I have read that a cult is a religious organization one joins as an adult, while a church is a religious organization in which one is raised as a child.
Too neat.
Some people join the older, historic churches as adults. Does that make them cults?
I know people who have joined the RCs as adults with no prior church background or connection. Does that make the RCC a cult?
Meanwhile, yes, fineline there are self-styled 'evangelical Catholics.' I've not had a great deal of first hand exposure to Roman Catholicism until comparatively recently, but parts of it certainly seem to have taken a lurch in a more 'Protestant' direction in terms of 'feel' and ethos. Is that a legacy of Vatican II or more recent developments?
At St Beuno's I was surprised to find familiar hymns sung at Mass, including the good old Welsh standard, 'Guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah,' by William Williams of Pantycelyn.
On the issue of 'fundamentalists' within the more Catholic traditions, yes, they are certainly there. The Orthodox call theirs 'zealots'.
I don't know what the RCs call theirs. Pains in the neck?
The structure of a monastery is the superior has huge control over the lives of the nuns - what they can eat, what they can drink, when they can sleep, etc. Even some control over Mass - I know a convent where the superior told the priest she wanted the Mass to be done a certain way, and the priest didn't want to, but ultimately she had more power than him over what is done in the convent, so he had to conform.
I am not sure if it has been touched on yet, but surely one of the practical signs of a cult us that there is no machinery (or no practically functioning machinery) for a change of leadership - whether democratic ( my personal preference) or imposed from outside/above.
N.B.: Coups ' because God told me to do it' don't count.
Well - at the risk of being disagreeable about definitions again - Fundamentalist originally was a self-description by a group of conservative Evangelicals, I believe.
The term "Fundamentalist" was derived from a 12-volume collection of Protestant theological essays called, conveniently enough, The Fundamentals. Published in the early 20th century they were a reaction against higher criticism and liberal theology. In the mid-20th century a group of (still theologically and socially conservative) Christian reformers within this movement decided Fundamentalism was too rigid and strict. They were referred to as "neo-evangelicals", implicitly claiming the mantle of the First Great Awakening. Their most prominent spokesman was Billy Graham, and it's a measure of their success that the "neo-" was eventually dropped.
I have read that a cult is a religious organization one joins as an adult, while a church is a religious organization in which one is raised as a child.
Then I'm in a cult but my children are in a church, and we're in the same place. That's confusing.
@Hugal Re. Your comments on the KJB and RCs, I have suspected a similarity between Jesuits and Con Evos for some time.
Possibly, although the Jesuits I've met recently have been far more open and inclusive than most con-evos I've come across.
Perhaps they are just pretending. Perhaps it's a nefarious Popish ploy to make us think they're the good guys ...
Mwa ha ha ha ha ...
A Jesuit spiritual director told me they were all taken aback a few years ago when retreats and spiritual direction became de rigeur in certain evangelical circles. She said that they had to quickly learn how to deal with some of these people.
The uber-conservative types would never darken the door of a retreat house, of course but I suspect that evangelicals now make up a considerable proportion of retreatants.
Worth remembering that cults - according to those who study them academically - do not have to be religious in nature. They often are because that has often been a productive way of recruiting people, but I do believe that increasingly they will be non-religious as religion becomes less appealing to recruits. Think of cults as being abusive institutions and groups - they have existed throughout the centuries, they have just changed how they look. Examples of non-religious cults might be a gang, or an MLM scheme (multi level marketing scheme aka a pyramid scheme). So, what makes something a cult is controlling behaviour (essentially domestic abuse but in a group not a home) and not specific beliefs or ideas.
Jonathan Van Ness has a podcast with a very helpful and informative episode called What Is A Cult? with someone whose academic field of expertise is cults.
In its original meaning a "fundamentalist" was someone who believed in the fundamentals (basics of the faith). It is arguable that we are all fundamentalists in that we all believe in the core essence of something even if it is nothing. You can have a fundamentalist atheist
Last night at the dinner table we were discussing the churches that came out of the Boston church of Christ*, which were big around the turn of the millennium. Several people of our acquaintance were involved in the Paris branch (which is how it came up).
I was a student at the time and remember being warned off the London church of Christ as one of the most dangerous cults then in operation. They aggressively targeted University of London students and were eventually banned from setting foot on any of its campuses because they caused so much trouble. Husband en rouge asked me, “But how do you know they were a cult and not just a heterodox and very legalistic church?” He was asking because AFAICT the Paris branch was considerably less extreme in its practices.
I’ve only just seen this thread and was drawn to your comment. I lived in London in the 90s and was a sister at a small London hospital. One day the non-Christian hospital manager approached me and asked me to befriend a staff nurse she was concerned about as she thought she belonged to a cult. The discussion we had was interesting, the manager said that the nurse’s lifestyle was similar to mine; living with Christians, tithing, bible studies, etc (I attended St Helen’s Bishopsgate) but she could see that I did these things because I chose to whereas the other nurse did them because the church made her do them.
I invited this young woman to dinner with my housemates and she was a member of the London Church of Christ and very messed up. They had love bombed her originally but once she moved in with fellow members she was subjected to a lot of heavy shepherding and control, with compulsory church attendance at multiple meetings and forced giving of money. She had been told she has committed an unforgivable sin by sleeping with her boyfriend and was racked with guilt and thought she was not saved. She also thought that we weren’t saved because we did not belong to her church. I was very relieved when she decided to leave London and her church and move back to her parents.
I have read that a cult is a religious organization one joins as an adult, while a church is a religious organization in which one is raised as a child.
Then I'm in a cult but my children are in a church, and we're in the same place. That's confusing.
Clearly, that formulation doesn't really work.
I think it's trying to say something like what is conveyed by "a church is a religion that's been around for 20 centuries, a cult is a religion that's been around for 20 weeks." To illustrate the human tendency of assuming that whatever is old is respectable, and whatever is new is suspect.
Well, whatever is old has proven staying power. What is new may last the ages, and may be a flash in the pan. It's more of a crap shoot. This is not just about religious bodies. Items or movements in the arts have a similar MO.
Well, whatever is old has proven staying power. What is new may last the ages, and may be a flash in the pan. It's more of a crap shoot. This is not just about religious bodies. Items or movements in the arts have a similar MO.
That's all true, but then, you've got the dilemma that, if everyone took the line that new movements should generally be avoided because they're untested, they would never evolve into the old movements that are supposed to be so venerable.
I can't think of any new religious movements that arose in the last 1000 years that has grown to be something I venerate.
No, but the point is, you don't KNOW what's going to grow into something venerable at the time you decide about joining a New Religious Movement.
Someone in the First Century AD might have said "Why the heck would I join some outfit that says a guy was born a virgin and rose from the dead? That's absurd." Even though that same skeptic might think that believing the stories of the Torah is okay, because that was thousands of years old by the First Century AD.
Actually if Christianity's 19th century detractors were right, religious movements with virgin births and resurrections were rife in the first century Roman Empire.
I can't think of any new religious movements that arose in the last 1000 years that has grown to be something I venerate.
Spoken like a true Orthodoxen!
Seriously though I do have considerable respect for Sikhism as a genuine attempt to comprehend the divine and engage with the world. Neo-paganism I find hard to deal with, as it makes Protestantism look unified and coherent - not even a paper Pope to argue about. Not particularly cult-like from what I've seen, though, just a tendency for people to build a faith that serves them and their needs rather than requiring anything of them. Excepting Lord Summerisle and his followers, of course .
Comments
Too neat.
Some people join the older, historic churches as adults. Does that make them cults?
I know people who have joined the RCs as adults with no prior church background or connection. Does that make the RCC a cult?
Meanwhile, yes, fineline there are self-styled 'evangelical Catholics.' I've not had a great deal of first hand exposure to Roman Catholicism until comparatively recently, but parts of it certainly seem to have taken a lurch in a more 'Protestant' direction in terms of 'feel' and ethos. Is that a legacy of Vatican II or more recent developments?
At St Beuno's I was surprised to find familiar hymns sung at Mass, including the good old Welsh standard, 'Guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah,' by William Williams of Pantycelyn.
On the issue of 'fundamentalists' within the more Catholic traditions, yes, they are certainly there. The Orthodox call theirs 'zealots'.
I don't know what the RCs call theirs. Pains in the neck?
I am not sure if it has been touched on yet, but surely one of the practical signs of a cult us that there is no machinery (or no practically functioning machinery) for a change of leadership - whether democratic ( my personal preference) or imposed from outside/above.
N.B.: Coups ' because God told me to do it' don't count.
The term "Fundamentalist" was derived from a 12-volume collection of Protestant theological essays called, conveniently enough, The Fundamentals. Published in the early 20th century they were a reaction against higher criticism and liberal theology. In the mid-20th century a group of (still theologically and socially conservative) Christian reformers within this movement decided Fundamentalism was too rigid and strict. They were referred to as "neo-evangelicals", implicitly claiming the mantle of the First Great Awakening. Their most prominent spokesman was Billy Graham, and it's a measure of their success that the "neo-" was eventually dropped.
Then I'm in a cult but my children are in a church, and we're in the same place. That's confusing.
Possibly, although the Jesuits I've met recently have been far more open and inclusive than most con-evos I've come across.
Perhaps they are just pretending. Perhaps it's a nefarious Popish ploy to make us think they're the good guys ...
Mwa ha ha ha ha ...
A Jesuit spiritual director told me they were all taken aback a few years ago when retreats and spiritual direction became de rigeur in certain evangelical circles. She said that they had to quickly learn how to deal with some of these people.
The uber-conservative types would never darken the door of a retreat house, of course but I suspect that evangelicals now make up a considerable proportion of retreatants.
Jonathan Van Ness has a podcast with a very helpful and informative episode called What Is A Cult? with someone whose academic field of expertise is cults.
I invited this young woman to dinner with my housemates and she was a member of the London Church of Christ and very messed up. They had love bombed her originally but once she moved in with fellow members she was subjected to a lot of heavy shepherding and control, with compulsory church attendance at multiple meetings and forced giving of money. She had been told she has committed an unforgivable sin by sleeping with her boyfriend and was racked with guilt and thought she was not saved. She also thought that we weren’t saved because we did not belong to her church. I was very relieved when she decided to leave London and her church and move back to her parents.
Clearly, that formulation doesn't really work.
I think it's trying to say something like what is conveyed by "a church is a religion that's been around for 20 centuries, a cult is a religion that's been around for 20 weeks." To illustrate the human tendency of assuming that whatever is old is respectable, and whatever is new is suspect.
That's all true, but then, you've got the dilemma that, if everyone took the line that new movements should generally be avoided because they're untested, they would never evolve into the old movements that are supposed to be so venerable.
No, but the point is, you don't KNOW what's going to grow into something venerable at the time you decide about joining a New Religious Movement.
Someone in the First Century AD might have said "Why the heck would I join some outfit that says a guy was born a virgin and rose from the dead? That's absurd." Even though that same skeptic might think that believing the stories of the Torah is okay, because that was thousands of years old by the First Century AD.
Spoken like a true Orthodoxen!
Seriously though I do have considerable respect for Sikhism as a genuine attempt to comprehend the divine and engage with the world. Neo-paganism I find hard to deal with, as it makes Protestantism look unified and coherent - not even a paper Pope to argue about. Not particularly cult-like from what I've seen, though, just a tendency for people to build a faith that serves them and their needs rather than requiring anything of them. Excepting Lord Summerisle and his followers, of course