The Danger of Cults

From fervour to fanaticism

OCCASIONALLY there are news reports containing shocking information about individuals or groups that have come under the sinister control of organisations that claim to be religious. One outstanding example is the mass suicide of nine hundred men, women and children in a Guyanan jungle in 1978. The “Reverend” Jim Jones led his followers from California into an isolated South American village because of the pressures of the twentieth century world and his conviction of an approaching apocalypse, or dramatic end to the world. Everyone outside that community was seen as an enemy, leading eventually to such a feeling of desperate persecution that all of Jones’s followers were persuaded by him to take a lethal poisoned drink.

Before and since that event there have been other examples of people blindly following the commands of a powerful personality. Young people are often susceptible to this kind of persuasion, leaving their families because of the attraction of a mystical philosophy, without realising the dangers involved. Some of these excursions have also ended in tragedy. Parents are naturally very concerned lest their own children are drawn into the activities of a cult and away from the principles they have been taught in their families. Warnings are sometimes given about different groups who target those who are young and impressionable. We need to know the factors that mark out cults, and what it is that can make them dangerous or lead to tragedies like those in Jonestown.

We need first of all to determine the factors that create a cult. Is anyone who believes differently from us, automatically a member of a cult? Some literature circulated by various cult help groups suggests that any organisation that does not accept the teachings of the mainstream Christian churches is a cult. But is it right for all non-conformists to be likened to the fanatical groups we have briefly considered? What exactly is a cult?

Are all minority religions cults?

We are not helped very much by the word itself, which refers simply to worship, devotion or homage. But a related word – ‘sect’ – helps to distinguish groups with a different belief system from groups that pose dangers like those mentioned above. A ‘sect’ is simply a religious party or group; and the term is normally applied to groups that are not among the ‘accepted’ denominations. By definition, sects are minority groups. They may be regarded with a degree of suspicion because of the different views they promote, but rarely do they constitute a serious threat.

This can be seen from the use of the word ‘sect’ in the Bible. The Apostle Paul in the first century AD spoke of his strict Jewish upbringing: “According to the strictest sect of our (Jewish) religion I lived as a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). The Pharisees did not always agree with other religious Jews, notably the ruling Sadducees (see Acts 23:6), but their existence was not regarded as a serious threat to others. Also when Paul accepted the gospel of Christ and became his apostle, he recognised that the Jews were suspicious of his joining a group with different beliefs. He therefore sought to put their minds at rest: “According to the Way which they (i.e., the Jews) call a sect, so l worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14).

By contrast, the term ‘cult’ is normally associated with those groups regarded as distinctly dangerous – because of the implications of their beliefs and the methods used to attract and control their members. Cult is a more sinister term with overtones of persuading individuals against their will and against their better judgement. It must not be confused with simply holding different beliefs.

Non-conformists

Down through the ages almost all non-conformist groups were ostracised by the established church and therefore by society in general. Even the reformers of the 16th century – Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others – appeared outrageous to the majority of the population. Leaving aside the question of whether these or other non-conformists were misguided in their beliefs, they were standing apart for conscientious reasons, usually based on interpretations of the Bible. While it is possible for a religious sect to be a cult, cults separate and alienate themselves on the basis of social organisation and behaviour, and often in an aggressive fashion, not simply because their beliefs do not match the majority view.

Governments have struggled with the concept of outlawing organisations they believe to pose a danger, and have generally followed the definitions given above to determine which organisations are sects and which can be classified as cults.

Key practices that attract the designation ‘cult’ include the following:

All these factors are intended to make the group very close-knit; they bond individual members to the group, but more particularly to the leader – who is usually a very charismatic and dominant personality. In the process of being bonded to the group and its leader, members are gradually alienated from the rest of society, and in extreme cases are removed totally from society to live as if they have nothing to do with normal life.

Isolation

Some of the ways this isolation is achieved are distinctly worrying. Potential recruits to the group are encouraged to distance themselves from family and friends – all those who are likely to have the greatest influence upon them. Separated from previous contacts, the recruits are subjected to intense persuasion by group members. This peer group pressure quickly replaces the previous influence of family and friends. The recruits are overwhelmed with a sense of immediate acceptance: they are ‘love-bombed’ with flattery, hugging and touching. They are never left alone for long periods to collect and recover their thoughts, and by an insistence on attending long sessions that deprive them of sleep any natural resistance is quickly destroyed.

The effect of this withdrawal from society in general is often revealed only when an individual who has been attracted to a cult seeks to leave it. Great pressure is applied – psychological pressure, and sometimes physical force too – to encourage the individual to change his or her mind. Family members who have not joined the group are described as enemies, and leaving the group is seen to be a personal attack upon the leader himself.

Dominant leaders

Dependence on the leader is encouraged by a series of complex games with rules imposed by the leader. Gradually members are conditioned to stop thinking for themselves and are strongly encouraged to accept unquestioningly the leader’s decisions and teachings. Chanting and singing form a large part in the repertoire of bonding individuals to the group. It is well known that this practice quickly blocks rational thought processes, like a form of brainwashing. Together with a special diet, often nutritionally inadequate, recruits become more susceptible to suggestions that would otherwise be immediately dismissed.

It is easy to see how this approach can quickly tip over into even more unacceptable practices, where a leader uses his influence to bind recruits to him by sexual domination. His ‘favourites’ are granted small but significant privileges, giving them a sense of importance, while the less favoured are encouraged to try harder to please him, and thus come even more under his domination. The careful use of drugs – purchased on behalf of the recruits – is another sinister way of taking control of recruits’ minds and lives. Sometimes recruits have to hand over all their personal wealth to the group and, because they live in accommodation provided for them, are soon completely indebted to the group for everything they need.

The definitions that have been developed, and the aspects that classify an organisation as a cult, are important when we come to consider minority, non-conformist groups. This booklet, for example, has been prepared by Christadelphians. In some literature published about cults, warnings are sounded against the beliefs and practices of Christadelphians. Are these warnings justified?