Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 9
Whether or not Christianity successfully meets the challenge of new religious movements
will depend upon how it responds. It must confront the new paradigms directly at the core
credal level, not merely at the superficial behavioral level. Unfortunately, in most western
countries the major criticism of new religious movements comes from secular organizations
that ignore the creedal question.
Many of the people supporting such organizations are relatives of cultists and former
cultists. These organizations understandably tend not to care much for the subtleties
involved in differentiating NRMs.
They also tend to respond negatively to research about NRMs, because researchers,
especially sociologists, do not generally stand up against cults, but "set the truth question
aside."
Parents organizations, however, also tend to set the truth question aside, for they consider
the cults only as arenas of exploitation having no genuine religious characteristics. To ask
the truth question in relation to NRMs would, for them, be as phony as to ask the truth
question in relation to the Mafia.
In fairness to the parents organizations, it should be noted that they do not operate as
religious bodies and do not deal positively with religion as a common option. They have no
alternative stand of their own. So of course they do not ask the truth question, even though
many members are often Christian or Jewish, although some seem to be decidedly anti-
Christian or anti-religion. Parents organizations will say that they do not care about
"creeds," only about "deeds." They will let people believe what they prefer. Only when the
creed is turned into wrong deeds are the parents organizations expected to react.
Although it may be necessary for organizations whose only common ground is the most
elementary standards of human rights to adhere to the "deed-not-the-creed" philosophy,
this view does not hold water intellectually. Should the world not have cared about Hitler's
Mein Kampf because that book was part of his creed? The evil deeds of the concentration
camps were already in the creed, which, consequently, should have been taken seriously.
One has to understand that a creed is a deed. And if one wants to stop evil deeds, one has
to react against evil creeds. But that makes an alternative creed necessary! That is where
the parents organizations get into real trouble. And the best of them are struggling with that
problem, for it is the problem of their own identities. Are they only united because of a
common negation? If so, then there is a serious problem.
First-Amendment Neurosis
In the marketplace the only goal that matters is to "get the organizations roaring along."
Success, and success only, matters. Make money and make more money. The means are
secondary. The only check is the law, and even that can be evaded, for every man has his
price. Ethical standards are considered as relevant for a businessman, including a religious
businessman, as for a bulldozer.
We have now become so accustomed to public-relations manipulations and sales tricks in
even religious matters that very few of us protest the many perversions of religions which
appear and appeal. Even clearly illegal practices are tolerated and critical voices silenced.
The term "permissive society" is normally applied to the sexual state of affairs. It is in fact
even more serious. We have become a permissive society concerning the misuse of other
persons' souls.
Mind-bending and soul-killing take place all over, and yet there are no laws against it.
Under the cover of religious freedom a deadly permissiveness has crept in.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 10
This is especially so in the United States, where the "First Amendment" is used to support
all manner of evil exploitation in the name of religion. Anyone who pretends to be religious
or runs something even faintly related to religion is considered virtually outside the law.
The worst aspects of Medieval ecclesiastical policy in Europe has, for all practical purposes,
come back to the United States: the contention that religions are exempted from the claims
of law.
The Scholarly Approach
Research on NRMs has become a force in itself. Sociology of religion, psychology of religion,
history of religion, etc., all share in a general attempt to collect data and clarify, analyze,
and understand the NRMs as factual contemporary expressions of the religious search of
mankind.
In this attempt there is a general tendency to "set the truth question aside," for taking a
stand concerning the truthfulness and reliability of NRMs would impair the "objectivity" and
"neutrality" of the scholarly projects. This scholarly detachment is sometimes taken to an
extreme, so that even value statements must be forsaken. Thus, for some scholars there
seems to be the same value in Catholicism as in Scientology, in the Quakers as in Ananda
Marga.
Is this posture not an expression of naive and positivistic methodology? Is such supposed
neutrality and objectivity anything but a dream?
This dream sometimes turns into a nightmare when the "neutral" and "objective" scholar
turns against the parents‟ organizations and attacks them for going up against the cults.
The simple fact of being against cults and working in anti-cult organizations seems to be
objectionable when seen from the "neutral" and objective" scholars' own presuppositions.
But this sort of scholar is in trouble. In his or her neutrality, the role of an anti-anti-cult
agent takes over the role of the scholar. One cannot uphold neutrality by negating an anti-
attitude. Minus against minus gives a plus, i.e., a factual standpoint --a creed.
The anti-cult movement is in trouble, but the anti-anti cult movement is in even more
serious trouble by its lack of identity. Show me your hand and I shall tell you who you are.
If you have no hand, you are nobody!
Methodologically, this tends towards science for science's own sake, and that is of course
"old hat." Like it or not, scholars too are part of the game. To pretend to stand aside having
no creed of their own is a form of cheating.
Thus, the anti-cult movement and the anti-anti-cult movement seem to have one important
point in common: they will and must evade the truth question. They will not look at creeds,
for that will force them to take up the age-old question: what is truth? To answer that they
would have to take theology seriously. And in their confused cultural state, they seem to
behave as though that were somehow against the First Amendment.
References
Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York: Vintage Books.
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian conspiracy: Personal and social transformation in the
1980s. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Haastrup, K. (1987). Jordens Folk (The People of the Earth), No. 4.
***************