Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 33
away with theological concerns: ―Biblical analysis and evangelism of the cults has been
overshadowed by allegedly ‗value neutral‘ social science descriptions and therapy-oriented
counseling‖ (p. 32). This all-or-nothing dichotomy is not characteristic of the program we
offer at Wellspring, nor that of many others.
The Passantinos list, summarize, and critique eight categories which they say represent ―the
principal assumptions of the cult mind-control model‖ (p. 32). Before addressing the details
of their critique, we want to state that the Passantinos‘ eight-assumption model is
inaccurate in so many respects as to be useless as a summary of mind-control models,
although aspects of their summary are valid. Our critique will attempt to show what is false
and what is correct in their analysis.
Assumption One
―Cults‘ ability to control the mind supersedes that of the best military ‗brainwashers‘‖ (p.
32). In a footnote, the Passantinos mention two factors offered by proponents of the mind-
control theory to account for cults‘ success: ―(1) greater levels of sophistication, technology,
and psychological knowledge and (2) the addition of hypnosis techniques to the practice‖
(p. 40). Not mentioned, however, is one factor we believe is perhaps more significant than
either of these two --namely, that in military brainwashing the subjects were unwilling
participants, and, in fact, antagonists of the brainwashers (at least in the most well-known
instance of the brainwashing of Korean War POWs) whereas in cultic mind-control,
generally the subjects are favorably disposed toward the cult members and, indeed, toward
the teachings with which they are being indoctrinated. This factor must not be ignored or
minimized. Moreover, the indoctrination of cult members is so subtle and deceptive that
they often do not even realize they are objects of persuasion, unlike POWs who were
painfully aware of their captors‘ desire to change them. So, it really is not at all surprising
that cultic mind-control is more successful than the ―brainwashing‖ inflicted on POWs. We
will elaborate on this point when we criticize the Passantinos‘ objection to the ―brainwashing
connection.‖
Assumption Two
―Cult recruits become unable to think or make decisions for themselves‖ (p. 32). This is
another example of all-or-nothing thinking, which the Passantinos have criticized in other
works. We reject the implied assertion that we and our colleagues in this field accept this
statement as it is written. We are well aware that many cult members do retain the ability
to think for themselves in many areas of life, even in matters religious. We have always
recognized that there are many degrees of mind-control, depending on numerous factors,
including, but not limited to (1) the type and severity of any precult spiritual or
psychological problems (2) the degree of divergence of the cult‘s teachings and practices
from the cult member‘s prior religious affiliation (3) the intensity of the cultic
indoctrination (4) the degree to which the cult severs the cult member from his or her
previous connections (family, friends, activities, etc.) and (5) the kind and degree of any
corrective or disciplinary measures exercised by the cult on members who step out of line.
Having said this, we hasten to add that during the 12 years of Wellspring‘s operation we
have worked with many ex-cult members who did have very serious difficulty thinking for
themselves and making decisions. Their problems cannot be glibly dismissed as ―precult
problems‖ that presumably had nothing to do with the cultic experience. One girl who came
to Wellspring from a well known ―shepherding movement‖ would sit at the dinner table and
wait until she received permission to eat any item on her plate before she would do so.
Assumption Three
―Cult recruits assume ‗cult‘ personalities and subsume their core personalities‖ (p. 32). This
statement conforms to clinical experience. For example, most ex-cult members who come to
away with theological concerns: ―Biblical analysis and evangelism of the cults has been
overshadowed by allegedly ‗value neutral‘ social science descriptions and therapy-oriented
counseling‖ (p. 32). This all-or-nothing dichotomy is not characteristic of the program we
offer at Wellspring, nor that of many others.
The Passantinos list, summarize, and critique eight categories which they say represent ―the
principal assumptions of the cult mind-control model‖ (p. 32). Before addressing the details
of their critique, we want to state that the Passantinos‘ eight-assumption model is
inaccurate in so many respects as to be useless as a summary of mind-control models,
although aspects of their summary are valid. Our critique will attempt to show what is false
and what is correct in their analysis.
Assumption One
―Cults‘ ability to control the mind supersedes that of the best military ‗brainwashers‘‖ (p.
32). In a footnote, the Passantinos mention two factors offered by proponents of the mind-
control theory to account for cults‘ success: ―(1) greater levels of sophistication, technology,
and psychological knowledge and (2) the addition of hypnosis techniques to the practice‖
(p. 40). Not mentioned, however, is one factor we believe is perhaps more significant than
either of these two --namely, that in military brainwashing the subjects were unwilling
participants, and, in fact, antagonists of the brainwashers (at least in the most well-known
instance of the brainwashing of Korean War POWs) whereas in cultic mind-control,
generally the subjects are favorably disposed toward the cult members and, indeed, toward
the teachings with which they are being indoctrinated. This factor must not be ignored or
minimized. Moreover, the indoctrination of cult members is so subtle and deceptive that
they often do not even realize they are objects of persuasion, unlike POWs who were
painfully aware of their captors‘ desire to change them. So, it really is not at all surprising
that cultic mind-control is more successful than the ―brainwashing‖ inflicted on POWs. We
will elaborate on this point when we criticize the Passantinos‘ objection to the ―brainwashing
connection.‖
Assumption Two
―Cult recruits become unable to think or make decisions for themselves‖ (p. 32). This is
another example of all-or-nothing thinking, which the Passantinos have criticized in other
works. We reject the implied assertion that we and our colleagues in this field accept this
statement as it is written. We are well aware that many cult members do retain the ability
to think for themselves in many areas of life, even in matters religious. We have always
recognized that there are many degrees of mind-control, depending on numerous factors,
including, but not limited to (1) the type and severity of any precult spiritual or
psychological problems (2) the degree of divergence of the cult‘s teachings and practices
from the cult member‘s prior religious affiliation (3) the intensity of the cultic
indoctrination (4) the degree to which the cult severs the cult member from his or her
previous connections (family, friends, activities, etc.) and (5) the kind and degree of any
corrective or disciplinary measures exercised by the cult on members who step out of line.
Having said this, we hasten to add that during the 12 years of Wellspring‘s operation we
have worked with many ex-cult members who did have very serious difficulty thinking for
themselves and making decisions. Their problems cannot be glibly dismissed as ―precult
problems‖ that presumably had nothing to do with the cultic experience. One girl who came
to Wellspring from a well known ―shepherding movement‖ would sit at the dinner table and
wait until she received permission to eat any item on her plate before she would do so.
Assumption Three
―Cult recruits assume ‗cult‘ personalities and subsume their core personalities‖ (p. 32). This
statement conforms to clinical experience. For example, most ex-cult members who come to
