|
America’s Alternative Religions
America’s
Alternative Religions is edited by Timothy Miller,
associate professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas. A brief,
separate chapter covers the history, major branches, beliefs, practices, and
future prospects of each of the 42 “alternative” religions, ranging from
Adventism, including Branch Davidianism, to Zen Buddhism, including Soka Gakkai.
Most chapters were written by scholars associated with university departments of
religious studies or sociology. And, in the concluding chapter, longtime cult
apologists Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley consider “The Evolution of Modern
American Anticult Ideology: A Case Study in Frame Extension.”
I asked a
Unitarian minister, writer, and editor, who, like most church-men, knows much
more about theology than cults, to evaluate this book as if he were skimming it
for possible purchase. “Interesting, informative, and scholarly” was his first
impression. And, he asked, “What does the editor mean by ‘alternative’?” In his
introduction, Miller, rejecting the terms cult and sect as
pejorative, defines alternative as nonmainstream and as “not inherently
inferior to” its mainstream counterparts. Miller then proposes seven
categories: Established Christian Alternatives (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers,
Mormons, and Unitarians, among others); Contemporary Christian and Jewish
Movements (e.g., Children of God, Boston Church of Christ, Branch Davidians);
Religions from Asia (Hare Krishna and Unification Church); Religions from the
Middle East (Baha’i, Islam); African-American Freedom Movements (Father Divine,
Peoples Temple); Ancient Wisdom and New Age Movements (Theosophy, Spiritualism,
Eckankar); and Many More (American Indian Religion, Scientology, and Satanism).
The inclusion of
the Established Christian Alternatives section serves, in my opinion, to provide
a false respectability to the destructive groups that follow. (I must admit my
own biases here as a longtime supporter of Unitarian-Universalism and Quakerism,
as well as the father of a former Unification Church member.) What especially
infuriates me (as a cult critic), and what my minister friend did not catch in a
quick sampling, is that contrary to Miller’s claims of objectivity, the book is
subtly biased. Consider Miller’s own words:
Finally, it [this volume] seeks to convey objective sketches of
the religions covered, free from the taint of either adulation or vituperation.
A great deal of the available literature on alternative religions—in this case
they are usually called “cults”—comes from those determined to eradicate them,
often in the name of another religion held to be the One True Faith. This
volume, written by scholars with detailed knowledge of the groups they discuss,
seeks a balance that much anticult literature lacks.
Alas, such balance is not always evident. In his introduction
Miller resurrects some old charges against the “Anti-Cult Movement” (which in
his view is composed predominantly of born-again Protestant evangelicals):
overestimating the size and menace of cults, scaring the public by false claims
of brainwashing, and so on. True, some chapters are indeed objective, balanced,
informative, and fair. For instance, the chapters on Quakerism,
Unitarianism-Universalism, Spiritualism and Channeling, Scientology, and
Eckankar are concise and factual. In contrast, treatments of the Unification
Church and Hare Krishna are slanted. (Terms associated with these latter
alternative religions were rated by various panels of experts in our research.
See, especially, Dole, Langone, & Dubrow-Eichel, 1990.
) In her report on the Unification Church, Eileen Barker, who cites few sources
after 1988 and ignores critical research (e.g., Horowitz, 1979),
minimizes published evidence of mind control, brainwashing, Moon’s federal
conviction, and intensive proselytizing. In his chapter on Hare Krishna, E.
Burke Rochford, Jr. writes: “social science evidence provides little or no
support for brainwashing explanations of conversion to new religions,” and
“Anticult propaganda, widely disseminated by the media, helped reshape the
public’s definition of Hare Krishna from a peculiar, but essentially harmless
movement. ISKCON came to be identified as threatening and dangerous.” Although
later Rochford mentions guru controversies, defections, allegations of drug
use, weapons violations, sexual misconduct, and murder, he does not attribute
ISKCON’s declining position to such well-known scandals.
Shupe and
Bromley’s concluding chapter so distorts the “Anti-Cult Movement” as to come
very close to humor. Their framework theory floats in a soup of jargon,
unsupported by any data. They conclude, “The ACM (Anti-Cult Movement) is,
despite all its claims to being scientific and its denials of antireligious
bias, a religiously oriented group operating in a dynamic religious economy.”
This statement is, of course, largely nonsense. Although it is true that a new
professional leadership of ACM [sic] has emerged, Rehling, Kisser, Langone,
Rudin, and Rosedale are hardly zealots. And Shupe and Bromley scarcely mention
ACM [sic] followers—distraught and angry parents and disillusioned former cult
members.
If Timothy
Miller is sincere in his aspirations for fairness and objectivity, I suggest
that in a second edition (if there is one), for balance he include among
contributors some sociologists (e.g., Horowitz, Ofshe) and religious studies
specialists (e.g., Enroth, LeBar, Raschke) who have published critical analyses
of certain alternative religions. A second recommendation: in describing the
qualifications of each contributor, indicate his or her connection to the
alternative religion under discussion. Miller and contributors should cite
evidence that they have read the recent publications of major cult
critics. I am sure that AFF research specialists would be glad to share current
data on cult membership and on ACM [sic] characteristics. Finally, I agree with
the evaluation of my minister friend, but with the caution that in spots
America’s Alternative Religions is biased.
|
