Is your church culty?

I used, or perhaps misused, the term cult on a message board one time and was told that an established denomination or church cannot be a cult. Period. I told the person I disagreed, to which I was told, "Well, then you'd be wrong." Wikipedia has a nice article on cults that I think would have shed some light on that disagreement, but I've been doing some thinking on my own since then.

The author of the aforementioned article states that "Secular cult opponents tend to define a 'cult' as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members." That definition seems like a pretty good one to me, but when most people think of a cult they think of David Koresh, Heaven's Gate or The Family International. People figure that since their churches don't fit into the same category as those groups that they must be okay. Most people think that a cult is a cult and everything else isn't. If our health was like that we'd either be 100 percent healthy or dead.

The Wikipedia article lists these "key steps" to indoctrinating people into a cult. I will put some of my thoughts about each one and how other groups can act culty.

People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations.

My experience has been that the religious group in question doesn't necessarily put the person in distress. The person might be in distress because of things going on in his personal life. This can present a golden opportunity for said religious group.

Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized.

If a religious leader or group keeps emphasizing a particular sin or shortcoming in your life, then you might have a problem. It could be that a person is a drug user and that repeated drug use results in a host of problems for the person. In that case the person's problems can be reduced to one simple explanation. However, some religious leaders will put a label on you. That label will serve to invalidate any opinions or objections you raise.

They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader.

So often a culty church's pastor or head clergyman will make himself available more than you'd think practical or healthy. They want you to talk and talk and talk some more so that you will tell him something he can hang over your head later. Another article I read refers to "love bombing" in which the initiate is overwhelmed with love. They "kill you with kindness" as someone once said. But, if you stray from their way of thinking that love will disappear.

They get a new identity based on the group.

Some churches will give a baptismal name or something like that, but I've seen that become almost like a game. The person gets to be like a sci-fi character who finds a magic robe or wand and is all of the sudden someone else.

They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.

I've seen them get rid of their TVs and talk about how useless it is to be informed about current events. I've seen them dress like they stepped off the stage of a really low budget production of "A Christmas Carol" and I've seen them act so zealous about their religion that they can't talk about anything else. These things tend to push people away. It's sort of self-alienation.

Cults are usually based on a charismatic leader. I've actually seen a culty church operate under two models mentioned in the article. The psycho-pathological model is one in which the leader has a problem and tries to solve the problem through the members. I've actually seen this and experienced it. Also, there is the social model in which people cut themselves off more and more from people who aren't affiliated with the group. One church I used to attend bought some property out in the boonies and intends to build a church there. That's fine, but then they've talked about building a little subdivision out there for their members.

Here are some more practical examples of how a church can be culty based on the above criteria. Again, a church does not have to meet all of the above to be a cult or to be culty.

Your church might be culty if ...

You have to discuss your decision to go to a relative or friend's wedding or funeral with your leader to make sure he is okay with it.

Younger women or girls are encouraged to marry older men so that at least they have their faith in common.

You start to feel isolated from your family, friends or society because the holidays or religious observances keep you out of sync with your family or friends.

You know people who go by a completely different name at church than at home or work. It's not just a different name but it is actually seen as a different identity.

People seek to engage not in dialogue with non-members but in arguments to defend their religion against perceived attacks.

What married couples can do in the bedroom and even when they can do those things is prescribed. A discussion with the leader might be required to hammer out all the do's and don'ts.

Your leader sends you a letter or email filled with flower language but really doesn't say anything. Speech and writing is often grandiose with no content.

You want to get married, but your leader must "interview" your intended marriage partner to make sure he feels it would be a good match. He has veto power.

People are denied serving on councils or committees because of some sin or another. Sure, we shouldn't let a kleptomaniac be the treasurer or an alcoholic maintain the sacramental wine inventory, but often the logic isn't that clear. Often people just get a label and a second class citizenship status just because they opposed some edict of the leader.

If you have a different opinion and you're told that you're jealous or angry just because of your disagreement.

Is your church culty? I'd think about it if I were you.

Really?

This is a quote from a blog I visit from time to time.

"... not including (my church), which is my Faith, not an 'obsession.'"

Really?

Inclusive?

The last Episcopal church that I attended is a beautiful stone building with priceless stain glass windows and wood carvings that are truly unique in this country. I was told that one other church in the U.S. had carving by this particular artist, but that church burned. The worship style at this church is decidedly Anglo-Catholic or "high church." If a couple is planning to be married the banns of marriage are read. That means that the priest will announce on three separate Sundays that Joe Blow and Jane Doe intend to be married and that persons knowing why these two should be be married should tell what they know. But why?

Reasons for not allowing two people to get married have changed over the years, but some of them might include being too closely related, one person being married already and so forth. Most Episcopal churches I've visited or attended do not follow this old practice anymore. I think the fact that this one still follows the practice is a bit odd, but now that the Episcopal Church has done that they did I think the practice is completely unnecessary.

Recently the Episcopal Church approved a measure to allow gays, lesbians and those living in committed relationships (shacking) to be ordained to the diaconate, the priesthood or the episcopacy. You can read this story for more detail. Huw's post on this matter and the following discussion is pretty interesting too, though I'm not 100 percent proud of my contributions. Apparently the bishops and lay delegates also decided to make it possible for gays and lesbians to be married in the Episcopal Church.

I'm bothered that the local media has been silent on what I believe is the most monumental decision the Episcopal Church has made since 1976 when they began ordaining women to the priesthood. Unlike this decision, however, I can't quite figure out what this actually does to the status of TEC in regards to its authenticity as a Christian body. I can accept women priests and have received their sacraments. Neither the arguments for or against the ordination of women to any kind of ministry impress me, so I have no reason to discount the validity of their ministry. However, this decision goes against 2,000 years of Christian moral theology. I'm upset.

It's very hard being me when it comes to religion. I really feel that structured contemplative worship is something I feel fed by, and I believe that sacramental theology is also important. Even the Baptist church I've been visiting lately has some quasi-sacramental tendencies. I'm what you might call a lower case "c" catholic. I don't believe that pope is infallible and I don't believe that there is one absolute true church that everyone must belong to in order to be saved. I don't necessarily feel comfortable with confession because of experiences I've had and I don't feel that I must run spiritually related decisions by a member of the clergy. I guess I like a middle ground. That middle ground is officially gone. Oh, sure there are other Anglican churches around. There are three Anglican churches whose bishops are in Africa, but the two I've visited don't seem to respect Anglican worship. There is an Anglican Catholic mission in the area, but I have some misgivings about them too.

The real middle ground is gone. They've totally and completely given themselves over to the dark side in my opinion. They have pleased the world. They want to include everyone even though they want to relegate those who disagree with them to a second class status. They want to shock and horrify their opponents. Well, where is Christ in all of this? And, was it announced in very many Episcopal churches today that from now on gays, lesbians and cohabitants will be eligible for ordination? Was it announced that gay marriages in TEC may very well be a reality? No, it was probably mentioned that "We did a lot of work for the Kingdom and we're all very eager to get to work here at home. "A lot of decisions were made and a lot of things happened. We all made a lot of friends at General Convention. We sang kumba ya and life is good." Yeah, let's just keep quiet about what really happened.

Religious holiday?

First I saw on facebook that Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus was planning to con-celebrate the Eucharist with ELCA Bishop Mark Holmerud before the gay pride parade. Then St. Paul's Episcopal Church on the Hill (because somehow I'm on that church's facebook list) sent me an invitation to some gay pride event, and finally Huw posted a sermon I believe he preached at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

Has this become some kind of religious observance right along with Easter or Christmas? Seriously? Celebrating the Eucharist before taking part in the gay pride parade?

New policies

Recently I commented on another blog about some religious issues he'd blogged about. Another reader responded to my comment and linked to a post he'd written about something I mentioned. Though it was a rather tame argument, it did become somewhat of an argument. I'm afraid that arguing about religion, especially on line, is really a dumb thing to do.

Not far from where I live there is a minister who believes that if a person is not reading the 1611 Authorized King James Version of the Bible he/she isn't reading the Bible at all. Surely, if this pastor has been to seminary, he realizes that the KJV hot off the press in 1611 included items like the first two books of the Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Bel to name a few. These aren't books that I've heard many Protestant ministers recommend. But, from what I can tell this pastor isn't one for discussion.

So often people have their own ideas about their faith and nothing anyone does or says will change their minds. I've seen blog posts and essays on line about fasting and other spiritual disciplines in which sweeping judgmental statements are made. People are criticized for not agreeing with the blogger's position. These practices must be practiced according to the letter of the law or else those who fail to do so may be in deep trouble. Often, though not always, the clergy of these churches allow for grace and leniency.

The new policies:

Henceforth I will not be discussing or arguing with these people anymore. They have no authority over me even if I did attend their churches. That does not mean I will not discuss faith/religion on line, but I will not get sucked into debate with people who have no authority over me.

Secondly, I may request that the person give me an email address of his/her priest, minister, rabbi or whatever so that I may discuss the issue with that clergyperson. In many cases I suspect that the spiritual director, if there even is one, would be very disappointed at the things folks are saying on their blogs. I suspect that the bloggers in question would be ashamed or embarrassed to have their pastors read the narrow views expressed in their writing.

In all my days of arguing and discussing with members of one particular religious group -- a group that really stresses a strong relationship with one's spiritual director -- not once did anyone ever say, "You know, this discussion is going places I'm not sure about. I will confer with (spiritual director) and get back with you on this." Not once. Very telling I think. So, if you're willing to include your spiritual director in the conversation, we might move forward (if I decide to violate new police No. 1). Otherwise, no dice.

So angry!

Not me. No, right now I can't say that I'm angry about anything and I hope to keep it that way. I know that prior to Barak Obama's election as president that many conservatives, including Roman Catholics, said that Obama was the wrong choice for president. Enough folks, including Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians disagreed. The fact that a small minority of Catholics, claiming the title "authentic Catholics," would have us believe that they speak for all Catholics, and the fact that not all people of faith agree on everything, are subjects for another post.

Lately, I've heard a lot of conservatives on the radio talking about Obama as if he were the anti-Christ foretold in the Apocalypse of St. John 13:17-18. Others have practically labeled him a communist. It just seems as though this nation is becoming more and more divided each day. I do not agree with Obama or the Democrats on every issue. In fact, there are many issues I don't agree about just as I don't agree with Republicans on many issues. What concerns me, however, is the level of anger and, dare I say, hatred people have for our president.

Some of it I believe is racism, pure and simple. They're angry that an African American won the presidency. Also, many people are angry that the Republican Party failed to retain its control over the White House and Congress. Who better to be angry at than the Democrats?

What this nation needs now more than ever is reconciliation and cooperation. Both sides will have to give a little, which means that giving nothing and expecting the other side to give it all is not going to work. Remember that people called FDR a socialist. That is the same thing people are calling Obama.

R.C.T.J.W.F.

I've just opened another one of the selections we picked up at Trader Joe's last weekend. It's R.C.T.J.W.F. 2006 Petite Sirah. The Acronym stands for "Really Cool Trader Joe's Wine Find," and I think it lives up to it's name. The label, which you'll see if you follow the link, looks like a post-it note. Nice.