Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 49
However, we do not see the necessity of such a dichotomy, though we recognize that some
psychosociological and theological theories and approaches leave much to be desired. The
Passantinos seem to disallow any reference to prior abuse as even a partial explanation for
the current problems many people experience. We believe this is both unfair and
detrimental to the individual‘s healing.
The Passantinos seem to advocate an improper use of the Bible that is disturbingly common
in some evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The Bible is implicitly viewed as the only
textbook necessary for psychology, not just for doctrine and morality. But the Bible does not
make such a claim for itself. Are we to view it as the only textbook necessary for geology,
geography, or architecture? Shall we make all engineering students study only the Old
Testament because it contains instructions on how to build the tabernacle or the temple and
thus all construction must be based on those models? Or shall we base medicine only on
what is in the Bible?
Why, all of a sudden, are human sciences suddenly limited to what is in the Bible? Who
drew this arbitrary line and said, ―We can study astronomy, geology, medicine, whatever,
but the Bible must be the only textbook for the human sciences‖? That is absurd. The facts
refute this. Does the Bible talk about manic depressive illness? Does the Bible talk about
psychotic depression? Does the Bible talk about panic disorders or agoraphobia-what causes
them, how are they cured? Does the Bible distinguish between organic and functional
psychoses? Does the Bible explain what learning disabilities are, what hyperactivity is? Does
the Bible explain what a personality disorder is, how a dependent personality can be
distinguished from a borderline personality?
Objection: Theological Inconsistencies
From a theological standpoint, the Passantinos appear to undervalue the role of deceit in
the introduction of sin into the world of humans. They write:
If the cult recruiter‘s skill at manipulation is considered so coercive that
members are not responsible for their own beliefs, actions, or even the
decision to join/stay in the cult, then many biblical affirmations about
personal responsibility and decision-making are jeopardized. To a secular
mind-control model advocate, this may seem a trivial objection. But several
advocates are Christian evangelicals and must come to terms with the
theological inconsistencies introduced when the cult mind-control model is
adopted.
For example, in the Garden, Satan personally appeared to orchestrate the
temptation of Eve --and who could be more persuasive? Our first parents
succumbed to the temptation and were cast out of the Garden, and all of
humanity thereafter has been penalized by this primal sin. If our first parents
could be held morally responsible when confronted by the ultimate tempter,
how is it that we seek to excuse ourselves or our offspring when confronted
by human tempters of far less power, skill, and charisma? (p. 40).
The simple answer to their question is that the analogy between the serpent‘s beguilement
of Eve in the Garden of Eden and what happens in cult recruitment is like comparing apples
with chimpanzees. God had explicitly told Adam and Eve in advance, ―Don‘t eat of this tree.‖
The tree was identified, the tree was located. They knew what it was, they knew where it
was, they knew all about it. God had given them complete and adequate information. Most
people we know who have joined cults did not have anyone (and certainly not anyone with
the authoritative voice of God) saying, ―Don‘t join this group, it is evil, and here is the
evidence.‖ But that is basically what God did with Adam and Eve. The comparison of the
Garden with the cult situation would be more appropriate if God put Adam and Eve into the
However, we do not see the necessity of such a dichotomy, though we recognize that some
psychosociological and theological theories and approaches leave much to be desired. The
Passantinos seem to disallow any reference to prior abuse as even a partial explanation for
the current problems many people experience. We believe this is both unfair and
detrimental to the individual‘s healing.
The Passantinos seem to advocate an improper use of the Bible that is disturbingly common
in some evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The Bible is implicitly viewed as the only
textbook necessary for psychology, not just for doctrine and morality. But the Bible does not
make such a claim for itself. Are we to view it as the only textbook necessary for geology,
geography, or architecture? Shall we make all engineering students study only the Old
Testament because it contains instructions on how to build the tabernacle or the temple and
thus all construction must be based on those models? Or shall we base medicine only on
what is in the Bible?
Why, all of a sudden, are human sciences suddenly limited to what is in the Bible? Who
drew this arbitrary line and said, ―We can study astronomy, geology, medicine, whatever,
but the Bible must be the only textbook for the human sciences‖? That is absurd. The facts
refute this. Does the Bible talk about manic depressive illness? Does the Bible talk about
psychotic depression? Does the Bible talk about panic disorders or agoraphobia-what causes
them, how are they cured? Does the Bible distinguish between organic and functional
psychoses? Does the Bible explain what learning disabilities are, what hyperactivity is? Does
the Bible explain what a personality disorder is, how a dependent personality can be
distinguished from a borderline personality?
Objection: Theological Inconsistencies
From a theological standpoint, the Passantinos appear to undervalue the role of deceit in
the introduction of sin into the world of humans. They write:
If the cult recruiter‘s skill at manipulation is considered so coercive that
members are not responsible for their own beliefs, actions, or even the
decision to join/stay in the cult, then many biblical affirmations about
personal responsibility and decision-making are jeopardized. To a secular
mind-control model advocate, this may seem a trivial objection. But several
advocates are Christian evangelicals and must come to terms with the
theological inconsistencies introduced when the cult mind-control model is
adopted.
For example, in the Garden, Satan personally appeared to orchestrate the
temptation of Eve --and who could be more persuasive? Our first parents
succumbed to the temptation and were cast out of the Garden, and all of
humanity thereafter has been penalized by this primal sin. If our first parents
could be held morally responsible when confronted by the ultimate tempter,
how is it that we seek to excuse ourselves or our offspring when confronted
by human tempters of far less power, skill, and charisma? (p. 40).
The simple answer to their question is that the analogy between the serpent‘s beguilement
of Eve in the Garden of Eden and what happens in cult recruitment is like comparing apples
with chimpanzees. God had explicitly told Adam and Eve in advance, ―Don‘t eat of this tree.‖
The tree was identified, the tree was located. They knew what it was, they knew where it
was, they knew all about it. God had given them complete and adequate information. Most
people we know who have joined cults did not have anyone (and certainly not anyone with
the authoritative voice of God) saying, ―Don‘t join this group, it is evil, and here is the
evidence.‖ But that is basically what God did with Adam and Eve. The comparison of the
Garden with the cult situation would be more appropriate if God put Adam and Eve into the
