Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 34
Wellspring recognize this very thing about themselves. They report that while they were in
the cult they became more aggressive or more passive, more self-assured or more
confused, more judgmental of others or more arrogant. Some have told us that they lost
touch with their own feelings and became emotionally numb, while putting on a happy front
when with parents or noncult friends. We have seen these things ourselves in ex-cultists,
and we have witnessed the dramatic changes when these individuals reverted to their
normal, precult selves. But again, we would acknowledge degrees of this ―personality
replacement.‖ Not every cult member changes to the same degree and, in fact, some
might already have a personality that meshes with the cult, and so they will not change
much, if at all. The assumption the Passantinos uphold for ridicule is, in our opinion,
generally valid, unless it is interpreted in an all-or-nothing way.
Assumption Four
―Cultists cannot decide to leave their cults‖ (p. 32). We do not know anyone who would
make such a blanket statement. It is manifestly contradicted by the hundreds, if not
thousands, of former cult members who have left their cults of their own volition. What we
would assert, however, is that many cult members find it difficult to leave the cult, even
when they may want to. Often this is due to fear of the threatened consequences of leaving
(e.g., forsaking God, being condemned to hell, suffering divine wrath in the form of
accidents or disease). Even the thought, ―What if the cult leader really is a prophet of God
or the messiah?‖ can hold a member in a cult long after the bloom has faded. One female
member of the Branch Davidians being interviewed for an Australian television broadcast
was asked, ―Do you believe David Koresh is the Messiah?‖ Her response as she smiled up at
the camera: ―I hope so.‖ She was one who stayed and perished in the final conflagration.
Assumption Five
The Passantinos contend that those who hold the mind-control model believe that
―successful intervention must break the mind-control, find the core personality, and return
the individual to his/her pre-cult status‖ (p. 32). We would qualify this assertion by
acknowledging that even the most abusive organizations have some redeeming qualities --
few are all bad. In cults it is possible, for example, to learn the value of giving oneself to a
cause, to learn the benefits of hard work, of getting along with others in a working
environment, and so on. Further, we would emphasize that if the cult in question is a Bible-
based organization on the order of the ―shepherding‖ movement, or what we refer to as a
TACO (a totalist aberrant Christian organization), which teaches orthodox biblical doctrine
while committing emotional, spiritual, and behavioral abuses, then clearly not everything of
the cult needs to be stripped away. Whatever was accurate, orthodox, and healthy can
remain, while the inaccurate, aberrational, and unhealthy must be excised. Probably no cult
(except some satanic cults) is all bad therefore one of the most important, and difficult,
tasks of the counselor is helping the ex-member winnow out the bad from the good.
Assumption Six
―Psychology and sociology are used to explain cult recruitment, membership, and
disaffection‖ (p. 32). Another blanket statement, this is worded so as to exclude other
disciplines as sources for explanations, specifically theology. While many secular proponents
of the mind-control model might reject the role of theology in seeking such explanations, we
do not, nor do other evangelical proponents of the mind-control model with whom we are
familiar. Later in the article the Passantinos (p. 32) quote from an official description in an
article in Wellspring‘s newsletter entitled, ―Wellspring‘s Approach to Cult Rehab‖:
Paul Martin asserts that cult mind-control renders its victims virtually
unresponsible for their actions or beliefs: ―The process whereby he or she
was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful force over which he or she
Wellspring recognize this very thing about themselves. They report that while they were in
the cult they became more aggressive or more passive, more self-assured or more
confused, more judgmental of others or more arrogant. Some have told us that they lost
touch with their own feelings and became emotionally numb, while putting on a happy front
when with parents or noncult friends. We have seen these things ourselves in ex-cultists,
and we have witnessed the dramatic changes when these individuals reverted to their
normal, precult selves. But again, we would acknowledge degrees of this ―personality
replacement.‖ Not every cult member changes to the same degree and, in fact, some
might already have a personality that meshes with the cult, and so they will not change
much, if at all. The assumption the Passantinos uphold for ridicule is, in our opinion,
generally valid, unless it is interpreted in an all-or-nothing way.
Assumption Four
―Cultists cannot decide to leave their cults‖ (p. 32). We do not know anyone who would
make such a blanket statement. It is manifestly contradicted by the hundreds, if not
thousands, of former cult members who have left their cults of their own volition. What we
would assert, however, is that many cult members find it difficult to leave the cult, even
when they may want to. Often this is due to fear of the threatened consequences of leaving
(e.g., forsaking God, being condemned to hell, suffering divine wrath in the form of
accidents or disease). Even the thought, ―What if the cult leader really is a prophet of God
or the messiah?‖ can hold a member in a cult long after the bloom has faded. One female
member of the Branch Davidians being interviewed for an Australian television broadcast
was asked, ―Do you believe David Koresh is the Messiah?‖ Her response as she smiled up at
the camera: ―I hope so.‖ She was one who stayed and perished in the final conflagration.
Assumption Five
The Passantinos contend that those who hold the mind-control model believe that
―successful intervention must break the mind-control, find the core personality, and return
the individual to his/her pre-cult status‖ (p. 32). We would qualify this assertion by
acknowledging that even the most abusive organizations have some redeeming qualities --
few are all bad. In cults it is possible, for example, to learn the value of giving oneself to a
cause, to learn the benefits of hard work, of getting along with others in a working
environment, and so on. Further, we would emphasize that if the cult in question is a Bible-
based organization on the order of the ―shepherding‖ movement, or what we refer to as a
TACO (a totalist aberrant Christian organization), which teaches orthodox biblical doctrine
while committing emotional, spiritual, and behavioral abuses, then clearly not everything of
the cult needs to be stripped away. Whatever was accurate, orthodox, and healthy can
remain, while the inaccurate, aberrational, and unhealthy must be excised. Probably no cult
(except some satanic cults) is all bad therefore one of the most important, and difficult,
tasks of the counselor is helping the ex-member winnow out the bad from the good.
Assumption Six
―Psychology and sociology are used to explain cult recruitment, membership, and
disaffection‖ (p. 32). Another blanket statement, this is worded so as to exclude other
disciplines as sources for explanations, specifically theology. While many secular proponents
of the mind-control model might reject the role of theology in seeking such explanations, we
do not, nor do other evangelical proponents of the mind-control model with whom we are
familiar. Later in the article the Passantinos (p. 32) quote from an official description in an
article in Wellspring‘s newsletter entitled, ―Wellspring‘s Approach to Cult Rehab‖:
Paul Martin asserts that cult mind-control renders its victims virtually
unresponsible for their actions or beliefs: ―The process whereby he or she
was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful force over which he or she
