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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Post-Cult After Effects: Decision-Making and Independent Thinking Difficulties
In the beginning, I will point out again that not all the ex-members of cults and abusive churches experience all the post-cult after effects. It is normal to experience only some of them. If you did not notice that you experienced some post-cult after effects, do not try to find them out in your experience. You may never experience them.
I personally have never experienced decision-making difficulties after leaving. I experienced independent thinking difficulties only in religious matters and did not experience them in other matters. However, I know that some people experience these problems.
It is well known that cult leaders require submission and suppress critical thinking, questions, and disobedience. They make their followers dependent on them in their thinking and making choices. Some (not all) of the ex-members of cults after leaving have difficulties with independent thinking and independent making decisions. They tend to take uncritically what they are told and follow anything that looks like instructions for them even if they do not want to follow these instructions. They have a tendency to rely on somebody else to make decisions for them and to think for them.
In principle, they can rely on anybody - their parents, relatives, friends, bosses, and so on. They even may rely on their therapists or counselors. Since their therapists or counselors, as they think, help them a lot, they may consider them as authoritative and respectful people who they can trust to make decisions for them and take their words uncritically. This may be quite dangerous if the therapist is not very ethical person. One of the types of cults is therapeutic cults that are formed by therapists who use unethical methods in their counseling. Of course, many things depend on the therapists. However, clients of any therapist do not need to take uncritically everything that they are told and should not trust in their therapist that he or she will make decisions for them.
Free mind and free will are wonderful things. Everyone has a right to use his or her mind to think independently and critically, make his or her own conclusions, and have his/her own ideas. Everyone also has a right to make his or her own decisions instead of following others' instructions.
There is one thing that frightens some people in making their own decisions. They are afraid to make a mistake. However, everyone sometimes makes mistakes. This is normal. The people who some ex-members of cults tend to trust in making decisions, also make mistakes sometimes. There is nothing wrong in making mistakes.
I personally have never experienced decision-making difficulties after leaving. I experienced independent thinking difficulties only in religious matters and did not experience them in other matters. However, I know that some people experience these problems.
It is well known that cult leaders require submission and suppress critical thinking, questions, and disobedience. They make their followers dependent on them in their thinking and making choices. Some (not all) of the ex-members of cults after leaving have difficulties with independent thinking and independent making decisions. They tend to take uncritically what they are told and follow anything that looks like instructions for them even if they do not want to follow these instructions. They have a tendency to rely on somebody else to make decisions for them and to think for them.
In principle, they can rely on anybody - their parents, relatives, friends, bosses, and so on. They even may rely on their therapists or counselors. Since their therapists or counselors, as they think, help them a lot, they may consider them as authoritative and respectful people who they can trust to make decisions for them and take their words uncritically. This may be quite dangerous if the therapist is not very ethical person. One of the types of cults is therapeutic cults that are formed by therapists who use unethical methods in their counseling. Of course, many things depend on the therapists. However, clients of any therapist do not need to take uncritically everything that they are told and should not trust in their therapist that he or she will make decisions for them.
Free mind and free will are wonderful things. Everyone has a right to use his or her mind to think independently and critically, make his or her own conclusions, and have his/her own ideas. Everyone also has a right to make his or her own decisions instead of following others' instructions.
There is one thing that frightens some people in making their own decisions. They are afraid to make a mistake. However, everyone sometimes makes mistakes. This is normal. The people who some ex-members of cults tend to trust in making decisions, also make mistakes sometimes. There is nothing wrong in making mistakes.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Post-Cult After Effects: Overreactions, Denial of Fault, and Abuse
Reading Ronald Enroth's book Recovering from Churches that Abuse, I found out some post-cult (or post-abusive church) after effects which are not mentioned in a kind of classic books on cult mind control - Combatting Cult Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds by Steven Hassan and Cults in Our Midst by Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich. These after efects are overreactions, denial of fault, and abuse.
Actually, Enroth is not a psychologist. He is a sociologist. He writes that he does not consider his book as a scientific research. However, he interviewed many ex-members of abusive churches. Instead of theories, he describes many cases.
In chapter 2, he describes one of the cases:
In the case of Cecily, overreactions and denial of fault go together. When her husband blamed her for something, it reminded her how the leaders of the abusive church blamed and accused her. She did not accept her blame and overreacted.
In principle, overreactions and denial of fault are different things and may be separate. Overreactions as a post-cult after effect are caused by something that reminds about negative experience in cult or abusive church. This negative experience can be caused by the leaders. When somebody acts in some way that reminds an ex-member about the group leaders, he/she may overreact.
It is quite often mentioned in the literature that ex-members often feel excessive guilt. However, they may go to the other extreme and deny any fault at all whatever they do. Then, they eventually may think that they can do whatever they want.
One more Cecily's problem was abuse:
People who were abused by others may learn this behavior and become abusers themselves. It also can be a problem for ex-members.
Regarding this problem, I can give one example. Stalin grew up in dysfunctional family. His father was an alcoholic and treated him in a very harsh way. His father was also very authoritarian toward his family. Then, he studied in a seminary where there was very harsh discipline, mutual spying, and other negative things.
Researchers agree that Stalin was greatly influenced by his father's behavior and by the seminary and copied these behavior patterns in the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. He pursued unlimited authority and control and distrusted people. His experiences related to his father and seminary led him to ruin lives of millions people. All these people had nothing to do with either his father or his seminary.
This is an example of a person who was abused and then became an abuser.
It is quite easy for people to find many other post-cult after effects such as excessive feeling of guilt, dissociation, depression, PTSD, and so on because these effects cause sufferings to them. However, overreactions, denial of fault, and abuse affect interpersonal relationship. They may be less obvious for the people who have them. However, they may be even more dangerous.
Actually, Enroth is not a psychologist. He is a sociologist. He writes that he does not consider his book as a scientific research. However, he interviewed many ex-members of abusive churches. Instead of theories, he describes many cases.
In chapter 2, he describes one of the cases:
Cecily Talbot grew up in a fundamentalist church in a small town not far from Philadelphia. The little church could best be described as very legalistic and controlling. Among the taboos were jewelry, makeup, and school dances. Of all the members of her family, Cecily suffered the most from spiritual and emotional abuse, especially during her high school years. Cecily is now married and trying to put her past to rest.
"One of the biggest effects on my marriage is that I tend to overreact in my relationships with my husband. We are having an argument and he says something my fault, it strikes a nerve in me, whether or not it is true. My church blamed me for things over which I had no control. I was outspoken and often challenged the leaders and their teachings. No one in the church was supposed to challenge anything, and questioning those in authority was especially frowned upon. We were all clones who followed 'the man of God' no matter what. I refused to do that because I wanted answers to my questions. Yet years of being in an environment of blame and accusation have taken a toll. So today, when my husband says that something is my fault or that I should have done something differently, it affects me and our marriage seriously."
Victims are always on the receiving end of blame.
Because abusive church leaders typically blame members for anything that goes wrong, those who break free of the abuse either find it difficult to accept blame for anything or find themselves wallowing in self-blame.
In the case of Cecily, overreactions and denial of fault go together. When her husband blamed her for something, it reminded her how the leaders of the abusive church blamed and accused her. She did not accept her blame and overreacted.
In principle, overreactions and denial of fault are different things and may be separate. Overreactions as a post-cult after effect are caused by something that reminds about negative experience in cult or abusive church. This negative experience can be caused by the leaders. When somebody acts in some way that reminds an ex-member about the group leaders, he/she may overreact.
It is quite often mentioned in the literature that ex-members often feel excessive guilt. However, they may go to the other extreme and deny any fault at all whatever they do. Then, they eventually may think that they can do whatever they want.
One more Cecily's problem was abuse:
Cecily had found herself in a cycle of abuse. Like other forms of abusive behavior, emotional and spiritual abuse is sometimes perpetuated by being directed at other innocent people. "I was verbally abused by the pastor and his wife as well as by my parents. Because of that experience, I too have become an abuser, to myself and my husband."
People who were abused by others may learn this behavior and become abusers themselves. It also can be a problem for ex-members.
Regarding this problem, I can give one example. Stalin grew up in dysfunctional family. His father was an alcoholic and treated him in a very harsh way. His father was also very authoritarian toward his family. Then, he studied in a seminary where there was very harsh discipline, mutual spying, and other negative things.
Researchers agree that Stalin was greatly influenced by his father's behavior and by the seminary and copied these behavior patterns in the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. He pursued unlimited authority and control and distrusted people. His experiences related to his father and seminary led him to ruin lives of millions people. All these people had nothing to do with either his father or his seminary.
This is an example of a person who was abused and then became an abuser.
It is quite easy for people to find many other post-cult after effects such as excessive feeling of guilt, dissociation, depression, PTSD, and so on because these effects cause sufferings to them. However, overreactions, denial of fault, and abuse affect interpersonal relationship. They may be less obvious for the people who have them. However, they may be even more dangerous.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
My New Site
In order to make some materials of this blog more accessible and more orderly, I started a new site on Google Sites: http://sites.google.com/site/lemanalsite/.
In principle, Google Sites is a service that provides an easy way to build a site. Of course, the services that provide easy ways to build sites, are convenient for those who do not know anything about HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, and so on. Webmasters find these services inconvenient because they have very limited set of functions and serious restrictions for web design and web technologies. I cannot call myself a professional webmaster, but I do have experience of making websites, working directly with HTML, CSS, and using some of JavaScript. So, I can see restrictions of the services like Google Sites. However, this service saves time because the work with HTML editors requires much time. This is why I created my new site there.
In principle, Google Sites is a service that provides an easy way to build a site. Of course, the services that provide easy ways to build sites, are convenient for those who do not know anything about HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, and so on. Webmasters find these services inconvenient because they have very limited set of functions and serious restrictions for web design and web technologies. I cannot call myself a professional webmaster, but I do have experience of making websites, working directly with HTML, CSS, and using some of JavaScript. So, I can see restrictions of the services like Google Sites. However, this service saves time because the work with HTML editors requires much time. This is why I created my new site there.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Bible Versions
In order to study the Bible (unless you use the original text), you need to consider what Bible version you will use. There are many Bible versions in English. This is not the same in many languages. Actually, it is very good that English speakers have an opportunity to use many versions.
No Bible translation is perfect because it is impossible to fully render the meaning of the original text in another language. There are two main reasons for that:
1) Each language has its own grammar. In many cases, it is impossible to keep the grammar structure of the original text. Some grammar categories may be missing or used very seldom.
2) Each language has its own vocabulary and the words usage. Each word has a spectrum of meanings, and these spectra do not match in different languages. So, it is impossible to translate a word using the same word each time.
So, different Bible versions render the meaning of the original text in somewhat different ways. Some versions are better and some are worse. No one is perfect. However, this does not mean that it is impossible to find out what the Bible says, reading it in translation. In most cases, there is no need to know all the shadows of meaning of the original text to understand what it means.
Regarding what translation can be considered the best, there are different opinions.
The following material is based on the books:
1. Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
2. John Beekman, John Callow Translating the Word of God
There are three types of Bible translations:
1. Literal translation - when the translator(s) translate the Bible text as close to the original grammar structures and words as possible. The problem of literal translation is that it often sounds unnatural and not so clear to the readers. An example of literal translation is King James Version.
2. Free translation - when the translator(s) try to translate the thoughts of the Bible not paying much attention to the words. They try to make their version as understandable for modern readers as possible. However, the meaning of the original text is lost. An example of free translation is Living Bible.
3. Dynamic equivalent - an attempt to translate the words, idioms, and grammar constructions of the original language into exact equivalents in the language of translation. An example of dynamic equivalent is Good New Bible. Most scientists consider this way of translation to be the best.
To study the Bible Fee and Stuart recommend to use dynamic equivalent translations, for example, New International Version or Good News Bible as the main version. It is also good to use literal translation, for example, New American Standard Bible as an additional version to compare.
No Bible translation is perfect because it is impossible to fully render the meaning of the original text in another language. There are two main reasons for that:
1) Each language has its own grammar. In many cases, it is impossible to keep the grammar structure of the original text. Some grammar categories may be missing or used very seldom.
2) Each language has its own vocabulary and the words usage. Each word has a spectrum of meanings, and these spectra do not match in different languages. So, it is impossible to translate a word using the same word each time.
So, different Bible versions render the meaning of the original text in somewhat different ways. Some versions are better and some are worse. No one is perfect. However, this does not mean that it is impossible to find out what the Bible says, reading it in translation. In most cases, there is no need to know all the shadows of meaning of the original text to understand what it means.
Regarding what translation can be considered the best, there are different opinions.
The following material is based on the books:
1. Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
2. John Beekman, John Callow Translating the Word of God
There are three types of Bible translations:
1. Literal translation - when the translator(s) translate the Bible text as close to the original grammar structures and words as possible. The problem of literal translation is that it often sounds unnatural and not so clear to the readers. An example of literal translation is King James Version.
2. Free translation - when the translator(s) try to translate the thoughts of the Bible not paying much attention to the words. They try to make their version as understandable for modern readers as possible. However, the meaning of the original text is lost. An example of free translation is Living Bible.
3. Dynamic equivalent - an attempt to translate the words, idioms, and grammar constructions of the original language into exact equivalents in the language of translation. An example of dynamic equivalent is Good New Bible. Most scientists consider this way of translation to be the best.
To study the Bible Fee and Stuart recommend to use dynamic equivalent translations, for example, New International Version or Good News Bible as the main version. It is also good to use literal translation, for example, New American Standard Bible as an additional version to compare.
Conclusion to Inductive Method of Bible Study
I have covered the main points related to the inductive method of Bible study.
The inductive method has three main steps:
1. Observation (What can I see here?)
2. Interpretation (What does it mean?)
3. Application (How can I apply it?)
It can be used in several ways:
1. Study of a verse
2. Analytical study (the study of a paragraph or a chapter)
3. Synthetic study (the study of a book of the Bible)
4. Thematic study (the study of a theme of the Bible)
5. Biographical study (the study of a character of the Bible)
In the process of the Bible study, it is important to follow general principles of interpretation and special principles of interpretation of figures of speech, including:
1. Parables
2. Allegories
3. Types
4. Symbols
5. Proverbs
There are also special principles of interpretation of literature genres of the Bible:
1. Narratives
2. Epistles
3. Poetry
4. Psalms
5. Prophesies
6. Apocalyptic
There are some hermeneutical errors to be avoided and some principles of study Greek words.
I hope this knowledge will help ex-members of abusive churches and cults in their independent Bible study. Besides the inductive method, there are other methods of Bible study. However, some of these methods require some special knowledge, for example, the knowledge of Bible languages. The inductive method is simple and effective. Anybody can use it and get much benefit.
The inductive method has three main steps:
1. Observation (What can I see here?)
2. Interpretation (What does it mean?)
3. Application (How can I apply it?)
It can be used in several ways:
1. Study of a verse
2. Analytical study (the study of a paragraph or a chapter)
3. Synthetic study (the study of a book of the Bible)
4. Thematic study (the study of a theme of the Bible)
5. Biographical study (the study of a character of the Bible)
In the process of the Bible study, it is important to follow general principles of interpretation and special principles of interpretation of figures of speech, including:
1. Parables
2. Allegories
3. Types
4. Symbols
5. Proverbs
There are also special principles of interpretation of literature genres of the Bible:
1. Narratives
2. Epistles
3. Poetry
4. Psalms
5. Prophesies
6. Apocalyptic
There are some hermeneutical errors to be avoided and some principles of study Greek words.
I hope this knowledge will help ex-members of abusive churches and cults in their independent Bible study. Besides the inductive method, there are other methods of Bible study. However, some of these methods require some special knowledge, for example, the knowledge of Bible languages. The inductive method is simple and effective. Anybody can use it and get much benefit.
Biographical Study
The following material is based on the books:
1. Walter Henrichsen, Gayle Jackson Studying, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible
2. Understanding the Bible (published by ICI)
Biographical study is the application of the inductive method to study a character of the Bible.
1. Choose a person whose life you want to study. Decide the borders of your study - whether you will study the person's whole life or a part of it.
2. Find all the verses of the Bible where this person is mentioned. Use concordance for that.
3. Read each passage and find the main idea of each of them.
4. Write down observations, problems (what you do not understand), and possible applications for each passage.
5. Find out the biography type:
1) Simple narrative - description of facts about the person's life
2) Explanatory narrative - the biography that gives some lesson (examples: Daniel, Paul, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph)
6. Write down plan of the person's biography.
7. Write down the summary of the person's life in several paragraphs. Include the main events and facts without their interpretation. Try to keep chronological order.
8. Write down the strong and weak points of that person. What points of the person's actions or character were praised in the Bible? What were his/her errors or failures?
9. Find the key verse for his/her life. This is the verse that states the main direction of the person's life. Define the main achievement of that person.
10. Define the main idea about this person's life. It can be either positive or negative.
11. Find out historic situation and environment of that person's life. Use the Bible dictionary to find information when you need it.
1) When did the person live? What was political, social, religious, and economical situation of that time?
2) When was the person born? Who were his/her parents? Was there anything unusual in his/her birth or childhood?
3) What was his/her occupation? Did it influence his/her ministry?
4) Who was his/her spouse? Did they have children? What kind of people were the spouse and children?
5) Draw the route of the person's journeys. Where did he/she go? Why? What was done there?
6) How did the person die? Was there anything unusual in his/her life?
12. Write down about the person's life philosophy. What were his/her motives? What were his/her positions? What were his/her life goals? What did this person want to reach? Did he/she reach that?
13. Compare this person with other Bible characters.
14. Consider the application of what you have learned.
1. Walter Henrichsen, Gayle Jackson Studying, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible
2. Understanding the Bible (published by ICI)
Biographical study is the application of the inductive method to study a character of the Bible.
1. Choose a person whose life you want to study. Decide the borders of your study - whether you will study the person's whole life or a part of it.
2. Find all the verses of the Bible where this person is mentioned. Use concordance for that.
3. Read each passage and find the main idea of each of them.
4. Write down observations, problems (what you do not understand), and possible applications for each passage.
5. Find out the biography type:
1) Simple narrative - description of facts about the person's life
2) Explanatory narrative - the biography that gives some lesson (examples: Daniel, Paul, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph)
6. Write down plan of the person's biography.
7. Write down the summary of the person's life in several paragraphs. Include the main events and facts without their interpretation. Try to keep chronological order.
8. Write down the strong and weak points of that person. What points of the person's actions or character were praised in the Bible? What were his/her errors or failures?
9. Find the key verse for his/her life. This is the verse that states the main direction of the person's life. Define the main achievement of that person.
10. Define the main idea about this person's life. It can be either positive or negative.
11. Find out historic situation and environment of that person's life. Use the Bible dictionary to find information when you need it.
1) When did the person live? What was political, social, religious, and economical situation of that time?
2) When was the person born? Who were his/her parents? Was there anything unusual in his/her birth or childhood?
3) What was his/her occupation? Did it influence his/her ministry?
4) Who was his/her spouse? Did they have children? What kind of people were the spouse and children?
5) Draw the route of the person's journeys. Where did he/she go? Why? What was done there?
6) How did the person die? Was there anything unusual in his/her life?
12. Write down about the person's life philosophy. What were his/her motives? What were his/her positions? What were his/her life goals? What did this person want to reach? Did he/she reach that?
13. Compare this person with other Bible characters.
14. Consider the application of what you have learned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
