 Posted Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Hello.
I am a first-time poster on this forum, although I have been reading your discussions for quite some time.
Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you all for keeping this discussion going; I am married to an ex-Christian Scientist and I have researched the Internet for quite some time and this is, I believe, the only medium dedicated to ex-Christian Scientists. From my personal experience, there is a great need for a space where former (and questioning current) CSers can potentially discuss the doctrine safely.
What brought me to this board initially was a desire to learn more about Christian Science in order to be able to understand and support my partner, who is dealing with the consequences of leaving CS. Thanks to this forum, I found and read the few books published by former Christian Scientists and they were all useful and intriguing to me, including Linda's book "The Religion That Kills".
One of the chapters in the book, Influence and Mind Control, introduced me to the very interesting "criteria for thought reform" and these criteria are why I am posting today.
The question I have, and would like to pose to you, is about Christianity and not Christian Science. I decided to post it here because I presume more of the partcipants in this forum's discussions are familiar with the book, and because of the many interpretations that you all formulate about Christianity and religion in general. I would appreciate if you shared your opinions with me.
The backgdrop for my question are Robert Lifton's criteria for thougth reform -in essence, the attributes of mind control in cults-, as paraphrased by Linda. All of my added quotation marks below indicate a direct copy from Linda's book. The criteria are:
1. Milieu control, "the control of what a person reads, hears, discusses, thinks, etc."
2. Mystical manipulation, involving the leader's "claim to divine or spiritual authority"
3. The demand for purity, for the fulfillment of which "members must cotinually strive to achieve humanly unattainable purity"
4. The cult of confession, which "places members in a vulnerable position as their weaknesses are exposed and are often used against them"
5. The sacred science made up of the beliefs and teachings "considered sacred because they are supposedly from an indisputable source such as divine revelation or inspiration", "precise and able to explain everything", making the sacred science, as well as the leader "above criticism"
6. Loading the language, by which the cult has its own jargon which "changes the meanings of common words so that members are unable to effectively communicate with people outside the group. (...) A member is less likely to believe criticism of his or her group from someone whom he or she automatically thinks of as unenlightened or evil."
7. Doctrine over person, making the doctrine "more important than the individual. Experiences which contradict the doctrine must be ignored or reinterpreted."
8. "Dispensing of Existence -- The group claims the authority to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually taken figuratively, but means that the group considers non-members to be unspiritual, damned, evil, or the like. Occasionally a group decides that it has the right to kill outsiders. In any case, this elitist attitude often results in the shunning of members who choose to leave the group. It also helps to create a fear of leaving, because to leave results in damnation, failure, or some other disaster."
I think most of us, familiar with Christian Science or other cults, will agree that these are indeed the characteristics of a cult and of thought control or thought redirection (brainwashing) in general.
My question to you is this: Would you say that Christianity, which implies or demands all of these criteria, is also a cult, as defined above, and a mind-controlling doctrine and practice?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Great Post Anonymous.
My answer to this is simple.
Christianity may very well be a cult, but that all depends on your opinion of the "leader" of that cult who is none other than Jesus Christ. If you believe that he is the divine revelation that the Old Testament prophesized than that is an "indisputable source". So if the focus is on Christ and his teaching than yes all of this criteria fit us as a cult.
As for mind controlling doctrine... in any organized religion one is free to believe what one wants to and there are many forms of Christianity. I am a Catholic, but I read a lot of great Protestant literature especially Billy Graham and find inspiration, so we are all pretty connected to one simple fact. We are not "tied" to one human teacher like a Joseph Smith, or Mary Baker Eddy... I am sure many protestants for example get inspiration from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, but again they are just teachers and theologians not our "leaders"
Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Emmanuel, ( God with us) sent to save us from our sinful nature and provide eternal life and if we accept him as Lord and Savior we will find that eternal life.
This is the best cult one could ever belong to.
SurferforJesus.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Would you say that Christianity, which implies or demands all of these criteria, is also a cult, as defined above, and a mind-controlling doctrine and practice?
There are certainly groups within Christianity that function as cults, but I don't see Christianity itself as being mind controlling or cultic.
I'll look at Lifton's criteria using New Testament Christians as my examples, since much of current church practice is patterned after what we learn from these people.
1. Their information was not controlled.
2. Mystical manipulation is only sinister if it is done deceptively to support a false doctrine. The healings that Jesus and the apostles did were genuine, so they did not constitute mystical manipulation.
3. While people like Paul expected people to live lives of purity, the whole point of Christianity is that people are NOT perfect. The early Christians were taught to acknowledge, confess, and forsake their sins. But Paul's letters to the Corinthians are examples of how some Christians led very carnal lives. Paul chastized them for this, but his letters are written in love and with a attitude of concern and instruction rather than with an attitude of trying to crush and control them.
4. Christians were taught to confess their sins to God so that they could be forgiven, but I don't see evidence of these confessions being used against them to belittle and control them.
5. Christianity does have a "sacred science," but it is based on the teachings of Jesus. They are validated by the fact that he was raised from the dead, so they can't be considered wrong and therefore coersive.
6. Every group has its own jargon (for example, sailors speak in a nautical language that means nothing to people who don't understand the terms they are using). The sinister thing about loaded language is that it changes the meanings of words while claiming to clarify them. I can't think of examples of that among the early Christians.
7. "Experiences which contradict the doctrine must be ignored or reinterpreted." I don't see evidence of that among the early Christians. Closer to home -- one of the things that I like so much about being a Christian rather than a CSist is that my Christian faith allows me to feel fully human. I don't have to ignore or reinterpret my human experience as I go through life.
8. "the group considers non-members to be unspiritual, damned, evil, or the like." -- Christianity does hold the opinion that people need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.
While Christianity itself does not exert cultic controls of the type described by Lifton's criteria, some Christian denominations and groups certainly do. The most damaging of these groups usually have a leader who feels that he or she is getting special, extra-biblical revelation straight from God. These leaders put all kinds of controls on their members and can do a lot of spiritual and psychological damage in the process. The Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center is a residential facility which treats victims of cultic abuse and other forms of control. Most of the people who work there are Christians, but many of their clients come to them from groups that have twisted Christianity into something cultic.
I hope I haven't been too brief in my answers here. Much damage has been done in the name of religion, but it's important to distinguish between damaging doctrine and the misuse of good doctrine.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:00 PM
|
|
|
|
I would have to respond that Christianity as it exists in late 20th century and early 21st century America, is not a cult. There certainly are or have been groups within Christianity that are cults. As I write this, it occurs to me that Christianity in Europe before the Protestant Reformation may have fit many of these criteria. While my historical knowledge is not comprehensive, here's how I see the criteria breaking down:
<< 1. Milieu control, "the control of what a person reads, hears, discusses, thinks, etc." >>
Definitely not the case for Christianity as it exists in America today. Certain conservative elements of Christianity attempt to exert some control (e.g., urging the boycotting of movies they consider anti-Christian), but this type of effort is ineffectual as applied to the population of America that considers itself Christian. Restricting the population of interest to some specified subset of Christianity may allow this criterion to apply, but it does not apply to Christianity as a whole.
My understanding of the history of Christianity is that there was a period in medieval Europe when the Catholic church frowned on the printing of Bibles, and especially persecuted those who sought to translate the Bible into the common languages spoken by the people in Europe at the time. During this period, perhaps this criterion applied to Christianity as it existed in Europe. But note that the Latin Bible used by the Catholic church was originally a translation into . . . the common language spoken by the people in the Western Roman Empire. Things change over time.
<< 2. Mystical manipulation, involving the leader's "claim to divine or spiritual authority" >>
Not true of Christianity in America today. First, there is no single leader of Christianity in America. Second, the leaders of most major denominations do not claim divinity or personal spiritual authority. There are no doubt some Christian sects that this applies to, but it is not true of Christianity as a whole. In analyzing this criterion, I do not consider Jesus Christ to be a "leader" as this criterion uses the term; there is room for honest disagreement on this reading of the criterion.
A case could be made that the Catholic church fits this criterion through the doctrine of papal infallibility. I notice that many American Catholics seem to have their own views of what is right and wrong, and that these views do not always align with official Catholic doctrine. I'd have to say that if the Catholic church is attempting to exert mystical manipulation involving the pope's spiritual authority, that manipulation isn't very effective in present day America.
A stronger case could be made for this criterion fitting the Catholic church in medieval Europe, with the threats of excommunication (for individuals) and interdiction (for countries with recalcitrant rulers) being seriously manipulative. This was one of the flaws that led to the Protestant reformation.
<< 3. The demand for purity, for the fulfillment of which "members must cotinually strive to achieve humanly unattainable purity" >>
Mainstream Christian doctrine states that all humans are sinners, and that their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ. Mainstream Christian doctrine holds that it is impossible for any human to avoid being a sinner. One of the major arguments non-Christians raise against Christianity is the apparent "free ride" from this doctrine: Because it is impossible to avoid sin, and because sins are forgiven through the death of Jesus, isn't the Christian allowed to do anything he feels like and still get to heaven? On the surface this aspect of Christian theology and doctrine would seem totally contrary to cult criterion #3.
Of course, it isn't that simple. As Christians, we are also taught that we want to do what is pleasing to God, which means avoiding sin to the extent we can. Some groups within Christianity will take this to the point of fitting this criterion, but certainly Christianity as a whole does not.
In a certain sense, the Catholic church in medieval Europe might be considered to fit this criterion. To the extent the church depended on people buying indulgences and otherwise funding the church out of guilt, maybe this applied then. The argument for this is not as strong as the argument for the first two criteria applying to medieval European Christianity.
<< 4. The cult of confession, which "places members in a vulnerable position as their weaknesses are exposed and are often used against them" >>
While this criterion undoubtedly applies to some groups within current American Christianity, it does not apply to Christianity as a whole. Many churches require neither public confession nor confession to a member of the clergy. The Catholic church is probably the largest group that does have confession as a major practice, and there are certainly anecdotes from Catholics and former Catholics of weaknesses exposed by confession being used against them. The Catholic church's official position is that the use of a person's confessed actions against that person is an abuse of priestly power, but it undoubtedly happens at times. However, it does not seem to be a universal failing, and (as noted above) it seems ineffective in getting American Catholics to follow doctrine as set forth by the Catholic hierarchy up to and including the pope.
This criterion might have applied to medieval European Christianity; I simply don't know enough about how the confession worked in practice in medieval Europe to come to an informed conclusion as to whether it applied then.
<< 5. The sacred science made up of the beliefs and teachings "considered sacred because they are supposedly from an indisputable source such as divine revelation or inspiration", "precise and able to explain everything", making the sacred science, as well as the leader "above criticism" >>
Christianity in general relies on teachings that are considered sacred, but different groups within Christianity view the sacred teaching differently. Protestants generally view the Bible as the source of all teachings, but different Protestant groups disagree as to what the teachings in the Bible mean. While it is agreed that the source is indisputable, there is considerable dispute about what that source means! Not all Christian groups agree on the subject of Biblical inerrancy, and those groups that adhere to the doctrine of Biblical interrancy do not all agree as to what inerrancy means. Some mainstream Christian groups hold that the Bible is inspired truth, rather than being literally true. Official Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", which is a quite different assertion of indisputability than the Protestant groups that hold with Biblical inerrancy maintain.
Some groups within Christianity believe that the Bible can be read to precisely explain everything. Others do not believe this at all.
As noted in my response to criterion #2, current American Christianity has no identifiable leader who might be considered above criticism. The pope is supposedly infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but there are still numerous American Catholics who disagree with papal doctrines that were issued ex cathedra.
This criterion clearly does not apply to current American Christianity as a whole. There are groups within Christianity that it does apply to.
This criterion almost certainly applied to medieval European Christianity, where the people were expected to believe everything the priests told them.
<< 6. Loading the language, by which the cult has its own jargon which "changes the meanings of common words so that members are unable to effectively communicate with people outside the group. (...) A member is less likely to believe criticism of his or her group from someone whom he or she automatically thinks of as unenlightened or evil." >>
This one is tough to analyze for Christianity as a whole. While different groups within Christianity have differing sets of vocabulary that is central, there is certainly a vocabulary of Christian theology that is not understood by Americans outside the Christian churches. Terms such as "witness" (used as a verb), "mission", "confess", "grace", "soul", "saved", "offering", and even "love" mean something different to the Christian than they do to the secular unchurched American. In addition, Christianity and Christian theology have a vocabulary of words not commonly used by secular society. This extra vocabulary ("jargon", if you prefer) includes such terms as "parable" (easily confused with "fable" by the non-Christian), "communion", "episcopal", "ecclesiastical", "prevenient grace", "intercessory prayer", "eschatology", "intinction", "Pentecost", "Lent", and "Advent". I have no doubt that people such as DoGoBeMan and SurferForJesus will be able understand and correctly define every term I've put in quotes; but the second set of terms will be gibberish to my unchurched friends.
The problem with the analysis is that Christianity is a big part of society as a whole, and has been a bigger part in the past. Some of the common terms used differently by Christians than by society as a whole are natural outgrowths of the common meanings of the words, as applied to Christian doctrine and practice. (e.g., "witness" and "mission") Others are terms that originated as Christian terms, but which have acquired somewhat different secular meanings as well. (e.g., "grace" and "soul") Some of the Christian jargon terms have acquired secular meanings as idioms. Most of us have heard someone say, "I'm giving up XYZ for Lent," when it is clear that the speaker does not have a clue as to when Lent is, let alone what it means in a Christian context. (And don't get me started on what the word "Christmas" means to secular society!)
An argument could be made that Christianity as a whole fits this criterion with respect to having its own jargon. I personally don't believe this to be the case, but I can see where someone else could honestly believe this. And I think it is common that dedicated Christians are less likely to believe criticism from non-Christians, at least as it applies to their Christian beliefs.
Certainly this criterion will fit some groups within Christianity. What I think makes this a stretch for considering Christianity as a whole to fit this criterion is that the portions of the jargon that are used most heavily vary from one group to another, and that the terms common to all (or most) Christian groups have religious meanings so well defined and widespread that the Christian usage is more another definition in the dictionary than a redefinition of the base word. With respect to the terms not used in secular society, I don't think the jargon aspects of these terms are linguistically all that different from the jargon of physics or the jargon of cinema. If you study the topic, you have to learn terms that are specific to that topic.
Oddly enough, I think this is a criterion that clearly does not apply to medieval European Christianity. To the extent the medieval Catholic church used jargon, the way the Catholic church used the language *was* the common meaning of the words at that time. Certainly a medieval European Christian would be unlikely to accept criticism from a non-Christian; but the non-Christians of the time were foreigners or the fringes of society. Criticism from such elements has been discounted in many, if not most, societies throughout human history.
<< 7. Doctrine over person, making the doctrine "more important than the individual. Experiences which contradict the doctrine must be ignored or reinterpreted." >>
This undoubtedly fits some groups within Christianity. I don't think it fits American Christianity as a whole. A great American Christian tradition is "church shopping". If a person finds that the church he is attending does not meet his needs, he is free to go find a different church that is a better fit. This always means a change in the church community. It sometimes means a change in the format of worship. It sometimes means a change in doctrine, as different Christian churches have differing doctrinal beliefs. In some cases, it means leaving Christianity entirely.
There are historical and current examples of segments of Christianity seeking to reinterpret experiences or evidence that contradict their doctrine. One of the better known historical examples is the Catholic church forcing Galileo to recant his theory that the earth moves around the sun, because it contradicted the then-current doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe. In some respects, the current furor over "intelligent design" resembles the medieval Christian church's opposition to Galileo's orbital theories. News flash: American Christianity is not a unified whole on the subject of intelligent design. Some elements of Christianity believe strongly in intelligent design and feel threatened by any claim that it is not good science. Other elements of Christianity are comfortable with the theory of evolution and do not feel that current secular scientific theories are threating to their faith.
Some unchurched secular people might see this criterion as fitting American Christianity as a whole. I can respect that opinion, held from a secular viewpoint. I don't agree with it myself. It is too easy for a modern American to choose to leave all Christian churches for me to think that this criterion has major force in Christianity as a whole.
I do think that did apply to medieval European Christianity, as illustrated by the Galileo example. What makes things very different today is that there is no single Christian church with authority or power to compel religious statments from people who do not believe them, and that there is no social stigma associated with not being a church member.
<< 8. "Dispensing of Existence -- The group claims the authority to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually taken figuratively, but means that the group considers non-members to be unspiritual, damned, evil, or the like. Occasionally a group decides that it has the right to kill outsiders. In any case, this elitist attitude often results in the shunning of members who choose to leave the group. It also helps to create a fear of leaving, because to leave results in damnation, failure, or some other disaster." >>
This undoubtedly applies to some groups within Christianity. It does not apply to current American Christianity as a whole. Many elements of Christianity are active in ecumenical activities including Jewish, Muslim, and occaisonally other religious groups. Many elements of Christianity make it a point to engage in activities that serve the disadvantaged elements of society--elements that include numerous non-Christian people.
Perhaps "fear of leaving" part of this criterion would apply to current American Christianity if it were not for the existence of a major portion of American society as a secular, unchurched people. It's very easy to leave a Christian church in America. You simply stop attending church on Sunday. You don't even have to ask that your name be dropped from membership. It's socially acceptable to live 50 weeks a year as if you're an atheist, and attend church on Christmas and Easter. From there it's a very easy step to drop attendance on Christmas and Easter.
I think this one definitely applied to medieval European Christianity. Excommunication and the interdict were very real eccesiastical threats, that people took very seriously. Non-attendance at church was closely aligned with non-participation in medieval society.
<< My question to you is this: Would you say that Christianity, which implies or demands all of these criteria, is also a cult, as defined above, and a mind-controlling doctrine and practice? >>
I'll give you a three part answer:
1) Christianity as it exists today in America is not a cult. IMO, Christianity as a whole does not fit any of the criteria. I see room for honest disagreement about this on criteria #5 and #6, but I can't see any reasonable way to make American Christianity fit the majority of these criteria.
2) There are undoubtedly some groups with American Christianity that will fit most or all of these criteria and are cults. Some of the groups that fit these criteria will be small and escape national attention unless they do something dramatic like the Branch Davidians. (The notoriety of the Branch Davidians stems in part from secular decisions made by the government, but that's not relevant to the discussion of what makes a cult.) There will be disagreement as to what groups are "within American Christianity". For example, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves Christians, but are not considered Christians by some other groups who self-identify as Christian.
3) I believe the medieval European Catholic church as it existed before the Protestant Reformation fit most, if not all, of the criteria. However, I question whether an organization that is effectively universal in its society can be considered a cult even if it does fit all these criteria. Would it not be more accurate to consider the cult-like aspects of the medieval Catholic church to be a fundamental part of European society of that era?
Hewitt
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your interesting analysis, Hewitt. I agree that most of Christianity today does not fit Lifton's criteria for thought reform. The Christian groups that are culitc represent a very small minority within Christianity.
I question whether an organization that is effectively universal in its society can be considered a cult even if it does fit all these criteria.
Yes, an entire society can be considered cultic if it controls its people per Lifton's criteria. Lifton developed his criteria after studying both American POW's who came out of Chineese prison camps spouting pro-communist ideology and students in Chineese universities. The Chineese government was using the thought reform techniques to control both its prisoners and its students.
I haven't looked fully into this, but I have heard several times that the current leader of N. Korea can be considered a cult leader using secular standards like Lifton's. That's one of the things that makes him so dangerous regarding nuclear technology. The leader of Iran is also scary in this regard if you've heard his apocalyptic views and if, as some have said, he believes that he has a part to play in the apocalypse. (Sorry, I don't have any references on hand to give you on this.) By the way, I recently heard on the news that he has banned all western words from Iran (for instance, "pizza" has been given a new name that doesn't remind the people of Iran that it came from outside of Iran. This is an example of milieu control.)
I don't mean to get onto which societies are and are not culitc. My point is that it IS possible for a society to be cultic if has an authoritarian leadership with the means to impose and maintain control over its people.
|
|
|
|