What Makes a Cultic Movement or Organization?

Of Judaism, Paul noted “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (Galatians 4.21-31).


Paul noted “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9.6-13).

While the Koine Greek language of this passage speaks to Israel (The Princes of God) in the future tense, it can not be historically, grammatically, or literally known to concisely address either the future of then-living Hebrews who had rejected Christ Jesus, Messiah; nor, can it be known to concisely address the future of collective Israel at the Millennial reign of Christ Jesus, Messiah. Clearly, dispensational schools of thought rely upon the very allegorical interpretation and application that covenantal schools of thought are regularly criticized for. Of these passages, Augustine concurs with what has become a nearly universal consensus “...the elder people, the Jews, shall serve the younger people, the Christians” (Augustine, Homily on Romans [PG 60.547-596]). Therefore, the term “Replacement Theology” has come to assume that Christianity has replaced Judaism within the economy of God and the redemptive history of His people.

The assumption that the Hebrew people's group was only a type for the “...Israel of God;” or that and that their very temporal existence is only to serve as a lasting witness to the defeat of those who reject Christ, undermines the Sovereignty of God, the Supremacy of Christ, and the Providential Comfort of the Holy Ghost. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 4.1-4). 


Truly, the Most High Uncreated One actively abides through temporal and Divine Truth. He abides through the justice of right living. He reigns through righteousness. He commands that we make our uncultivated fields shine. He enjoins that we not impregnate the ground among thorn-bushes. Thorn-bushes take many forms. Some temporal grounds are unfit for Divine seed. “...But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ” (II Corinthians 3.14). The object of this sentence may contain Divine truths which may be applied to more than one audience. Some Christians abide behind the vail of dogmatic singularity of application. Might is be possible that an organizational assertion of its own exclusively correct singularity of allegorical application is related to cultic tendency (as measured by religiocentric constructs)?

In the wider Christian community, debates over the merits and failings of literal, historical, and allegorical interpretation are riddled with ignorance. An allegory is but a typical “part-of-speech” within the Standard English-language. Not unlike the length of a lady's skirt, one's personal preference in music, or the style of a man's haircut—an allegory is amoral in nature. It is only moral or immoral in its use.

For those who enjoy the benefit of the Holy Ghost's indwelling, there can be no doubt that the Scriptural record speaks for itself. Its singular and literal English-language meaning can be readily known. Through contextual analysis, the text speaks literally, historically, and grammatically for itself. Being that the Scriptural text was not written directly to any presently-living human being, any application of the Biblical text is ALWAYS allegorical. Through the literary device of extended metaphor, the act of living human beings applying rightly-literal Scriptural understandings to their own lives, constitutes literal allegorical application.

Allegorical interpretation, on the other hand, presumes that the Contextual meaning is somehow an expression of extended metaphor. Is it possible that those who advocate allegorical interpretation are simply intending to apply allegorically and failing to delineate the embedded original literal intent first? Might the semantical understandings of an individual shade the heuristic filters through which he extrapolates meaning? Much research within the field of cognitive learning theory assuredly demonstrates such as fact.


“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (I Corinthians 2.9-16). To imply that Allegorical application is the same thing as Allegorical interpretation is to defame the very nature of God.  A cultic organization is an organization that actively asserts the exclusively correct nature of its particular allegorical application of a literally or allegorically interpreted Sacred text.

Cultic movements have been defined as those “movements” that present with marked levels of: Divisiveness; Separation from society-at-large; Doctrinal aberration; Isolationism from other religious groups within the same Faith; Overt indoctrination; An overemphasis on allegiance; and, the practice of shunning.¹ Where future research is concerned, it may be useful to operationally define cultic organizations as those organizations that maintain orthodox doctrinal positions and add unorthodox or aberrant doctrinal positions to them. Within statistical analysis, aberrancy may be controlled-for while examining the correlational affect of exclusivity of textual application.
__________________________

1Caner, Ergun. “Cultic Churches” (Class lecture, Sects of North America, THEO678, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty University, May 20, 2010).