How Christian Apologetics Leads to Deviance Labelling and Prejudice Against Other Religions

In my comparative religion courses, I love engaging students on controversial questions that one usually can not ask others outside of the classroom. Over the past several weeks we have been discussing unconventional religions and groups, and new religious movements (NRMs) in particular in both Asian and Western contexts. I found these discussions insightful, especially since I have been writing on NRMs for a few years now.

This is why I was particularly shocked when I came across an evangelical “Professor of Christian Apologetics” who spoke about an unconventional group that he deemed a “cult”, which I will demonstrate is problematic.

In class, we have discussed and probed this allegation of calling unconventional religious movements and groups “cults” from an academic perspective and why just about every scholar of religion in this field no longer uses this term today.

Perhaps a peripheral point, there is something very questionable about there being “Professors of Christian Apologetics”, particularly because being an apologist in academia is about as partisan and factional as one could possibly be. This is why “Professors of Christian Apologetics” do not teach or work at mainstream universities but at theological seminaries committed to affirming, defending, and promulgating cherished religious beliefs. There is nothing professional about being a “Professor of Christian Apologetics”. It is merely confessional religion masquerading as scholarship.

It is regarding this apologist about whom we are speaking that leads me to suggest that one should not trust, if not seriously question, “scholarship” produced and ideas presented by religious apologists, even if they call themselves professors. Religious apologetics must be kept as far away from mainstream secular institutions of learning as possible. I am willing to defend the view that secular study, which keeps religious biases at bay, is superior to religiously motivated study grounded upon religious confessionalism.

In the case of this particular apologist, the logic he promulgates when talking about unconventional groups is simple: Not Christianity, therefore “cult”. But such a position is awe-inspiring from an academic perspective. 

I took several years in my thesis examining these allegations against NRMs and unconventional groups. In almost all cases (minus the exceptions of Jonestown and the Branch Davidians, and a few others), I found these allegations to be wanting based on the latest academic research. This view was also bolstered by my own research, the visiting of temples, many interviews with unconventional religious persons, and much else. Worth noting is that we know of roughly 5400 NRMs globally, of which only a handful have engaged in violence and perpetuated abuses.  

This apologist in question, as I will briefly show, lacks knowledge of more than three decades of academic scholarship on NRMs since the 1970s to have emerged by credible scholars in North America. I would therefore suggest this apologist inform himself by accessing the latest research produced on NRMs in Europe, notably Germany and Russia, as well as in the United Kingdom.

The problem that needs to be highlighted is this: this apologist continues a harmful tradition of deviance labeling and “othering” of unconventional groups that are not his own. Historically in the twentieth century, anti-cultist groups (often connected to, although also sometimes independent of, the Church) verbally and categorically attacked unconventional religious groups in North America by making various false accusations of brainwashing, violence, sexual abuse, fraud, and so on. These accusations were leveled at these groups although the overwhelming majority of them posed no threat to society. Many of them were pacifists.

But according to this apologist, the crime of these unconventional groups is being different. In particular, it is the crime of not being Christian. They are therefore “cults”. Such allegations caused significant harm to minority religious individuals and groups whose experiences were of alienation (especially by unconventional groups that were not isolationist), bullying, and hostility. A major force behind this anti-cultism was evangelical Christians who felt threatened and questioned the legitimacy of NRMs as authentic religions. Thus, this apologist in question is stuck in the 1930s around the time of the Canadian minister Jan Karel van Baalen who famously brandished unconventional religions and groups “cults”, which became popular among many Canadians. 

As scholar John Melton explains, “cults” became an “appropriate label for the despised new religions”. To define unconventional, marginal, and NRMs “cults” is a source of hostility that can lead to harmful consequences. Scholars have observed how this term can not only offset important inter-faith cooperation and understanding, but also give rise to deviance labeling, misrepresentation, and even persecution. As just noted, scholars studying NRMs and unconventional groups mostly found such accusations and concerns unfounded. It is for these reasons that scholars no longer call unconventional religions or groups “cults” because they realize that it is prejudicial and a nasty way to spread fear about groups that often exist beneath the public radar.

Informed scholars have spoken about this. Specialist Eileen Barker explains that scholars distance themselves from deviance labeling because it is not helpful “for a sociologist who, rather than aiming merely to label or condemn, is trying to find out about particular movements”.

This leads me to wonder about the motive of this apologist in question. Is he aware of these informed views and yet still deliberately decides to continue an outdated tradition of deviance labeling by throwing the term “cult” at unconventional groups in his crosshairs? If so, he is prejudicial, even immoral. As specialist Thomas Robbins noticed, “cult” was used to refer to groups considered “unstable cancer cells” that should “be surgically” removed from society. Or is this apologist simply oblivious to the latest academic research on unconventional groups and NRMs? If so, we should question how he occupies the position of being a professor. We should at the very least encourage him to read up on the latest research.

Truly, if this apologist was a student in my tutorials and classes on new religious movements (NRMs), I would have asked him to rewrite his paper or failed him. His uninformed views simply lead me to have little confidence in the work produced by religious apologists. Such work is prejudicial, warped, distorted, and twisted because it is committed to religious confessionalism that, either deliberately or ignorantly, continues on a tradition of deviance labeling and religious bullying. 

There is so much else I wish to write in response to this apologist. I would like to demonstrate to him that scholars have noticed that the accusations Christians have labeled against so-called “cults” could essentially be thrown back at them and their tradition. In reality, there is very little to distinguish so-called “cults” from the mainstream, world religions. They all have charismatic founders, uncompromising disciples, missionaries, followers who are willing to do violence and perpetuate abuses, and so on. Upon realizing this, one can begin to see the prejudice at play on behalf of individuals like this apologist and so many others in his tradition, both contemporary and historically, who promulgate these views.

3 comments

  1. Nice one, James. Have you had a chance to spend time in the USA? You’d likely be disheartened if not appalled at the Christian bigotry.

    I’ve been following your blog since it had apologetics in the title. You’ve traveled a distance in your thinking. I enjoy reading your brief but well-reasoned, articulate articles. Thanks for your efforts.

  2. Great write-up James! Enjoyed this read.

    I listen to Christian radio fairly frequently when there are appropriate stories on the news to see what they are talking about with their listeners and what their ministers are preaching from the pulpits. It is very enlightening to say the least. But they frequently make condescending comment s about other religions, e.g., Islam, to no one’s surprise I supposed however, in some cases, even other denominations of Christianity. I’ve been pretty surprised by that.

    Personally, I think all religions are cults, having a lot of the same characteristics of cults but lacking the label due to social acceptance. It seems like a semantic distinction to me; if it is accepted by “society” than it’s a religion, not accepted, its cult.

  3. Nice essay. Are you familiar with the contemplative movement in Christianity?

    There are large “Christian” organizations dedicated to showing that contemplative prayer is not “Biblical” and referring to Thomas Merton, Father Keating, Cynthia Bourgeault and other contemplative leaders as “cultists.” NO matter how many times you point to the desert fathers, St John of the Cross and countless others, they say it’s Indian “religion” in disguise.

    On the other hand, there is Cindy Gunter Brown, a conservative evangelical Christian AND academic on a mission to expunge the teaching of mindfulness from schools, on the basis of it being covert (or not so covert) Buddhism.

    I’ve written to her several times. I pointed out that while there are a few who foolishly include Buddhist things like gongs and “loving kindness prayers” (badly) translated from Pali, But overwhelmingly ,teachers are quite aware of being in federally funded public schools where religion is not allowed, and go overboard to present mindfulness in neurological terms (actress Goldie Hawn is in the forefront of this)

    I told her specific examples of how I teach mindfulness in a way that entirely relies on neuroscience. She absolutely won’t accept this. I’ll write a page worth of verbatim teachings, and ask her to find ONE WORD that even hints at anything Buddhist

    So far, she writes something like a quite vague “I don’t care it’s too close to Buddhism,” but has never successfully identified ANYTHING that is remotely Buddhist.

    So you have Christian cultists who hate neuroscience and Christian cultists who hate anything to do wtih Christian contemplative prayer.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s