Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 69
purchase. “Interesting, informative, and scholarly” was his first impression. And, he asked,
“What does the editor mean by „alternative‟?” In his introduction, Miller, rejecting the terms
cult and sect as pejorative, defines alternative as nonmainstream and as “not inherently
inferior to” its mainstream counterparts. Miller then proposes seven categories: Established
Christian Alternatives (Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, and Unitarians, among
others) Contemporary Christian and Jewish Movements (e.g., Children of God, Boston
Church of Christ, Branch Davidians) Religions from Asia (Hare Krishna and Unification
Church) Religions from the Middle East (Baha‟i, Islam) African-American Freedom
Movements (Father Divine, Peoples Temple) Ancient Wisdom and New Age Movements
(Theosophy, Spiritualism, Eckankar) and Many More (American Indian Religion,
Scientology, and Satanism).
The inclusion of the Established Christian Alternatives section serves, in my opinion, to
provide a false respectability to the destructive groups that follow. (I must admit my own
biases here as a longtime supporter of Unitarian-Universalism and Quakerism, as well as the
father of a former Unification Church member.) What especially infuriates me (as a cult
critic), and what my minister friend did not catch in a quick sampling, is that contrary to
Miller‟s claims of objectivity, the book is subtly biased. Consider Miller‟s own words:
Finally, it [this volume] seeks to convey objective sketches of the religions
covered, free from the taint of either adulation or vituperation. A great deal of the
available literature on alternative religions --in this case they are usually called
“cults” --comes from those determined to eradicate them, often in the name of
another religion held to be the One True Faith. This volume, written by scholars
with detailed knowledge of the groups they discuss, seeks a balance that much
anticult literature lacks.
Alas, such balance is not always evident. In his introduction Miller resurrects some old
charges against the “Anti-Cult Movement” (which in his view is composed predominantly of
born-again Protestant evangelicals): overestimating the size and menace of cults, scaring
the public by false claims of brainwashing, and so on. True, some chapters are indeed
objective, balanced, informative, and fair. For instance, the chapters on Quakerism,
Unitarianism-Universalism, Spiritualism and Channeling, Scientology, and Eckankar are
concise and factual. In contrast, treatments of the Unification Church and Hare Krishna are
slanted. (Terms associated with these latter alternative religions were rated by various
panels of experts in our research. See, especially, Dole, Langone, &Dubrow-Eichel, 1990.*)
In her report on the Unification Church, Eileen Barker, who cites few sources after 1988 and
ignores critical research (e.g., Horowitz, 1979**), minimizes published evidence of mind
control, brainwashing, Moon‟s federal conviction, and intensive proselytizing. In his chapter
on Hare Krishna, E. Burke Rocheford, Jr. writes: Asocial science evidence provides little or
no support for brainwashing explanations of conversion to new religions,” and “Anticult
propaganda, widely disseminated by the media, helped reshape the public‟s definition of
Hare Krishna from a peculiar, but essentially harmless movement. ISKCON came to be
identified as threatening and dangerous.” Although later Rocheford mentions guru
controversies, defections, allegations of drug use, weapons violations, sexual misconduct,
and murder, he does not attribute ISKCON‟s declining position to such well-known scandals.
Shupe and Bromley‟s concluding chapter so distorts the “Anti-Cult Movement” as to come
very close to humor. Their framework theory floats in a soup of jargon, unsupported by any
data. They conclude, “The ACM (Anti-Cult Movement) is, despite all its claims to being
*Dole, A.A., Langone, M.D., &Dubrow-Eichel, S.D. (1990). The new age movement: Fad or menace? Cultic
Studies Journal, 7, 1, 69B91.
**Horowitz, I.L. (1979). Science, sin, and scholarship: The politics of Reverend Moon and the Unification Church.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
purchase. “Interesting, informative, and scholarly” was his first impression. And, he asked,
“What does the editor mean by „alternative‟?” In his introduction, Miller, rejecting the terms
cult and sect as pejorative, defines alternative as nonmainstream and as “not inherently
inferior to” its mainstream counterparts. Miller then proposes seven categories: Established
Christian Alternatives (Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, and Unitarians, among
others) Contemporary Christian and Jewish Movements (e.g., Children of God, Boston
Church of Christ, Branch Davidians) Religions from Asia (Hare Krishna and Unification
Church) Religions from the Middle East (Baha‟i, Islam) African-American Freedom
Movements (Father Divine, Peoples Temple) Ancient Wisdom and New Age Movements
(Theosophy, Spiritualism, Eckankar) and Many More (American Indian Religion,
Scientology, and Satanism).
The inclusion of the Established Christian Alternatives section serves, in my opinion, to
provide a false respectability to the destructive groups that follow. (I must admit my own
biases here as a longtime supporter of Unitarian-Universalism and Quakerism, as well as the
father of a former Unification Church member.) What especially infuriates me (as a cult
critic), and what my minister friend did not catch in a quick sampling, is that contrary to
Miller‟s claims of objectivity, the book is subtly biased. Consider Miller‟s own words:
Finally, it [this volume] seeks to convey objective sketches of the religions
covered, free from the taint of either adulation or vituperation. A great deal of the
available literature on alternative religions --in this case they are usually called
“cults” --comes from those determined to eradicate them, often in the name of
another religion held to be the One True Faith. This volume, written by scholars
with detailed knowledge of the groups they discuss, seeks a balance that much
anticult literature lacks.
Alas, such balance is not always evident. In his introduction Miller resurrects some old
charges against the “Anti-Cult Movement” (which in his view is composed predominantly of
born-again Protestant evangelicals): overestimating the size and menace of cults, scaring
the public by false claims of brainwashing, and so on. True, some chapters are indeed
objective, balanced, informative, and fair. For instance, the chapters on Quakerism,
Unitarianism-Universalism, Spiritualism and Channeling, Scientology, and Eckankar are
concise and factual. In contrast, treatments of the Unification Church and Hare Krishna are
slanted. (Terms associated with these latter alternative religions were rated by various
panels of experts in our research. See, especially, Dole, Langone, &Dubrow-Eichel, 1990.*)
In her report on the Unification Church, Eileen Barker, who cites few sources after 1988 and
ignores critical research (e.g., Horowitz, 1979**), minimizes published evidence of mind
control, brainwashing, Moon‟s federal conviction, and intensive proselytizing. In his chapter
on Hare Krishna, E. Burke Rocheford, Jr. writes: Asocial science evidence provides little or
no support for brainwashing explanations of conversion to new religions,” and “Anticult
propaganda, widely disseminated by the media, helped reshape the public‟s definition of
Hare Krishna from a peculiar, but essentially harmless movement. ISKCON came to be
identified as threatening and dangerous.” Although later Rocheford mentions guru
controversies, defections, allegations of drug use, weapons violations, sexual misconduct,
and murder, he does not attribute ISKCON‟s declining position to such well-known scandals.
Shupe and Bromley‟s concluding chapter so distorts the “Anti-Cult Movement” as to come
very close to humor. Their framework theory floats in a soup of jargon, unsupported by any
data. They conclude, “The ACM (Anti-Cult Movement) is, despite all its claims to being
*Dole, A.A., Langone, M.D., &Dubrow-Eichel, S.D. (1990). The new age movement: Fad or menace? Cultic
Studies Journal, 7, 1, 69B91.
**Horowitz, I.L. (1979). Science, sin, and scholarship: The politics of Reverend Moon and the Unification Church.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
