One of the first problems that impressed me in reading this critique is the "all-or-nothing"
fallacy. This is all the more remarkable in that the Passantinos discuss this fallacy in their book
Witch Hunt. Under the heading "It's Not Always Either/Or" they write, "Another problem Christians
often have in discerning between good and bad is the tendency to miss some of the options."[1] The
article under consideration in this response amply illustrates this point from the Passantinos' own
writing. Primarily, this is expressed by the authors' discussion of those who hold to the mind control
model as though every one of them holds the identical view, and specifically that they all believe
every cult member is completely under mind control, and totally and always unable to think for
him/herself. This assertion is untrue, and is essentially a "straw man" set up by the Passantinos as an
easy target. The following passage is illustrative:
In this approach sociological and psychological terminology has been substituted for Christian terminology. Cult
involvement is no longer described as religious conversion but as mind control induction. Cult membership is not
characterized as misplaced religious zeal but as programming. And the cultist who leaves his group is no longer
described as redeemed but as returned to a neutral religious position. And rather than evangelism of cult members, we
now have "intervention counseling."
Biblical apologetics have been replaced by cognitive dissonance techniques. A parent's plea has changed from
How can my adult child be saved? to How can my adult child revert to his/her precult personality? Biblical analysis
and evangelism of the cults has become overshadowed by allegedly "value neutral" social science descriptions and
therapy-oriented counseling.[2]
Since the Passantinos quote and reference Wellspring's director, Dr. Paul R. Martin, in a way that
includes him (and thus Wellspring) among those who allegedly hold the extreme view of mind
control, and who are the targets of the Passantinos' criticism, I will address my remarks as a
representative of Wellspring.
The Passantinos list eight "categories" which they say summarize "the principal assumptions of
the cult mind control model". The first of these is "[c]ults' ability to control the mind supersedes that
of the best military 'brainwashers.'" In a footnote the authors mention two factors offered by
proponents of the mind control theory to account for the cults' greater success. Not mentioned,
however, is one factor we believe is perhaps more significant than either of the two mentioned,
namely, that in military brainwashing the subjects were unwilling subjects and in fact antagonists of
the brainwashers (at least in the most well-known instances, Chinese Communist brainwashing of
Korean War POWs), whereas in cultic mind control the subjects are generally favorably disposed
toward the cult members and indeed toward the teachings with which they are being indoctrinated.
This factor must not be ignored.
The second category listed by the authors is "[c]ult recruits become unable to think or make
decisions for themselves." This is another example of what I might call "totalist" or "all-or-nothing"
expression. We at Wellspring reject the implied accusation that we accept this statement as it is
written. We are well aware that many cult members do retain the ability to think for themselves in
many areas of life, even perhaps in matters religious. We have always recognized that there are many
degrees of mind control depending on numerous factors. Among these factors are (1) the type and
severity of any pre-cult spiritual or psychological problems; (2) the degree of divergence of the cult's
teachings and practices from the cult member's prior religious affiliation; (3) the intensity of the
cultic indoctrination; (4) the degree to which the cult severs the cult member from his or her
previous connections (family, friends, activities, etc.); (5) the kind and degree of any corrective or
disciplinary measures exercised by the cult on members who step out of line. Other such factors
could be mentioned.
Having said this, I hasten to add that in the eight years of Wellspring's operation we have seen
enough ex-cult members who did have difficulty thinking for themselves and making decisions that
we know it to be a real and serious problem, and not one to dismiss as a "pre-cult problem." One
girl who came to Wellspring from a well-known "shepherding movement" would sit at the dinner
table and wait until she received permission to eat any item on her plate before she would do so. A
great many cult survivors we have seen have recognized this problem in themselves and have
requested help in decision-making.
The Passantinos list as the third category of mind control assumptions "[c]ult recruits assume
'cult' personalities and subsume their core personalities." Again, most ex-cult members who come to
Wellspring recognize this very thing about themselves while they were in their particular cult. They
tell us that while they were in the cult they became more aggressive or more passive, more self-
assured or more confused, more judgmental of others or more arrogant. They've told us they've lost
touch with their own feelings, become emotionally numb, while putting on a happy front when with
parents or non-cult friends. We have seen these things ourselves in ex-cultists, and we've seen the
dramatic changes when they've reverted to their normal, pre-cult selves.
But again, we would acknowledge degrees of this "personality replacement." Not every cult
member changes to the same degree, and in fact some already have a personality that meshes with
the cult, and so they will not change much, if at all.
Category four listed by the Passantinos is "[c]ultists cannot decide to leave their cults." I don't
know anyone who would make such a totalist statement. It is manifestly contradicted by the
hundreds or thousands of ex-cult members who have left their cults of their own volition. What we
would assert, however, is that many cult members find it difficult to leave their cult, even when they
may want to. This is often due to fear of the threatened consequences of leaving, e.g., forsaking God,
being condemned to hell, suffering divine wrath in the form of accidents or disease, etc. Even the
thought that "what if the cult leader really is a prophet of God or the messiah?" can hold a cult
member in a cult long after the bloom has faded.
As category five the authors state that those hold the mind control model believe that "[a]
successful intervention must break the mind control, find the core personality, and return the
individual to his/her precult status." As evangelical Christians, we at Wellspring would qualify this
assertion by saying that if the cult in question is a Bible-based cult on the order of the "shepherding"
movement or what I call a taco (a totalist aberrant Christian organization) which teaches orthodox
biblical doctrine while committing methodological and behavioral abuses, then clearly not everything
of the cult needs to be stripped away. Whatever was accurate, orthodox, and healthy in the group's
teaching (and even practice) can remain, while the inaccurate, aberrational, and unhealthy must be
excised. Probably no cult (except satanist cults) is all bad, therefore one of the most important, and
difficult, tasks of the counselor is helping the ex-member winnow out the bad from the good.
Category six is "[p]sychology and sociology are used to explain cult recruitment, membership,
and disaffection." Another totalist statement, this is worded so as to exclude other disciplines as
sources for explanations, specifically theology. While many, perhaps all, secular proponents of the
mind control model would reject the role of theology in seeking such explanations, we at Wellspring
do not, nor do other evangelical proponents of the mind control model with whom we are familiar.
Later in the article the authors quote from an official description of "Wellspring's Approach to Cult
Rehab":
Martin asserts that cult mind control renders its victims virtually unresponsible for their actions or
beliefs:
[T]he process whereby he or she was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful force over which he or she had little or no control and
therefore they need not feel either guilt or shame because of their experience.[3]
While the Wellspring statement might be slightly overstated, the Passantinos overstate it further in
their paraphrase. We would agree that those who join cults are "guilty" of not asking all the right
questions, of not examining cult claims thoroughly enough against the records of history and
Scripture, and of not adequately applying the rules of logic to cult teachings and explanations. In
other words, cult recruits are "guilty" of allowing themselves to be deceived. But is that a sin?
Should we rebuke the victim of a con artist for allowing himself to be victimized? Do we blame the
battered wife for continuing to love and protect her abuser?
Along this line, the Passantinos write:
Hassan recognizes that the cult mind control model (which he has adopted) is incompatible with the traditional
philosophical and Christian view of man as a responsible moral agent:
First of all, accepting that unethical mind control can affect anybody challenges the age-old philosophical notion (the one on which our current
laws are based) that man is a rational being, responsible for, and in control of, his every action. Such a world view does not allow for any concept of
mind control.[4]
I'm not so sure I agree with Hassan on this point. First of all, "our current laws" do recognize
"diminished capacity" in the commission of crime as exculpatory. Secondly, the biblical world view
also recognizes exculpation by reason of diminished capacity due to mental under-development (Dt.
1:39) or demon possession. So neither Western secular philosophy nor Christian doctrine views man
as always fully rational and responsible for his actions. In addition, the apostle Paul writes, "You
foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you...?" (Gal. 3:1, NASB) The word translated "bewitched",
baskaino, means "bewitch, as with the 'evil eye'" (BAG), "to bring evil on one by feigned praise or
an evil eye, to charm, bewitch one, ...; hence, of those who lead away others into error by wicked
arts..." (Thayer). It is doubtful that in the Galatians reference Paul is expressing belief that the
Christians have actually had the "evil eye" trained on them. However, in conjunction with the word
"foolish" (anoetos = "not thinking" or "mindless") it seems evident that Paul recognizes that they
have been victimized to the point where they are no longer thinking clearly or properly. In other
words, the Galatians are under a form of mind control!
But more à propos to a discussion of category 6 is the Passantinos' citing only the one sentence
they did from the Wellspring article, while ignoring the following:
When cult members leave their cults voluntarily it is often because they have recognized a few of the serious
problems that exist in the group, but have failed to acknowledge or come to grips with others of equal or greater
import. More importantly, they usually do not recognize the fundamentally invalid and harmful philosophy and
methodology that typically underlie the cult's teaching and practice and give it its reason for being. Thus such a
person may leave the cult feeling disgruntled or disillusioned about some aspects of the cult, and yet still hold to
other, and more basic, ideas and thought patterns of the cult that will continue to hamper them and prevent them from
enjoying a truly satisfying life. In addition, those who have been in a "Bible-based" cult are often so burned by their
unpleasant experience that they want nothing more to do with God, the church, or Christians of any type. Some of
these people still sense a need for a spiritual dimension in their life, but don't know how to overcome their lack of
trust in God or ministers, and may actually feel that they have failed, that somehow their own inadequacy prevented
them from being able to measure up to the high standards of the group. For such individuals rehabilitative counseling
of one form or another is imperative.
The plight of people like this was addressed during the International Congress on Totalitarian Groups and
Cultism held in Barcelona, Spain on April 23-24 this year. One of the speakers, "Hero Lucas, from Greece's
Egregorsis Educational Society, cited the dangers of a totally non-judgmental attitude towards the belief system of a
destructive cult and spoke of treating human beings as integrated biopsychosocial-spiritual systems requiring a
comprehensive approach and the combining of psychiatry with religion." In other words, to be most effective, cult
rehab counseling must deal with the ex-cultist as a whole individual, considering his or her biological, psychological,
social, and spiritual health and the interrelatedness of these facets of the person. With over seven years of experience,
we at Wellspring are likewise convinced that a wholistic approach works best in rehabilitating the victims of
destructive cults and spiritually abusive organizations. The contents of this counseling and education deal with the
dynamics of abusive groups, how these dynamics affect one's personality and emotions, and how these groups distort
and abuse the teachings of the Bible or other relevant sacred texts.
The core of Wellspring's program consists of psychological counseling and instructional sessions on cultic
dynamics and religious and spiritual issues. We emphasize, however, that we fully respect the client's wishes with
regard to any spiritual content in counseling or workshops. The majority of our clients thus far have been former
members of "Bible-based" groups and have wanted to discuss biblical doctrine with us, which we are happy to do.[5]
This should make it obvious that Wellspring clearly recognizes the importance of the spiritual
dimension in cult involvement and takes it seriously.
We accept categories 7 and 8 as written.
On page 33 of the Passantino article the authors complain about an alleged "contradictory
embrace and rejection of the brainwashing connection" to the mind control model. However, the
citations they offer in evidence of this contradiction do not support their contention. The Langone
quote is not a rejection of any connection of mind control with brainwashing, as I read it; it is only a
rejection of the misrepresentation of mind control model advocates as asserting that cult mind control
produces mindless robots à la The Manchurian Candidate. Langone is not saying there is no
connection, only that the extreme view is not representative of mind control model supporters. By the
same token, the Passantinos misread Dr. Singer, I believe, if they think she is "embracing" a
brainwashing connection to mind control. I believe she would agree that there are significant
differences between brainwashing and cultic mind control, while at the same time there are
similarities.
The quote from Bromley and Shupe on p. 33 of the article only highlights the misunderstanding
of those who reject the mind control model. Especially telling is Bromley and Shupe's reference to
"claims that such rapid transformation can routinely be accomplished by neophytes against an
individual's will." The fact is the transformation is not against an individual's will. The cult recruit is
first brought to the point where he or she gives up his or her own will in order to be taught and
directed by someone (the cult leader) who knows better than he or she. As Rich Seelhoff said in the
Moore Report program "Thy Will Be Done",[6] "I wanted to put myself over onto someone that knew
better than I did... I willed to not will."
On page 37 of the article the Passantinos raise an objection to the mind control model on the
basis of "low recruitment rates." They write, "Studies show that the vast majority of young people
approached by new religious movements (NRMs) never join despite heavy recruitment tactics." They
say this is surprising "if we are to accept the inevitable success of cult mind control techniques." I
don't know which advocate of the mind control model believes that absolutely anyone who comes
within brain wave of mind control is inevitably going to turn into a zombie. In his book Cult-
Proofing Your Kids (a book the Passantinos cite) Paul Martin writes, "Why do people join cults?
Doctrinal issues...have little, if anything to do with why most people join cults. The three main
reasons why people join are: (1) healing for emotional hurts, (2) establishing friendships and
relationships, and (3) spiritual growth."[7] Dr. Margaret Singer (again, an author cited by the Passan-
tinos, though one wonders whether they have actually read her) elaborates on these reasons when she
writes:
According to their own reports, many participants joined these religious cults during periods of depression and
confusion, when they had a sense that life was meaningless. The cult had promised--and for many had provided--a
solution to the distress of the developmental crises that are frequent at this age. Cults supply ready-made friendships
and ready-made decisions about careers, dating, sex, and marriage, and they outline a clear "meaning of life."[8]
And in an extensive paper describing the cult phenomenon and Wellspring's program, we wrote:
How is it possible that seemingly firmly committed Christians could be lured into cultic involvement? [Harold]
Busséll writes, "In all my discussions with people allured by cults, I have talked to only one person whose attraction
centered on doctrine."[9] This has been confirmed over and over: most people are not attracted to cults because of what
the group believes and teaches, but because of other factors. Basic human needs are met, or apparently met, through
membership in the cult or cultic group: emotional, social, material, and sometimes even physical needs. Such things as
acceptance, belonging, security, challenge, commitment to a cause, and assistance in trouble are all offered by the cult
to the individual seeker. And virtually no one is immune to such enticement, at least at some time in his or her life...
But young people are not alone in their vulnerability to the cults. Anyone who is idealistic, humanitarian, morally
sensitive, insecure, looking for direction, and currently uncommitted to a cause but looking for one is a cult candidate.
Also, anyone recently shattered by a personal or family crisis may end up looking to a cult for comfort and reassur-
ance.[10]
In other words, at least some of us who accept the mind control model recognize that there are
times when individuals become more susceptible to mind control techniques than they are normally.
And this means (one would hope) that most people are so vulnerable only during rare periods of
their lives. Thus low recruitment rates would be expected.
The Passantinos' next objection is a corollary to this, namely, "high attrition rates." The authors
assert that the fact that many people who join cults eventually leave them within a year or two
without outside aid is "deadly to the mind control model." If mind control did exist, they imply, no
one would be able to break its hold on them by themselves.
Again, the authors are assuming an extreme and total concept of mind control that few if any
proponents accept. To reiterate: the effectiveness of mind control depends on numerous factors, a few
of which were listed above. By the same token, the effects of mind control can be broken by
numerous factors, only one of which is deprogramming/exit counseling. In a talk given at the CAN
conference in New Jersey a few years ago, psychologist Madeleine Tobias mentions a female
member of an ex-cult member support group who described her own voluntary exit. Every time she
had a doubt or a question about the group she would put it on an invisible shelf so she wouldn't have
to deal with it. But then one day "the shelf caved in." In other words, eventually there were just too
many doubts and questions, and she was no longer able to ignore them; she had to deal with them.
Another mind control breaker, perhaps related to the last, is any traumatic event that occurs either
in the cult member's life, or in the group as a whole. This could be a beating administered (or
threatened) by the leader or another member at the leader's behest. Laura Haferd and William Outlaw
describe one such incident involving Rose Watson Thomas, a member of an obscure cult named the
Christian Alliance Holiness Church. They write:
Rose was terrified of what would happen when [an expected phone call from the imprisoned leader] came
through. Since the night before, the commune residents had harangued her and threatened her with punishment.
And she had seen the punishment that Bishop Thomas [her father-in-law] meted out to those who displeased
him in his Christian Alliance Holiness Church -- merciless bloody beatings that left men and women with flayed
skin on their backs and flowing wounds for days afterward.
This time, Rose felt sure, she was going to be the one who would be beaten...
...She was sure the bishop's next orders would deal with the punishment to be inflicted upon her.
So Rose had decided to take her son and run away from The Frontier [the cult's compound in eastern Ohio.][11]
One thing we have observed in those who come to Wellspring for counseling is that it is much
more common for "walkaways" to be burned out on religion than it is for those who have received
some form of exit counseling. We have no scientific data, but my personal theory is that, in many
cases, those who leave cults on their own do so because they have become thoroughly disillusioned
with it, possibly because of physical, sexual, and/or financial abuse in addition to spiritual abuse. As
a result, they may want nothing further to do with religion of any kind; they are unable to trust
religious leaders again. If they haven't quite reached that extremity, they may still be looking for
another group or church that has elements of their former group that they haven't yet recognized as
being harmful, but that doesn't have the things they have recognized.
However, when cult members are exit counseled, most often they are able to maintain their
interest in spiritual things, because exit counselors do not typically attempt to "break the faith" of
cult members or "take religion away" from them.
I would like to suggest that the power of mind control is not unlike the pull of a whirlpool. Near
the edge of the whirlpool its attractive force is limited. However, as an object (or person) is drawn
farther into the vortex the power increases. The centrifugal force of the whirlpool doesn't affect every
object to the same degree, however. The size, shape, and weight of the object all determine the force
that the whirlpool will be able to exercise. And ultimately, objects pulled into the center of the
whirlpool are expelled again, though often damaged or broken.[12]
The Passantinos' next objection to the mind control model is "the anti-religious bias of mind
control assumptions." I fail to see what relevance the anti-religious sentiments of William Sargant
have to do with the modern concept of cult mind control as held in particular by evangelical
proponents of the model. It seems to me that the Passantinos have violated another of their own
rules, namely, "Similar Does Not Prove Same",[13] or guilt by association. Thus, because some
advocates of the mind control model suffer under an anti-religious bias does not mean that all do, or
that the mind control model either presupposes or necessitates an anti-religious bias. And while
Conway and Siegelman may speak for many advocates of the mind control model, they do not speak
for all.
The Passantinos believe that the inability to draw a clear-cut line between a legitimate religion
and a cult is final proof that mind control does not exist. I wonder if they would use the same
reasoning regarding domestic abuse. When does a husband's verbal criticism of his wife become
verbal abuse? When does spanking of a child become child abuse? Where are the clear-cut lines in
these cases? Or where is the clear-cut line between political authority and dictatorship? If the authors
can locate it they will be in great demand all over the world.
The Passantinos object to the mind control model because, they say, it "creat[es] victims." I
would argue instead that it is mind control, not the mind control model that creates victims. But
that's the point under dispute.
The authors introduce this objection by writing:
Many people who join cults want to help the needy, forsake materialism, or develop personal independence from
their families--not necessarily bad goals, although misguided by false cult teachings. The cult mind control model,
however, attributes cult membership primarily to mind control and thereby denigrates or discounts such positive
activities and goals, misaffiliated to cults as they are.[14]
This again illustrates the Passantinos' failure to clearly understand what mind control model
advocates actually say. Mind control is not exercised in a vacuum--it needs information to work
with, whether it is cult-generated doctrine, or the hopes, dreams, fears, and hang-ups of the potential
recruit. Thus the goals listed by the Passantinos above may be used by the cult recruiter as "hooks"
to draw the target into the sphere of mind control. We do not denigrate such goals at all. We applaud
any positive aims and activities. The problem is, these things can be used as lures to attract new
members, or as ploys to achieve legitimacy in the community. Jim Jones' Peoples Temple took over
nursing homes in the San Francisco Bay area, significantly improving them to the benefit of the
residents. Peoples Temple members also helped drug addicts kick their habits and obtain education.
These and many other activities of the Peoples Temple were highly commendable, and regardless of
the tragic end of 913 cult members, those benevolences were worth doing--except to the degree they
led people to their deaths.
The Passantinos go on to say:
The mind control model also fails to give proper weight to the role natural suggestibility plays in making people
vulnerable to the cults. Highly suggestible people are especially susceptible to religious salesmanship as well as many
other "sales pitches."[15]
On the contrary, this is just the point I have made. Suggestibility does make people more
susceptible to mind control. Some people are naturally more suggestible than others by nature, others
go through periods in life in which they are more suggestible than at other times. And in such a
condition people may be victimized, whether by a con artist, a Lothario, or a cult recruiter. It is not
"[a]dopting a victimization perspective" that "strips the cult member of his capacity for rational
activity." Rather, it is the victimization itself which does this--though we acknowledge that it does
so to varying degrees in different people according to the factors stated above.
I gladly agree with the Passantinos when they bemoan the proliferation of "victims" in our
contemporary society. There are multiple thousands of "pseudo-victims" in America today, and there
indeed does need to be more emphasis on taking personal responsibility. Having said this, however, I
insist that victimization does exist in the cult milieu. Deception of any kind, by definition, produces
victims.
--Lawrence A. Pile,
Wellspring Retreat
and Resource Center
July 25, 1994
1. Witch Hunt, p. 113.
2. Passantino and Passantino, p. 32.
3. Passantino and Passantino, op. cit.
4. Passantino and Passantino, p. 33.
5. "Wellspring's Approach to Cult Rehab," Wellspring Messenger, Vol. 4, No. 5, November/December 1993, p. 1.
6. Channel 4 TV, Minneapolis, Minn., early 1980.
7. Cult-Proofing Your Kids, p. 41.
8. "Coming Out of the Cults," Psychology Today, January 1979, p. 72, emphasis added.
9. Unholy Devotion, p. 15.
10. Helping the Hurting, pp. 3-4.
11. "Out of the Wilderness," Beacon, the magazine of The Beacon Journal, Akron, Ohio, February 21, 1993, p. 5.
12. A fascinating description of this process is contained in Edgar Allan Poe's tale "A Descent into the Maelstrom."
