Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2006, Page 31
unreasonable. To enforce the cult leader‘s wishes, the new member maintains a constant
stance of internal discipline.
Historically, accounts of emotional and psychological manipulation by cult-like individuals(s)
have been reported as early as the First Century A.D. For example, the Christian writer Paul
writes in a public letter to the church in the city of Corinth about so-called religious leaders
who ―strike in the face,‖ ―oppress and exploit,‖ and ―take persons to themselves‖ (Delling,
1965, p. 5). In contrast to this kind of treatment, the apostle Paul states to the Corinthian
church members, ―Nevertheless, we have not used this power‖ (I Cor. 9:12b, 1975, The
Greek New Testament).
Control over the person can also be gained by forced public confession of ―wrongdoing‖ or
―wrong thinking,‖ which also represents an egregious invasion of privacy. Additionally,
required affirmations of loyalty to the cult leader and the professed ―doctrine‖ of the cult, as
well as verbal and/or physical ―disciplining‖ (which actually may be verbal and physical
abuse), might be practiced. However, at the point that physical or sexual abuse occurs,
some cult members leave. Additionally, Martin et al. (1992) found that ex-cult members
whom they treated had developed clinical levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
symptoms, dependent personality disorder, depressiveness, and clinical levels of anxiety as
measured by the MCMI-I personality assessment.
Ideologies and Cult Leaders
Contemporary religious and philosophical ideologies should not be considered as somehow
providing support for or legitimizing the antisocial, illegal behaviors of cult leaders. Instead,
it is the active, antisocial personalities of these cult leaders that particularize the culture of
the cult. By way of contrast, the many independent Christian house churches in the United
States do not usually lead to the formation of cults. Rather, cults more likely derive their
particular individualistic character under the active leadership of a religious antisocial such
as David ―Moses‖ Berg of the Children of God (observed by the author in the late 1970s in
Huntington Beach, California).
The aggressivity of the cult leader David Berg was exhibited to the author during Berg‘s
public meetings and serves as a personally observed case model. These meetings could be
better characterized as occasions by an angry Berg for an unwarranted and vociferous
condemnation of the audiences. Upon hearing Berg‘s loud and strident voice coming from
inside a Huntington Beach storefront, curious passersby who entered the ongoing ―worship
service‖ were accosted by this voice and Berg‘s terrifying and personal depiction of God‘s
wrath toward sinful man, delivered with an almost out-of-control hysterical fervor. The
zealous nature of the presentation resulted in a powerful emotional experience for the
audience.
The individual responses of those acquiescing children and adolescents who on-the-spot
―made their peace with God‖ after hearing Berg‘s angry depiction of God‘s wrath, doom, and
punishment are perhaps best explained as being like the actions of persons who receive
communion from an unholy, abusive priest: The sacrament is not tainted by the venality of
the priest. Unfortunately, some of those trusting young people who subsequently joined
Berg‘s Children of God movement to be ―saved by the prophet Berg‖ ended up being ―saved
for the prophet‘s dinner,‖ according to ex-member reports that were later published in the
national news media.
Therefore, in contrast to noncultic religious leaders, antisocial cult leaders can be
distinguished by their mistreatment and abuse of their followers. Instead of acting with
responsibility toward persons who genuinely seek to personally commit themselves to a
cause, antisocial cult leaders engage in manipulation, domination, and exploitation
ultimately for their own ends. These antisocial leaders seem to have a seemingly
unreasonable. To enforce the cult leader‘s wishes, the new member maintains a constant
stance of internal discipline.
Historically, accounts of emotional and psychological manipulation by cult-like individuals(s)
have been reported as early as the First Century A.D. For example, the Christian writer Paul
writes in a public letter to the church in the city of Corinth about so-called religious leaders
who ―strike in the face,‖ ―oppress and exploit,‖ and ―take persons to themselves‖ (Delling,
1965, p. 5). In contrast to this kind of treatment, the apostle Paul states to the Corinthian
church members, ―Nevertheless, we have not used this power‖ (I Cor. 9:12b, 1975, The
Greek New Testament).
Control over the person can also be gained by forced public confession of ―wrongdoing‖ or
―wrong thinking,‖ which also represents an egregious invasion of privacy. Additionally,
required affirmations of loyalty to the cult leader and the professed ―doctrine‖ of the cult, as
well as verbal and/or physical ―disciplining‖ (which actually may be verbal and physical
abuse), might be practiced. However, at the point that physical or sexual abuse occurs,
some cult members leave. Additionally, Martin et al. (1992) found that ex-cult members
whom they treated had developed clinical levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
symptoms, dependent personality disorder, depressiveness, and clinical levels of anxiety as
measured by the MCMI-I personality assessment.
Ideologies and Cult Leaders
Contemporary religious and philosophical ideologies should not be considered as somehow
providing support for or legitimizing the antisocial, illegal behaviors of cult leaders. Instead,
it is the active, antisocial personalities of these cult leaders that particularize the culture of
the cult. By way of contrast, the many independent Christian house churches in the United
States do not usually lead to the formation of cults. Rather, cults more likely derive their
particular individualistic character under the active leadership of a religious antisocial such
as David ―Moses‖ Berg of the Children of God (observed by the author in the late 1970s in
Huntington Beach, California).
The aggressivity of the cult leader David Berg was exhibited to the author during Berg‘s
public meetings and serves as a personally observed case model. These meetings could be
better characterized as occasions by an angry Berg for an unwarranted and vociferous
condemnation of the audiences. Upon hearing Berg‘s loud and strident voice coming from
inside a Huntington Beach storefront, curious passersby who entered the ongoing ―worship
service‖ were accosted by this voice and Berg‘s terrifying and personal depiction of God‘s
wrath toward sinful man, delivered with an almost out-of-control hysterical fervor. The
zealous nature of the presentation resulted in a powerful emotional experience for the
audience.
The individual responses of those acquiescing children and adolescents who on-the-spot
―made their peace with God‖ after hearing Berg‘s angry depiction of God‘s wrath, doom, and
punishment are perhaps best explained as being like the actions of persons who receive
communion from an unholy, abusive priest: The sacrament is not tainted by the venality of
the priest. Unfortunately, some of those trusting young people who subsequently joined
Berg‘s Children of God movement to be ―saved by the prophet Berg‖ ended up being ―saved
for the prophet‘s dinner,‖ according to ex-member reports that were later published in the
national news media.
Therefore, in contrast to noncultic religious leaders, antisocial cult leaders can be
distinguished by their mistreatment and abuse of their followers. Instead of acting with
responsibility toward persons who genuinely seek to personally commit themselves to a
cause, antisocial cult leaders engage in manipulation, domination, and exploitation
ultimately for their own ends. These antisocial leaders seem to have a seemingly
