Thanks for this post, and for inviting participation in it. I was a countercult insider in the late 1980s and exited not long after 9/11. I worked for various apologetics organizations, the best known being Watchman Fellowship, and was on the board for the umbrella organization Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.
I think your description and analysis is largely accurate, but I would quibble on some of the details. In Phase One, while there was a strong emphasis on avoidance or boundary maintenance, the movement also had a strong sense of engagement, often, in my thinking, confusing apologetic boundary maintenance with evangelism. You are quite correct that the warning of the dangers of "the cults" was a form of moral panic. I still remember one of Walter Martin's recorded sermons where he said he felt like Paul Revere warning "the cults are coming!" This indeed was based more on fear and defensiveness rather than love, but again, insiders felt the loving response was to engage in methods that led to insider vs. outsider stances.
There was also vigorous internal debate in the late 1990s and early 2000s related to the suggestion that the countercult might learn something from the critique of scholars like Gordon Melton and Douglas Cowan, as well as lessons that might be learned from missiology where "cults" might be more profitably be understood and related to as cultures or subcultures. The scholars were dismissed as "cult apologists," and countercult members felt they were already doing missions, which was little more than apologetic boundary maintenance done in the name of missiology. The results was a fracture in the movement, which led to the departure of figures like me to pursue my own pathway.
I remember what you call Phase Two when some in Watchman Fellowship suggested that the organization broaden its focus beyond the traditional Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and New Age to also look at Islam. That was strongly resisted, but you are correct that the countercult and other apologetics ministries did respond to this, largely in a war of cultures approach that misunderstood broader Islam. This echoed sentiments in broader evangelicalism, discussed by Richard Cimino's great article "'No God in Common:' American Evangelical Discourse on Islam After 9/11." He documents the shift in perceptions and approach from Islam as a mission field to Islam as political and civilizational enemy, a stance that remains in our current political climate.
A few other thoughts. The countercult movement has always been decentralized. While it did benefit from a few leading voices and texts, it has tended to function as a host of independent "experts," many former members of various new religions, where past experience is assumed to equate with expertise in a tradition or a variety of traditions.
On the use of the term "cult," I've argued for decades that evangelicals should follow the lead of scholars of new religions who find the term ill-defined, pejorative, and counterproductive. Not only does it lend itself to casual dismissal of those groups to whom it is applied, it also says more about the user than a given group, in my view.
As to what you term the "contra-cult," this seems to be the next step and outgrowth of previous developments. Like its phase predecessors, I view it as ill prepared and culturally naive, functioning yet again as a form of apologetic boundary maintenance that functions more for faith confirmation while providing a sense of meaning for the contra-cult member and their audience rather than potentially persuasive and culturally relevant engagement.
Such good feedback, thank you, John! I share similar concerns about repeating shortcomings from the past. I think having perspectives like yours (long-view earned by experience) is critical to consider.
The 'verbicide' of the word cult has done immense metaphysical and CULTural damage to society, let alone apologetics, evangelism, and inter-religious dialogue.
Interesting post. That helps me make sense of what I am seeing. I am pretty sure counter-cult ministries were very active in Wisconsin, where I live, a few years ago. Christian parents in our homeschool groups would react in literal fear upon realizing that we are LDS. When they would try to explain why, it was clear they had no idea what we believe but had heard some salacious nonsense. This more than once evoked a “we can’t let our children play with your children” response, and we were forced to leave homeschool groups on two occasions. Very strange experiences.
Thanks for this post, and for inviting participation in it. I was a countercult insider in the late 1980s and exited not long after 9/11. I worked for various apologetics organizations, the best known being Watchman Fellowship, and was on the board for the umbrella organization Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.
I think your description and analysis is largely accurate, but I would quibble on some of the details. In Phase One, while there was a strong emphasis on avoidance or boundary maintenance, the movement also had a strong sense of engagement, often, in my thinking, confusing apologetic boundary maintenance with evangelism. You are quite correct that the warning of the dangers of "the cults" was a form of moral panic. I still remember one of Walter Martin's recorded sermons where he said he felt like Paul Revere warning "the cults are coming!" This indeed was based more on fear and defensiveness rather than love, but again, insiders felt the loving response was to engage in methods that led to insider vs. outsider stances.
There was also vigorous internal debate in the late 1990s and early 2000s related to the suggestion that the countercult might learn something from the critique of scholars like Gordon Melton and Douglas Cowan, as well as lessons that might be learned from missiology where "cults" might be more profitably be understood and related to as cultures or subcultures. The scholars were dismissed as "cult apologists," and countercult members felt they were already doing missions, which was little more than apologetic boundary maintenance done in the name of missiology. The results was a fracture in the movement, which led to the departure of figures like me to pursue my own pathway.
I remember what you call Phase Two when some in Watchman Fellowship suggested that the organization broaden its focus beyond the traditional Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and New Age to also look at Islam. That was strongly resisted, but you are correct that the countercult and other apologetics ministries did respond to this, largely in a war of cultures approach that misunderstood broader Islam. This echoed sentiments in broader evangelicalism, discussed by Richard Cimino's great article "'No God in Common:' American Evangelical Discourse on Islam After 9/11." He documents the shift in perceptions and approach from Islam as a mission field to Islam as political and civilizational enemy, a stance that remains in our current political climate.
A few other thoughts. The countercult movement has always been decentralized. While it did benefit from a few leading voices and texts, it has tended to function as a host of independent "experts," many former members of various new religions, where past experience is assumed to equate with expertise in a tradition or a variety of traditions.
On the use of the term "cult," I've argued for decades that evangelicals should follow the lead of scholars of new religions who find the term ill-defined, pejorative, and counterproductive. Not only does it lend itself to casual dismissal of those groups to whom it is applied, it also says more about the user than a given group, in my view.
As to what you term the "contra-cult," this seems to be the next step and outgrowth of previous developments. Like its phase predecessors, I view it as ill prepared and culturally naive, functioning yet again as a form of apologetic boundary maintenance that functions more for faith confirmation while providing a sense of meaning for the contra-cult member and their audience rather than potentially persuasive and culturally relevant engagement.
Such good feedback, thank you, John! I share similar concerns about repeating shortcomings from the past. I think having perspectives like yours (long-view earned by experience) is critical to consider.
The 'verbicide' of the word cult has done immense metaphysical and CULTural damage to society, let alone apologetics, evangelism, and inter-religious dialogue.
Interesting post. That helps me make sense of what I am seeing. I am pretty sure counter-cult ministries were very active in Wisconsin, where I live, a few years ago. Christian parents in our homeschool groups would react in literal fear upon realizing that we are LDS. When they would try to explain why, it was clear they had no idea what we believe but had heard some salacious nonsense. This more than once evoked a “we can’t let our children play with your children” response, and we were forced to leave homeschool groups on two occasions. Very strange experiences.