What defines a cult? Are you in one?!

When we think of a cult, most people think of the crazy and harmful ones, but the origin of the word "cult" comes from the Latin word cultus, which connotes all that is involved in worship- ritual, emotion, liturgy, and attitude. So what at their best could a cult be? A harmless group.

Groups can be sociological cults and/or theological cults; being labeled "a cult" does not necessarily mean the group is dangerous. Cult groups can have either a notably positive or negative perception. There are many, many groups that would fall under the blanket description of a cult, but pose no psychological, emotional, physical or spiritual threat to their members.

To be defined as a dangerous cult though, a group must possess a certain number of sociological or theological characteristics associated with already known dangerous cult groups. So let's take a familiarly bad cult, and analyze the elements that made it a cult, or different then "mainstream religion.".

Ever heard of Jim Jones?

He was a man of charisma and a speaker that was able to stir emotion in people. His beliefs were predominantly Methodist, but he was greatly influenced by a Baptist Revival he attended, noting that religious revivals were the means toward social change.

He stood at the pulpit and preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He used Christian terminology so that his messages felt familiar and comfortable. In the 1960’s though Jones started making his elitism known, stating that anyone who was not a member of his group "the People’s Temple" were “drugged with the opiate of religion and had to be brought to enlightenment.”

Jones was able to gain public support and contact with prominent local and national United States politicians; and he also forged media alliances with key columnists and others at the San Francisco Chronicle and other media outlets.

With publicity also comes media scrutiny and it was a 1977 article in New West Magazine in which previous People’s Temple members were interviewed and claimed to have been physically, sexually and emotionally abused by Jones, that made him immediately move his group to Guyana, wherein he officially named the place, “Jonestown.” Jones denied the allegations and then ran and hid.

 By moving his group to Guyana, to establish what became known as Jonestown, he took drastic measures to separate his members from outsiders, whom he felt would distract and lead astray his members. Jones created an “us” versus “them” complex against those not belonging in the group and viewed outsiders as spiritually inferior or to have fallen under the deception of the enemy.

Jones used the influence of hypnotic states, purposefully inducing a state of manipulative mind control through repetitive chanting, continuous singing, and meditation.

Jones encouraged a lack of prolonged privacy. If a member tried to seek out too much alone time, or vacations from church, they were reminded of this verse, Hebrews 10:25 …”not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” and via peer pressure, and guilt were pulled back into regular church activity:

Speaking of peer pressure, members of Jonestown were encouraged to share personal secrets/sins in front of other group members and in written journals that were used as a source of intimidation. He promoted accountability among friends, which, in essence encourages peer pressure to go with the flow and not question. He knew that pushing peers to hold one another accountable, it promoted peer pressure and a fear of being judged and ridiculed. Fear, ironically, builds deeper unity in a group.

Jones would give long lectures and schedule long prayer and worship sessions in order to tire and confuse minds. Food deprivation/fasting, coupled with sleep deprivation from long hours in the prayer room and studying as well as sermons in church, leave the mind wide open for manipulation. When a person is greatly fatigued and hungry, it can make them vulnerable to normally offensive beliefs and suggestions.

Jones placed rules on social relationships, allowing members to marry only other members and deny all other familial relationships. . .using verses about being "unequally yolked together with unbelievers", and needing to be willing to "hate your mother and father" in order to enter into the kingdom. (He also encouraged sexual relations between the members to enhance their fellowship.)

Jones went after the youth, the naïve. He wanted the outcast, the introverted, the lonely and the misunderstood because he offered them something no one else can: belonging, purpose, and community.

Jones enforced financial dependency, ensuring member’s personal assets were donated to his group, and making them less likely to be able to leave.

Questioning the authority of Jim Jones resulted in punishment, both psychological and physical. They were ignored by peers, ostracized, threatened, and sometimes hurt punished physically as well.

Source

So a quick rehash of those traits show cults having their origins with:

• A charisma speaker that was able to stir emotion in people toward social change.
• Used familiar terminology and was based on Christian/popular thoughts.
• Was elitist, believing the other religions of the time needed enlightenment.
• Sought publicity to get social change.
• Leader sought to segregate his group from "The world", fearing the bad influence or exposure.
• Had a shared purse, encouraged tithing to the church. Sometimes cults also encourage dependency and accountability with communal work, or "brothers of the church" working only with other brothers to not be "unequally yolked" in business relationships. 
• The use of hypnotic and suggestive chanting, singing and meditation/prayer.
• Pressure to be in the church whenever it's doors were open. 
• Pressure to open up your private life via prayer meetings, prayer journals and accountability partners.
• Long sermons
• Fasting encouraged or mandated for spirituality.
• Strict rules about dating being only with likeminded people of the cult.
• Strict social rules of conduct, often involving what the members can eat or drink even, as well as how they should dress.
• Caters to the poor, needy, young, vulnerable, naive, outcasts, etc.
• Didn't allow questioning of the leader, as he was said to be sent from God to the masses. . .although sometimes his own family disagreed.

These characteristics were shared by all the classic cults it seems; Charles Manson, David Koresh, the group at Waco, Tx. . . .It seems one leader stands out to me though. He undoubtedly preached all those things, and did all those things, as do his followers still today. Can you guess his name? Surprise, it's Jesus! 

So, if cults are bad because of those things, and Jesus fits the bill for the worst of the cult leaders of all time, then either all that still follow his teachings are in a cult, or a Christian will need to redefine a cult as not a bad thing. Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle.

So, looking deeper in an unbiased way at cults, we see that according to Rationalwiki,  "Cult" can be a Snarl Word applied to unpopular religions, and was used up until the middle of the 20th century to describe any sort of movement, religious or otherwise, that had an element of in-group/out-group to it.  In pop culture, cults are scary places where lost children go to be raped and murdered, where the recruits wander through airports chanting various 'ohms', and of course where people are brainwashed.

A bit more formally, the term is usually used to refer to religions (or other movements) whose beliefs or practices are not just "not what we do", but are seen by the culture at large, as truly bizarre. . .does that mean that culture is always right though? I'd say a resounding NO!  I see all cult leaders to have seen a need for social change, and gone about to do it in ways that seemed best to them. . .

 "A cult is any religious group too small to field its own army or without political power." This was the case with every new movement, including the one Jesus originally led. It seems obvious to me that the members of the sect called Christians were seen as a cult by their culture for a long time, and consequently mocked for it. So simply because it has been around long enough to be seen as normal to society, does not make it any less of a cult then the rest, nor should a Christian get uppity about how much more sense their cult makes, then say, one based off of a newer leaders' agenda for social change. All religion was a cult at one time, and if you are going to accept and join one, you had better be accepting of the rest, and allow others the same choice with no judgment! Better yet though would be to ditch all the outdated ones like me, and/or start a new "cult" for social change! Hmm, I'll have to think up a good name for mine. . .;)

Source