WHAT IS A CULT?
The legal view of "what is a cult?" does give us some assurance and also guidelines to identify what the destructive elements of a cult can be. On the other hand, it is also a warning that passing careless judgements may tantamount to slandering, evil speaking and even libel and defamation .
A cult may simply mean a new religious movement with practices that are different from the conventional, but more often than not, is used by antagonists or critics of the movement to mean a dangerous group with destructive ends like that of Jim Jones and David Koresh. I suggest that we do not freely label anything new to us with such terms as "cult", in case we find ourselves in the witness box in court defending ourselves, or worst still, standing guilty before the Almighty for persecuting the move of His Spirit in these last days.
The Book of Jude warns us not to freely pass judgement, for even Michael the Archangel in contending with the devil was careful not to bring against him a reviling accusation. Where the Word is not explicitly clear that it is wrong, we must not in any way suggest or insinuate that it is. Were not Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Protestants pronounced as erroneous and were heavily persecuted by those who thought themselves righteous and knowledgeable? So let’s be careful before we judge in these last and perilous days, in case we stand as modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees before God. Do we not form opinion about what we see then? We should, and the right way is to judge with the Word, according to the measure of grace and depth given to us, but not with traditions or our own standards and experiences to quickly pronounce anything beyond our understanding as wrong or evil. If we judge by what is explicitly clear in the Word, we are assured that it is God who judges and not us.
LEGAL POINTS REGARDING CULTS
From the legal point of view, a cult is distinguished by its practices of the following:
- It is a commune of half-crazed people living in isolation from the world at large.
- This people 'worship' or devotedly follow a self-appointed messiah or prophet.
- The people do not hold full-time jobs.
- The people give up their assets to the organization.
- The cult leaders live in riches 'on the backs of their members'.
- It is a secret organization run by persons with an agenda that is kept secret from its members.
- Members are not recruited openly and may not be fully informed as to what membership entails. They could be deceived or tricked or trapped into joining.
- Members are actively stopped from leaving the organization.
See the following report on Why Church Wasn’t A Cult, from THE STRAITS TIMES, TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 1997 regarding a case against the newspapers that labeled Central Christian Church (in Singapore), a cult. The church won the case in the High Court. My posting of this article is not to be construed in any way as supporting or vindicating the CCC. I do not know them personally, neither has anything to do with them. But the case enables us to identify what in the legal eye constitutes a cult.
Israel CS Lim, Posted May 1998
********************************************************
Newspaper article in THE STRAITS TIMES, TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 1997
The editors of The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao had used three main defences against the defamation action by the Central Christian Church. They succeeded in proving that their reports were fair comment, but failed in justifying their claim that the church is a cult and in claiming 'qualified privilege'. Tan Ooi Boon reports.
Why Church Wasn't Considered Cult
* Not a half-crazed commune * No secret agenda * Members allowed to leave *
THE Central Christian Church may have some controversial beliefs and practices, but the evidence submitted by two newspapers and a Christian magazine on this matter was insufficient to justify them calling it a cult, the High Court held yesterday.
The defendants - the editors of The New Paper, the Chinese-language evening daily Lianhe Wanbao and the Christian magazine Impact - had detailed practices such as re-baptism by the CCC as it regarded itself as the "true church", and confessing of sins to church leaders during the court hearing.
Church members, or disciples, also had to obey church leaders. They also had to recruit new members.
But Justice Warren Khoo said: "What CCC teaches is probably no more strange than what is taught by many others. The same can be said about almost everything else that is practised by the CCC - the discipleship, the control, the unremitting demands."
Justice Khoo said he had found that witnesses for both sides had taken their oath seriously during the trial. He said: "Different witnesses tend to put different colours to the facts, depending on which side they are on. However, whether the defence of justification succeeds on proof of these allegations is a different matter."
In this case, he found that the defendants had failed to justify the main sting of calling the CCC a cult. The CCC "was not a commune of half-crazed people living in isolation from the world at large, worshipping and kissing the foot of some self-appointed messiah or prophet", he said. Its members had full-time jobs like other church members, and they did not give up their assets to the church. The CCC leaders also did not "live in riches on the backs of its members".
The judge said: "It is not a secret organisation run by persons with an agenda which is kept secret from its members. People are welcome to join its meetings and services." He added that the church had, in fact, wanted people to attend these activities so that they could see if they wished to join.
He said: 'They are made fully aware of what being a member would involve. People are never deceived or tricked or trapped into joining it." And while the church would dissuade a member from leaving, he would not be stopped if he were bent on doing so, he said.
He pointed out that since the CCC started here in 1987, the people who had left the group far outnumbered the existing members.
********************************************************