12. Were We Really In a Cult?
12.2 Are Offshoots and Splits Also Cults?
12.2.1 Responding to Alan Ruth's Assessment
MY REACTION TO ALAN RUTH'S ARTICLE ASTONISHED AND CONFUSED ME. A trusted friend had referred me to his site, and I was going to go there anyway, to update my references in this article. Years ago, when I wrote it, I referred to Mr. Ruth's Organizational List, and knew the URL had probably changed. I couldn't find the list, at first, then saw that it had been put at the end of a PDF document that was a paper dealing with the splits.
Before I discuss this article, I really must preface my comments with an overall statement about Mr. Ruth's Barnabas Ministries. Even in the earliest days, he was always a safe source of information, neutral, non-divisive, and uncondemning -- even in the worst of the early days, where on some sites you could almost visualize other writers frothing at the mouth, Barnabas Ministries has always avoided these excesses. His current site is much larger and more comprehensive, and in keeping with Mr. Ruth's consistently Christian approach, is a generally pleasant, harmless and useful site, devoted to continuing Bible study and inquiry along the lines of the core WCG doctrines. Mr. Ruth's approach is mild and restrained, and there is no whiff of the typical ex-WCG negativity. While Mr. Ruth himself experienced being ousted by WCG, and no doubt went through his own personal trials, this does not in any way colour his site, which is to his credit.
Yet, when I read his article, The Worldwide Church of God Splits: Their Triumphs and Troubles, which is meant to look at "where the splits are at" as of 1994-96, in terms of their good and bad points, at first, looking at his Table of Contents, I found it reminiscent of one of Christ's letters to the churches in Revelation, where the praise comes first, then the criticism, then suggestions for improvement.
But then, something just exploded inside my head. I fought it at first, since my whole purpose for that part of my links page was to find positive sites to reference, but there was something about the overall pleasantness and mildness about certain topics that just rankled me, and the more I thought about it, the angrier I got.
12.2.2 The Legacy of Spiritual Abuse Must Not be Trivialized
For instance, he continues to look at the "cult" label as one put on the WCG by outsiders, whose many books can be found in the bookstores -- many of which I read before joining Worldwide -- and debates the issue on that level. But he does see that there is some truth in the label, where he says,
"It is one thing to be labelled a cult for doctrine. It is another thing to act cultic. We sometimes give the impression that we are cultic or not Christian by our attitude and demeanour towards others. On a personal level, we in the splits may treat others (especially our brethren) coolly or distantly, lacking the true warmth of love and concern that is to be our hallmark as Christians."
He goes on to say that many people are strong in doctrinal knowledge, but "lack some very important relationship skills." He also goes on to say that this aloof, cool personality is found in ministers, leaders, and many who attended Ambassador College, where graduates were taught they were superior to the common member. He adds, "A certain arrogance, aloofness, and inability to be real and warm and personable was subtly promoted."
I was puzzled, at first, by my growing anger and rage at his tone, since, as I have mentioned, positivity is something I value, especially when dealing in these areas. Then I realized that it is the same mild tone taken by the "new" Worldwide Church of God, where they admit they were "cultic," or however they label it, again, probably because of doctrine, and then have this attitude of "let's move on."
What about the suicides? What about the broken marriages, many of them caused by the fact they were arranged by over-zealous ministers who practically commanded certain people to marry each other? What about the children of such ill-begotten unions? What about the previously happy families destroyed by the church? What about the people who died from lack of medical treatment, as taught by the church? What about the alcoholism encouraged by the church's actions, and commanded by the dictum that even alcoholics had to have wine at Passover? What about the damage that one command alone did to individuals and families? And what about the many people who have been so deeply spiritually wounded by the church, that atheism seems the only way out, and even then, they feel the need to form groups of ex-Worldwide atheists and agnostics, because no one else understands them? What about those young people who grew up thinking the world was going to end, or Ambassador College was the only place to go, so they did not prepare themselves for the careers that they would have found fulfilling?
In other words, what about the people who couldn't just "lick their wounds" in private, then pick themselves up, and happily "fellowship with many of the splits," as Mr. Ruth has been fortunate to be able to do? These mild descriptive terms, "aloofness" and "coolness" don't even begin to cut it. Even "arrogance" is only approaching the target. No, many of the leaders who were leaders in Worldwide actively participated in wholesale abuse of members that led to the marriage breakups, the mental illness, the suicides, and the continuing spiritual woundedness. How nice that they were able to move on, and found a new church! How lovely that they could keep their doctrines essentially unchanged, except for some fine "tweaking" on minor areas.
No, I don't buy it. You don't take a convicted pedophile and let him run your boy scout troupe or lead the children's choir. You don't even let a burglar or embezzler handle a cash register! Yet these people, who have left so many broken lives in their wake, are let off the hook by this little slap on the wrist. And the fact that they are still in positions of power is incredible. I know many of the leaders of newer groups may not have been part of the WCG ministry, but because most groups believe in recruiting only from the "ordained," I would suspect most of them were.
So these ministers -- "aloof and cool," are they? Much like their membership, who have lost the ability to trust, and need to keep their emotional distance. So are many people who have learned to disregard the effects of their actions on others -- particularly those who prefer not to repent, but to simply "move on." You know who moves on? Criminals. Rapists. Serial killers. People who know someone is catching on to them. Honest people don't move on. They've made their bed, and they lie in it until they are able to clean it up. And if they can't clean it up, they try to get help from others to do so.
So far as I know, Mr. Ruth was never an abuser in the church, but was himself abused. He may well have forgiven those who harmed him, but to then whitewash the whole problem is going, in my opinion, way too far. It is though he and Joe Tkach, Jr. are saying the same thing about the Old Worldwide: it was OK, but there are certain doctrinal differences. Joe says the old doctrines need throwing out, Mr. Ruth says they need to be retained, but the rottenness of the organization itself is overlooked. It is like two men rooting through a dumpster behind a restaurant: one sees an almost-intact Duck à l'Orange sitting on a slightly greasy paper bag, the other is picking mouldy bits of spaghetti and meatballs out of a pile of coffee grounds and offal. The duck is certainly the superior dish, and can be cleaned off more easily. But it's as though both forget they are still eating out of a garbage bin!
12.2.3 Need for Clarification on the Distinctive Signs of Cults
I, too, once again believe, as Alan Ruth does, many of the core beliefs from the Worldwide Church of God -- most of which, despite the lies we were told by Worldwide, came straight from the Church of God (Seventh Day). But, I guess, because I had twelve years of painful alienation from God, and didn't just step into fellowship with others in splits, and still get upset when people talk about the subject, and the simplest things can "trigger" a panic response, we look at things a little differently. Eating out of dumpsters can turn you off of the same perfectly good food when served to you in a clean environment, and that is sad, but there is nothing wrong with Duck à l'Orange (or good spaghetti), so that is a loss. But it's a perfectly healthy reaction to develop an aversion to eating out of dumpsters -- or even to feel a bit queasy when walking by one.
I find it ironic that people who, when they were in Worldwide, a church that taught that mainstream Christianity couldn't be accepted because it had "come out of" the religious Babylon of Catholicism, would themselves see nothing wrong with themselves becoming spinoffs of an abusive cult. But then, cults confuse and addict people, and like any other addiction, blindness and denial are universal. To slowly see and admit one's dependence on the particular drug of the group -- that is a slow, painful process.
I am thankful that I have been blessed, from the very beginning, by knowing people who have fought other cults. Because my husband was one of them, I was not able to squirm away from learning the mechanisms and their distinctive, subtle signs -- because he made me face the truth (just like he made me go to the doctor when I found a lump in my breast). Thanks to him, I can see cults more clearly than most, though I am still somewhat disadvantaged by my own emotional reactions.
Mr. Ruth probably doesn't get as alarmed by these distinctive signs, since he doesn't identify them with the abusiveness of real cults -- that is, those that cause emotional damage, not the "pet cults" of mainstream Christianity, who simply have different beliefs, which may range from the legitimate to the dotty, but are harmless enough -- or, at least no more abusive than generally-healthy churches and other groups and organizations. In my experience, it is rare to find a truly healthy group of any kind, so one must be specific in using one's terms.
So, even though there is more than enough material out there on "cults," I now feel I need to get into this area more clearly. I did summarize my beliefs on the cult situation earlier, but I can see by my email, and by Mr. Ruth's analysis, that too many people are letting the Mainstream define the term, to the detriment of the people most affected -- the cult victims. And they are victims, because they have been lied to, and led, by various means, slowly into a psychological trap. Escape is possible, but it leaves damage. Animals will gnaw through a limb to escape -- some of us have left just as much of ourselves behind, so I would say we've earned the right to choose which definition of "cult" serves us best. I'm still learning, but even so, I'd like to help others see at least as far as I can, and if anyone reading this sees farther, please email me, and let me know what I'm missing.
Just reading about the upheavals people have lived through in this situation caused me such pain, I wished desperately I could do something, anything to help. It may be a feeble effort, but the next section is my attempt.
