The “Golden Mean” Theory of Creating Cultic Groups
Yesterday I was riding with other faculty to a resort on the outskirts of Davao City (Mindanao). We were talking about a couple of religious groups that spun off of Christianity to the point that they could not be called orthodox, and perhaps not even Christian. Some would call them cults… but I like to be cautious. For me a ‘cult’ is both heterodox in teachings and coercive in leadership. (A coercive group that is not really heterodox, I would just say has ‘cultic qualities.)
Any, back on the van. I said that such “cults” can be blamed on missionaries. I prefer to say that with caution— since I don’t want to accept blame for problems in my ministry I want to be cautious in pointing fingers.
HOWEVER… since I already said it, I would like to reflect on this.
Paul Hebert noted that in missions, “critical contextualization” is important, essentially the ‘golden mean’ between non-contextualization— expressing one’s faith with the language, explanation,and symbols of home and uncritical contextualization— utilizing too much of local symbols and explanations to hold onto the unique, orthodox understanding of God’s message. Diverging too far from the golden mean can lead to syncretism. Mix in a bit of coercive leadership and one suddenly has what I would call a cult. One doesn’t need to create coercive leadership, that comes naturally from potential leaders who love leading/controlling more than serving.
Another “golden mean” exists for the missionary between the extremes of “Evangelizer” and “Indoctrinator”.
The Evangelizer (an extreme stereotype I am presenting here) preaches a form of the gospel that allows for a quick and measurable response. Often there is little doctrinal content. In it’s extremes, such as here in the Philippines, it can be as little as, “Believe what you already believe, but also repeat the prayer I have told you to say.” The Evangelizer often does not disciple much, and commonly has little interest in church planting. Many don’t even seek to get others to do (the little) they do. Many get bored staying in the same place too long or or working with the same people too long. They want measurable and documentable results. In some ways it is like a man who wants to “make babies” but does not want to raise a child in the role of a father. The Evangelizer produces young Christians perhaps, but poorly prepared living out their faith in the world. Like young children, they will find others to model off of, or perhaps “wing it.” Cults are a reasonable possibility here … either produced as a natural outcome, or coming along and gobbling up those Ill-prepared for them.
The Indoctrinator, on the other hand cares much about what they believe. They put great effort in teaching their own doctrinal stands. They may even train them in apologetics in the areas of doctrines that the Indoctrinator us most concerned about. At first glance it seems likely that this would not produce cults. Evangelizers often produce a weak faith, but Indocritinators often produce a brittle faith. It has the semblance of strength, but when hit by concerns the missionary was not concerned about, the people are likely to either give in or react emotionally against. Neither response is likely to be well-grounded in their faith and experience since they were not trained to reflect theologically.
The Golden Mean is a Discipler. A Discipler doesn’t just evangelizer and doesn’t just (and this is a key point) indoctrinate. The people need to know the Bible but also must be empowered and trained to reflect theologically.
A good discipler is one who prepares the people for his or her absence. Indoctinators don’t because they only prepare the people for the concerns of the past in the missionary’s home setting. The Evangelizer doesn’t because he or she presumes that someone else will take up the slack. But that is the problem. The one taking up the slack is as likely to be unreliable as reliable.
The GOLDEN MEAN in Missions is a Discipler who assists the people in Critical Contextualization so that they can be competent to Reflect Theologically so as to be resilient in the faith.
Diverting too far from the mean produces an environment attuned to creating or supporting cultic groups.
