Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 12
The Jewish community especially blames its own shortcomings. Jewish experts cite
breakdown in the traditional Jewish family structure, discomfort with minority status, weak
Jewish education, a large, impersonal synagogue structure that is often unresponsive to the
individual needs of singles, single parents, and elderly, lack of counseling services, and a
focus on the intellectual aspects of Judaism instead of its emotionally satisfying spiritual
teachings as reasons why Jews are so vulnerable to cult recruiters.51
Partly as a result of the cult phenomenon and the intense self-scrutiny it has engendered,
the Jewish community has in the last fourteen years geared up to become more responsive
to individual needs. There are now worship options to the often impersonal large synagogue
structure such as small, informal “Chavurah” worship groups. More attention is being paid to
the needs of Jewish students on college campuses and to the needs of singles, single
parents, elderly, physically and mentally handicapped, and Jews in nursing homes (targeted
by cults and Christian missionary groups). But Dr. Philip Abramowitz, Director of the New
York City Jewish Community Relations Task Force on Missionaries and Cults, warns that the
Jewish community must do far more educational work to counter the appeal of cult groups
to Jewish youth, adults, and elderly. “We must strengthen the Jewish family, present
Judaism as a vital, emotionally and spiritually satisfying religion, make Jews feel part of a
close and caring community, provide essential services to all Jews, and reach out more to
Jews who don‟t identify or are not affiliated with the structured Jewish community so that
they don‟t have to turn to cults.”52
The Catholic Church is also carefully examining how its own failures contribute to cults‟
success in attracting so many Catholics. The official result of this inquiry is the May 1986
Vatican report entitled, “Sects or New Religious Movements: A Pastoral Challenge.”
Growing out of a two-year study of information supplied by Church leaders from around the
world, the authors of the document conclude, “The challenge of the new religious movement
is to stimulate our own renewal for a greater pastoral efficacy.”53 Specifically, they call for
“evangelization, catechism, education, and ongoing education in the faith --biblical,
theological, ecumenical. This ongoing process should be both informative, with information
about our own Catholic tradition [beliefs, practices, spirituality, meditation, contemplation],
about other traditions and about the new religious groups, and formative, with guidance in
personal and communal faith, a deeper sense of the transcendent, of the eschatological, of
religious commitment, of community spirit, etc. The Church should not only be a sign of
hope for people, but should also give them the reasons for that hope it should help to ask
questions, as well as to answer them.”54 There should be “an overall emphasis on the
centrality of Holy Scripture” and a more personal and holistic approach, assistance in
helping followers find their own cultural identity, and more emphasis on prayer and worship
and participation and leadership.55
One Catholic cult expert believes Catholics are vulnerable to cults because many “no longer
have a firm faith.”56 Others say there‟s no feeling of close community in the Church and
maintain some Catholics searching for the more secure Church of the Pre-Vatican Council II
era find comfort in the authoritarianism of cults.57 One lay Catholic believes, “It‟s easier for
cult leaders to get Catholics [than others] to be „surrendered‟ because they‟ve been raised
with the idea of submitting to authority.”58 They also agree with the Vatican report that
Catholics are more vulnerable to the cults‟ techniques of proselytizing through Biblical
witnessing because until recently they were not exposed to first-hand Biblical study and
therefore are unable to effectively answer the recruiters59.
Evangelical Protestant leaders also examine their own failures in order to understand the
appeal of cults. Explains Dr. J. Gordon Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of
American Religion, “They [alternative groups] do best with people moving from adolescence
to adulthood. That‟s what the mainline churches do worst --that and providing a sense of
community.”60 Professor Ronald Enroth agrees: “These groups appear where people are

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 13
hurting --on the campus, in the community, on the streets. That can be a lesson to the
church. We need to strengthen our campus ministry and penetrate the hurting society, not
expect people to come to us.”61
One of the major differences between mainstream religions and cults is that the mainstream
religions have “self-policing” or “self-regulating” mechanisms whereas cults --authoritarian
self-contained units generally operating out of the public‟s eyes --do not.62 So, mainstream
religious leaders are fine-tuning their own “self-policing” procedures and scrutinizing their
own behavior and practices in order to more clearly distinguish themselves from cults and to
assure themselves and others that they are not guilty of the same manipulation,
exploitation, and abuse of which they accuse cults.
Believing it is the most likely mainstream religious group to be confused with cults because
of its emotional fervor and theologically based zeal for conversion,63 the Evangelical
Protestant community is working hard to distinguish itself from cults and to distinguish its
own proselytizing techniques from those used by cults.
One of the organizations straddling the line between cults and mainstream Evangelical
groups is the Maranatha Campus Ministries, also known as Maranatha Christian Ministries
and Maranatha Christian Church. In November, 1982 an “ad hoc” committee of
distinguished Christian Evangelical theologians met to examine critical enquiries received
about the group and to gather information about it.64 After a two-year study, which
included meetings with the Maranatha leaders, the committee denounced Maranatha‟s
“cultish practices and theology,”65 expressed concerns about its doctrines and “questionable”
practices66, and concluded it “would not recommend this organization (Maranatha) to
anyone.” The concerns of these and other Evangelicals have apparently had an impact.
Leaders of the discipleship movement have in various ways apologized publicly for the
excesses and harms of that movement.67
In response to the cult phenomenon Dr. Gordon Lewis, Professor of Theology and
Philosophy at Denver Seminary, has organized Evangelical Ministries to New Religions in
order to “help people distinguish authentic from unauthentic Christianity and strengthen
Evangelical Christian ministries to new religions and cultists.”68
In 1985 the American Family Foundation, an organization that researches cults and
psychological manipulation, asked the Reverend Dietrich Gruen, then Evangelism Specialist
and Research Assistant for the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, to gather a committee of
leading Evangelicals to formulate an ethical code on proselytizing. Gruen‟s committee of
twelve Evangelical leaders prepared a draft ethical code. Based on the premise of Article
Thirteen in the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that “Everyone shall have
the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” and the Catholic Church‟s Second
Vatican Council‟s Declaration on Religious Liberty69, the tentative code seeks to present
ethical witnessing guidelines to new Evangelical ministers, help them focus on problematic
areas, “stimulate professional and public debate of the major ethical quandaries...and
minimize the need for cumbersome and costly intervention and regulations by various
governmental agencies.”70
The authors of the tentative code “disavow any efforts to influence people which
depersonalize or deprive them of their inherent value as persons,” affirm “the inalienable
right of every person to retain his own belief system, and the freedom of every person to
survey other valuable options. ..”disavow “any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals
which bypass a person‟s critical faculties, play on his psychological weaknesses, or
undermine his relationship with family or religious institutions … and seek to “proclaim
Christ openly … with no hidden agendas...”71 “As Christian evangelists,” they continue, “we
accept the obligation to correct one who represents the Christian faith in any manner
incompatible with these ethical guidelines or who violates the legal statutes set forth by our