So you think we are a Cult?
It has been said in some local circles that the Orthodox Church is a “cult,” and
is therefore outside of the parameters of what is constituted as being truly
Christian. This belief is so absurd as to warrant no response, yet I cannot
resist the temptation to point out, not only the absurdity of this claim, but
also how the accusation can be turned on the accuser.
When one presses people to define the word “cult” they often find it difficult
to give an adequate definition. Some might claim that a cult denies the classic
definition of the Person of Christ, or of the Trinity. This definition, however,
cannot apply to the Orthodox Church since we hold to, indeed authored, the
Nicene Creed, which is the definitive Christian statement about the Holy Trinity
and the Person of Jesus Christ. Others might say that “cult” means that we don’t
hold to the principles of the Bible, but this too, is inaccurate, since the
principles and language of the Scriptures are woven through every aspect of our
lives.
So what is the definition of “cult?” Walter Martin, a 20th century Protestant
Scholar noted for his identification and theological attack against so-called
“cults,” defined a cult as “any religious
group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or
practice, from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative
expression of religion in our total culture.” Martin adds the following to his
definition: “a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a
specific person or person’s interpretation of the Bible.” [The Kingdom of the
Cults: An Analysis of the Major Cult Systems in the Present Christian Era,
(Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers, 1965)].
If these definitions are accurate, then the Orthodox Church can be considered a
cult if 1). its beliefs differ in substance from the religious groups which are
considered normative in a particular culture, and/or 2). if it adheres to a
particular individual’s peculiar interpretation of the Bible.
Do our beliefs differ considerably from the religious groups which are
considered normative?
To answer that question one has to determine what is “normative?” In Texas,
“normative” would probably refer to the Southern Baptists, since they are one of
the dominant Christian groups in Texas. However, the Roman Catholics are
probably just as abundant, so how does one define “normative?” Orthodox
Christians DO maintain a number of different doctrines than southern Baptists,
and if the Baptists are the normative expression of Christianity, then we might
fit the definition of a cult as proposed by Walter Martin. However, if the Roman
Catholics are the norm for Christianity in Texas, then the “cult” definition
doesn’t hold up since we are not noticeably different from Roman Catholics.
There is another point to consider. What is normative in Texas is not normative
in the Midwest and the Northeast. In those areas, the Orthodox and Catholics may
very well dominate the Christian religious scene. Baptists are far less in
relative number. Since they differ doctrinally with the majority, does that then
render THEM members of a cult? In addition, in other parts of the world, i.e.
Eastern Europe, the eastern Mediterranean nations as well as parts of North
Africa, the Orthodox Church stands as perhaps the largest Christian body.
Indeed, the Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian body in the world,
numbering around 300 million members. In many of these countries, non-Orthodox
Christian bodies are very small in numbers. What does Martin’s definition tell
us, then, as to who should be labeled as a cult?
The second part of Martin’s definition is more telling. In it, a cult is
determined by being a group which bases it’s identity upon the Biblical
interpretation of a specific individual. If this definition of a cult is
accurate, then any religious group whose identity is associated with the
Biblical interpretation of a specific person could be labeled “cult.” This could
mean that Lutherans are a “cult” because their denomination is called after
Martin Luther, or that Presbyterians are such because they follow the Biblical
Interpretation of John Calvin. The same could be said about the Mennonites, who were
founded by a fellow named Menno Simons, or about the Methodists, whose
foundation rests upon the spiritual instruction of John and Charles Wesley.
What about the Orthodox? Our doctrines do not rest upon the Biblical
interpretation of an individual. On the contrary, our beliefs are based upon the
Apostolic Faith handed down from the Apostles [of which the New Testament is a
part], and confirmed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the ancient and
undivided Christian Church. It was these councils which determined which books
were to be recognized as being part of the New Testament [it is somewhat ironic
that groups which label us as “cult” use the New Testament which we
canonized!!]. In the end, our beliefs are founded upon the consensus of
thousands, beginning with the Apostles and extending down to the present age. No
one person, except Jesus Christ, can claim to be the founder of Holy Orthodoxy.
What I have shown is that the label of “cult,” as defined by Walter Martin,
cannot possibly be applied to the Orthodox Church; our theology and history
prove otherwise. We are not a small group running contrary to the theology of
the majority, since in terms of numbers, we are far larger than any of the
groups which label us. In addition, our faith in Jesus Christ is based upon the
witness of many, not one.
Clearly, the “cult” accusation doesn’t stand up to examination. This means that
if the reader is one who believed the accusation, but now suspects that it is
not true, then he or she should begin to find out more about this legitimate but
unknown [at least in Texas] expression of Christianity. After all, this
operation has been around for 2000 years, claims to have participated in the
canonization of the New Testament, and has been substantiated as legitimate by
many thousands of faithful Christians and Saints. If it’s not a cult, it may
very well be the Truth.