I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.
What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]
Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.
I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?
Of course you would be off base to call fundamentalist churches cultic. What are you thinking? When God spoke to the prophets he spoke to men who had conviction and backbone. They did not flinch when they spoke with a “Thus saith the Lord.” Today so many of the non-fundamentalist preachers flinch all the time. They rarely speak in absolute terms if the topic is something that is controversial today. They must make all men happy. Or at least allow for alternative views.
Schaap’s sin no more makes his church a cult than your sins makes your church a cult. As a matter of fact the proof is right there! When Schaap sinned, he confessed, he did not ask for favors! And when he confessed the church leaders did not pussy-foot around! They came out on the Lord’s side and were determined not to be nice or somehow whitewash the thing. Both Schaap and the church were honorable when the evidence was in and did the non-cultic thing! They responded similar to Corinth in the second epistle.
Of course we’re not off base to call any church with unaccountable authoritarian leadership cultic. Because cults are not only theological, but also sociological. Even verifiably orthodox churces can be cultic in the way they control people.
Some fundamentalist churches may be cultic, sure. But, the simple definition for a cult within Christianity is a group that may pretend to proclaim Jesus as Lord and God and then proceeds to strip him of his authority so that yes, they are not accountable to him practically speaking! and yes, they are following a thought process that is tyrannically subjective and not Scriptural (because of biblical illiteracy with a lack of love and diligent seeking of God)
Pharisees were very cultic, though in reverse. They as a body became the absolute authoritarian rule, and literally made a frenzy.
“it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” Really? Having worked in dozens of fundamentalist churches (and I have my issues with many of them for easy-believism, etc.) my experience is that they never speak like the above quote. The reason those who leave fundy churches and dislike them is because they have a different world-view and think the following are wrong or intolerant: fundy standards, KJV type bible views, musical positions, strong preaching, These are evidences of a lack of love and cultic to those who leave and then decide that they were “hurt” and the preacher was too sure of himself!
Yet in love we must preach and practice God’s word, clearly and correctly and with conviction, while remaining accountable to God and His words. The prophet was never accountable to a board of directors were they? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.. It is fear of God that is desperately needed today, but those who do fear God can be intimidating when they preach the Word of God to those who want “tolerant” unconditional love.
So would we say that any independent church where there is a view of sovereignty under the Lordship of Christ, (“kings and priests unto God”) is necessarily cultic?
The Pharisees helped to drive the people into a frenzy so as to murder Christ. That was classic cultism, even if it was not just one man who did it.
No, independent churches are not necessarily cultic, but I believe the independence of a church from an over-arching system of accountability of any nature can be fertile soil for cultism, given the wrong leader.
But I agree with some who believe that with good men any church government can work, while with bad men, no form of church government can work.
@Roy, I think you can stand for old-fashioned “standards” and not be cultic. Most fundamentalists aren’t. But some fundamentalist churches have a power-player at the top. He stresses loyalty to the man-of-God and the institution/church, and creates an environment that belittles independent thinking. The end result is a cultish group, often – at least in my opinion.
The classic biblical case study would be diotrephes (cf 3john)
Hi, I’m new to this site. Please forgive my jumping right in, but I don’t want to be flinching or passive. 🙂 Really though, I hope my thoughts are conveyed with grace, though direct, even though I’m new. I love the Lord, I love his word, and I’m thankful that one day all believers will share a seat at the marriage supper of the Lamb together and we will no longer see through a glass darkly. I do admit I’m making my response below outside the context of Schaap and his church’s circumstance.
Regarding the above comment by ‘Roy,’ I don’t see this response to the article reasonable in relation to the article; more like self-defense. I actually find it quite disconcerting, potentially supporting the “pride” comment made within article (I’m not making that claim). Having belonged to a fundamentalist church in the past, I can potentially see some of the very things addressed by the article within that church. Not sure that makes it a “cult” on it’s own merit, but to just not even consider the reasoning provided within the article seems unwise and intellectually dishonest. I suggest wrestling with the article’s premise, even though its a self declared “authority” in its own right.
Fundamentalist, in my experience over 30 years of churches and close friends, are a hardship at best. I love the concept, ideas, and having an authoritarian figure lead me; these in some measure can be nice and comforting.
However the ideas within fundamentalism, from those I’ve worshiped with and other friends, makes one see more dedication to the concept of fundamentalism than with the Gospel. For example, though I agree the negativity displayed by flinching pastors and passivity of sermons are concerning, the reference to the “prophets” of God is troubling as well. They are, in this comment, used as proof text for fundamentalism. Lets do something different, lets use Jesus as the proof text.
Imagine, Roy, one of those unflinching prophets at the well with the woman who had five husbands? I imagine, in your example, the prophet’s immediate concern would be related to her being a Samaritan, this would be the first hurdle. Then all those marriages. How about the fornication she lived in now? But what did Jesus do? (no pun intended… 🙂 He loved her. Spoke kindly to her. Didn’t judge her. BUT, he could have killed her right there! He could have cast condemnation on her. He could have made her languish for forgiveness or even preached an unflinching sermon at her. He didn’t.
I use that as an example since we are taught in the Word that we are all being conformed to the image of Christ. Since that’s true, we are not being conformed to the image of our idea of how the “prophets” treated people. Seems for some reason we cast them as stern disciplinarians. However, we are told in Hebrews they were men such as we are. Also, they too, were being conformed into the image of God’s Son.
So I look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. We are to be conformed into His image. He was only harsh with the self-righteous and religious zealots, dare I say, the fundamentalists of His time.
This is why I defer to the Gospel, which I believe fundamentalist would agree. But defending fundamentalism is right up there with claiming we are of a specific apostle, even Christ. It just doesn’t go over well.
Thanks for jumping in, Justme. I think you’re spot on. You might enjoy the book Accidental Pharisees that I recently reviewed. Spend some time on my site and nose around. Explore topics or categories, and interact some more if you wish.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
That e-zine is a bear to read.
The knee-jerk response of cultists is to deride courtesy and decency as a weakness in leadership, and to praise abuse as strength.
The IFB church I left years ago had all 4 of the traits listed by Ross. And the pastor owned the church building and the land it sat on. And he refused to have an assistant pastor, deacons, or elders because he wanted to be the sole man in charge. No one could force him to leave. He forbid congregational voting. There absolutely no accountability there. He and his wife counted the offering money in a closet together, and he even admitted to taking what money he wanted from the offering collection. His wife carried around rolls of cash, from the offering money, and purchased new clothes for herself and her daughter at nice department stores (refused to step foot in a Goodwill store). He owned 2 brand new $30,000 SUVs and 2 brand new $40,000 top-of-the line pickup trucks in 3 years. All this while people in his church who were tithing drove their families around in rattle-trap vehicles that were less than safe and barely made it from paycheck to paycheck. Women were at fault for all sexual problems in the world. He would say that he doesn’t like for women to wear pants because when they wear pants he can see they have legs and can see their crotch, and it makes him have sexual thoughts. If you questioned anything at all, you were yelled at and shunned, or made an example of. The well-known Bible college he came from (no, it isn’t HAC but an affiliate) teaches pastors to be like this, without apology. Sadly, he is still “in power”, because there are still some who will stand by his side at all costs and continue to enable him.
Many pastors in the IFB harp on Roman Catholicism, yet they are being exposed as being not unlike that which they attack. Not all IFB churches are this way, but the truth is, there are too many that are.