[OBW]

The problem with some of these points is, just as SC has pointed out, they exist at some level all over society without there being any cult, aberration, or abuse. The problem is in degrees.

There is a greater discussion than the condition of the LC going on in Christianity concerning the so-called “Emerging Church” movement and more significantly the “Emergent” subset of that. I read a book recently that, in James Fennimore Cooper style, listed a page and a half of potential characteristics (all in one sentence) that are indicative of Emerging churches. Every church in America, no, in the world fits into some of these, even the LC. But most are not Emerging Churches.

The same applies to many of the statements Nell has provided. The problem is that finding some evidence of an item or two on the list does not create proof of abuse, or a cult. It requires evidence of a level of such trait(s) in which abuse is actually in play.

Tiger Woods has a following that probably qualifies as a personality cult at some level. But they are not going to burn the clubhouse at PebbleBeach when Woods doesn’t win, or riot in the streets when he does. It takes more than a label for it to have the meaning we seek to establish.

That is our job. It is not to apply the label at any level, but to establish that it is, or is not at a sufficient enough level to warrant concern, or some negative label.