Blog of Lom (Lema) Nal

John Knapp Leaves New York State

2011-09-07T00:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, John Knapp left New York State for Indiana. Apparently, he went to be with his girlfriend Kimmie Deckard who lives in Bedford, Greene County, Indiana. However, in the current situation, it looks like that the real reason for his leaving NYS is different. He met Kimmie online on June 14, when he was already under investigation and it was 2 weeks after the previous registration of his license ended. So, his leaving NYS looks like another attempt to avoid punishment for his ethical violations. His other attempts were:
1) missing the time for renewal of his registration, though later he had it renewed;
2) public announcement that he is going to leave his profession, though until now he is listed in NYS board database as a registered LMSW.

Also, his recent leaving NYS for Indiana looks similar to his leaving California for NYS in mid-1990s after a conflict and split with Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer over The Margaret Thaler Singer Foundation, Inc., a non-profit of which he was executive director.

John Knapp Blames the Victim (Part 3)

2011-08-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

Update (01/26/2012). Currently, Knapp's website does not work. So, all the links to his website are not working.

Update. Knapp made some changes on his website. So, it is currently not accessible at its usual URL http://thechsca.org/. However, it is accessible at http://184.154.238.114/. So, I added the working links to his website in parentheses in bold.

Knapp posted a new article regarding Monica on the CHSCA website: http://thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting (http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting). This article is actually their private correspondence that took place on May 2, 2011. As usual, his comments are filled with disinformation.

More stomach-churning drama, going on for the last 22 months!!! The same accusations, threats, and tortored logic—nearly verbatim.

All the emails below his statement were sent on May 2, 2011. The next set of their private correspondence posted by Knapp began on August 25 (http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??). Nothing before May 2 and nothing between May 2 and August 25. Where is "drama, going on for the last 22 months"? No evidences. Just empty, groundless, and false accusations.

Carol did not report to me. When I set it up, I gave each of us one vote. The two of them had the power to overrule me at any point. So, in some senses, I was responsible to her just as much as she was responsible to either me or Lema.

Probably, first, I need to explain what he probably means here. In January 2010, he set a forum for anti-cult activists on his Knapp Family Counseling website. He invited some people to join this forum, including Carol and me. In March 2010, Carol and I became co-moderators of this forum and in April or May 2010 we became co-administrators. The three of us discussed together many things related to the forum and we voted for the decisions regarding the forum. However, Carol's and my position as co-administrators was not equal to Knapp's because of many reasons. The last word on any decisions was always up to him. Sometimes he was not available for a long time and we waited for him without carrying out our decisions. In order to join the forum, new members had to send him their personal information and this information was available only to him. The forum was located at his website, not on a service like Yahoo! Groups, Google Groups or another public service. The software used for his forum was phpBB3. Unlike, for example, Yahoo! Groups, phpBB3 has special privileges for the forum creator. Forum creator cannot be banned by other administrators and only forum creator is able to delete the forum. Eventually, Knapp did delete his forum. I could not do that and I could not remove him from the forum, although I had access to all the administrative options that may be available for a person who is not a forum creator. Carol did not have access to all those options. On the other hand, he could remove us from the forum at any time.

In May or June 2010, he began to share with Carol and me about his plans to create a non-profit which is now known as the CHSCA. Its name that he used in communications with us was the Knapp Center. Although Knapp wanted me as well as Carol to join it, I have never gave my agreement to join it. The reason for this was that I was not clear about Knapp's plans regarding this organization at all. The only thing he actually said was that he had a "clear vision" of what should be done in the anti-cult community that nobody has ever seen. This is why he was planning to create a non-profit. However, I had no idea what this "clear vision" was about. This is why I had never agreed to join his non-profit. I agreed only to listen about his plans about it, but he never actually revealed them, keeping saying that he would send us business plan which he never did.

According to Knapp's words, there was some connection between Knapp's forum and his non-profit that he was going to create. I was never quite sure about it. It seemed that he considered his forum for anti-cult activists as a part of his non-profit. Moreover, he somehow implied that since Carol and I were co-administrators of his forum, we were also a part of his non-profit. However, as for me, I gave my agreement to be a co-moderator and co-administrator of his forum, but I never gave my agreement to be a part of his non-profit. It seems that Knapp did his best to get me involved into his non-profit without my understanding of what he would be and even without my desire. This actually quite bothered me and it was at this point that I began to reconsider what kind of person he is.

So, although Knapp may claim that he gave Carol and me a vote and equal position in his then future-to-be non-profit (as he kept telling us at that time), it does not make sense since I did not give my agreement to join that project. Also, Knapp told us that he wanted to create his non-profit in order to carry out his "clear vision" of what should be done in the anti-cult field. He never shared its vision with us and I do not know what it is about. So, due to this reason, Carol's and my position in his non-profit could not be equal to his.

Although he kept saying to Carol and me that he gave us the same position as his, in his last email to both of us (sent on August 1, 2011), he made it clear that we did not have the same position. We never had the same authority as he did.

So, his statement that we "had the power to overrule" him "at any point" is simply not true.

John Knapp Blames the Victim (Part 2)

2011-08-26T12:36:00.000-07:00

As you know, along with many, many others, including Carol Welch, I was permanently changed by my 23 years in the Transcendental Meditation organization.

I'll never be the man I was born to be.

I suffer from intermittent depression, moderate-to-severe dissociation, and although only hospitalized once for suicidality 10 years ago, the Abyss is no stranger even today.

First of all, who is the therapist and who is the client? A client hires a therapist in order to get help for his or her (client's) problems, not in order to cure the therapist from his/her problems. From NASW Code of Ethics (which Knapp is supposed to abide by):

4.05 Impairment

(a) Social workers should not allow their own personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties to interfere with their professional judgment and performance or to jeopardize the best interests of people for whom they have a professional responsibility.

(b) Social workers whose personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties interfere with their professional judgment and performance should immediately seek consultation and take appropriate remedial action by seeking professional help, making adjustments in workload, terminating practice, or taking any other steps necessary to protect clients and others.

So, if Knapp has mental health problems, he has to seek professional help and take the necessary steps to protect his clients instead of trying to use his clients to help him to heal or trying to make them responsible for his mental health condition. This is an ethical violation on his side.

By the way, attacking Carol Welch who is his former client, he made, at least, two more ethical violation. From NASW Code of Ethics:

1.12 Derogatory Language

Social workers should not use derogatory language in their written or verbal communications to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients.

4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception

Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception.

2.01 Respect

(a) Social workers should treat colleagues with respect and should represent accurately and fairly the qualifications, views, and obligations of colleagues.
(b) Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications with clients or with other professionals. Unwarranted negative criticism may include demeaning comments that refer to colleagues’ level of competence or to individuals’ attributes such as race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability.
(c) Social workers should cooperate with social work colleagues and with colleagues of other professions when such cooperation serves the wellbeing of clients.

Although Knapp publicly announced that he is going to leave his profession, he is still listed in NYS board database as a registered LMSW:

License Information

08/27/2011
Name : KNAPP JOHN MATTHEW
Address : BURKE NY
Profession : LICENSED MASTER SOCIAL WORK
License No: 071643
Date of Licensure : 12/01/05
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 05/14

I do not know when he is going to leave his profession and whether he is going to do that at all. Until now, he is under the obligation to keep NASW Code of Ethics. However, he violated it many times.

Regarding his post about me (http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack), I really do not have much to say. Many people use various pseudonyms and nicknames in Internet, including many people in the anti-cult community. I have never stated that I live in Chechnya, but if he thinks this way, I do not care. Only blog owners, website owners, and webmasters know how many people visit their blogs or websites, unless they make this statistics public which I did not. I already replied him that his accusation of Carol in "sexual harassment" is a defamation and I have nothing to add to this. When we talked on Skype, he said that he had studied NLP because cults use it, but did not use it himself. Now he denies his own words and changes them. Well, it is a very usual behavior for him, by the way.

Update. Carol posted an excellent response on Knapp's accusations: My statements addressing John M. Knapp's allegations & accusations.

John Knapp Blames the Victim

2011-08-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

Update (01/26/2012). Currently, Knapp's website does not work. So, all the links to his website are not working.

Update. Knapp made some changes on his website. So, it is currently not accessible at its usual URL http://thechsca.org/. However, it is accessible at http://184.154.238.114/. So, I added the working links to his website in parentheses in bold.

John Knapp has a habit of blaming other people for his own wrongdoings and of completely twisting the situation. However, even knowing that, I did not expect that he would attack his former client Carol Welch whose "fault" was that she filed a complaint at him to the New York State Office of Professions and wrote about her personal experience with him on her blog. Instead of admitting his wrongdoings, feeling sorry for what happened or apologizing to Carol, he prefers to attack her in his new article entitled Beware Carol Welch—Cyberstalker (http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/138-beware-carol-welch%E2%80%94cyberstalker). This article is just full of lies and twisting the situation.

Unfortunately, these two [Carol Welch and me] have launched an incredible campaign to discredit me and to apparently have my license to practice therapy taken away. Carol Welch lodged a complaint with my licensing board last Septmember and has made false and defamatory statements in many places on the Internet, calling those clients of mine she knows at home and making false claims, and also calling colleagues, friends, and board members. <...>

I have sufficient credentials to practice counseling and therapy. Although, because I have no intention of defending against Carol's complaint to my Board, I'm likely to lose the licensure soon. Since Carol, to my knowledge, has never presented evidence of criminal behavior or ethical breaches, I feel the Office of Professions should never have entertained the complaint in the first place. <...>

Briefly, here are the false claims I know of: <...>

I have practiced unethically and traumatized a client. (Carol Welch, ad nauseum) This is the most damaging allegation, I feel. Carol Welch has submitted a complaint to my governing licensing board. I learned of this in April. The investigator from the office of the professions would not discuss the specifics of the allegations with me. So I’m not sure what to think. This investigator could hardly contain her scorn and disdain for me, whom she obviously believed had traumatized Carol intentionally. She made flat out false assertions to me regarding Carol being my client when we worked together, the illegality of practicing therapy over the Internet, and numerous other “facts” about which she could have determined the falsity for herself. Investigators are not credentialed therapists. They are clerks. They are rarely schooled in the law. Their job is simply to gather facts. Some clerks come to believe they have power—and therefore wisdom. These are very dangerous people.

Well, if, as Knapp states, Carol's accusations against him in her complaint were wrong, why did Knapp preferred not to defend himself? Why did he prefer not to present his side to the investigator?

Instead of defending himself, first, he missed the time of renewal of his registration. His registration expired on May 31, 2011, but he renewed it only in the beginning of August. Now, he states that he is going to leave the social work field because, according to his words, he is "ashamed to be associated with the field" and because of "the horrific state of the mental healing profession."

If, as he states, Carol's accusations were wrong, why did not he try to defend himself to the NYS Board, preferring to attack her from his website? Well, the reason is very simple. Her accusations are not wrong and she did present evidences of his ethical violations to the NYS Board. He is unable to refute these things. This is why he decided not to defend himself. It is much easier to attack Carol, posting lies about her on his website, because, of course, not all the readers of his website know what really happened. And it it much easier to use his website in order to accuse the investigator of believing Carol's "wrong accusations" instead of having the direct and open dialog with the investigator regarding the complaint.

Knapp's article is just full of his lies about Carol and other people. I think this is one of the worst one:

Finally, Carol’s attacks on my character started shortly after I made it clear to her that I would not engage in a sexual relationship of any kind with her, despite her oft-repeated requests after our therapeutic relationship ended.

Well, according to my understanding, Knapp and Carol never met in person. Knapp lives in New York State. Carol lives in North Caroline. Although it may be possible to practice psychotherapy through Internet, it is definitely impossible to have sexual relationship through Internet.

In addition, there is an obvious problem of timing here. Knapp indicates it as the time "after our therapeutic relationship ended." What was this time? Knapp convinced Carol that their therapeutic relationship ended before she joined his forum and became a co-moderator and co-administrator. However, their therapy sessions continued after that, though he called them "life coaching." She continued to pay him. So, in fact their therapeutic relationship ended only with the conflict. Now, could Carol possibly "make requests for sexual relationship" with Knapp after the conflict when she was seriously wounded by him and when he cut all the contacts with her? Of course, not. Could she possibly make such requests before she joined his forum or became a co-moderator and co-administrator? Of course, she could not either. Otherwise, Knapp would not have invited her to the forum and would not have asked her to be a co-moderator and co-administrator of the forum.

So, Knapp's accusation toward Carol is not only completely false, but also completely illogical. The same is with his other accusations.

Knapp accuses Carol of defamation:

I find her tactics, as I discuss below, terroristic, defamatory, and sadistically cruel. <...>

Carol has loudly proclaimed that she does not care if she is breaking defamation or slander laws saying, “I will not be silenced!” <...>

I have waited patiently for over a year for Carol to work through this, allowing defamatory, damaging, and personally devastating statement after statement go by unchecked. I thought I owed her some time to come to grips with her pain on her own.

Today, because Carol’s cyberattacks, bullying, and defamation have not stopped—for over one year, mind you—I have reported the situation to the authorities and am seeking legal recourse for relief in the irreperable damage to my emotional well-being, family life, and professional career.

However, it is Knapp who makes defamatory statements regarding Carol, not vice versa.

By the way, since he could not "prove" to the investigator that Carol's accusations of him in her complaint were "wrong," I do not think he is really able to "prove" this in the court of the law. So, his threatens are empty. In fact, he made similar legal threatens toward me over a year ago when I posted a question regarding the point we had disagreement (it was the term "spiritual trauma") in two online groups. Although I did not mention his name there and even did not imply that I had a disagreement over this point with somebody, he accused me that I was going to defame him and damage his reputations and threatened me with legal actions against me. This was another example of his empty legal threatens.

Now, here are my responses to some of "the false claims" he listed:

The CHSCA is not incorporated or is operating illegally. (Lema Nal) Our website displays verifiable information that we are a charitable nonprofit corporation in Delaware. More US companies incorporate there than any other state. It turns out the service we used to incorporate did not register us as a foreign corporation in New York. This mistake isn’t uncommon. We are applying now.

What I actually stated was that the CHSCA is not incorporated in New York State where it is apparently located. I did not check the databases of each of 50 US states to see if it was incorporated in another state. I did not make statements that it was not incorporated anywhere in the USA.

There are no people involved in the Center other than me. (Lema Nal) The staff are listed prominently on the website. Our 15-member advisory board includes nationally and internationally known figures. (There are a number of bios yet to be added.)

I never made statements that no other people, except Knapp, are involved in CHSCA. In fact, I even mentioned some of those people on my blog.

I practice NeuroLinguistic Programing or Ericksonian hypnosis unethically. (Lema Nal) I never studied NLP, don’t know how to practice it. I’ve read academic articles on hypnotism. I don’t know how to do it. I don’t know why this individual claims I used NLP on him. My former supervisor is trained in NLP. Once or twice she invited me to a training. I politely declined. It’s not unusual that a practitioner supervises someone with a different theoretical perspective. I also have Republican friends. I wouldn’t vote for them.

Knapp himself admitted that he studied NLP in our last Skype conversation in the end of July, 2010. He now denies his own words.

Practicing counseling over the Internet is unethical. (Lema Nal, Carol Welch via New York State Office of the Professions investigator) Practicing distance counseling or psychiatry has been common for over a decade. I belong to the International Society for Mental Health Online, a professional organization and subscribe to their suggested ethical guidelines. I am a member of the NASW and abide by their ethical code.

It was not my idea. However, as a comment, I can say that one of the problems with the Internet therapy is that the software used for it (such as Skype) does not guarantee the confidentiality while it is obligatory that therapeutic sessions should be completely confidential. There are other problems with using Internet for psychotherapy as well. In fact, Knapp does not abide by NASW ethical code. For example, he made several ethical violations toward Carol which she reported in her complaint.

Well, I really do not have time and desire to get into the detailed refutation of all the Knapp's lies and misrepresentations. I think what I have written so far is sufficient.

My Personal Experience with John Knapp

2011-08-26T00:11:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, somebody asked me what had happened between Knapp and me. I think that some other people may have the same question. So, here I post my answer to this person:

Well, I and another person (who was Knapp's client at that time) were moderators and administrators of his forum. He began to share with us that he was going to create a non-profit anti-cult organization and wanted us to join it. He never answered my questions regarding this organization, keeping saying that he would send us a business plan (which he never did). On the other hand, he kept trying to involve us into it and even acted as if we already joined it (although I never gave my agreement to join it). I did not like this. In addition, I remembered that in the past somebody accused him of using manipulations. I knew that this person was knowledgeable about NLP. So, I suspected that Knapp used NLP (now I am quite sure that he does). I asked him about his attitude to NLP. He replied only when I asked him the third time. He admitted that he studied it, but denied that he used it.

Very soon after he eventually answered this question, he and I got a serious conflict over a small matter (the other moderator and administrator tried to keep neutral position). We discussed such things before many times and did not have any problems. This time he behaved as a different person: he kept writing offenses, threatens, manipulations. I did not expect such behavior from him. Actually, he misunderstood my position regarding the matter we were arguing about. When I explained my position again, he agreed with me and it seemed that the conflict would be solved. However, unexpectedly, he changed his behavior again. He sent me and the other moderator and administrator an ultimatum email. The main idea was: "either you agree to submit to me in everything or you have to resign within 24 hours." I did not reply him at all (and never contacted him again). He deleted his forum in about 11 hours after he sent us that email. The other person tried to contact him, but he replied that he did not want to continue their contacts.

Well, this is what happened between us. I think that Knapp intentionally created this conflict because I began to suspect that he used NLP and other manipulative techniques. I think he also used them before, when he involved us as moderators and administrators of his forum and when we were helping him with his forum. However, I was not aware of it at that time.

The opinion of the other co-moderator and co-administrator of Knapp's forum who was involved into this conflict can be read here.

Regarding the question whether Knapp practices NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), I am sure he does. By the way, since he is LMSW, he is required to have a supervisor who is LCSW. His supervisor and her husband are certified NLP trainers. Knapp and his supervisor even had offices in the same building. Well, there is nothing illegal with having a supervisor who is a certified NLP trainer. However, this is a perfect situation for the deep and thorough study of NLP. So, to me, it indicates that Knapp seriously studied NLP. People usually study NLP in order to use it, not just to have information about it. And I am sure that he did use NLP toward me and other people.

Megan C. Singer, ASW and John M. Knapp, LMSW (Part 2)

2011-08-25T10:50:00.000-07:00

John Knapp published a post on CHSCA website entitled The Mental Health Field.

In this post, he states that he is going to leave his profession:

As I'll be announcing very shortly, I'm stepping totally out of the social work and psychotherapeutic world after 11 years. I’m ashamed to be associated with the field.

Well, whatever he may say about his reasons, I do believe that if he is really going to leave his profession, it is because one of his former client's complaint at him. She posted the text of the complaint on her blog: Complaint Overview.

Knapp has a habit of blaming other people for everything. Now, he accuses the whole mental health community. I understand that there may be problems in this field as well as in any other field. However, this does not vindicate Knapp's personal behavior toward other people, including his clients. His ethical violations and abuses toward his clients have nothing to do with "the horrific state of the mental healing profession" (a quote from his post).

On the other hand, in his post, Knapp highly praises Megan Singer and anyone who reads this post will have an impression that they have very good relationships. Here are some quotes from his post:

Dear Megan,

Not like you need this, but I have been proud to know you for a very, very, very long time. You’re generous, caring, thoughtful, creative, and altruistic.

What’s not to love?

You’ve been an extraordinary help to me personally whenever I’ve asked you. <...> You’re a hell of a human being. <...>

Next time you have a mo for a phone chat or FB note, I’d love to talk about the horrific state of the mental healing profession. I’m moved to tell you this because of what you are going through:

As I’ll be announcing very shortly, I’m stepping totally out of the social work and psychotherapeutic world after 11 years. I’m ashamed to be associated with the field. For many of the reasons you so eloquently demonstrate in your brave post here. <...>

Megan, back to you, because this screed really is about my admiration and respect for you:

Fuck the credentials, girl. YOU are a HEALER. Trust your gut and follow your heart. Everything else is just details.

And fire every flaming asshole who doesn’t measure up to your standards.

Because you are RIGHT.

I’m not a believer, but I pray you find the healer you deserve and who is worth a tenth of what you are.

J.

In another post, I wrote that she banned me from her Facebook group at the request of "one of the leading cult experts of the country" (her words). I identified this "expert" as John Knapp who is actually not a "cult expert." She denied it and wrote me about Knapp:

I'm on your side regarding John Knapp. I'm aware of the duplicity going on with him; and wish I was not associated with him even on a collegiate level.

In addition, she was very angry that I wrote about this situation on my blog and even tried to threaten me.

Well, I think anyone who compares Megan's statement about Knapp with Knapp's statements about Megan and her comment under his post, will come to conclusion that Megan lied me.

Since Megan is an active Catholic, I think she may be interested to read what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 (NIV):

Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Megan's current behavior is similar to Knapp's. Both of them lied to me and both of them threatened me. And, of course, I do not believe Megan's words that it was not Knapp who asked her to ban me. By the way, some of the Knapp's words in his post may imply this: "You’ve been an extraordinary help to me personally whenever I’ve asked you."

It is sad to say, but Megan as a social worker might end up in the same way as Knapp - abusing her clients and having her clients complain at her - if she does not stop admiring him and imitating him.

John M. Knapp, formerly LMSW

2011-07-01T23:25:00.000-07:00

One month ago, John Knapp's registration as LMSW (Licensed Master Social Work) in New York State expired. He is no longer registered by New York State Office of the Professions: http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA. This means that he is not allowed to practice as a social worker (http://www.op.nysed.gov/help.htm#status):

To practice within New York State, a professional must be licensed and REGISTERED.

Moreover (http://www.op.nysed.gov/opd/):

Practicing a profession without a license and current registration is a felony in New York State.

However, until now, Knapp has never mentioned on CHSCA website, Knapp Family Counseling (KFC) website, Facebook pages, Twitter posts, and LinkedIn group that his registration expired one month ago. He continues to use "LMSW" title which he cannot use now. On CHSCA website, there is a list of services offered by CHSCA: http://thechsca.org/what-we-do/services-we-offer-you/item/48-services-we-offer-you. It includes therapy as currently available service. On his KFC website, there is a page "Available Services & Fees": http://www.knappfamilycounseling.com/available.html where he states: "I offer individual and group counseling via office visits, phone, and online." He did not make any corrections or changes on that page. I think these mean that Knapp continues to provide therapy. There is no indication that he is currently not available as a therapist. If he continues to practice, his actions are not only unethical, but also illegal.

I do not think he forgot that he was required to renew his registration in order to continue to practice. I think he did it intentionally. He is under investigation by NYS Office of the Professions because his former client filed a complaint at him: http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-m-knapp-lmsw.html. Probably, he did not renew his registration in order to avoid their punishment for his ethical violations toward his former client. However, if he continues to practice now, this is even worse because it is a felony.

Update (posted on August 6, 2011): I just learned that Knapp renewed his registration and now his status appears as "Registered." When I checked his license information a couple days ago, he was not registered. So, even though he is registered now, he practiced without registration for over two months.

It Gets Better Project and the CHSCA

2011-06-23T22:38:00.000-07:00

John Knapp posted on his CHSCA website video It Gets Better by Kate Bornstein. Kate is a former Scientologist and an open transgender person. Knapp announced that Kate Bornstein had joined the CHSCA advisory board. However, below Kate's video on the CHSCA website, there is a note which was written by someone else:

Publication on theCHSCA.org does not imply the author endorses the CHSCA, our mission, services, or opinions. We seek to represent a wide range of thinking—to as wide an audience as possible. We encourage readers to exercise critical thinking on all material posted at theCHSCA.org. Opinions expressed are solely the author's and may or may not reflect the values, ethics, or policies of the Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse, Inc.

Specifically, we made an erroneous announcement that Kate Bornstein had joined our Advisory Board. This was executive director, John Knapp's mistake. Kate is not associated in any way with the CHSCA. But we love her anyway.

In the past, Knapp announced many people who, according to his words, joined the CHSCA advisory board. It is quite possible that Kate Bornstein was not the only one of these people who actually never joined it and who is not associated with the CHSCA.

Also, introducing Kate's video, Knapp failed to give any background of It Gets Better project or even to mention that Kate Bornstein was not the only person who made a video on this subject. He also failed to mention that this subject has nothing to do with cults. In addition, he failed to mention that It Gets Better project has nothing to do with his non-profit CHSCA. It is well known that Bible-based cults like to take biblical verses out of their context in order to make them speak what they want. It seems that Knapp used the same tactic.

A lot of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people and some non-LGBT people participated in It Gets Better project. The purpose of this project is to encourage LGBT teenagers who are discouraged because of being bulled for who they are and some of whom are thinking about committing a suicide. On It Gets Better project website, there is a detailed description of it. I do believe that this project is very important and that it is very good that Kate Bornstein participated in it. However, Kate was just one of many people who participated in this project. On It Gets Better project website and YouTube, there are many videos from It Gets Better project and they have nothing to do with cults.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were among the people who participated in It Gets Better project. Their speeches there give some background of it.

In one of previous posts, I embedded two other videos from It Gets Better project, by two open gays and Christian ministers Gene Robinson and Mel White. Many other videos from this project can be found on YouTube, on It Gets Better project website, and on other websites.

John Knapp Has No Right To Practice As LMSW Now

2011-06-03T04:23:00.000-07:00

John Knapp's registration as LMSW (Licensed Master Social Work) in New York State expired in May 31, 2011. Now, he is not registered which means that he is not allowed to practice as a social worker in New York State:

To practice within New York State, a professional must be licensed and REGISTERED.

Update (posted on August 6, 2011): I just learned that Knapp renewed his registration and now his status appears as "Registered." When I checked his license information a couple days ago, he was not registered. So, even though he is registered now, he practiced without registration for over two months.

Megan C. Singer, ASW and John M. Knapp, LMSW

2011-05-21T05:05:00.000-07:00

Exactly one month ago, Megan Carmel Singer, a former member of the Local Church of Witness Lee and Associate Social Worker (ASW) in California banned me from her then Cults group at Facebook which she just renamed to Cult Awareness & Recovery and unfriended me at Facebook. She did not inform me about banning me and did not explain her reasons for banning me. I never violated any group rules. In addition, since May 2008 until April 2011 when Megan banned me, I was a co-administrator of this group. I emailed her and asked why she did so. The only thing she let me know was that "one of the leading cult experts of the country" complained at me and this was why she immediately banned me, although she was still "exploring the issue." After I emailed her again, she replied that I should "sit tight" and "be patient." I asked her again what were the accusations against me. She did not reply. The day before yesterday, I emailed her again and asked what was the conclusion of her "investigation." She did not reply me. However, she changed the settings of her group after my email.

Well, I never saw such hostility as Megan has showed toward me. As far as I know, moderators and administrators usually let people know why they ban them and people who were banned have a right to know why they were banned. However, until now, Megan refused to let me know why she banned me. I did not expect such hostility from Megan because she and I cyber-met 4 years ago and, to my understanding, we never had any problems before she banned me.

Since Megan has not been very active in the anti-cult field, she probably does not know that there is no such an official title as "cult expert" because there is no organization that certifies people as cult experts. This title is usually self-assumed. Consequently, there are no "leading cult experts of the country."

Although Megan did not want to reveal me the name of this "cult expert," it was very easy for me to understand who this person is. His name is John M. Knapp. Of course, he is not a "leading cult expert of the country" and even not a leading professional in the anti-cult field in the USA, though he does have such ambitions and I think he may present himself as such.

Knapp has been a member of Megan's group for almost two years. He did not often post there. However, as soon as Megan banned me, he and another member began to promote his CHSCA. So, I think one of the reasons he had Megan ban me was to have a freedom to promote his non-profit there. Before Megan banned me, I was a co-administrator and could easily delete his posts.

Well, Knapp has quite a remarkable trait. When he has problems with people, he does not deal with them directly. Instead, he spreads various slanders about them. I know of some of his slanders regarding me and other people. However, he speaks them behind their backs. At the same time, he may try to have good relationships with these people. Ironically, just after Megan banned me, Knapp sent me two invitations to connect with him at LinkedIn, though he did not try to contact me since August 1, 2010 when we had a split. Also, I am well aware of Knapp's ability to separate people and break their friendships. In addition, I understand that he is unhappy at my blog posts about him. So, his behavior does not surprise me at all.

However, Knapp's behavior does not vindicate Megan's behavior toward me. I was a moderator and administrator of Knapp's forum for 5 months. I heard what he said about some people and organizations. However, I also used my mind and critically evaluated what he said. I also considered my own experience with these people. I have never behaved in such a hostile way toward people even when I believed Knapp.

Megan refused to let me know the accusations against me and did not want to name the person who accused me. She refused to let me an opportunity to speak in my defense. I never violated the rules of her group. The conflict between Knapp and me had to do with his forum and non-profit and had nothing to do with Megan's group. All this is unfair. In addition, her two replies were full of arrogance. BTW, Megan has been a member of my groups as well. Although she banned me, I did not ban her because she did not violate the group rules. I decided to be fair to her even though she is unfair to me.

In this situation, I can no longer endorse Megan's group which is currently called Cult Awareness & Recovery and which may soon become a branch of Knapp's CHSCA which I cannot endorse either. If ex-members of cults would like to join some organizations, there are two safe organizations: ICSA and reFOCUS.

Update. After I published this post and let Megan know about it, she emailed me. She wrote that I may rejoin her group and apologized to me. However, until now, she did not let me know what happened: she did not give me any names, any accusations against me, and so on. So, this situation still looks quite odd to me.

A Woman in Hijab as an Emblem of the CHSCA

2011-05-15T15:15:00.000-07:00

In the CHSCA website, there is an article on spiritual abuse with a picture of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab (Muslim women's head covering). This picture is used in many of the CHSCA articles and posts in other websites practically as an emblem of the CHSCA.

In another post, I wrote that hijabs are not signs of spiritual abuse. The idea that women's head coverings indicate spiritual abuse has something to do with the Bible and has nothing to do with the Qur'an. This is an example of Western people's misunderstanding of Islam. I do not deny that in some Muslim countries, regions, and groups there is spiritual abuse toward women, but it has nothing to do with their wearing hijabs.

In fact, using this picture as an emblem of the CHSCA makes an impression that CHSCA is a kind of Muslim or anti-Muslim organization and not an anti-cult organization.

Actually, John Knapp does not deny that he knows very little about Islam as he wrote in CHSCA Facebook page:

I know much less about Islam than Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism—about which I know little enough. What I do know, I admire.

I've tried reading the Qu'ran, but unfortunately I found trying to read it without cultural context very difficult. I had some really great conversations with a local Imam in California around the time of the Gulf War. He helped me a little. I bought a beautiful edition in the original with facing translation. I still have it.

Well, when Muslims speak about reading the Qur'an, they always mean reading its original Arabic text. I do not think Knapp tried to read its Arabic text. Probably, he tried to read one of its English translations. I personally read Russian translations of the Qur'an almost 30 times (I have 7 different Russian translations of the Qur'an) and I read the Arabic text 2 times. In addition, I read some portions of English translations of the Qur'an. I never felt that it is hard to read a translation of the Qur'an, even when I was reading it the first time and the translation was not very good. It may be hard to understand some things in the Qur'an. However, many translations of the Qur'an have commentaries. In fact, most translations of the Qur'an are translations of meanings, that is, they themselves give some interpretation of the Qur'an. Also, there are Qur'anic commentaries. They are called Tafsir or Tafseer. I have 2 Tafsirs in Russian, but there are much more Tafsirs available in English. In addition, there are books on the Qur'anic sciences (Ulum al-Qur'an or Uloom al-Qur'an) which give good introductory information on the background of the Qur'an and principles of its understanding and interpretation. There are also many books on Islam, including those for beginners. So, if Knapp had really wanted to read and understand a translation of the Qur'an, he could have done that without much difficulty.

If he had read a translation of the Qur'an, he would probably know why Muslim women wear hijabs because the Qur'an is very clear about this. In the Qur'an 24:30-31 (Yusufali's translation), it is written:

30 Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

In the Qur'an 33:59 (Yusufali's translation), it is said:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

So, the reason for women to cover their whole body, including their heads, according to the Qur'an is to prevent men's lust to them, that is, to prevent rapes and any kinds of sexual abuse. This reason has nothing to do with oppression or spiritual abuse.

An Ordained Minister of the Church of Scientology Joins the CHSCA

2011-05-14T19:19:00.000-07:00

John M. Knapp presents his new non-profit, the Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse as a new anti-cult organization. However, he invited a lot of people who have nothing to do with anti-cult field. One of the people who joined CHSCA advisory board is an ordained minister of the Church of Scientology, though I am not sure if John Knapp knows about this.

On May 5, he announced that Dennis Erlich joined CHSCA advisory board. BTW, his last name is spelled Erlich, not Ehrlich as Knapp spells it. Although Knapp knows that Erlich has a Reverend title, he probably never considered how Erlich obtained it and what church ordained him.

In January 2009, when Dennis Erlich joined "freedomofmind" group (I was a member of that group), he was asked this question. There were long debates about it and Erlich actually answered this question two times. His first answer was:

I've been a registered minister in the state of California since 1969. In 1982 I walked away from the cult and began enlightening people on the subject. This became my new ministry. In the mid 90s inFormer Ministry incorporated in California as a non profit religious/educational corporation. In 1997 we registered with the IRS and received 501c3 non profit status.
The other ordination I got was a humorous one from the founder of the mock-cult of SubGenius. That's for-profit humor publishing group. I proudly display the "Dobbshead" on my site.

His second answer was more clear and detailed:

I thought it was clear that I was originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.

As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were required to register with the State of California, which I did. After I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on file in Sacramento that way.

Throughout the 80's and 90's I ministered to hundreds of people who had left cults. I am credited with talking a bunch of recovering cultists who were seriously contemplating suicide, "down from the ledge." I ran dozens and dozens of cult recovery focus sessions in Los Angeles and published inFormer Newsletter for ex-members.

In 1997 I incorporated inFormer Ministry in California as a non profit religious/educational corporation (#2011733) and it was awarded Federal 501(c)3 status a year later.

The ministry with the help of its volunteers has produced public events for the City of Los Angeles Mayors Office and Cultural Affairs Dept. For a number of years we wrote and helped produce the Hollywood Christmas Parade on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.

I have filed my taxes as a minister every year since 1969.

Since the State of California and Federal Government has "officially recognized me" as a minister, I have no problem continuing with that title. I guess those would be the "sanctioning bodies" if there is one.

InFormer Ministry is now its own "sanctioning body" and non-denominational religious order.

So, officially, Dennis Erlich is still a registered minister of the Church of Scientology. He was ordained by the Church of Scientology and this is how he obtained his Reverend title. In addition, as Erlich made clear, his inFormer Ministry is actually based on his Scientology ministerial credentials. Also, ministerial ordination usually requires a formal training and it is obvious that the only formal training Erlich had for his ministry was the training in the Church of Scientology. For more information, you may read this article.

Well, he left Scientology a long time ago and since then has been an anti-Scientologist and anti-cult activist. He even created his own apparently anti-cult inFormer Ministry. However, this is still a serious question how a person can be an anti-Scientology activist and a registered minister of the Church of Scientology at the same time and how he can use his cult ministerial credentials for anti-cult activity.

"Roman Road" to Salvation

2011-05-09T13:43:00.001-07:00

I am completely for any person's freedom to profess any religion or to be an atheist or agnostic. A half of my life I was an atheist and the other half of my life I was a believer. Comparing religion with atheism and agnosticism, I think that atheism and agnosticism are appealing to intellectual people because they appear to be very logical, scientific, and thoughtful. However, atheism and agnosticism have a very serious shortage. They are completely powerless before death. They are unable to give hope and comfort to dying people. Neither can they give hope and comfort to people who lost their loved ones. This is why atheists and agnostics prefer not to think about death at all. I heard and read many stories of agnostics and atheists who began to pray to God when they were in a dangerous situation or when their loved ones were very sick. However, they forgot about God as soon as the dangerous situation was over.

When atheists and agnostics lose their loved ones, they are able only to grieve because they do not have any hope. It was my experience when my grandmother died many years ago. She was an atheist and I was an atheist at that time. To me, her death was the end. I experienced a very strong grief and sadness after she died.

However, for born-again Christians, the situation is completely different. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul wrote (NKJV):

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Unlike atheists and agnostics, born-again Christians believe that they will meet their dead born-again loved ones and that they are with Christ now. This has been my experience after my mother's recent death. I am a born-again Christian and she was too. I believe that she is with Christ now and that I will meet her again. So, I grieve much less than I grieved after my grandmother's death.

I entitled this post "Roman Road" to Salvation. "Roman road" to salvation is a method of evangelism when all the biblical verses are taken from the New Testament epistle to Romans. There are many variants of "the Roman road". Below, I am posting one of them. Please notice that I post it only for the people who have questions: "How can I be saved? How can I go to heaven? How can I be born again?" I do not encourage anyone to join any church. I am not a member of any church or religious group myself. I do not ask you to receive Christ if you do not want to. This is completely your choice.

The first verse of "Roman road" to salvation is Romans 3:23 (NKJV):

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

We all have sinned. There is no one who is without sin. We all have done something unpleasant to God in our life. Romans 3:10-18 (NKJV) describe some of the sins people do in their life:

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."
13 "Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

The second verse of "the Roman road", Romans 6:23 (NKJV) reveals the result of sin:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The wages of sin is death: both physical and spiritual.

The third verse is Romans 5:8 (NKJV):

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Jesus Christ died for us. His death paid for our sins. His resurrection confirms that God received His death as redemption for our sins.

The fourth "station" at "the Roman road" is Romans 10:9-10 (NKJV):

9 That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Due to Christ's death, all we need to do for salvation is just to believe in Him and His redeeming sacrifice. In Romans 10:13 (NKJV), it is said:

For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Jesus died in order to bear the punishment for our sins and to save us from the eternal death. Salvation and forgiveness of sins are available for everyone who believes in Christ as their Savior and Lord.

The fifth verse of "the Roman road", Romans 5:1 (NKJV) says about the result of salvation:

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Through Jesus Christ we may receive peace with God. In Romans 8:1 (NKJV), it is written:

There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

Due to Christ's death for us, we will never be condemned for our sins.

The last point is the promise in Romans 8:38-39 (NKJV):

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,
39 nor height nor depth, not any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you want to take "the Roman road" to salvation, you can pray to receive Christ as your Savior. In order to be saved, you need not only to pray, but also to believe in Christ as your Savior in your heart. The prayer may be like this:

God, I know that I am a sinner and deserve punishment. However, Jesus bore punishment for me so that I may be saved through my faith in Him. I receive Jesus Christ as my Savior who died for my sins. Thank you for Your mercy and forgiveness. Thank you for Your gift of the eternal life. Amen.

My Testimony about My Being Born Again

2011-04-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

I was born again 20 years ago. This experience had nothing to do with any cult involvement or cult recruitment. Recently, I celebrated this date and gave my testimony. Below is an excerpt of this testimony.

My conversion to faith in God took place 20 years ago. In the morning, I was an atheist. In the evening, I became a Christian and could not help but believe in God. My conversion took place at a gospel meeting where the subject of the sermon was God Gives Hope to the Hopeless. It matched my condition at that time. The preacher spoke a lot about God's love and salvation through Jesus Christ. It touched me very much. At that evening, I not only received Christ as my Savior, but I also received God as the meaning of my life. I gained hope given by God. My whole life changed and I began to look at the world in a different way. I was unhappy person and did not know what I lived for. But I became a happy person and my life became meaningful. My conversion was very dynamic.

Why do I call it "spiritual birthday"? In John 3:1-8 (NIV), it is said:

1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Here, Jesus tells Nicodemus about being born again. It is a new birth. Then, Jesus explains that it is not a new physical birth, but birth from the Holy Spirit. The Greek word translated here as "again" is "anothen." It derives from the Greek word "ano" which means "above." The original meaning of "anothen" is "from above." Thus, to be born again is also to be born from above. This birth is necessary in order to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus was a very pious person and had deep religious knowledge. However, Jesus told him that he needed to be born again because no person who was not born again is unable to enter the kingdom of God.

In John 1:12-13 (NIV), it is said how this birth takes place:

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Here it is said that the birth from God which is the same as the birth from the Holy Spirit, takes place through receiving Christ and faith into Him. The faith here is the faith into Christ as the Savior who bore the punishment for our sins on the cross and the receiving Christ here is receiving Him as a personal Savior. Being born from God, a person becomes a child of God.

What is the result of the spiritual birth? The spiritual birth is receiving eternal life which is spiritual and not physical. In the Greek original of the New Testament, different words are used for denoting physical life and eternal life. The word for physical life is "bios." The word for eternal life is "zoe." In John 3:14-18 (NIV), it is written:

14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Here Jesus says about a case described in the Old Testament (Numbers 21:5-9). When Israelites were in the wilderness and serpents bit them, God told Moses to make a brass serpent and to lift it on the pole. Everyone who was bitten by a serpent and who looked at the brass serpent, survived. The brass serpent on the pole was a type of Christ's crucifixion on the cross. Because of His great love to mankind, God the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world in order for him to bear punishment for the sins of all the people and thus He redeemed people from the punishment for their sins. The result is that everyone who believes in the redemption carried out by Christ on the cross, receives forgiveness of sins, is delivered from the condemnation for them, and receives eternal life.

In 1 John 5:10-13 (NIV), apostle John, addressing the believers in Christ, writes:

10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Apostle John tells here that those who believe in Christ as their Savior and who received Him, have eternal life already. They will not receive it in the future. God has given them eternal life already.

Jesus says about the same in John 5:24 (NIV):

Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Jesus speaks here about spiritual death and spiritual life, not about physical ones. A person who does not have spiritual life is in spiritual death, even if he or she is alive physically. When he or she receives the eternal spiritual life, he/she is being delivered from the spiritual death.

It is impossible to lose eternal life after receiving it. In John 10:28-29 (NIV), Jesus says:

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

Those who received eternal life, are unable to perish. That is, they are unable to lose eternal life. Those who received eternal life, have been delivered from eternal perish forever. Jesus and God the Father hold them in Their hands. Nobody and nothing are able to snatch them, that is, to deprive them of eternal life.

20 years ago, I was born again, was born from above, was born of the Holy Spirit, was born of God, became a child of God, received eternal life, and was delivered from eternal perishing forever. Therefore, this is the day of my spiritual birthday. Although my spiritual birthday took place 20 years ago, this day is still very important and precious for me because it changed my whole life and my eternal destiny. After my life on the earth is over, I will be with Christ forever.

I thank Jesus Christ who loved me and bore punishment for my sins. I thank God the Father who loved me and gave me eternal life.

Life after Death Question

2011-04-27T16:29:00.000-07:00

John Knapp highly promotes a book written by a member of his non-profit CHSCA, Nori Muster. The book is entitled Betrayal of the Spirit: My Life behind the Headlines of the Hare Krishna Movement. The overview posted in CHSCA website implies that Nori considers herself as an "expert" in religious matters. Since I was interested about her credentials, I checked her educational information: "Her degree is in Interdisciplinary Studies, which was a combination of Psychology (Psych.), Criminal Justice (CJ), and Clinical Child and Youth Work (CCYW)." There is no indication that she has ever studied theology, religious studies, history of religion or something like this. I do not consider myself to be an "expert" in religious matters. However, I graduated from an evangelical Bible institute. So, I have a theological education.

I guess the beginning of the description of Nori's book is quite intriguing for many people:

We cannot know for sure what is waiting for us on the other side in dreams or death, or even know if there is another side. The feeling I get is that if there is, it is much like what we have here, but better. Maybe it is ideal, as the Classical Greek philosopher Plato said. Maybe we see long lost loved ones, or experience a paradise like some religions promise. Or, maybe it is a purgatory or hell. Maybe the soul ends and there is nothing after death. But none of us can say for sure; the other side and death will always remain a riddle to us who are living.

Let me share my personal situation. Recently, my mother died. She was my only close relative and I loved her very much. What Nori's book tells me? "Well, I do not know, maybe, your mother's soul is in a paradise or, maybe, she is in a hell. Maybe, her soul does not exist any more. Maybe, you will see her again or, maybe, not. I do not know." Nori's book will not give me any hope. A person who has my situation and the same beliefs as Nori has, will have a serious depression.

However, I do not experience a severe depression now. Do you know why? Because I am not an agnostic. I am a born-again Christian and my mother was a born-again Christian also. I believe what the Bible says:

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, NIV)

Thus, the Bible says that at the time of Christ's second coming (or more strictly, at the time of rapture) the dead Christians will be resurrected and the living Christians will meet them. It means that I will meet my mother again.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8, NIV)

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. (Philippians 1:21-24, NIV)

2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2-3, NIV)

So, the Bible says that the dead Christians are with Christ in the Father's house and that it is better for them to be there than to be here. Therefore, for them, to die is gain. Even though I would prefer my mother to continue to live on the earth, I know that she is with Christ now and it is much better for her to be there than to be here.

God, the Bible, and my Christian faith give me a tremendous comfort, peace, and hope at this time. Repeating Paul's words, I "do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope." Of course, I would have been without comfort, peace, and hope if I had had similar beliefs to Nori's.

The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse (The CHSCA) Fundraising

2011-03-27T11:12:00.000-07:00

Although John M. Knapp, LMSW did not properly create his new organization, The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse (The CHSCA), as I wrote in the previous post and he practices questionable therapies such as Internet therapy and DID (dissociative identity disorder) therapy, he raises funds for his new organization, supposedly to provide his therapy for people who are unable to pay: http://thechsca.org/donors-a-sponsors/donate-to-the-chsca. People who donate money to The CHSCA for John Knapp's therapy should be aware that his therapy may actually harm people instead of helping them.

John M. Knapp and The CHSCA

2011-03-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

Recently, John M. Knapp, LMSW started a new website and claims that he founded a new non-profit corporation, The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse (The CHSCA) and is the executive director of it. He highly promotes this new organization, including their services and even international support. However, I think that potential clients should be aware of some facts regarding this organization and John M. Knapp.

Since he lives and practices in New York State, his non-profit corporation is supposed to be on file with NYS Department of State. However, anyone can search NYS Department of State The Corporation and Business Entity Database and see that it is not there. The current information messages by this database [on March 25, 2011] are the following:

NYS Department of State
Division of Corporations
Informational Message
The information contained in this database is current through March 24, 2011.
No business entities were found for The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse.
No business entities were found for The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse.
No business entities were found for The CHSCA.
No business entities were found for CHSCA.

John Knapp started his website in the beginning of March and claimed to have created The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse as a non-profit corporation, but it is still not on file with NYS Department of State. The only conclusion I can make is that his non-profit corporation is non-existing or illegal.

As far as I know, one of the main reasons for John Knapp to supposedly create his non-profit corporation is to attract more clients. However, I would warn people about hiring him as a therapist. Here is a report of one of his former clients: http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-m-knapp-lmsw.html. I know of this situation and am aware that he caused a serious damage to this person.

Another problem with his counseling is that he practices online counseling, using Skype and similar programs. Many therapists have doubts regarding this way of counseling because Skype has security flaws and because there is a great difference between seeing somebody in person and on video. According to my understanding, the position of the NYS State Boards for the Professions, that is, the organization that certified him as Licensed Master Social Worker (LMSW) is that they do not tend to consider online therapy as true therapy.

In Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants, section II, point A, sub-point 5:

A subscribing consultant will not employ methods or techniques such as neuro-linguistics programming, hypnosis or Ericksonian hypnosis or other techniques similar to those employed by cult groups without fully informed consent of the client.

I know that not all the thought reform consultants, exit counselors or whatever they call themselves, subscribed by these ethical standards. Although these methods are not illegal per se, they are used by cults. This is why most professionals who work with ex-cult members (including those who did not subscribed by these ethical standards) consider that it is unethical to use them.

Since John Knapp is LMSW, he is required to have a supervisor who is LCSW. His supervisor and her husband are certified NLP trainers. John Knapp and his supervisor even have offices in the same building. Well, there is nothing illegal with having a supervisor who is a certified NLP trainer, but it definitely indicates that John Knapp seriously studied NLP. People usually study NLP to use it, not just to have information about it. I have never been his client, but I used to be a co-moderator and a co-administrator of his forum and I can testify that he used NLP techniques toward me.

Although I wrote three posts about John Knapp in my blog, I did not use his name. Now I think this is the time to say that he is the person mentioned in the following posts as "anti-cult leader" and "anti-cult Professor Moriarty":
http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2010/08/anti-cult-activism-and-anti-cult.html
http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2010/10/anti-cult-professor-moriarty.html
http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2011/01/donations-and-fund-raising-in-anti-cult.html

PS. John Knapp keeps posting in his new Twitter account that certain people joined his Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse. I doubt that this information is correct. In any case, I will not join his new organization under any condition. In the past, he tried to involve me there, using manipulations. I have never given my agreement to join it. Although he still lists me in his forum as one of moderators and administrators, I am not a moderator and administrator of his forum since August 1, 2010. I had no contacts with him since this time. I do not endorse him and will not work together with him any longer. This is my firm position and I will not change it.

Hijabs: Are They Signs of Spiritual Abuse?

2011-03-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

In the post entitled Thought Reform and Cultures, I already mentioned that Western people totally misunderstand the reason why Muslim women wear hijabs (Muslim head coverings).

In a certain anti-cult website, I just noticed an article on spiritual abuse. One problem with this article is that the author considers spiritual abuse to be the same as thought reform. I wrote about the definition of the spiritual abuse given by the authors of this term in another post. I consider its definition to be the most correct and I am against too stretched concept of this term. For example, non-religious cults use thought reform techniques, but I do not think it should be called spiritual abuse because such cults have nothing to do with religion.

Another problem with the article I mentioned is a picture of a woman wearing a hijab, posted there. So, it seems that the author considers a hijab as a sign of spiritual abuse. However, the thing is that the idea that women's head coverings is a sign of any kind of abuse actually has something to do with the Bible and has nothing to do with the Qur'an.

In the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:2-15 (New American Standard Version), it is said:

2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

In this passage, Paul teaches that man is a head of a woman and that woman's head covering is a symbol of man's authority. There are various interpretations of this passage, but I am not going to get into them now. My point is that the idea that if a woman covers her head, it shows her submissive position, is taken from this passage of the Bible.

The Qur'an gives an absolutely different reason for a woman to cover her head. In the Qur'an 24:30-31 (Yusufali's translation), it is written:

30 Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

In the Qur'an 33:59 (Yusufali's translation), it is said:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

So, the reason for women to cover their whole body, including their heads, according to the Qur'an is completely different. It is to prevent men's lust to them, that is, to prevent rapes and such things. This reason has nothing to do with oppression or spiritual abuse. On the contrary, it takes care of a woman's dignity.

Some Muslim women wear hijabs that cover their hair and faces. Some wear hijabs that cover only their hair and leave their faces open. This difference comes from the different opinions of the four traditional Sunni madhabs (schools of Muslim law): Hanafis, Shafiis, Malikis, and Hanbalis. Some madhabs teach that women should cover their faces, some teach that they should not. The reason for covering Muslim women's faces is the same as for covering their heads and other parts of the body, which is to protect women from strange men's sexual abuses. So, it has nothing to do with any oppression or spiritual abuse.

Although there are some abusive Muslim groups that insist on women wearing hijabs, hijabs themselves are not a sign of spiritual abuse. The idea that they are, comes from Christianity, not from Islam. This is one of the examples that illustrates that it is important for anti-cult professionals to consider the cultural differences and not to project their own culture to the people of another culture.

Thought Reform and Cultures - Part 2

2011-02-23T13:32:00.000-08:00

After writing the previous post, I decided to make some additions and clarifications.

When I write that the Soviet communist government did not use "classic brain-washing," I mean that they did not use the same set of brain-washing techniques as were used in China and were described by Lifton. "Classic brain-washing" was a Chinese idea. In the Soviet Union, some elements of it were used, but not the whole set.

Of course, I do not consider the Soviet Union as a free society. However, I do not consider it as really brain-washing or thought-reforming. In my own experience, my involvement in the religious cult affected me much more and I consider that this group does use strong thought reform, but the techniques used in the Soviet Union were much weaker.

If we consider thought reform as "black" and freedom of mind as "white," there are many "gray shades" between them. I would put the Soviet Union as very "dark gray," but not "black."

On the other hand, there is really a question whether "pure white" is possible because any person is under social influence, but its degree may be different. Dictator countries have a high degree of the social influence. Democratic countries have a less degree. However, it is impossible to avoid the social influence completely. Every society has a language, culture, ethics, laws. These things affect people's mentality. They direct and restrict people's way of thinking to some extent. However, no society is possible without these things. Otherwise, people will not be able to communicate and there will be chaos.

Since cultural background affects people's mentality and their concept of freedom, it may also affect their evaluation of freedom or non-freedom in other cultures. When two people from different background evaluate the same society, one of them may think that it is free while the other may consider that it is dictatorship.

Anti-cult professionals admit that there is no strict definition of mind control / thought reform because there are many opinions there. It seems that there is no exact definition of freedom of mind either because it depends on a person's cultural background as well as his or her own opinions.

In the previous post, I gave an example of the two freedom-like people which are Americans and Chechens. Both have different concepts of freedom. Another example of freedom-like people are Circassians. Circassians used to be the biggest nation in the Northern Caucasus and they lived in that territory for thousands years. In 18th and 19th centuries, Russia tried to occupy the Northern Caucasus. Many Northern Caucasus nations, including Circassians and Chechens, resisted Russia. Both Circassians and Chechens strongly resisted Russia and paid a great price for it: more than 90 percent of their total population (including elderly men, women, and children) were killed. However, Circassians paid a greater price. They practically lost their motherland. They lost more than 90 percent of their territory and most of the survived Circassians had to leave their motherland for Turkey. Until now, most Circassians live in Turkey and in other countries, only a small part of them lives in their original territory which now belongs to Russia.

So, Circassians are also very freedom-like people. In 19th century, many Western people made remarks on their pursuit for freedom. Even Boris Yeltsin, the first President of Russia, told about Russian-Circassian war in 1763-1864: "Circassian people's unprecedented struggle for their freedom that lasted for one hundred years caused the whole world's respect and admiration. It was the war not only for their survival on their motherland, but also for the preservation of their original culture, the best traits of their national character."

On the other hand, Circassians have a very strict national ethics and etiquette and they very hardly regard this part of their culture. They say that what makes them Circassians is their national ethics and etiquette. In the Circassian language, the same word means "Circassian" and "courteous." The word for the Circassian ethics literally means "Circassian-ness." Their code of ethics and etiquette is very strict. For example, according to it, a son was required to stand in his father's presence and could not sit down (I am not sure if they still keep this rule). There was a case when a young Circassian was deadly wounded and stayed in bed. His father came to visit his dying son. The son stood up and his friends helped him to stand because he was very sick. Eventually, his father left because he realized that it was very hard for his son to stand, but he would not sit down or lay down in his presence.

There are many other rules in their national code that are hard to observe. It is very strict and it does restricts Circassians' behavior very much. However, at the same time, they are very freedom-like people and they are ready to fight for their personal freedom. But, obviously, their concept of the personal freedom is very different from the Western concept.

So, Americans, Chechens, and Circassians have different concepts about freedom, even though all of them are freedom-like. Other nations and other cultures have other concepts about freedom. There is no one and unique concept, fitting all the nations and cultures.

Thought Reform and Cultures

2011-02-08T04:24:00.000-08:00

Many American anti-cult professionals believe that the Soviet Union used "classic brain-washing." I do not know any person who lived in the Soviet Union and who thinks this way.

In 1992, Steven Hassan visited Moscow, Russia. He said that Russian people looked like they had just left a cult. To him, this was a "proof" that the Soviet Union used brain-washing. However, what he failed to realize is that his visit to Russia was just several months after the Soviet Union collapse in December 8, 1991 at the agreement signed by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (so called Belavezha Accords). In fact, this agreement was made by these leaders secretly and nobody else in the Soviet Union expected it. Nobody believed that the Soviet Union would ever collapse. The night before that, people went to bed, living in the Soviet Union. When they woke up, they learned that the Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Of course, it was a serious shock for people. If tomorrow Americans had learned that the USA does not exist anymore, would it not have been a shock to them? However, it was exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. I understand that many Russians appeared confused in 1992, but this does not "prove" that they were brain-washed. As far as I know, many people in the USA were shocked and confused after 09/11/01, but this does not mean that they were brain-washed. In my opinion, collapse of the whole country is a bigger stress than any terrorist attack.

A certain Russian full professor whom I knew personally had spent one year in the USA, working in an American university. It was before the Soviet Union collapsed. After he came back, he said: "All the Americans are zombies." To me, it looks quite odd that American "cult experts" consider Soviet people to be brain-washed while this Soviet professor considered Americans to be "zombies." Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to ask him what exactly he meant by saying that. He died. So, I am able only to hypothesize what he meant. I think it had to do with the differences between American and Soviet/Russian cultures. Once, I heard an American preacher who said: "Russians are deep and thoughtful, Americans are shallow and playful." He said this in Russia and I doubt that he would have said this in the USA. However, I heard several Russians saying very similar things about Americans after their personal contacts with Americans. I think the professor might have had the same impression and this is why he said this way. Anyway, I think the reason for his statement was cultural differences.

Christians tend to think that Islam in total is cultic and mind-controlling. However, Muslims say that the real freedom is possible only in Islam. "Ex-Christian" movements claim that any religion is abusive and promote atheism. However, atheism may be no less abusive, for example, the one promoted by the communists.

Western people tend to believe that when Muslim women wear hijabs (Muslim head covering), it indicates that they are oppressed by Islam. As far as I know, many Muslim women are willing to fight for the right to wear their hijabs and do not consider it to be a sign of oppression at all. According to the Bible, women were expected to wear head covering as a sign of their submission to their husbands. This is where this idea about oppression came from. However, according to Quran, women wear head covering in order to prevent men's lusts toward them. The reason is completely different. This is just one example when Western people claim Islam to be oppressive because of their own misunderstanding it.

However, probably, it is more dangerous when American government claims that a certain country is authoritarian and initiate a war to bring democracy there. It was certainly the case with Iraq. Needless to say that most Iraqis did not appreciate American "care" for them because many thousands of Iraqis were killed and the country was ruined. Did it become democratic? I do not know.

All the people are influenced by their culture and their religion or philosophy whether they realize this or not. Even any human language restricts thinking processes to some extent. Bilinguals (people who know two languages equally well) are well aware of this. They often use a mixture of the two languages because they think that some things can be better expressed by one language while other things by the other language. There is no absolute freedom of mind because all the people are under some social influence. On the one hand, cultures and languages help people to communicate and understand one another. Without a culture and a language, it would have been very problematic for people to communicate and understand one another. On the other hand, these things do effect people's mentality and the way of thinking. This is a kind of social influence and no one is free from it.

When people live among people of the same culture and language, they do not realize how these things affect their mentality. It is only when they meet people of other cultures or religions or when they learn another language that they realize it. The problem however is that when people meet those who belong to another culture or another religion, some of them tend to blame people of another culture or another religion as "brain-washed," oppressed, and so on. If people do not appreciate Western values, but appreciate other values, for example, Muslim values, this does not necessary mean that they are under mind control. Vice versa is also true, of course.

In my opinion, in dealing with people of another country or another culture or another religion, it is necessary to know their culture or religion before saying whether they are "brain-washed" or not. Also, probably, people who make these conclusions should be aware of how their own culture affects them before they make such conclusions. I do not think it is correct when everything that matches, for example, American mentality and lifestyle is considered to be democratic and everything that does not match them is considered to be authoritarian. People in other parts of the world may have other concepts of democracy and authoritarianism and their concepts may be different from American concepts. However, this does not mean that these people are wrong. The concept of freedom may be different in different cultures. There is no one unique absolute concept of freedom which is accepted by all the cultures.

For example, both Americans and Chechens consider themselves to be very freedom-like. However, their concepts of personal freedom are completely different. Chechens consider all the people to be equal to themselves, not superior nor inferior, regardless of any social ranks and positions, degrees, and so on. For Americans, social ranks, positions, and degrees are very important. They do have a social hierarchy (which is against Chechen concept of personal freedom). However, for Americans, freedom of religion is very important. They believe that a person can choose any religion or no religion at all. Chechens have a different concept. They do not impose their religious views on people, but they consider Islam as Chechen national religion and believe that a Chechen should be a Muslim. Thus, their concept is against American concept of the religious freedom. Whose concept of the personal freedom is better? I do not know. Neither of them is perfect. Other nations have other concepts of freedom.

There is no one and the same concept of freedom in the world. There is no one absolute concept accepted by everyone in the world. Likewise, there is no absolute freedom of mind because all the people are under cultural and other social influence. Of course, there are different degrees of this influence and there are different degrees of thought reform (which is the most intensive and strongest social influence). And I do believe that when thought reform is considered, cultural differences should be taken into consideration as well.

Donations and Fund-Raising in the Anti-Cult Community: A Warning

2011-01-09T06:09:00.000-08:00

In several previous posts, I wrote that not all the people in the anti-cult community (including those who are mental health professionals) are trustworthy. Not all the anti-cult people are altruists. Not all of them do the anti-cult work in order to really help people (even if they claim so). Some of them have absolutely other goals such as to gain authority over people, get their money, and so on. However, they will not tell you what their real goals are and will pretend that they want to help people. This is why there is a need to be careful and not to trust everyone in the anti-cult area only because this person is anti-cult.

In two previous posts, I wrote about a person who has been trying to become an anti-cult leader for about 15 years:
Anti-Cult Activism and Anti-Cult Leaders: A Warning
Anti-Cult "Professor Moriarty"
He created some anti-cult organizations that collapsed. He had conflicts with people who co-founded anti-cult organizations with him. However, he continues his attempts to create new anti-cult organizations with the intention to gain a high position in anti-cult community and not with the intention to help people.

Several months ago, he did fund-raising in quite an odd way. He posted an announcement that somebody gave him something and that he wanted to sell it for raising funds. However, he never explained what the purpose of his fund-raising was. Since I knew about his plans to create a new non-profit anti-cult organization, I suspected that the purpose was fund-raising for this organization, but he never mentioned his purpose.

Recently, there has been another odd situation. Authors of a certain anti-cult blog are supposedly under a danger of being sued by the cult they criticize. They are very careful about their anonymity, but the cult lawyers demand their email provider to reveal their identities in order to sue them. In order to avoid it, they need to hire a lawyer and pay them a certain amount of money. Otherwise, in several days, their identities will be revealed.

The "anti-cult leader" aka "anti-cult professor Moriarty" volunteers to help them in fund-raising. In the same blog, he publishes a post, asking people to donate. However, since he does not want their identities to be revealed, he asks people to send money to him instead of sending it to the blog authors.

Well, there are some points that make this situation quite suspicious to me:
1. This person is not an altruist at all. Neither is he honest. He uses many tricks. He uses people for his own goals.
2. The timing is quite interesting because it is just the time he was going to start his new non-profit organization (but apparently did not start it yet).
3. The money goes directly to him, not to the blog authors. I have no idea what he is going to do with it.
4. Consider two situations: you are asked to donate for a new anti-cult non-profit organization (which you do not know much about) and you are asked to donate to support anti-cult blog authors who are in a danger to be sued by a cult, who are in a desperate situation and need money right now. How many people will donate for a new anti-cult non-profit organization and how many people will donate to the blog authors who are going to be sued? Obviously, much more people will donate in the second case.

Well, I do not know if the blog authors are really in the danger of being sued or not. I do not know how the "anti-cult professor Moriarty" is going to use the collected money. However, the facts listed above make me doubt that his real intention is to collect money for the blog authors and not for his non-profit organization. Actually, even if he is going to send the blog authors some of the collected money, there is no guarantee that they will receive all the money donated for them.

Some people might think that even if he collects money for his new non-profit organization, it is a good goal. The problem is that if he is dishonest in fund-raising, it is already a very bad sign. I am absolutely sure that he is unable to help people. He is able only to use people and damage them. Thus, his organization will be damaging and not helpful for people. In addition, it is quite possible that it will collapse quite soon because of his new conflicts with the co-founders. Do you want to donate for such an organization?

In conclusion, I want to warn people to be careful when they are asked to donate money for various anti-cult funds. Your money might be used not in the way you think they will be.

Jesus and LGBT People

2010-12-20T12:06:00.000-08:00

Many Christians believe that the Bible condemns LGBT people. As I wrote in previous posts, the Bible passages that are used against LGBT people are misinterpreted and they actually do not condemn them. It is also remarkable that there is none of such passages in the four gospels. Jesus never condemned LGBT people and never said anything that could be possibly misinterpreted and used against them. Never.

Jesus often rebuked Pharisees. Perhaps, some modern readers of the Bible may conclude that Pharisees were gross sinners. It was not really so. The word "Pharisee" means "those who are set apart." Pharisees strictly observed the commandments of the Law of Moses as well as commandments of the oral law (which was later written down in Talmud). Outwardly, Pharisees were the most righteous people among all the Jews in Jesus' times. However, unlike common Jews, Jesus was not impressed with their righteousness. He rebuked them for self-righteousness, condemning other people, and hypocrisy (their outward righteous actions and inner evil thoughts did not match). Unfortunately, there are many Pharisees in Christianity. They think that they are righteous and better than others. They condemn other people whom they consider sinners. They are hypocrites.

Jesus associated with people who were rejected by others, for example, with tax collectors and sinners. He received them and ate with them, even though Pharisees did not like it (Luke 15:1-2; Mark 2:15-16). The fact that tax collectors are mentioned as sinners in the gospels does not mean that this job is sinful per se. The problem was that those tax collectors forced people to pay not only taxes for Roman authorities, but also some extra money for the tax collectors themselves. So, most Jews despised them. At least, one of the twelve apostles was a tax collector before Jesus called him. This was Matthew, the author of the gospel of Matthew. According to the Old Testament (Lev. 20:10), people who committed adultery were to be stoned. However, Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11). He also forgave another woman who was known to be a sinner (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus talked with a Samaritan woman, though most Jews completely rejected Samaritans (John 4:9). There were many women among Jesus' disciples (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42; and other passages), though Jewish rabbis of his time never allowed women to be their disciples.

Jesus' attitude to people was acceptance and love, not hatred and rejection. It was very different from many of today's Christians. Would Jesus reject a person for being gay? I do not think so. Would he say: "Leave your sinful lifestyle and then come to me"? I do not think he would do so. If he were on the earth today, I would rather imagine him in the company of LGBT people or other despised and rejected people than in the company of today's self-righteous and hypocrite Pharisees.

Is it possible that Jesus was an LGBT person himself? Well, if it is wrong and sinful to be an LGBT person, of course, it is impossible. However, if it is not sinful and is normal (and I believe that this is the biblical position), then, it is possible.

LGBT theologians have, at least, three hypotheses regarding this. Jesus never got married and there are no indications that he had any romantic relationships with women. The Gospel of John (13:23; 20:2; 21:20) mentions Jesus' disciple whom he loved. Most theologians believe that this beloved disciple was John. On the basis of these three verses from John, some LGBT theologians say that Jesus and John loved one another as two gay men (which does not necessary mean that they had sexual contacts). According to another hypothesis, Jesus was transgender. These theologians point out that there are some passages in the Bible that indicate that God has some female traits, that is, that God is neither male nor female, but both. Since Christ is God, he also must have some female traits. They say that in some situations he behaved not manly enough, for example, he wept (John 11:35), cooked (John 21:9), washed disciples' feet (John 13:1-12). So, they make a conclusion that Jesus was a bigender, that is, both a man and a woman psychologically. There is also a hypothesis that he was intersex. Intersexuals are somewhat between males and females biologically. So, this hypothesis also has to do with the concept that Jesus had some female traits because God has them. Usually, men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes. Y chromosome is transmitted from the father and not from the mother because there are no Y chromosomes in females' organisms. However, Jesus did not have a biological father. So, he might have had XX chromosomes, although he outwardly looked like a man. This is a kind of intersexuality.

Most conservative Christians would probably strongly disagree with these hypotheses. I personally believe that there is a possibility that they are true, but they do not have a sufficient biblical foundation. However, there is still a question: Was Jesus heterosexual? The Bible never says that he acted as a heterosexual. Rather, he acted as asexual. Asexual is a person who is attracted to neither men nor women. Asexuality is different from celibacy. Celibacy is when a person suppresses his romantic or sexual desires. Asexuality is when a person does not have them at all. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul wrote that he had a special gift from God: he did not have sexual desires and thus did not need to get married. This gift is asexuality. If Paul had this gift, why Jesus could not have it? The phenomenon of asexuality is known much less then homosexuality and bisexuality. However, the thing is that some people are asexual and that asexuality is the fourth sexual orientation (the other three are heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality). Since it is the fourth sexual orientation (which is different from heterosexuality), asexual people are also sexual minority. Moreover, they are often considered to be a part of LGBT community.

Fanatic Atheists against Fanatic Christians

2010-12-09T06:49:00.000-08:00

The Soviet Union was an atheist country. Religion was not fully banned there, but religious propaganda was. Since evangelicals believed in Christ's Great Commission, they preached the gospel and many of them were arrested and judged. In addition, many evangelical groups did not have official registration which was also illegal. Most people did not have their own copies of the Bible. It was very hard to get any evangelical theological education. Evangelicals in the Soviet Union almost did not have contacts with evangelicals in other countries. This was a very hard time for evangelicals. However, in my opinion, in these circumstances, it was very easy for evangelical groups to become fanatic.

Below is a video of lawsuit against three leaders (presbyter and two preachers) of a Pentecostal group (Assemblies of God) which took place in 1961. This video was made as a typical communist and atheist propaganda. Unfortunately, it is in Russian and no translation is available.

This video is full of communist and atheist rhetorics. One of the accusations against the Pentecostal leaders was that their literature (in Russian) was printed in the USA. In the Soviet Union, it was a serious thing because everyone who had any contacts with Western people was suspected to be a spy. I am absolutely against arresting and imprisoning people because of their religion.

However, there are two points in this video that cause me mixed feelings. One of them is a story of a woman who joined this group. Before she joined it, she was diagnosed with cancer in initial stage. In this video, it is stated that she could be cured if she had proper medical treatment. However, this group discouraged people from going to doctors. She did not have a treatment and died. Another thing is that it is stated there that one of the preachers refused to serve in the Soviet Army. Since military service was mandatory, he was convicted. These two stories seem to indicate that this group was too fanatic because as far as I know visiting doctors and military service are not against Assemblies of God teachings.

In addition, it seems that this group was not registered because their meetings were secret. They lasted many hours and sometimes from evening until morning. In the video, it is stated that this group recruited people who had difficult periods in life and young people.

It is well known that in the Soviet Union there were some thought reform techniques used. I think this group also used some thought reform techniques. What is better: to be under atheist thought reform or under religious thought reform? I do not know.

Post-Cult Recovery and Religion

2010-12-04T01:35:00.000-08:00

There are four main approaches to the post-cult recovery:
1. Purely psychological approach when the main goal is to address psychological and emotional problems caused by the cult involvement and a person's belief system is not affected.
2. Purely theological approach when the main goal is to change the person's belief system from incorrect (unorthodox, heretical) to correct (orthodox), but psychological and emotional issues are not properly addressed.
3. A combination of psychological and theological approaches that addresses both psychological and emotional problems and person's beliefs.
4. A combination of psychological and atheist approaches when psychological problems are addressed and a person is encouraged to leave religion completely.

I personally prefer approach that does not cause a person to change the belief system. I cannot agree with atheist/"ex-Christian"/"recovering fundamentalists" approach because of their atheist propaganda. They claim that any religion is abusive and promote leaving it completely. Ironically, their arguments very much repeat arguments used by communists. Communists also taught that any religion is abusive and promoted atheism. Was communist atheism less abusive? Of course, not. Atheism as well as religion may be very abusive.

The problem with theological approaches is the definition what is the correct and incorrect religion. In Russia, there are rehabilitation centers that have a goal of conversion ex-members of cults to Russian Orthodox church. Thus, they consider that a person is recovered if he or she joined Russian Orthodox church. There are evangelicals (in other countries) who believe that ex-cult members should be converted to evangelicalism and who consider that a person is recovered only if he or she was converted to evangelicalism. Who of them is right? It is hard to tell.

There is a difference between post-cult recovery and religious (or atheist) propaganda. I do not think that these things should be mixed. I do not think it is ethical to promote any religion or atheism to ex-cult members (especially newly exited) because of their vulnerability. So, I am against it.

On the other hand, ex-members of cults may have theological questions and issues. I think that in this case they may be benefited from theological counseling if the counselor does not promote his/her belief system and does not seek to change the ex-cult member's belief system.

The Heresy of Mind Control and Homosexuality

2010-12-03T18:47:00.000-08:00

Basically, I consider The Heresy of Mind Control by Stephen Martin as a helpful book because he uses theological arguments in order to point out that spiritual abuse and authoritarianism in Bible-based cults are not biblical.

However, there is one point in which I strongly disagree with him. In this book, p. 87 (new edition) or p. 79 (old edition), there is a paragraph:

In many cults, it is typical for the leader to have illicit sexual relations. Many cult masters, through their charismatic personality, cunning arguments, and purported “messages from God,” often convince the subordinates that having these sexual relations is right. But scriptures against this are plain: Have only one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), and other kinds of sexual perversion and promiscuity (Lev. 18:22; Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19; Heb. 13:4). Even if the subordinates know it is wrong, they often are too afraid or even ashamed to tell anyone that this is happening. The cult leader might even encourage such promiscuous sexual behavior among the members. Here too, the members may become convinced that this is right, or else they are afraid to resist or speak out against it because of potential punishment by the chief, or because they think no one else disapproves since everyone else is doing it.

Apparently, here, Stephen Martin writes about cult leaders. However, there is one serious problem with this paragraph. He writes "... and other kinds of sexual perversion and promiscuity" and then he puts a number of verses, including Lev. 18:22 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Many homophobic Christians use these verses to condemn homosexuality. Thus, Stephen Martin makes it quite clear that he considers homosexuality as "sexual perversion and promiscuity." Does the Bible say that homosexuality is sexual perversion and promiscuity? No.

Stephen Martin received his Master of Divinity degree from Nazarene Theological Seminary. The Church of Nazarene still holds very negative attitude to homosexuality which obviously affected him. In an official document of this church entitled Manual of the Church of the Nazarene: History, Constitution, Government, Ritual / 2009-2013 Edition, p. 57, it is written:

Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted. We recognize the depth of the perversion that leads to homosexual acts but affirm the biblical position that such acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. We believe the grace of God sufficient to overcome the practice of homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). We deplore any action or statement that would seem to imply compatibility between Christian morality and the practice of homosexuality. We urge clear preaching and teaching concerning Bible standards of sexual morality.
(Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10)

So, I do believe that Stephen Martin views homosexuality as perversion as his church teaches and that this is his thought when he quotes Lev. 18:22 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 in his book.

Most gay-bashing Christians do not know the context of Lev. 18:22 and will not be able to explain why this verse does not say anything about lesbians. Lev. 18:21-24 (NKJV):

²¹ And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. ²² You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. ²³ Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ²⁴ ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.

In Lev. 18:21, it is said about "letting children pass through the fire of Molech." In v. 23, it is said about bestiality. V. 24 says that the nations that lived in Palestine before Joshua led Israelites there practiced these things and that Israelites should not do the same. What do these verses have to do with v. 22?

Moloch was a pagan Ammonite and Canaanite god. Child sacrifices were one of the forms of worshiping him. Other forms of Canaanite pagan rituals included temple prostitution (both male and female) and bestiality. Canaanites believed that all these rituals would increase fertility of their land.

Deut. 23:17 (NASB) forbids cult prostitution:

None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.

In this verse, there are two similar Hebrew words: qedeshah (female temple prostitute) and qadesh (male temple prostitute). In fact, they are two forms (masculine and feminine) of the same Hebrew word.

Since Lev. 18:22 directly follows the verse that forbids child sacrifice as a part of worship to Molech, there is a great probability that it actually forbids participation in male temple prostitution as a part of pagan rituals. Lev. 20:13 apparently speaks about the same and it is remarkable that chapter 20 of Leviticus begins with worshiping Moloch. V. 2-5 (NKJV):

² “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. ³ I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. ⁴ And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, ⁵ then I will set My face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech.

What do Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 say about homosexuality per se? Nothing.

Romans 1:26-27, the verses that are also often used to condemn homosexuality, also are put in a clearly idol-worship context (v. 23, 25). V. 20-27 (NKJV):

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In addition, v. 26-27 speak about what is unnatural. Homosexual relationships are definitely unnatural for heterosexual people, but not for homosexuals. So, Paul was writing here rather about heterosexuals than homosexuals.

Now, let us look at 1 Cor. 6:9-11, the verses that also were mentioned by Stephen Martin. There are various translations of these verses. In NKJV, they are translated this way:

⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Apparently, v. 9 forbids homosexuality. However, who are sodomites? Does this word means the same as "homosexuals"? If so, what is the need of putting these words together?

In the Greek text of 1 Cor. 6:9, the words for the people who will not inherit the kingdom of God are: "pornoi," "eidolatrai," "moichoi," "malakoi," "arsenokoitai." "Pornoi" means "fornicators." "Eidolatroi" means "idolaters." "Moichoi" means "adulterers." However, Bible scholars and Bible translators are not sure what the words "malakoi" (translated as "homosexuals" in NKJV) and "arsenokoitai" (translated as "sodomites" in NKJV) exactly mean. The singular forms of these words are "malakos" and "arsenokoites." The word "malakos" is used several times in the New Testament as an adjective, meaning "soft," but it is used as a noun only in 1 Cor. 6:9. The word "arsenokoites" is used two times in the New Testament: in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. In both verses, its meaning is not clear. These two words were used in writings of Greek Christian authors only when they quoted 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. These words were used in few non-Christian Greek writings, but their meanings are not clear there either. According to one of hypotheses, Paul invented the word "arsenokoites," composing it from "arsen" (male) and "koite" (bed). Both words were used in Septuagint in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. So, according to this hypothesis, Paul was referring to these verses. However, this is just a hypothesis. Nobody knows what these words really mean. Some Bible scholars say that they refer to male prostitution or to male pedophilia. Both were widely practiced in the ancient world. However, there is no indication that 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 condemn homosexuality per se.

One more biblical passage I would like to mention is Gen. 19, the story of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Many people believe that these cities were destroyed because of homosexuality, but the Bible never says about it. In v. 4 (NKJV) it is said:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.

Have you seen a city where all the inhabitants are gays? They have been minority in every society. Thus, most of the men of Sodom were heterosexual. What happened then was a gang rape. In Judges 19, there is a similar story of a gang rape, but the victim was a woman. The story in Genesis 19 tells not more about homosexuality per se than the story in Judges 19 about heterosexuality per se.

Jude 7 is sometimes used to "prove" that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. However, the context of this verse does not support this idea. Jude 6-7 (NASB):

⁶ And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, ⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

What is "strange flesh" in v. 7? If it has to do with homosexuality, why the previous verse says about angels who did not keep their own domain? The most popular interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 is that these verses speak about angels who had sexual contacts with humans. This is what Jude 6 is referring to. In v. 7, the situation in Sodom and Gomorrah is comparing to it. Sexual contacts between angels and human females took place before the flood. Could they take place after the flood? Gen. 6:4 says that as a result of sexual contacts with angels, women gave birth to Nephilim. When Moses sent twelve spies, they reported that they saw Nephilim in Palestine (Num. 13:33). Since Nephilim existed after the flood, it is possible that angels had sexual contacts with humans after the flood and that it took place in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a hypothesis, but the fact is that there is no indication that "strange flesh" has anything to do with homosexuality.

Thus, the Bible never condemns homosexuality per se. It condemns some homosexual actions. In the same way, the Bible never condemns heterosexuality per se, but condemns some heterosexual actions.

Of course, Stephen Martin may have any view on homosexuality whatever he likes. However, the problem is that he is a staff member of Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center. Since one of the editors-in-chief of his book was his brother Paul, the founder of Wellspring, I believe that the anti-gay position is the official position of Wellspring.

According to statistics, 5-10% of people are homosexual. There are LGBT Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses: http://www.gayxjw.org/ and LGBT Mormons and ex-Mormons: http://www.affirmation.org/. Obviously, there are LGBT ex-members of other cults. gay and lesbian Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons report that they experience a strong conflict between their religion and their sexual orientation. This conflict leads many of them to depression, self-abhorrence. Some of them even attempt or commit suicides. If these people go to Wellspring, will it be helpful for them? I do not think so. I believe that their stay in Wellspring may only increase their conflict which they already have. This is why I do not recommend Wellspring for LGBT ex-members of cults.

In my opinion, LGBT ex-members of Bible-based cults should learn that not all the Christians condemn LGBT people. There are LGBT-affirmative interpretations of the Bible. To name just a few of them:

Another book which might be helpful for them is Steps To Recovery from Bible Abuse by Dr. Rembert S. Truluck.

In conclusion, two videos from "It Gets Better" project by Gene Robinson and Mel White. Both are Christian ministers and open gays.

Manipulating People in the Anti-Cult Community

2010-10-22T09:19:00.000-07:00

In two of my recent blog posts, I wrote about an anti-cult person who manipulates people in order to become an "anti-cult leader":
Anti-Cult Activism and Anti-Cult Leaders: A Warning
Anti-Cult "Professor Moriarty"

However, he is not the only manipulative person in the anti-cult community that I met online. There is another person. This person posted 87 anonymous comments in my two blogs. In order to disguise herself, she changed her style and used a proxy server to hide her IP address from me. Well, the thing is that she could not hide from me two of her most remarkable traits: she likes to tell people what to do and she is very curious and searches for information, often using various tricks. So, I understood who was the author of these anonymous comments from the very first anonymous comment. However, I was extremely kind, patient, and generous to her. I answered her many questions, provided a lot of information, and even wrote four blog posts that required a lot of research. These things took place while she was attacking me in a certain online group.

One year ago, however, she emailed me and apologized for her behavior toward me. I accepted her apology. However, since that time, she continued to deceive me, use tricks and manipulations. So, I have to question the sincerity of her apology. She tried to continue this anonymous game in another blog, but this time I did not allow her to do so. She tried to use tricks in order to get more information, telling me an outright lie, at least, two times.

So, it seems that the only conclusion she made from her anonymous game was that she can deceive and manipulate me. Well, of course, the conclusion that I have to make in this situation is that I am unable to believe any of her word.

Actually, I like to answer people's questions and share my knowledge with them. I like to do researches. And I like to help people. However, I definitely do not like to be abused and taken advantage of. I do not like to be deceived and manipulated.

Since I was kind to this person and answered her questions when she posted anonymous comments, I would have definitely do the same if she had posted them, using her real name. And I would have been much happier to do so without these anonymous games. So, she did not gain anything, posting anonymously. However, since this anonymous game caused her to feel that she can easily deceive me and manipulate me, my conclusion is: the anonymous game is over. I will not allow her to post any more anonymous comments in my blogs. I do not trust her anymore. I do not want any more contacts with her unless she really changes her behavior toward me and stops all the deceptions, manipulations, and tricks.

Anti-Cult "Professor Moriarty"

2010-10-07T02:07:00.000-07:00

Arthur Conan Doyle is one of my favorite authors. Especially, I like his writings about Sherlock Holmes. In The Adventure of the Final Problem, there is a famous character Professor Moriarty:

"You have probably never heard of Professor Moriarty?" said he [Holmes].

"Never."

"Aye, there's the genius and the wonder of the thing!" he cried. "The man pervaded London, and no one has heard of him. That's what puts him on a pinnacle in the records of crime. <snip>

"He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city. He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans. But his agents are numerous and splendidly organized. Is there a crime to be done, a paper to be abstracted, we will say, a house to be rifted, a man to be removed - the word is passed to the Professor, the matter is organized and carried out. The agent may be caught. In that case money is found for his bail of his defence. But the central power which uses the agent is never caught - never so as suspected. This was the organization which I deduced, Watson, and which I devoted my whole energy to exposing and breaking up."

Since the organization created and headed by Professor Moriarty was criminal, the reason for secrecy was obvious. However, when somebody tries to create an anti-cult organization, using the same secrecy as Professor Moriarty did, the reasons for secrecy are not so obvious. In another post, I wrote about a certain person who tries to become an anti-cult leader. He uses some methods of Professor Moriarty, trying to create his own anti-cult organization. I do not mean that he tries to create a criminal organization. I mean his secrecy. He tries to keep in secret from everyone, except the people he tries to involve, even the fact of his creating his organization. He tries to keep in secret what he is doing even from people whom he actively tries to involve in it. And it does seem to me that he is going to lead his organization in a similar way to how Professor Moriarty did: "He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans. But his agents are numerous and splendidly organized."

Sherlock Holmes called Professor Moriarty a "genius." His anti-cult counterpart is not a genius. His results are much smaller than of Professor Moriarty. I doubt that he will ever be able to create a well-functioning anti-cult organization. On the other hand, the anti-cult field is not a good place for using "methods of Professor Moriarty." These methods do not work there. Successful anti-cult organizations such as ICSA do not use them. They are honest and straightforward with people. They are not secretive. They do not manipulate people and do not use them as their deployable agents.

This anti-cult "Professor Moriarty" thinks that his methods are unique. However, there is a good verse in the Bible: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, New International Version)

In conclusion, beware of the people who act as Professor Moriarty in the anti-cult field. They are unable to create a well-functioning and effective anti-cult organization, but they are able to damage you.

Therapeutic Relationship

2010-09-15T23:50:00.000-07:00

Although I do not believe that all the ex-members of cults need therapy, I admit that some of them need. However, ex-members of cults need to be aware that some therapists may harm them rather than help them. Unfortunately, such cases happen.

Before hiring a therapist, I would recommend ex-members of cults to read the book “Crazy” Therapies: What are They? Do They Work? by Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich. There is an abstract of this book on ICSA website: “Crazy” Therapies: What are They? Do They Work? The Therapeutic Relationship.

Polls

2010-08-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

I posted three polls in this blog (see the right panel). They are similar to those in my other blog.

The questions are:
1. Have you ever been involved in a cult or in an abusive church?
2. Has any of your family members, relatives or friends been in a cult or abusive church?
3. Have you got a therapy or counseling after you left a cult?

Unlike Wordpress, Blogger poll gadget does not allow to use "Other" answer option. Also, since I know that some ex-members of Sufi groups read my blog, I added a special option for them in the first poll.

All the polls are completely anonymous. Multiple choices are allowed. I will be thankful to all the people who will participate in the polls. Also, you can leave your comments regarding these polls. All the suggestions will be appreciated.

Update. I created a new poll. The question is: "What subjects are you interested in?" You can mark as many variants as you like. I am interested to know what subjects readers of my blog consider interesting and will greatly appreciate your voting.

Anti-Cult Activism and Anti-Cult Leaders: A Warning

2010-08-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

When I just began to communicate with people in the anti-cult community, I believed that all the anti-cult activists really want to help people. I was too naive. People who do anti-cult work may have various other intentions: to make money, to get leading positions (to become "anti-cult leaders"), and so on. Some of anti-cultists continue to behave as cult members. This phenomenon is known as "anti-cult cult."

There is a certain person who believes that only he knows what should be done in the anti-cult field and nobody else knows it. In principle, such statements already sound as a bad sign because there are so many people in the anti-cult field and it exists for so long time that it is hard to believe that one person can invent something really new. Of course, the statements that somebody knows something that nobody else knows are very usual for cults and cult leaders. This is why I consider this to be a warning sign.

This person who has the great and unique ideas about the anti-cult work tries to create a new anti-cult organization on the basis of his great and unique vision and condemns other anti-cult organizations, for example, ICSA. In principle, there is nothing wrong with creating a new anti-cult organization. I am definitely for plurality of opinions in the anti-cult community. However, there are some other warning signs with how this person is creating his new organization. I believe that when honest people invite others to join them in some projects, they first give the full information about their projects and then ask people if they want to join or not. The person I am writing about does not do that. Instead he tries to involve people into his organization without their informed agreement. He tried to involve me and, at least, one more person this way. He kept saying about his great ideas, but all his sayings were too vague. He asked me several times whether I would like to listen about his ideas and I always agreed. However, he never told me what his great plan was, just some vague words and "pieces" of the "full picture." Later, to my great surprise, I learned that he believed that I joined his project, although I never gave my agreement to join it. I just gave my agreement to learn what he could say about his project. There were some warning signs that he was using some manipulations in order to involve me and another person into his project and I did not feel good about it. Now I know that he did use manipulations.

Although he pretended to be a good person who cares for people, later, I learned many negative things about his behavior in the past and in the present. For many years, this person has been trying to gain a high position in the anti-cult community, to become "anti-cult leader." So, I believe that he attempts to create a new organization in order to be the leader and to have some special position, not in order to help people. In addition, this person has done many evil things such as violation of his professional ethics.

I no longer associate with him in any way and this is my final decision. His activity harms people and does not help them. I do not want to participate in it and I do not want to be exploited again.

However, I think that I need to warn people who want to participate in anti-cult activity. Not everyone in the anti-cult field has good intentions. Some people want to make more money (I know some of them), some people want to have authority and high position, some have other intentions. If somebody invites you to join an anti-cult organization or participate in anti-cult activity, do your best to find as much information about this person, organization, and project as possible before you make a decision to participate. Be careful if somebody does not want to provide you the information or claims to have a unique vision, unique ideas, or unique plan. Do not allow "anti-cult leaders" to exploit you and misuse your desire to help people.

Gay Muslims

2010-08-19T09:34:00.000-07:00

Gay Muslims (2006) is a Channel 4 documentary about how the experiences of five lesbian and gay Muslims challenge the heterosexual bias within their British communities and illustrate the diversity within Islam. (From Wikipedia)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Spiritual Abuse: Videos

2010-08-06T05:18:00.000-07:00

Video series Spiritual Abuse

Spiritual Abuse: What is Spiritual Abuse? (Part 1)

Spiritual Abuse: What Are The Signs? (Part 2)

Spiritual Abuse: What Are The Signs? (Part 3)

Spiritual Abuse: Who Joins Abusive Ministries? (Part 4)

Spiritual Abuse: The Effects of Spiritual Abuse (Part 5)

Spiritual Abuse: The Effects of Spiritual Abuse (Part 6)

Spiritual Abuse: The Effects of Spiritual Abuse (Part 7)

Spiritual Abuse: Definition

2010-08-05T21:44:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia article defines spiritual abuse this way:

Spiritual abuse occurs when a person in religious authority or a person with a unique spiritual practice misleads and maltreats another person in the name of God or church or in the mystery of any spiritual concept. Spiritual abuse often refers to an abuser using spiritual or religious rank in taking advantage of the victim's spirituality (mentality and passion on spiritual matters) by putting the victim in a state of unquestioning obedience to an abusive authority.

The definition given by Jeff VanVonderen who is the author of this term:

Spiritual abuse occurs when someone in a position of spiritual authority, the purpose of which is to ‘come underneath’ and serve, build, equip and make God’s people MORE free, misuses that authority placing themselves over God’s people to control, coerce or manipulate them for seemingly Godly purposes which are really their own.

According to the book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen:

“Spiritual abuse can occur when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person.” (p.20)

“Spiritual abuse can also occur when spirituality is used to make others live up to a ‘spiritual standard’.” (p.21)

Spiritual abuse occurs when shame is “used in an attempt to get someone to support a belief, or…to fend off legitimate questions”. (p.22)

“When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a person's standing as a Christian—to gratify you, your position or your beliefs, while at the same time weakening or harming another—that is spiritual abuse.” (p.23)

“There are spiritual systems in which…the members are there to meet the needs of the leaders… These leaders attempt to find fulfillment through the religious performance of the very people whom they are there to serve and build. This is an inversion of the body of Christ. It is spiritual abuse.” (p.23)

The authors define the following characteristics of spiritually abusive systems:
1. Power-Posturing
2. Performance Preoccupation
3. Unspoken Rules
4. Lack of Balance (Extreme Objectivism and Extreme Subjectivism)
5. Paranoia
6. Misplaced Loyalty
7. Secretive

In his interview, Jeff VanVonderen explained how he and his co-author Dave Johnson came to this term:

What we did was to stumble across some language that worked for people. It’s a language that matches the feelings and wounds that many people have experienced. We give people a way to talk about this kind of thing. But spiritual abuse is certainly nothing new. Spiritual abuse has been here since biblical times. We just came across a way of talking about it in our time, and put it into a package that made sense to a lot of people.

There is a video series entitled Spiritual Abuse: An Introduction by Jeff VanVonderen:
Lecture 1: Healthy and Abusive Spiritual Dynamics (55 min)
Lecture 2: The Abusive Religious System (59 min)
Lecture 3: How We Get Hooked (60 min)

In the first of them, he said that when people use power to make others to do what they want, it is abuse. When people use God's name in order to make others what they want, it is spiritual abuse.

The definition given by David Henke:

Spiritual abuse is the misuse of a position of power, leadership, or influence to further the selfish interests of someone other than the individual who needs help. Sometimes abuse arises out of a doctrinal position. At other times it occurs because of legitimate personal needs of a leader that are being met by illegitimate means. Spiritually abusive religious systems are sometimes described as legalistic, mind controlling, religiously addictive, and authoritarian.

He gives the following characteristics of spiritually abusive systems:
1. Authoritarian
2. Image Conscious
3. Suppresses Criticism
4. Perfectionistic
5. Unbalanced

Two other famous books on spiritual abuse were written by Ronald Enroth:
Churches that Abuse
Recovering from Churches that Abuse

In the first of them, he listed the following characteristics of spiritual abuse:

1. Control-oriented leadership
2. Spiritual elitism, perceived persecution
3. Manipulation of members, fostering dependency
4. Life-style rigidity
5. Emphasis on experience
6. Harsh discipline of members, information control
7. Painful exit processes

Documentary Videos on Gender Identity and Intersex Conditions

2010-08-04T01:30:00.000-07:00

The Gender Puzzle

Gender Unknown

Intersex (Is It a Boy or a Girl?)

XXXY
http://www.isna.org/files/xxxy.mov

Dr. Money and the Boy with no Penis (The story of David Reimer, the boy who was turned into a girl)

Brain Sex (part 1)
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational_and_howto/watch/v19136402gteJkebT

Brain Sex (part 2)
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational_and_howto/watch/v20308452JhrAaxTa

Brain Sex (BBC video)

Diversity in Western Sufism

2010-07-23T19:35:00.000-07:00

In most previous posts about Sufism, I wrote about traditional Sufi groups such as Naqshbandiya, Shadhiliya, and Qadiriya. However, not all the Western Sufi groups follow traditional Sufism. Some groups are more new age / eastern than Muslim. In one post, I wrote:

Some time ago, I read a book Sufism & Psychology: A comparative study of Western Psychology and Sufi Psychology written by Lynn Wilcox. She has Ph.D. in counseling psychology and is professor of California State University. She is also a practicing Sufi. In this book, she makes a comparison between the western psychology and Sufi psychology and makes a conclusion that Sufi psychology is better.

However, there are some things in that book that bother me. She presents her Sufi group as the only true Sufi group. She also presents their leader as the only good Sufi shaikh. She quotes only her leader and his father and no other Sufi shaikhs. There are many branches and groups in Sufism. However, in Sufism, a person can chose a shaikh. Sufi branches are considered as more or less equal. In addition, there are many famous Sufi shaikhs who are respected by most Sufis. So, Wilcox's Sufi group is different from the traditional Sufism. In addition, this group is Shia while most Sufis are Sunni.

"Elite thinking" is one of the signs of cults. So, I suspect that this group may be a cult, though I am not sure in that. Ironically, it is possible that Lynn Wilcox knew Margaret Singer and worked together with her because Dr. Margaret Singer also was a psychologist and professor of California State University.

I learned more about the Sufi group that Lynn Wilcox is a member of. This group is called Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi (MTO) Shahmaghsoudi, School of Islamic Sufism and reportedly has over 500,000 students worldwide. It is headed by Molana Salaheddin Ali Nader Angha, known as Hazrat Pir who was born in Tehran, but now lives in the USA. His group operates many websites and has many organizations. Some of them are listed here:
http://www.mtoshahmaghsoudi.org/website/en/organizations.html
http://www.mtoshahmaghsoudi.org/association/index.htm

Each tariqah has a line of shaikhs that is supposed to go to Muhammad and his companions. For example, Naqshbandiya was supposedly transmitted through Abu Bakr and Shadhiliya was supposedly transmitted though Ali. This group also has a similar line which goes to Ali and Uways al-Qarani through whom it was supposedly transmitted.

However, there are very serious differences between the teachings and practices of Naqshbandiya and Shadhiliya and teachings and practices of MTO. Naqshbandiya and Shadhiliya are based on Sunni Islam while MTO is somehow related to Shia Islam. However, in my opinion, it is based more on new age philosophy than on Shia Islam.

The first question for every Sufi school is the meaning and the goal of Sufism. In Fundamentals of Tasawwuf: Purification of the Soul, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, shaikh of Naqshbandiya who was born in Syria, but now lives and teaches in the USA, writes:

It used to be that this sacred mission, this great service of calling the Umma to remembrance of its proper heritage framed by the Qur'an and set out in the Prophet's Sunnah, was performed by devoted and sincere scholars of spirituality. These individuals, in time, came to be known by the name of 'sufi', a word derived from the Arabic safa'a which means "to purify," because of the assiduousness with which they applied themselves to holding firmly to the Sunnah and employing it to purify their character from all defects in behavior and morality.

Thus, according to this definition, the purpose of Sufism is "to purify their character from all defects in behavior and morality." This is one of the aspects of how the purpose of Sufism is usually understood in traditional Sufism. In addition, it is described as the way to know Allah. The definition of MTO is completely different:

Sufism is a discipline, a system of education that facilitates the journey of self-knowledge, a journey which enables the individual to discover his stable reality, and ultimately the reality of religion.<snip>

One of the most fundamental principles of Sufism is that whatever exists is the manifestation of the one absolute knowledge that pervades everything and is not limited to time or place. Therefore, the closest place to gain access to this knowledge is within one's own self. What has been written regarding the history and principles of Sufism represents its outer form. Its reality is found in the teachings of the Arif (Spiritual Teacher) who guides the seekers of truth to experience this reality so that they become stable and cognize their highest state of existence.

Thus, they describe the purpose of Sufism as self-knowledge which is different from traditional Sufism. Moreover, they believe in pantheism while traditional Sufis are Muslims and thus are monotheists. According to MTO, a person who wants to be a Sufi does not need to be a Muslim while in traditional Sufism this is a mandatory requirement.

MTO do have a number of Muslim practices, including practices used in traditional Sufism. However, there are some differences with traditional Sufism as well. For example, according to MTO description of zikr:

Sufi Zikris primarily done in groups where each individual sits on the floor in a cross-legged position and focuses all attention and energy toward the heart in order to establish a connection with the True Self, the “I”. In addition, a sacred word or phrase from the literature of the Sufi Masters or the Holy Qur’an is repeated in melodic tones, like a chant. Meanwhile, following the natural flow of the Zikr, the seeker’s body sways from left to right in the symbol of infinity to represent the infinite and vast nature of existence.

In traditional Sufism, the focus in zikr is on Allah, not on the heart or "the True Self." In addition, MTO have a practice which is absent in Naqshbandiya, Shadhiliya, and Qadiriya. It is meditation which in MTO is called tamarkoz:

Tamarkoz® is the art of Sufi Meditation. The word Tamarkoz® means concentration of abilities. Sufi meditation is more than mere mental concentration and contemplation; it is a matter of concentration on the source of life in the heart. Meditation through the heart expands our finite consciousness allowing revelations to take place without the interference of the senses.

A key element of Tamarkoz® is Movazeneh®, a set of practical postures and slow movement exercises which stimulate, concentrate and balance the flow of energy to the 13 major electromagnetic centers of the body. Movazeneh® is the Sufi art of balancing and harmonizing the body.

In Islam and traditional Sufism, there are no any "electromagnetic centers of the body." This idea is obviously from new age. It is also quite interesting that they practice special 3-day tamarkoz retreats which are not practiced in traditional Sufism:
http://www.sufiassociation.org/EN/page_retreat.shtml
http://www.sufipsychology.org/en/page_retreats.htm

According to their description,

Tamarkoz® Retreats are Sufi Meditation Retreats that focus on relaxation, balancing, purification and rejuvenation. The retreats provide time and space to reconnect with one’s own innermost being.

Also, they have an organization called Sufi Psychology Association which holds conferences and education for Licensed Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors. This is already a combination of religion and psychotherapy. Well, another famous group that has such combination is Scientology.

In conclusion, MTO mixes some elements of Islam, Sufism, new age, and psychotherapy. I cannot say whether it is cultic or not, but there are things there that bother me.

Wahhabism / Salafism

2010-07-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

In previous posts, I wrote mainly about Sufism and how Sufi groups can become cultic. This post is about Wahhabism / Salafism. I do not think that all the Wahhabi groups are cultic, but I think that there are some cultic groups among them.

As always, I do not promote any beliefs or practices of Islam, including Sufism and Wahhabism. I write these posts only with educational purpose.

Wahhabism is called this way after Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab ibn Sulaiman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rashid at-Tamimi (1703-1792) who lived and preached in Arabia. "Wahhab" was a part of his name, however, "Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab" means "Muhammad, son of Al-Wahhab's slave." Al-Wahhab is one of 99 names of Allah and means "the Giver." Since Al-Wahhab is one of the names of Allah and cannot be used for a human being, Wahhabis do not like to be called this way. They call themselves "Salafis" because the main idea of Wahhabism / Salafism is returning to the original and pure Islam. Originally, the word "Salafis" means "first three generations of Muslims" who were the most righteous Muslims according to hadiths (sayings of Muhammad). Other Muslims refuse to call Wahhabis "Salafis" exactly because they do not consider them to be righteous Muslims.

The most important book by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab is Kitab at-Tawhid (The Book of the Oneness of Allah). Its English version is available in Internet in the text form and in the audio. The main ideas of Kitab at-Tawhid are: purification of Islam and coming back to Quran and Sunnah, worship and prayer requests only to Allah, prohibition of innovations, prohibition of a number of things that can lead to polytheism.

Thus, one of the most important teachings of Wahhabism is strict monotheism in both belief and practice. According to Wahhabism, there are three kinds of the oneness of Allah:
1. Oneness in lordship: Allah is the only creator and sustainer of everything and everyone. All the events take place only by Allah's will.
2. Oneness in worship: all the worship should be only to Allah.
3. Oneness in names: Allah has many names and attributes which are different from names and attributes of everything and everybody.

In principle, all the Sunni Muslims believe in these three points, but they often practice things which Wahhabis consider to be violation of the second point. For example, many Muslims direct their prayers to Muhammad and righteous Muslims, considering them as mediators between themselves and Allah. They also have some special holy places such as tombs of Muslim saints (awliya), special holy times such as some feast nights, and special objects which supposedly give grace such as clothes of awliya. Wahhabis consider all these practices as shirk (polytheism). The word "shirk" means "equaling somebody or something with Allah." So, they think that when Muslims pray to Muhammad or awliya, they perform the act of worship to these people because prayer is a kind of worship, but all the worship should be directed to Allah. Therefore, they consider such practices shirk while in Islam shirk is an extremely serious sin. It makes a person disbeliever and unless a person repents and stops shirk, he or she will be in hell forever. Because of this, Wahhabis accuse other Muslims of disbelief and this is one of the causes of their enmity with other Muslims.

Another important idea in Wahhabism is return to the original Islam. They blame other Muslims for various innovations and say that all the innovations are sinful. They support this statement with a hadith that prohibited innovations. Other Muslims quote another hadith that allows good innovations, but Wahhabis consider this hadith false. There are many things in Islam that Wahhabis consider innovations and therefore forbidden, for example, celebration of Muhammad's birthday.

Sunni Muslims usually follow one of the two schools in theology (Ashariyya and Maturidiyya) and one of the four schools in Muslim law (Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali). They believe that it is necessary to follow one of these schools because it is important to follow Muslim scholars who had a lot of knowledge of Islam. Wahhabis deny this principle of following. They say that Muslims should either always switch between the four schools or make conclusions by themselves on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.

Thus, Wahhabis (unlike other Sunni Muslims) allow lay Muslims to interpret Quran and Sunnah by themselves and to make independent decisions regarding Muslim law. Wahhabis use literal interpretation of Quran and oppose Muslim theologians, especially Sufis, who use allegoric interpretations. Wahhabis use quite simple rules of interpreting Quran: in order to interpret an ayah (verse in Quran), they use its context, other ayahs, hadiths, sayings of Muhammad's companions, grammar and lexicography of Arabic. Also, they pay much attention to what they call authentic Sunnah. In Islam, there is a special science that deals with hadiths. Each hadith was narrated from one person to another before it was written. Depending on the lines of narrators, some hadiths are considered reliable, some good, and some weak. Sunni theologians usually do not allow to use weak hadiths to support doctrines of belief, but allow to use them to support practices of worship and other things related to the Muslim law. Wahhabis insist that weak hadiths should never be used.

Unlike Sufis, Wahhabis do not have much respect for authorities and criticize Sufis for their very respectful attitude to their sheikhs. They do not have Sufi practices such as zikr and nashids. They consider these things as forbidden innovations. However, in my opinion, Wahhabi groups also have some potential to become cultic.

I think it is interesting that there are some similarities between Christian fundamentalism (fundamentalist evangelicalism) and Muslim fundamentalism (Wahhabism), for example:
1. Both proclaim their exclusiveness and condemn the outside world and other Christians or Muslims respectively.
2. Both claim that they purify their religion from the wrong teachings and practices.
3. Both proclaim that they are based purely on the scriptures of their religion, that is, the Bible or Qur'an and authentic Sunnah.
4. Both state the importance of the right beliefs for salvation.
5. Both pay much attention in propagation of their religion (Christians call it evangelism, Muslims call it Da'wah).

Christian fundamentalist groups have a tendency to become cultic. I think their main problems are their "elite thinking," "us versus them thinking," and separation from the world and other Christians. Wahhabis have similar things and I think it is these things that may make Wahhabi groups cultic.

Comparison of Sufism and Wahhabism

2010-07-17T15:42:00.000-07:00

Probably, most so called cult experts believe that Wahhabi groups tend to be cultic while Sufi groups are quite benign. However, there are Sufi cults which are usually neglected in anti-cult community.

I am not a Muslim, not a Sufi, and not a Wahhabi. I have no intention to promote any of those. However, I read both Sufi and Wahhabi literature and have some idea of what Sufism and Wahhabism are. In my opinion, Sufi teachings and practices may lead these groups to become cultic.

In the post Sufism: Shaikhs and Murids, I wrote about requirements for murids in their attitude toward shaikhs. As Muhammad Hisham Kabbani wrote, "The seeker [murid] must submit to the will of the shaikh and to obey him in all his orders and advice, because the shaikh has more experience and more knowledge in haqiqat, in tariqat and in shari'ah." And also: "He [murid] must agree with the opinion of his shaikh completely." Thus, murids are required to completely submit to their shaikhs in everything and to completely agree with their shaikhs opinions.

Murids are not allowed to question shaikhs' actions and words. Murids are not allowed to discuss their shaikhs' actions with other people. They are not allowed to speak negative things about their shaikhs. Murids are discouraged to leave their shaikh and go to another shaikh and are not allowed to go to more than one shaikh at the same time. All these requirements supposedly are for murids' spiritual benefit. Shaikhs supposedly have some special knowledge that they share with their murids and this knowledge is supposedly superior than what other Muslims have.

It is interesting that Bible-based abusive groups usually have somewhat similar rules of group members' behavior toward their leader while benign Bible-based groups usually do not have them. On the other hand, as far as I know, Wahhabi groups usually do not require their members to have such attitude toward their leaders. They criticize Sufis that they are submissive to their shaikhs and respect them so much.

In posts Sufi Practice of Collective Zikr and Sufi Practice of Singing Nashids / Nazams, I wrote about collective zikr and singing nashids / nazams and provided videos of these practices. In my opinion, outwardly, these practices have some similarities with some practices in video Captive Minds: Hypnosis and Beyond, that is, they may be trance-inductive. Sufi literature reports that many Sufis experience ecstasy when they do not realize what is going on around them and sometimes even say some things that a Muslim should not say. So, they do experience trance. Trans condition make people vulnerable to suggestions and cult leaders use it. It may take place in some Sufi groups as well. Wahhabi groups do not practice zikr and nashids. Moreover, they consider these things forbidden and blame Sufis because they practice them.

Therefore, I think that Sufi groups may potentially become cultic because they have prerequisites for that. I do not think that all the Sufi groups are cultic, but Sufi teachings and practices potentially may make Sufi groups cultic.

Sufism: Shaikhs and Murids

2010-07-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

In Sufism, the figure of a shaikh is very important because he is supposed to be a person who has superior knowledge of Allah and who leads his murids to such knowledge. According to Sufi concepts, murids are unable to arrive to this knowledge without a shaikh.

In the previous posts, I mostly used factual material about Chechen and Daghestani Sufis. In the books by Daghestani, Arab, and other Sufis, there is a lot of information about Sufi concepts regarding shaikhs and murids. For example, there is a book Sufi Ethics by Hasan Hilmi Afandi, Daghestani shaikh of Naqshbandi, Shadhili, and Qadiri tariqahs. He lived in the second half of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century and is very respected in Daghestan. His book Sufi Ethics contains 124 pages where he describes how murid has to act toward shaikh. Another respected book is Haqaiq `an al-Tasawwuf (The Truth of Sufism) by `Abd al-Qadir `Isa from Syria. I noticed that several authors of books on Sufism quoted him.

I think that for Western (especially, American) readers of my blog it will be more interesting to know what American shaikhs say rather than what Arab or Daghestani shaikhs do. There is a book Fundamentals of Tasawwuf written by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, shaikh of Naqshbandi tariqah who lives and teaches in the USA. In this book, there is chapter entitled The Conduct of the Murid with His Shaikh where he writes:

There are two categories of conduct of the murid with his shaikh: internal conduct and external conduct.

Internal Conduct of the Murid

1. The seeker must submit to the will of the shaikh and to obey him in all his orders and advice, because the shaikh has more experience and more knowledge in haqiqat, in tariqat and in shari'ah. As the sick person gives himself to his doctor to be cured, so too does the murid, sick in his conduct and behavior, submit to the shaikh's experience in order to be healed.
2. The seeker must not object to the way the shaikh instructs and controls the murids. Each shaikh has his own way, which he has been permitted by his own shaikh to use. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami said, "Whoever opens the door of criticism against shaikhs and their behavior with their murids and their actions will be punished and will be isolated from receiving spiritual knowledge. Whoever says to his shaikh, 'Why?' will never succeed." [al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya, p. 55]
3. The seeker must know that the shaikh might make some mistakes, but that these will not prevent him from lifting the murid up to the Divine Presence. So the murid must excuse the shaikh, as the shaikh is not the Prophet (s). Only the Prophet (s) was free of error. Although it is rare, just as the doctor might make a mistake in treating a patient, so too might the shaikh make a mistake in treating his murid's spiritual illness, and that must be excused.
4. The seeker must respect and honor the shaikh in his presence and his absence, if only because the shaikh can see with the eye of the heart. It is said that whoever is not happy with the orders of the shaikh, and does not keep good conduct and adab with him, will never keep good conduct with the Qur'an and with the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani said, "Whoever criticised a saint, Allah will cause his heart to wither."
5. The murid must be sincere and loyal to the company of his shaikh.
6. He must love his shaikh with an extraordinary love. He must know that his shaikh is going to take him to the Presence of Allah, Almighty and Exalted, and to the Presence of the Prophet (s).
7. He must not look to any other than his shaikh, though he must keep respect for all other shaikhs.

External Conduct of the Murid

1. He must agree with the opinion of his shaikh completely, as the patient agrees with the physician.
2. He must behave well in the association of the shaikh, by avoiding yawning, laughing, raising the voice, talking without authorization, extending the feet, and always sitting in a respectful manner.
3. He must serve his shaikh and make himself as useful as possible.
4. He must not mention from the speeches of his shaikh what listeners cannot understand. This might harm the shaikh in a way that the murid is unaware of. Sayyidina `Ali said, in a hadith narrated in Bukhari, "Speak to people at a level they can understand, because you don't want them to deny Allah and His Prophet (s)."
5. He must attend the association of the shaikh. Even if living far away, he must make an effort to come as often as possible.

In principle, according to Sufism, there is nothing unusual in this chapter. `Abd al-Qadir `Isa in his Haqaiq `an al-Tasawwuf (The Truth of Sufism) wrote almost exactly the same (I think Muhammad Hisham Kabbani used his book in writing this chapter). Muhammad Hisham Kabbani received Muslim education in Syria and this is where he learned these principles. `Abd al-Qadir `Isa is also from Syria and there are many Sufis there. So, these principles are from traditional Sufism, not from a kind of westernized version of Sufism. They give some ideas of the relationships between murids and shaikhs in Sufism. I think it is quite clear that in the case when a shaikh has authoritarian character, his group may easily become abusive.

Sufi Practice of Singing Nashids / Nazams

2010-07-17T09:47:00.000-07:00

Nashid or nazam (also spelled as nazm or nazma) is a spiritual song of Sufis. Daghestani Sufis usually use the word "nashid" while Chechen Sufis use the word "nazam."

The following videos show singing nazams by Chechen Sufis who follow Kunta-hajji Kishiev, sheikh of Qadiri tariqah. Again, I do not promote this practice and do not make any conclusions about it here. I post these videos only for information.

Video of singing nashid by Tabasaran followers of Sirajudin, sheikh of Naqshbandi tariqah:

Other nashids from Daghestan:

Sufis usually have separate meetings for men and women. The videos above were made at men's meetings. Below is a video of a women's meeting made in Daghestan. It shows Andi (a small ethnic group who live near Chechnya) women who perform zikr and sing nashid. They belong to Qadiri tariqah.

Besides zikr and nashids / nazams, Sufi meetings include Sufi leader (called a sheikh or ustaz) speeches and instructions for murids (disciples).

Sufi Practice of Collective Zikr

2010-07-17T07:09:00.000-07:00

There are many Sufi groups and their practices differ from one another. As far as I know, all the Sufi groups practice zikr (sometimes spelled as dhikr) individually and collectively. The word "zikr" is literally translated as "remembrance" (of Allah). This practice consists of repetition of some word (one of the names of Allah, for example, "Ya Allah" - "O Allah") or some phrase (for example, "La ilaha illa-Llah" - "There is no God besides Allah").

There are different ways of how different groups practice zikr. For example, some Sufi groups practice collective zikr with dances while other groups practice zikr only sitting. Some Sufi sheikhs even accuse other Sufi groups of practicing zikr in the wrong way.

The following videos were made in Chechnya and they show how collective zikr is practiced by Chechen followers of Kunta-hajji Kishiev (Chechen Sufi sheikh who lived in 19th century and belonged to Qadiri tariqah). I do not promote this practice. On the other hand, I am not going to make any conclusions here whether this practice is mind-controlling, thought-stopping, meditative, and so on. I post these videos only for the information on how this practice is performed by some Sufi groups.

For comparison, here is a video of collective zikr performed by Tabasaran followers of Sirajudin, sheikh of Naqshbandi tariqah, who is popular in Tabasaran (Tabasarans are one of Daghestani nations).

Islam and Sufism

2010-07-17T05:23:00.000-07:00

Many Western people consider Sufism as an eastern religion which has nothing to do with Islam. However, the majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Sufism cannot be separated from Islam. In fact, the idea that Sufism comes from eastern religions and is different from "pure" Islam comes from Wahhabis. Many Western researchers actually took this idea from them.

In this post, I am going to write about the place of Sufism in Sunni Islam. In another blog, I wrote that Islam has three main components:
1. Iman (faith)
2. Islam (this word here means rituals of worship)
3. Ihsan (sincerity)

Iman (faith) is the subject of Muslim theology (aqidah and kalam). Islam (rituals of worship) is the subject of Muslim law (fiqh). The word "ihsan" is usually translated as "sincerity." It corresponds with the third part of Islam which is ethics, moral and spiritual perfection. These things are subjects of Muslim ethics (ahlak) and tasawwuf. Tasawwuf is Arabic word for Sufism. Thus, Sufism's goal is moral and spiritual perfection. Muslim law (fiqh and shariah) deal with the outward behavior of Muslims. Sufism has to do with their inward spiritual condition, growth, and perfection. Thus, most Sunni Muslims consider Sufism as the heart of Islam.

Traditional Sufi groups require their members to be Muslims who follow shariah before they can follow Sufi tariqahs (the word "tariqah" literally means "way").

In Sunni Islam, there are four madhabs (schools) in fiqh: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali madhabs. There are also two madhabs in aqidah: Ashariyya (Ashari madhab) and Maturidiyya (Maturidi madhab). Most Sunnis follow Ashariyya, but Turkish-speaking Hanafis follow Maturidiyya. In Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, most Muslims are Maturidis and Hanafis with the exception of Chechens and most Daghestanis who are Asharis and Shafiis. In Sufism, there are many tariqahs, for example: Naqshbandi, Qadiri, Shadhili, and others.

Most Chechens follow Ashariyya in aqidah, Shafii madhab in fiqh, and Qadiri tariqah in tasawwuf. Most Avars (this is the biggest nation in Daghestan) follow Ashariyya in aqidah, Shafii madhab in fiqh, and Naqshbandi tariqah in tasawwuf.

Thus, Sufism is the part of Sunni Islam and there is no least contradiction between Sunni Islam and Sufism. A Sunni Islam is able to be a Sufi at the same time. Moreover, traditional Sunni Islam encourage people to become Sufis and some Sunnis even consider that it is mandatory for Muslims to be Sufis. However, it is obviously that a Muslim cannot be a Buddhist, a Hindu or an adept of any other eastern religion because Islam is not compatible with eastern religions.

Wahhabis accuse Sufis of inventing new and forbidden teachings and practices and they promote the idea that Sufism originates from eastern religions. This is where this idea comes from.

More about Muslim Cults

2010-07-12T11:14:00.000-07:00

In this post, I use the word "cult" in its psychological and sociological meaning, not theological meaning. According to Christian apologetics, the whole Islam is a cult. However, according to psychology and sociology, cults are authoritarian and thought-reforming groups regardless of their doctrines. I do not believe that all the Muslim groups are such. However, inside of Islam, there are cultic groups.

So called cult experts usually do not pay much attention to Muslim cults with the exception of terrorist cults. In fact, at least, some of them have a very poor knowledge of Islam. For example, in Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, chapter 1 Steven Hassan wrote:

In many Bible-oriented groups (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), leaders claim to be a Messiah, Prophet, or Apostle. In some, an elite group of several people the "governing body" claim to know the real meaning of Scripture. In groups based on an eastern religion (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Sufi), leaders claim to be "enlightened" avatars, gurus, rinpoches, Perfect Masters, or reincarnations of various enlightened masters from the past.

I thought that everyone knows that Muslim groups are Koran-oriented, not Bible-oriented. However, Hassan does not know it. The proper term for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is Abrahamic religions. In addition, leaders of Muslim cultic groups do not claim to be a Messiah or Apostle and not many of them claim themselves a Prophet because according to Islam Muhammad was the last Prophet. Leaders of Muslim groups are likely to use other titles such as Sheikh, Ustaz, Mawlana, and some others.

Another Hassan's error is that Sufism is a part of Islam and not an eastern religion. Sufi leaders are usually called Sheikh, Pir or Ustaz and do not "claim to be "enlightened" avatars, gurus, rinpoches, Perfect Masters, or reincarnations of various enlightened masters from the past."

Hassan's list of cults in his website includes only two Muslim groups: Al Qaeda (with a short note on Taliban) and Nation of Islam (ironically, none of the critical links about this group provided by Hassan works). Obviously, there are much more Muslim cultic groups.

There is a tendency to consider Wahhabi/Salafi groups dangerous and Sufi groups benign. Some terrorist groups in Islam are based on Wahhabi/Salafi belief system and Al Qaeda is one of them. However, for example, Nation of Islam has absolutely different belief system. Also, many Wahhabis/Salafis are quite peaceful and this religion is the state religion in Saudi Arabia which is the main US partner in Arabic world.

Regarding its name, this branch of Islam has two names. Outsiders call it "Wahhabism" after the name of its founder Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. However, insiders do not like it because Al-Wahhab is one of the names of Allah and cannot be used for a human being (Abdul-Wahhab means "slave of Al-Wahhab" and can be used for a human being). They call themselves "Salafis." However, other Muslims refuse to call them this way because this word denotes first Muslims who were the best Muslims according to Islam teaching.

Sufis are commonly viewed as peaceful Muslims, though not all the Sufis are peaceful. For example, in 19th century, there were several Sufi sheikhs who take the lead in the war of Northern Caucasus nations against Russia. The most famous of them was Shamil who was sheikh of Naqshbandi tarikah of Sufism. Those who take the lead in the recent wars in the same region are mainly Wahhabis. I am not going to discuss the reasons of these wars here as well as who is right and who is wrong. My point is that both Sufis and Wahhabis may be peaceful or warlike. By the way, although both Sufis and Wahhabis are Sunni Muslims, they are the worst enemies and there are many occasions when they fight against one another. For example, Chechen and Daghestani Wahhabis fight not only against Russia, but also against Chechen and Dagestani Sufis (most Chechens and Daghestanis are Sufis).

In internet, there are reports about some Sufi cults in the Western countries and I do not think that there are no Sufi cults in traditionally Muslim cults and regions. Although in one of previous posts I mentioned that Daghestani Sufi sheikhs write about some requirements for genuine sheikhs that may serve as some protection, the situation in Daghestan is not so good. Sufi sheikhs there proclaim that all the Sufi tariqahs and sheikhs are equal. However, reportedly, most Muslim leaders in Daghestan are murids (disciples) of Said-afandi al-Chirkavi, sheikh of Naqshbandi and Shadhili tariqahs while some other sheikhs are unable to teach openly. In addition, some sheikhs accuse one another of being pseudo-sheikhs who do not have permission to be sheikhs from their sheikhs.

Anyway, there are Sufi cults as well as Wahhabi cults. However, these cults are commonly neglected in anti-cult community.

Homosexuality and the Bible

2010-07-07T05:39:00.000-07:00

Here are two more series on homosexuality and the Bible. The first of them is Homosexuality in the Bible by Rev. Dr. Bob Shore-Goss, pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in the San Fernando Valley.

Talk #1: Leviticus

Talk #2: Sodom and Gommorah

Talk #3: Paul (part 1 of 2)

Talk #3: Paul (part 2 of 2)

Talk #4: Jesus and Gays

The second series are two sermons by Rev. Jeff Miner, a co-author of The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships (the other co-author is John Tyler Connoley):
Revisiting the Clobber Passages (direct link for downloading)
No Respecter of Person (direct link for downloading)

Some books and articles in pdf:

1. Challenging Conventional Wisdom by Steve Schuh: http://www.ecwr.org/images/stories/challenging_conventional_wisdom-schuh.pdf
2. "A Letter To Louise" Biblical Affirmation For God's Homosexual Children by Bruce W. Lowe: http://christiangays.com/articles/Louise.pdf
3. I'm Gay and It's OK by Rev. John W. Brown: http://christiangays.com/articles/gay&ok.pdf
4. What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality by Rev. Dr. Mel White: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf
5. Christianity and Homosexuality Reconciled by Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson: http://www.dr-joseph-adam-pearson.com/CHR.pdf

Ex-Gay Ministries

2010-07-06T22:41:00.000-07:00

Many Christian groups and Bible-based cults teach that gays are able and must change their orientation and become strait. There is a number of so-called ex-gay organizations that supposedly help gays to become strait, using both religious and psychological methods. The biggest of them is Exodus International which is by the way suspected of using mind control techniques. Do this and similar organizations really change gays into straits? Here is what Exodus former leaders and founders say.

Former Ex-Gay Leaders Apologize

Two Of Exodus' Founders Come Out As 'Ex-Ex-Gay'

Exodus Co-Founder: I Never Saw One Of Our Members Become Heterosexual

Exodus Co-Founder: We Were All Still Struggling Silently As We Promised Change

Exodus Co-Founder: The Inherent Harm In Ex-Gay Programs

Exodus Co-Founder: We Didn't Know There Was An Alternative For Gay Christians

There is a community of ex-gay survivors who report that their participation in ex-gay programs was harmful and who are in the process of healing from this damage: http://www.beyondexgay.com/. I think ex-gay survivors and ex-members of other cults have similar experiences.

Homosexuality and Religion

2010-07-04T21:49:00.000-07:00

For a long time, I was homophobic and believed that homosexuality was very sinful and of course that it was a choice. After leaving the cult, I read a lot of Christian theological literature. One of the books I read was An Introduction to Christian Ethics by Roger H. Crook. His theological position is conservative. In this book, there is a chapter on homosexuality. He quotes Mel White's book Stranger at the Gate (I did not read that book itself). Mel White wrote that, being a Christian, he struggled with his sexual orientation for 25 years, but still was a gay. In conclusion, Roger Crook writes that homosexuality is not a choice, that to be a gay is not a sin and that gay Christians should have monogamous committed relationships like heterosexual marriages. To me, it sounded very strange. Later, I read several other testimonies of gays who struggled with their sexual orientation because their Christian churches told them that homosexuality was a sin, but they could not change their orientation. From these stories, it seemed that homosexuality was not a choice. Eventually, I decided to study more about this subject: various biblical interpretations, people's testimonies, psychological articles, and so on.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is inerrant. However, interpretations of the Bible may contain errors. In the past, people believed that the Bible says that the sun goes around the earth. Not only Roman Catholics, but also Protestants, including the leaders of Reformation Martin Luther and John Calvin, condemned Copernicus because they believed that his teaching was heretic. Eventually, it became clear that Copernicus was right and Christian theologians changed their interpretation of the Bible. Also, for many centuries, Christian believed that God created the universe in 6 literal days and that it was about 6000 years ago. Later, it was clear that this teaching contradicts the science. Although there are Christian theologians who still believe in 6 literal days, many new interpretations were invented to reconcile the Bible and science, such as the theory that 6 days were actually 6 epochs and the theory of the interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Most Christian theologians believe that the Bible and the science cannot contradict one another. So, when there is a seemingly contradiction between them, it may be because of the wrong interpretation of the Bible. The psychological science says that sexual orientation is not a choice and that it cannot be changed. Many people report of their attempts to change their orientation that were not successful. In addition to reading popular homophobic interpretations of some verses of the Bible, I read alternative interpretations of the same verses. In my opinion, they are more in agreement with the principles of hermeneutics than those that condemn homosexuality. For example, I do not understand why Christians use Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to prove that homosexuality is a sin while they do many things prohibited by Leviticus because they believe that Christ canceled the Old Testament Law.

Unfortunately, sometimes the wrong interpretations and applications of the Bible were used against some groups of people. For example, the Bible was used to support slavery of black people, to deprive women of civil rights, to ban interracial marriages, to support anti-Semitism, and so on. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, American televangelists had two favorite subjects: anti-communism and homophobia. Now their anti-communist and anti-Russian teachings such as that Russia is Gog and Magog are not so popular because they are wrong. However, homophobia is still popular. Well, most Christians believe that one of the main subjects of the Bible is God's love. However, instead of love, homophobic sermons are filled with hatred. In the Gospels, Jesus spoke a lot about God's love to all people, but He never spoke about God's hatred to gays or God's condemnations of them as many preachers do.

Mel White served as a pastor, seminary professor and writer for famous evangelists, including Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell.

For 30 years, Dr. White had served the evangelical Christian community as a pastor, seminary professor, best-selling author, prize-winning filmmaker, communication consultant and ghost writer to its most famous and powerful leaders. From the beginning the media pictured Mel as an employee of these leaders on the "religious right." Although Mel did not work with nor write speeches for these leaders, he was hired by national publishers to write books -- primarily "autobiographies" -- for his ghost-writing clients including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Pat Robertson. (http://www.melwhite.org/article/6)

He did graduate work in communications and film at University of Southern California, received his doctorate and was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary for over a decade. During this time he also worked as an evangelical pastor. He produced, wrote, and directed 53 documentary films and television specials, focusing on stories to inspire and inform the struggle to be human. He is also an author; among his 16 books (nine bestsellers), he wrote about the Philippines' Ninoy and Corazon Aquino ("Aquino"), the Jonestown tragedy ("Deceived"), David Rothenberg, the child burned by his father ("David") and talk-show host/producer Mike Douglas ("When the Going Gets Tough").

In addition, he ghost wrote several books for fellow evangelicals, including Billy Graham ("Approaching Hoofbeats"), Pat Robertson ("America's Date with Destiny"), Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwell ("If I Should Die Before I Wake" and "Strength for the Journey"). In all those writings, however, he never wrote against homosexuality. White began coming out privately and gradually during the same period that the religious right stepped up its anti-gay rhetoric. Since 1993, he has devoted himself full-time to justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and has worked on their behalf in the media, in the political process, and with fellow religious leaders. (http://www.soulforce.org/article/11)

Mel White is married to Gary Nixon. They are co-founders of Soulforce. Some booklets by Soulforce (direct links for downloading):
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality by Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce
What the Science Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality by Jeff Lutes, MS, LPC, Executive Director of Soulforce
Southern Baptists May Not Say "God Hates Fags" as Fred Phelps Does -- But The Effect is the Same This booklet compares the harsh anti-gay rhetoric of the Southern Baptist Convention with that of Fred Phelps. The material presented is taken directly from SBC resolutions, quotes from Southern Baptist leaders, and quotes from Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. Topics covered include marriage, society, HIV/AIDS, Sex, civil rights, and more.

In video lecture Homosexuality and Religion he speaks about his experience and the Bible. I think it is worth watching.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Another video by Mel White: How Can I Be Sure That God Loves Me, Too?

There are many Christians, including Christian ministers, whose experience was similar to Mel White's. One of them was Dr. Rembert S. Truluck (1934-2008), the author of Steps To Recovery From Bible Abuse. He was:

Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, 1973-1981. (http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/about_the_author.html)

His story can be read here: http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/about_the_author.html.

In 1991, soon after I became a Christian, I watched television sermons by Jimmy Swaggart. I watched them every week for sex months. His main subjects were Christ's second coming and speaking in tongues. He never spoke about homosexuality. Then, his sermons suddenly stopped and in television news it was said that he had to leave his ministry because he was found to be with a prostitute. Recently, I learned that eventually he resumed his ministry, but now he likes to speak against homosexuality. Moreover, he even threatened to kill gays:

A Canadian television station has apologized publicly to viewers for a telecast of American evangelist Jimmy Swaggart's television program in which he threatened to kill gays.

The program, aired last week on Omni 1, a Toronto multicultural station, and throughout the US, has also prompted an investigation by the Canadian Radio Television Commission, the government agency which regulates television.

During the program, a rambling sermon by Swaggart who is trying to rehabilitate himself after an arrest for soliciting a prostitute, the televangelist turned to the subject of gay marriage.

According to a transcript of the program, Swaggart said: "I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

The remarks were met with applause from his congregation.

<snip>

In 1987 Swaggart in a tearful sermon begged forgiveness from his followers after being found with a prostitute.

I checked Wikipedia and found out that Swaggart was involved into two scandals with prostitutes in 1988 and 1991. In February 1988, he was found wiht a prostitute the first time and gave an apology sermon. However, his ministry was first suspended and then he was defrocked and removed from the ministry by the Assemblies of God. He decided to start non-affiliated and non-denominational ministry. On October 11, 1991, Swaggart was found, for the second time, in the company of a prostitute. Then, he temporary stepped down from his ministry again. His current ministry is non-affiliated and non-denominational.

Well, Swaggart who "begged forgiveness from his followers after being found with a prostitute" now threatens to kill gays because he "is trying to rehabilitate himself after an arrest for soliciting a prostitute"! I would say he chose an extremely odd way for self-rehabilitation. However, unfortunately, when televangelists speak against homosexuality, they increase their popularity and rating because homophobic Christian fundamentalists like these sermons. This is why Swaggart chose this way. And he obviously does not care what the Bible really says about homosexuality. He does not care that some of his followers may really kill gays after listening to his sermons (and there are cases when people killed gays because they believed that it is what the Bible says). The only thing Swaggart cares about is his popularity and self-vindication.

Gender Equality

2010-07-02T08:03:00.000-07:00

In this post, I am going to consider biblical verses that were used against women.

Genesis 2:20 (NKJV): “So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.” The Hebrew word for “helper” is “’ezer.” It is used in the Old Testament 19 times. In most cases, it denotes God who helps a human being, for example: Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 29; Psalm 10:14; 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, 10, 11. Only 4 times it denotes a human being who helps another human being. Thus, ‘ezer is a higher one who helps a lower one or an equal one who helps an equal one and never a lower one who helps a higher one. The Hebrew word for “comparable” is “neged” which means “matching” or “equal.” Thus, Eve as a helper for Adam was equal to him.

Genesis 3:16-17 (NKJV): “To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all days of your life.” In Hebrew text, the word for pain in verse 16 and for toil is the same. It is ‘etsev. It may mean “hard labor, physical or psychological pain, sorrow.” The word for “rule over” is mashal. However, this word may also mean “similar.” Thus, verses 16 and 17 may be translated: “in pain (‘etsev) you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall be like you are… in toil (‘etsev) shall you eat of it all days of your life.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV): “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” The word “head” is usually understood as authority. However, in Ephesians 4:15-16 and Colossians 2:19, Christ as the Head of the Church does not rule over it, but supplies it. Thus, headship may be not the matter of authority, but the matter of supply.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NKJV): “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” These verses apparently contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5 which allows women to pray and prophesy. One of interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is that Corinth was a multi-national city. In the church, many women could not follow what was said because they did not know the language well. They were distracted and began to talk with one another, thus making noise. Paul prohibited them to do so and told them to ask their husbands at home if they did not understand what was said. Paul told them to do so because at that time men usually knew languages better their wives who stayed at home.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NKJV): “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy who was in Ephesus. This church was filled with false teachings that were spread by some women (1 Timothy 4:7). This is why he forbade women there to teach. This rule was given only to that local situation.

Ephesians 5:22 (NKJV): “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” In Greek, this verse is a continuation of verse 21 (NKJV): “submitting to one another in the fear of God.” In verse 22 in Greek there is no word “submit” and literally these verses should be translated: “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ, wives - to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” These verses teach mutual submission of husbands and wives to one another.

Regarding women’s position in the church, Galatians 3:28 sets an important universal principle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The early church followed this principle and men and women had the same positions and the same functions in the church.

Gender Identity and Our Faith Communities

2010-06-29T15:42:00.000-07:00

The series Gender Identity and Our Faith Communities presents transgender issues mainly from Christian and Jewish sides with a little of Muslim views. It includes audio files and a guide.

Audio files (direct links for downloading):

Dramatic Reading A - Our Stories (mp3)

Dramatic Reading B - The Blessing of Being Inclusive (mp3)

Dramatic Reading C - Gender Identity and Jewish Tradition (mp3)

The Gifts of Transgender People, Gift 1 - Freedom from Gender Expectations (mp3)

The Gifts of Transgender People, Gift 2 - A Broader View of God (mp3)

The Gifts of Transgender People, Gift 3 - Openness to Ambiguity (mp3)

The Gifts of Transgender People, Gift 4 - Empathy for Others (mp3)

Guide (direct link for downloading):

Gender Identity & Our Faith Communities: A Congregational Guide for Transgender Advocacy (PDF-1.89 MB)

More information about this series:

Gender Identity and Our Faith Communities: Audio Files of Dramatic Readings

Gender Identity and Our Faith Communities: A Congregational Guide for Transgender Advocacy

Some Thoughts about Spiritual Leadership

2010-06-27T18:46:00.000-07:00

Probably, in every organized religion, there is some concept of spiritual leadership or spiritual authority. This teaching is potentially dangerous because spiritual leaders may abuse their authority. I think that in benign religions there are some boundaries for the spiritual authority, for example, requirements for spiritual leaders. In abusive religions, these boundaries are violated. In another post, I wrote about requirements for Sufi sheykhs that exist in traditional Sufism. Likewise, the New Testament contains requirements for Christian ministers in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

(1 Timothy 3:1-13, NIV)

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

(Titus 1:5-9, NIV)

Both descriptions are quite similar and Christian leaders are supposed to meet these requirements. Obviously, abusive leaders do not meet them. Are they blameless? not overbearing? not violent? gentle? not pursuing dishonest gain? not lovers of money? Do they meet other requirements? Since they do not meet these requirements, according to the New Testament, they cannot have real authority from God, in spite of their claims. Abusive leaders like to teach their followers that they need to submit to them because they are "spiritual authority." They pick up some verses from the Bible that speak about submission. They blame people who do not submit to them and say that they disobey God. However, they purposely neglect the verses that tell about requirements for spiritual leaders because these verses expose them.

Some Thoughts about Sufism

2010-06-25T12:41:00.000-07:00

I am a Christian and have never been a Muslim. So, I did not practice Sufism. However, I have been interested about Islam, including Sufism. To some extent, it is because I had Chechen ancestors and am interested about Chechen culture. Chechens consider Sufism as their traditional religion. Originally, Sufism came to Chechnya from Daghestan, a neighbouring region in the Northern Caucasus. However, there are some differences between Sufism in Chechnya and Sufism in Daghestan. Most Chechen Sufis belong to Qadiri tariqah and follow the school of Kunta-hajji Kishiev, a Sufi sheykh (religious leader) who was a native Chechen. In Daghestan, there are many different Sufi groups and many tariqah. Probably, the most numerous are Naqshbandi, Shadhili, and Qadiri tariqahs. There are not much books written by Chechen Sufis, but there are many written by Daghestani Sufis. I read some of them as well as books written by Arab Sufis and other Sufi authors who live in the regions where Sufism has many adherents and exists for centuries.

I read several reports about abusive Sufi sheykhs in the Western countries. I do not know if it is the same in the traditional Sufi regions or not. In Sufism, murids (disciples) are required to submit to their sheykhs and potentially it can be a source of abuse if sheykhs have a tendency to be abusive. However, I think Sufis in traditional Sufi regions recognize this danger and have some ways to prevent it. In many Sufi books, it is written that there are genuine sheykhs and pseudo-sheykhs. Readers are warned about pseudo-sheykhs and are given some characteristics of genuine sheykhs. They are also encouraged to seek for genuine sheykhs and the best of them and not join the first person who calls himself a sheykh whom they met.

The first requirement is that a sheykh must have a certificate or permission to be a sheykh given by his sheykh. In turn, his sheykh must have a permission given by his sheykh, and so on. This line has to go to Muhammad. This requirement also implies that before a sheykh is allowed to have murids, he has to pass through the process of spiritual growth himself.

The second requirement is that a sheykh must know Islam doctrines and practices very well and must observe them. Sufism is a part of Islam and tariqah (Sufi way) is based on sharia (Islamic law).

When murids are in the presence of their sheykh or listen to him, they should feel love toward Allah and faith. Sheykh is supposed to treat murids in a respectful way. He should not only rebuke them, but also see their spiritual advance. Murids who spent long time with a sheykh are supposed to have spiritual growth. Sheykh is supposed to have murids of various social positions and national and cultural backgrounds.

In Sufism, there are many tariqahs, but Sufi from traditional regions believe that the differences between them are just outward practices while they all have the same goal. Thus, a murid can follow any tariqah and they different tariahs are considered to be true. Murids are allowed to change their tariqahs or their sheykhs, though it is not recommended. Murids are allowed to follow two tariqahs at the same time, though it is not recommended because in this case they have to use more time and energy to carry out practices of both tariqahs. There are even sheykhs who follow two tariqahs and have a permission to teach both. For example, there is one famous sheykh in Daghestan who is a sheykh of both Naqshbandi and Shadhili tariqahs and has permissions from his sheykhs to teach both.

In my opinion, these principles may serve as some protection against abusive sheykhs, though I understand that they may not work in some cases.

Evangelicalism and Liberation Theologies

2010-06-24T19:22:00.000-07:00

I believe that the Bible is God's inerrant and inspired Word and in this I agree with evangelicalism and disagree with liberal theology because they do not take the Bible this way. I believe that mostly evangelical doctrines are correct and consider myself an evangelical. However, some time ago, I began to notice that evangelicalism lacks something. It stresses some teachings from the Bible, but omits some other biblical teachings. Traditional evangelicalism did not care for the social oppression, injustice, discrimination. Eventually, oppressed people had to form their own liberal theologies, that is, liberation theologies.

1. Liberation theology (in the narrow sense) pays attention on the liberation of poor people and poor countries. It says that God is with the poor and wants to release them from the oppression. Is this concept biblical? Yes, and it can be found in many places of the Bible. In Exodus, God led Israelites out of Egypt. He not only led them out in order to bring into the good land, but also delivered them from the slavery and oppression. Most Christians believe that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The Bible does not say so. Ezekiel 16:49-50 tells what was Sodom's sin:

49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (NIV)

These verses say that the sins of Sodom were that they were arrogant, overfed, and did not concern for the poor and needy. Old Testament prophets often condemned social sins. One example is Isaiah 1:16-18. This passage is often quoted by evangelical preachers, but they neglect verse 17:

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (NIV)

In Matthew 19:23-24, it is written:

"23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (NIV)

Luke 6:20-21, 24-25:

"20 Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. 24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. 25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep."

Many Christians consider these verses spiritually because in the parallel verses in Matthew 5 it is said in a different way: verse 3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven", verse 6: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." However, Luke does not say about spirit and righteousness.

There are many such verses in the Bible which indicate that God supports the poor and condemns social oppression.

2. Black theology pays attention to the release of the black from race discrimination. Unfortunately, the Bible was used in order to vindicate slavery. Racists used their interpretation of Genesis 9:24-27. They said that Noah cursed Ham and Canaan and their descendants were to be slaves of descendants of Shem and Japheth. Then, they said that descendants of Ham are the black and descendants of Japheth are the white and so the black should be slaves to the white. This interpretation is wrong. Actually, Noah cursed only Canaan and did not curse Ham. Descendants of Canaan were Canaanites who lived in Palestine and were conquered by Israelites. Israelites were descendants of Shem. It was then that Noah's words were fulfilled. By the way, the Bible and history never say that Canaanites were black. The Bible does not support racism, although it does not say much about the black. In Acts 8:26-40, Philip preached the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch who was black (cf. Jeremiah 13:23). In Acts 13:1, there is a list of prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch. One of them was Simeon called Niger. His nickname indicates that he was black. Another one was Lucius of Cyrene. Cyrene was a region of the northern Africa. So, he might also have been black. The early church did not make any difference between white and black people. Although Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 do not speak about different races, they set a principle that in Christ all the people have the equal position regardless of their nationality, gender, social position, and other things.

3. Feminist theology pays attention to the release of women from sex discrimination. Again, the Bible was used in order to vindicate sexism. Sexists paid much attention to the biblical verses that say about women's submission to their husbands and prohibition for women to teach in the churches. However, they neglected many other biblical verses and the whole Bible context. In the Bible, some prescriptions were given only temporary, for some culture or for some people. For example, the biblical verses about slaves' submission to their masters were only for slave-owning culture. God's commandment for Noah to build the ark was given only to him and not to anyone else.

Galatians 3:28 sets an important principle:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This verse sets the equal position of men and women. Even in the Old Testament there were examples when women acted as leaders such as Deborah (Judges 4-5) who was a prophetess and a leader of Israel (Judges 4:4). Among Jesus disciples, there were many women, for example, Mary who was sitting and listening Jesus (Luke 10:39). Jewish rabbis did not teach women, but Jesus did. Four daughters of Philip the evangelist were prophetesses (Acts 21:9) (cf. Acts 21:10). In Acts 18:26, Priscilla (woman) and Aquila (man) taught and corrected Apollos who knew Scriptures, but did not know some teachings well. Priscilla is named first which means that she probably took the lead. Phoebe was a deacon (Romans 16:1-2) (cf. 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 12). Andronicus (man) and Junia (woman) were apostles (Romans 16:7). Thus, women had the same functions and positions in the church as men.

4. Queer theology pays attention to the release of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people (GLBT) from discrimination. Most Christians believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that there are many biblical verses that condemn it. However, there are not so many verses that are used to condemn it. First, it is Genesis 1-2. Some people say that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Ada and Eve. However, the fact is that Steve, Ada, and all the other people of various races, nationalities and so on were also created by God. Genesis 2 just says about the first couple, not about all the couples. Second, the story of Sodom. The Bible does not say that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 tells about other reasons for destruction of Sodom. Jude 7 in the context (verse 6) speaks about sexual intercourses between human beings and angels (Genesis 6:1-4), not about homosexuality. The inhabitants of Sodom attempted a gang raping of angels. There is a similar story in Judges of another gang raping. A gang raping is obviously sinful, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, but the story of Sodom does not say anything about homosexual relationships at mutual agreement. Third, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The context of both verses implies that they were about homosexual acts as a part of idol worship (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5). Also, it is important that these verses are in Leviticus. Most commandments of Leviticus are not observed by most Christians because Christ canceled the Old Testament law. It is illogical to take two verses out of this book to condemn something. Fourth, Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7. These verses in King James Version contain the word "sodomite" or "sodomites" which some Christians apply to gays. However, in Deuteronomy 23:17 in the Hebrew text there are two very similar words: "qadesh" (masculine form) and "qadeshah" (feminine form). Their actual meaning is "male temple prostitute" and "female temple prostitute" and they refer to the temple prostitution as a part of pagan rituals. In 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7, the Hebrew word is "qadeshim" (plural form from "qadesh"). Fifth, Romans 1:26-27. The context of these verses that these people rejected God (verse 21), worshipped idols (verses 23 and 25), and did unnatural things. Again, the context implies that it may be the part of idol worship. Also, homosexual acts are unnatural for heterosexuals, not homosexuals. So, there is no indication that these people were homosexuals. Sixth, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The Greek words here are "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi." There are many debates over these words and nobody knows what they exactly meant. Since their meaning is uncertain, these verses cannot be used to condemn homosexuality. Thus, there is no indication that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Another related matter is transgenderism. Although most Christians believe that it is sinful as well, there are even less verses that are used to support this view. First, Genesis 1:27 which says that God created people male and female. Since transgender people "transgress" the gender binary, some Christians use this verse to condemn them. Actually, not all the people are clearly males or females. There are intersex people (also known as "hermaphrodites"). They are obviously born this way which means that God created them this way. Also, Genesis 1 and 2 do not say anything about great diversities among humankind such as various races and nationalities. Genesis 1 does not say about many species that exist in nature. This is a very short story about creation that does not give all the details. Second, Deuteronomy 22:5 which tells that men should not wear female clothes and women should not wear male clothes. There are different opinions why Israelites were given this commandment. One of them is that cross-dressing was a part of some pagan ritual. Another one is that through cross-dressing some Israelites tried to access the privileges of the other gender or avoid responsibilities of their own gender. However, it is important that this verse is a part of the Old Testament law. It is interesting that in the whole chapter 22 Christians consider that only verse 5 should be fulfilled. For example, they have nothing against wearing clothes made of wood and linen woven together which is forbidden by verse 11 of the same chapter. Thus, verse 5 is taken out of its context. Third, Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 21:20; 22:24. These verses are used against male-to-female transsexuals because castration is a part of the surgeries they undergo. However, these verses say nothing about the reasons for castration: whether it was voluntary, forcible, or a result of trauma. Again, these verses are in the Old Testament law. On the basis of Deuteronomy 23:1, eunuchs were excluded from Judaism. However, Isaiah 56:3-5 prophesied that eunuchs would be accepted by God. Jesus confirmed it in Matthew 19:11-12 and Philip preached the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Leviticus 21 and 22 list many physical defects of priests and offerings that made them unsuitable for God. However, nobody cares for all the other physical defects any more. Thus, the Bible does not condemn transgenderism either.

Probably, it is also important to mention that according to many respectful mental health and medical organizations such as American Psychological Association and many others, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism are not choices and cannot be changed. Thus, the science tells that GLBT people did not chose to be who they are and cannot change themselves. One of the principles of the proper biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible does not contradict the science and in fact it does not. In the past, I used to be a homophobic and transphobic Christian, but after I learned these things, I changed my opinion.

I think I need to add that I do not consider homosexuality to be sinful per se, but this does not mean that I consider any homosexual activity to be sinless. The principle is the same as for heterosexuality. Of course, no one thinks that heterosexuality is sinful per se, but there are some heterosexual activities that are sinful, such as raping, pedophilia, incest, prostitution, and sexual promiscuity. However, no one considers that heterosexual committed relationships in marriages are sinful. In the same way, I do not consider homosexual committed relationships to be sinful. Obviously, many homosexual couples are unable to legally register their relationships because same-sex marriages are not allowed in many countries. However, if essencially their relationships are equal to marriages, I do not believe they are sinful. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation and cannot change it, but both are able to choose how they act according to their sexual orientation. Any sexual orientation is not only about sex, but also about love. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are able to have loving and committed relationships.

Liberation theologies brought many biblical teachings that were traditionally neglected by evangelicalism, but are important in order to get the full biblical doctrine and practice. Fortunately, some evangelicals began to receive these teachings and add them to traditional evangelical teachings. I think this is the right approach. Evangelicals can learn something from liberation theologies. Probably, the main lesson of liberation theologies is non-discriminative attitude to all the people and love to all the people instead of hatred, condemnation, and biases.

Prometheus

2010-02-27T07:10:00.000-08:00

This is one of my experiments in writing something poetic in English. Please do not forget that I am not a native speaker of English. I know that some things in the poem below are grammatically incorrect, though there is such a thing as poetic license.

I was deceived
And mind-controlled
And suffered much in cult.

It wasn't in vain.
There was some gain
And something that I learned.

I was in cult
And since I left.
And I recovered by myself.

I want to help
To those in need
And show them way and light.

I want to help
Them to be free.
I want to give them warmth.

I want to help
And give them fire
And be like Prometheus.

Like him who brought
The fire to men
To give them light and warmth.

And he released
The human race
From pow'r of god of fire.

He suff'red for help
To those in need.
His acts're inspiring me.

Comments:
1. In this poem, I followed the Chechen myth about Prometheus rather than the Greek one, though I decided not to put this explanation into the text of the poem in order not to confuse the readers and not to distract them from the main thought. The information regarding the Chechen myth about Prometheus (Pkharmat) can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkharmat
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2008/12/chechen-myth-about-prometheus.html
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2010/02/pkharmat-chechen-prometheus.html
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2010/11/pkhari-another-version-of-myth-about.html
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2010/03/myths-about-prometheus-and-pkharmat.html
Many other Caucasian nations have their versions of myths about Prometheus, though they are not so similar to the Greek myth. For example, Circassians have myths about Sosruko and about Nasren Bataraz:
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2010/03/sosruko-circassian-myth.html
http://borzlemanal.blogspot.com/2010/03/nasren-and-bataraz-chircassian-myth.html

2. I often considered Prometheus and, especially, his Chechen counterpart Pkharmat as a suitable symbol for anti-cult activism for me. I see many parallels here. His intention was to help people. He brought fire to people in order to give light to those who were in darkness and warmth to those who suffered from cold. Also, fire that he brought made people independent and free from god of fire. He suffered for people in order to help them. I think that my cult and post-cult experience, including the sufferings that I had in cult, helped me to better understand people who have similar situations and made me willing and more capable to help them. In a sense, people who are or were in cults need fire and the things related to it, that is, light, warmth, and freedom.

3. I put "god of fire" instead of "Zeus" in stanza 8 intentionally. In the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the highest god and I am not sure that Prometheus really released people from his power. In the Chechen pantheon, god of fire whose name was Sela was not the highest god. He was only god of fire, and Pkharmat really made people independent from him when he brought them fire. In a sense, Sela can be compared to a cult leader. This is why I used this detail in the poem.

Spiritual Abuse and Bible Abuse toward Gays

2010-01-05T04:50:00.000-08:00

For a long time, I considered the term "spiritual abuse" as a Christian equivalent of the terms "mind control," "thought reform," and "coercive persuasion." However, spiritual abuse includes some issues which are usually not viewed as mind control. There is a special type of spiritual abuse which is called "Bible abuse."

Bible abuse is the kind of spiritual abuse when some Bible verses are used against minorities. Thus, Bible abuse is the misuse of the Bible in order to justify discrimination. Unfortunately, many conservative Christian churches make this error. What is important to notice is that these churches are often not viewed as abusive.

In 19th century, conservative American Protestants approved slavery of Black people because they believed that this is what the Bible teaches. Some verses that they used were: Genesis 9:24-27; Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:44; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9; Philemon. Also, they used the Bible in order to fight against civil rights of women, including the right to vote. Some of the biblical verses they used were: 1 Corinthians 11:3, 4, 7-12; 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

Most modern Christians will agree that such usage of these verses was wrong. However, does it mean that Bible abuse is over? No. Many modern Christians believe that the Bible condemns gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people (GLBT).

Probably, an extreme example of anti-gay hatred is Fred Phelps, the founder and pastor of Westboro Baptist Church. In addition to his anti-gay rhetorics such as that "God hates fags," he also states that "God hates the world," "God hates America," and that Obama is Antichrist. It seems that Phelps is just full of hatred and is unable to love anyone which makes me to question whether he is a Christian at all.

I believe that most anti-gay Christians are not so extreme. However, they believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I also believed so until I studied this matter deeper. There are not so many biblical verses that are used against homosexuality. They are: Genesis 1-2; 19; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7.

Although some Christians say that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Ada and Eve," Genesis 1-2 says nothing about homosexuality as well as about various human races, nations, and all the other diversities among human beings.

The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is actually not about homosexuality, but about raping. Whether raping is heterosexual or homosexual, in both cases it is a crime. Unlike common beliefs, the Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The only verses that explain what were the sins of Sodom inhabitants are Ezekiel 16:49-50. They say nothing about homosexuality. In Jude 7, "strange flesh" is not "homosexual flesh," but "angelic flesh" (verse 6). Sodom inhabitants tried to rape angels as it is said in Genesis 19 and thus tried to do what Genesis 6:1-4 speak about.

Although some English versions use the word "sodomites" in Deuteronomy 23:17 and some other verses in the Old Testament, this translation is not correct. The correct translation is "male cult prostitutes" or "male temple prostitutes." In ancient times, pagan rituals included temple prostitution and there were both male and female temple prostitution. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are also about male temple prostitution which was used in Canaanites' worship to god Molech (Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5). Romans 1:26-27 speak about temple prostitution in Roman and Greek pagan religions (notice that verse 23 clearly speaks about idol worship).

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 contain two Greek words which are often translated as "homosexuals," "sodomites," or "effeminates." These words are "malokoi" and "arsenokoitai." Neither of them were usual Greek words for homosexuals. The word "malokos" (singular) is originally an adjective with the meaning "soft." Outside of the Bible, this word had a number of meanings, including some character negative traits, for example, laziness. However, it did not mean "homosexual" or "effeminate." The word "arsenokoite" (singular) was practically not used outside of the Bible. When it was, in most cases, it was a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9. There is only one known case when this word was used independently and it was about homosexual raping. There is also a hypothesis that Paul invented this word, using the two words from Leviticus 18:22. Thus, this word may refer either to male temple prostitution or homosexual raping. The exact meaning of "malokoi" and "arsenokoitai" is unknown, but there is no ground to say that they mean homosexuals.

Thus, the Bible condemns homosexuals not more than it supports Black slavery or bans women's civil rights. There are many writings about that available in Internet. To name just few of them:
Christianity and Homosexuality Reconciled by Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson
PowerPoint presentation that accompanies this book
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality by Rev. Mel White
Homosexuality and the Bible by Rev. Dr. Walter Wink
Challenging Conventional Wisdom by Steve Schuh
Would Jesus Discriminate? (based on The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley)

Comparing spiritual abuse experienced by members of abusive churches and Bible abuse experienced by gay Christians, I found some parallels. There are some writings about recovery from Bible abuse for gay Christians:
Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse by Dr. Rembert S. Truluck
Confronting Bible Abuse by Micah Royal (part 1)
Confronting Bible Abuse by Micah Royal (part 2)
Confronting Bible Abuse by Micah Royal (part 3)
Confronting Bible Abuse by Micah Royal (part 4)

Both gay Christians and ex-members of abusive churches were harmed by abusive religion and have similar emotional issues. Both need spiritual and psychological recovery. It is quite possible that the damage of Bible abuse toward gay Christians is even worse than the damage of spiritual abuse toward non-gay members of abusive churches.

There is a common confusion of homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. Homosexual people may stay celibate or be in heterosexual marriages. However, they are still homosexual. On the other hand, heterosexual people may be involved in some homosexual activity (for example, homosexual raping in prisons), but still be heterosexual. According to American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is not a choice and it cannot be changed. Attempts to change it do not work, but instead cause distress:
Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work
Insufficient Evidence to Support Sexual Orientation Change Efforts
Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts

Although there are a number of so-called ex-gay ministries, even some of the former leaders of them admit that they damage people and do not change their sexual orientation:
Former Ex-Gay Leaders Apologize
They admit that both psychological and spiritual methods used in such ministries for changing people's sexual orientation cause distress, depressions, self-loathing, self-mutilations, and suicides. So, I think that the damage experienced by these people may be more serious than the damage experienced by most people in abusive churches.

I believe that most Christians who accuse homosexuals of living in sin are just ignorant. By the way, contrary to common belief, many of them live in long-time committed relationships with one partner or pursue such relationships. This means that homosexuals are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I do not believe that such long-time committed relationships should be considered sinful.

In a similar way, most Christians are ignorant about spiritually abusive churches. They not only do not understand the experience of ex-members of such churches, but even sometimes accuse them of being disobedient to spiritual authorities and thus accuse them of sinning. Does the Bible not teach that Christians should submit to their pastors (for example, 1 Peter 5:5; Romans 13:1-5)? Well, the Bible also says that pastors should not abuse their authority (for example, 1 Peter 5:1-4) and that they should meet some qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9). Abusive pastors do not meet these qualifications and thus are not qualified to have authority. However, they distort the Bible in order to vindicate themselves and make members of their churches submissive to them.

Considering the writings on recovery from Bible abuse that I have mentioned above, I think that there are many points that can be useful for heterosexual ex-members of abusive churches as well. Both may be harmed by abusive religion and have similar emotional issues. Both may need spiritual and psychological recovery. Both may need to re-discover the Bible as the book of freedom and not the book of the law. Both may have a distort image of God as demanding, hateful, and condemning God and may need to discover His love. Both may need to begin again with God.

Dr. Rembert Truluck listed twelve steps for recovery from Bible abuse for gay Christians. They are:
1. Admit You Have Been Hurt By Religion
2. Turn to God As Your Guide to Recovery
3. Examine Your Faith
4. Face and Deal With Your Anger
5. Avoid Negative People And Churches
6. Face The Scripture Used Against You
7. Find Positive Supportive Scripture
8. Read And Study The Gospels
9. Come Out And Accept Yourself
10. Develop Your Personal Support System
11. Learn To Share Your Faith With Others
12. Become A Freedom Missionary

I think some of them also can be useful for ex-members of abusive churches. For example, point 1: ex-members of abusive churches also were hurt by abusive religion. Realization that the problem is not in them, but that they were spiritually abused is important in their recovery. Point 6: ex-members of abusive churches were indoctrinated by teachings that made them feel guilty. These teachings such as teachings on spiritual authority and submission, leaving the world, consecration, and so on are often based on distortion of biblical verses. Re-examination of these verses in order to find their true meaning may be helpful in recovery. Point 7: reading and studying of biblical verses on God's love and freedom in Christ may be very encouraging for ex-members of abusive churches. Point 10: contacts with other ex-members for mutual support also may be helpful for recovery.

Update on Recommended Online Books on Spiritual Abuse

2009-10-29T09:56:00.000-07:00

In the right side of this blog, there is a widget "Recommended Online Books on Spiritual Abuse." Since GeoCities was closed 3 days ago, the two links that I had there stopped working - those for "Chapters from Twisted Scriptures by Mary Alice Chrnalogar (in html)" and "A Summary of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen (in html)" because these books were published in GeoCities websites. Fortunately, both websites were saved in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and these books can be found there. I changed the links in the widget. However, it is somewhat complicated to find each chapter of Twisted Scriptures in the Internet Archive. These chapters were also published in CAIC website, but there is the same problem. In another blog, I posted lists of the links to each chapter in both websites:
http://lemanal.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/update-on-the-twisted-scriptures/
http://lemanal.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/online-version-of-twisted-scriptures/

Polls and Guestbook

2009-10-13T20:46:00.000-07:00

I wonder how many visitors of my blogs have been in cults or abusive churches and how many of them have their significant others (family members, relatives or friends) there. Also, I am interested to know how many of those who were in cults had any therapy or counseling after they left. So, I created three polls with these questions in my other blog: http://lemanal.wordpress.com/polls/. I did not post them in this blog because it would be quite complicated. All the polls are completely anonymous. I will be thankful to all the people who will vote.

Also, in that blog, I created a guestbook: http://lemanal.wordpress.com/gb/. Although I enabled comment posting below each post in both both blogs, I think that visitors may have some general comments, not related to any specific post, such as general questions or subjects for discussions in the line of both blogs. So, I provided a special place for such comments. In blogs in WordPress, it is possible to make not only posts like in blogs, but also pages like in websites. So, it was much easier to make a guestbook in that blog than here.

Update. Since in less than 2 weeks I got 46 spam comments sent to the guestbook, I changed its URL in order to make it harder for spammer robots to find it.

My New Blog

2009-10-01T20:48:00.000-07:00

I started a new blog: http://lemanal.wordpress.com/. In that blog, I will post information about some materials that I consider to be helpful for ex-members of cults. Since in this blog, there are many posts on various subjects, I think it will be more convenient to have a separate blog to post information about helpful books, articles, videos, and so on. Of course, I am going to continue this blog as well.

One of the things that attracted me in WordPress is that the blogs there actually combine features of blogs and sites. To me, it seems quite convenient.

The description of the new blog which I published there: http://lemanal.wordpress.com/about/:

In this blog, I publish information about articles, books, and videos that in my opinion might be helpful for the post-cult recovery (psychological and spiritual) of ex-members of cults, especially, of Bible-based cults (abusive churches and cults of Christianity). Mainly, I consider resources that are available freely in Internet. I hope that this information will be helpful for ex-members of cults in their recovery.

However, I do not encourage anyone to read or watch all these materials uncritically. In my opinion, it is very good to read as much as possible on a certain subject (for example, on the recovery from cults), compare different opinions, and make one’s own conclusions. I think it is especially helpful for ex-cult members in order to recover the ability of independent and critical thinking.

Visitors of this blog are also welcome to visit my blog in Blogger and my site in Google Sites.

I am interested to know the visitors’ opinions and suggestions regarding this blog. Anonymous comments are allowed here (it is not mandatory to fill out name, e-mail, and website in the comment form when you post a comment). However, in order to prevent spam, I have enabled comment moderation, so all the comments will be published after my approval – the same as in my blog in Blogger.

I am not a mental health professional or an ordained Christian minister. I am just an ex-cult member who has some knowledge and experience.

Margaret Singer's Writings Available in Internet

2009-10-01T08:35:00.000-07:00

In this post, I am publishing a list of Dr. Margaret Singer's works which are available in Internet. I think her works are helpful for ex-members of cults. Since Rick Ross's website (http://www.rickross.com/) does not work now, I am posting links to Google cached copies of the documents from his website.

1. Excerpts from Cults in Our Midst:
1) From Introduction
2) From Chapter 3 (Google cache)
3) From Chapter 6 (Google cache)
4) From Chapter 7 (Google cache)
5) From Chapter 11 and part 1 of Chapter 12 (Google cache)
6) Part 2 of Chapter 12 (Google cache)
7) Part 3 of Chapter 12 (Google cache)

2. Articles, Lectures, and Interviews
1) Coming Out of the Cults (Google cache)
2) Mental Health Issues (Google cache)
3) The "Not Me" Myth: Orwell and the Mind (Google cache)
4) An interview with Margaret Singer on Undue Influence (Google cache)
5) Coercive Persuasion and the Problems of Ex-Cult Members (Google cache)
6) Group Psychodynamics and Cults (Google cache)
7) How the United States Marine Corps Differs from Cults (Google cache)
8) Thought Reform Programs and the Production of Psychiatric Casualties (Google cache)
9) Intruding into the Workplace (Google cache)
10) Coping with Post-Cult Trauma
11) Issues in Diagnosis and Treatment of Cult Victims
12) Margaret Singer's Interview on Heavenly Gates - Part 1
13) Margaret Singer's Interview on Heavenly Gates - Part 2
14) Margaret Singer's Interview on Heavenly Gates - Part 3
15) Six Conditions for Thought Reform
16) Thought Reform Exists: Organized, Programmatic Influence
17) Excerpts from "Crazy" Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work?
18) Undue Influence and Written Documents: Psychological Aspects
19) Book Review of Churches that Abuse
20) Attacks on Peripheral versus Central Elements of Self and the Impact of Thought Reforming Techniques

3. Materials based on Margaret Singer's writings
1) Post-Cult After Effects
2) Coercive Influence Continuum
3) Some Persuasion Techniques Used by Cults
4) Coercive Mind Control Tactics
5) How Thought Reform Works
6) Common Questions and Answers on Mind Control
7) Conditions for Mind Control

4. Videos
1) Recovery from Cults
2) Margaret Singer's Interview on Falun Gong - Part 1
3) Margaret Singer's Interview on Falun Gong - Part 2

How Long Does It Take To Recover from Cults?

2009-09-30T15:19:00.000-07:00

Somehow, many people believe that it takes many years to completely recover from cult mind control. Some ex-cult members who left cults 20 or more years ago say that they are still recovering. It seems that a number of people believe that if a person was involved in a cult, it will take practically the whole life to recover and that it will take much counseling and therapy.

In Cults in Our Midst, chapter 12, Margaret Singer writes:

Not all former cult members encounter all the problems listed on Table 12.1, nor do most have them in severe and extended form. Some individuals need only a few months to get themselves going again. After encountering some adjustment problems to life outside the cult, they make rather rapid and undeventful reintegrations into everyday life. Generally, however, it takes individuals anywhere from six to twenty-four months to get their lives functioning again at a level commensurate with their histories and talents. Even then, however, theat functioning may not reflect what is still going on insed them. Many are still sorting out the conflicts and harms that grew out their cult experience long after two years have gone by. Each former member wrestles with a number of problems. Some need more time than others to resolve all the issues they face, and a few never get their lives going again.

Then, she wrote:

Coming out of the cult pseudo-personality is about reeducation and growth. Self-help through reading can be invaluable for those who live far from knowledgeable resources such as exit-counselors, cult information specialists, former member support groups, and mental health professionals.

According to Margaret Singer, the time of recovery depends on the person. She did not write about 20 years or longer. Instead, she wrote about several months, 2 years or longer. In addition, she did not write that is is necessary to get a counseling or a therapy in order to recover.

A Book on Post-Cult Recovery

2009-09-15T07:39:00.000-07:00

For quite a long time, I tried to find something like a textbook on the post-cult recovery. Most books on cults are mainly focused on the cult involvement and only in the end there are some recommendations on the cult recovery. Well, the Bible says: "Seek and you will find." Yesterday, I found Recovery from Abusive Groups by Wendy Ford. This book is a handbook on the cult recovery - both for ex-cult members and their families. In my opinion, this is a very helpful book for ex-cult members. Actually, I found some new things for myself there that I even did not think about.

Videos on Post-Cult Recovery

2009-08-15T23:09:00.001-07:00

Recovery from Mind Control by Dr. Margaret Singer (November 1991) - 1:11:41

Cult Recovery (Part 1) by Madeleine Tobias - 54:09

Cult Recovery (Part 2) by Madeleine Tobias - 1:07:03

Post-Cult Recovery: Therapy or Education?

2009-07-26T00:43:00.000-07:00

I think the first question here is whether cult involvement always causes mental disorders or not because if ex-cult members have mental disorders, they need therapy, if they do not have mental disorders, they may have no need in therapy. There are disagreements regarding this matter among mental health professionals as well as there are different opinions regarding what diagnoses should be applied.

Steven Hassan automatically applies the diagnosis Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (DSM-IV 300.15) to every cult member and every ex-member of a cult who did not have sufficient therapy. This disorder means that a person has two personalities or identities (pre-cult or real and cult ones) and can switch from one of them to the other. This diagnosis is different from Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) (DSM-IV 300.14) because cult and ex-cult members do not have amnesia for the actions they did in their other identity. Strictly speaking, Dissociative Disorders is a big group that includes other disorders as well. The diagnosis Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified is given to a person who has symptoms of a dissociative disorder that does not match diagnostic criteria of other disorders in this group. So, it is not a special diagnosis for cult and ex-cult members. Hassan also applies Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (DSM-IV 309.81) to ex-members of cults which is not a special diagnosis for ex-cult members either.

Russian psychiatrists often apply another diagnosis to cult and ex-cult members - Induced Delusional Disorder (ICD-10 F24). In ICD-10, this disorder is listed in the chapter V "Mental and Behavioral Disorders" in the block "Schizophrenia, Schizotypal and Delusional Disorders." According to the definition in ICD-10, Induced Delusional Disorder is: "A delusional disorder shared by two or more people with close emotional links. Only one of the people suffers from a genuine psychotic disorder; the delusions are induced in the other(s) and usually disappear when the people are separated." This disorder is also known as Folie à deux ("a madness shared by two") and Shared Psychotic Disorder (DSM-IV 297.3). Again, according to ICD-10 description, Induced Delusional Disorder is not a special diagnosis for cult and ex-cult members.

The psychiatrists who apply this diagnosis to cult and ex-cult members also automatically apply diagnoses like Schizophrenia (ICD-10 F20) or Persistent Delusional Disorders (ICD-10 F22) to cult leaders. They consider that a person who founds, for example, a new religious cult, has religious delusion and delusion of grandeur. They say that cult leaders induce their religious and other delusions to cult members and thus cause them to develop Induced Delusional Disorder.

The automatic diagnosing cult leaders and members with psychotic disorders somewhat resembles the situation in the Soviet psychiatry when dissidents were automatically diagnosed with schizophrenia on the basis of their political views, different from the mainline Soviet society. In a similar way, in Russia, cult leaders and members are often automatically diagnosed with psychotic disorders on the basis of their religious or other beliefs, different from the mainline Russian society.

Other mental health professionals prefer not to give diagnoses to cult and ex-cult members automatically. In my opinion, this approach is correct. Writing about mental health issues of the cult involvement, Dr. Margaret Singer and Dr. Richard Ofshe did not say that all the cult and ex-cult members have mental disorders:

Our interviewees (all of whom were reporting some form of distress) were divided into six groups according to their responses after leaving the program. The first and largest group is the majority reaction group, and the remaining five groups are the induced psychopathologies.

The Majority Reaction

Degrees of anomie. The majority reaction seen in people who leave thought reform programs, almost regardless of the time spent with the group, is a varying degree of anomie -- a sense of alienation and confusion resulting from the loss or weakening of previously valued norms, ideals, or goals. When the person leaves the group and returns to broader society, culture shock and anxiety usually result from the theories learned in the group and the need to reconcile situational demands, values, and memories in three eras -- the past prior to the group, the time in the group, and the present situation.

The person feels like an immigrant or refugee who enters a new culture. However, the person is reentering his or her former culture, bringing along a series of experiences and beliefs from the group with which he or she had affiliated that conflict with norms and expectations. Unlike the immigrant confronting merely novel situations, the returnee is confronting a rejected society. Thus, most people leaving a thought reform program have a period in which they need to put together the split or doubled self they maintained while they were in the group and come to terms with their pre-group sense of self.

Induced Psychopathologies

Reactive schizo affective-like psychoses. These occur in individuals with no prior history of mental disorder and from families free of such history, as well as in individuals with no prior history of mental disorder, but whose families have members with affective disorders.

These psychotic episodes vary in length from days to nearly a year's duration, with most ranging from 1 to 5 months. The decompensation typically occurs in immediate response to a peak stress-inducing experience. Strong affective components, mostly of a hypomanic or manic quality, are noted near and after the decompensation. These components appear related to the behavior modeled in the group and to attitudes advocated by the group. Certain programs appear to interact with personal histories and situational properties of the group to produce depressive reactions.

Postraumatic stress disorders. This type of disorder is described in section 309.89 of the DSM-III-R.

Atypical dissociative disorders. This type of disorder is described in section 300.15 of the DSM-III-R.

Relaxation-induced anxiety. This is a type of atypical anxiety if one uses DSM-III-R classification, but is best described in the recently growing reports appearing in research literature.

Miscellaneous reactions. These include anxiety combined with cognitive inefficiencies, such as difficulty in concentration, inability to focus and maintain attention, and impaired memory (especially short-term); self-mutilation; phobias; suicide and homicide; and psychological factors affecting physical conditions (described in section 316.00 of the DSM-III-R) such as strokes, myocardial infarctions, unexpected deaths, recurrence of peptic ulcers, asthma, etc.

So, they stated that most ex-members of cults do not have mental disorders, though they admitted that some do.

Those mental health professionals who consider that cult involvement automatically causes mental disorders, say that all the ex-cult members need therapy. However, obviously, they treat ex-cult members from the disorders they suppose ex-cult members have. It means that, for example, Steven Hassan treats ex-cult members from Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified while some Russian psychiatrists treat them from Induced Delusional Disorder. The purpose of treatment from Induced Delusional Disorder is to make ex-cult members change their religious beliefs (supposedly, to cure them from religious delusion) and to cure them from their dependency on the cult leaders. No wonder that many people who work with ex-cult members in Russia (both mental health professionals and priests of Russian Orthodox Church) consider religious conversion into Russian Orthodox Church as a sign and goal of the post-cult recovery.

Dr. Margaret Singer considered post-cult recovery as an educational process, not as a therapeutic process. For example, in chapter 12 of Cults in Our Midst, she wrote:

Coming out of the cult pseudo-personality is about reeducation and growth. Self-help through reading can be invaluable for those who live far from knowledgeable resources such as exit-counselors, cult information specialists, former member support groups, and mental health professionals.

I agree with Dr. Margaret Singer and disagree with Hassan and those who diagnose cult and ex-cult members with Induced Delusional Disorder. After I left the cult, I did not have any therapy, but I did have a lot of self-education. It was really helpful for me and I do not think I need any therapy.

Forgiving Others

2009-07-24T00:03:00.000-07:00

The New Testament teaches Christian to forgive one another and to forgive others. Ephesians 4:32 (NIV): "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." Matthew 18:35: "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Mark 11:25: "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." Matthew 6:14-15: "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

After I left a Bible-based cult, this commandment was one of the hardest to me. The Bible does not make any exceptions. It does not say, for example: "Forgive all the people, except cult leaders." It was the hardest thing for me to do. I could not do that. However, I noticed that it frustrated my spiritual recovery.

When I was in the cult, one of the leaders almost made me commit a suicide. Actually, it was a suicidal attempt, unfinished by my own initiative. No one rescued me, no one knew about it, and most people who knew me in the cult still have no idea about it. It was one of my most terrible cult experiences and it was the only experience of this kind in my life. Several years after that, I heard that this person had brain cancer and many people prayed for him. I did not have any compassion to him in my heart. Several years later, I heard that he had died. I guess he was around 50 when he died. He was survived by his wife and 5 children. I used to know his family and felt sorry for them. However, I still could not forgive him, even knowing that he was dead. On the contrary, I even had a feeling of gloating. I thought: "He almost caused my death, but now he is dead himself." I knew that, being a Christian, I should not think like that, but I could not make it. The point is that I still was unable to forgive him.

Since my experience with this person was one of the most painful for me, I knew that I had to do something with it in order to get recovered from my cult involvement. In the beginning, I followed an advice from Steven Hassan's books and wrote down my whole cult experience month by month. I am not sure that it is a good practice because I had to remember all my former experiences that caused me pain. By that time, I forgot about some of them, but I had to remember them again and experience this pain again. Anyway, eventually, I finished it. Actually, I did gain some benefit from this practice because I changed it and considered all the circumstances of each experience. It helped me to see my experience from another angle. For example, I noticed that in many cases my experiences were staged. Well, Hassan did not write anything about this part.

After I wrote down my experiences with this cult leader, I followed another Hassan's advice. He recommends to change some experiences in imagination, for example, to imagine that instead of submission to the cult leader, you are saying to him everything that you think about him. So, I imagined that I expressed my anger at him directly instead of just listening what he told me. Only then I realized that when I had conversations with him, I experienced humiliation. Naturally, I would have been angry at him. However, since I was taught that the cult leaders represented God's authority on the earth and that even a negative thought against them was a serious sin, I suppressed my anger. Well, this exercise recommended by Hassan helped me to realize that I suppressed my negative feelings toward this person and it was one of the reasons why I felt so bad.

After that, I read somebody's testimony about the cult involvement. I noticed that several times, after description of some of her experiences, she wrote that she did not blame them for doing something to her because they had done what they had felt was the best. Reading that, I thought: "This person does not believe in God, but she forgave her offenders. I am a Christian, but I cannot." Also, I thought that it was important for me to forgive those who offended me for my own recovery.

Quite a long time after that, after I reconsidered my cult experience from many various angles, I noticed that this experience did not cause me pain anymore. I was able to think and speak about it without any feelings. After that, I realized that I was able to forgive this cult leader. Well, he even did not know that he caused me pain and, for sure, he did not know about my suicidal attempt because I did not tell him or anybody else at that time. He talked to me in the way that he had learned in the cult and behaved as he was supposed to behave in that situation. I realized that I did not have any negative feelings to him. I forgave him, and it was very important for my own recovery - both psychological and spiritual. My whole cult experience, including all my experiences with him, does not cause me any negative feelings any more. Of course, forgiveness of the cult leaders does not mean that I am going to come back.

In my opinion, the ability to forgive former cult offenders is a sign of both psychological and spiritual recovery from cults. Some people, for example, Lawrence Wollersheim, promote lawsuits against cults as a way to recovery. I do not really agree with him. I can admit that in the initial stage of the cult recovery it may be necessary to express the anger at the offender and a lawsuit may be a way for that. However, I do not think it is healthy to stay in this angry condition the whole life. In my opinion, this condition indicates that a person is still suffering from the cult experience. When a person is able to forgive and forget, it indicates recovery. When I left, in the beginning, I had a desire to sue them. I did not and I do not regret it. Actually, some time after I left, all my main offenders left my country, so it was useless to initiate any lawsuit. Anyway, in my opinion, the ability to forgive and forget indicate a fuller recovery than the desire to avenge, even using the legal system.

Definitions of Some Biblical Concepts: Holy, Holiness, and Sanctification

2009-07-11T08:34:00.000-07:00

In Hebrew, there are three words that denote these concepts: "kodesh" (holiness), "kadosh" (holy), "kadash" (to sanctify). According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, these words have the following meanings.

"Kodesh" means "apartness, sacredness":
1. Apartness, sacredness, holiness of God
2. Of places set apart as sacred by God's presence
3. Things consecrated at sacred places
4. Persons sacred by connection with sacred places
5. Times consecrated to worship
6. Of things and persons ceremonially cleansed, and so separated as sacred

"Kadosh" means "sacred, holy":
1. Of God as separate, apart, and so sacred, holy
2. Of place, things, time "sacred, holy"
3. Of people "sacred, sacred ones, saints"
4. Of angels "holy"

In Hebrew as well as in other Semitic languages, verbs may have several types that are formed from the same consonant root, but have different vowels, and sometimes consonant doubling and prefixes. Different types formed from the same root usually have different aspects of the action. In Hebrew, the main type is called "Qal" (simple). Other type names are constructed from the root "p'l" (to do) according to the models for each type. When "p" is between two vowels, it is pronounced "ph."
"Kadash" means "to be set apart, consecrated":
Qal:
1. To be set apart, consecrated, hallowed
2. To be hallowed, by contact with sacred things, and so tabooed from profane use
Niph'al:
1. Show oneself sacred, majestic
2. Be honored or treated as sacred
3. Be consecrated, dedicated
Pi'el:
1. Set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate
2. Observe s holy, keep sacred
3. Honor as sacred, hallow
4. Consecrate by purification
Pu'al:
Consecrated, dedicated
Hiph'il:
1. Set apart, devote, consecrate
2. Regard, or treat as sacred, hallow
3. Consecrate by purification
Hitpa'el:
1. Keep oneself apart from unclean things
2. Of God, cause himself to be hallowed
3. Be observed as holy, of feast
4. Consecrate oneself by purification, of priests and Levites

The Greek words for these concepts are: "hagios" (holy), "hagiazo" (to sanctify), "hagiasmos" (sanctification, also holiness as a condition)), "hagiosune" (holiness as an attribute), "hagiotes" (holiness as a condition). According to A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, these words have the following meanings.

"Hagiazo":
1. To separate to God, to consecrate to God
2. To sanctify, to make sacred (for ritual purposes)
3. To sanctify, to consecrate, to purify (in religious and moral sense); to honor (as a sanctuary)

"Hagiasmos":
1. Sanctification, consecration
2. Holiness

"Hagios":
1. Used as an adjective:
1) Separated to God, consecrated to God; sacred
2) Holy, righteous, sinless, blameless
2. Used as a noun:
1) Saints, God's people (Christians)
2) Sanctuary

"Hagiotes":
1. Holiness, blamelessness
2. Sincerity

"Hagiosune":
1. Holiness
2. Consecration

So, both in the Old and New Testament, these words may be used to refer:
1) to God as the One who is exalted, unique, and separated from everything sinful, immoral, and profane;
2) to places, things, and times as separated and consecrated to God;
3) to people as separated and consecrated to God.
In the New Testament, these words are also used in the moral sense of righteousness and perfection. Also, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the concept of sanctification is related to the concept of consecration.

Regarding the usage of the concept of sanctification toward Christians, there are two aspects:
1) sanctification as a fact (Christians as God's children and God's people belong to God and thus are separated to God);
2) sanctification as a process (the process of Christian growth).
There are many teachings in Christianity regarding the second aspect. So, I am unable to describe all of them here. One of the questions is whether it is possible to stop sinning and become morally perfect in this life or not. Most Christian theologians say that it is impossible. This view is based on the verses such as 1 John 1:8, 10 and the Christian experience. Another important point is that God is the One who sanctifies Christians (1 Thessalonians 5:26). However, Christians are expected to consecrate themselves to God for sanctification (Romans 6:13, 19).

Actually, I am unable to carefully consider the subjects of the holy living and Christians' attitude to the world and various teachings in Christianity regarding these matters in this and previous posts. However, I know that these teachings can be easily abused in Bible-based cults. So, if there will be questions, I can continue this line.

Definitions of Some Biblical Concepts: World

2009-07-10T15:31:00.000-07:00

I continue the definitions of some biblical concepts as somebody asked me. Unfortunately, I was very busy, so I apologize for the long delay. The word "world" has more than one meaning in the Bible.

Strictly speaking, in the Old Testament, there is no word for "world." The word that sometimes is translated as "world" is "olam." According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, this word means:
1. Long duration, antiquity, futurity
2. Ancient time
3. Futurity
4. Continuous existence
5. Everlasting
6. Indefinite, unending future
7. Age (duration) of the world
8. Everlastingness, eternity

The corresponding Greek word is "aion." According to A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, it means:
1. Age, eternity
2. Time, age; world order
3. World, present life

So, the main meaning of both "olam" and "aion" is "age(s) or eternity."

The Greek word for "world" is "kosmos." According to A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, this word means:
1. World, universe; the totality of all the things in the universe
2. Earth
3. People, mankind (especially, people who are negative to God)
4. World order
5. Decoration

According to A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd, originally, "aion" had the meaning "age." Later its meaning was changed and this word meant not only "age", but also "world." Paul used "aion" and "kosmos" in interchangeable way. In Ephesians 2:2, he used both words in the expression "the age of this world" ("ho aion tou kosmou toutou").

Ladd writes that in the Pauline theology, the word "kosmos" has the following meanings:
1. The universe, everything that exists
2. The inhabited world, the realm of mankind
3. Mankind, the whole human community
4. Humanity as sinful and hostile to God
5. The totality of human activity

According to Ladd, in the Johannine theology, the word "kosmos" means:
1. Created world order
2. The earth
3. Mankind, people as those who live on the earth
4. People as the object of God's love and salvation
5. People as those who are fallen, sinful, rebellious and alienated from God

According to New Testament Theology by Leon Morris, the word "kosmos" originally meant "order" and later was used to denote an ornament or decoration. Then, this word began to denote the universe as the most orderly and beautiful thing. Later, it was also used to denote the earth as the most important part of the universe. Then, it began to denote people themselves as the most important objects on the earth. According to Morris, John used this word for people, denoting:
1. Those who respond to the gospel and get salvation
2. Those who resist Christ and His people
3. People as the object of God's love

In conclusion, the main meanings of "kosmos" in the New Testament are: the universe, the earth, the mankind, the people as those who resist God. In Johannine theology, this word is also used to denote people as the object of God's love.

Definitions of Some Biblical Concepts: Lust

2009-06-14T00:54:00.000-07:00

I continue the series of posts where I define some biblical concepts, started at somebody's request. Regarding lust, I am aware that some Christians consider lust as sexual desires, however, this is not really what the Bible tells.

The Greek word for "lust" is "epithumia." According to A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, this word means:
1. Desire
2. Craving, thirst, longing, yearning
3. Passion
4. Lust

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the meaning of this word is "desire." This desire may be sinful or not. In Luke 22:15 (NIV), Jesus says: "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." In Greek, "eagerly desired" is literally "desired with a desire." This construction in Greek means emphasis. The Greek word for "desire" here is "epithumia". The Greek word for "to desire" is "epithumeo". Both words have the same root.

In many biblical verses, the word "epithumia" has a negative connotation, for example, Romans 6:12; 13:14; Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Timothy 2:22; James 1:14-15; 1 Peter 1:14; 2:11; 2 Peter 1:4; 2:18; 3:3; 1 John 2:16; Jude 1:18. In these verses, there is no clear indication that lust has anything to do with the sexual desires.

James 1:14-15 (NKJV) describes the process of sinning:

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

In these verse, "desire" is "epithumia". Floyd H. Barackman in Practical Christian Theology described five stages of sinning here which are expressed metaphorically.
1. Temptation ("each one is tempted... and enticed" cf. Galatians 5:16-17 "lust")
This is temptation or desire to sin. Actually, this temptation or desire is lust ("epithumia").
2. Submission (Romans 6:13a, 19)
This is submission to temptation either voluntarily or involuntarily.
3. Conception ("desire has conceived")
This is decision to commit a sin.
4. Begetting ("it gives birth to sin")
This is the act of sinning.
5. Death ("sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death")
The result of sinning is spiritual death.

So, "desire" or "lust" (KJV) here is the desire to commit a sin that leads to sinning. This desire may be a desire to commit any sin.

The Bible does not say that sexual desires are always sinful. In Genesis 1:28 (NIV) it is said:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and increase in number." This was said before they sinned. The Bible never says that sex in marriage is sinful. What the Bible does consider sinful is fornication and adultery, that is, sex outside of marriage. It can be illustrated by the following analogy. It is not sinful to have possessions. However, it is sinful to steal something from other people's possessions. In the same way as desire to possess something should be fulfilled in the legal way, according to the Bible, the proper way to fulfill sexual desires is through marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2-5).

1 Corinthians 7 is sometimes misunderstood. In verse 1 (NIV), Paul says:

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

Some people consider it as a prohibition of marriage. However, in verses 32-35, Paul explains the reason why he says that it is good not to marry:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs — how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife —
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

It is not because marriage is sinful. It is because single people have more time to serve the Lord.

The Bible does not encourage asceticism (Colossians 2:20-23, NKJV):

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations —
21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”
22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Definitions of Some Biblical Concepts: Flesh

2009-06-13T00:33:00.000-07:00

Somebody told me that some groups always define flesh as human body and asked me to give the correct biblical definition of this word. Actually, I think that a number of groups misinterpret this word, though I did not know about the groups that do this in such a way. There are many concepts regarding this word in Christianity and I cannot include all of them into this blog post.

The word "flesh" definitely has much more meanings in the Bible than just "body." The Hebrew word for "flesh" is "basar" (I use transliteration in order that everyone would be able to read). According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, this word means:
1. Flesh of the body (meat): of animals (Genesis 41:2-19); of men (Genesis 40:19)
2. Flesh for the body itself (Exodus 30:32)
3. Euphemism for male organ of reproduction (Genesis 17:11)
4. Kindred, blood-relations (Genesis 2:23), near of kin (Leviticus 18:6)
5. Man over against God as frail or erring (Genesis 6:3)
6. The phrase "all flesh" ("kol-basar") means: all living beings (Genesis 6:17), animals (Genesis 7:15), mankind (Genesis 6:12).

So, in the Old Testament, this word when it is used in relation to human beings mainly means: part of the body; body; human being.

In the New Testament, the concept of the flesh is more complicated. The Greek word for "flesh" is "sarx." According to A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, this word means:
1. Flesh, meat
2. Body
3. (Mortal) human nature; earthly origin; blood relations (Romans 9:8; 11:14)
4. Lowest human nature, sinful human nature
5. Human being, mortal
6. Earthly life, mankind (John 1:13; Colossians 3:22, Hebrews 5:7; 12:9; Jude 7)

In A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd, there is a 9-page section on flesh in the Pauline theology. I am unable to describe here everything that he wrote. So, I will just describe his main conclusion regarding the ethical meaning of this word. According to Ladd, sarx (flesh) in its ethical meaning is not human physical matter or his lowest attributes, but the whole humanity which is considered to be fallen in its opposition to God. This term means the ethical weakness of humanity, that is, sinfulness in God's eyes. Sarx is not a part of humanity, but the total humanity - unborn again, fallen, and sinful. Paul makes an opposition between abiding in the flesh (unborn again person) and abiding in the spirit (born again person). However, in a believer, the fight between flesh and spirit continues because a Christian still possesses flesh.

According to Ladd, in the Johannine theology, the flesh is not sinful like in the Pauline theology. In John's writings, the flesh is a synonym of the human nature. However, it is weak and limited. It cannot exist in God's kingdom.This is why people need to be born again.

In conclusion, the word "flesh" has a number of meanings in the Bible. I think that the Pauline epistles contain the most complicated concept of the flesh. In my opinion, the flesh in the ethical meaning is the sinful human nature that resits God. The flesh cannot be identified with the body because not all the sins are performed by the body. Sinful thoughts and feelings such as hatred, jealousy, and others are performed in the soul, not in the body. On the other hand, human body can perform righteous acts. So, the flesh and the body are different.

I think that ex-members of Bible-based cults may also have some problems with application of the biblical concept of the flesh. The flesh can be defined as the source of human sins. In principle, the biblical concept of the sin is also somewhat complicated because there are many words both in the Old and New Testaments that refer to the sin. For now, I will just say that only if the Bible defines something as sin, it can be called sin. For example, in many Bible-based cults, such things as independence, individualism, critical thinking, opinions, and others are considered sinful. However, the Bible never calls them sins.

There is another practical question: How can I find out what is my flesh? In my opinion, the best way to find it out is to see its actions. Galatians 5:19-23 (NKJV) says about that:

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

So, both the flesh and the Spirit can be seen from their works and fruit. There are other sinful acts and other righteous acts described in the Bible besides those that are mentioned here. However, I think here there is a principle as stated in Matthew 7:20 (NKJV):

Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Spiritual Problems of Ex-members of Bible-based Cults

2009-06-10T04:31:00.000-07:00

In this post, as in other posts in my blog, I use the term "Bible-based cults" in order to denote authoritarian, abusive, and mind-controlling groups that use the Bible. These groups may be either more or less orthodox in their doctrines from the point of view of mainstream Christianity or have serious deviations from the traditional Christianity. The first groups are often called "abusive churches," the second ones "cults of Christianity."

As wrote in other posts, ex-members of Bible-based cults may have psychological and spiritual problems. In many cases, psychological and spiritual problems are interrelated. However, I think it is still better to make difference between them.

A number of ex-members of Bible-based cults completely turn away from Christianity. I do not think that everyone who was in a Bible-based cult should be a Christian. I am for religious freedom and consider that an ex-member of a Bible-based cult is free to be an atheist or to join any religion that he or she wants. However, in my opinion, it is important to consider the reasons why an ex-member decided to turn from Christianity.

Probably, in most cases, the reason why ex-members of Bible-based cults turn away from Christianity is because of their negative experiences in Bible-based cults. These groups present their authoritarianism, abuses, manipulations, and other things as God's will. They purposely distort the Bible in order to justify their practices and make an impression that they are completely biblical. Because of that, ex-members of these groups may still identify their sufferings and negative experiences there with God and may still believe that the Bible justifies these things. Actually, this is the leftover cult indoctrination.

After leaving their cults, ex-members continue to believe in some of their doctrines, and it happens quite often. This is why I believe it is important to learn Christian theology and hermeneutics and to reconsider what the Bible really says. I think it is important to reject the wrong teachings of the cults, especially, those that justify authoritarianism, require unquestioned submission in everything, demand full consecration to the group ("church") as to God, present the group as the only proper and spiritual church, and some others.

In my personal experience, after I left a Bible-based cult, I studied Christian theology and hermeneutics by myself. It was a really releasing experience for me. I found out many errors in the cult doctrines and their intentional distortion of the Bible. I found out that what the Bible really says is different. So, it helped me to be released from the cult indoctrination. Moreover, this experience helped me to regain independent thinking in religious matters.

I think that in addressing specific unbiblical teachings of Bible-based cults, it is helpful to read The Heresy of Mind Control: Recognizing Con Artists in Leadership by Stephen Martin. I think this book is quite releasing. However, I do not encourage anyone to take this book uncritically as inerrant God's word. I think it is important to use independent and critical thinking, reading any Christian book, including this book. In my opinion, it is even more helpful to combine reading this book with learning hermeneutics. I also think it may be helpful to make personal study of the biblical verses mentioned by Martin and to read biblical commentaries. I think it is also a helpful exercise in regaining independent thinking.

Another side of the same problem - turning away from Christianity because of the former negative experience - is that ex-members may feel irritation and overreact at any mention of the Bible, God, or Christianity. This reaction is caused by the triggering. The mention of these matters triggers memory of former painful experiences. In other cases, ex-members may not overreact at these matters and even attend a Christian church, but they still may be triggered by something in that church. Paul Martin recommended to read another version of the Bible and to chose a church which is very different from the former church.

I think that the problem of triggers may be quite serious. I think one of the ways of getting rid of triggers may be to identify them and to replace their meaning with another one. For example, an ex-member is reading the Bible and finds a verse that somehow reminds of the former cult. It may be a verse that was often quoted in that group or a verse that mentions one of abusive teachings of the group. I think it may be helpful to read this verse in another version and to read Bible commentaries and what other Christian book say about this verse and its teaching. Also, if there is a word that caused triggering (for example, the word that was often overemphasized in the cult), it may be helpful to check a Bible dictionary or encyclopedia to see the meaning of this word. This is what I call the replacing of the meaning. I think this practice is also helpful in releasing from the cult indoctrination. It was helpful for me.

Ex-members may distrust God because He allowed their negative experiences to happen. I cannot say why God allows people to suffer because I am not God. God may have some purpose that we may never know. I think it is important to make the difference between what God wants and what He allows. God allows authoritarianism and spiritual abuse in some churches. He allows authoritarian people to be pastors. However, this does not mean that He wants them to be pastors and He wants all the negative things in churches. I guess it may be somehow related to God's granting freedom of will to human beings. God does not force anyone and allows people to sin. However, He does not approve that and will judge people for their sins.

Another side of this question is: "Why did it happen to me, not to somebody else?" I think ex-members should try to find their own answers to this question. It was a difficult question for me also. Eventually, the answer that I found for myself is that through the cult experience we can learn something and then, after our own recovery and learning about what happened with us, we gain ability to understand others who had similar experience, sympathize with them, and help them.

Also, cults often distort the image of God, making an impression that He is very cruel, demanding, authoritarian, and so on. So, I think it is important to find out what the Bible really tells about God. I think learning Christian theology and studying the Bible are helpful in that.

Myths about Post-Cult Recovery

2009-06-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

In the article Dispelling the Myths: The Psychological Consequences of Cultic Involvement, Dr. Paul R. Martin writes about six myths concerning cultic involvement. Here I will write down these myths with my comments. In this article, Martin uses the word "cult" mainly for denoting Bible-based cults, that is, mind controlling groups that use the Bible (abusive churches and cults of Christianity).

MYTH ONE: Ex-cult members do not have psychological problems. Their problems are wholly spiritual.

Many Christians and ex-members of Bible-based cults believe in this concept. I agree with Martin that this is wrong. Many ex-members of Bible-based cults have both psychological and spiritual problems. Ex-members of various cults have similar psychological problems regardless of their belief system and whether the cult is religious or not. This is because the psychological damage is caused by the wrong practices of these groups (mind control and authoritarianism) and not by the obviously heretical teachings.

MYTH TWO: Ex-cult members do have psychological disorders. But these people have come from clearly non-Christian cults.

Writing about this myth, Martin mentions Flavil Yeakley's study. Yeakley found out that members of mind-controlling groups have similar changes of personality types regardless of their beliefs. Members of benign Christian churches do not have these changes. Probably, it is quite remarkable that members of ICC have these changes while members of mainline churches of Christ do not because both groups have similar doctrines, but different practices. Changes of personality types indicate undue psychological influence and, according to Martin, can be considered as psychological damage.

Members of Christian groups (and not only cults) may have psychological disorders. Christians are not protected from physical and psychological problems.

MYTH THREE: Both Christian and non-Christian groups can produce problems, but all of the people involved in the groups must have had prior psychological hang-ups that would have surfaced regardless of what group they joined.

I agree with Martin that both people who have psychological problems and those who do not can be recruited into cults. This is because people do not join cults by their own desire. Cults seek for the potential new recruits and recruit them, using deception. Cults also use deception and psychological manipulations (mind control) in order to keep people in cults.

MYTH FOUR: While normal unbelievers may get involved with cults, born-again believers will not. And even if they did, their involvement would not affect them so negatively.

Unfortunately, there are many born-again Christians who get involved in cults. God does not work in a miraculous way to prevent born-again Christians from getting involved in cults. God allows born-again Christians to suffer, to be sick, and to die. He does not rescue them miraculously from all the common human problems. In the same way, God allows born-again Christians to be recruited into cults and to suffer damage from the cult involvement.

MYTH FIVE: Christians can and do get involved in these aberrational groups and they can get hurt emotionally. But all they really need is some good Bible teaching and a warm, caring Christian fellowship and they will be fine.

Of course, reading and studying the Bible is very helpful. However, it may be not sufficient in order to deal with the specific psychological problems caused by cults. Also, many ex-members abhor the Bible and Christianity and turn away from any Christian fellowship because of their negative experience in cults. So, they need other means to deal with their specific problems. God does not always work in miraculous ways to heal physical and psychological diseases. He works through doctors and medicines which are also His provision. The same is with healing psychological and spiritual wounds caused by cults.

MYTH SIX: Perhaps the best way for these ex-members to receive help is to see a professional therapist such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or mental health counselor

What Martin means here is that this therapist should be familiar with specific cult problems. So, ex-members should seek not just any therapist, but the one who is a cult expert. In a sense, it looks quite logical that a therapist should have special knowledges in the realm where his or her clients have problems.

Also, in another post, I quoted Enroth who says that ex-members of abusive churches should seek a therapist who is a Christian because he or she can understand their spiritual experience better. Again, this looks logical that Christians can get better help from those who are Christians themselves because Christians can easily understand Christians than non-Christians can understand Christians.

However, here there are several problems:
1. There are very few therapists who are also cult experts and Christians besides Martin himself.
2. In my opinion, not all the ex-members of cults need a therapist. Some can do quite well without any therapy. It depends. Sometimes, therapy may be even more harmful than helpful, for example, in some cases, the information about the possible post-cult symptoms can become a suggestion that causes these symptoms.
3. There are no proofs that therapy by a cult expert is more helpful than therapy by a common therapist. Again, it may depend. Ex-members may be helped by therapists who are not cult experts.

In this point, I disagree with Martin because I do not believe that all the ex-members need psychological counseling. According to Margaret Singer, ex-members of cults can get help from the literature about cults and mind control and from support of other ex-members. Therapy is not the only way for the post-cult recovery.

Spiritual Recovery and Religious Freedom

2009-05-13T05:53:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, it may be not so easy to clearly define what is spiritual recovery and what person can be considered as spiritually recovered.

I live in Russia. Although according to Russian Constitution there is no state religion and all the religions are equal, it is not really so. There is so called traditional religion for Russians which is Russian Orthodox Church. Most religious people in Russia (more than 75 percent) belong to this church. There is a very strong pressure in society that "if you are Russian, you have to be a member of Russian Orthodox Church" (or an atheist, but not a member of any other religious group).

In Russia, there are a number of rehabilitation centers for former members of cults that have a purpose to convert them into Russian Orthodox Church. In these centers, priests of Russian Orthodox Church and some psychologists work together to do so. According to their definition, a recovered ex-member of a cult is the one who is an active member of Russian Orthodox Church.

Since, as far as I know, most readers of my blog are not members of Russian Orthodox Church, they will disagree with this definition. I disagree as well. Actually, I never wanted to be a member of that church. I preferred and prefer evangelicalism. However, there are not so many evangelicals in Russia, only about 1 percent of the total population. They are definitely a religious minority.

Some national minorities in Russia are ethnic Muslims. So, there are about 10 to 15 percents Muslims among the population of Russia. For example, Islam is traditional religion for Chechens. Actually, as far as I know, there is even more heavy pressure on Chechens to become Muslims than on Russians to become members of Russian Orthodox Church. In Chechnya, people are required to keep some Muslim rules. Once, in a Chechen forum, I wrote about my Chechen ancestors. The first question they asked me was: "Are you a Muslim?" Again, there is the same principle of traditional religion: "If you are Chechen, you should be a Muslim."

I guess that most readers of my blog will agree that, having a mixed Russian and Chechen background, I do not need to become either a member of Russian Orthodox Church or a Muslim in order to be considered recovered from a cult and that I can be an evangelical. However, the problem is that a number of evangelicals consider that a person who is recovered from a cult, at least, from a Bible-based cult (a cult of Christianity or an abusive church), should be an evangelical. By the way, many Russian evangelicals think this way as well.

I think here there is some conflict between spiritual recovery and religious freedom. Well, I am completely for religious freedom. I believe that anyone can choose any religion or be an atheist. Can an ex-member of a cult make this choice or is he/she limited in his/her choice? I think an ex-member of a cult as well as any other person can choose any religion or atheism. This means that he or she can choose any other religion and leave Christianity completely or he/she can choose to be an atheist.

There is also another question. Does an ex-member of a cult need to come back to the same religious system that he or she had before joining a cult? For example, a person was a Christian. Then, he or she joined a cult. Does he or she need to become a Christian after leaving or he/she can become, for example, a Buddhist or an atheist? I think this person has a right to become a Buddhist or an atheist.

Then, there is a problem what is spiritual recovery at all. In my opinion, spiritual recovery is getting rid of the spiritual problems that are caused by the cult involvement and that frustrate spiritual quest and spiritual progress. For example, an ex-member of a cult may reject God because he or she was spiritually abused. He/she may still feel a need in God, but turn away from God because of memory of spiritual abuse. On the other hand, an ex-member may get rid of all the negative feeling toward God, but because of some philosophical reasons decide to choose atheism. These two situations are different, though they may look similar outwardly. I think that the first person needs spiritual recovery while the second one does not need.

The point is that not all the people who change their belief system, do that because of mind control or spiritual abuse. People do that because of various reasons, and these reasons may be completely philosophical and have nothing to do with any abuse or trauma.

For example, once, I read about a German who was a Christian, then, became a Jew, and later became a Muslim. As far as I understand, she was not in any cult. Just, being a Christian, she did not agree with the Christian concept of God (the Trinity). She became a Jew, but she did not like that Jews reject Jesus. Then, she contacted her neighbors Muslims and came to conclusion that Islam matches her concept of God (Muslims consider Jesus as a prophet and believe in one God, but deny the Trinity). So, her reasons of changing religions were philosophical. They were not caused by some experience of abuse.

So, I think a person needs spiritual recovery if he or she has some spiritual problems caused by the cult involvement that frustrate his/her spiritual life. However, any person, including an ex-member of a cult, may choose any religion or atheism and may change his/her religious system at any time. I think this is a distinction between spiritual recovery and religious freedom.

Distinction between Psychological and Spiritual Recovery

2009-05-13T04:51:00.000-07:00

In the matter of post-cult recovery, I prefer to make a distinction of psychological recovery and spiritual recovery, though I know that many people do not make this distinction. The purpose of the psychological recovery is to get rid of the psychological damage caused by the cult involvement, while the purpose of the spiritual recovery is to get rid of the spiritual damage caused by the cult involvement.

To some extent, they interrelated. For example, an ex-member of a Bible-based cult left after traumatic experience. On the one hand, he or she may have (or may not have) depression or other symptoms of trauma. This is psychological damage that requires psychological recovery, for example, psychological counseling. On the other hand, the same experience may cause this person to completely turn away from God because of the memory of that trauma. This is a spiritual damage and it may require spiritual counseling. Non-Christian therapists will see no problem with a former Christian who became an atheist. The spiritual counseling may be get either from a pastor or from a Christian therapist.

However, since the same experience cause both psychological and spiritual damage, psychological and spiritual recovery will affect one another. When the memory of trauma fades, it can also cause two results. On the one hand, the person will be less depressed. On the other hand, he or she may become more positive to God. In this case, psychological and spiritual recovery may go together. There are also other cases, fore example, distrust to God and people as the result of feeling betrayed.

However, I think it is still better to distinguish psychological and spiritual recovery. For example, a former member of a Bible-based cult may have no psychological problems and thus be recovered psychologically. However, he or she still may reject God and be angry at God, though he or she was a Christian before joining a cult. Thus, this person is not recovered spiritually. On the other hand, an ex-member of a Bible-based cult may be a devoted Christian, that is, be recovered spiritually, but still have psychological problems, that is, be not recovered psychologically.