84 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
Krebs, 1998, p. 37 Lattin, 2007, p. 112), Church
Universal and Triumphant (Balch and Langdon,
1998), and Aum Shinri Kyo (Reader, 2000). He
has a history, therefore, favoring positive
interpretations of controversial groups over
objective interpretations of their (often harmful)
practices (Kent and Krebs, 1998, p. 37). Alas,
the current volume under review continues
Lewis’s pattern of downplaying if not ignoring
important controversial practices of highly
contentious groups, and of spinning opposition
to them to appear as harassment or persecution.
His habit of portraying opposition to
controversial groups as harassment or
persecution appears in the first paragraph of his
introduction. On page 3 Lewis states that many
Germans did not want Scientologist Tom Cruise
to play the role of the World War II German
colonel, Claus von Stauffenberg, in the film
Valkyrie. (Von Stauffenberg is a German war
hero for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and
many Germans see Scientology as a totalitarian,
anti-democratic organization, with Cruise as a
public-relations agent for the group.)
As a consequence, the German
government refused to allow the
production company to shoot parts of
the movie in certain historic
buildings…. All too predictably, a
number of cable news programs used
this incident as yet another opportunity
to heap scorn on the Church of
Scientology. (p. 3)
One cannot learn from Lewis’s comments that
the German government sees Scientology as an
anti-democratic institution that violates human
rights, or that the German government reversed
its decision and allowed the production company
to film in the historic Bendlerblock building,
where some of the key events involving the
assassination plot and its aftermath took place.
Nor is Germany—or for that matter, France—
even in the book’s index (despite an entire
article on the latter country). With just a little
effort, Lewis could have summarized a more
balanced account of what happened around the
film, but he omits information in a manner that
makes Scientology’s situation in Germany
appear to be far more dire than it actually is.
Scientology’s Shortfalls
The failure of this anthology to address in depth
the debates about Scientology in countries such
as Belgium and Germany is part of a larger
pattern of missed opportunities to discuss vital
issues about the organization. For example,
David G. Bromley highlights how Scientology
has combined the private world (religion) with
the public world (corporate): “Rather than
maintaining the separation of the public and
private spheres, Scientology has merged and
unified the economic [contractual] and religious
[prophetic]” (p. 98). This observation could have
led to critical inquiry into what individuals can
experience when the ideological system that
they relate to as a religion is highly concerned
about the bottom line and corporate profit (see p.
86). The discussion, however, remains heavily
theoretical, and the application to Scientology is
too general for there to be any information about
people’s real lives.
Similar issues resonate within Bernadette Rigal-
Cellard’s chapter on Scientology Missions
International (SMI). Although Rigal-Cellard’s
chapter contains interesting data regarding the
organization of SMI, she fails to move beyond a
descriptive explanation of SMI’s structure. For
example, she finds that SMI workers must
provide for their own needs when on a mission,
but she does not inquire as to what financial
and/or emotional impact this requirement for
workers to provide for themselves could have on
individual Scientologists or their families (p.
328).
Other important topics regarding Scientology
that deserved discussion within the book, but
were surprisingly absent, include issues
surrounding Scientology’s outreach programs.
Several authors (Andersen and Wellendorf,
Bogdan, Bromley, Cusack, Lewis, and
Richardson) mention Scientology’s social
outreach programs such as Narconon, Criminon,
the World Literacy Crusade, and Applied
Scholastics (pp. 9, 97–98, 155, 291, 338, 401).
None of the authors, however, provide
information regarding controversies around
these programs. They say nothing, for example,
about the opposition that Narconon faces
globally, but they either support the program or
Krebs, 1998, p. 37 Lattin, 2007, p. 112), Church
Universal and Triumphant (Balch and Langdon,
1998), and Aum Shinri Kyo (Reader, 2000). He
has a history, therefore, favoring positive
interpretations of controversial groups over
objective interpretations of their (often harmful)
practices (Kent and Krebs, 1998, p. 37). Alas,
the current volume under review continues
Lewis’s pattern of downplaying if not ignoring
important controversial practices of highly
contentious groups, and of spinning opposition
to them to appear as harassment or persecution.
His habit of portraying opposition to
controversial groups as harassment or
persecution appears in the first paragraph of his
introduction. On page 3 Lewis states that many
Germans did not want Scientologist Tom Cruise
to play the role of the World War II German
colonel, Claus von Stauffenberg, in the film
Valkyrie. (Von Stauffenberg is a German war
hero for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and
many Germans see Scientology as a totalitarian,
anti-democratic organization, with Cruise as a
public-relations agent for the group.)
As a consequence, the German
government refused to allow the
production company to shoot parts of
the movie in certain historic
buildings…. All too predictably, a
number of cable news programs used
this incident as yet another opportunity
to heap scorn on the Church of
Scientology. (p. 3)
One cannot learn from Lewis’s comments that
the German government sees Scientology as an
anti-democratic institution that violates human
rights, or that the German government reversed
its decision and allowed the production company
to film in the historic Bendlerblock building,
where some of the key events involving the
assassination plot and its aftermath took place.
Nor is Germany—or for that matter, France—
even in the book’s index (despite an entire
article on the latter country). With just a little
effort, Lewis could have summarized a more
balanced account of what happened around the
film, but he omits information in a manner that
makes Scientology’s situation in Germany
appear to be far more dire than it actually is.
Scientology’s Shortfalls
The failure of this anthology to address in depth
the debates about Scientology in countries such
as Belgium and Germany is part of a larger
pattern of missed opportunities to discuss vital
issues about the organization. For example,
David G. Bromley highlights how Scientology
has combined the private world (religion) with
the public world (corporate): “Rather than
maintaining the separation of the public and
private spheres, Scientology has merged and
unified the economic [contractual] and religious
[prophetic]” (p. 98). This observation could have
led to critical inquiry into what individuals can
experience when the ideological system that
they relate to as a religion is highly concerned
about the bottom line and corporate profit (see p.
86). The discussion, however, remains heavily
theoretical, and the application to Scientology is
too general for there to be any information about
people’s real lives.
Similar issues resonate within Bernadette Rigal-
Cellard’s chapter on Scientology Missions
International (SMI). Although Rigal-Cellard’s
chapter contains interesting data regarding the
organization of SMI, she fails to move beyond a
descriptive explanation of SMI’s structure. For
example, she finds that SMI workers must
provide for their own needs when on a mission,
but she does not inquire as to what financial
and/or emotional impact this requirement for
workers to provide for themselves could have on
individual Scientologists or their families (p.
328).
Other important topics regarding Scientology
that deserved discussion within the book, but
were surprisingly absent, include issues
surrounding Scientology’s outreach programs.
Several authors (Andersen and Wellendorf,
Bogdan, Bromley, Cusack, Lewis, and
Richardson) mention Scientology’s social
outreach programs such as Narconon, Criminon,
the World Literacy Crusade, and Applied
Scholastics (pp. 9, 97–98, 155, 291, 338, 401).
None of the authors, however, provide
information regarding controversies around
these programs. They say nothing, for example,
about the opposition that Narconon faces
globally, but they either support the program or
