Cult apologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term cult apologist is used by some scholars and other opponents of cults and new religious movements to describe social scientists, religious scholars, and other persons who write about cults and new religious movements and whose writings they consider as uncritical or not sufficiently critical.[1] Some academics have characterized the term as either pejorative or divisive, and not constructive towards productive dialogue. [2] Critics of cults will often characterize a scholar as a "cult apologist" based on the allegations of biased studies, accepting statements from cults at face value, while mistrusting statements from former cult members, methodological problems, and/or in some cases accepting funds or benefits from cults. Critics of cults assert that accepting funds from groups actively under analysis by scholars constitutes a conflict of interest. [3]

Contents

[edit] Allegations of financial motivations

Some individuals who have been accused of cult apologism have been accused of accepting financial support from alleged cults. According to Alexander L. Dvorkin, a Professor of religious studies in Russia:

I would say that if there is a real watershed, it is drawn between those who receive some kind of support (be it in monetary or some other form) from the cults and those who would never dream of doing so.[4]

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi further elaborated on the need for financial independence between researchers and new religious movements, stating: "If you have reasons to keep your benefactors unnamed, you've got something to hide."[5] He believes that the integrity of researchers will be improved with "full disclosure of all financial ties with all organizations." He also stated that "Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers."[6].

Benjamin Zablocki also spoke of the monies which flow from new religious movements to the scholars researching them, referring to the problem as: "large sums of money being pumped into the field by the religious groups being studied". He stated that if nothing is done, the issue will become a "public scandal", and that there needs to be a "public accounting of where the money is coming from"[7].

During the Aum Shinrikyo incident where James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton traveled to Japan to defend them, as stated above – their bills for travel, lodging and accommodations were paid for by the cult, according to The Washington Post.[8] Lewis openly disclosed that "AUM [...] arranged to provide all expenses [for the trip] ahead of time", but claimed that this was "so that financial considerations would not be attached to our final report".[9].

Eileen Barker has commented publicly on the issues surrounding accepting "hospitality" from these groups: "Nonetheless, the very fact that they give us time, that we accept their hospitality (be it a cup of tea or an expenses-paid conference), might make us feel beholden to them - but then, we might feel equally or more beholden to their parents and others whom we also meet in the course of our investigations - and, perhaps, to society as a whole."[10]. Barker condemned having personal contact influence the outcomes of research, noting it "would be reprehensible according to the canons of science is if, feeling bound by friendship or loyalty to "our" NRM, we promote what we know from our research to be a biased version of the truth."[11]

In a 2001 CESNUR presentation, Barker describes what she defines as Cult-Watching Groups. One of these classifications, Cult-Defender Groups (CDGs), according to Barker, receive funding from "new religious movements (directly or indirectly), and membership fees". These CDGs may consist of sympathizers and relatives, some academics worried about the negative representation of the NRMs, who have worked closely with some NRMs in order to present the other side of the picture, and others. She writes that in some cases the relationship between the NRM and the scholars was impeccable insofar as their scholarly approach was concerned, but that in other cases the studies appeared to be more affected by the movement’s perspective than by methodology. Barker mentions the "new CAN" (New Cult Awareness Network), which she describes as a "a cult-defender service." [12]

Douglas Cowan, in explaining the potential negative affects of being labeled a "cult apologist" stated that certain individuals blocked from traditional grant funding because of their label as a cult apologist - "threatens the ideal of scholarly neutrality and creates the impression that the applicant is engaged more in advocacy than academics". He went on to state that these individuals "might feel forced to turn to, shall we say, alternative sources of funding, like new religious movements."[13][14]

[edit] Allegations of "cult apologism"

Eileen Barker was criticized by the former Tory Home Office minister and anti-cult campaigner Tom Sackville in an article in The Daily Telegraph in 2000, "because she refuses to condemn all 'new religions' as cults." Barker stated in the same article: "We are not cult apologists..People make a lot of noise without doing serious research - so much so that they can end up sounding as closed to reason as the cults they're attacking. Besides, I imagine FAIR [Family Action Information & Resource of which Sackville is chairman] was disappointed not to get our funding."[15].

Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs, published a critical article When Scholars Know Sin in which they discuss purported conflict-of-interest issues surrounding James R. Lewis, Gordon Melton and Anson Shupe.[3]

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi[16], accuses certain groups of being cult apologists, including: Cult Awareness Network (the "new CAN"), CESNUR (see Massimo Introvigne), AWARE, The University of Virginia Religions Movements project[17] by Jeffrey Hadden and Douglas Cowan, The Institute for the Study of American Religion [18] by J. Gordon Melton, INFORM [1] by Eileen Barker

In her book Aliens adored, Palmer acknowledged that in some television interviews discussing Raelians, "..I came across as a gullible cult apologist."[19] However, Palmer pointed out that this occurred in the context of attempting to "deconstruct the cult stereotype" for journalists and the media[19].

In a joint hearing before the United States Congress on the Waco Siege entitled: Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians, it was stated into the record that publicists for the New Alliance Party had circulated a report to Congress and the media called "What is the Cult Awareness Network and What Role Did it Play in Waco?"[20] Testimony was also entered into the record stating that: "Their report relied on Linda Thompson, organizations created or funded by the Church of Scientology and the Unification Church.." and a "long-time cult apologist".[20]

J. Gordon Melton objected, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, to being labeled an "apologist" by anti-cult activists.[21] As reported by Singapore's The Straits Times in a 1997 article about the Central Christian Church, an attorney referenced a 1988 Milwaukee Journal report wherein an unnamed expert described Melton as a "cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults."[22] Also in 1997, Melton was called a "cult apologist" by Ronald Enroth.[23] The term "cult apologist" was also used by anti-cult activists in describing Melton's actions in the Aum Shinrikyo incident.[24]

[edit] Aum Shinrikyo

For more details on this topic, see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway.

In May 1995, after the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, American scholars James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton flew to Japan to hold a pair of press conferences in which they announced that the chief suspect in the murders, religious group Aum Shinrikyo, could not have produced the sarin that the attacks had been committed with. They had determined this, Lewis said, from photos and documents provided by the group. [8][25] Police had reported in March that it had discovered a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory at Aum's main compound, that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison.[26] Later investigation showed that Aum not only created the sarin used in the subway attacks, but had committed previous chemical and biological weapons attacks, including a previous attack with sarin that had killed seven and injured 144.[27]

Critics see this as an example of cult apologism by these scholars. Esquire Magazine, in describing Melton's actions in this incident, noted that he "is considered by many cult foes to be an apologist for the groups."[28].

[edit] Scholarly responses

Cowan referred to the terminology as "a pejorative"[2], while Kropveld stated that the terms "cult apologist", "Anti-Cult Movement", "Pro-Cult Movement", and "anti-cultist", are all divisive labels that are not constructive towards productive dialogue between academics, and should be avoided[29].

Scholars accused of being cult apologists reply to the criticism in various ways, including expressing their concern for religious freedom and tolerance. Douglas E. Cowan wrote that he had been referred to as a cult apologist, along with Eileen Barker, Massimo [Introvigne], Jeff Hadden, Irving Hexham, Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley, and Gordon Melton[2]. Cowan stated that he felt this characterization was "inaccurate and insulting", and that these individuals actually stand for the values of religious tolerance[2].

Gordon Melton also dismisses these criticisms by stating that the usage of the term "cults" by what he called "anti-cultists" reflected the negative evaluation that new religious movements have endured[30].

In a paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference , Douglas Cowan presents the political, ethical, economic and personal impact of such distinction and the range of opinion about what "cult apologist" means in the context of three basic domains[13]. These included the usage of the term by what Cowan referred to as the "Evangelical Christian countercult", the "secular anti-cult", and the "secular scholarship"[31][13].

[edit] Other uses

The expression "cult apologist" was used in a different manner than its current usage by the evangelical Christian countercult movement writer Walter Martin in 1955, in Martin's Christian handbook The Rise of the Cults. In his discussion about developing theological resources and responses to groups he viewed as cults, Martin remarked:

We have proposed, therefore, that an inter-denominational Bureau of Information be formed … This Bureau of Information has recently been realized with the inauguration of a special division of Zondervan Publishing Company entitled The Division of Cult Apologetics." [32]

Martin used the neologism "Cult Apologetics" in a positive and self-referential way to identify ministries that evangelize those involved in cults. He used the term again in his next book The Christian and the Cults (Zondervan 1956, p. 6). Martin's relationship with Zondervan continued until 1966, which is when the Division of Cult Apologetics ceased as a publishing operation. Martin ruefully alludes to the break-down of this relationship with the publisher in his fictional book Screwtape Writes Again (Vision House 1975, pp. 79-80).

The positive use of the term cult apologetics by evangelicals recurs in the book by Robert and Gretchen Passantino, Answers to the Cultist at Your Door (Harvest House, 1981, p. 13) and also by Alan Gomes in his contributory chapter in the first posthumous edition of Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults (1997 ed., p. 333).

In the book Unification Church Yamamoto utilizes the term "cult apologist" to refer to Robert Passantino, Gretchen Passantino, and Bryce Pettit[33]. Unification Church is part of a series, entitled: Zondervan Guide to Cults and New Religious Movements. Yamamoto uses this characterization before going on to explain these individuals' analysis of passages in the Bible, as they apply to Unification Church theology[33].


[edit] References

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Zablocki, Benjamin, Misunderstanding Cults. pp 26, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 978-0802081889
    "The term 'cult apologist' is in fact frequently employed by opponents of cults to devalue scholars who are deemed to be too sympathetic towards or tolerant of objectionable."
  2. ^ a b c d Cowan, Douglas E. "Cult Apology: A Modest (Typological) Proposal", Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference “Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research” November 1-3, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 3.
  3. ^ a b Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs: When Scholars Know Sin, Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998). Available online
  4. ^ October 25, 2006, Are There Objective and Scientific Studies of NRM?, Prof. Alexander L. Dvorkin, Moscow, Russia, Center of Religious Studies, Ozernaya, Russia.
  5. ^ "Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research", Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
    The solution to our integrity problem lies only in a painfully open discussion and full disclosure; open discussion of our collective deficiencies and failings, and a full disclosure of all financial ties with all organizations. In legitimate academic work, financial support is gratefully acknowledged. If you have reasons to keep your benefactors unnamed, you've got something to hide... Being a little more suspicious will keep us all not only a little more honest, but probably better scholars.
  6. ^ "Integrity and suspicion in New Religious Movement research", Apologia Report, Volume 2, number 5 - August 7, 1998.
  7. ^ Benjamin Zablocki, Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, October 1997, "The Blacklisting of a concept: The strange history of the brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion"
    The sociology of religion can no longer avoid the unpleasant ethical question of how to deal with the large sums of money being pumped into the field by the religious groups being studied. This is an issue that is slowly but surely building toward a public scandal. I do think there needs to be some more public accounting of where the money is coming from and what safeguards have been taken to assure that this money is not interfering with scientific objectivity.
  8. ^ a b Tokyo Cult Finds an Unlikely Supporter, The Washington Post, T.R. Reid, May 1995.
  9. ^ Japan's Waco: AUM Shinrikyo and the Eclipse of Freedom in the Land of the Rising Sun, Prevailing Winds Magazine issue #2, by James R. Lewis, 1998
  10. ^ "The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!", Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 1995, 34 (3), P. 305.
  11. ^ "The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!", Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 1995, 34 (3), P. 305.
  12. ^ A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups, Eileen Barker, 2001
  13. ^ a b c Douglas E. Cowan: Cult Apology: A Modest (Typological) Proposal, 2002
  14. ^ Douglas Cowan, quote:
    Economically, if a scholar gains a reputation as a "cult apologist," how would this affect his or her ability to secure grant funding, especially if grant reviewers come down "on the other side of the fence," as it were? Blind, third-party reviews notwithstanding, our community is still small enough, I think, that it is not impossible to discern who's working on what. And, if a scholar has been blocked from more traditional grant funding by the accusation of being a "cult apologist"—the implication of which, of course, threatens the ideal of scholarly neutrality and creates the impression that the applicant is engaged more in advocacy than academics then he or she might feel forced to turn to, shall we say, alternative sources of funding, like new religious movements. A scenario which does nothing but create a situation of deviance amplification within the discipline.
  15. ^ "Cult advisers in clash over clampdown", The Daily Telegraph, London, July 7, 2000.
  16. ^ Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Apologetics Index, 2006
  17. ^ Homepage Project, , The University of Virginia Religions Movements project, Jeffrey Hadden, Douglas Cowan, 2005
  18. ^ Chaplain's Manual, The Institute for the Study of American Religion, J. Gordon Melton, 1997, Santa Barbara, California
  19. ^ a b Palmer, Susan J.. Aliens adored. Rutgers University Press, Pp. 12. ISBN 0813534763. 
  20. ^ a b Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians, Joint Hearings before the United States Congress, House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Crime, United States Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice., Published 1996, ISBN 0160534259 , Page 256.
  21. ^ Combatants in Cult War Attempt Reconciliation: Peacemaking conference is held near Seattle, San Francisco Chronicle, Don Lattin, May 1, 2000.
  22. ^ Evidence of expert witness attacked: "Jim Jones, Peoples Temple not a cult", The Straits Times, July 17, 1997
  23. ^ 'Apologist' vs. 'Alarmist' Time Magazine, January 27, 1997 vol. 149 no. 4
  24. ^ Giving Cults A Good Name, Esquire Magazine, June 1997, Jeannette Walls
    One of them, J. Gordon Melton, is considered by many cult foes to be an apologist for the groups. Melton, who has written extensively on cults and religions, has come out in defense of Aum, the Japanese cult linked to the gassing of a Tokyo subway in March that killed twelve people, and the Church of Scientology has asked him to testify in court on its behalf. What's more, Melton, whom [the New] CAN identified as "executive director, Institute for the Study of American Religions, University of California, Santa Barbara," is not a professor at the school; he works in the library.
  25. ^ U.S. activists visit Tokyo. They’re concerned about treatment of sect suspected in subway attack, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 1995
  26. ^ Olson, Kyle B. (July-August 1999). "Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?". Emerging Infectious Diseases 5 (4). 
  27. ^ CW Terrorism Tutorial, A Brief History of Chemical Warfare, Historical Cases of CW Terrorism, Aum Shinrikyo, 2004
  28. ^ Giving Cults A Good Name, Esquire Magazine, June 1997, Jeannette Walls
    One of them, J. Gordon Melton, is considered by many cult foes to be an apologist for the groups. Melton, who has written extensively on cults and religions, has come out in defense of Aum, the Japanese cult linked to the gassing of a Tokyo subway in March that killed twelve people, and the Church of Scientology has asked him to testify in court on its behalf. What's more, Melton, whom [the New] CAN identified as "executive director, Institute for the Study of American Religions, University of California, Santa Barbara," is not a professor at the school; he works in the library.
  29. ^ Kropveld, Michael (June 2002). "An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation". American Family Foundation Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida: International Cultic Studies Association. 
    The use of terminology such as “Anti-Cult Movement” (ACM) and “Pro-Cult Movement” (PCM), “anti-cultist” and “pro-cultist” or “cult apologist” are examples of divisive labels that are hardly conducive to encouraging dialogue or discernment.
  30. ^ Melton, Godon J., Modern Alternative Religions in the West. pp.610, Penguin (1997), ISBN 0-14-013599-5
    In labelling the alternative religions as 'cults', anti-cultists assumed that in some measure the alternative religions were essentially all alike, an assumption that has proved completely false. The only characteristic they share is a negative evaluation; they each present an alternative to traditional Christianity. The assumption of similarity has been used to attack the 'cults', by attributing to all of them the faults and excesses of any one of them. This practice, among with the highly polemic motivation underlying most anti-cult literature, makes such materials the least useful in understanding the nature of life in alternative religions, though of immense usefulness in understanding the climate in which NRMs have had to operate.
  31. ^ 1. The Evangelical Christian countercult: [I]n the context of the evangelical countercult, it seems that one does not actually have to "defend cults" to be labeled a "cult apologist." Rather, in the manner of "the one who is not for us is against us," as a second indicator simply critiquing the critics is sufficient. 2. The secular anti-cult: While the evangelical Christian countercult has very little use for the brainwashing or thought control hypothesis, the secular anticult movement's deployment of "cult apologist" is almost exclusively concerned with maintaining either the viability of that hypothesis or the validity of ex-member testimony as part of its anecdotal mainstay. 3. The secular scholarship: I take it as a simple axiom that we, as a scholarly community, are probably not going to come to consensus on most of these issues. We are not going to agree in our assessments of new and controversial religious movements, and in our own personal scholarly scales, the balance of freedom of religion vs. the potential danger posed by groups or "types of groups" is going to weigh differently.
  32. ^ Martin, The Rise of the Cults, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955, p. 106
  33. ^ a b Yamamoto, J. Isamu (1995). Unification Church. Zondervan, Pp. 6, 28, 36.. ISBN 0310703816. 

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Cults
Definitions
Lists
Organizations
Opposition
Theories
Wiktionary definition · Wikisource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikibooks