Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 8
explicit or implicit standards of ethical influence (e.g., lying to people in order to
persuade them to come to a group-sponsored event)
infiltration of government organizations
tax-evasion
abuse of the legal system through spurious lawsuits
pursuit of political goals while operating under the rubric of a nonpolitical, charitable, or
religious organization
deceptive fund-raising and sales practices
unlawful pressuring of employees to participate in cultic ―educational‖ programs
misuse of charitable status in order to secure money for business and other
noncharitable purposes
unfair competition through the use of underpaid labor or ―recycled salaries‖
medical, psychological, and educational neglect and/or abuse of children
Misuse of school or college facilities
In societies that cherish religious freedom, the balancing of religious freedom and law
enforcement may sometimes be difficult to achieve or to gain consensus on. Two sessions
in this conference will examine how the legal and governmental systems in the U.S. and
Europe have responded to cult issues. The Saturday evening discussion program is also
likely to address this question of balance.
Theological Concerns
If one accepts the notion that beliefs have consequences, then one is likely to conclude that
theological analyses may shed light on the psychological, ethical, and social implications of
the cult phenomenon.
During the Waco standoff, for example, some observers criticized the FBI for not addressing
the thought reform dimension of Waco. Others criticized the FBI for not considering the
theological beliefs of David Koresh. Herb Rosedale and I wrote an essay at the time in which
we argued that both perspectives should have been considered (citation):
I believe that theological analyses can contribute to the understanding of cult-related
phenomena. Professor Roger Olsen of Bethel Seminary was to have spoken on this issue at
this conference, but his circumstances changed and he could not make the conference.
Theological issues may arise in our discussion of changes in ISKCON. How, for example, can
reformers justify changes that, at least on the surface, appear to conflict with the belief
system set down by the movement‘s founder? If they can make compelling justifications for
these changes within ISKCON‘s theological belief system, the reformers are likely to run into
less resistance on practices that have elicited considerable social concern.
Those who offer theological analyses should be careful to recognize that modern democratic
societies place a protective wall around belief --and for good reason. One can believe bad
things without acting badly. The tragedy in Littleton, Colorado demonstrates this point. As
commentators try to ―explain‖ why the young men went on a killing spree, they point to a
host of possible causes: they revered Adolph Hitler they hated ―jocks‖ they were racist
etc. But thousands of people who do not murder others share these beliefs. If we locked
people up for their beliefs, our prisons would burst.
Nevertheless, critical analysis of potentially destructive belief systems may lessen the
probability that some people will act upon those beliefs, in part by decreasing the probability
that some may be persuaded to adopt them in the first place. That is why AFF has worked
with certain individuals and organizations who focus on theological analyses of cultic groups.
To the extent they can help people think more discerningly, they can lessen the probability
that people will get caught up in destructive systems.
explicit or implicit standards of ethical influence (e.g., lying to people in order to
persuade them to come to a group-sponsored event)
infiltration of government organizations
tax-evasion
abuse of the legal system through spurious lawsuits
pursuit of political goals while operating under the rubric of a nonpolitical, charitable, or
religious organization
deceptive fund-raising and sales practices
unlawful pressuring of employees to participate in cultic ―educational‖ programs
misuse of charitable status in order to secure money for business and other
noncharitable purposes
unfair competition through the use of underpaid labor or ―recycled salaries‖
medical, psychological, and educational neglect and/or abuse of children
Misuse of school or college facilities
In societies that cherish religious freedom, the balancing of religious freedom and law
enforcement may sometimes be difficult to achieve or to gain consensus on. Two sessions
in this conference will examine how the legal and governmental systems in the U.S. and
Europe have responded to cult issues. The Saturday evening discussion program is also
likely to address this question of balance.
Theological Concerns
If one accepts the notion that beliefs have consequences, then one is likely to conclude that
theological analyses may shed light on the psychological, ethical, and social implications of
the cult phenomenon.
During the Waco standoff, for example, some observers criticized the FBI for not addressing
the thought reform dimension of Waco. Others criticized the FBI for not considering the
theological beliefs of David Koresh. Herb Rosedale and I wrote an essay at the time in which
we argued that both perspectives should have been considered (citation):
I believe that theological analyses can contribute to the understanding of cult-related
phenomena. Professor Roger Olsen of Bethel Seminary was to have spoken on this issue at
this conference, but his circumstances changed and he could not make the conference.
Theological issues may arise in our discussion of changes in ISKCON. How, for example, can
reformers justify changes that, at least on the surface, appear to conflict with the belief
system set down by the movement‘s founder? If they can make compelling justifications for
these changes within ISKCON‘s theological belief system, the reformers are likely to run into
less resistance on practices that have elicited considerable social concern.
Those who offer theological analyses should be careful to recognize that modern democratic
societies place a protective wall around belief --and for good reason. One can believe bad
things without acting badly. The tragedy in Littleton, Colorado demonstrates this point. As
commentators try to ―explain‖ why the young men went on a killing spree, they point to a
host of possible causes: they revered Adolph Hitler they hated ―jocks‖ they were racist
etc. But thousands of people who do not murder others share these beliefs. If we locked
people up for their beliefs, our prisons would burst.
Nevertheless, critical analysis of potentially destructive belief systems may lessen the
probability that some people will act upon those beliefs, in part by decreasing the probability
that some may be persuaded to adopt them in the first place. That is why AFF has worked
with certain individuals and organizations who focus on theological analyses of cultic groups.
To the extent they can help people think more discerningly, they can lessen the probability
that people will get caught up in destructive systems.
