Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 13
phenomenon, cults‟ recruitment methods --whether aggressive or more conventional --are
deeply rooted as an integral part of the Western Christian mainstream religious experience1.
The subsequent emergence of secularism and materialism in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries did not supplant religions. Indeed, despite the seeming triumphant spread of
secular humanism and the weakening of some mainstream religious institutions in the modern
period, there appeared a multitude of new religious movements (some quasi-political),
missionaries, and alternative religious cults in both the United States and Europe. The failure
of modern secularism to satisfy important emotional, social, and psychological needs meant
that the void was filled by a plethora of peculiar religious and occasionally secular
organizations led by charismatic leaders.
Definitional Issues
The earmarks of past and contemporary cults and fundamentalist sects were that they had
common characteristics, whether they were manipulative, self-seeking, or idealistic in
purpose. Cults, distinguished from sects, were not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sects
were dissenting or schismatic groups organized in some form of opposition to the established
mainstream religious institution. Cults depended upon strong, charismatic leadership and their
beliefs were syncretic, combining a variety of current ideals and sentiments. The cult leader
generally made claims to divinity, either as godhead or messiah, and therefore projected
omniscience. Typically the leader was a powerful personality, sometimes brilliant, and often a
master of psychological manipulation, flattery, threats, and guilt2. Members gave total
obedience, loyalty, and allegiance. Rituals and dogmas were developed into a theological
system, with a sense of asceticism and economic commitment (fund-raising or tithing).3
The glue that fastened the group was obedience and hierarchy, both serving to strengthen the
prophet‟s enormous hold upon the imaginations, loyalties, and affections of the disciples.
Followers dedicated their lives to their leader, to the cult community, and to the dogmas that
were delineated. All religious ideals of these believers depended upon the hopes, fears, and
ambitions of the leadership. Communal groups committed their members to some type of
group living, investment of time and/or property, and often total immersion in an alternative
life-style. Very often, depending upon the nature of beliefs, these cults were rejected by the
majority. Likewise, cultists rejected their former lives. For example, followers of Purnell in the
Koreshan cult or Joseph Smith of the Mormons revered their leaders and rejected their
families and former communities to accept the demands and discipline of their new cults.4
Cults could and did become sects. Sects that were originally heretical groups, such as the
Salvation Army, the Church of God, the Church of Nazarene, and the Jehovah‟s Witnesses,
were nominally Christian but separated from the established churches. They, too, often had
charismatic leaders, but their preachers generally did not assume godlike pretensions.
Embodying doctrines borrowed from prevailing formulas and philosophies, some cults blended
with existing Christian principles and as their leaders died they became sects, such as
Christian Science and the Mormons. On the other hand, others, such as Scientology,
Theosophy, and Krishna Consciousness, have remained cults.
American and Western European Experiences
Differences
The American and western European religious experiences, though sharing similar liberal,
intellectual, and religious values, differed for many reasons. The first of these reasons lay in
the historical development of the United States, a country geographically separated from the
social rigidities of inheritance and land ownership and from the stifling control of more rooted
European religious and political traditions. Never did American colonists and later the citizens
of the new country tolerate the notion of hereditary landed aristocracy with special political or

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 14
social privilege. If not in actual practice, Americans passionately believed in political and
social equality (except in matters of race).
Secondly (although not always observed), Americans accepted the concept of separation of
church and state. In this matter, they had no choice. In the establishment of the colonies
there was a myriad of religious sects and communities, preventing any one church from
emerging powerful enough to ally itself with the prevailing political powers. For instance,
Anabaptists (who were regarded as a cult in England and in Germany in their time and even
later)5 had founded the state of Pennsylvania. Today the Quaker tradition still remains
powerful in Philadelphia and communities of Old Order Amish, Schenkfelders, and Mennonites
dot the state. The Puritans who dominated in Massachusetts could not force their vision upon
those in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other states. The result was a fertile
intellectual climate for the development of newer, more daring and idealistic religious ideas.
Thirdly, America‟s physical terrain was particularly suited for the proliferation of a variety of
secular as well as religious beliefs. The frontier in the earliest days provides a perfect example
of how European institutionalized religious movements were altered by the new physical
environment. The Great Awakening during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
was the result of the Methodist movement and its religious fervor which had emerged earlier
in England. Methodist groups were widespread, influencing Presbyterian congregations.
Consequently, missionary societies went abroad to transmit to the new world the message of
Protestant Christianity. Its spirit permeated many other Protestant groups in Europe as well6.
When these groups sought converts on the continent they often ran awry of the powerful local
state churches7.
In contrast, on the American frontier there were no established institutionalized churches.
There missionaries found little organized resistance. Further, few formal demands existed for
religious training and many self-proclaimed preachers gained acceptance. Unlike the Anglican
and Presbyterian missionaries, Methodists demanded little rigorous training for their
preachers. These evangelicals capitalized upon frontier conditions that produced an anti-
intellectual and more pragmatic environment. Their appeal had always been directed to the
lower classes and, therefore, they preached a simple message of faith and emotional
participation8.
U.S. Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Christianity emerged as a powerful cultural force in the United States. The
Pentecostal movement, the name later given to this development, encouraged a multitude of
minuscule and obscure sects. Sometimes their preachers were charismatic, their fervor
characterized by emotional and aggressive evangelical appeals to seek "rebirth" or "witness
for God." Like their predecessors the Anabaptists, they believed in a literal interpretation of
the Bible which led to unorthodox behaviors. Some sects believed in "speaking in tongues,"
faith healing, or snake handling9. The appeal of these sects continued unabated, even though
often their leaders were discovered to have been venal, hypocritical, or even fraudulent10.
The frontier was a particularly fertile area for the message of these religious missionaries.
Those who came west faced hardship and more often personal tragedy. Speaking to the
settlers‟ personal losses, their anxieties, and especially their fear of change (among those in
rural small towns), these ministers brought reassurance and support for traditional culture.
This heritage of homiletics, passionate oratory, and inspiration became firmly embedded in
the American tradition, personified in such figures as Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday, Aimee
Semple McPherson, and Billy Graham. These flamboyant preachers used vivid imagery to
arouse their audiences‟ emotions, and their performances lasted days and nights. Today‟s
television preachers (Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Jerry Falwell) have merely shifted their
pulpit from the rural revival meeting to the television screen.