Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Systematic Theology

Six Sociological Characteristics of Cults

by

Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 31–34:

SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS

I noted previously that even though cults should be defined from a theological point of view, we can nevertheless gain valuable insights into certain aspects of the cultic mentality from sociology. . . .

[1] Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarianism involves the acceptance of an authority figure who exercises excessive control on cult members. As prophet or founder, this leader’s word is considered ultimate and final. . . .

Often this authoritarianism involves legalistic submission to the rules and regulations of the group as established by the cult leader (or, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, submission to the Watchtower Society). Cult members are fully expected to submit, even if they do not agree with the requirements. Unquestioning obedience is compulsory.

[2] Exclusivism

Cults often believe that they alone have the truth. The cult views itself as the single means of salvation on earth; to leave the group is to endanger one’s soul. . . .

[3] Isolationism

The more extreme cults sometimes create fortified boundaries, often precipitating tragic endings (we have already mentioned the tragedies in Waco and Jonestown). Some cults require members to renounce and break off associations with parents and siblings. . . .

[4] Opposition to Independent Thinking

Some cultic groups discourage members from thinking independently. The “thinking,” as it were, has already been done for them by the cult leadership; the proper response is merely to submit. . . .

[5] Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”

It is not uncommon in cults that people are urged to remain faithful to avoid being “disfellowshiped,” or disbarred, from the group. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a prime example, for a person can be disfellowshiped merely for questioning a Watchtower doctrine. . . .

[6] Threats of Satanic Attack

Finally, some cults use fear and intimidation to keep members in line. Members may be told that something awful will happen to them should they choose to leave the group. Others may be told that Satan will attack them and may even kill them, for they will have committed the unpardonable sin. Such fear tactics are designed to induce submission. Even when people do muster enough courage to leave the group, they may endure psychological consequences and emotional baggage for years to come.

Sadly, some Christian groups share these characteristics to some degree.

Related (update on 3/31/2017): Here’s my attempt to explain how to interpret and apply the Bible:

God’s in Charge of the Weather

by

We’re scheduled to fly today from Greenville to Green Bay via Detroit (for Northland’s Heart Conference), but snowmageddon in the Midwest is canceling and delaying flights.

“God’s in Charge of the Weather” (from J Is for Jesus ) keeps playing in our heads:

God makes the sun shine;
God makes the rain fall.
God’s in charge of the weather.

God makes the thunder;
God makes the lightning.
God’s in charge of the weather.

God can make it wet or dry;
God’s the big boss of the sky.

God makes the sun shine;
God makes the rain fall.
God’s in charge of the weather.

Sometimes adults benefit more from children’s music than children do.

A Sonnet on Hell

by

D. A. Carson, Holy Sonnets of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 117 (reflecting on Rev 14:9–11; 21:8):

There are no friends in hell: the residents
With zeal display self-love’s destructive art
In narcissistic rage. The better part,
The milk of human kindness, no defense
Against a graceless world, robbed of pretense,
Decays and burns away. To have a heart
Whose every beat demands that God depart—
This is both final curse and gross offense.

Say not that metaphor’s inadequate,
A fearful mask that hides a lake less grim:
Relentless, pain-streaked language seeks to cut
A swath to bleak despair, devoid of him.

This second death’s a wretched, endless thing,
Eternal winter with no hope of spring.

Don’t Call It a Comeback

by

This book comes out at the end of the month:

Kevin DeYoung, ed. Don’t Call It a Comeback: The Same Faith for a New Day. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

My chapter in the book is entitled “Scripture: How the Bible is a Book Like No Other” (pp. 59–69).

Update on February 14, 2011: Crossway gave me permission to upload a PDF of my chapter for personal use only.

Kevin recently asked me to briefly answer this question: “What do you see as the biggest threat to the authority of the Scriptures among evangelicals today?” Answer here.

Prioritizing

by

Paul Johnson, Churchill (New York: Penguin, 2010), 94:

Britain alone was not capable of crushing Germany. . . . However, he [i.e, Winston Churchill] clinched matters by persuading Roosevelt and his advisers that priority should be given to defeating Germany first. This was perhaps the most important act of persuasion in Chuchill’s entire career, and it proved to be absolutely correct.

Indeed . . . Churchill had an uncanny gift for getting priorities right. For a stateman in time of war it is the finest possible virtue. “Jock” Colville, his personal secretary, said, “Churchill’s greatest intellectual gift was for picking on essentials and concentrating on them.”

“Getting priorities right”—picking and concentrating on essentials—is also a virtue for theologians.

The Reason for God DVD

by

Jenni and I recently watched The Reason for God: Conversations on Faith and Life (Zondervan, November 2010).

It’s a stimulating two-hour DVD with six sessions (and a corresponding discussion guide ):

  1. Isn’t the Bible a Myth? Hasn’t Science Disproved Christianity?
  2. How Can You Say There Is Only One Way to God? What About Other Religions?
  3. What Gives You the Right to Tell Me How to Live My Life? Why Are There So Many Rules?
  4. Why Does God Allow Suffering? Why Is There So Much Evil in the World?
  5. Why Is the Church Responsible for So Much Injustice? Why Are Christians Such Hypocrites?
  6. How Can God Be Full of Love and Wrath at the Same Time? How Can God Send Good People to Hell?

Keller models how to discuss Christianity with non-Christians. The DVD corresponds, of course, to Keller’s New York Times bestseller The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008).

D. A. Carson, “Editorial,” Themelios 34 (2009): 157:

In the world of Christian apologetics, I know no one more gifted in this Popperian form of argumentation than Tim Keller. Witness his The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008). Keller manages to construct his opponents’ arguments in such a way that they are more powerful and devastating than when the opponents themselves construct them. And then he effectively takes them apart. No one feels abused, precisely because he has treated their stances more ably than they can themselves.

Related:

  1. Keller’s The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. Cf. my review. See also the excellent corresponding DVD: The Prodigal God: Finding Your Place at the Table (Zondervan, 2009).
  2. Keller’s Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters. Cf. my review.
  3. Keller’s Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything (Zondervan, 2010). 90-minute DVD. Eight Sessions with a corresponding discussion guide.
  4. Keller’s latest book: Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just.

Popular Culture’s View of Love

by

Don Carson, who doesn’t sharply distinguish between popular and high culture, opens his book Love in Hard Places (2002) by summarizing some points from The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (2000):

First, popular culture saunters between a sentimental view and an erotic view of love. The erotic view is fed by television, movies, and certain popular books and articles; the sentimental view is nurtured by many streams, some of which we shall think about as we press on, but the result is a form of reductionism whose hold on the culture is outstripped only by its absurdity.

  1. Applied to God, the sentimental view generates a deity with all the awesome holiness of a cuddly toy, all the moral integrity of a marshmallow. In the previous lectures, I briefly documented this point with examples from films and books.
  2. Applied to Christians, the sentimental view breeds expectations of transcendental niceness. Whatever else Christians should be, they should be nice, where “niceness” means smiling a lot and never ever hinting that anyone may be wrong about anything (because that isn’t nice).
  3. In the local church, it means abandoning church discipline (it isn’t nice), and in many contexts it means restoring adulterers (for instance) to pastoral office at the mere hint of broken repentance. After all, isn’t the church about forgiveness? Aren’t we supposed to love one another? And doesn’t that mean that above all we must be, well, nice?
  4. Similarly with respect to doctrine: the letter kills, while the Spirit gives life, and everyone knows the Spirit is nice. So let us love one another and refrain from becoming upright and uptight about this divisive thing called “doctrine.” (pp. 11–12; numbering added)

How Should We Interpret the New Testament’s Graphic Descriptions of Hell?

by

I attempt to answer that question in the latest 9Marks eJournal: Hell: Remembering the Awful Reality [PDF | HTML].

“Hellfire and Brimstone: Interpreting the New Testament’s Descriptions of Hell.” 9Marks eJournal 7:4 (September–October 2010): 16–19. [PDF | HTML]

Introduction:

The New Testament graphically and horrifically describes hell. And that raises a thorny question: How should we interpret those dreadful images? May we simply label them “metaphors” to soften their bite?

Outline:

  1. How does the New Testament describe hell? [five ways]
  2. How do people interpret the New Testament’s horrific descriptions of hell? [three ways]
  3. How should we interpret the New Testament’s horrific descriptions of hell? [two of the three ways are plausible]

Conclusion:

We may disagree about some finer nuances of our literal and metaphorical interpretations of hell’s darkness, fire, and suffering, but we should agree that, at the very least, the New Testament teaches that hell is eternally miserable, terrifying, and painful. It’s certainly no better than being cast into literal “outer darkness” or being tormented with literal “fire and sulfur.”

More.