiracy to generate fear and hatred that they then readily exploit. In several instances, associates of these organizations have been convicted of crimes in pursuit of their illicit agenda.

These organizations have sought to promote themselves as the pre- eminent resources and authorities, the so-called "experts" on new religions. Yet, instead of 3distributing primary source materials on the philosophy or ideology of any given organization, a biographical introduction to the founder(s) and accompanied by informed and objective criticisms, they disseminate atrocity apostate tales, junk science, and a litany of unfounded allegations. Moreover, if an inquirer calls CAN about a friend or associate who may have become involved with a particular group, they will receive a follow-up call. This latter call will likely be from a deprogrammer, a faith- breaker, who for a fee of up to $50,000 will offer to kidnap the friend or associate from the group and hold him/her against their will until they recant their faith. Practitioners of this abusive activity now prefer the term exit counselor in lieu of deprogrammer. The Reverend Billy Graham has stated: "it is dangerous to tamper with the minds, hearts and souls of religious people, and deprogrammers doing it for rich financial rewards are tampering with everyone's religious liberty."

Galen Kelly, the infamous deprogrammer and former national security director for CAN, was convicted in Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia, for the 1992 kidnapping of a woman in an effort to sever her affiliation with her religious community. "Prosecutors said Kelly is part of the Cult Awareness Network, which court papers said uses kidnapping to 'deprogram' members of cults." Richmond Times-Dispatch (10/07/92). It is therefore no wonder that CAN's Executive Director, Cynthia Kisser, has repeatedly denied that she and her organization engage in kidnappings and involuntary deprogrammings.

AFF's literature announced Mr. Rosedale's appointment as President of AFF and stated: "Mr. Rosedale has been, and will continue to be, an active advisor and resource for the Cult Awareness Network....He will also continue to be a bridge between [CAN] and AFF as we pursue our common purpose."

Marcia R. Rudin, an employee of AFF, is the Director of the International Cult Education Program, (and wife of A. James Rudin, national inter-religious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee). In its own literature, ICEP is defined as "a joint program of the American Family Foundation and the Cult Awareness Network. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the Association of College Unions-International (ACU-I) are ICEP participating organizations." Why would these associations chose to be involved with ICEP?

Public statements from CAN representatives make the anti-religious nature of its crusade very clear:

1. In January of 1989, CAN's Executive Director, Cynthia Kisser, spoke to a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, of how CAN would treat Jesus: "if he were alive now, we'd take an interest in him because of the great controversy surrounding his fringe activities. ... We'd try to see if there was abuse, unethical behavior or deceptive practices. And I'd send whatever we could find to reporters."

2. During a recent appearance on Nightline , CAN associate, Steve Hassan, stated that the Jehovah's Witnesses was a "destructive cult." In 1989 at a CAN conference Hassan stated that "the Catholic Church is the biggest cult in America."

3. Herbert Rosedale, President of the American Family Foundation, once described a Unification Church retreat center in an article published in The Times Herald Record as: "a center which spreads physical and emotional disease among its members and infects the community with the results therefrom."

4. Last month, Agri News, a paper published in Texas, published the following news brief under the heading, Do You Know A Cultist::

"The government definition of a cult, provided to Janet Reno by Cult Awareness Network, is as follows: "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the second coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who contributes regularly to a Christian cause, who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, and who distrusts big government." Abundant Wildlife, Issue 3.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "the right to choose one's religious beliefs and practices is something we hold to be inalienable, a matter for each man's conscience and something not to be interfered with by any agency less than God." Nevertheless, CAN, AFF, and ICEP have attempted to negate the traditional democratic and constitutional processes by which America recognizes legitimate and bonafide religions. They have sought to replace the authority and scholarship of qualified experts with their own quackery and bigotry. Through its representative in Washington, David Bardin, CAN has even attempted to lobby the federal government to fund its spurious anti-American activities!

It is a most preposterous claim for these organizations to hold themselves out as the experts on cults. In this regard, the comments of Dr. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute of American Religion, are most apt. Dr. Melton presented a paper to the American Academy of Religion in Washington, DC, in November of 1993, in which he stated:

"[J]ust as we would not call upon the Ku Klux Klan to offer expert testimony on African-Americans or the American Nazi Party to speak about Jews, so we should cease calling upon so-called "cult" experts, who have as their agenda the destruction of non conventional religions, to provide testimony and information about religious groups. "Cults" exist only in the same realm as "niggers" and "kikes," a realm of non-being. In my world, cults do not exist. Hence, anyone who purports to be a cult expert, is an expert about nothing at all."

The debate about cults in religion raises many issues and challenges. None are novel or unique and so the lessons of history can assist in resolving them. In this effort, there is an obligation on the bonafide scholastic community to refute the rantings of the hate-mongers who attempt to debase the dialogue. The religious community, and most especially religious leaders, must be unequivocal in their condemnations of the activities of CAN and its sister organizations. Religious leaders can thereby affirm that they will not succumb to CAN's divisive exploits and that they will not yield their moral and spiritual integrity. In controlling and shaping the debate, the more senior faith traditions and the newer faith traditions have a great deal to offer, not only to each other, but to a society that has become numbed to religious virtues. There is too much at stake to fall together into the web of sloganeers and night-riders.

Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Copyright Information
Tparents Home