First I am going to look at the term "cult" on its own, so as to have it defined. Then I am going to look at how those who for some reason of their own spend large amounts of time and energy in calling other groups "cults" define their own terms and I will apply all the above to the family in question. Finally, there is a short analysis of what a cult is according to the Bible. Please note that this is a huge issue with lots of implications and what follows are but the basis of lots of potential further study.

***

The cult in the secular sense

"What is a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority."

– Robert Altman

Here is the definition of the word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate
1 : formal religious veneration
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

What is a cult then? The primary term of the word means a heretic religious group, and the extended and general term means a small group of people who focus and gather around an idea or a person, "not enough to make a minority".

It is obvious that such a definition of the word makes the meaning quite loose and easily applicable to a huge variety of situations. But let's focus on religious cults. The reason I will focus there is because religious issues, when places among political or social, tend to win the battle for attention, emotional burden and controversy. Why religion does that is another story, but the implications of this easily-observable fact can "turn the tables" in many occasions.

Another problem that religious issues present is the lack of universally acceptable truth. It is ironic, or perhaps expected, that in an area of human life that is devoted to the search for truth, there has not been so far a common measure or cornerstone that is made clear beyond the shadow of doubt, such as the law of gravity in physics. Because of the lack of "science" in religion, there comes in the concept of FAITH or BELIEF.

Now faith/belief is absolutely personal and it implies loyalty and fidelity -- if we may exclude the occasions of (real) brainwashing where the right of free choice is being limited. I mention choice because choice is what Faith stands on, particularly when it comes to the supernatural. Faith takes "pieces" from the supernatural and fits them in the natural and visa versa, but to overcome the obvious obstacles such as "common sense" (which defines what natural is), or to simply unlearn, consent is usually needed.

Having said all that, when it comes to (religious) cults, we have a group of people who are collectively different. They, according to the definition of the word, have embraced a heretic or false doctrine which to the eye of the outsider seems absurd but to the eye of the insider, natural. This simple pattern is focused solely on one's perception of truth and the "natural" and this simple crux is what has the word "cultist" written on people's foreheads.

Let me take Christianity as an example. At the time right after Jesus' resurrection, obviously, there was no such thing as "Christianity". Where He lived, people believed in what our Old Testament holds true and lived accordingly. So there comes a small crowd that worship someone who was crucified a couple of months earlier and these people say that this man actually rose from the dead, is the son of God and everyone must bow to the ground and worship him if they don't want to go to hell. I can only imagine how crazy that sounded to some of the people of that time. It was definitely different, definitely clashed with "normal" and "natural" and definitely fitted the definition of cult. Even then they didn't like cults: instead of kidnapping them to deprogram them, they stoned them at the gates of the city.

Not so, however, a few centuries later when believing in Christ became popular and, as expected, Christians weren't a handful of zealots ready to die for their faith but the majority of the population that anything NOT Christian was then a cult. The Catholics of the Middle Ages had the "convert or die" mentallity. About the same story repeated itself when Martin Luther started his own church, a cult then, to which now half of Europe adheres. The "cult"-concept then seems to be much broader than merely a group that embraces a heretic doctrine. It seems to have no less and no more than these two characteristics:

1.       Not enough people to make a minority, who are

2.       embracing and/or forming around an opinion contrary to popular belief/faith/practice

In that sense, a cult is defined according to the "main group" or society from which it splits. This way, the definition becomes even more fluid when the main group is the whole of secular society and obviously, today, there are hundreds of such groups which can be called cults.

Most of us have learned that cults or sects are in general bad news. At this point, I agree with Rick Ross with the distinction he makes of cults separating them to dangerous and non-dangerous (benign) cults. Now, I don't know and cannot tell what characteristics make a cult dangerous. I know, however, that in psychology, a "problematic" attitude is one that causes obvious and/or considerable dysfunctions in a person's life, so I will go by that simple term. Rick Ross makes a much more elaborate and pretty much failed distinction (see here).

A cult may be dangerous to the society or to its followers or both or neither.

The "Cult" Drama

I'm going to take you into a tour in the mind of the kind of person who has devoted his life or a big part of it to attacking a (usually) SPECIFIC group in their own terms which TRY to be objective or wear a mask of objectivity. The terms of the "Cult-Hunters" are different than the objective terms of the dictionary, and to make the distinction between real and fictional, I will be putting them between apostrophes with the first letter capitalised. You will find that the "Cult-Hunters" are also a fictional entity as they definitely nothing like the real and serious cult-hunters out there who are after real and really dangerous cults. What separates the real cult-hunters from the fictional ones is their motivation: the real cult-hunters REALLY care about people being manipulated and their lives being destroyed whilst the fictional kind only REALLY care about their own personal agenda.

Here are the actors of the "Cult" Drama, the "parallel reality" as seen from the "Cult-Hunters'" eyes and the fantasy on which they place their bets:

·                     The star of the show: the "Cult". These are the folks who the "Cult-Hunters" disagree with and they can be anything, any group of people, up to those that run the local grocery shop. That's all the "Cult" is: what the "Cult-Hunters" oppose. And no matter what they believe in the "Cult", they are ALWAYS "Dangerous". It's almost always a specific "Cult" per "Cult-Hunter" group.

·                     The good guys: the "Cult-Hunters". They have "Seen Through" it all and they want to help people out, so they say. They don't have to tell you why they want to do that, but for you, it's enough to know that they were once "Victims" and "Manipulated" so you need to pity them for their tragic story (how the "Cult" cost them their life and such) and pat their backs in compassion. You're supposed to look at them like the wounded hero of a video game or Braveheart or something similar, and think "oh, the poor good guy that wants righteousness to prevail".

·                     The "Rules" are the established code of morality, right, wrong and life in general which the "Cult" goes by. It's their primary creed and what makes them collectively different. There is usually a basis in written form, but there are very many unwritten Rules also.

·                     "Cult Members" are split into two categories:
a) The "Predators" are the ones with high "Level of Involvement". These are likely to have started the "Cult" and still are members or they are not-original members that have been there for so long and have abided by the "Rules" and have gained the trust of the "Leader". To the onlooker, these guys are hardly ever corrected but under the license of the "Leader" do a lot of correcting to the "Victims". A sub-category of this is the "Cult Leader" (or "Leaders"). The "Leader" is the chief of the "bad-guys" in this scenario. He probably created the "Cult" and established its set of "Rules" and he is the worst of them all, the most notorious, manipulative, evil, dangerous, schizo, you name it. However, not all the "Predators" are "Leaders" but all the "Leaders" are "Predators" to the "Cult-Hunters".
b) The "Victims". They are the ones that need to be rescued by the "Cult-Hunters", the prisoners of the "Cult". Practically, they are all the new people that aren't very mature in their following of the "Rules" and they might be fumbling around, wanting or not wanting to go further. This is who the "Cult-Hunters" are mainly talking to when they write their articles and the long analyses of the outcomes of their researches. They hardly ever try to "help" the "Predators".

·                     The "Level of Involvement" is directly defined by two factors which must both be present:
a) the personal relationships with the "Leader(s)", primarily observed by the nature of the personal relationship (for example, husband-wife, close friends for long period of time etc) and its quality (the levels of trust and devotion among them) and
b) the amount of correction that the person receives, which, to the "Cult-Hunters'" eyes is none at all for the "Predators" and too much for the "Victims". Correction in its turn is known in this fictional world as "Manipulation" or, if it succeeds, "Brainwashing".

Check ANY "Cult-Hunting" group/website/individual and you will find this setting. You will see through them when you realize it's only their private agenda that matters to them. What was described above is the ACTUAL way these people define the word "cult". And there are LOTS of implications here, and if you haven't seen it yet, let me translate this to what happens in the real world:

"Cult" = Christian Assembly

"Cult-Hunters" = Persecution, orchestrated and inspired by the Devil

"Rules" = The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) and additional unwritten or written code suggested usually by the Leader and accepted by the members (like, for instance, greeting each other with a kiss in the first Christian Church)

"Cult Members" = Christians

"Predators" = Elders, Teachers

"Leader" = Chief pastor, Patriarch

"Victims" = Catechumens, new people

"Successful Manipulation" = Adhering to the rules and thereby seeing one's sin and submitting to authority

"Failed Manipulation" = Rebellion

"Successful Brainwashing" = Repentance and overcoming

"Failed Brainwashing" = Failing to resist known temptation

This sounds to me awfully like something the Devil would do: Take a pattern defined by God, turn it into a good cop/bad cop scenario and make sin, rebellion and persecution the good guys. Here's what the voice of the serpent is telling to the contemporary Eve's: "Boy, aren't some of their teachings wacky!! I mean, 'hate your life in this world if you don't want to be ETERNALLY PUNISHED'? 'Carry your own cross'? 'NEVER lie'? 'No sex before marriage'? 'Renounce family to follow this'? 'Accept advice you don't like if you want to be wise?' Accept ANYTHING you don't like??? And resist the things that you DO like?? HUH?!?!?! Who would teach such propaganda!! They are deceiving you Eve!!! Open your eyes to their manipulation!!"

Sounds familiar?

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

-Genesis 3:1-7 (KJV)

Is NCCG/MLT a Cult?

What does the opposition say REALLY? The "Cult-Hunters" who are after NCCG use the following tactics (their repertoire isn't particularly rich), all of which hang on the plot of the "Cult Drama":

1. What at first glance looks liked "wacky" quotes of the "Rules" and what the  taken out of context.

2. Evidence of emotional involvement between the people of NCCG's that are considered "Predators" and those who are considered "Victims". That one is classified as highly dangerous by the cult-hunters because it includes the following:

a) The "predators" and the "victims" are going to form relationships, friendly or otherwise, which will involve trust and loyalty on both parts.

b) The "predators" will point out to the "victims" things which are "wrong" according to the "Rules" ("cult's" written and unwritten law).

c) The "predators" will reward the "victims" for the things that comply with the "rules"

3. The "Rules" are all wrong to start with.

Now let's examine the reality of these things.

1. Satan is really good at taking quotes out of context if you will look at Matthew 4. That was his attitude towards Jesus Himself, and knowing Who He was, the Adversary must have tried really hard. You know what? "Wacky quotes" don't say ANYTHING. You don't know the context in which they were given, and more importantly, you don't know the exact circumstances or the individual understanding of the persons who exchanged them or wrote them. Even if you were one of the persons, there is a very good chance that you don't remember your OWN understanding of things at that given moment. Was John the Apostle a lunatic then when he wrote "His head and his hairs were white like wool … and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters … and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword" (Rev. 1:14-16)? To the skeptic, to the infidel, to the one who really has nothing to do with this God and His Son, this sounds like words of a madman and I'm sure Satan would use that quote to back up his scenario of the Bible being a stupid book full of "wacky stuff".

2. For some reason which is much better examined in the profiles of these "Cult-Hunters", the latter seem to categorise ANY inter-personal relationship where bonds of love/friendship/TRUST are created as highly dangerous in any given occasion. To them, it's alright to unite for a cause, that is to bash someone else, but EACH MUST BE TO ONE'S OWN the whole time and no real trust or friendship is allowed. That's basically the plague of today's society taken at a higher level (because your "average" person with fear of relationships will usually seek to have relationships anyway, but these guys make the supposed "danger" of that perspective their flag and motto thus anointing the blind as leaders of the ones that see or have poor sight).

Due to their very nature, these relationships have implications which ring all sorts of alarms in the "Cult-Hunters'" heads who are going to call them "Mystical Manipulation", "Brainwashing" and all in between. The first one of these is correction. An example:

-I see a behaviour of yours that is going to hurt you and those around you

-You don't see that

-I explain that to you and we might argue also (and I actually might be wrong, but let's suppose I'm not)

-There are two ways you can go thereafter: (a) Be stirred up and realise that it is indeed wrong and see that you are indeed hurting others, including myself, so you apologise and change your behaviour or (b) be stirred up AGAINST ME and think I am a horrible manipulative monster who doesn't want to "accept you as you are".

The "Cult-Hunters" are going to step on that one and try to direct your response to the second possibility, something which is actually unfair to the person who had the courage and cared enough to correct you. Do you correct your friends? Do you know if it's easy to tell someone if they have a bad breath? Well, it's pretty darned hard, but you don't tell them to make fun of them or boast about your how your own breath smells, but because it's something that they can fix and be spared embarrassment in the future. What about their entire outlook on life and those around them?

The "Cult-Hunters" create a fictional state of the reward you get when you do what's right, and that "Reward" is supposedly the bone the "Predators" usually throw to their "Victims" in order to keep them under control. Well, there ARE some people who feed on rewards and only that, regardless if they do right or wrong, and these ARE likely to be controlled by just about anyone. But that's their own choice, they choose the victim position. Do people make you their little puppy dogs by flattering you? That's actually what the "Cult-Hunters" pre-assume about all the "Cult members".

3. The "Rules" in this case are Scriptural Christianity, that being strict adherence to what the Bible says, and what the Leader of each group deems necessary to be observed, As common sense implies, you either want to believe that book or not, and you either want to do as that person tells you or not, the choice is 100% yours (unless you're one of the puppy-people I mentioned before and you don't really care what you believe as long as you are a member of a group in order to get thrown some bones – but that's a choice too).

Finally, as for NCCG/MLT... you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion? NCCG/MLT is cult in the secular sense because they are Scriptural Christians, that's all. They differ very much from the stuff your secular Christian believes and they definitely are too few to be called a minority. However, they are not dangerous to anyone (I would say they are rather beneficial), and they are definitely not the fictional "Cult" that their "Cult-Hunters" so passionately wish you believe they are. It's plain to see -- if you will but look -- that ANY situation, good or bad, can be turned into LOOKING bad or good depending on the lenses through which you look at it. The Truth of how things really are remains the Truth, and the truth has the ability to defend itself. Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16), and I don't see any bad fruits. Those that left and complain about supposed "bad fruits", if they were honest with themselves would see that it's their pride that got all hurt and now is kicking and screaming and sadly, they obey it.

The cult from the Biblical perspective

It is pretty clear from reading the Bible that only one religion is acceptable and there is only one God to worship and no other. This makes every group which digresses from what this Book teaches a "cult" and in this case, the definition is as simple as that (obviously this differs from the definition which was analysed above, but that is only to be expected when the centre of morality and "normal" is God and His Word and not secular ethics). This definition leaves very little room for doubt. To what I would call "Scriptural Christianity" (meaning the sort that goes strictly by the Bible and not by tradition and other biases), Catholicism is a cult because the Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, a dead human being. Orthodoxy is also a cult because the Orthodox worship the Virgin Mary along with angels and saints (such as the early Apostles and others, who are all dead now). They also pray for the dead and celebrate pagan holidays such as Christmas and Easter. To cut a long story short, declaring you are a Christian group and doing anything extra that the Bible doesn't command and much more NOT doing what it DOES command, in a regular basis as part of your group's life and history is the setting for a cult.

In James we read: "Brothers, if any among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know, that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). Apparently, Christians are supposed to help those who digress to return to the Biblical teaching. They are not to force, however, as God respects the freedom of choice (and so should we). When they choose the false doctrine, Christians are supposed to not associate with them anymore.

One of the reasons I mention this is the great difference between "Scriptural Christians", the society in general and the minority of obsessed "Cult-Hunters" as to how they view cults and what they do about them. For the sake of clarity, I have created the board below: