Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1992, Page 78
In their philosophical approach, the authors examine the metaphysics, epistemology, religious
experience, and teachings regarding good and evil of the New Age and its manifestations of
pantheism. They seek to demonstrate that (a) “pantheism is unaffirmable and self-defeating,”
(b) as a worldview it is a poor choice to best explain the total experience of our lives, (c) the
epistemological foundations of New Age Pantheism do not support the metaphysical weight
placed upon them, and (d) the religious dimensions of New Age views cannot be defended.
The authors are strongest in their knowledge of pantheism in its many and varied historical
manifestations. As such, they contribute to the current discussion offering criteria for evaluat-
ing truth claims. The book can contribute to the philosophical insights and knowledge of exit
counselors. Obviously those of us who share the apologetic calling as advocates of Christian
theism are beneficiaries of their efforts.
The authors do little to deepen the average cult watcher‟s knowledge of the specific truth
claims of New Age teachings. Clark and Geisler have obviously done their life‟s work in
philosophy in general and pantheism in particular, and just enough in the New Age cults to
reach and illustrate their conclusion, which I for one affirm as well. I wish they had taken their
work more deeply into the contemporary New Age materials.
The Rev. Richard L. Dowhower, Pastor
All Saints Lutheran Church
Bowie, Maryland
Leaders and Followers: A Psychiatric Perspective on Religious Cults.
Formulated by the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion, Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry. Report No. 132. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC, 1992, 70
pages.
This is one of numerous monographs published by the Group for the Advancement of
Psychiatry (GAP). This invitation-only organization‟s reports on psychiatric issues are
addressed to both professionals and laypersons. Like most GAP reports, it can be read in
about 90 minutes. This report on “religious cults” was written by GAP‟s Committee on
Psychiatry and Religion, not to be confused with the multiauthored report from the American
Psychiatric Association‟s committee of the same name.
The stated aim of the report is neither to decry nor to defend cults, but to help in the
“rational” evaluation of patients identified as cult members. The book does offer an excellent
and lengthy set of questions for a therapist to ask to gain insight into whether a patient is
under the sway of a destructive cult. The report‟s conclusion is that while some cults are
benign, others are so destructive that legal measures should be taken to prevent members
from joining.
Unfortunately, the report obtains its “fair” perspective by being overly vague when some
detail would help, and by offering extensive detail on religious sects that have little in
common with contemporary cults. References from all spectra of the literature are cited as
sources, but the report offers no criticism as to the very different conclusions of some of these
references. There are no new data here.
Cults are simplistically viewed as juvenile religions that will grow up one day, and not as a
specific kind of group that can have a religious, psychological, political, health, or self-
development motif. The report “blames the victim,” suggesting cult members suffer from
“developmental arrest” and “poor reality testing,” prior to entering cults while bad cults make
the members even sicker, “benign” cults offer “mentors, goals, and ideals” without the
pressure of maintaining a 2.0 average.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1992, Page 79
The report states that “brainwashing” does occur in cults but offers little in the way of
specifics. An extensive biography of the Reverend Mr. Moon says little more about
brainwashing than its being an allegation of his “enemies.” The Bhagwan‟s 100+ Rolls Royces
are implied to represent the end results of “freedom of choice.” Meanwhile, there is an
extended treatise about the Essenic sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, while Scientology is
summarized in two benign sentences. All of this unfortunate vagueness may be related to the
inability of the Essenes to sue their critics for libel since they all died some time ago.
The weaknesses of this book outweigh its merits. It is pricey at $12 since 12 of its 70 pages
list the names of GAP psychiatrists and committees.
John Hochman, M.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine
Cults and Personality. F. J. MacHovec. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1989,
195 pages.
Dr. MacHovec, a licensed clinical psychologist who has treated ex-cult members and survivors
of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) for the past three decades, has studied a variety of
religions, rituals, and practices. The resulting cross-cultural perspective provides an
interesting background for his discussion of cult personalities and experiences.
Initially, MacHovec distinguishes criminal, harmful or destructive, and constructive cults on
the one hand, and religious/psychotherapeutic, political, and faddist cults on the other, giving
definitions and examples of each. He also ties the practices of cults throughout history to
current practices. The characteristics of harmful cults that he lists and defines (pp. 24) are
those on which there is substantial agreement among professionals. (However, in
distinguishing between traditional religions and contemporary cults [pp. 30-31], he adapted a
table from Schwartz &Kaslow [1982, The Cult Phenomenon: Historical, Sociological, and
Familial Factors Contributing to Their Development and Appeal. New York: Haworth Press]
which was omitted from the extensive reference list.)
In examining the “personality” aspect of the title, MacHovec discusses personalities of both
the cult leaders and recruits/members. He suggests that our high-speed, high-tech life-style
leads too many people to relax or suspend critical judgment, making them more vulnerable to
charismatic and/or exploitative figures.
MacHovec draws on the work of traditional psychological theorists as well as that of
sociologists and others to delineate the ways in which harmful cults “during recruitment and
indoctrination” manipulate human needs. The omission, however, of the perspective of such
sociologists as Brock Kilbourne and Thomas Robbins keeps the presentation from being as
balanced as some readers might prefer. In addition, the author summarizes the Vatican and
Jewish responses to cult activity. The strength of MacHovec‟s book lies in the manner in which
he integrates the material from his multiple sources, both ancient and modern.
MacHovec examined not only those groups that we normally consider cults but also satanic
cults, witchcraft, and Afro-Caribbean cultlike religions. These, too, respond to human needs
for belief systems, ritual, and “magical” solutions. His presentations of the ways in which
these responses hurt cult members and group followers, and of the therapeutic and
deprogramming techniques used to reorient and restrengthen ex-cult members, also utilize a
good breadth of sources (although the omission of Saul Levine‟s [1984, Radical Departures.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich] work is surprising here). Noteworthy also is his
discussion of child and animal abuse, which is supplemented in the Appendix by a model
animal-protection act. Sources of additional information on cults are also provided in the
Appendix.