The Difficulty of Challenging a Cult or Spiritually Abusive Organization

Sep 24, 2009 9:51 AM
The Difficulty of Challenging a Cult or Spiritually Abusive Organization
by makestraight

As I continue to expose truth about Gracepoint, I’m always a bit overwhelmed about how difficult it is to challenge them.

Then I did some searching, came across a site called “The Culture of Cults“. It’s very informative.

The site addresses features of cults, but it also applies to Gracepoint Berkeley. Although it’s not a cult in that it does not TEACH obviously wrong things, it is still aberrant and harmful in that Gracepoint enforces unbiblical concepts through a hyper-authoritarian culture of fear, guilt, shame and debt, with some twisted teachings interspersed.


Gracepoint uses this culture to “promote the gospel” in Ed and Kelly’s eyes, but what is more obvious is that they are promoting and glorifying Gracepoint itself through this harmful and controlling culture.

Whether Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang are abusive intentionally, or are simply blind to themselves – it does not excuse their sins one bit.

I found 2 sections of the site to be particularly true, about how difficult it is to challenge a spiritually abusive group such as Gracepoint. I’ve posted that section with my emphasis in red.

Difficulties Facing Critical Ex-members

In general, cults have a hierarchical or pyramid type of structure. At the lowest level, members are part-timers who are only partially committed to the group and are who are only lightly brainwashed. All the cult leadership really requires of this level is that members should speak well of the group and be generally positive. Members at this level have little power or influence, and are unlikely to be aware of the full range of the cult’s teachings, knowledge of which is restricted to a trusted inner circle of committed, full-time members.

Members at a part-time level of commitment are less likely to be manipulated or abused to any significant extent, because achieving strong influence over a person really requires that they be exposed to a mind control environment on a more full-time basis. Mind control only works on a foundation of personal friendship and trust, and it takes time and effort to establish this foundation. Strong mind control is partly a one on one process, in which the controlee is assigned a personal mentor, a more senior and experienced member, who is willing to devote the patience and effort needed to coach the aspirant/controlee in the beliefs and practices of the group.

For this practical reason, therefore, strong mind control is generally only applied to selected individuals who are perceived to be not only receptive, but who also have something in particular that the group leadership wants. Sometimes this is money or sex, or it may be some practical or business skill which is desired by the group leadership in order to expand the group or to raise money. The greater majority of members are not specially targeted, and are only relatively lightly brainwashed.

A person involved at a more superficial level may find it genuinely difficult to believe what goes on in some of the more committed levels of membership. Members who have not been specially targeted, and who have enjoyed the warmth and friendship of the group without having been exposed to its darker side, will tend to think well of the group, and may be puzzled by criticisms of it. These positive and supportive members can be used as a public relations shield, to counter any allegations against the group, and to reassure new members. Individual critics can be simply outnumbered and their criticisms discredited.

Even if a member involved at a less committed level is not swayed by the general air of positivity, and does develop suspicions about the group, they are unlikely to have enough inside information about the group to be able to verify their suspicions, or to be in a position to effectively warn others of potential problems. Nevertheless, the mere suspicion that a group might be a cult can be enough to deter a person from becoming involved, and so it can still be worth making relevant criticisms and sowing the seeds of suspicion.

If a critic is an insider, someone who has been more deeply involved and who has enough inside knowledge about a cult to be able to make detailed criticisms, they will still be unable to prove anything (because of the subjective nature of personal belief in general, and the non-falsifiable nature of cult belief systems in particular). They will be unable to prove that the group used deception or misrepresentation in marketing the benefits of participation in group run courses and activities.

If an ex-member claims that they were subjected to brainwashing or mind-control techniques, not only is this again unprovable, but it is tantamount to admitting that they are a gullible and easily led person whose opinions, consequently, can’t be worth much. If an ex-member suffers from any mental disorientation or evident psychiatric symptoms, this is likely to further diminish their credibility as a reliable informant.

Additionally, dissatisfied members or other critics have great difficulty in disproving ad-hominem arguments, such as that they just have a personal axe to grind, that they are trying to find a scapegoat to excuse their own failure or deficiency, or that they are simply being subjective and emotional. Cults have a vested interest in challenging the personal credibility of their critics, and may cultivate academic researchers who attack the credibility and motives of ex-members. [29]

In general, the public credibility of critical ex-cultists seems to be somewhere in between that of Estate Agents and flying saucer abductees.


Summary of Advantages Enjoyed by Cult Organisations

To summarise, a cult – defined as an identifiable, organised group of people holding to an independent belief system which primarily originates or is primarily interpreted from within the group, and which has a hierarchical organisational structure based on that belief system – is to a large extent immune from outside criticism, either of its belief system or of the methods used to recruit followers, because:

1. Legal criticism is ineffectual, firstly because freedom of belief laws largely protect cults from outside investigation or regulation, and secondly because of the subjective, non-provable nature of personal belief itself.

2. Moral criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system can set its own self-justifying moral codes.

3. Philosophical or theological criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system follows its own internal logic, which is impenetrable to an outsider.

4. Empirical or scientific criticism is ineffectual, because the tenets of a cult belief system are non-falsifiable.

5. Criticism by ex-members is ineffectual, because apostates tend to lack credibility for a variety of reasons.

Immunity from outside criticism and regulation does not, in itself, necessarily mean that a group will develop and use what might be considered, by the standards of the mainstream, deceptive or devious psychological techniques to gain or control adherents. It only means that they can, and that there is little come-back if they do. Religious freedom and freedom of belief laws tend to protect the rights of religious and quasi-religious organisations, much more than they protect the rights of individuals who may become involved with those organisations and their belief systems.

It can be quite easy to feel defeated by the difficulty of this task, but I was reminded of the following verses in Matthew 17:14-21

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

17“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.“[a]

Also, in the account of Mark 9:26-30, one verse stands out:

29He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer”

So everyone, please pray that the Truth may prevail in all of this. Gracepoint members and staff, you can pray this also. Isn’t that what you want also? Truth?

In the end, if the Truth is against me, I will concede that I am wrong.

I hope everyone at Gracepoint can say the same thing.

God bless.