Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 37
Sooner or later Western secular culture will resolve its identity crisis. How much integrity
that identity will have will depend in part on how effectively we communicate with people
who disagree with us, how effectively we debate creedal issues. (I would like to see a
psychological grid methodology [Chambers, 1985 1987B88] designed to measure cognitive
consistency and integrative complexity [how effectively a person integrates seemingly
dissonant ideas] applied to the question of cultural identity.) Religious critics, such as the
Dialog Center and CRI, are leading the charge (among cult critics) in that battle. Most of the
secular critics are fighting on a different, more limited, but nonetheless vital front. And
although the majority of these critics may not be aware of or appreciate the importance of
the creedal debate over cultural identity, many of us do. That is one important reason why
we can work cooperatively with the religious critics.
The religious critics I have worked with have no problem working with secular organizations.
Introvigne demeans most of the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants I have encountered
by implying that they are so insular that they fear being contaminated by secular
humanists. Does he also believe that religious pro-lifers should shun pro-lifers who are also
secular humanists (such people do exist)? Jesus Christ certainly was not averse to reaching
out to “strange bedfellows,” perhaps because He was confident in who He was and wasn‟t
afraid of being sullied. I have heard the Pope say time and again, “Follow Christ!”
Christians, then, ought not to be averse to talking to and working with secularists,
especially when they share a just cause, however different their perspectives on that cause.
Is not that the essence of evangelization?
I suspect that the Christians who are most perturbed about getting in bed with secularists
and with those --secularists and religionists alike--who advocate the thought-reform model
are perhaps those whose behavior is most out of alignment with their Christian theology. It
was Dr. Samuel Johnson who said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” --that is, a
scoundrel will invoke patriotism, will hide behind the flag, in order to hide his deeds.
Perhaps some Christians hide behind the cross in order to hide deeds that are inconsistent
with the Christianity they profess. Perhaps these people emphasize the cross (theology) and
demean secular critiques focused on behavior because behavioral analyses threaten to
expose their own inconsistencies and hypocrisies. Talking theology is safer.
Attitudes Toward Non-Christians
Introvigne correctly notes that secular critics tend to view groups such as the Mormons as
mainstream, while at least some religious critics see them as cults. This is true, but it really
is not a big deal, so long as secular and religious critics understand that they base their
judgments on different assumptions. An interesting example of this conflict occurred
recently when an article in the May/June 1994 Wellspring Messenger (the newsletter of the
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center) referred to the cult of Unitarianism. This comment
caused a small stir within AFF/CAN circles because from a deed standpoint, the Unitarian
Church is about as noncultic as a group can get. As Lawrence Pile (1994) explained in a
clarification, from an orthodox, Christian standpoint (a creed perspective), it is a cult, but
from a deed perspective it is not.
Now, I don‟t doubt that within the AFF/CAN orbit a few people, who don‟t like to trouble
themselves with cognitive subtleties, may have had their anti-Evangelical prejudices
stimulated by the comments in the Wellspring Messenger. But I suspect that a much larger
percentage than Introvigne might expect understand, at least in a general sense, that the
comment came from a creed perspective, rather than the deed perspective of AFF and CAN.
I am sure that a large majority of the leadership in both organizations recognize and can
live comfortably with the distinction. The Christians with whom I have worked are also quite
capable of making the necessary translations when the term cult is used by people using a
Sooner or later Western secular culture will resolve its identity crisis. How much integrity
that identity will have will depend in part on how effectively we communicate with people
who disagree with us, how effectively we debate creedal issues. (I would like to see a
psychological grid methodology [Chambers, 1985 1987B88] designed to measure cognitive
consistency and integrative complexity [how effectively a person integrates seemingly
dissonant ideas] applied to the question of cultural identity.) Religious critics, such as the
Dialog Center and CRI, are leading the charge (among cult critics) in that battle. Most of the
secular critics are fighting on a different, more limited, but nonetheless vital front. And
although the majority of these critics may not be aware of or appreciate the importance of
the creedal debate over cultural identity, many of us do. That is one important reason why
we can work cooperatively with the religious critics.
The religious critics I have worked with have no problem working with secular organizations.
Introvigne demeans most of the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants I have encountered
by implying that they are so insular that they fear being contaminated by secular
humanists. Does he also believe that religious pro-lifers should shun pro-lifers who are also
secular humanists (such people do exist)? Jesus Christ certainly was not averse to reaching
out to “strange bedfellows,” perhaps because He was confident in who He was and wasn‟t
afraid of being sullied. I have heard the Pope say time and again, “Follow Christ!”
Christians, then, ought not to be averse to talking to and working with secularists,
especially when they share a just cause, however different their perspectives on that cause.
Is not that the essence of evangelization?
I suspect that the Christians who are most perturbed about getting in bed with secularists
and with those --secularists and religionists alike--who advocate the thought-reform model
are perhaps those whose behavior is most out of alignment with their Christian theology. It
was Dr. Samuel Johnson who said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” --that is, a
scoundrel will invoke patriotism, will hide behind the flag, in order to hide his deeds.
Perhaps some Christians hide behind the cross in order to hide deeds that are inconsistent
with the Christianity they profess. Perhaps these people emphasize the cross (theology) and
demean secular critiques focused on behavior because behavioral analyses threaten to
expose their own inconsistencies and hypocrisies. Talking theology is safer.
Attitudes Toward Non-Christians
Introvigne correctly notes that secular critics tend to view groups such as the Mormons as
mainstream, while at least some religious critics see them as cults. This is true, but it really
is not a big deal, so long as secular and religious critics understand that they base their
judgments on different assumptions. An interesting example of this conflict occurred
recently when an article in the May/June 1994 Wellspring Messenger (the newsletter of the
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center) referred to the cult of Unitarianism. This comment
caused a small stir within AFF/CAN circles because from a deed standpoint, the Unitarian
Church is about as noncultic as a group can get. As Lawrence Pile (1994) explained in a
clarification, from an orthodox, Christian standpoint (a creed perspective), it is a cult, but
from a deed perspective it is not.
Now, I don‟t doubt that within the AFF/CAN orbit a few people, who don‟t like to trouble
themselves with cognitive subtleties, may have had their anti-Evangelical prejudices
stimulated by the comments in the Wellspring Messenger. But I suspect that a much larger
percentage than Introvigne might expect understand, at least in a general sense, that the
comment came from a creed perspective, rather than the deed perspective of AFF and CAN.
I am sure that a large majority of the leadership in both organizations recognize and can
live comfortably with the distinction. The Christians with whom I have worked are also quite
capable of making the necessary translations when the term cult is used by people using a
