Is Mike Pearl an Annointed Preacher?

Now, even asking that question will probably turn off some of my readers, but it's just a title, okay? The real purpose of this post is to critique Michael Pearl's approach to exegesis, which is sadly flawed. This isn't the first time I've addressed this question, but perhaps it will be my last.

Now that what was once known as the Cane Creek Community Bible Baptist Church has gone defunct, Mike directs his preaching energies into the video camera set up at "The Door," his small storefront studio in Lobelville, Tennessee. I'll confine my commentary to the opening minutes of his first video, where he begins to expound on Romans 1:1-17.

Mike starts out his Door series by promising, "You're going to learn things about the Bible you never imagined were in it." Alas, we just saw one of the red flags warning us of a cult: Special Revelation.

And Mike does not disappoint, either: Only three minutes into his sermon, he informs us that the Apostle Paul must have been the son of a Roman, "maybe even a Roman soldier."

And this, less than a minute after saying, "The Authorized Version is what we will be studying. We're not going to correct it or change it, We're going to believe every word that's in it, just like it's written."

But what does the Authorized Version say about Paul's father?

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."  --Acts 23:6

Paul's father was no Roman soldier; he was a Pharisee from Jerusalem. We read in the same chapter of Acts that Paul's sister's family lived in Jerusalem. Whatever Paul's father was doing in Tarsus when Paul was born, we don't know; but we do know him to be a Jew, specifically a Benjamite. 

Now, how could Michael Pearl possibly make such a blatant mistake?  I don't want to say, but I will say this: he's not a Bible Teacher worth following.

Is the Insitute in Basic Life Principles a Cult?

I've been writing about cults for several years now, and it's finally time to call one out.

Five years ago I wrote:

But the question of cults has really hit home to me in recent years as I have watched a cult forming before my very eyes--perhaps several of them; they are all still in such early stages that it isn't yet possible to definitively describe them as such, but they share with other movements the seeds that generally develop into cultic behavior.

It's taken me this long to finally pin down just what about the Insitute in Basic Life Principles qualifies it as a cult. In the aforementioned post (by the way, all my posts on this topic now carry the label 'cult'), I also wrote:

Every cult starts out small, focused on a single individual who brings his followers a never-ending stream of fresh messages directly from God. The lure of new revelation is a temptation to so many that Small Cults, in the normal progression of things, always grow rapidly. At this point the Leader needs to decide whether to keep his flock small enough to manage, or to share some of his authority with deputies who will hopefully carry on his vision. Should he choose the first option, his cult will eventually expire, but usually not until long after he is removed from the scene. Should he choose the second, his cult will go on to evolve into something so far removed from the original structure that even the word 'cult' will no longer adequately describe it as a sociological phenomenon. It will have become a religion.

I actually had Bill Gothard in mind when I wrote this. Since starting Campus Teams fifty-four years ago, Bill has remained both on the board and at the helm of his organisation through all of its iterations into The Institute in Basic Life Principles with over thirty corporate divisions. Well, that is, all except for a 17-day period in 1980, when he was forced to resign over a sexual scandal but brought back on through the influence of his father, another board member; and for the past few weeks, when it emerged that the pattern of sexual misconduct first identified in the mid-1970's has continued into the present century.

IBLP prides itself with the mission of "Giving the World a 'New' Approach to Life." And indeed, for half a century the Bill Gothard machine has continued to churn out one new revelation after another. Now granted, these are never advertised as new revelation, but are marketed as rediscovered insights revealed to Bill Gothard through meditation on the Scriptures and faithful application of basic principles. Nonetheless, the particular recipe is unprecedented in Church History:
- The Umbrella Principal, in which staying under authority protects a person from spiritual attack
- A revival of the Levitical Code for ritual cleanliness in relation to menstruation and childbirth
- A revival of circumcision as a religious ritual
- A new definition of Grace
- One novel interpretation after another of the Sermon on the Mount, as revealed in the 52-volume set of Wisdom Books.
- A fantastic retelling of American History
- Bizarre psychosomatic diagnoses and treatments
- The spiritual necessity of shaving off facial hair on a regular basis

And so on. A typical cult leader never runs out of new revelations, and although the output from Bill Gothard has slowed in the past decade, he has never slowed his pace, continuing, almost at the age of 80, to run his organisation like a one-man show. At one point he constituted a third of the Directors, needing only one of the other two votes for a majority. What probably doomed him faster than anything else was bringing in a bunch of new board members last year, who constituted enough of a majority to outvote the remaining incumbents and remove him from the Presidency.

But now that its guru is gone, can the cult survive? According to material newly posted to its website, its programs are all still in full swing, and the man appointed to 'investigate' the scandal is on the roster of speakers at the next Family Gathering. But the deadline is fast approaching for renewing membership in the organisation's flagship  department, The Advanced Training Institute. How much of the 'ministry' will be left when the numbers are finally crunched?

ETA:
Here is a link to 100 marks of a cult. No cult will have all of them but all will have at least ten of them.

Are the Amish a Cult?

Way back in July 2007, I wrote the following:
Some articles I'm tossing around in my head right now include:
Are the Amish a Cult?
What is a Mixed Language?
Is Linguistic Taxonomy Eurocentric?

I've been asked to publish the first, so here goes.

First of all, let's define our terms:

1) Amish - any one of a number of Christian denominations with the following characteristics:
a) Rooted in the Anabaptist movement and specifically that led by Jacob Amman.
b) Clergy are appointed from among the married men of each congregation, without any prerequisites of vocational training or calling, for the duration of good behavior.
c) Church membership is entered by effusion by the bishop upon agreement with and submission to the denomination's beliefs and standards, after attaining the age of accountability (usually 16 years old).
d) Denominational rules not only set lines of fellowship between congregations, but serve to unify the various members with similar lifestyles, uniforms, and possessions.
e) Church discipline consists of shunning and excommunication, imposed by the bishop.
f) Continued membership is dependent on following the rules of the denomination, which are agreed upon among the bishops and imposed on the various congregations.
g) Even where it is otherwise legal, marriage to a first cousin--or a non-member--is prohibited.

Now, when people say "Amish," they almost always mean "Old-Order Amish." So lets define our terms a bit more narrowly:

2) Old-Order Amish denominations are those that limit the use by their members of modern technology, usually by prohibiting them from having a public utility connected to their residence, and by limiting the kinds of technology they are allowed to own, requiring a certain uniformity in those modern inventions that are permitted. Furthermore, due to the restrictions on Sunday travel, congregations are delineated geographically, with a married male bishop serving each district.

3) Usually when people say "Amish," they further mean what are also referred to as "Fancy Amish" (by outsiders) or "High-Living Amish" (by the Amish themselves). These are Amish congregations that allow their members to mix freely with outsiders for work, school, and shopping purposes. They allow their members to pay Social Security taxes, ride in cars, watch movies, submit insurance claims, have telephone numbers, and advertise their businesses in secular publications. They observe Daylight Savings Time, subscribe to the newspaper, and often hire outsiders to teach their children--even sending them off on the bus to public school every morning. They can own tractors, as long as they are not used to pull farm equipment or passenger vehicles. They can have electricity, as long as it's not hooked up to the grid or their residences. They can have indoor plumbing, as long as it's not hooked up to a municipal sewage system. They can use pneumatic tires and bucket seats on a vehicle, as long as it's neither self-propelled nor enclosed. They can even own computers and manage websites, but only for strictly commercial purposes.

Okay, now that we've defined whom we're talking about, we can briefly list some Amish groups that are now excluded from this discussion.

-Beachy Amish
-New-Order Amish
-Reformed Amish

So, on to our question: Are the Amish a Cult?

Well, clearly the Amish do share certain cultish characteristics. For example, they believe that they are The Only True Church, and that to leave the church is to forfeit salvation. This is clearly a mark of a cult. Also, they shun anyone who leaves the Church--another typical characteristic of a cult. But these alone are not in and of themselves proof that the Amish are a cult.

Let's look at Biblical Discernment Ministries' Marks of a cult and see how the Amish measure up:

1. Extrabiblical Authority: Not officially. Many Amish use extracononical books, like the 6th and 7th Books of Moses, but these are part of their folk religion, not part of their Christianity.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Apparently. Amish believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. This boils down to claiming that if you don't follow their rules, you can't be saved.

3. No Assurance of Salvation: Absolutely. This is an oft-stated Amish doctrine.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: Not usually, but some have arisen from time to time. And Amish seem as susceptible as anyone to following them; more so if they appear from within the Amish (Acts 20:29).

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: Absolutely not. Seekers know pretty much exactly what they are getting into.

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups (leaving the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God): Yes; see above.

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: This is essentially the same as #1, but we should note here that unlike Protestants, the Amish use the Apocrypha as Scripture. The Book of Tobit is part of their marriage liturgy.

8. Defective Christology: No.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": No.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Not so much.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: No.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: Absolutely not. The various denominations are completely separate.

13. Financial Exploitation: Absolutely not. There's no central fund.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Yes. Occultism is not a part of official Amish doctrine, but pow-wowing is an intrinsic part of their culture that is never preached against and often excused.

So, how do they rate on a scale of 1 to 13? Four. I would have to say that the Amish are not a cult, but do share a few characteristics with classic cults. The strongest correlation is in the great difficulty that it is for Amish to become converted and start following the Bible. They will, in most congregations, be shunned for it and cut off from their own family members--even their spouses and children. In that sense only, Amish are extremely similar to a classic cult.

April 7, 2014
Well, blogspot doesn't appear to be letting me post comments, which makes it hard to  join the conversation below. But I will address the anonymous comments of 7/30/2012 and 4/05/2014.
Here goes:
Q: "Where did you get your information from?"
 A: A combination of the MennoHof museum, newspaper reports, emails from Anabaptist organization, and personal knowledge of Amish and ex-Amish people. I'm very familiar with the Beachy Amish and realize that they are very different from Old Order Amish Mennonites.
Q: "NO Amish would ever allow a member to watch movies."
 A: Sorry, I have it on the word of Howard Schmucker, who told me as he was watching an R-rated movie about Amish that his OOAM church was okay with it. And of course the wild Amish youth watch worse stuff than that.
Q: "The Amish are nothing more than a church of Lutheranism mixed with fashion."
 A: This is a genetic fallacy. The Amish have nothing in common with Lutheranism, other than both being a splitoff from the German Catholic Church of the 16th century. The Amish do retain some of their Catholic heritage, such as following the Julian calendar for Christmas, Easter, and Ascension Day. But they don't share any Lutheran distinctives. Luther was a bitter enemy of the early Anabaptists.
Q: "Only Christ can save. No Amish principle or way of living can. And because they still wrap themselves in laws, they are not saved. It is that simple."
 A: No, not quite that simple. Some Amish are saved through Christ, but keep the law out of respect for their countrymen--just as the Apostle Paul did.

Calvinism is not quite a Cult

In an earlier post, I addressed the question as to whether or not Calvinism was a cult. The comments I received tended rather strongly toward the negative, with Ruth A. Tucker declaring,

"Calvin certainly had an authoritarian way about him, but he wasn't a one man show as most cult leaders are."

It is true that Calvin shared much of his secular power with Farrel and the Geneva Council. But in matters of theology, Calvin, through the publication of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, stood alone. It is not for nothing that followers of Reformed Theology are called Calvinists to this day. There are no Farrelites, there is no Genevan Reformed Church. Pastors do not stock their libraries with The Complete Works of William Farrel, or, for that matter, the Complete Works of Jacobus Arminius--whose writings were eclipsed by those of a much later and more prolific theologian, John Wesley.

In his own lifetime, Calvin's theological writings attained the very status of holy writ, if not as infallible inspiration, at least as infallible interpretation. And this has not changed; rather than going out of print, Calvin's Institutes has generated its own line of translations, versions, commentaries, and reader's guides--just as has the Bible itself. And this is a classic sign of a cult--elevating their guru's teachings to the level of Scripture.

Another sign of a cult is elevating the guru himself to the very apex of the ecclesiastical hierarchy--a man without equals. This is especially easy to do if the leader is dead, and doesn't have to fit a particular spot in the pecking order. Notice how Doug Phillips personifies the biblical and materialistic world views as a battle between--not Jesus--but Calvin and Darwin. Apparently Calvin was the Last of the Prophets, with no one having arisen since him who could take on the Giant of Galapagos.

Dr. Tucker is right, to a point; Calvinism doesn't quite fit the sociological description of a cult, as there never really has been any position at the top of its hierarchy. But in theological matters, one man still rules supreme, though from the grave. There's no question in Doug Phillips' mind: John Calvin, "Weighing in at five hundred years," is still a one-man show.

Is Calvinism a Religion?

In the previous post we explored the allegation that Calvinism is a cult, and found wanting sufficient evidence that it does now, or ever has, fit into that definition. I don't consider the question yet closed, however, just because historian Ruth A. Tucker has weighed in on the negative side of the question. Although Church History is her specialty, and there's no reason to doubt her sincerity, there are a couple factors bringing down the weight of her testimony, as so far presented:

1) She apparently lacks an adequate proficiency in Latin, so some of the earliest history of Calvinism is probably a closed book to her;
2) She's a Calvinist of some standing (however tenuous) in the Christian Reformed Church, so it's in her best interests not to dig up anything that may turn out to be embarrassing.

So, we leave it to the side in affirmation of the question to make the next move, and proceed to the next question, in which long-forgotten history does not play a crucial role: Is Calvinism a Religion?

A Religion can be defined as a broad system of belief that makes exclusive claims. Religions by nature are quite diverse within themselves, containing a wide variety of denominations. For example, within the Muslim religion we find the main trunks of Sunnism and Shi`aism, and within these the branches respectively called Salafists, Wahabists, Barelwists, and Deobandists; the Imamis, Isma'ilis, Alawites, and Zaidists; along with the Kharijite and Sufic side trunks with their various minor branches. Some of these various denominations would just as soon kill each other as greet each other, but stick any mix of them together in a mosque at prayer time and they will all bow toward Mecca and intone on cue that Mohammad is the prophet of God. They all belong to the same religion, and all recognize each other as fellow Muslims. Should any branch wander so far from the center as to refuse to do so, it is in danger of losing its identity as a Muslim sect and being branded an infidel religion, as happened to the Druze and Baha'i religions, which started out as syncretistic sects of Shi`a Islam.

Initially, Calvinism started out as a sect of the Protestant movement away from Catholicism. As such it had much in common with Lutheranism, which held sway in the Teutonic nations, and Anglicanism, which ruled England. Ironically, it was the only one of the three main branches of Protestantism that didn't result in a denomination named after its founding theology. The Calvinist churches took names such as Reformed and Presbyterian, with much Calvinist influence also being found in Free and Baptist churches. But this influence all worked one way; members of Reformed or Presbyterian churches who found themselves at odds with Calvinism were put out of the church, either by expulsion (as in Castellio) or execution (as in Servetus). Calvin himself supported this practice, even going so far as to say that anyone who did not join with him in denouncing a non-Calvinist as a heretic was a heretic himself.

Calvin's disciples today would not hold to so strict a view as to condemn their opponents to the flames, but their basic belief system, being the same as Calvin's, requires them to admit that anyone who disagrees with them is a heretic and not a true believer in actual Christianity. This can be traced from the very earliest days, when the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes to be "holy doctrine which no man might speak against," down to the present day, when his disciples label their own sectarian doctrines as, not "The Five Points of Calvinism," but "The Five Doctrines of Grace." And everywhere in between, we see the same. In "A History of the New School, and the Questions Involved in the Disruption of the Presbyterian Church in 1838," Calvinist historian Samuel J. Baird contends that “the doctrines, all of them, of the connected system set forth in the [Westminster] Confession, are the very and infallible truth of God, and gospel of salvation.” In other words, the Westminster Confession, that unchangeable and infallible Manifesto of Calvinism, is equated with the truth of the Gospel, which no one can question without being condemned as a heretic. The Bible itself must bow to this supreme authority, or not speak at all.

Such is the conclusion to which any disciple of John Calvin is eventually driven. In their minds, Calvinism is identical with Christian Orthodoxy, and many go so far as to say that no one who rejects their doctrines can be truly saved. By their exclusive claim to truth, and condemnation of all competing views of Scripture and those who hold to them, the disciples of Calvin themselves have defined Calvinism as not just a, but the, only true Religion.

Is Calvinism a Cult?

nicht kliken hehr
I realize that most people reading this article are already considering the possibility of a link between Calvinism and cults. So to save them some time, I'll give the short answer right now: No.

There. So if you're a Calvinist, you can hit the 'back' button right now and resume your search. Because you're not going to like the long answer, which we will get to anon, save yourself some frustration and keep your sub-collar temperature down by reading no further.

Cults are a topic I've studied from time to time over the past several decades. I clearly remember the morning I heard over the radio that hundreds of members of a cult in Guyana had been discovered dead, victims of an apparent mass suicide. I remember being approached by a Hare Krishna devotee at an airport, who asked me to donate to a fund that would help young people get off drugs. And I remember the following the long, drawn-out siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune. Deception and death--along with, it will turn out, divorce--seem to sooner or later characterize all cultic movements.

But the question of cults has really hit home to me in recent years as I have watched a cult forming before my very eyes--perhaps several of them; they are all still in such early stages that it isn't yet possible to definitively describe them as such, but they share with other movements the seeds that generally develop into cultic behavior. So it has become important to me not only to identify the marks of a full-blown cult, but those of one in its infancy.

As a result of my studies, I've identified some stages in the Life Cycle of a Cult. Inherent to these stages are the labels which I've assigned to them, which are as follows:

Small Cult
Big Cult
Evolved Cult
Expired Cult

Every cult starts out small, focused on a single individual who brings his followers a never-ending stream of fresh messages directly from God. The lure of new revelation is a temptation to so many that Small Cults, in the normal progression of things, always grow rapidly. At this point the Leader needs to decide whether to keep his flock small enough to manage, or to share some of his authority with deputies who will hopefully carry on his vision. Should he choose the first option, his cult will eventually expire, but usually not until long after he is removed from the scene. Should he choose the second, his cult will go on to evolve into something so far removed from the original structure that even the word 'cult' will no longer adequately describe it as a sociological phenomenon. It will have become a religion.

This latter scenario turned out to be more of the case with the cult allegedly founded by Jean Chauvin. . .

Before closing out this post, I was surprised to find several websites already exist calling Calvinism a cult. So I see I will have to defend my opinions rather carefully.

[added on 11/24] This subject is really deserving of a full thesis, something of a far different nature than a blog post. The tremendous volume this post has generated--second only to my Obama chronology--drives me to finish it. But caution holds me back. I will continue to develop the theme as I have ample material to work with. . .

[added on 12/2] A reader has requested that we define our terms carefully. Very well; I call forth as witness noted Calvinist historian Ruth A. Tucker, in her book Another Gospel:
"A 'cult' is a religious group that has a 'prophet-founder' called of God to give a special message not found in the Bible itself, often apocalyptic in nature and often set forth in 'inspired' writings. . . . the style of leadership is authoritarian and there is frequently an exclusivistic outlook, supported by a legalistic lifestyle and persecution mentality."

See Dr. Tucker's response in the comment section below.

UPDATE MARCH 2012
Here's a rather useful dictionary definition, culled from another blog:

Cult n.

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
6. 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
   2. The object of such devotion.
   3. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Is Answers in Genesis a Cult?

What is going on in Petersburg, Kentucky? Concerned citizens want to know.
As a long-time supporter of Answers in Genesis, the White Man was dismayed to find out, about a year ago, that Ken Ham had initiated legal action against the ministry that originally sent him to America as "a missionary from Australia."

It's every mission organization's worst nightmare: a missionary you sent to the field sets up his own organization and then tries to take over the parent ministry. Fortunately, this nightmare hardly ever comes true. But for the Creation Science Foundation of Australia, this is exactly what has happened.

I don't know the details of what's going on at the Answers Museum. But I have been to a few museums in my life--even ones that were named after a famous benefactor. But in no other museum that I know of is the founder's father part of the permanent display.

Those coming to this post may have hoped for an answer to the question posed by the title. At present, I don't know enough to give one for sure. But for those who have seen cultic tendencies in the corporate actions of Ligonier Ministries and Vision Forum, this link* will show the same shenanegans being perpetrated by Answers in Genesis, even as I write.

UPDATE APRIL 2013:
*The link is dead as of April 2009. I have now been to the Answers Museum, and the tribute to Ken Ham's father is still a part of the permanent display.