The new print issue of History Today has a set of articles about the tight connection between America and cults. [The articles aren’t online yet.] They do a good job on recent cults like Scientology and Jonestown, but they miss the essential difference between a cult and a religious movement.
The difference is simple. A cult is centered on the living person of its leader. This often leads to crime and sexual excess, but those aren’t inevitable or necessary. A religious movement is centered on the relationship of its members to God.
All organizations, religious or business or governmental, start with a leader. A random collection of interested people might be able to meet for a while, but they won’t get anywhere without a single leader. The difference comes later.
Non-cult leaders lead by serving. They build a structure and mobilize members to produce a quality product or accomplish a mission. After the action gets underway the leader pulls back and lets the structure and mission run things. This is easier on the leader and much better for the members.
A cult leader is careful to avoid a structure that might sustain itself after he gets old or assassinated. Nobody wants to lose the whole cult by killing or replacing him. Any manager who starts to establish a structure or grow a following is fired. Constant change and disruption are the key to maintaining PERSONAL control. Does this sound familiar right now?
= = = = =
History Today treats the 1620 pilgrims and later separatist groups (Lutherans, Mennonites, Anabaptists, etc) as cults, concluding that America was founded by cults. Those groups were anticults by origin and definition. They began by REBELLING AGAINST the cultish nature of the Roman and Anglican churches, tied to the living person of the Pope or King. The nation they founded specifically prohibited an established religion or an established aristocracy.
(Needless to say, Machiavelli’s technical manual prescribes both types of leadership in precise detail.)
Polistra's Mill 