Reader and commenter Claireon left the following comment the other day:
Here are some helpful behavioral patterns that Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. have identified as commonly found in cultic environments.
They state that “concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs and relationships”.
Compare this list to your to your experience in SGM. It is meant to be helpful in determining if there is a cause for concern. It’s not intended to be used as a definitive checklist but instead as an analytical tool:
- The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
- Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
- The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
- The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
- The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
- The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
- The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
- The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
- Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
- The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
- The group is preoccupied with making money.
- Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
- Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
- The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
See any similarities?
I thought this was too interesting to be left to languish in an old ”comments” section. Thoughts, anyone?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote,
Ah, I didn’t say Sovereign Grace’s migration over into the Calvinist camp hasn’t had an effect on the direction the ministry has taken. I definitely believe it has. What I was trying to say was that I gave so many hours of my time trying to get on the same page with them theologically, when they started w/ the whole Reform emphasis. I literally read the Systematic Theology door stopper from cover to cover in search for truth — followed by my year-long study of the Bible on the topic.
In the end, I just felt like the return on my investment was pretty minimal. So I don’t stand aloof from the controversy in a critical, cynical way at all. In fact, I was really frustrated at one point that God didn’t make it clearer in His Word. I had poured all of this time and effort in trying to find out which “camp” was “right.” And when I finished, I was disappointed I couldn’t just choose a side. And I really wanted to become a card-carrying member of the Calvinist party. All of the people I saw as mature and knowledgeable at that point in my life were. So I went into my study with that prejudice against Armenianism (and my bad experience w/ it in a previous ministry).
But the interesting thing that happened to me is that I sorta derived comfort from truths represented in both doctrines. I mean, the comfort of knowing that I was safely in the palm of God’s hand and that He would never let me go was deeply meaningful to me. I had been part of a staunch Armenian ministry before coming to Sovereign Grace. They used the fear of falling away and hearing unexpectedly “Depart from Me …” on that Day to motivate people to buy into all of their legalistic ideals. God really penetrated my heart through this study and showed me that, for me, (w/ my particular history w/ rejection and abandonment in childhood), this was the ultimate fear of rejection and abandonment. So hearing from Him, “Fear not; you’re safe” (that idea anyway) really freed me up a lot.
But the truths I saw in the Word about the potential for being led astray provoke me to pray and evangelize more like an Armenian. heh Seriously, my particular observation of SGM’s history is that as it became increasingly Calvinist in its bent, its evangelistic emphasis seemed to diminish. I remember hearing about an adult son of a woman in the church who was knocking on death’s door from some disease. My pastor’s wife told me about all of the sin he was living in and how he hadn’t walked with the Lord since he was a youth. When I asked if anyone was going to talk to him, to see if he was solid in his salvation, she just said, “Those childhood decisions can be very powerful.”
It bothered me a lot that more effort wasn’t taken before this man died to find out where he stood. I didn’t know who this man was, but I prayed and prayed for him. I’m not willing to gamble w/ someone’s soul b/c we want to be convinced that God has already decided if he was one of the elect or if his childhood decision was powerful enough to have landed him in the Lamb’s Book of Life … especially if i wasn’t powerful enough to keep him from a lifetime of blatant sin and compromise. Ya know? So, when it comes to a situation like that, I’d rather err on the side of being a little too Armenian in my orientation.
I concluded that I understand completely where each camp derives their confidence in what they believe. And, like I said, I found truth in both doctrines. But, at the end of the day, I’m going to focus my efforts on loving Jesus and following Him.
Is that clearer, Steve?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Forgive the misspellings in that last post!
–PK
February 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Lynn,
Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to say!
I loved what you said here:
You are in good company, friend! I have had to untwist myself from many theological knots from in my attempt to process them ad infinitum!
The reality is He could have made this issue crystal clear in the Bible. But He just didn’t. I sorta wondered, when I was finished my study on this thick-and-chewy topic, if I weren’t just restricted in my ability to come to a sweeping conclusion b/c we’re linear thinkers. With my proclivity toward being logical and analytical, I tried to line up all of my in-then assumptions, and it was like herding cats. I would edge closer toward a decision of which candidate I was going to vote for (at least that’s what it felt like), and then I’d read a scripture that sent be back to the fulcrum point afresh … no closer to deciding which side of the scale I’d ultimately land on.
But there was one scripture that the Lord gave me in a significant way that helped me put the whole churning question to rest. It was Ps. 131:1: “My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.” That scripture released me to just step away from the Calvinism-Armenian tug-of-war and leave it to greater minds and spirits to debate until Jesus comes back. He had other things for me to focus on.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
PK,
Welcome to the blog! Just so you know, your post didn’t show up until after I posted, so I wasn’t ignoring it. First posts get held up in a moderation queue. (I sometimes worry that newcomers will think we’re overlooking their initial comments b/c they show up on your screen as being live, but no one else sees them until the blog owner approves it.)
Anyway, THANK YOU for sharing your perspective! I couldn’t agree more w/ everything you said! And it’s really, really refreshing to hear someone who is currently in a Sovereign Grace church be able to take this grace-filled of a position. I appreciate that you have acknowledged that neither home schooling nor Calvinism is a worthy enough hill to die on.
Bravo, friend. Thanks again.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Hi, PK, and thanks for your comment.
I think you make some great observations. And actually, sometimes I think having kids caused me to LOSE brain power, so you might actually possess MORE credibility than less.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Great verse SGM Cas; thanks so much. (And thanks for fixing my typo!) That’s where I had to leave it, as well.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
TCasualty
I had somewhat a similar wrestle with Calvinism. It was starting to be taught around when I left. I wouldn’t say that I wanted to be able to accept the party line but so many things that they were saying as I studied the Scripture didn’t agree with what I found. I am glad I left when I did.
I would say a few things here. First realize that there are known men of God that don’t believe in Calvinism but do believe in eternal security. Charles Stanley is a good example.
Another thing to realize is that the “p” in “tulip” that stand s for “perseverance of the saints” is not the equivalent of “once saved always saved.” Its meaning almost has a similar insecurity that you experienced with Arminianism.
The “p” stands for “perseverance of the Saints.” What I understand this term to mean is that if one is a true believer they will endure to the end. If a person doesn’t then it is evidence that they were never saved. One term used is “inevitability.” One book states it this way: “If someone, who is called a Christian, does not live the way a Christian is suppose to live, for the most part, it simply means he was never really saved” (The Dark Side of Calvinism pg. 262).
Thus if one remains a “carnal Christian” then according to Calvinism it is evidence that one is never saved.
Put another way: “just as faith in Christ is irresistable for the elect, so a consistent lifelong faithfulness to Christ (mostly) is inevitable for the regenerated.” (Ibid pg. 267)
Macarthur put is this way: “If we have it we never lose it; if we lose it, we never had it”
Thus just realize that with this doctrine you might not have been as secure as you thought you were. It is almost as if both ends of the spectrum are saying the same thing in another way about losing your salvation.
One person I know who ended up leaving CLC and has some struggles he was dealing with was told by a pastor that they didn’t think he was a Christian. That type of statement would match up with the Calvanist point of “perseverance.”
I hope this helps.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
re: 347
Thanks, Steve, that is interesting. I remember that book!
February 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Hi Steve,
The P in the tulip didn’t scare me b/c I knew beyond all shadow of a doubt that I was indeed a Christian. I don’t think the ministry I was a part of even accurately represented true Arminianism. They put undue emphasis on Matt 7:21-23 and would threaten that these weren’t nominal Christians Jesus was talking about; they were prophesying, casting out demons, and performing many miracles.
I’m sure their intent was for people to keep pressing in to God, which it did have that effect on me … to a point. But it also introduced a subtle fear of being surprised to find out I didn’t make the cut, even though I genuinely believed I was persevering. So I was never afraid that I would walk away from the Lord or be lured away (and, thus, not persevere to the end). I think that’s why doctrine of the perseverance of the saints didn’t cause me alarm; in fact, it seemed very achievable to me (by God’s grace and Spirit, of course).
February 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Ellie:
The other thing I would say about SG’s move to Calvinism is that never when I was there indicate that they were making a doctrinal change nor did they admit that there are others out there with different opinions about all of this. It was all a big conformance push. It was as if I was a heretic since I wasn’t coming to the same conclusion that they were about sovereignty and predestination.
Maybe had they admitted that there are others who interpret the Scriptures differently on this or that this is a grey area that has been debated over the centuries than I would have felt better and would now have more respect for them.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’ve been reading through this thread and some things strike me:
1) People within SGM who are unable to see points on here are probably struck by the extreme cases here and feel like they should point out that their church at least is not falling out of line. They probably don’t realize that many of us hurt have experienced a similar stance until something happened to us. Many of us here are committed to diagnosing and discussing how things have ended up that way for us within SGM. Unfortunately the conclusions reached do not paint good realisitic pictures of SGM as a whole.
Many of those reading from SGM are most likely naive about these subtle practices and are unaware of how serious they become. I personally was naive at my SGM church. I did hear them say they don’t want to be a homeschooling church or courting church. However, this was just lipservice. By the end, I heard both from the associate pastor and the pastor himself (who said the above) that courting is the only right way. Maybe they were saying that we should be known more for our Christianity.
I also used to describe SGM beliefs to outsiders as being welcoming of other options, however I admitted that if you are in a church where most families are believers of homeschooling and courtship then you are going to feel a certain level of pressure for these things.
Why did I not see the bad signs? Well, not having had an experience with a controlling church that had great-sounding counter-cultural views and having felt attraction because of their every-church image and the allusion of sound doctrine by label of reformed theology, I would let any small trespass or incorrectly-sounding teaching pass over. I figured I should not pass judgment on disputable matters and that in the end they could be reasonable about it.
2. I’ve seen some differences in views of if it is right to not attend a church. All I can say is to compare the churches of today to the first century is a misjudgment.
Ok it is not all I can say. People were advised to not give up the habit of meeting with each other in the Bible. I think all sincere Christians will be doing well to meet with believers and group of believers, and this will happen. There was not a concept of deciding which church to join back then, and churches just were. The churches today represent a pseudo-Christian culture, or quasi-Christian culture. We can probably thank the Romans for their influence towards that.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Good post, newbie!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Thanks
It’s another in my increasing line of “too long” posts. I guess that happens when I’m trying to catch up.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Summer is that time of the year…time for “family vacation”!!
Dads, I knew you wouldn’t want to miss C. J.’s instruction on how to do it “right”!
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/Leadership-and-Family-Vacations-(part-1).aspx
(Can you imagine how many volumes it would take if C. J. did a commentary on the bible?)