[Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash

[Joe Campbell]

The funny thing, Michael, is that I was going to use you as an example to support my claim that CC is not a cult! I don't think that you would have joined CC and stayed with them as long as you did if it was a cult. But I'm no expert on cults, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about here.

I want to separate criticisms of Wilson, et. al. from criticisms of the CC congregation. Many have suggested that local criticism of Wilson, et. al. is based in prejudice about their religious views and I'm sick of hearing that.

Yes, I disagree with the religious views of most of the CC congregation but I disagree with many of your particular religious views, too. And when push comes to shove, we agree about more than we disagree about these issues. The same seems to be true with regard to the CC congregation, as well.

--
Joe Campbell

---- Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote: 

=============
Joe Writes:

FYI I do not think that CC is a 'cult.' The members of CC, in my opinion, do
not exhibit cultish behavior. Just an observation.

 

 

Me:

 

This is a difficult and vexed issue, but I suspect it is primarily a
semantic problem after debating this with folks who think CC is a cult and
those who think it is not-I actually get a hard time from some X-Kirders
when I say "cultish" instead of "outright cult." I have not seen what
anticipated this post from you, but I wanted to take a quick jab at it: Most
of those who claim that CC is a cult are those who have had first hand
experience with Wilson, particularly after they became critical of him.  The
"cult" focus is on the nature of the leader's behavior, not on the behavior
of the congregation.  Even if we do focus on the congregation however, those
who believe CC is a cult, see it as a cult "in the making."  With respect to
the general story line, or trajectory, I would have to agree with this
analysis at this time.  This could always change direction, particularly
with the kind of publicity CC is receiving. CC is fairly new and it is not
monolithic; but there is also a clear "inner/outer" reality within.  There
are those who sort of know that they are part of the "next reformation" and
who implicitly pledge more loyalty to the leaders and attempt to see
themselves as those who "get it," and there are those who simply attend
regularly without much knowledge of what it is they are attaching themselves
to (this is a rough distinction of course).  As for Wilson's behavior, I
think his eccentricities line up way to well with what I am finding in the
"literature" on this.  I'm fairly well convinced that if left to his own
devices and without accountability, CC would be a clear sociological cult
within time.  This causes me and my wife more shame than anything else,
since we were long term inner loyalists.  We also feel a bit damaged, and we
believe that many people have been very hurt over the last 15 years because
of run of the mill "spiritual abuse." But this is where the semantic problem
arises.  Abuse of power or authority is everywhere.  Spiritual abuse runs
rampant in conservative, fundamentalist circles.  And most of this parallels
with typical patterns in the business world or in the home.  We live in a
world filled with oppression.  There are many dragons to be slain out there,
but I think it is most important to slay those dragons who present
themselves as the bastion of freedom and accountability.  My wife is reading
another book on spiritual abuse right now, and it locates just this as the
fiercest sort of sociological sub-group: those who present themselves as
sufficiently accountable and free when they are really not.  

 

With that said, I would like to commend you in being judicial and careful on
this, willing to defend CC where you see fit.  I would be curious as to what
you take to be cultish behavior from the typical layman however.  I had
friends of 10 years plus turn on me immediately without private concern was
expressed at all towards me or my family as soon as I was identified as a
mild critic of Doug Wilson (back in the old days when I was still mildly
amenable to the fact that Wilson was just a bit skewed and not simply a
typical, power hungry man, willing to exploit those around him-like most men
would be apt to do if given such an unaccountable position of authority and
the right sort of temperament).

 

I should also note that CC is never able to present a persuasive, positive
defence on this issue; in fact, I have argued a couple times at
www.poohsthink.com <http://www.poohsthink.com/>  that the nature CC's
response to this criticism seems to always evidence a cultish existence.
The response is irrelevant and smug, or simply changes the subject, or else
CC offers a fully self-referential defense, disconnected from society's
general perceptions about this issue.

 

But I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this issue.  I'm sure we all
could use a bit more balance and insight from others right now.

 

Thanks

Michael Metzler