Blog of Lema Nal

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

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.

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.

Hermeneutical Errors

2008-12-13T18:27:00.000-08:00

In Old Testament Exegesis, Douglas Stuart gives a list of frequent hermeneutical errors. These errors come from the violation of hermeneutics principles. I think this list can be useful for ex-members of abusive churches and cults in order to find out the errors made by the leaders of their former groups and in order to avoid errors in their personal Bible study and biblical interpretation.

A LIST OF FREQUENT HERMENEUTICAL ERRORS

Personalizing: Assuming that any or all parts of the Bible apply to you or your group in a way that they do not apply to everyone else. ("What Balaam's ass says to me is that I talk too much.") Also known as individualizing.

Universalizing: Assuming that something unique or uncommon in the Bible applies to everyone equally. ("We all have our Gethsemanes.") Also known as generalizing.

Spiritualizing: Assuming that events or factors have their real application in some religious truth beyond what they actually say. ("The lovely structure of the Jerusalem Temple encourages us to have our own lives well in order.")

Moralizing: Assuming that principles for living can be derived from all passages. ("We can learn much about parenting by noting how the father of the prodigal son handled his wayward child.") ("The Egyptians drowned at the Red Sea because they had vacillated. You can't vacillate and expect to succeed in this life.")

Exemplarizing: Assuming that because someone in the Bible did something, it is an example for us to follow. ("To learn how to tell stories in sermons, let us examine Jesus' storytelling.") ("Let's see how Jesus called disciples and let that be the model for our evangelism.") ("What can we learn about adversity from how the Israelites endured their years as slaves in Egypt?")

Allegorizing: Assuming that the components of a passage have meaning only as symbols of Christian truths. ("The 'lover' is Christ; the 'beloved' is the Church; the 'daughters of Jerusalem' are the Scriptures.")

Typologizing: Assuming that certain real biblical characters or things are mentioned in order to foreshadow other real-and more important characters or things. ("Joshua has the same name as Jesus; as a conqueror he points to The Conqueror.") ("Ezra came to his people from afar; entered into Jerusalem on a donkey; prayed before crises; taught what was to many a new law; purified the nation, etc. His life points directly to the Savior.")

The Root Fallacy: Assuming that the/an original meaning of a word always attends its usage. ("To be holy means to be set apart.") [cf. terrible/ terrific/ terrifying]

Genre confusion: Assuming that the interpretational rules for one genre apply to another. ("Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard contains seven helpful perspectives on the value of hard work.") ("The Twenty-third Psalm teaches us how to care for those under our authority.") ("According to Deuteronomy 33, if we trust God we'll never lack anything.") ("But Proverbs promises that if we honor God we'll be well liked by everyone!")

Totality transfer: Assuming that all the possible meanings of a word or phrase go with it whenever it is used. ("Head [kephale], of course, means 'source' here, just as it does in Xenophon's reference to the source of a river.")

Argument from silence: Assuming that everything relevant to an issue is mentioned in the Bible every time that issue is mentioned. ("Notice that Paul does not explicitly condemn premarital sex anywhere in his letters.")

Argument from authority: Assuming that the views of "experts" or a preponderance of them must be correct. ("Smith, who has devoted his life to studying Ruth, may be trusted ...") ("Since this is held by few scholars, it does not seem tenable.")

Israel-Church confusion: Assuming that things that apply to biblical Israel also apply to the church. ("We can learn how to discipline troublesome kids from this law about stoning disobedient children.")

Israel-modern nation confusion: Assuming that things that apply to biblical Israel also apply to modem nations ("According to 2 Chronicles 7:14, if we pray and repent God will heal America.")

Israel-modern Israel confusion: Assuming that the modern, secular state named Israel in the Near East is the Israel referred to in the Bible. ("How can we support the Saudis when they're the enemies of God's chosen people?")

False combination: Joining two statements or passages in such a way as to produce a hybrid conclusion. ("In Matthew 25 Jesus calls hell both outer darkness and also fire, so hell fire must be some kind of special divine fire that doesn't give off any light. You can feel it but you can't see it.")

Figure of speech confusion: Failure to understand any of the many nonliteral expressions in human speech, especially metaphors. ("Imagine the massive scale of Canaanite dairy farming and beekeeping that led to Canaan's being called a land flowing with milk and honey.")

Equivocation: Confusing a term or concept with another term or concept, thus misunderstanding its meaning. ("1 Thessalonians 5 says to 'abstain from all appearance of evil' so you can't even ask directions from a prostitute.")

False presupposition: Basing all or part of an argument or conclusion on incorrect assumptions. ("The Hebrew mind thought concretely; the Greek mind abstractly. This is why the Old Testament has more rituals and the New Testament more symbols.")

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.

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 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.

List of Character Traits of Cults and Abusive Churches

2009-03-07T16:11:00.000-08:00

Character Traits of Aberrational Cultic Groups
The following characteristics of aberrational cultic groups have been adapted in part, and expanded upon, from a presentation by sociologist Ronald M. Enroth and are typical of many aberrational groups. The character traits outlined here represent such an extreme departure from Scripture that fellowship with groups in which one or more of them are manifested can prove detrimental to one's spiritual well-being. It is noteworthy that even genuine born-again believers, for a variety of reasons, can involve themselves with individual churches, Bible study groups, denominations, cults, and aberrational movements which are characterized by them.

CONTROL-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP
The control of the movement is vested in one or more persons who are accountable to no one else but God. These persons are to be considered absolutely above reproach! A system of checks and balances is non-existent. The sole responsibility of interpreting the Bible and the formulation of the group's beliefs and practices rests with them. Leaders and their teachings are never to be questioned. Questioning the group's leader(s) is tantamount to questioning God Himself. God speaks to and through these leaders by means of audible voices, inner leadings, and visions. These leaders may hold titles such as the apostle, bishop, deputy authority, father, mother, oracle, prophet, seer, and so on.

DOCTRINAL DEVIATION
The beliefs and practices of the group will deviate sharply from orthodoxy. The essentials of the faith will be compromised. The nature of God, including that of the Trinity, will be maligned. God is humanized, man is deified, sin is minimized, the Scriptures are ostracized, a different Jesus is publicized, and a very different gospel evangelized. Salvation by grace is compromised. Familiar doctrinal terms may be redefined and new ones invented to support the beliefs and practices of the group. The group's more objectionable beliefs and practices may be veiled from the public eye. Group members may be subjected to immense indoctrination. The group may also prepare and distribute its own printed literature with the intent to propagate their heresy. Only safe reading materials are permitted and recommended to the membership.

EMPHASIS ON EXPERIENCE
The theology of a particular group may dictate following subjective experience over one's own knowledge, negating discernment skills, and placing into doubt the sufficiency of revelation found in the Scriptures. Group members may exalt personal emotion, feelings, enthusiasm, and their experiences over doctrine, creating their own standard of orthodoxy that becomes their sole means to judge others by. Expressions such as anointing, drinking, eating, enjoying, feeling, leading, and touching are taken to extremes and may be commonplace.

SPIRITUAL SUPERIORITY
The movement believes that it stands head and shoulders above all other existing Christian groups. Some groups believe they represent the whole truth and nothing but the truth - they are the one true church, the only family of God, the only true expression of God and His work on earth today during this age. They believe that they are God's special chosen people. They believe that God will treat them favorably in this age and in the ages to come. No one outside of the group can be saved or expect to receive the full blessings of God that are available only as a member in good standing with the group.

DENUNCIATION OF OTHERS
Such groups, encouraged on by leadership, will harshly judge individual Christian churches, denominations, and organizations based upon their own beliefs and practices. Others are considered apostate, divisive, fallen, sectarian, enemies of God, and agents of Satan. One is also expected to suffer loss at the hands of others and must therefore burn all bridges behind them to remain completely faithful to God. This mentality usually results in the destruction of close family ties, existing friendships, previous lifestyles, and activities.

PERCEIVED PERSECUTION
Such groups under controlled leadership develop a persecution complex and are told to expect it from the outside world. Persecution validates the truthfulness of the movement and its own messianic cause. Close family members and others who claim to be Christians are not to be trusted. They are to be thought of as the instruments of Satan who are caught up in the entrapments of this world system. Group members may develop acute cases of paranoia and will learn to size up those who enter their midst.

MANIPULATION OF MEMBERS
Group leaders may give excessive advice, care, and love to members to influence their decision- making and to bolster the leader's position of spiritual maturity, authority, and control over the group. Many will join such groups to receive this attention that is regrettably not obtainable elsewhere. In some instances they may welcome such given guidance and control. Members will be taken advantage of under the guise of perceivable spirituality by self-seeking leaders. Leaders may also employ unethical practices of behavior and conduct to gain and retain members.

LIFE-STYLE RIGIDITY
Group members are expected to conform to certain standards of behavior and appearance. Fear, guilt, and peer pressure may be employed to obtain the desired level of conformity and commitment to the group and its cause. Activities may be structured to bring about desired responses. Loyalty to the group and its cause comes first. Individuality may be severely shunned. One's ability to think independently and clearly may be hampered and one may not be given adequate time to reflect upon what is taught. Weekly meetings and daily activities may leave little time for group members to associate with those outside the movement. Shared religious and social activities of the group will draw its members closer together, resulting in emotional bonding that strengthens the group's hold on its members. This results in the distancing of members from those outside the group. A tightly run communal environment further restricts contact with others and plays an important role in the shaping of one's behavioral pattern and style of living.

HARSH DISCIPLINE
Groups may employ fear, guilt, intimidation, public humiliation, harsh language, and may even resort to abusive physical violence to bring and keep their members in line. One's illness may be perceived as the evidence of lack of faith or sinful living. Covenants, loyalty oaths, and pledges of support may be employed by the group and then later brought to light, should one part from the straight and narrow.

PAINFUL EXIT PROCESS
Those departing the true church may face hard adjustment elsewhere. They may have been taught, or fear, that leaving the group is tantamount to leaving God, His divine protection, and His favor. They have been programmed to stay in and may feel that they must settle for God's second best elsewhere. Members who have committed many years to the group must leave behind friends, social standing, and perhaps even financial security. Because they have been burned once already they will find it more difficult to trust others, including those in positions of church leadership, their families, and close friends they left behind. They may take with them the teachings of the group they belonged to and it may take many years for ex-members to re-adjust to the world they once left behind.

This material had been previously published in Jim Moran's website.

This list stresses practices rather than doctrines. Only point 2 mentions doctrinal deviations. These doctrinal deviations may vary for different groups. Some groups do not deny main Christian doctrines. However, they have some peripheral unbiblical doctrines that are disproportionally emphasized. These groups do not became heretical, but still they have some slight doctrinal deviations from the Bible.

Most points of this list match the concept of cult mind control. Unlike some psychologists, Ronald M. Enroth did not have a purpose to make an all-inclusive model. He just described some cases and some points of spiritual abuse.

Spiritual Practices versus Hypnosis

2009-02-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

The use of hypnosis in cults as a part of mind control techniques seems to be an important point in Hassan's mind control theory. In Releasing the Bonds, chapter 2, he writes:

Although I am aware of several cult leaders specifically studying Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called "naturalistic" hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination.

When a person enters a trance, the conscious, analytical mind is disengaged. The subconscious mind is engaged. Trance is not sleep, but focused attention. If you have the ability to focus your attention, then you can enter an altered state of consciousness. It is a gift to be able to shut out noise and distraction, but it can also be a liability if a cult recruiter is trying to influence you. When you're in a trance and someone with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda tries to indoctrinate you, you're that much more susceptible. In this very special state of relaxation, messages can easily take root in your subconscious. Some cults even use hypnosis to manipulate people's memories or implant false memories.

He included hypnosis into his second model of mind control - The Three Stages of Gaining Control of the Mind. Though the three main points of this model were described by Kurt Lewin, it seems that all the sub points were added by Hassan. He included hypnosis into the first and second stages:

1. Unfreezing
d. Hypnosis
1. Age regression
2. Visualizations
3. Story-telling and metaphors
4. Linguistic double binds, use of suggestion
5. Meditation, chanting, praying, singing

2. Changing
d. Use of hypnosis and other mind-altering techniques
1. Repetition, monotony, rhythm
2. Excessive chanting, praying, decreeing, visualizations

Actually, I had never thought that prayer and singing can be considered as hypnosis before I read Hassan's books.

He also included the same techniques as thought-stop techniques in his BITE model which probably means that he considers that these "hypnotic" techniques are used to stop "negative" thoughts:

III. Thought Control
4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
b. Chanting
c. Meditating
d. Praying
e. Speaking in "tongues"
f. Singing or humming

In my opinion, Hassan's concept of hypnosis is too stretched. In addition, he writes that most cults use hypnosis.

For a long time, I thought that the cult where I was involved, used hypnosis because the way how Hassan writes about hypnotic techniques in cults makes an impression that all the cults use hypnosis.

One of the "proofs" from my experience was that I noticed that sentences from the sermons interfered with my thoughts. Since I have never experienced the same effect after listening to lectures, I thought that it was because of hypnosis in the sermons.

However, I noticed that sometimes I experienced a similar effect after listening to songs or language audio records. Probably, this was just a result of repetition. I think I did not experienced this effect after lectures because the content of the lectures varied a lot. However, the sermons contained many sentences that were repeated very often. So, I think it was not surprising that I remembered many sentences from the sermons after listening two or three (sometimes, more) sermons almost every day during two years. In my opinion, repetition itself is not hypnotic because it is often used just to memorize something, like words of a foreign language, poems, and so on.

Since I believed that the sermons were hypnotic (following Hassan's writings), I tried to find out what hypnotic methods they used - singing, praying, repetition, and so on. However, I could not understand why sermons in benign Christian churches are not hypnotic and how to find the difference between hypnotic sermons and
non-hypnotic sermons. Probably, the answer was very simple - in the cult where I was, there were no hypnotic methods used in sermons.

Probably, it was the same with singing and other practices. They use some hymns of their own, but also many hymns from Christianity. I could not understand how the same hymn can be hypnotic in one group and non-hypnotic in another group.

Then, I also doubt that prayers can be used as hypnosis. Again, people in Bible-based cults and in benign churches can use the same words and the same ways for prayer. Why their prayers are hypnotic in some groups and non-hypnotic in other groups?

Probably, the most "mysterious" among spiritual practices used in Bible-based groups is speaking in tongues. Even though I have a personal experience of speaking in tongues, I cannot fully explain it in the terms of psychology. I can just say that it is a special kind of prayer to God. By the way, my experience of speaking in tongues has nothing to do with the Bible-based cult where I was involved and I do not think it was mind-controlling. There are cultic and non-cultic groups among Pentecostals and Charismatics. However, members of all of them practice speaking in tongues. Why speaking in tongues is hypnotic and mind-controlling in some groups and non-hypnotic in other groups?

In my opinion, there is a difference between spiritual practices and hypnosis. Prayers, singing spiritual songs, and sermons are spiritual practices and not hypnotic.

In his website, Hassan states that mind control is not always bad:

"Mind control" techniques are not necessarily bad. Although I typically use the term "mind control" when describing unethical and abusive social influence, many of the techniques can be used ethically to promote positive spiritual and personal growth.

I think his statement that mind control techniques are not always bad is very confusing because it is not clear what is wrong with mind control at all.

Then he goes on to say that spiritual practices can be ethical or unethical:

For example, prayer can be used ethically or it can be used destructively as a tool of manipulation and coercion. Praying with a person aloud, and asking "God's blessing to help direct and guide him" (in an "open-ended" way) is just fine. Praying with a person, and asking God to "keep this person from making the mistake of leaving the group's workshop and returning to Satan's world" is unethical.

Meditation techniques can be used to build awareness and self control, or it can be used as a way of "thought-stopping" - undermining independent thinking and reality-testing. For example, if a person is having doubts and questions about a leader's behavior, and meditates to get rid of "negativity" , it might stop the person from taking necessary action.

There are thousands of different "mind control" techniques which can be used for positive benefit. Some these techniques include: prayer, meditation, chants, singing songs, visualizations, affirmations, positive self-talk, breathing techniques, hypnosis, "speaking in tongues", ecstatic dancing, music.

So, as far as I understand, he considers all the spiritual practices to be mind-controlling, but sometimes this "mind control" is "ethical." I think it is another example of his stretching the term "mind control."

I do not think that prayer, singing songs, and other spiritual practices are "mind-controlling" even in the "positive" sense.

Anti-cult/Counter-cult Continuum

2009-03-07T18:31:00.000-08:00

There are two main critical approaches to cults - anti-cult approach that is focused on psychology and sociology of cults and counter-cult approach that is focused on theology of cults. I think that there might be no strict border between anti-cult and counter-cult movements. Of course, there are some counter-cultists like the Passantinos and Melton who reject mind control completely. There are also anti-cultists who consider only psychology and reject theology. There is an opposition between these two groups. However, between them there are two more groups. The first group are Christian psychologists like Dr. Paul Martin and Christian sociologists like Dr. Ronald Enroth who consider cults mainly psychologically and sociologically, but do not reject theology. This group does not oppose counter-cult movement. The second group are Christian theologians, apologists, and ministers who consider cults mainly theologically, but admit the existence of mind control and welcome anti-cult approach. This group does not oppose anti-cult movement. In some cases, there may be not so easy to make a clear border between these two groups which means that there might be no strict border between anti-cult and counter-cult movements. So, instead of anti-cult v. counter-cult model, there may be anti-cult/counter-cult continuum:

Anti-cult/counter-cult continuum
Anti-cult movement	Anti-cultists who oppose counter-cultists	They focus only on psychological and sociological aspects of cults and completely reject theology.	Non-Christians
Anti-cult movement	Anti-cultists who welcome counter-cultists	They focus mainly on psychological and sociological aspects of cults, but do not reject theology.	Christian psychologists and sociologists
Counter-cult movement	Counter-cultists who welcome anti-cultists	They focus mainly on theological aspects of cults, but do not reject psychology and sociology.	Christian theologians, apologists, and ministers
Counter-cult movement	Counter-cultists who oppose anti-cultists	They focus only on theological aspects of cults and completely reject psychology and sociology.	Christian theologians, apologists, and ministers

Cult/Anti-cult/Counter-cult Continuum

2009-03-16T02:50:00.000-07:00

Probably, it is even better to say that there is a cult/anti-cult/counter-cult continuum.

In this diagram, the vertical coordinate indicates people's attitude to cults in general (from the extremely positive on the top to the extremely negative on the bottom). The horizontal coordinate indicates people's approach to cults (from the extremely counter-cult (theological) on the left to the extremely anti-cult (psychological) on the right).

This diagram can be used together with the table of anti-cult/counter-cult continuum.

Anti-cult/counter-cult continuum
Anti-cult movement	Anti-cultists who oppose counter-cultists	They focus only on psychological and sociological aspects of cults and completely reject theology.	Non-Christians
Anti-cult movement	Anti-cultists who welcome counter-cultists	They focus mainly on psychological and sociological aspects of cults, but do not reject theology.	Christian psychologists and sociologists
Counter-cult movement	Counter-cultists who welcome anti-cultists	They focus mainly on theological aspects of cults, but do not reject psychology and sociology.	Christian theologians, apologists, and ministers
Counter-cult movement	Counter-cultists who oppose anti-cultists	They focus only on theological aspects of cults and completely reject psychology and sociology.	Christian theologians, apologists, and ministers

Bible-based Group Continuum

2009-03-16T06:25:00.000-07:00

A similar diagram can be made for Bible-based groups. By the Bible-based groups, I mean all the groups that use the Bible. Theologically, these groups can be orthodox or heretical. Psychologically, these groups can be mind controlling or benign. Both theologically and psychologically there is a continuum.

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.

Muslim Cults

2009-02-10T06:32:00.000-08:00

The word "cult" is used by theologians and psychologists in completely different ways. Theologians mainly consider doctrines while psychologists and sociologists mainly consider practices. So, theologians consider that cults are heretical religious groups. Psychologists and sociologists consider that cults are mind-controlling, authoritarian, abusive, and deceptive groups.

From the point of view of Christian theologians, Islam is a heretical group, and thus they tend to consider Islam to be a cult. For example, Walter Martin in his book The Kingdom of Cults includes Islam into his list of cults.

From the point of view of the majority of Muslim theologians, such groups as Ahmadiyya and Baha'i are considered heretical. I am not sure if Muslims use the word "cult", they usually use different terminology. However, in principle, Ahmadiyya and Baha'i are cults from the point of view of most Muslim theologians.

From the point of view of psychologists and sociologists, some groups, including some religious groups are cults no matter of their doctrines. They divide religious cults into Bible-based (both abusive churches and cults of Christianity), eastern (Buddhist, Hinduist), new age. However, I have never seen them considering Muslim cults or including them into their classification.

Probably, hearing about Muslim cults, most Western people think about Islamic terrorists and extremists in Palestine, Afghanistan, and other Muslim regions. However, there are millions of Muslims who live in Western countries. Some of them are emigrants, but some of them are typical Western people who were converted into Islam.

Muslim cults not necessary should be terrorist or political. They may not attract much attention to themselves. However, who knows how many Muslim cults are in the world and in the Western countries? Who knows how many people are involved there? Somehow, this problem is neglected by the anti-cult community.

Probably, many people tend to think that Muslim cults are Wahhabi groups. However, there are also Sufi cults and probably other Muslim cults. Actually, there are some traits in Sufism that can be used by cultic leaders. For example, Sufis are supposed to submit to their shaiks (religious leaders) and respect them. This is considered to be very important for their spiritual progress. There are Sufi cults, but this problem is completely neglected.

I will just give one example. 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.

Well, I am not sure if that group is a cult or not. However, I know some Western people who report that they left Sufi cults. I think the problem of Muslim cults is underestimated in the anti-cult community. There is practically no information about Muslim cults in Internet.

Some Aspects of the Spiritual Recovery

2009-05-11T06:15:00.000-07:00

In Recovering from Churches that Abuse, chapter 3, (pp. 32,33) Ronald Enroth describes Wellspring program. As far as I understand, most part of this description is based on Paul R. Martin, Cult-Proofing Your Kids (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), though Enroth also quotes Peter Sommer, "High Pressure Christian Groups: The Broken Promise," unpublished paper, 1992 and personal correspondence with Stephen Martin. In my opinion, it is also interesting to compare it with Paul R. Martin, "Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment and Rehabilitation," in Recovery from Cults, ed. Michael D. Langone (New York: W. W. Norton, 1993) because there Paul Martin describes Wellspring program in a more detailed way.

Wellspring program is a combination of psychological and spiritual counselings. In this post, I am going to consider only the spiritual side of this program.

In Recovering from Churches that Abuse, chapter 3, (pp. 32,33) Ronald Enroth writes:

The first stage also must address the doctrines of the abusive church. It is important to examine and carefully refute any unorthodox teachings. Most of the churches mentioned in this book are theologically orthodox, although nearly all would be guilty of distorting the Bible's message in some way. Peter Sommer observes, "These groups are rarely heretical in theory. They don't deny Christian basics; they tend to brush by them. Instead they focus on what makes them different from other churches or groups. They have lots of teaching, but it tends to be on such themes as commitment, submission, and prophecy."

Stephen Martin, a staff member at Wellspring, considers instruction in sound study methods and the interpretation of the Bible important. In abusive groups, twisted hermeneutics are often used to instill fear and guilt and thus become a form of spiritual intimidation. "Since leaders of abusive churches typically twist the Scriptures, education in hermeneutics would help the ex-member gain the right perspective on Scripture passages. In talking with former members at Wellspring, I have found a number of them who have difficulty with or even an aversion to reading the Bible because it has been misused by the group to abuse them. Learning the proper application and interpretation of Scripture goes a long way toward healing the wounds of abuse."

Sommer advises, "It may be wise not to read Scriptures that the group has emphasized; their interpretation may be deeply grooved into your thinking. Read instead the many texts that they did not teach you." I suggest that these people attempt to rediscover God's Word through the Psalms because those writings validate a person's individual spiritual life. Paul Martin feels it is wise for victims to use a different translation of the Bible from that commonly used in the group.

This section mainly deals with doctrinal matters and the Bible. It contains several recommendations:
1. Ex-members should "examine and carefully refute any unorthodox teachings." These unorthodox teachings are focused "on such themes as commitment, submission, and prophecy."
2. Ex-members should learn "sound study methods and the interpretation of the Bible."
3. Ex-members should avoid reading the texts that the group emphasized and use a different translation of the Bible.

Then, regarding the second stage, Enroth writes:

The abusive church experience is often a crisis of faith, as Paul Martin and others have pointed out. Victims must be able not only to rebuild self-esteem and purpose in life, but also renew a personal relationship with God. That can be difficult for those who have yet to resolve the tough question, "Why did God allow this to happen to me when I was sincerely seeking him?" As Rachel, one former church member, puts it, "I had been taught that nothing was ever God's fault. The problem was that I was a true, believing Christian, but when I asked God for spiritual bread and water, look what I got. Was I praying to the wrong God? Was I dishonest? Secretly evil? Was I demonic, like the church kept telling me I was? How could an honest, sincere believer get tricked like this? How could God let this happen?"

People like Colleen and Rachel need the assurance that it is possible to have a rich relationship with God. In Sommer's words, the victim must be turned "to faith in the living God from faith in a distorted image of him. Your break with the group is a step of obedience to the first commandment: No graven images!"

This section deals with the restoration of personal relationship with God. Here, there are two main points:
1. Ex-member should 'resolve the tough question, "Why did God allow this to happen to me when I was sincerely seeking him?"'
2. Ex-member should 'be turned "to faith in the living God from faith in a distorted image of him."'

Abusive churches have a distorted image of God because they actually present Him as a very cruel and harsh God, not a loving and merciful God from the Bible. In my opinion, the turning from the distorted image of God follows refutation of specific abusive teachings of the abusive church. However, the question, "Why did God allow this to happen to me when I was sincerely seeking him?" may not be so easy to answer. Actually, this question involves the theological problem called Theodicy.

Mainly, this is the question why God allows the evil things to exist. This question can be put into the following way:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is loving.
3. There is evil in the world.
4. If God is omnipotent, He is able to destroy evil. However, He does not.
5. If God is loving, He does not want people to suffer. However, people suffer.
6. So, proposed logical solution is that either God is not omnipotent or He is not loving.

Actually, this question cannot be completely solved in the logical way, though there were many attempts to solve it. I think the main reason for that is that God is much higher than a human being and there are many things about God that we cannot fully understand. Some other examples are the Trinity (God is one and three in the same time) and also God's predestination and human free will.

Regarding the question, "Why did God allow this to happen to me when I was sincerely seeking him?" I think everyone should seek his or her own answer to it. My personal answer to this question 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.

Since I do not have English version of Recovery from Cults, I will just retell what Paul Martin writes there about spiritual recovery. There, he puts the main points of spiritual recovery into steps 2 and 3 of the recovery.

1. Requests for information
Ex-members have many questions regarding their group, the Bible, religion, and philosophy. However, if the new church or pastor reminds them their old church or pastor, it can be traumatic for them. So, Paul Martin advices to use another translation of the Bible and find the pastor and the church that contrast the previous ones.

2. Re-opening the gospel
Ex-members should re-open the gospel of the New Testament. Abusive churches tend to somehow distort some aspects of the gospel. These groups tend to consider themselves as genuine Christians, but their definition of what it means to be a Christian is not adequate. Then, Paul Martin gives his definition of what it means to be a Christian. According to his definition, Christian groups recognize, clearly express and demonstrate the gospel of Jesus Christ. They hold the main teaching of the church and believe in the authority of the Bible. However, cultic groups lose something regarding recognition, clear expression and demonstration the Gospel.

Many of these groups publicly declare sound doctrines and the most part of distortion is done in the inner circle. Here the leader reveals his own understanding and practice that he is able to justify because he says that the world is unable to understand them, but due to his own spiritual progress he is able to understand and apply these hidden mysteries. In this way, the leader tells the members that they can become a part of this inner circle of more enlightened and more spiritual people.

Some groups like ICC do not have obvious doctrinal deviations, but their authority structure emphasizes unquestioned submission to the leaders in all the areas of life that goes beyond commonly accepted biblical authority.

Many cultic groups believe in most of orthodox, fundamental, and evangelical doctrines. However, they live according to unbiblical standards imposed by the leader. These standards are often changed that creates destabilized environment and makes members more dependent on their leader.

Through the biblical gospel, ex-members regain the meaning of their life and self-respect. Paul Martin concludes this section, repeating the words of H. Bussel and Walter Martin that the clear understanding of the gospel is the most important point in ex-cultist recovery and immunity against getting involved in cults in the future.

I agree with Paul Martin that Bible-based cults distort the Bible in some ways (for example, teaching about submission to the leaders, consecration to the group, and separation from the world) and that ex-members should learn what the Bible really teaches. However, I do not agree with two points here. First, his definition that "Christian groups recognize, clearly express and demonstrate the gospel of Jesus Christ" is actually quite vague and disputed. Many Bible-based cults may say that they do the same.

Second, I do not agree that "the clear understanding of the gospel is the most important point in ex-cultist recovery and immunity against getting involved in cults in the future." The problem is that there are Christians who get involved into Bible-based cults even after getting a degree in theology and having an experience of Christian ministry. Cults use deception in recruiting and in the beginning they teach only the orthodox doctrines. Also, many groups do not have obviously deviant doctrines. Martin himself writes about that in this section. So, just the knowledge of the orthodox doctrines is not sufficient. It is necessary to know how cults recruit and keep their members - the methods of mind control and deception.

3. Personality and religion
Cults often teach black and white thinking, emphasizing the Christ's commandments to "deny yourself" and "reject everything." For many recovering ex-members, the understanding of Christ's words is an urgent need. Ex-members who want to be Christians may ask whether God really requires limited version of our "selves". Why did He create us with all the rich talents, interests, and temperaments only to tell us that this all is evil? Is it impossible that they can be used for God's glory and kingdom? Is it possible for us to be received by God on the basis of our good works? Is it possible for us to reject everything, deny ourselves, take the cross, and have higher righteousness than Pharisees by fulfilling strict requirements? A recovering ex-cultist may ask like Peter after the rich man left: "Who then can be saved?" Christ answered: "It is impossible with men, but everything is possible with God."

The healthy spiritual life is distorted without realization of the two things. First, it is impossible to reconcile with God without His eternal unconditional love and His desire. Second, we should acknowledge ourselves. God does not require us to lose our talents and personalities in order to be accepted by Him. The act of mercy creates two miracles: love toward God and love toward oneself. Clarification of what is "self" and that God receives and strengthens people helps to focus on career, education, and problems of one's own identity.

I think it is a very good point.