On the âask an expertâ section on this forum, it today calls Jehovah Witnesses a cult. I was surprised first of all because I had talked to a JW the other day, and this morning I reread what John Paul II said about other religions in his book* Crossing the Threshold of Truth*. He wouldnât call Islam a cult, nor all Protestantism. But isnât that what we have to do to be consistent if JWâs are part of a cult?
Anyway, a cult doesnât mean **anything **except that there is something dark and probably immoral going on in a group. Many people find God in the JW church, even with and sometimes along with false predictions.
What happened to ecumenism?
The word âcultâ has a wide range of meanings, depending on context. In a less religious sense, it can simply mean that a relatively small group of people are very committed to something they care about- for example, Firefly had a cult following before Fox cancelled it.
In a more religious sense, it can be used loosely enough to encompass just about anything. The range of the wordâs meaning technically allows you to use it to describe any religious group, whether itâs a large group like Catholics or a smaller subset that has a particular interest in something more specific, like a cult of Marian adoration. Youâre not asking about any of these things, but Iâm putting them out there because they have something to do with the word while being outside your area of interest.
Youâre interested in the pejorative use of the word, when âcultâ means something bad. That can be a little bit subjective, and sometimes youâll find yourself looking at a list of 20 items while being told that if at least 15 identifying traits are seen, that is sufficient reason to say âcult.â That sort of method is somewhat useful but still questionable. Iâll try and run through some of the items of interest, though. I will try to work from the broad and somewhat-less-useful things to the more important and pertinent ones.
In the religious and pejorative sense, you could be looking for unorthodox and spurious beliefs in any given religious group. If you stop reading right at this point, you can go right ahead and start to draw the conclusions that you mentioned in the OP. As I implied, however, there is a longer list and this is on the broad and less-useful end of the spectrum.
Typically, cults are characterized as being relatively small. This has no bearing on how bad or how truthful it is, but as a matter of how words are generally used, small groups are more likely to be called âcultsâ and larger groups tend to be called âmarginal.â Size technically shouldnât matter, it really should be about how a group behaves. But in general, a small group is easier to abuse, and a large group is more difficult to abuse while still hanging on to your million members or whatever the number is.
In a theological or doctrinal sense, thereâs a couple of things that Iâll include here. One- beliefs and practices are regarded as strange or sinister. This is subjective and of course the people who practice the thing will excuse any strangeness as long as theyâre the ones doing it, but this can be a useful thing to look to if they leave no doubt. And two- cults, by any definition that is most useful to you, will reject or violate central, essential teachings of a particular religion and then claim that it is still the same thing, or more likely that it is a restoration of the actual true pure thing that it is ripping off. This can also be a bit subjective as you will find yourself making a potentially difficult argument for what really is central and essential, but this is fairly doable and there are times when people just leave you no doubt. I am putting it somewhat in the middle of the list, however.
Coercion is more of a key item as we move down the list. Specifically, if people join a religious group without their consent and then theyâre prevented from leaving if they want to do that, or if theyâre punished for choosing to leave by being cut off from contact with their family or by losing a job that doesnât involve being employed by the religious group itself.
And finally, we should talk about the âdestructiveâ kind of territory. Here, âdestructiveâ is being used in a sociological sense where the cult causes harm to your relationships, career, or finances, especially as punitive measures for leaving it (which of course people always always Always at all times and in all places ought to be free to do). âAbusiveâ would be another word that can be used here. Not all cults are abusive, and not all cults are necessarily destructive, but it is a key term that can and frequently will cause people to flip the language from âmarginal Christianityâ right over to âcult,â and it makes it much easier to ignore how large a group has gotten.
There are a variety of ways to talk about cults and assess whether or not something is a cult. If you ask me (and you kind of did), examining it in a purely theological/doctrinal sense can be frustrating and is sometimes fruitless. People believe different things, and unless itâs something really extreme that leaves absolutely no doubt, terminology sometimes comes down to a matter of opinion. But if a religious group is abusive and destructive toward the person and lives of its members, that would be an example of a time when the word âcultâ more clearly has a place and a use. Again, cults are not limited to religious groups that are characterized by this sort of thing, but those are the times when itâs most appropriate to speak up and use the word in a very pejorative sense.
Ecumenism is good of course, but destructive tendencies and abuse in the name of religion is fairly intolerable. That very much can warrant the use of the word âcult,â while cancelling all invitations to whatever ecumenical thing that group might otherwise have participated in.