Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 30
Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization:
A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform
(In Response to “Overcoming the Bondage of
Victimization” By Bob and Gretchen Passantino)
Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. &Lawrence A. Pile
With
Ron Burks, M.A. &Stephen D. Martin, M.Div.
Abstract
In 1994 Christian counter-cult researchers Robert and Gretchen Passantino
published a major article in Cornerstone magazine attempting to debunk the
theory of cult mind-control. Beginning with a rundown of several alleged
―assumptions of mind-control‖* and proceeding to numerous objections to
mind-control, the authors sought to demonstrate what they consider to be the
faulty basis of the mind-control model of cult recruitment and influence, as
well as the incompatibility of the mind-control model with Christian theology.
The present article shows that the Passantinos‘ assertions are incorrect and
misguided. Specifically, this article demonstrates that mind-control is more
than cult conversion that, while mind-control does not rob people of moral
responsibility, it mitigates it and that there is no conflict between biblical
theology and the reality of mind-control. We contend that theological
considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological
destruction caused by cults. Cults distort one‘s perceptions of both natural
reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. Since the former
is supposed to reveal the latter, as in the Christian tradition, those interested
in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to
cultists.
*‖Mind-control‖ is used with a hyphen in this article to be consistent with the Passantinos‘
many quotes.
Long-time cult researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino criticize the notion that through
the use of powerful and sophisticated thought-reform techniques, some cult conversions
drastically and negatively alter some individuals‘ lives (Passantino &Passantino, 1994). The
Passantinos assert that thought reform is an erroneous theory, even though most exit
counselors and countless professionals across disciplines use it to explain the changes seen
in cult members. The purpose of the article by the Passantinos is, they say, to ―look behind
the assumptions of the mind-control model and uncover the startling reality that cult mind-
control is, at best, a distorted misnomer for cult conversion that robs individuals of personal
moral responsibility‖ (p. 31). They go on to say, ―While mind-control model advocates
rightly point out that cults often practice deception, emotional manipulation, and other
unsavory recruitment tactics, we believe a critical, well-reasoned examination of the
evidence disproves the cult mind-control model and instead affirms the importance of the
informed, biblically based religious commitment‖ (pp. 31-32).
The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their
critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for
a detailed rebuttal. In this article, we will show that the Passantinos‘ assertions are incorrect
and misguided. We will demonstrate that (1) use of mind-control, or thought reform, brings
about a special variety of conversion (2) having been under the influence of a thought-
Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization:
A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform
(In Response to “Overcoming the Bondage of
Victimization” By Bob and Gretchen Passantino)
Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. &Lawrence A. Pile
With
Ron Burks, M.A. &Stephen D. Martin, M.Div.
Abstract
In 1994 Christian counter-cult researchers Robert and Gretchen Passantino
published a major article in Cornerstone magazine attempting to debunk the
theory of cult mind-control. Beginning with a rundown of several alleged
―assumptions of mind-control‖* and proceeding to numerous objections to
mind-control, the authors sought to demonstrate what they consider to be the
faulty basis of the mind-control model of cult recruitment and influence, as
well as the incompatibility of the mind-control model with Christian theology.
The present article shows that the Passantinos‘ assertions are incorrect and
misguided. Specifically, this article demonstrates that mind-control is more
than cult conversion that, while mind-control does not rob people of moral
responsibility, it mitigates it and that there is no conflict between biblical
theology and the reality of mind-control. We contend that theological
considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological
destruction caused by cults. Cults distort one‘s perceptions of both natural
reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. Since the former
is supposed to reveal the latter, as in the Christian tradition, those interested
in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to
cultists.
*‖Mind-control‖ is used with a hyphen in this article to be consistent with the Passantinos‘
many quotes.
Long-time cult researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino criticize the notion that through
the use of powerful and sophisticated thought-reform techniques, some cult conversions
drastically and negatively alter some individuals‘ lives (Passantino &Passantino, 1994). The
Passantinos assert that thought reform is an erroneous theory, even though most exit
counselors and countless professionals across disciplines use it to explain the changes seen
in cult members. The purpose of the article by the Passantinos is, they say, to ―look behind
the assumptions of the mind-control model and uncover the startling reality that cult mind-
control is, at best, a distorted misnomer for cult conversion that robs individuals of personal
moral responsibility‖ (p. 31). They go on to say, ―While mind-control model advocates
rightly point out that cults often practice deception, emotional manipulation, and other
unsavory recruitment tactics, we believe a critical, well-reasoned examination of the
evidence disproves the cult mind-control model and instead affirms the importance of the
informed, biblically based religious commitment‖ (pp. 31-32).
The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their
critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for
a detailed rebuttal. In this article, we will show that the Passantinos‘ assertions are incorrect
and misguided. We will demonstrate that (1) use of mind-control, or thought reform, brings
about a special variety of conversion (2) having been under the influence of a thought-
