“It Hurts”
By Jan Groenveld

IT HURTS to discover you were deceived – that what you thought was the “one true religion,” the “path to total freedom,” or “truth” was in reality a cult.

IT HURTS when you learn that people you trusted implicitly – whom you were taught not to question – were “pulling the wool over your eyes” albeit unwittingly.

IT HURTS when you learn that those you were taught were your “enemies” were telling the truth after all — but you had been told they were liars, deceivers, repressive, satanic etc and not to listen to them.

IT HURTS when you know your faith in God hasn’t changed – only your trust in an organization – yet you are accused of apostasy, being a trouble maker, a “Judas”. It hurts even more when it is your family and friends making these accusations.

IT HURTS to realize their love and acceptance was conditional on you remaining a member of good standing. This cuts so deeply you try and suppress it. All you want to do is forget – but how can you forget your family and friends?

IT HURTS to see the looks of hatred coming from the faces of those you love – to hear the deafening silence when you try and talk to them. It cuts deeply when you try and give your child a hug and they stand like a statue, pretending you aren’t there. It stabs like a knife when you know your spouse looks upon you as demonized and teaches your children to hate you.

IT HURTS to know you must start all over again. You feel you have wasted so much time. You feel betrayed, disillusioned, suspicious of everyone including family, friends and other former members.

IT HURTS when you find yourself feeling guilty or ashamed of what you were – even about leaving them. You feel depressed, confused, lonely. You find it difficult to make decisions. You don’t know what to do with yourself because you have so much time on your hands now – yet you still feel guilty for spending time on recreation.

IT HURTS when you feel as though you have lost touch with reality. You feel as though you are “floating” and wonder if you really are better off and long for the security you had in the organization and yet you know you cannot go back.

IT HURTS when you feel you are all alone – that no one seems to understand what you are feeling. It hurts when you realize your self confidence and self worth are almost non-existent.

IT HURTS when you have to front up to friends and family to hear their “I told you so” whether that statement is verbal or not. It makes you feel even more stupid than you already do – your confidence and self worth plummet even further.

IT HURTS when you realize you gave up everything for the cult – your education, career, finances, time and energy – and now have to seek employment or restart your education. How do you explain all those missing years?

IT HURTS because you know that even though you were deceived, you are responsible for being taken in. All that wasted time…….. at least that is what it seems to you – wasted time.

THE PAIN OF GRIEF

Leaving a cult is like experiencing the death of a close relative or a broken relationship. The feeling is often described as like having been betrayed by someone with whom you were in love. You feel you were simply used.

There is a grieving process to pass through. Whereas most people understand that a person must grieve after a death etc, they find it difficult to understand the same applies in this situation. There is no instant cure for the grief, confusion and pain. Like all grieving periods, time is the healer. Some feel guilty, or wrong about this grief. They shouldn’t — It IS normal. It is NOT wrong to feel confused, uncertain, disillusioned, guilty, angry, untrusting – these are all part of the process. In time the negative feelings will be replaced with clear thinking, joy, peace, and trust.

YES – IT HURTS BUT THE HURTS WILL HEAL WITH TIME, PATIENCE & UNDERSTANDING

There is life after the cult.

Copyright (c) Jan Groenveld

Ex-Followers Pursue Assets of Preacher’s Murky Empire

Longtime evangelist Tony Alamo owes millions of dollars in court-ordered restitution for abusing some of his former followers, triggering a nationwide hunt for assets still controlled by the Arkansas pastor.

The 76-year-old preacher, now a federal-prison inmate, enlisted members of his church to help run a business empire that over the years has included a trucking company, a restaurant, a hog farm and a designer clothing line that made rhinestone-studded denim jackets for Hollywood celebrities.

Since starting his street ministry in Los Angeles during the 1960s, Mr. Alamo faced repeated allegations by former followers, some backed by court convictions, that he abused his flock—sexually molesting girls, ordering beatings and forcing adults and children alike to work long hours for little or no pay.

Former followers have won millions in court judgments, but government and private investigators say Mr. Alamo kept few assets in his name, making it difficult to collect.

Mr. Alamo preached polygamy and declared that girls could marry as soon as they reached puberty. He acknowledged disciplining followers with corporal punishment and forced fasting, but said all his views were grounded in the Bible. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

His theology placed him well outside mainstream Christianity and included virulently anti-Catholic views. Mr. Alamo preached that the Vatican controlled much of the world outside his ministry and was responsible for such evils as World War II and pornography. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks religious movements, has labeled Tony Alamo Christian Ministries a hate group.

In late 2009, Mr. Alamo was sentenced to 175 years in federal prison after a trial in which prosecutors presented evidence that he took girls as young as eight years old as his “spiritual wives.” In his sentencing, U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes in Texarkana, Ark., also ordered Mr. Alamo to pay five of the girls—now young women—restitution of $500,000 each.

The five women have filed a civil case against Mr. Alamo, seeking additional damages. Their case is scheduled for trial next year.

Meanwhile, a federal jury in Texarkana this month ordered Mr. Alamo to pay two young men $66 million in damages for beatings they suffered while living in the ministry’s compound in southwest Arkansas.

Mr. Alamo’s attorney, John Wesley Hall Jr., says his client has no money to pay the judgments.

Authorities allege Mr. Alamo spent more than a decade transferring real estate, businesses and other assets into the names of church members. The holdings are believed to be scattered across the U.S., including in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and California.

“We will work for years, if necessary, to find the assets necessary to satisfy the judgment,” said W. David Carter, the lawyer who represented the two men who won the $66 million judgment.

Finding such assets will not be enough. Investigators can seize them only if they can prove Mr. Alamo put them in his followers’ names to evade a court judgment, a so-called fraudulent conveyance. Federal attorneys scouring the U.S. for Mr. Alamo’s assets acknowledge the difficulty of proving such cases, especially if Mr. Alamo transferred ownership years before he was indicted.

Mr. Hall, the pastor’s lawyer, said he was confident that any property in church members’ names would be safe there. “They can’t prove fraudulent conveyance,” he said.

Mr. Alamo was born Bernie Hoffman but took the name Tony Alamo when he entered show business as a young man. In the 1960s, after a spiritual revelation, Mr. Alamo and his late wife, Susan, took to the streets to preach to lost souls in Los Angeles.

They built a church compound, including dormitories for followers, in Saugus, Calif., and in the 1970s moved their headquarters to Arkansas.

In 1994, Mr. Alamo was convicted of falsifying income-tax returns and spent four years in federal prison. He continued to run business and ministry ventures across the U.S. after his release.

In Fouke, a southwest Arkansas town with a population of 865, Mr. Alamo converted a grocery store into his church and the ministry bought homes for as many as 300 followers, said Terry Purvis, the mayor of Fouke.

In September, 2008, federal and state authorities raided Alamo properties in Fouke and Texarkana and the state took custody of children believed to have been abused. Mr. Purvis said most followers have since scattered and just a half-dozen ministry loyalists remain in Fouke.

Mr. Alamo lost an appeal of his criminal conviction and is incarcerated at a federal prison in Indiana. He has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, he also wrote President Barack Obama to ask for a pardon on the grounds that he has a secret plan to bring peace to the Middle East.

When Does a Religion Become a Cult?
America has long been a safe harbor for experimental faiths. But the unorthodox can descend into something darker.

America has probably supplied the world with more new religions than any other nation. Since the first half of the 19th century, the country’s atmosphere of religious experimentation has produced dozens of movements, from Mormonism to a wide range of nature-based practices grouped under the name Wicca.

By 1970 the religious scholar Jacob Needleman popularized the term “New Religious Movements” (NRM) to classify the new faiths, or variants of old ones, that were being embraced by the Woodstock generation. But how do we tell when a religious movement ceases to be novel or unusual and becomes a cult?

It’s a question with a long history in this country. The controversy involving Hollywood writer-director Paul Haggis is only its most recent occurrence. Mr. Haggis left the Church of Scientology and has accused it of abusive practices, including demands that members disconnect from their families, which the church vigorously denies.

To use the term cult too casually risks tarring the merely unconventional, for which America has long been a safe harbor. In the early 19th century, the “Burned-over District” of central New York state—so named for the religious passions of those who settled there following the Revolutionary War—gave rise to a wave of new movements, including Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism and Spiritualism (or talking to the dead). It was an era, as historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom wrote, when “Farmers became theologians, offbeat village youths became bishops, odd girls became prophets.”

When the California Gold Rush of 1849 enticed settlers westward, the nation’s passion for religious novelty moved with them. By the early 20th century, sunny California had replaced New York as America’s laboratory for avant-garde spirituality. Without the weight of tradition and the ecclesiastical structures that bring some predictability to congregational life, some movements were characterized by a make-it-up-as-you-go approach that ultimately came to redefine people, money and propriety as movable parts intended to benefit the organization.

Many academics and observers of cult phenomena, such as psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo of Stanford, agree on four criteria to define a cult. The first is behavior control, i.e., monitoring of where you go and what you do. The second is information control, such as discouraging members from reading criticism of the group. The third is thought control, placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning. The fourth is emotional control—using humiliation or guilt. Yet at times these traits can also be detected within mainstream faiths. So I would add two more categories: financial control and extreme leadership.

Financial control translates into levying ruinous dues or fees, or effectively hiring members and placing them on stipends or sales quotas. Consider the once-familiar image of Hare Krishna devotees selling books in airports. Or a friend of mine—today a respected officer with a nonprofit organization—who recalls how his departure from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church was complicated by the problem of a massive hole in his résumé, reflecting the years he had financially committed himself to the church.

Problems with extremist leadership can be more difficult to spot. The most tragic cult of the last century was the Rev. Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, which ended with mass murder and suicide in the jungles of Guyana in 1978. Only a few early observers understood Jones as dangerously erratic. Known for his racially diverse San Francisco congregation, Jones was widely feted on the local political scene in the 1970s. He was not some West Coast New Ager gone bad. He emerged instead from the mainstream Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) pulpit, which sometimes lent a reassuringly Middle-American tone to his sermons.

Yet every coercive religious group harbors one telltale trait: untoward secrecy. As opposed to a cult, a religious culture ought to be as simple to enter or exit, for members or observers, as any free nation. Members should experience no impediment to relationships, ideas or travel, and the group’s finances should be reasonably transparent. Its doctrine need not be conventional—but it should be knowable to outsiders. Absent those qualities, an unorthodox religion can descend into something darker.

Smart took the stand at her alleged kidnapper’s trial for a second day Tuesday, telling jurors in U.S. District Court she was also too scared to speak up when a detective tried to question her in a public library months before she was finally freed.

She told jurors Brian David Mitchell raped her almost daily and forced her to drink, use drugs and view pornography. Once she tried to flee, and Mitchell and his wife caught her and told her an angel would cut her down with a sword if she ever tried it again.

Mitchell, who knew Smart because her mother had hired him to fix the family’s leaky roof, is accused of kidnapping her from her bed in June 2002, when she was 14. His trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.

His attorneys say the homeless street preacher known as Immanuel was influenced by a worsening mental illness and religious beliefs that made him think he was doing what God wanted.

Smart testified Tuesday that when police finally found her in March 2003, wearing a wig and sunglasses and walking along a suburban Salt Lake City street with Mitchell and his wife, she told them she was Augustine Marshall, the daughter of traveling preachers.

Smart, now 23, said that was the story Mitchell had instructed her to tell if ever the three were approached.

Police separated them and peppered Smart with questions. They were tipped off by drivers who reported seeing the girl.

“I was very scared. I knew the threats that I had been told for nine months,” said Smart, who was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. “I thought maybe at the same time that this is it. This is it, this is over.”

Smart also told jurors about a missed chance to tell police what had happened when a detective approached her at the Salt Lake City library in the early fall, a few months after she was kidnapped.

She was wearing a robe and a veil that covered her face, and the detective asked if he could look under it.

“He said he was looking for Elizabeth Smart,” Smart said.

Under the table, Mitchell’s now-estranged wife, Wanda Eileen Barzee, squeezed her leg, a sign that Smart should remain quiet. Mitchell refused to let the detective talk to her, saying it was not allowed in their religion and only her husband would ever see her face.

The detective pressed.

“He asked if he could be a part of our religion for a day, just so he could see my face, just so he could go back (to the police station) and say, ‘No it wasn’t Elizabeth Smart’,” she said.

Mitchell calmly refused, and the detective gave up and left.

“I was mad at myself, that I didn’t say anything,” she said. “I felt terrible that the detective hadn’t pushed harder and had just walked away.”

Afterward, Mitchell sped up plans to move the trio away from Utah, so Smart would not be discovered, she told jurors. They spent the summer in California before hitchhiking back to Utah the day before she was found.

The three pitched a tent in an Orem campground called Camelot, about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City, after getting a ride from a truck driver.

“The tent was set up and I was raped for the last time,” Smart said.

The Associated Press does not typically name victims of sexual assault, but the details of Smart’s case have become public.

She also told jurors that soon after she was kidnapped, Mitchell tried to abduct her cousin from another part of Salt Lake City.

“He decided it was time to go and kidnap another girl to be another wife,” she said.

The attempt was thwarted when Mitchell tried to get through a window but pushed over some knickknacks and awakened the sleeping household.

The following day, Mitchell forced Smart to metaphorically sever any remaining ties with her family by burning the red pajamas she had been wearing the night she was taken.

Smart said she dropped the pajamas into a campfire and watched them burn. Afterward, she found in the ashes a safety pin that she had used to keep the neck of the pajamas closed. She fastened it to a small piece of rubber from her tennis shoes — which Mitchell had thrown out — and hid it.

“I didn’t want to let go of my family, of my life,” she said.

Mitchell, 57, faces life in prison if he is convicted of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The trial is expected to last at least five weeks.

Barzee pleaded guilty to kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines and is serving 15 years in federal prison.

Staff photo by Jim Williamson

“I Don’t Fiddle”

Joe Davis is painting murals of Fouke to help residents see there is more to the community than a monster and imprisoned evangelist Tony Alamo.

Davis, 67, is a retired musician and artist who lives in a hundred-year-old house in Fouke. From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, he was a violinist with symphony orchestras at Harrah’s in Reno, Nev. The orchestras provided music for Roy Orbison, Willie Nelson, Nancy Sinatra, Liberace, Roger Miller, Pearl Bailey, Glen Campbell, Wayne Newton, comedian Jerry Lewis, Tony Bennett and other celebrities.

Davis is also a fourth-generation artist who has been recruited by the Citizens for a Better Community to paint two murals on a building across the street from City Hall. The completed mural on the east wall is of a bald eagle and the emblems of the U.S. military branches.

The west side mural will depict Fouke’s growth. It will show a doctor riding in a buggy to get to a house and take care of a patient, and also a train hauling wood to sawmills.

Davis said the west wall should be complete in a year.

“A lot of kids don’t know about the history of Fouke. It’s a shame. The only thing some of them know is the Fouke monster and Tony Alamo,” Davis said.

The Fouke monster is a Bigfoot-like creature that supposedly haunts the wilds of Fouke. Alamo is an evangelist with a compound on the north side of town. In 2009, he was convicted and sentenced to 175 years in federal prison for transporting underage females he reportedly wed across state lines for sex.

Davis and his wife moved from California to Fouke in 2004 because one of their daughters lived here with her husband, a Fouke native.

About the time of the move, Alamo followers were asking the City Council for street closures and had security personnel patrolling the compound.

“Some people thought we were part of the Tony Alamo followers,” he said, since Alamo also has a compound in California.

The unwanted attention from suspicious residents had Davis considering leaving the city, but then new gossip about him started to circulate.

“Some guy knocked on my door and said he heard a fiddle player lived here. I told him I play country music, but I don’t fiddle,” Davis said.

Word of mouth about Davis’ musical talent continued to spread, moving him to dust off his bow and join the Edge of Texas band. The band plays at area dances.

“We played so much I guess people got tired of listening to us,” he said.

The attention to Davis’ musicianship eventually was coupled with the community’s interest in his art skills. This led to work at Fouke School District as an assistant in the band and art programs. It’s now become a full-time job.

“They learned I could paint and knew music, so I didn’t stay retired.”

In the band program, he helps with teaching tuba, trombone, guitar and violin. He said the program helps students to “paint emotions with music.”

“You can paint with music. Movies use music to let you feel emotions. Music can create danger, sadness, romance and humor,” he said.

Davis said the classroom is a natural fit for him.

“I prefer teaching. It opens the doors for the students. They get excited and music or art can change attitudes of students.”

He said it’s not just the young who can learn from art. Davis even taught his late father-in-law to paint.

“He liked to duck hunt and would go early in the mornings. After he started painting, he was seeing colors in the sunrises he never saw before. He started looking at the world differently.”

The value of art and music goes beyond colors, Davis said.

“Music creates skills with eye-hand coordination and strict timing. It divides things into equal parts.

“Art gives students perspective and teaches math. That’s why so many of the master artists become architects.”

Music and art also teach self-discipline.

“A student gets excited and wants to learn a song. When they learn the song, it’s something they never forget. They will keep it with them when they’re married with children,” Davis said.

Davis shelved his musical career for about 12 years when another daughter developed cancer. He worked with a computer company to pay bills.

“I didn’t try to play with symphonies. We almost lost our daughter twice. You look at yourself with a different perspective and focus on your family.”

He urges students to visit art museums and look at paintings created by the masters, many of whom used only three colors—black, white and red.

“Those artists were thrilled to create with three colors. Think of what they could do today,” Davis said. “I’ve told students to think what Mozart could do with a music synthesizer.”

Davis’ perspective of Fouke has changed since his move here. Now, he is changing the perspective of music and art students.

And with the historical murals, he is trying to help the town to see there is more to Fouke than a monster and a minister.

Tony Alamo is leaving leaflets on my car.

Well, he is not doing it himself, but one of his followers is.

The point is, my windshield gets cluttered every few months or so with fundamentalist propaganda.

For those unfamiliar with the “good” “Pastor” (the terms used loosely), Tony Alamo is a fundamentalist Christian preacher— Pentecostal, to be precise. Er wait, he is Jewish. Maybe he is a polygamist? No one knows for sure—his religious beliefs seem to change in every leaflet he writes.

He is definitely Christian. Then again, maybe not, because in one of his leaflets he wrote, “I am a Jew (one of God’s people).” On top of that, Alamo himself may not have been a polygamist, but he certainly was not against the idea— he’s promoted it in several of his leaflets.

At least two things are known for sure about Alamo.

For starters, he is certain that Catholics are agents of the devil and that the U.S. government is run by a satanic cult of Catholics. Oh, and that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic himself, was assassinated by our satanic/Catholic government.

The second is that he is a convicted child sex offender.

Sorry, probably should have mentioned that earlier. In 2009, Alamo was convicted on 10 federal counts of transporting minors across state lines for sex and was sentenced to 175 years in prison.

Alamo still claims he is innocent and that the 8th Circuit court of Appeals will vindicate him. Oh, he also says that he is “just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel.”

While it’s true that over the 1,000-plus-year history of Christianity, some who espoused its values in unpopular times have been jailed, but it certainly was not for having sexual relations with minors.

I am not sure what part of the Bible that whole “child sex” part is in, but Alamo knows, apparently: “I have never done anything that would be considered evil by God,” he wrote on his Web site.

But sex with children was not the first of Alamo’s run-ins with the law.

There is the minor weapons charge that he served time for. Next in 1994, Alamo went to jail for tax evasion and remained there for four years.

Then, in 2008, came the charges of physical abuse, sexual abuse, polygamy and underage miscarriage from some of his followers, which resulted in the 175-year jail term he is currently serving.

Unfortunately, all of that is only a part of the oddness that comprises Alamo Ministries. After his first wife Susan died in 1982, Alamo claimed that she would be resurrected. For six whole months he kept her body on display in front of his followers while they prayed over her.

As can be expected, Susan did not resurrect or reanimate. After 16 years of waiting for it to happen, Alamo eventually gave her remains to her family for a proper burial.

Long terrible story short, Alamo is one of those huckster preachers who epitomizes the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do way of life. To him, everyone who does not agree with his view on religion and life is a Satanist, and woe unto them!

Nowhere in Alamo’s leaflets are there any mentions of Jesus’ teaching of “Love thy neighbor as thyself”— because that kind of drivel would run entirely counter to the atmosphere of xenophobic hatred he has fostered amongst his followers.

What boggles the mind is that despite the fact that Alamo is in jail for having sex with children, he still has people dedicated to him—dedicated enough to print up hundreds of leaflets and put a couple on my car every few months.

While no religion is free of its deviants— even the Catholic Church is not beyond reproach, as has been shown in recent days—it is typically one of the followers who commits the sin, not the founder.

If it looks like a cult, sounds like a cult, and puts inane leaflets on my car like a cult, it is probably a cult.

Right?

Andrew Seal is Staff writer for The Current.

by

Lawrence A. Pile

Twenty years ago I left what had been a warm, exciting Christian fellowship, but which had become an authoritarian, restrictive organization. I reached this difficult decision after months of wrenching deliberation and several talks with the group’s leaders about my concerns at the direction the fellowship was taking. I had joined the movement 5½ years earlier in another city, had served as one of four leaders of a church-planting team that brought the movement to Columbus, Ohio, and had led Bible studies and held other positions of responsibility in the church. I literally had expected to remain with the movement the rest of my life. To see it degenerate was, to say the least, a disillusioning experience.

I found myself saying good-bye to men and women I had considered my brothers and sisters. I felt like a part of my soul was being cut out of me. What was I going to do now? I had developed no contingency plans to fall back on in such an unforeseen situation.

My immediate decision was to return to my parents’ home in the Cleveland area, and to the church in which I had grown up. I rejoiced to find a warm welcome and, what was especially important to me, new opportunities to minister after having been increasingly restricted in Columbus.

However, this was, in my mind, only a temporary solution. I still needed a new full-time job and my own place to live. What was I to do for the long term?

After a summer in Cleveland, I decided to move to the San Francisco Bay area to spend some time with a more balanced church, acquiring experience and knowledge that would be useful in later church service. The membership spanned all ages, races, and many nationalities. There was a multiplicity of opportunities to minister for those who desired, and a collective leadership who exercised sincere pastoral care without abusing their authority.

Four cities and churches later, and after 12 years of helping cult survivors, I offer several suggestions for those who currently may be in the process of looking for a new church after a painful experience. These suggestions, in conjunction with the very helpful description of a healthy church given by Rev. Richard Dowhower in the spring 1994 issue of FOCUS News, should help you in your search. Let me add here that you need not think you should quickly jump right back into another church, and that if you don’t there’s something wrong with you. At Wellspring we often recommend that victims take a sabbatical from church for a while until their spiritual wounds have healed a bit.

But first, what are some things to keep in mind or look for when choosing a new church? Most people who have had bad experiences with churches or other types of organizations know several things they don’t want:

1. They don’t want a church with a lot of rules, or whose pastor thinks he’s God’s gift to mankind, God’s mouthpiece on earth.

2. They don’t want a church in which normal, legitimate pastoral care has been replaced by meddling in the members’ lives.

3. They don’t want a church in which the opportunities to serve God or others arerestricted to just a few officially sanctioned activities, or in which they are considered “unspiritual” or “carnal” if they choose to limit their involvement in the church.

But what should one do when going about the usually tentative and confusing task of finding a new church home after months or years of enduring spiritual abuse? Initially, you may wish to do what I did: return to the church of your pre-cult life, if you had one. You may find it is just what you are looking for, or at least that it provides a comfortable temporary spiritual oasis.

Beyond that, some of the things I would suggest are:

1. Take an inventory of why you want to join another church, and what you want in a church.
In his book How to Find Your Church, Christian researcher George Barna asserts that “it is important to be completely honest with yourself. Identify exactly why you want to be involved with a church, and your expectations of the church. If you do not know why you are pursuing a church, or what specific characteristics and qualities you are looking for, the chances are great that you will not find your ‘ideal’ church.”

If you are looking for another church because you believe you can’t really be “spiritual” without one, or because you feel God won’t love you as much (or at all) unless you are attending church, then you need to re-examine what it really means to be spiritual, and you need to (re)acquaint yourself with the concept of the grace of God.

If, however, you want another church because you long for warm, accepting fellowship, spiritual encouragement, and/or opportunities to serve others, then you are on the right track.

2. Make a list of the things you want in a church.
These things will differ from person to person, depending on what he or she considers important. However, writing as an Evangelical Christian, some of the things I would look for are:

a. sound biblical footing.
A church that teaches anything and everything but the Bible seems to me not to be a church at all. When I was employed as a printer in Kent, Ohio prior to joining the staff of Wellspring, I used to drive past one particular church on my way home. Out of curiosity I always read the sign in front as I drove by. Invariably it advertised the next Sunday’s “sermon” as “Slides of So-and-So’s trip to Russia,” “Book Reviews,” “Buddhism’s Contribution to Christianity,” or just “Picnic in the Park.” It struck me that this was more of a social club or a cultural society than a church. That’s fine; if you want to join a social club, join one. But call it that, not a “church.”

While living in California, my wife, Linda, and I became acquainted with a family who attended another church and were part of a Bible study group made up of members of that church. Eventually the pastor decided he should attend it in order to ensure that everything was in order, but he admitted he didn’t really know the Bible; all he knew was the official prayer book of the denomination, since that was what was taught in seminary. I thought to myself, “What business is this man in?”

Further, I would look for a church that not only teaches the Bible, but also takes it seriously. By that I mean, the pastor(s) and Bible teachers don’t attempt to make the Bible say things it clearly doesn’t, either by reading into it what is not there, explaining away what is there, or spiritualizing everything. There is no need to read the Bible any differently from the way we normally read anything else, whether the daily newspaper, the novels of Mark Twain, or the poetry of William Shakespeare. Whatever we read, we need to adhere to a minimum of commonly accepted principles of interpretation. One of the most basic is simply that if the text does not explicitly say something, we must not insist it does. For example, there is no verse in the Bible that explicitly says, “Thou shalt not smoke.” Now, for health and cleanliness reasons it is a good idea not to smoke, but it is absolutely wrong to say the Bible forbids it. You can probably think of numerous similar examples.

b. welcome that is warm and accepting without being smothering.
If you can walk in the front door of the church without anyone noticing or greeting you, that certainly should be a red flag. On the other hand, if you are immediately mobbed by members effusively welcoming you, that also should be a red flag.

c. congregation size that is comfortable to you.
Many people who have had unpleasant experiences in churches often prefer large churches, a few hundred or more, so they can melt into the congregation without feeling like an obvious newcomer. They want to just sit in the pew and be a “spectator” for a while until their comfort level rises. There is nothing wrong or “unspiritual” about this. Others are eager to find new opportunities to serve, and it is often easier to find these in small churches, which frequently have difficulty finding enough people to teach Sunday school, help out in the nursery, or serve in other ways.

d. pastor who is a “gentle shepherd,” not a “lord over the flock.”
Pastors ideally should be models, examples, and mentors, not dictators or despots. An ex-elder in my former abusive movement stated that the leaders of the movement were not shepherds out in front leading the flock but were “cowboys riding herd.” Is the pastor open to questions, or does he demand unquestioning obedience? Does he permit diversity and freedom within the church, or does he expect and require conformity and uniformity (even though he calls it “unity”)?

One of the characteristics of a healthy church offered by Rev. Dowhower is a propos here. He wrote, “Healthy congregations do not play ‘bait and switch’ games with God’s grace, but treat it with utmost respect. To offer divine and unconditional acceptance (God’s grace), and then to make additional conditions of conformity to the organization necessary to continue receiving that grace, is to compromise the unconditional in a most reprehensible manner. Healthy congregations strive to keep the experience of divine unconditional acceptance from being qualified, compromised and contaminated by organizational expectations.”

e. encouragement to find God’s will for your life independent of the control of the leader(s).
It is normal and natural to be concerned about what God desires one to do with one’s life. However, one must be permitted the freedom to seek that will on one’s own, without interference by anyone else, including one’s pastor. Most Christians will voluntarily seek out advice and counsel to help them in this endeavor, but they must be permitted to reach their own conclusions. Any advice offered must remain advice and not metamorphose overnight into directives. One man who was a member of my former movement asked a leader for advice on purchasing a particular car. The leader advised him against buying it. The member went ahead and bought it anyway, and then was disciplined by the leader for disobedience. The member headed for the door.

f. adequate childcare, Sunday school, and other activities for children, if you are a parent.
Couples with young children will want to ensure their kids will not be neglected if they decide to join the church. They will be concerned that their children are well cared for and taught, not just entertained. Does the church take the care and teaching of children seriously, devoting prime facilities and teachers to their care?

g. openness about how the money is spent.
Any church that is not open and aboveboard about its use of funds should be avoided at all costs (no pun intended!). Regular accounting should be given to the members, preferably in writing, and the books should always be available for inspection by any member. After all, a sizable proportion of the funds is contributed by the membership; therefore, they have a right to know how it is being used. They also have the right to approve of such use through secret ballot at regular church business meetings (at least annually). In the Book of Acts (chapter 6), the church members, not the apostles, chose the men they wanted to oversee the distribution of food to their widows.

3. Visit numerous churches in your area that seem like they might offer what you’re looking for.
Names of churches can be found in the Yellow Pages, usually listed according to denomination. Visit each church several times; a one-time visit might catch the church on an “off” day. Further, don’t confine your visits to Sunday morning worship services only; those are usually the most “benign” meetings of the average church. Attend also on Sunday and Wednesday evenings (and adult Sunday school if offered), when the congregation is usually smaller and more “committed” to the church. It is often during these meetings that you can really sense the “spirit” of a church, and pick up on any red flags.

4. Talk to church members.
Ask them how long they’ve been attending, what attracted them to the church, what they like the most about the church, what they like the least about the church. Make an appointment with the pastor to ask him about his philosophy of ministry, what his goals for the church are, what he likes most and least about the church. Ask for a printed “statement of faith,” a list of the church’s doctrinal beliefs. See if it conforms to your own religious beliefs, or if you can at least be comfortable with it.

5. Call the local ministerial fellowship.
Most cities of any size have an association of ministers of the area who meet on a regular basis to share their church experiences, including trials and successes, as peers. If a church in the area has acquired a reputation as one with problems (legalism, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, etc.) these ministers will usually know it and should be willing to tell you. You could also talk to the minister of the church down the road from the church you’re checking out.

These few steps should prove useful in finding a new church home. If you see any red flags at all, one additional step might help to confirm whether those things are true indicators of problems. This last suggestion occurred to me as I was responding to a letter from a woman who was a member of the church in Columbus I had left several years earlier. She wrote that Paul Martin’s description, in his book Cult Proofing Your Kids, of his experiences in other churches of the same movement were totally unlike anything she had so far experienced in the Columbus church. She wrote that before she decided to join the church, she attended many meetings, talked with many members, including the pastors, and studied the church’s statement of faith. She found nothing out of order. She seemed to imply that Paul must simply be a “disgruntled ex-member” or be making mountains out of molehills. In my reply to her (Paul usually asks me to reply to letters dealing with our former movement) I told her that she had done many of the things I would recommend people do when they are looking for a new church. However, there was one thing she didn’t do that I would also recommend. And that was:

6. Talk to ex-members of the church you’re interested in.
Ask the pastor for the names and phone numbers of former members of the church who still live in the area so you can call them and ask them why they left. This might seem awfully bold, maybe even brash, and perhaps it is. But any good pastor will be glad to give you such names and numbers. If the pastor declines your request, that should be taken as a red flag.

There are legitimate reasons for leaving a church that would not necessarily indicate the church is unhealthy. Some of these might be: inadequate services for children, music style one does not prefer, inconvenient meeting schedule, etc. But other reasons for leaving would indicate problems:

“I’ve been a Christian for many years, but I always felt condemned by the pastor.”

“I never felt accepted by the other members because I’ve been divorced.”

“I felt like unless I participated in all the meetings and activities of the church I would never really fit in.”

“The pastor seemed to promote the attitude that only his church was where God was.”

“All the women [or men, or members] looked and talked alike; it seemed like The Invasion of the Body Snatchers!”

Finally, a few reminders. The cult or abusive church you fled may still color your thinking regarding what a healthy church should look and feel like. If your former group was characterized by enthusiastic meetings with energetic singing, dynamic preaching or teaching, and open displays of emotion, you may find groups or churches that are more contemplative dull and boring; or conversely, spirited churches may feel too similar to your old group to be comfortable. The opposite may also be true. If your former group was sedate and meditative, more demonstrative churches may seem frothy and superficial. But, again, groups too similar to your former group may make you uneasy. Neither upbeat nor laid back meetings are necessarily bad, however. Time and patience (on your part) will usually alleviate this type of difficulty.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the church is not to entertain an audience, but to help believers in their worship of God, teach them God’s Word, and stimulate them to live godly lives. George Barna says, “That does not mean church should be boring. Any place that helps us to understand the God of creation, the Savior of mankind, and provides an outlet for the use of our talents and skills, should be exciting.” He goes on to caution against “evaluating [a] church on the quality or entertainment value of a religious performance, how perfectly the choir sang, or how eloquently the preacher spoke. Instead, think about what impact the sermon had upon your life, or how well the singing led you to worship God.”

Above all, don’t forget that there is no such thing as the “perfect church.” That is no excuse, however, for shoddy administration, haphazard meetings or schedule, aloof or cold parishioners, and certainly not for outright spiritual abuse.

Barna concludes his remarks by reminding us “that as with any family, there will be a time of transition. In a way, you become like an adopted child. Despite the family’s happiness to have you, they will have to change some of their ways to accommodate your needs and you will have to do the same, to become an accepted part of the family. A church, like an individual, cannot be all things to all people. But it can become a loving and caring unit that makes your life better.”

Though that last sentence may seem remote or dubious to you at this time of grieving what you lost in your former group or church, it is true and can be your experience as you follow these suggestions and trust your God-given ability to discern, on the basis of your painful experience, the elements that make for a healthy and rewarding one.

At my local bookstore on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, 1960s nostalgia is in high gear. A display table is stacked high with pricey coffee table books, each with its own variation on psychedelic rainbow lettering, each claiming to reveal the untold story of the “peace and music” festival. I understand the lucrative business of selling those hazy memories — the Woodstock museum, Cherry Garcia ice cream, even the new movie “Taking Woodstock.” I just can’t buy into it.

It’s not because, as a Gen-Xer, I feel slighted that I missed out on all the fun. It’s because for me and many other children of the flower children, our rose-colored glasses are not just slightly tinted, but darkly tainted.

Along with the iconic music and fashion of the era came myriad new religions and a foolish rush to embrace peddlers of spiritual snake oil. The countercultural wave brought a flood of swamis, yogis and self-proclaimed enlightened beings. They preyed on the longings of hippies who were disillusioned by mainstream religion and in search of an alternative path.

By the time the mud had dried at Woodstock, Swami Prabhupada had created the Hare Krishnas and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon had founded the Unification Church — the Moonies. Communes and ashrams sprouted across America. In the 1960s, the decade now mythic for its anti-conformity, flocks of people conformed to the dictates of self-proclaimed prophets.

In 1968, the Beatles sat at the feet of the Maharishi, soaking up his teachings. Consciousness-raising went mainstream. Reciting Sanskrit chants, wearing japa beads and finding a guru became trendy and chic. Everyone who was anyone read “I Am That” and “Autobiography of a Yogi.” Many free spirits obediently changed their names, dropped out of college and abandoned their families. Ironically, their wild-child rebellion landed them in rigidly structured cults that controlled their lives — and those of their children. For many, that life eventually grew old. They retired their mantras and moved on. But for others, my parents included, the intrigue never faded.

Like the Beatles, my hippie parents met their guru in 1968. Sri Chinmoy, based in New York, promised them enlightenment — if they obeyed his dictates. All they had to do was surrender their lives to him. To my trusting and vulnerable mother, and to my eccentric and contemplative father, the offer sounded like a bargain.

Arriving in the United States in 1964, Sri Chinmoy had vast ambitions. He aimed to infiltrate the United Nations, win a Nobel Prize and gain a worldwide following. His disciples were to lead austere, celibate lives, devoting themselves and their financial resources entirely to his mission. In 1970 when my mother became pregnant — a clear breach of the rules — the guru saved face by divining me as his chosen soul.

I was born and raised in the ashram of this man who declared himself an incarnation of God. Before I could walk, my parents dressed me in a sari and took me with them on their recruiting trips. Instead of acting in school plays and going to soccer camp, I distributed leaflets proclaiming the guru’s divinity from parade floats that wound through city streets. I spent summers scrubbing the cages of the zoo housed in the basement of the guru’s Queens home.

When Chinmoy wanted to attract more media attention, he staged elaborate weightlifting feats, hoisting elephants, helicopters and even Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev — a smoke-and-mirrors spectacle that I never understood. How could lifting elephants illuminate and ultimately transform the world? When I was a teenager, the guru’s strict rules banning all contact and relationships with the “outside” world provoked questions and longings for everything he forbade — college, career and family. When he told me to neglect the mind and forever remain in the heart “like a 7-year-old,” I finally realized that he was a narcissistic charlatan, shamelessly exploiting the faithful.

At 25, older than my parents had been when they renounced the world to serve the guru, I was formally banished from his cult. I lost all my connections to the community I’d known since birth. Fortunately, I was young enough to venture into the “outside” world and forge a life on my own terms.

For years, I have struggled with the reckless decision of some in my parents’ generation to entrust their present and future to those who claimed to be spiritually enlightened. Cultural historians today portray the ’60s as a unique time. I hope they are right. That is, I hope that the cast of corrupt opportunists — gurus, prophets and messiahs — who profited from others’ naiive belief is indeed a unique ’60s phenomenon, safely encapsulated in those glossy anniversary books.

info@jayantitamm.com

Jayanti Tamm is an English professor at Ocean County College and the author of “Cartwheels in a Sari: A Memoir of Growing Up Cult.”

Some have difficulty identifying a cult because it is not so
easy to identify one that is not even religious. For this
reason, over the years, different definitions of what actually
is a cult have developed to make it easier when you know
little about their beliefs.

The different definitions:

SECULAR DEFINITION

CULT – From the Latin “cultis” which denotes all that is
involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude.
This definition actually denotes what we call denominations
and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION

CULT – Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox,
historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ;
His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to
earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults
within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within
other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it
cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do
not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION

CULT – Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian
leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming
from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be
the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full
Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform
or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their
members.

This definition covers cults within all majopr world
religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS
religious base such as commercial, educational and
psychological cults. Others may define these a little
differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

THE ‘ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT’

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour – not
their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of
Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the
Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not.
Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have
behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches.
These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian
faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or
someone’s particular writings. They centre around the
interpretations of the leadership and submissive and
unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member
of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider
non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as
the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be
using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is “Churches that Abuse” by
Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based,
Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can
easily be identified.

OTHER IDENTIFICATION MARKS

(a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to
others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT -
everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD’S WILL -
everyone else is in apostasy.

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse
God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be
THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.

HOW THEY DO THIS

1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or
position of authority given by God.

2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance
regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and
exalting their own group, leader/s and work.

3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members
loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire
calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon;
being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital
part of the mind control process.

4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to
the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked);
signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive
methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed;
selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of
their “ministry”.

At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take
up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell
literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don’t do this. This
gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money.

5. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its
teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the
group’s activities. They will have little or no time to think for
themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is
also a vital part of the mind control process.

6. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private
lives of members. This control can be direct through communal
living, or constant and repetitious teaching on “how to be a true
Christian” or “being obedient to leadership”. Members will look to
their leaders for guidance in everything they do.

7. Bible-based cults may proclaim they have no clergy/laity
distinction and no paid ministry class – that they are all equal.

8. Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged.
Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an
emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission.
This is vigilantly maintained.

9. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in
some way. This could be in the form of “dobbing” on fellow members
(including family) under the guise of looking out for their
“spiritual welfare”.

They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception) or
give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment.

10. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may
be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that
involve their lives or have signed a “covenant” and feel threatened by
this.

Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by
other members with coercion to get them to return to the
group.

SOME ABUSES OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS:-

1. ABUSE OF INDIVIDUALITY
They adopt a “groupness” mentality. They are not permitted to
think for themselves apart from the group and only accept what
they are told.

2. ABUSE OF INTIMACY
Relationships with friends, relatives, spouses, children,
parents etc are broken or seriously hampered.

3. ABUSE OF FINANCES
Pressure to give all you can to the group. In non-communal
groups, members usually live at the lower socio-economic strata,
not because of a lower income level, but because they are always
giving money to the group for some reason.

4. “US VERSUS THEM” MENTALITY
Isolation from the community in general. Anyone and
everything outside the group is seen as “of the devil” or
“unenlightened” etc. Their enemies now include former friends;
the Christian church; governments; education systems; the media
– the world in general. Those who are involved with these in any
way see such involvement as a “means to an end”.

5. ABUSE OF TIME AND ENERGY
The group controls and uses almost all the members time and
energy in group activities. They are usually in a constant
state of mental and physical exhaustion.

6. ABUSE OF FREE WILL
They must unquestioning submit to the groups teachings and
directions and their own free will is broken. Their “will”
actually becomes the groups “will” without their realizing it.
This is done either by coercive methods including low protein diets
and lack of sleep, or over a period of time through
intimidation. Both methods make heavy use of “guilt”.

RESULTS OF THIS ABUSE

1. PERSONALITY CHANGES

Relatives will say they no longer recognize the person.

From a warm, loving personality will come heaped abuse, rejection and
feelings of hate. The cult member sees himself as “righteous” in
comparison and this comes across in their attitude toward all outsiders.

2. LOSS OF IDENTITY

They cannot see themselves as individuals apart from the group.
Some even change their name as a rejection of their former life.

3. PARANOID – WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED

Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether
justified or no, it is regarded as “persecution”. Any criticism of
the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the
“true Christian” or “enlightened” one – not because they, as an
individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they
will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because
they are “the only ones who are right”.

4. SOCIAL DISORIENTATION

They lose their ability to socialize outside the group. This can
go so far as to not being able to structure their time or make simple
decisions for themselves when they leave.

Their world-view alters and they perceive the world through their
leaders eyes. They become very naive about life in general.

5. SEVERE GUILT COMPLEXES

They are made to feel guilty of everything they did before entering
the group and are to strive to be “good” and “worthy” for “eternal
life”. Misdemeanors are made into “mountains” so that members are in a
constant state of guilt for infringing even the most minor rules. Guilt
comes because they aren’t doing enough; entertaining doubts or
questions; even thinking rationally for oneself.

This guilt is piled upon pile with new rules constantly
being laid down about what is sinful and what is not. Illness may be
seen as lack of faith – more guilt. Emotional illness may be seen as
proof of sin in your life – more guilt.

SUMMARY

Not all these points will be found in every cult, but
all cults will have some if not most of them, although these may vary to
some degree.

Copyright 1985 Jan Groenveld
Freedom In Christ, PO Box 2444, Mansfield, 4122, Australia
Source: Ex-Cult.org