I was born-again in February of 1978 and with only a few months under my belt as a Christian believer I can remember with vivid detail the global news of the mass suicide in Jonestown, Guyana, perpetrated by the master deceiver, Jim Jones. I remember my pastor’s remarks in his message that following Sunday with regards to the mass suicide and there being introduced for the first time to the concept of “cult”. In my mind, Jim Jones and the demonic debacle of Jonestown would forever be the picture and definition of a cult. Perhaps that national trauma is one of the reasons I am so sensitized to the use of the word, “cult”. To call something a cult is, in my mind, analogous to labeling a church, The People’s Temple, and its leader, Jim Jones.
Undoubtedly, not everyone who uses the word, “cult”, is tying it to a mass murderer. However, I think a case can be made in our era that the use of the word has increased in it’s application. Writers, bloggers, journalists, co-workers and next door neighbors use the word whether it’s accurately applied or not. Any act in a local church that produces questions, offense, expectation, or discipline to the onlooker, can quickly be labeled, cultic, when in truth it is not. In fact, the word “cult” has become in many ways as flexible in it’s usage as the word “racist”. Not all disappointments, injustices, or losses in life can be linked to racism. Sometimes things happen to us which are not precipitated by our skin pigmentation. In like manner, not all church disappointments, misunderstandings, and administration can be labeled as “cult” activity because it “appears” non-normative to the spiritual neophyte. In both instances, the wide application of these words have simply become a lazy person’s way of avoiding a deeper or confrontational conversation. It is easier to label the perceived offender with an incendiary and explosive epithet. It’s easier to holler, “cult” at a church or pastor than actually engage with Scripture and reveal the whole story.
Through the years, it has been implied and at times outright declared that my church and ministry were “cultic”. This is not an unusual accusation for many non-denominational, Spirit-filled churches and pastors. The charismatic doctrine, government, and ecclesiology, while entirely biblical, is unique to many traditional church-goers. I am not the first, nor the only, nor the last to be tarred with this label. Most of the time I chuckle it away realizing that Jesus was called Beelzebub (Luke 11:15) and Paul was called the ringleader of a cult (Acts 24:5). While those labeling me or the church meant it as a pejorative, it actually puts me in good company. Furthermore, God has a way of shaking these accusations out by either correcting me through His reproof, or vindicating me through His own sovereign dealings. I’m okay with that. However, my heart always grieves for those precious people who have connected with me in ministry through the years to have to endure such things. Innocent sheep should not have to be defiled with anecdotal innuendo and loose usage of such an incendiary word. So, I decided I would take a moment and clarify the proper usage of the word, “cult”, so the reader can make up their own mind to its appropriate usage. It might also bring clarity to the minds of those who accuse the brethren of such things as with whom they are in agreement. (Revelation 12:10).
Walter Martin, the renown author of “Kingdom of the Cults”, defined a cult as follows:
“By the term cult, I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to a belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture”.
I mean no disrespect to Dr. Martin, but his definition, while acceptable to many, is fraught with problems. For example, while he personally means no ill-will concerning it’s usage, it is undeniable that people use the term in culture as a sharp epithet. The word “cult” carries incredible overtones in our culture. Have you ever heard anyone ever say, “That group over there is a cult, but it’s all good and our kids are going to their youth group”. Of course not, after all, who wants to associate themselves with a “cult”? Also, when it comes to Biblical Christianity and its expression through a local church, who gets to determine what is “normative”? What if “normative” in the culture is spiritually apostate? What if “normative” is compromised, apathetic, liberal, or heretical? Our era has already been defined as Post-Christian, so exactly how would a fervent, biblically serious expression of comprehensive Christianity be labeled? I would suggest to the reader that it may indeed fulfill Dr. Martin’s definition of a cult, when in fact it is not.
The dictionary defines a cult as follows:
“A small group whose practices are regarded by others as strange or sinister”.
“Excessive admiration of an individual”.
“Beliefs which are extreme or dangerous”.
I’m not sure that helps much either. Genuine Biblical Christianity fits well within the parameters of such a definition in a post-modern era. This definition could be applied to hundreds of thousands of orthodox churches.
According to researchers in this area, there are numerous sub-groups of cults:
Political Cults
Racist Cults
Theological Cults
Personality Cults
Sociological Cults
Doomsday (Apocalyptic) Cults
And several more….
So in many ways, it would seem, that a cult is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder can use any standard they wish to determine what is normative. They can use their feelings, their traditions, their hurts, their wounds, or their bitterness to measure the organization or person they feel is suspect. If the beholder (accuser) is so disposed, they can ostensibly make up their own definitions and simply slander the church or pastor with this epithet. What an absolute mess that becomes. It’s the Jewish parents whose daughter accepted Jesus Christ in our church and walks away from cultural religion to a new relationship with the Lord and they call me a cult leader. Was I really? Or the person who willingly embraced the leadership standards and expectations, the form of government, and administration, but then later is offended and disappointed by it and calls it a “cult”. Was it really? Or the person who leaves the church disgruntled (a hundred reasons) and tries to defile as many as possible to justify their departure and they call the church a “cult”. Really? Or was it simply an easy accusation when there was no substance to back up the claim?
To call a church a cult or a pastor a cult leader, one needs more than just a few anecdotal stories of hearsay, offenses, and disappointments. The accuser needs to demonstrate an integrity of full disclosure as to what kind of cult it is and allow the accused an opportunity to respond. These labels are serious. Such accusations have the potential to harm hundreds of people who participate in that ministry. Such an accusation must be weighed in the hearers ears rightly.
Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight.
Proverbs 11:1
Diverse weights and diverse measures, They are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.
Proverbs 20:10
The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards were all considered cult leaders of their day. Martin Luther was labeled a heretic by the “normative” religion of 16th century Germany. There are scores of groups and saints all through Church history who were Biblically orthodox to the bone that were labeled cultic in their era but are now considered mainstream.
So how do you define a cult?
For me it boils down to this…
Are you functioning as a minister and a church biblically orthodox, legally sound, and with integrity?
If those 3 boxes can be checked, then you will have the endorsement of the Lord. To my ministerial colleagues, especially those of you who have been slandered by the incendiary label of cult, take heart. Strong pastoral leadership and biblical fidelity will always look cultic to the carnal mind. Stay the course in the midst of any slander. If all we have to endure is epithets from the culture and the carnal, then it will be an honorable journey.
No Comments