Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 38
deed framework. I think Introvigne sells Christians and secularists short. Both are capable
of seeing other points of view on a given phenomenon.
Thus, I conclude that the fact that Christian critics are likely to categorize as cults some
groups that secularists are not likely to so categorize will not significantly interfere with the
capacity of open-minded individuals from the two perspectives to work with and learn from
one another.
“Anti-Cultists” Don’t Care About Post-Cult Religious Views
Relying heavily on a deeply flawed article by Alnor and Enroth (1992) (see Langone &
Martin, 1993 for a response to Alnor &Enroth), Introvigne maintains that the tendency for
secular exit counselors to avoid trying to convert their clients to orthodox Christianity makes
their work unacceptable to orthodox Christians (exit counselors work with cult members on
a voluntary basis, unlike deprogrammers, who typically initially confine the cultists they
work with). This is patently false. The question of whether or not exit counselees should be
converted to new belief systems is not a secular-Christian dispute. Some secularists, for
example, might be perfectly willing to try to convert their clients to secular humanism
(although I don‟t know of any such exit counselor). Most of the exit counselors I know in the
AFF/CAN network are committed Christians. My coauthors in a chapter on exit counseling
(Clark, Giambalvo, Giambalvo, Garvey, &Langone, 1993) are all practicing Christians. David
Clark is an Evangelical Presbyterian, while the Giambalvos and Garvey are Roman Catholics.
Garvey, in fact, considers himself a Thomist. They would argue with their fellow Christians
that it is not ethical to push an exit counselee into Christianity during or immediately after
an exit counseling.
The exit counseling, which usually takes only a few days, is a limited, contractual
relationship that is merely the first step in a person‟s post-cult life. Reorienting oneself
spiritually is a long task that in most exit counselors‟ view ought to occur after the exit
counseling sessions and with the help of somebody with pastoral training. Because exit
counselors don‟t “sell” Christianity to their clients doesn‟t mean that they don‟t care about
the person‟s spiritual life or address spiritual issues in the exit counseling. The admittedly
limited objective of exit counseling is to help clients make an informed reevaluation of a cult
involvement, not reorient themselves spiritually. This dispute revives some of the issues
discussed in the special CSJ issue referred to earlier --that is, what are the proper ethical
boundaries of evangelism?
Problems with the “Brainwashing” Explanation
Introvigne completely misrepresents what he labels the brainwashing model. He
conveniently uses the sensationalized media term in order to set up a straw man that he
can derisively knock down. He says that “for their secular counterpart of the anti-cult
movement, „cultists‟ have the more-than-human power of „brainwashing‟ their victims but,
as it has been noted, „brainwashing‟ in some anti-cult theories appears as something
magical, the modern version of the evil eye” (p. 7). His citation for this statement is a
speculative sociological essay that itself misrepresents what is more properly labeled the
thought-reform or mind-control model. He does not quote nor even cite any professional
sources who advocate the thought-reform model. Instead, Introvigne later selectively
quotes from an Italian educational flyer, saying:
These techniques are typically described as almost magical: “they are capable of
working on anyone, even on those who may think they are immune” (p. 13), “very
few people,” if any, join a “cult” voluntarily: “normally, joining a cult means only that
a mind control operation has been successful” (p. 14). In order to counter these
“mind control operations” most post-rationalist anti-cult movements (even if not all)
would be glad to suggest a deprogrammer and cooperate with him (p. 15).
deed framework. I think Introvigne sells Christians and secularists short. Both are capable
of seeing other points of view on a given phenomenon.
Thus, I conclude that the fact that Christian critics are likely to categorize as cults some
groups that secularists are not likely to so categorize will not significantly interfere with the
capacity of open-minded individuals from the two perspectives to work with and learn from
one another.
“Anti-Cultists” Don’t Care About Post-Cult Religious Views
Relying heavily on a deeply flawed article by Alnor and Enroth (1992) (see Langone &
Martin, 1993 for a response to Alnor &Enroth), Introvigne maintains that the tendency for
secular exit counselors to avoid trying to convert their clients to orthodox Christianity makes
their work unacceptable to orthodox Christians (exit counselors work with cult members on
a voluntary basis, unlike deprogrammers, who typically initially confine the cultists they
work with). This is patently false. The question of whether or not exit counselees should be
converted to new belief systems is not a secular-Christian dispute. Some secularists, for
example, might be perfectly willing to try to convert their clients to secular humanism
(although I don‟t know of any such exit counselor). Most of the exit counselors I know in the
AFF/CAN network are committed Christians. My coauthors in a chapter on exit counseling
(Clark, Giambalvo, Giambalvo, Garvey, &Langone, 1993) are all practicing Christians. David
Clark is an Evangelical Presbyterian, while the Giambalvos and Garvey are Roman Catholics.
Garvey, in fact, considers himself a Thomist. They would argue with their fellow Christians
that it is not ethical to push an exit counselee into Christianity during or immediately after
an exit counseling.
The exit counseling, which usually takes only a few days, is a limited, contractual
relationship that is merely the first step in a person‟s post-cult life. Reorienting oneself
spiritually is a long task that in most exit counselors‟ view ought to occur after the exit
counseling sessions and with the help of somebody with pastoral training. Because exit
counselors don‟t “sell” Christianity to their clients doesn‟t mean that they don‟t care about
the person‟s spiritual life or address spiritual issues in the exit counseling. The admittedly
limited objective of exit counseling is to help clients make an informed reevaluation of a cult
involvement, not reorient themselves spiritually. This dispute revives some of the issues
discussed in the special CSJ issue referred to earlier --that is, what are the proper ethical
boundaries of evangelism?
Problems with the “Brainwashing” Explanation
Introvigne completely misrepresents what he labels the brainwashing model. He
conveniently uses the sensationalized media term in order to set up a straw man that he
can derisively knock down. He says that “for their secular counterpart of the anti-cult
movement, „cultists‟ have the more-than-human power of „brainwashing‟ their victims but,
as it has been noted, „brainwashing‟ in some anti-cult theories appears as something
magical, the modern version of the evil eye” (p. 7). His citation for this statement is a
speculative sociological essay that itself misrepresents what is more properly labeled the
thought-reform or mind-control model. He does not quote nor even cite any professional
sources who advocate the thought-reform model. Instead, Introvigne later selectively
quotes from an Italian educational flyer, saying:
These techniques are typically described as almost magical: “they are capable of
working on anyone, even on those who may think they are immune” (p. 13), “very
few people,” if any, join a “cult” voluntarily: “normally, joining a cult means only that
a mind control operation has been successful” (p. 14). In order to counter these
“mind control operations” most post-rationalist anti-cult movements (even if not all)
would be glad to suggest a deprogrammer and cooperate with him (p. 15).
