Praise chapel...a cult?
Date: November 17, 2006 02:02AM
Frank, I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph, but still it doesn’t convince me completely with regard to some of the spin and attitudes as shown here, and these are from others in at least two different PC churches, and definitely not in the one I was at. Then why the similarities? Perhaps then as you say, the closer to the mother church then the more similarities would be evident. Is it possible then, for the sake of example, if there happened to be a Praise Chapel in Vermont, being far removed from the mother church, could it be totally different and have none of the elements that define a cult? Perhaps. But then neither are any safeguards present to prevent it from becoming a cult-church either.
Without proper education, and knowledge with regard to methods employed by cults and cult leaders, people very easily walk into these traps and are caught unaware.
Places that happen to be running cults are not going to come out and say, “oh yeah, we’re a cult alright. Come on join our cult, we’re pretty cool.” No, of course efforts are going to be made to conceal that fact. And members involved in cults are not going to be aware of that fact either. I think one needs to look below the surface and pay particular attention to certain behavior patters that would evidence this.
When I describe some of the instances that took place at the Praise Chapel I was at, there seems to be no dispute such events are consistent with that of a cult. Are all PC churches this extreme? No, I don’t think so. Members at other PC churches appear to distance themselves and their particular church from this one, and indicate theirs is different, or “one bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bunch..” but much of the same attitudes and remarks remain consistent with what I experienced. And I wonder why is that?
This leads me to believe that PC in general seems to maintain a pressure and control not so much lording over the pastors as did Potters House Wayman O. Mitchell, but more so lording over the flock. However between the other churches, they appear to be more subtle about how they go about things. I would say one key thing to look for is called coercive persuasion, and it can be very subtle, and very low key.
Dr. Margaret Singer wrote:
[i:2262f7e727]Coercive psychological systems are behavioral change programs which use psychological force in a coercive way to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or designated set of beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. The essential strategy used by the operators of these programs is to systematically select, sequence and coordinate many different types of coercive influence, anxiety and stress-producing tactics over continuous periods of time.[/i:2262f7e727]
[i:2262f7e727]In such a program the subject is forced to adapt in a series of tiny "invisible" steps. Each tiny step is designed to be sufficiently small so the subjects will not notice the changes in themselves or identify the coercive nature of the processes being used. The subjects of these tactics do not become aware of the hidden organizational purpose of the coercive psychological program until much later, if ever. These tactics are usually applied in a group setting by well intentioned but deceived "friends and allies" of the victim. This keeps the victim from putting up the ego defenses we normally maintain in known adversarial situations.
The coercive psychological influence of these programs aim to overcome the individual's critical thinking abilities and free will - apart from any appeal to informed judgment. Victims gradually lose their ability to make independent decisions and exercise informed consent. Their critical thinking, defenses, cognitive processes, values, ideas, attitudes, conduct and ability to reason are undermined by a technological process rather than by meaningful free choice, rationality, or the inherent merit or value of the ideas or propositions being presented.[/i:2262f7e727]
Dr. Singer also wrote:
[i:2262f7e727]The current effort by cult apologists to deny thought reform exists is linked to earlier protective stances toward cults in which apologists attempted to deny the cults' active and deceptive recruitment practices, deny the massive social, psychological, financial, spiritual and other controls wielded by cult leaders and thus dismiss their often destructive consequences.
These earlier efforts to shield cults from criticism rest on a seeker theory of how people get into cults, which overlooks the active and deceptive tactics that most cults use to recruit and retain members. When bad things happened to followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh, the twisted logic of some apologists implied that these "seekers" found what they wanted, thus absolving the cult leader and his conduct.[/i:2262f7e727]
© 1994 M.T. Singer {The Cult Observer, Vol.11, No.6 (1994): 3-4.}
There does seem to be a few things in common I have experienced. The lack of proper safeguards, and these particular themes taken directly from the CFM Potters House:
Does this sound anything like Praise Chapel?
[b:2262f7e727]Bible schools, Church planting and discipleship[/b:2262f7e727]
The Fellowship rejects Bible schools as a vehicle for church planting. The following are a few reasons given for this:
1. Bible schools are claimed not to be biblical, and are viewed as a medieval institution left over from Catholicism, and are used in imitation of the world.
2. The church posits that Bible schools are unable to do the job of world evangelism. The world population is growing at a rate of seventy million people a year. That means that every day 194,444 people are added to the population, over and above those who die. The cost of training workers by traditional methods is prohibitive. Even if finances were available, the Bible school method is slow and inefficient that the church is not even able to keep pace with the rising population, let alone reach the world.
3. The Bible school isolates the man of God from practical experience, which is meant to come through the church. For most students, the school begins to take the place of church commitment and worship. This leads to bad habits of discipline and isolates them from the very people they are preparing to minister to.
4. All attempts to mass produce disciplines will ultimately fail. Men of God must be hand crafted.
5. The requirements of Bible schools eliminate many who God would use. The requirements of money, previous education, and age would have stopped Jesus and the twelve disciples.
6. The Bible school system puts the church on a standard of "mind" not "heart" rewarding wrong motives, and creating an elitist mentality of really having paid too high a price to reach the poor.
7. Bible Schools tend to put those who can't pastor into the role of pastor trainers.
8. The system builds into the church a clergy-laity mentality that denies the priesthood of the believer, and develops a mentality that some people need to be really committed, and others just need to be saved.
9. Bible schools rob the church of dignity it was meant to have in the preparing of workers and reaching a lost world.
10. They violate the indigenous principle.
11. Practical experience while pastoring, tied to regular Bible conferences is a more effective use of God's money.
12. Bible schools while not evil in themselves are not God's best method.
The above was taken from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia in re: Potters House Christian Fellowship. Similarities?