Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 36
with a lemon on her hands. The church would not castigate her as having some sort of
spiritual problem because of this plight, would it?
If the same girl would go out and start attending a Bible study that later turned out to be a
Way ―twig,‖ then the Passantinos would put a spiritual twist on it, impugning her motives or
her spiritual state for leading her into a ―heretical‖ Bible study group. But if she buys a car
that breaks down, the Passantinos would, we suspect, hold her innocent. There seems to be
a double standard here.
One other point regarding the Wellspring statement quoted above by the Passantinos: by
broadly interpreting the statement, they have misrepresented us. The senior author of this
article [PRM] testified in the criminal case of a cult member who participated in the killing of
five people3. Martin and his colleagues in this case did not argue that the cult member was
innocent and need not feel guilt or shame. They argued that the young man was guilty. The
defendant was Danny Kraft, Jr., who had been a member of a small cult led by Jeffrey
Lundgren, who killed a family of five in Kirtland, Ohio.4 Nevertheless, in this case the
defendant‘s attorney maintained that although Mr. Kraft was guilty, there were mitigating
circumstances--namely, that Kraft was under the influence of Lundgren through a process of
mind-control. Therefore, Kraft was not acting entirely as a free, moral agent because he
was suffering from a mental disorder. In other words, Kraft was made to believe something
that was not true, namely, that Lundgren was the prophet of God, and, thus, whatever he
said was divinely inspired. The court unequivocally concurred that the techniques used by
Lundgren were those of mind-control. The court agreed that Kraft did indeed suffer a
dissociative disorder, identified by the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as scientific. Kraft was
sentenced to many years in prison, but his sentence was lighter than it would have been
had mind-control not been seen as a mitigating circumstance.
The Passantinos attempt (p. 33) to strengthen their argument by quoting Hassan:
Hassan recognizes that the cult mind-control model (which he has adopted) is
incompatible with the traditional philosophical and Christian view of man as a
responsible moral agent: ―First of all, accepting that unethical mind-control
can affect anybody challenges the age-old philosophical notion (the one on
which our current laws are based) that man is a rational being, responsible
for, and in control of, his every action. Such a world view does not allow for
any concept of mind-control‖ (Hassan, 1988).
The problem here is that Hassan is simply wrong, and so is the Passantinos‘ attempt to
attribute Hassan‘s error to all advocates of the thought-reform model. First, our current
laws do recognize diminished capacity in the commission of crime as exculpatory, as it
recognizes undue influence in the civil arena. Second, the biblical worldview also recognizes
exculpation by reason of diminished capacity due to mental underdevelopment (Dt. 1:39)
lack of knowledge (Luke 12:36-48) or demonization (Mt. 8:28-34 Ac. 16:16-185). So,
neither Western, secular philosophy nor Judeo-Christian doctrine views man as always fully
rational and responsible for his actions. In addition, the apostle Paul writes, ―You foolish
Galatians, who has bewitched you?‖ (Gal. 3:1, New American Standard Bible). Translated,
the word ―bewitched,‖ baskaino, means ―bewitch, as with the ‗evil eye‘‖ (Bauer, Arndt, &
Gingrich, 1979, p. 137) and ―to bring evil on one by feigned praise or an evil eye, to charm,
bewitch one, hence, of those who lead away others into error by wicked arts.‖ (Thayer,
1972, p.98). It is doubtful that in the Galatians reference Paul is expressing belief that the
Christians actually had the ―evil eye‖ directed at them. However, in conjunction with the
word ―foolish‖ (anoētos =not thinking or mindless), it seems evident that Paul recognizes
that the Galatians had been manipulated to a point where they were no longer thinking
clearly. Thus, the concept of mind-control may apply to the situation described by Paul, or
at least to quantitative extensions of the Galatians‘ problem.
with a lemon on her hands. The church would not castigate her as having some sort of
spiritual problem because of this plight, would it?
If the same girl would go out and start attending a Bible study that later turned out to be a
Way ―twig,‖ then the Passantinos would put a spiritual twist on it, impugning her motives or
her spiritual state for leading her into a ―heretical‖ Bible study group. But if she buys a car
that breaks down, the Passantinos would, we suspect, hold her innocent. There seems to be
a double standard here.
One other point regarding the Wellspring statement quoted above by the Passantinos: by
broadly interpreting the statement, they have misrepresented us. The senior author of this
article [PRM] testified in the criminal case of a cult member who participated in the killing of
five people3. Martin and his colleagues in this case did not argue that the cult member was
innocent and need not feel guilt or shame. They argued that the young man was guilty. The
defendant was Danny Kraft, Jr., who had been a member of a small cult led by Jeffrey
Lundgren, who killed a family of five in Kirtland, Ohio.4 Nevertheless, in this case the
defendant‘s attorney maintained that although Mr. Kraft was guilty, there were mitigating
circumstances--namely, that Kraft was under the influence of Lundgren through a process of
mind-control. Therefore, Kraft was not acting entirely as a free, moral agent because he
was suffering from a mental disorder. In other words, Kraft was made to believe something
that was not true, namely, that Lundgren was the prophet of God, and, thus, whatever he
said was divinely inspired. The court unequivocally concurred that the techniques used by
Lundgren were those of mind-control. The court agreed that Kraft did indeed suffer a
dissociative disorder, identified by the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as scientific. Kraft was
sentenced to many years in prison, but his sentence was lighter than it would have been
had mind-control not been seen as a mitigating circumstance.
The Passantinos attempt (p. 33) to strengthen their argument by quoting Hassan:
Hassan recognizes that the cult mind-control model (which he has adopted) is
incompatible with the traditional philosophical and Christian view of man as a
responsible moral agent: ―First of all, accepting that unethical mind-control
can affect anybody challenges the age-old philosophical notion (the one on
which our current laws are based) that man is a rational being, responsible
for, and in control of, his every action. Such a world view does not allow for
any concept of mind-control‖ (Hassan, 1988).
The problem here is that Hassan is simply wrong, and so is the Passantinos‘ attempt to
attribute Hassan‘s error to all advocates of the thought-reform model. First, our current
laws do recognize diminished capacity in the commission of crime as exculpatory, as it
recognizes undue influence in the civil arena. Second, the biblical worldview also recognizes
exculpation by reason of diminished capacity due to mental underdevelopment (Dt. 1:39)
lack of knowledge (Luke 12:36-48) or demonization (Mt. 8:28-34 Ac. 16:16-185). So,
neither Western, secular philosophy nor Judeo-Christian doctrine views man as always fully
rational and responsible for his actions. In addition, the apostle Paul writes, ―You foolish
Galatians, who has bewitched you?‖ (Gal. 3:1, New American Standard Bible). Translated,
the word ―bewitched,‖ baskaino, means ―bewitch, as with the ‗evil eye‘‖ (Bauer, Arndt, &
Gingrich, 1979, p. 137) and ―to bring evil on one by feigned praise or an evil eye, to charm,
bewitch one, hence, of those who lead away others into error by wicked arts.‖ (Thayer,
1972, p.98). It is doubtful that in the Galatians reference Paul is expressing belief that the
Christians actually had the ―evil eye‖ directed at them. However, in conjunction with the
word ―foolish‖ (anoētos =not thinking or mindless), it seems evident that Paul recognizes
that the Galatians had been manipulated to a point where they were no longer thinking
clearly. Thus, the concept of mind-control may apply to the situation described by Paul, or
at least to quantitative extensions of the Galatians‘ problem.
