Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 31
Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults:
Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
AFF
Abstract
Introvigne (1993) suggested that irresolvable conflicts would divide secular and
religious organizations concerned about cults and new religious movements. He
proposed a classification scheme that portrayed secular cult critics as antagonistic
to orthodox Christianity, uncritical of heretical groups that disturb orthodox
Christianity (e.g., Mormons), indifferent to truth issues in theology, and attached to
a “brainwashing” view analogous to the “demon” perspective of some
fundamentalist cult critics. Though seeing some merit in Introvigne, this article
contends that his classification scheme is flawed, that his view of brainwashing is a
straw-man stereotype, that secularists and religionists recognize that their different
frameworks will sometimes produce different conclusions, and that members of
secular organizations are sensitive to the spiritual needs of former cult members
and reflect the religious diversity of mainstream America, not a secular humanist
monolith. Problems with the brainwashing model are discussed, and suggestions
made to enhance dialogue between secular and religious cult educational
organizations.
In the October 1993 issue of Update and Dialog, Massimo Introvigne presented an
interesting article entitled, “Strange Bedfellows or Future Enemies?” Although Introvigne‟s
fundamental theme is correct --namely, that there are important areas of conflict between
and within secular and religious critiques of cults--his analysis, though helpful in some
respects, is seriously flawed. He makes many of the same errors that certain writers have
recently made in other Christian journals (Alnor &Enroth, 1992 Passantino &Passantino,
1994). In this article, I will first critically review Introvigne. Then, I will propose a
framework that I believe will contribute to respectful dialogue and disagreement among
secular and religious observers of cults.
Definitional Issues
First, let me discuss the terminology that confuses people attempting to understand
different views in this field. Religious critics and many secular students of the field (most
notably, Introvigne‟s fellow sociologists) use the term “new religious movements” (NRMs) to
describe their object of study. Sociologists, however, tend to take a value-neutral, if not
out-and-out defensive, stand toward NRMs, which they often portray as innocent deviants
persecuted by an intolerant majority. Many U.S. critics, including myself, use the term “cult”
to label groups --whether religious, psychotherapeutic, political, or commercial --believed
to be extremely manipulative and exploitative. Because we are concerned with groups that
are not necessarily religious, we find NRM to be too restrictive a term. Furthermore, most of
my colleagues distinguish between the terms new religious movement and cult by
attributing the use of exploitative manipulation only to the latter, with the former being
seen as unorthodox but relatively benign psychologically.
European organizations that also focus on unethical manipulation (e.g., Asesoramiento para
Informacion sobre las Sectas [AIS] Association pour la Défense de la Famille et l‟Individu
[ADFI] Centre Contre la Manipulation Mentale [CCMM] Associazione della Ricerca e
Informazione sulle Sette [ARIS]) tend to use words generally associated with the word sect
Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults:
Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
AFF
Abstract
Introvigne (1993) suggested that irresolvable conflicts would divide secular and
religious organizations concerned about cults and new religious movements. He
proposed a classification scheme that portrayed secular cult critics as antagonistic
to orthodox Christianity, uncritical of heretical groups that disturb orthodox
Christianity (e.g., Mormons), indifferent to truth issues in theology, and attached to
a “brainwashing” view analogous to the “demon” perspective of some
fundamentalist cult critics. Though seeing some merit in Introvigne, this article
contends that his classification scheme is flawed, that his view of brainwashing is a
straw-man stereotype, that secularists and religionists recognize that their different
frameworks will sometimes produce different conclusions, and that members of
secular organizations are sensitive to the spiritual needs of former cult members
and reflect the religious diversity of mainstream America, not a secular humanist
monolith. Problems with the brainwashing model are discussed, and suggestions
made to enhance dialogue between secular and religious cult educational
organizations.
In the October 1993 issue of Update and Dialog, Massimo Introvigne presented an
interesting article entitled, “Strange Bedfellows or Future Enemies?” Although Introvigne‟s
fundamental theme is correct --namely, that there are important areas of conflict between
and within secular and religious critiques of cults--his analysis, though helpful in some
respects, is seriously flawed. He makes many of the same errors that certain writers have
recently made in other Christian journals (Alnor &Enroth, 1992 Passantino &Passantino,
1994). In this article, I will first critically review Introvigne. Then, I will propose a
framework that I believe will contribute to respectful dialogue and disagreement among
secular and religious observers of cults.
Definitional Issues
First, let me discuss the terminology that confuses people attempting to understand
different views in this field. Religious critics and many secular students of the field (most
notably, Introvigne‟s fellow sociologists) use the term “new religious movements” (NRMs) to
describe their object of study. Sociologists, however, tend to take a value-neutral, if not
out-and-out defensive, stand toward NRMs, which they often portray as innocent deviants
persecuted by an intolerant majority. Many U.S. critics, including myself, use the term “cult”
to label groups --whether religious, psychotherapeutic, political, or commercial --believed
to be extremely manipulative and exploitative. Because we are concerned with groups that
are not necessarily religious, we find NRM to be too restrictive a term. Furthermore, most of
my colleagues distinguish between the terms new religious movement and cult by
attributing the use of exploitative manipulation only to the latter, with the former being
seen as unorthodox but relatively benign psychologically.
European organizations that also focus on unethical manipulation (e.g., Asesoramiento para
Informacion sobre las Sectas [AIS] Association pour la Défense de la Famille et l‟Individu
[ADFI] Centre Contre la Manipulation Mentale [CCMM] Associazione della Ricerca e
Informazione sulle Sette [ARIS]) tend to use words generally associated with the word sect
