Wait, It's A Cult?

[leastofthese]

I remember sitting in the front book room in “fellowship” with a full-time brother – who I truly enjoyed spending time with and respect as a brother in Christ – when he proactively defended the Church in XYZ as being a cult. I didn’t bring up the church being a cult, nor did our topic of discussion start to lean in that direction – but he defended this position like it wasn’t the first or last time that he would layout his argument.

I recently googled "definition of a cult" and one of the first results was an article from Christianity today. I don't know anything about this website, so I'm not claiming it to have authority or even provide an accurate or exhaustive definition. I just thought it was very interesting considering each point in relation to LSM denomination, LCs.

I was hoping that I could get help from this forum to compile quotes from the works of Witness Lee or experiences from the LC that drive home the validity of each statement below. I know that I have personally seen most of these first hand during my time in the LC.

All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

A new and better way. Cults often claim they've been given a "special revelation" from God that's superior to the Bible, or explains what the Bible is really trying to say.

Down on Christian doctrine. Cults often depict basic Christian doctrines and beliefs (like the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith) as "full of holes" and completely illogical.

Scriptures get an added twist. Bible verses are often taken out of context or twisted to mean something very different than what was originally intended.

"Christians are wrong." Cult members believe God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.

Works prove faith. Cult members often claim their good works are superior to those performed by Christians, and they say their works prove their religion is the one-and-only truth.

Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.

No exit. Leaving the cult is not an option, and intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf...n-of-cult.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Did the article refer to any verses from the New Testament to support this definition? I see many NT verses concerning false prophets and how to recognize them, but the only reference I see to a "cult" is the early church. Wasn't the early church referred to as a cult?

Couldn't you classify the Catholic church as a cult based on this definition with their "all knowing leadership"?

Couldn't you classify the Protestant churches as cults based on this definition with their "new and better way"?

Who judges if your interpretation is giving the scriptures "an added twist"? Wouldn't that be an "all knowing leadership"?

Didn't all Christian groups assert that prior understanding was wrong? Luther did that. Calvin did that. Who didn't?

It seems to me the true measuring stick is the apostle's fellowship. Do you receive it yes or no? The reason for such a complex and convoluted definition is because the authors know that on many different issues "fundamental" christian groups do not accept the apostle's fellowship.

[OBW]

And there Z goes again. If the word is not used in the scripture it can't be used.

The problem with looking at the list is that, by definition, there is an aspect of many of those in play for any Christian group. At least in a small way.

But to be a "cult of Christianity" it has to be something beyond the basic.

For example, having strong leadership that is followed is actually important. But leadership that is unwilling to accept question or criticism is a problem. Even the RCC is not as hard about things as the so-called local churches.

And there is a difference between a novel notion "springing" off of a scripture that is made into a "great idea." It is when it becomes an important doctrine held up as a differentiator or a "must believe" that it becomes a problem.

But when the special leader spends the bulk of his teaching emphasizing the differentiators — the peculiarities that others will not accept — and scares his people into staying or being "bankrupt" relative to Christ, then you are getting there.

Of course, using the term "cult" is problematic in discussions with the people who are mired in a system that you want to say is one. Just saying the word tends to cause their ears to close to further input. So even if it is a classic cult, there is little benefit in tossing the word around.

As a note, I recently heard my dad say that someone he used to do some service with at the LRC here would occasionally say that he was sure he was going to the little dark room for 1,000 years. That is the lot for anyone who is not just absolutely rock-solid on fire for the LRC. At least his understanding of it.

Some may argue that this is not the teaching of Lee or the LRC, but it must be because of the number of people who grind it out year-after-year, hanging on in the hopes of avoiding the LRC's purgatory. Or when they can't do it any more, they just give up on everything and stay home depressed. Hard to say that the definition of "cult" doesn't apply in a case like that. When so many of your members are in that kind of state, there is something seriously wrong and it isn't just those poor downtrodden members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did the article refer to any verses from the New Testament to support this definition? I see many NT verses concerning false prophets and how to recognize them, but the only reference I see to a "cult" is the early church. Wasn't the early church referred to as a cult?

Originally Posted by OBW

And there Z goes again. If the word is not used in the scripture it can't be used.

We have had this conversation for years.

ZNP has good reasons to adhere to the scriptures.

My reason for rejecting the C-label for the LC's is simple: Contemporary American semantics indicate that people's lives are at risk in cults. Over 90% of Americans do NOT consider Catholics, Mormons, or JW's to be cults. Branch Davidians, People's Temple, and Hale-Bops yes, but not Christian groups which have existed for decades without any signs of imminent danger.

Like ZNP and the Bible, we Christians should identify False Teachers and Prophets along with their false teachings and prophecies, rather than tagging whole collections of people. We also should expose evil deeds, especially by the leadership, which damage their mostly unsuspecting members, rather than group generalizations which are so easily disproved.

I think that more Americans see Islam as a religious cult than with any of these "mainstream" pseudo-Christian groups like the Mormons. One of them ran for president if you remember. If we "loosen" the cult definition to include all groups like the LC's, then we must include the RCC and every other abusive group.

The Christianity Today article does not describe "cults" per se, but congregations with abusive leaders that lord it over the church of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had this conversation for years.

I know we have. And if you really read what I said, it was that despite falling deep into the characteristics, using the term is not helpful. For the reasons I stated and the reasons you did including the popular thought that only the dangerous cults should have that title.

ZNP has good reasons to adhere to the scriptures.

I am not saying to ignore scriptures. But the position that the only way to see error is in the terms in which they are stated in the bible is to presume that the ways in which to err are limited to those seen in the bible.

The problem is that periodically someone will come across this as a potential discussion topic. And just as true as it is that the label drives off those we are trying to reach, just throwing up a brick wall to at least a brief discussion is equally dismissive to the ones who are considering it. Rather than just dumping on the subject, explain what is both right and wrong about it. Right in that it does collect a grouping of factors together. But wrong in that it shortcuts the discussion on specific issues into just a label.

Add to that the problem with those who will just turn us off because of the label and there is very good reason to try to keep the discussion short. Show why it is not a helpful endeavor. That some people read things into it that are not true is valid, but not the only reason to refrain. Make this discussion just like any other. Divorce the factors from a single discussion of a label by creating separate threads for each relevant factor. (Ignore the ones that simply don't apply.) Let the discussion find its way.

So, again, you are correct that dropping a MOAB (like the "c" word) into the discussion is rarely helpful. It mostly drives the lurkers away. Drake and Evangelical try hard to do that without us helping.

But equally problematic (and a little like a MOAB) is the declaration that the discussion should simply stop because we've has this discussion before or it is "unscriptural." A few of us have had the discussion. But if you look at the number of people observing v the number logged-in, I bet that many of them were not here when that happened. And despite the archives, I've gone back to find threads that I remember and sometimes can't find them. What about someone who doesn't know that we've covered this before? At least find it yourself and point them to it. If they end out posting to it, it is going to be on the front page again anyway.

We can't just lash out at the periodic discovery of the idea. It is worth more than a fight to shut it down. Make the case that "cult" doesn't just mean Branch Dividians or a Jonestown massacre. Make the case that while popular use of the term has limited its understanding and range of meaning, it is not so simple or extreme. Sort of like other words, such as "gay." (There's a whole decade in the 1800's that now has a moniker that is completely misunderstood.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know we have. And if you really read what I said, it was that despite falling deep into the characteristics, using the term is not helpful.

Sorry Bro. I read your first and last paragraphs and assumed the rest.

So much for my training in writing class eons ago.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

A new and better way. Cults often claim they've been given a "special revelation" from God that's superior to the Bible, or explains what the Bible is really trying to say.

Down on Christian doctrine. Cults often depict basic Christian doctrines and beliefs (like the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith) as "full of holes" and completely illogical.

Scriptures get an added twist. Bible verses are often taken out of context or twisted to mean something very different than what was originally intended.

"Christians are wrong." Cult members believe God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.

Works prove faith. Cult members often claim their good works are superior to those performed by Christians, and they say their works prove their religion is the one-and-only truth.

Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.

No exit. Leaving the cult is not an option, and intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf...n-of-cult.html

If the definition of cult must include all of these bullet points, then the LC/LSM is not a cult but close to it because unless the message of salvation they adhere to has changed, the assurance of eternal salvation was/is solidified in the teachings. That they have instilled fear of the '1000 yr of outerdarkness' teaching is beside the point.

From my experience just about every denomination or non denomination is also very close to being a cult based on these bullet points.

In the denominations I have frequented for example, they all have their book/cd tables. 99% of the products sold is the teachings from the main pastor. If they have other ministerial products, those ministers are connected to the pastor. When a special guest visits that is not necessarily connected to that ministry, the guest brings in his boatload of products to sell.

I can tell you from my personal experience, the guest speaker will give a 'cut' to the main pastor. (And a collection will also be taken up for the guest speaker).

Going back to the matter of eternal salvation, from my experience the LC did a really good job of assuring the saints on that matter.
Don't know if they still do however.

[aron]

For me the clearest indicator is rigid conformity. All LSM "local churches" must be "absolutely identical", with "no differences whatsoever". No difference with whom, you ask? With HQ promulgations. If HQ changes week-to-week, so must the rank-and-file in the hinterlands.

"God" is incarnated in "Christ" who has a "Body" which is the "Church" which must be "one with the apostles", which means whatever the Maximum Brother is thinking today. "Just be a tape recorder", we were repeatedly advised. So "God", operationally, is whatever the Big Boss is speaking today.

Of course the HQ will stress to rank-and-file that this is preferable to the Wild West of Christianity, where every man does what is right in his own eyes. In this case, we in the LSM "local churches" are rather to do what is right in Big Boss' eyes. Somehow that's the solution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

For me the clearest indicator is rigid conformity. All LSM "local churches" must be "absolutely identical", with "no differences whatsoever". No difference with whom, you ask? With HQ promulgations. If HQ changes week-to-week, so must the rank-and-file in the hinterlands.

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

yep! it sure does!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

Really?!? Doesnt the Catholic church allow nonconforming groups? Why the the creation of, say the Jesuit order? What of the Franciscans? Etc etc? A free spirit could exist in the Catholic church, publish personal poems of spiritual musings etc. I don't see any such leeway in the LSM LC. They've made that repeatedly clear.

Same with the Eastern Orthodox. One may present one's ideas to the marketplace; some will gain traction, some not. But the marketplace of ideas ultimately decides. The HQ of course may set parameters for discussion. But within the pale of orthodoxy one may pursue spirituality as one (and one's locally-associated peers) see fit.

A Francis of Assisi or a Desiderius Erasmus could survive in the RCC, albeit often barely so. No chance in the LSM LC. And remember that Francis and Erasmus lived in a different era: 400 years ago, you could also be tortured or killed in Protestant-controlled territory for being non-conformist. The separation of church and state began to change things drastically. By contrast, we see that the LSM LC has only gotten more rigid and inflexible over time - look at the LC assemblies today vs 40 years ago!

I think in the Catholic church, they accept that different peoples have different cultures and cultural expressions. That's allowed and even celebrated. In the LSM LC, only one culture is allowed. Supposedly that's a "heavenly culture" and based on the Bible, but we've seen on this forum repeatedly that where the Bible and LSM LC culture clash, the Bible is dropped like a rock. Conformity is always to the HQ and whoever's pulling the reins there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Really?!? Doesnt the Catholic church allow nonconforming groups? Why the the creation of, say the Jesuit order? What of the Franciscans? Etc etc? A free spirit could exist in the Catholic church, publish personal poems of spiritual musings etc. I don't see any such leeway in the LSM LC. They've made that repeatedly clear.

Same with the Eastern Orthodox. One may present one's ideas to the marketplace; some will gain traction, some not. But the marketplace of ideas ultimately decides. The HQ of course may set parameters for discussion. But within the pale of orthodoxy one may pursue spirituality as one (and one's locally-associated peers) see fit.

A Francis of Assisi or a Desiderius Erasmus could survive in the RCC, albeit often barely so. No chance in the LSM LC. And remember that Francis and Erasmus lived in a different era: 400 years ago, you could also be tortured or killed in Protestant-controlled territory for being non-conformist. The separation of church and state began to change things drastically. By contrast, we see that the LSM LC has only gotten more rigid and inflexible over time - look at the LC assemblies today vs 40 years ago!

I think in the Catholic church, they accept that different peoples have different cultures and cultural expressions. That's allowed and even celebrated. In the LSM LC, only one culture is allowed. Supposedly that's a "heavenly culture" and based on the Bible, but we've seen on this forum repeatedly that where the Bible and LSM LC culture clash, the Bible is dropped like a rock. Conformity is always to the HQ and whoever's pulling the reins there.

I was in the Catholic school thru High School. We all wore the same white shirt, green tie, and dark pants. In high school the same sport jacket. Every Mass was the same, every day, all around the world. The LC had nothing that resembled that, at least where I was. Going back to Francis or Erasmus in the RCC is like going back to Elden Hall in the 60's.

But we should take note that in the LC uniformity and book-writing always take a back seat to subjection. Proof of that can be seen in Chicago (Reetzke writes his own books) and NYC (don't use HWFMR.) Neither were the recent quarantines ever about petty issues like clean sheets or drums. It was a power struggle. Neither Dong nor Chu was ever going to subject himself to some Blended wannabe in Anaheim. Never gonna happen.

[Ohio]

Nine items here. Let's label them and discuss them one by one.

Whether these 9 items actually define a "cult" is one matter, but whether they define LSM and the LC's is another.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

1. All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.
2. No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.
3. A new and better way. Cults often claim they've been given a "special revelation" from God that's superior to the Bible, or explains what the Bible is really trying to say.
4. Down on Christian doctrine. Cults often depict basic Christian doctrines and beliefs (like the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith) as "full of holes" and completely illogical.
5. Scriptures get an added twist. Bible verses are often taken out of context or twisted to mean something very different than what was originally intended.
6. "Christians are wrong." Cult members believe God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.
7. Works prove faith. Cult members often claim their good works are superior to those performed by Christians, and they say their works prove their religion is the one-and-only truth.
8. Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.
9. No exit. Leaving the cult is not an option, and intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out.

1. All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

Noone can spend more than a few months in the LC and not discover that everything is Lee. Lee for breakfast, Lee for study time, Lee for teachings, Lee for the meetings, Lee for conferences, Lee for trainings, Lee hymns for singing, Lee for prophecying in the meetings. Lee has been referred to as the Minister of the Age, the "acting god," the oracle of God. There is a reason why every single new member to the LC's has to take a step back when first learning this feature of the LC.

For any elder, worker, or member church to teach other than Lee brings the ire of headquarters in Anaheim. My LC learned this the hard way. Titus Chu (GLA region) and Dong YL (Brazil) were both quarantined for not teaching enough Lee. Churches were divided, families were at odds, and long-term friendships in Christ were broken over this one item -- all LC teachings must be Lee (and occasionally Nee when they match.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nine items here. Let's label them and discuss them one by one.

Whether these 9 items actually define a "cult" is one matter, but whether they define LSM and the LC's is another.


1. All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

Noone can spend more than a few months in the LC and not discover that everything is Lee. Lee for breakfast, Lee for study time, Lee for teachings, Lee for the meetings, Lee for conferences, Lee for trainings, Lee hymns for singing, Lee for prophecying in the meetings. Lee has been referred to as the Minister of the Age, the "acting god," the oracle of God. There is a reason why every single new member to the LC's has to take a step back when first learning this feature of the LC.

For any elder, worker, or member church to teach other than Lee brings the ire of headquarters in Anaheim. My LC learned this the hard way. Titus Chu (GLA region) and Dong YL (Brazil) were both quarantined for not teaching enough Lee. Churches were divided, families were at odds, and long-term friendships in Christ were broken over this one item -- all LC teachings must be Lee (and occasionally Nee when they match.)

I agree with what you have written, but disagree that this would be a useful criteria for identifying a "cult".

Billy Graham was highly respected. Many other genuine Christian teachers were highly respected. The issue is not that others consider their leader "all knowing".

Perhaps it would be better to say "Unquestioned leadership" -- or even better "unaccountable leadership". But who would submit to a person who sets himself as a leader who is not accountable to others and who cannot be questioned by others?

So then I would agree with Jesus, you will know them by their fruit. Jesus was "all knowing" but when the Jewish leaders talked to His followers that was when they were impressed that "they had been with Jesus".

If I meet a Christian on the street and he wants to fellowship about some great Christian teacher then the real question is not that he thinks this person knows "everything" but how do they respond? Is he a robot that has to quote "the apostle" in every answer, then yes, you have a cult. Is he like Peter and John, then you can be impressed that these fisherman had been "with Jesus".

I'm very confused about this post. Members are free to leave the local churches, and with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave, according to my main impression. I entered the church several years ago and have never had any problems with them. The church is really good and the saints are really good. The things we say should be accurate so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Now, you may ask why this is only my main impression and not my entire impression. Because get stuffed, that's why. I have never experienced any kind of insidious retention of individuals. Also, I can successfully annoy everyone in the church without getting so much as a tiny reaction from them. This shows that they are truly of Christ.

Regards,
A brother, 24

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm very confused about this post. Members are free to leave the local churches, and with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave, according to my main impression. I entered the church several years ago and have never had any problems with them. The church is really good and the saints are really good. The things we say should be accurate so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Now, you may ask why this is only my main impression and not my entire impression. Because get stuffed, that's why. I have never experienced any kind of insidious retention of individuals. Also, I can successfully annoy everyone in the church without getting so much as a tiny reaction from them. This shows that they are truly of Christ.

Regards,
A brother, 24

A brother, 24:

I can guarantee you that asking why this is only your main impression and not your entire impression was the last thing on my mind.

But thanks for telling me to "get stuffed" anyway. Nice to meet you.

Sometimes getting a reaction from people is good, so you can learn how to interact with people less rudely. The wonderful non-reacting saints may be doing you a disservice long-term.

Now I'm going to put some words in your mouth, or at least make some assumptions about you that I admit may be 100% wrong:

Since you said you entered the church several years ago, and yet are apparently 24 years old, it seems like you may have entered during your college years, is this true?

If so, your entrance into the church was most likely highly designed to be warm and comfortable and enticing, and there has probably been much fellowship behind the scenes about you by those caring for you.

You have been in the church for several years and are 24 years old. You are posting on a forum composed of people many of whom were or have been in the church for decades and are older than 24, to say the least. Believe me, you have much to see and hear in the church. Don't presume to be an expert on something you are new in.

Yes, aspects of the church CAN be good and many times the saints CAN be good, otherwise no one would join or stick around. But there's more to it than that.

Your comment that people are free to leave "with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave" is actually an indicator of a cult. The reason few saints contact people who leave is because their entire relationship is totally based on what building they worship the Lord in, NOT on the shared life in Christ. If you don't meet with them, you are as good as non-existent to them. When you leave, you are considered negative or poisonous. That is not a normal exit process for a church. This is a marker of a cult.

Additionally, just because you haven't experienced or seen something certainly doesn't mean that it isn't there. Many saints have experienced the very things that are indicators of a cult. (Note: "cult" is a spectrum.....the local church is not a kooky off the wall cult but more of a legalistic controlling unhealthy church). Are all the teachings unhealthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy ones mixed in to the point where discerning between the two can be difficult. The unhealthy ones are designed to fly beneath the radar, keep people in submission, and rear their ugly head when the need to control people and shut people up arises.

The local church will not shackle you with physical chains, but with emotional and mental chains of fear that if you leave the church you will literally not be able to go on with God. Witness Lee himself said "...those who have come [into the church] and then left invariably find their end less than desirable. There is not one exception." (The Vision of the Age)

A brother 24 - according to the primary person's teaching that the local church follows (Witness Lee), if you decide to leave this church you will find your end less than desirable.

Do you believe that? Because they teach it.

If you don't believe it, do you want to be in a place that teaches it?

The only reason I am comfortable posting that quote is because I can safely say it is a complete lie and is not true. But many people grew up in that church who were told things like that, that amount to "if you leave us, horrible things will happen to you. There is not a single person who has left who hasn't suffered horrible tragedy."

That is a fear-based teaching designed to control you. Combine that with other teachings that "knowledge is death" and yes, "good is death", and that you need to "get out of your mind" and we get into dangerous waters. They are markers of a cult.

Regards.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm very confused about this post. Members are free to leave the local churches, and with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave, according to my main impression. I entered the church several years ago and have never had any problems with them. The church is really good and the saints are really good. The things we say should be accurate so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Now, you may ask why this is only my main impression and not my entire impression. Because get stuffed, that's why. I have never experienced any kind of insidious retention of individuals. Also, I can successfully annoy everyone in the church without getting so much as a tiny reaction from them. This shows that they are truly of Christ.

Regards,
A brother, 24

Another thing might be the locality you are in. At least when I was in the LC (70 & 80s) the localities differed in how things were handled. Some adhered closely with the central control, and others didn't. The LC in Columbus I was in during the 80s, was not so tightly constrained in the Anaheim orbit, at least not back then. So my family didn't experience much overt/control things from them upon leaving.

Our experience was more about what I would call "covert control." That is, a kind of fear that if we left we would be putting ourselves far outside the will and purpose of God . . . and that carried with it fearful consequences. These consequences included God's punishment and judgmental calamities, and probably exclusion (outer darkness) during the thousand year reign of Christ. I had a lot of unrealistic fear of this type of punishment for years after I left the LC. Then I realized one day how silly it was to think that God was going to try to kill me by kicking the jack stands out from under my car, of which I was working on underneath!

Then, after I came to a group of healthy believers, I began to get a sense for how much He loves us, and that His whole motivation and purpose is executed out from His love for us. Before, in the LC, I heard that God eternal has a purpose - and praise God for that teaching! - but I also heard that He was like a gigantic steamroller you couldn't resist, and if you got in His way He'd flatten you like a pancake. This instilled a lot of fear in me and others. BUT HALLELUJAH - PERFECT LOVE DRIVES OUT ALL FEAR!

So, like many on this forum, I am in recovery from some of The Recovery teachings like this, and these days seeing more and more of His amazing love for us. (truly seeing His love was for me, the key that opened the accurate meaning of His purpose in the Bible . . .)

Does that help dear "bro, 24"?