Just for the sake of argument, let's assume the 2-3 things you've stated are true. (since I am not personally unable to prove otherwise at this given time, as I've said several times before).
You assume that someone who "can" operate absolutely "does." Believe it or not, there are Christians in leadership with a sense of Biblical morals that they actually uphold. Your analysis of controversial organizations seems to have a major flaw in that it doesn't examine the motivations of those in leadership - or if it does, you haven't brought it up in this discussion. An organization can meet all the "technicals" of being a cult, but have no intention of being harmful to people or taking advantage of them. My church, for example, meets your criteria, but we require nothing of our members (except a reasonable respect for the place), and we give food to needy families every month for free. Does it actually sound fair to you to call organizations like that a cult based on technical criteria that have basically come out of your own organization?
If you're so certain that IHOP is a cult, why don't you actually do some hands on investigation yourself instead of expecting others do it? I believe that is the purpose of your organization, after all. I am distanced from IHOP, and I lack the opportunity to go there to acquire info. I am not all-knowing.
Quote
rrmoderator
Over and over again religious groups, churches and ministries that are run like kingdoms get into trouble.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"--seems to be the operating principle.
Consider for a moment that you mostly only hear about the ones that get into trouble in the first place. If you run an organization that is specifically purposed to investigate potential cults, your experiences in situations like these become severely limited. There are thousands of independant non-denominational churches that have unelected leaders and are not financially transparent (at least on the scale you hope for) that never get into trouble. What of them? For this reason, you've comitted a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent" (as well as just making generalizations). As an example, tell me something Bickle has done that has been harmful or disadvantageous to someone.
Since I'm fuzzy on what else your criteria are, I can't examine the logic, but I suspect appeals of antiquity and novelty are at play as well. (Sorry, but I've been waiting the whole length of this discussion to bring up the logic of it all.)
Please understand I mean no disrespect, but I still reserve my right to question your methods.
As for children - If you have serious concerns still (and please be more specific this time), you might want to bring them up, because my church is sending some of our youth to IHOP very soon for a three week "intensive." Your information before was fairly vague and undetailed.