Cultism Abounds

Is Armstrongism a mind-control cult? Yes. Without a doubt in my mind. According to Lifton's 'criteria for thought control' defining cult behavior, it meets 8 out of his 8 criteria.

The 8 criteria are:

1) Milieu Control: (which I will summarize as) control of human interaction and access to information.

2) Mystical Manipulation: (which I will summarize as) orchestrating events to appear as if they were spontaneous in order to obtain some desired reaction, or interpreting events to make them conform to the beliefs.

3) Demand for Purity: (which I will summarize as) "us vs them" mentality, with "us" as the ideal, and a conformity to a standard set by the group.

4) Confession: (which I will summarize as) expecting confessions of guilt, which are then used against the confessor for manipulation.

5) Sacred Science: (which I will summarize as) 'sacred' doctrines exist that may not be questioned.

6) Loading the Language: (which I will summarize as) words are redefined and used in one way to the initiated, but mean something else to the rest of the world.

7) Doctrine Over Person: (which I will summarize as) the doctrines of the group are more true and more important than the adherents themselves and their experiences. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, the doctrine is right, and you are confused if you don't agree.

8) Dispensing of Existence: (which I will summarize as) your credibility is tied to the group, agree with the cult or you are dead to them.

Religion itself is, probably more than any other thing, subject to the pulls of cultism. When I think "cult", I think "religious cult". Armstrongism fits ...and if you disagree, you're dead to me. [joking] But it isn't just Armstrongism by any means that deserves the title "cult". No one should debate that.

A friend of mine recently told me that he left the seminary because he realized the Catholic Church is a cult. After 14 years of dedicated service to the Catholic Church as a missionary overseas and a seminarian for the priesthood, he read"Take Back Your Life, Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationaships" by Janja Lalich. This book had several more than just 7 points; I believe the number he mentioned was 27, but I don't recall. In my friend's well-informed opinion, his own church met all but one of those points.

He realized how strangling the atmosphere was. In his view, the church was not interested in growing and developing the individual, rather changing the individual to meet a predetermined ideal. He feels that centuries of changing this or that, and adding new rituals and whatnot, had obscured the core fundamentals of the church. Everything was planned out and prescribed. Failure to meet a point was dealt with punitively. He felt strangled. His faith suffered in every way. Only after he left did he regain his bearings and a close relationship with God.

A sizable group of his friends left as well, at the same time for the same reasons, but none of them knew the other was leaving. All felt similarly. And all felt much closer to God once they were free. He recounted to me that one of his friends remained in seminary, and he is quickly heading down the road to atheism.

In the end, although my friend remains a Catholic and retains his love for what he sees as the fundamental truths at the core of the Catholic Church, he could no longer pursue a life dedicated to an official service of the church.

Throughout the conversation my jaw was on the floor. I was shocked at what he told me. Although the details differed, it was the exact same story of my leaving Armstrongism. It even included a dangerous bout with temptation once freedom was achieved. Thank God he overcame! What he went through and what I went through were the exact same, only completely different. (Wrap your noodle around that one! *wink*)

I was scarcely prepared for what he was telling me. If the oldest continuous "Christian" church was a cult, at least in the leadership, with most all other churches today tracing their roots to it, then which church could be the "right" church? My answer to my own question is that I am confusing my definition of "church" with God's. There is one true church. It is not any denomination or building or corporate entity. I am coming to accept that it consists of people, wherever they may be, that have real faith in Jesus Christ, have Him in their hearts and lives, and who demonstrate that through living in a moral and loving way as motivated by the Holy Spirit's presence. The fine details of what they believe on this or that topic may differ, but when the core is right the rest is ultimately gravy on top. I am merely conditioned to think there is "one true denomination" and that they all should agree on most every little thing, even though that isn't so. (I still have a good amount of Christian growth to go through. I consider myself to be only starting out.)

But that got me to thinking. I thought back to a conversation I had a few months back with another friend of mine. We were enjoying some excellent hamburgers and talking about Armstrongism when he noted to me (something along the lines of) "liberalism is a cult and uses cult tactics".

I hadn't thought of it that way before. When I thought about it enough, I have to admit that I agree. Not only about the Democrats, but the Republicans too, and a good deal of other such things. Even Lifton mentions this.

How much similarity is there in the world around me regarding those cult tactics I personally witnessed in Armstrongism? What shocks me is the great many other things that act identically to, or perhaps even rightfully deserve to be called, a "cult". A cult is defined by methods and behaviors, not beliefs. Take science for example -- more specifically evolutionary science.

Even though access to dissenting information isn't generally a problem, there is a form of Milieu Control in that everything is expected to be "peer reviewed" or else it doesn't count whatsoever. When challenged, the first question from any experienced evolutionist will be, "From which peer reviewed journal did you get that information?" This question is designed to shut down any further conversation. Problem being, in order to be peer reviewed, a work is expected to be submitted by "credentialed" persons in the first place. By "credentials" I mean a degree in some field of science. Getting the proper creds from an acceptable institution can be nigh impossible without adherence to the overall doctrine. So, submissions are usually only by adherents to evolution. People have lost their jobs for allowing non-evolution articles into a journal. Articles must be submitted for approval to a body of what I would term "gatekeepers of the faith", to be approved it must be "politically correct" according to the standards of the day, and it must uphold the general ideology in one way or the other. 

For an example, read this article about the experiences of Dr. Richard Sternberg.

His experience is well documented in plenty more places than just this. 

I mention that this is documented in other places because of another form of milieu control, which is a bias against the source of information. Even though the source of a fact has no bearing on its actual truthfulness, I have heard ever and anon that such and such source is biased, or Christian, or right-wing, or this or that, and therefore untrustworthy. And why? Because the information is wrong? No. This is a form of self-imposed milieu control. This is no different in any way from how, when I was an Armstrongist, I was completely biased against mainstream Christian sources. Was I right? No. I was simply biased, and illogically so. It was milieu control on a personal level.

As far as Mystical Manipulation goes, there are several examples. The common usage of the words "maybe", "perhaps", "could", etc, are dead giveaways that a scientist is attempting to interpret facts to fit a preconceived notion, as opposed to letting the facts speak for themselves. In this, everything is interpreted as "proof" for evolution. But I think it best to illustrate my point with a few hoaxes. 

The single most popular hoax in scientific history is that of the Piltdown Man, where evolutionists rigged an archaeological dig to build an entire civilization from a pig's tooth. Or perhaps you recall Earnst Heckel's drawings of embryos; a well known hoax which still appears in textbooks to this day. Maybe you've heard of the deliberate deception of Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, who so seriously influenced the scientific time lines that Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered his lies, said, "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago."

We complain loudly about false prophets and televangelists, but that sort exist anywhere a liar can deceive the faithful -- even science. Scientists are supposed to be above all this in their pursuit of pure truth, yet they are not. Not at all.

More importantly to us in this day is the claim that global warming is caused by man rather than the giant nuclear furnace a million times the size of our planet parked 8 light minutes from here.

This claim is no doubt going to open a can of worms larger than I can personally handle (thus proving my point), so please refer all comments and attempts at milieu control directly to the Heartland International Conference, where "...about 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives...", global warming skeptics all, will handle your questions and concerns.

On to Demand for Purity. This "us vs them" mentality is rampant among evolutionists. How exceedingly many times have I and my fellows been harassed for our faith in Jesus Christ. So very often I have had to sit and listen to screed after endless, embittered screed about some chap by the name of "Jebus". I have been called "unintelligent", "uneducated", "unreasonable", "illogical", "backwards, "medieval", a "flat-earther", and the list goes ever on and on. The vulgarity employed offends reason. Yet vitriol is not reason nor are epithets logical. However, what they are is intolerance for differing views other than their own sacred science, and they are a dead giveaway for cultish behavior.

Aside from these ad hominem personal attacks, there is constant pressure within the group to conform. Conformity is non-negotiable. Take Al Gore's common statements for example. Often he says something like "the debate is over", or "all scientists agree". If a scientist doesn't agree, immediately Mr. Gore et al attack their credibility and accuses them of being paid off by "big oil" or some other such bogey man. I see so often when an evolutionary point is challenged, immediately the credibility of the challenger is brought into question. Keep in mind, these attacks are not proof, not reason, not logic, not debate, but ideology plain and simple. And they are classic cultism!

I'll skip confession and go on to Sacred Science. I need say nothing more than "evolution is a proven fact". You know you've heard it. You may even have said it.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (and former evolutionist), challenges it regularly, and suffers constant attacks for it. Intelligent Design (also sarcastically referred to as "unintelligent design") is not proposed and supported by clods, but by credentialed and genuine scientists who simply disagree with the core sacred science. Their arguments are not faith-based but science-based. However, the faithful adherents will claim that the sacred science is non-negotiable and unquestionable and if you do not adhere to the sacred science then you are not a scientist at all. (I have more to say about that in the next section.) But again, notice how this claim neither proves evolution nor disproves ID. It does prove cult-like behavior, though.

This seguays nicely into Loaded Language. Political correctness, that great tradition of the left, is pure loaded language. Loaded language is rampant in the scientific community. They can immediately tell the uninitiated by the language and phraseology. For instance the word "theory"; it means something completely different to a scientist.

Even the very word "science" has become loaded language. "Science" has been presented to the public as the pursuit of truth, but in all actuality the cultish behavior of certain leading evolutionary scientists in particular have morphed "science" into a word meaning "evolutionary science", or in other words "the pursuit of evolution as opposed to unbiased truth". In fact, "science" is almost universally agreed to be a pursuit of a natural explanation for observed phenomena. In that, they preclude any involvement in God because God is not 'natural' but 'supernatural'. This is purely ideological as opposed to factual. Should there be a God, then truth is not at all what scientists pursue but rather a way to explain things without God. In the loaded language, they become correct to say that Michael Behey, for example, is not a true "scientist". No, nor either is anyone else, credentialed or not, who fails to adhere to the sacred science of evolution. Anyone keeping open the possibility of a God is by loaded-definition not a "scientist" because "science" is exclusively natural with no possibility of supernatural. The defense is that science can only test what is testable and God is not testable. I would be sympathetic to that definition if it weren't for these same scientists making untestable claims nigh daily. Just as an example, science itself cannot be tested by science. William Layne Craig has a list of things science cannot test, but you bet yourself scientists make claims about things in the list all the same.

The core sacred science is another loaded word, meaning evolution. For when we say evolution we do not generally mean "gradual change over time", but we actually are referring to macroevolution, which is roughly "the change of one taxonomic group into a new taxonomic group over time". Some scientists will deny the existence of the phrase macroevolution, but it is quite necessary to have around. The goal is to say, "evolution is a proven fact". While no one denies microevolution is proven, macroevolution on the other hand is hotly debated in all points. Indeed, all adherents of ID, and most Creationists, believe in evolution -- so long as we define it as "change over time". My take on this is that we used to call this "change" or "adaptation", but in order to promote greater acceptance to the word, "evolution" was relatively recently morphed into a catch-all phrase. Word games, loaded language, and cultism abound!

Doctrine Over Person is a no-brainer in evolutionary science. If a scientist... err, I take that back because in the loaded language one is not a scientist if one does not adhere to the sacred science of macroevolution... if a 'person doing research' (there, that's better) somehow sees something other than evidence for macroevolution, then obviously that one is mistaken. (At the risk of beating a dead horse, remember when the Coelacanth was proof for macroevolution? And if you thought otherwise, you were "unintelligent" or "uneducated", etc.)

Of course it is circular reasoning. Since it was foreordained and established that macroevolution is a "proven fact", then all evidence must point to macroevolution. It's so simple! For a plain and brief example stated more succinctly than I possibly could, I refer you to this article on the topic by Joesph Farah. (This does not constitute an endorsement of WorldNet Daily.)

"Name for me one thing that explains the evidence better than evolution!", I have been challenged. Well, if your mind is already made up, then nothing can convince and nothing will. It's no different than trying to talk about how Herbert Armstrong was a false prophet with an Armstrongist. Why should I waste my time about it?

And finally we come to Dispensing of Existence. I've already described how if a person doesn't adhere to the sacred science then the attacks begin. One is carpet bombed with all sorts of epithets, credentials are questioned, reputation is demolished, and even in cases like Dr. Richard Sternberg, careers are destroyed. And that poor fella is still a devout evolutionist. He merely committed the unpardonable sin of allowing an ID paper to be reviewed for Pete's sake. His existence was all but dispensed in his community. They completely rejected him.

The idea is, if you aren't a "scientist" (ie. if you are not "us") then you and all you could bring to the table simply do not count a whit. You no longer exist. I have experience with this. I once wrote a letter to a professor at the University of Minnesota. I merely wanted to compliment him on a paper he had written. I gave him no inkling of my scientific beliefs or background. He didn't care. He, recognizing my lack of loaded language, absolutely and without remorse tore me up one side and down the other. That's a fine how do ya do! He assumed I wasn't "us", and he could care less whether I was alive or dead.
All I wanted to do was compliment him. Cultism confirmed!

And that is just my opinion of how evolutionary science can be a cult. I've only just skimmed the surface. For an interesting look at how it is also faith-based, I highly recommend the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist."

As far as the sweeping generality goes that I am labeling everyone who believes in evolution as a cultist, I am not (cultism is a behavior, not a belief, remember?). Nor either have I made any declaration whether evolution is right or wrong. I merely take the methods and behaviors of many who have taken it upon themselves to represent evolution and hold them up as examples of ways cultish behavior can be seen outside of religion.

But don't think my look into cults stops there by any means. Evolutionary science was just one example of many. Cults can be found all around. Liberals (aka "Leftists", etc) can equally as much be shown to regularly use these same cultish tactics and match these same cult criteria. I'm not picking on leftists, the right (usually the Republican Party specifically) often does the same thing. Oh, there are some frighteningly cult-like uber-Republicans out there. Politics has devolved into a spectator sport, and the fans of one team or another couldn't care less which candidate is actually best, but which has a 'D' or and 'R' behind their name. Their team must win at all cost. Hence our very government here in the United States has become a battleground between cultish extremist with radical left-wing national socialist totalitarians on one side and virulent right-wing capitalist pigs on the other. Their ideological tug-of-war is tearing the nation apart while the people cheer on with religious fervor. Meanwhile, it is the reasonable, libertarian-minded center that is demeaned as "kooky"; being pictured as people with tinfoil hats. Nobody loves a moderate. It's madness!

Everything when taken to an extreme becomes a danger. Aristotle was correct to teach moderation in all things. The Bible teaches temperance in all things (I COR. 9: 25). Cultish behavior appears to me to arise from misplaced faith, overactive zeal, with a healthy dose of pride and intolerance thrown in. Perhaps the challenge is to believe what you believe, and deeply if that suits you, but allow for others to disagree.

The sad part as I see it is that many who leave the Armstrongist cult only end up exchanging that cult for another equally mind-controlling cult. They say they are free, but talk is cheap. The proof is in their unresolved anger issues. I may even have inadvertently offended a few of them here. Offense was never my intent. I really just wanted to expose the dangers of cultism in unexpected places in the hopes that we will all take a deep, introspective look at ourselves, recognize the signs of cultism in our own lives, and God willing we should regain our senses.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom.

************