There are many ways to consider this question, because there are several facets to the question itself. Often when we hear the word, cult, we think of something bad, or downright evil, based on our own experiences which possibly came about through watching the Children of the Corn[1] or something to that nature.
Sociologically speaking, a cult is “a religious or semi-religious sect or group whose members are often controlled or dominated almost entirely by a single individual or organization.”[2] This lens of understanding is different than a theological perspective, or even an anthropological perspective.
Anthropologically speaking, a cult is any religious belief system that has its origins in another established religious belief system. If you picture an upside-down tree, for instance, the trunk of the tree is the lineage of a religion through time, and the branches that stem off of that trunk are the cults of such a religion. From this perspective, Mormonism is a cult of Christianity and is not, say, a cult of Islam. Baha'i is a cult of Islam, and even Christianity from this perspective could be considered a cult of Judaism, which will be discussed more below. It seems that this lens is the most popular way of academically defining a cult, and the way that most people gravitate toward describing such.
Click on picture for better quality. |
From a theological perspective in regard to the comment of Christianity being a cult of Judaism, however, Christians would (and should) argue that they have come down through time from Judaism on a straight line, and Judaism is the one that took a turn off of this lineage when Christ came. Those who are Jewish would argue that they have come down through time, and Christianity took a turn off this line when Christ came. From a Jewish perspective, the Christians are the ones who broke away from Judaism, but from a Christian perspective, the Jewish people are those who broke away from the lineage of Christianity, which contains Jewish history, namely because Jesus Himself is Jewish, culturally and religiously speaking.
To clarify, anthropologically speaking, the Nation of Islam is a cult of Islam, because it has its origins in an established religious system, namely, Islam. Theologically speaking, this lineage is wholly other and separate from the Christian theological lineage (it is a different tree altogether!). From a Christian perspective, such an entire lineage is false. From the trunk of the tree to all the branches. This is where the Law of non-contradiction comes in.
Sikhs Golden Temple in the |
On Becoming a Cult
Now, when I say things like, “This specific group is on the threshold of becoming a cult of Christianity,” it is because such a religion has doctrinal beliefs and behavioral patterns which are common from cult to cult, and because they deny central doctrines of the Christian faith. For instance, some autonomous bodies of the Church of Christ teach that baptism is a requirement for salvation, so much so that when confronted with the question, “If a man were walking down into the water to get baptized and he slipped and fell on a rock and died before he would get baptized, would he end up in heaven?” At least some members of the Church of Christ would say that this man would burn in hell, because he did not officially get baptized.
Christianity does not teach that baptism is required for salvation. Thus, at least some Churches of Christ who teach that baptism is a requirement for salvation is stepping on the threshold of a becoming a cult. Speaking soteriologically, Mormonism teaches that faith, after all you can do, is how to become saved (2 Nephi 25:23). In other words, faith + works = salvation. This is one area of many that Mormonism differs in theology from biblically orthodox Christianity. Similarly, then, Churches of Christ who teach that salvation comes from being baptized and by having faith is also a faith + works = salvation issue. This is breaking off of biblical orthodox Christianity and going in a different direction.
Consider the following from Romans 4:1-12:
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.[3]
Abraham was not baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, just like we can assume that the thief on the cross was not baptized in the same way, because the command to baptize (the Great Commission) came chronologically after Jesus rose from the dead, not before. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. It wasn’t baptism, it wasn’t that he could speak in tongues, it wasn’t that he worshiped the Lord on the Sabbath, and it wasn’t that Abraham was circumcised. All this to say that legalism concerning salvation within Christianity can be a huge red flag.
It matters what we believe. It matters what we think. It matters what we teach.
James, chapter three, says that “not many of you should become teachers because teachers will be judged with a greater judgment.” Why will teachers be judged with stricter judgment? Because by nature, as a teacher, one claims to know what is true. This, in a sense, should scare the living daylights out of people, and from both perspectives. From the perspective of the student as being very careful as to what is followed, and from the teacher’s perspective as being very careful about what is taught. On top of this, it turns out that pretty much everyone is a teacher in some sense. If you are a parent, you are a teacher. If you are a co-worker, you are a teacher. The reason is because everyone has some amount of influence. It seems that the only way to avoid being a teacher is to never be around anyone, but the problem is that one would be teaching someone by never being around anyone. Perhaps by one’s absence, he would teach that it is good to not be around people (which is absurd).
In any event, Christianity is true. It is not a cult, but it is the complete story of God describing the Trinitarian nature of God, coming to earth in the body of Jesus Christ (see John 1:1-3; John 1:14) and dying for our sins (see Romans 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; and John 3:16-17) and giving us eternal life (see John 3:16; Romans 6:23; and Romans 10:9). Anything that opposes the message of Christianity is not true.
© Nace Howell, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment