A response to an argument that the Jim Roberts nomadic Bible sect is scriptural and is not a cult by Joe Szimhart

A response to an argument that the Jim Roberts nomadic Bible sect is scriptural and is not a cult by Joe Szimhart, May, 2008.

Thanks [ ], for your careful, perhaps meticulous, consideration of this discussion. I read it two, three times. Someday (not today), maybe I will have time to address your points thoroughly. I will add to this discussion with these remarks. The largest and perhaps defining difference in how you and I look at the Jim Roberts Group (JRG) stems from how you and I seem to understand "cult."

As I mentioned, if you or anyone wants to emphasize interpretation of scripture to analyze cults, you will have to turn to others to argue this. As far as I am concerned you already won that debate but you will have to live with the prize, not me. The prize is that you have convinced yourself beyond doubt according to a Fundamentalist view. Since you admit that Fundamentalism guides your heart and mind, some of your responses are predictable. I am not arguing that you are right or wrong before God, neither that I am right either as a Catholic traditionalist or a secular exit counselor before God. My purpose in exit counseling is to educate and expand an unduly restricted point of view with evidence; it is not to witness or save souls.

I did point out that there are strong arguments against Fundamentalism that is a recent movement in Christianity (e.g., look to Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup (2001). As an exit counselor, the Catholic position toward “cults” is far more useful than the Fundamentalist one though I do not rely on a Catholic view for my work. Personally, I do not believe that God is Catholic or Fundamentalist or any denomination but we can get into that religious debate another time.

Bible groups like JRG are not the only kind of cult out there, which is why a Bible-based definition of cult is practically useless and wrong. Furthermore, scripture proofing point-of-view discussions are ponderous and too often circular as hundreds of Christian denominations and their well-educated preachers with PhDs and Doctor of Divinity degrees, fundamentalist and not, demonstrate daily. The very existence of all these views shows that there is relativism in action in the Christian milieu with continual fine-tuning and reforms. To some extent, we can thank sola scriptura for that! Some reforms are good; others not so good. The JRG is just one more effort to reform and purify Christianity (but JRG has failed for reasons I mention below).

Cultishness is common in major denominations as well as in so-called "non-denominational" churches when they psychologically avoid one another's influence. This has more to do with the human tendency toward clannishness and a need for a secure identity than anything else. Even rebels like to belong to a BIG Rebel or a cult leader. That is called an organizing principle. Having said that, I can find numerous scripture passages that support my personal views against harmful and deceitful “cults,” Bible-based or not. “Thou shall not bear false witness” is only one.

Not everyone is harmed equally by a lying, manipulative leader. Some benefits occur for nearly everyone in a cult or NO ONE would join or stay. The JRG have attractive qualities that mimic the best intentions of monasteries or renunciants worldwide in many religious traditions. The JRG strives to live a holy life with a tightly wound interpretation of scripture. They have a code of conduct that makes them appear as peace loving and helpful in simple things. (I would not hire any of them to teach anthropology, however!). I can appreciate their humble attire, commitment to each other, and ability to sustain this lifestyle day in and out. But to me this is superficial when considering the elitist basis of their purpose.

In my work as an exit counselor, religious validity and scriptural standards according to one denomination is not the issue. I do try to point out obvious cultic violations or changes of any scripture (Bible, Koran, Vedanta, Adi Granth, etc). For example, we can point to the distinct difference between how a Jehovah Witness excludes evidence of a Trinitarian God and how a mainline Protestant views the evidence for it [here]. (The evidence for the Protestant Trinitarian view is stronger no matter what your belief). I do not follow the fundamentalist/evangelical definition of cult, the unfortunate and sectarian definition that entered popular discourse after Walter Martin published his popular 1965 version of "Kingdom of the Cults". Martin helped to ruin the primary meaning of the word.

Academically, "cult" has been a neutral term and means primarily a system of devotion and ritual directed toward a person, idea or object. In general, that is how I use it unless I define it differently. By that neutral definition, JRG is a cult because it is a system of worship dependent on the person of Jim Roberts and his ideas. It matters not whether he gathers these ideas from St. Paul or from his own head (he does both).

Cult also means an irrational healing system like bloodletting or faith healing as in shamanism.

The lesser definition of cult as a 'spurious group' has now become the first one in most people's minds. For JRG group members, the “c” word is like the “n” word to Blacks. More askew is Walter Martin’s definition of a cult as any religion that does not share his evangelical perspective.

"I wish I knew which beliefs of the JRG (other than shunning parents) you think are not right from a biblical perspective and why you think they are not right. Your beliefs are not clear to me, but I learned something about your beliefs from your email message…."

I can and will say that all JRG beliefs are wrong from a Biblical perspective because they violate the Holy Spirit of the Bible. Jim Roberts has influenced his followers to study and apply what they learn from trees that he approves of (they do that very well which gives an appearance of righteousness) but as a result the members have lost sight of the riches and wonders in this God-inspired forest that the Bible represents.

I need mention only two examples of why I think JRG violates scripture (If I kept going this could turn into a book). Cult leaders typically offer plenty of “truth” like pure water in a cup and then poison it with a few drops. JR’s poison contaminates all the good ways you mention that his group uses scripture thus the entire Bible in JRG hands is suspect.

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth – (King James Version

Luke 19:11-27 combines this talent parable with another story in his parable of the ten gold coins or ‘minas’ (I’m using the New American Translation for Luke).

When applied to the JRG, in my interpretation, Matthew's parable exposes a group leader who has wrongly influenced his followers to “bury” their gifts, “talents”, abilities, and potential. The Gospel writer wants us to understand that Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven as a place for fruitful people who use and increase God’s graces no matter what God gives us.

On a practical level, JR influenced members to throw away (bury) lenses, clothes, books, and medicines that were useful for enhancing the gift of life. On a social level, parenting and parents are buried under false interpretations of scripture thus denying the fruit of those relationships. Potential careers as teachers, healers, scientists, and skilled workers, not to mention respected preachers, have been buried by the limited, anti-intellectual lifestyle. Sisters who have left the JRG complained often that the men are relatively lazy contemplatives with their noses “authoritatively” buried in scriptures and rules, many that seem arbitrary and unscriptural. JR as the Elder is the model for that unscriptural male behavior. This reflects a self-congratulatory protocol promoting “elders” from within a naïve system, which leads me to the next point.

2. 1 Timothy regards the indisputable fact (for me) that Jim Roberts was never vetted as a preacher in the reasonably traditional, wider Christian community. He is a freak preacher and remains so, thus it makes him more likely to live in error. He was never fit to teach, and once his ministry began, he rarely if ever stood among his peers openly [as did all of the Apostles and their appointed and elected presbyters within the growing 1^st century community. At the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus was preaching in public all over Jerusalem].

[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
[5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
[6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
[7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

JR has been a paranoid personality type and still is—his minions have inherited that error in their stylistic isolationism that they call ‘avoiding the sinful culture’. With this freak eisegesis style of JR (he apparently relies on dreams and intuitions he ascribes to God) has led his followers to the ungracious and prideful shunning of family, old friends, and to the grievous error of devaluing marriage and bearing children. The latter pattern in JRG follows the Gnostics who also shunned childbearing and lived in an elitist “pure” manner away from the surrounding culture. Finally, JR has been repeatedly caught lying to manipulate his followers many of whom defected for that very reason.

The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):

“The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordained presbyters (presbuteros is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.”

If Jim Roberts truly had the Spiritual calling of God, he would explain his world-view to outsiders frequently and directly. If I were he, I would have offered to speak before the parents group long ago. But he long ago labeled people like me and the parents as “fowls” thus sealing himself in his own ignorance while hiding behind selective reading of scriptures. JR thrives off the resentment he creates and then he calls it “persecution.” To me this is blasphemy, a total misuse of the blood of the martyrs who died for the Gospel.

I mentioned above that the JRG mimics the monastic traditions. Healthy monks and nuns and monasteries were not meant to be isolated, paranoid cults. They traditionally were part of the church system, served the community, and were even paragons of liberal education and solid business ventures. They accomplished all this while living in a chosen style of personal poverty and celibacy. For reference, read Rodney Stark (2005) “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success”

From a review: “The Victory of Reason proves that what we most admire about our world–scientific progress, democratic rule, free commerce–is largely due to Christianity, through which we are all inheritors of this grand tradition.”

When a monk or nun drops out today, say from a Benedictine order, that person is no less potentially a Christian or “saved.” In JRG there is a broad stigma of unholiness aimed at defectors and outsiders for no other reason than they did not or do not “uphold the standard” according to Jimmy Roberts.

There are many decent definitions of what constitutes a harmful cult. Most of us in exit counseling look to the eight themes of Robert J. Lifton as an aid to define totalist movements. The eight themes fit most cults that have a self-sealing system of devotion that violates individual rights. An example of how ex-members of some Bible cults apply the themes is here.

Since this is a behavioral and not a belief issue, I will turn to Arthur Deikman who wrote “Them and Us” (2003) (first came out in1992 as The Wrong Way Home). It is an effort to define cult behavior. Deikman simplifies Lifton’s more complex typology. Deikman offers four features. see his web site http://www.deikman.com/former.html

Keep in mind that as with Lifton’s eight themes, when these things occur in concert to a greater degree, the potential for more harm and abuse exists. Just because these things are in place to a small degree, say in a fan club that roots for the Celtics, does not mean it is harmful. With the JRG the red flags for potentially harmful cult behavior are high.

Everybody is concerned with how he or she is viewed by the people whose opinions matter to, us:, our "reference group." No matter how, outwardly independent and nonconformist we may be, there is, usually a, group of people who share our, values and whose approval we want. Membership, in this group is signaled by conformity in dress, behavior, and speech. People outside of cults may suppress deviant thoughts also, although less obviously, if they believe that their expression could result in loss of status with the people important to them.

The power of groups has been noted by psychologists beginning with Gustav Le Bon and Sigmund Freud, and analyzed in detail by Wilfred Bion, who proposed that members of groups tend to adopt one of three primitive emotional states: dependency, pairing, or fight-flight. His description of the dependency state is an apt description of cults, but he saw, the process taking place in varying degrees in all groups:

The essential aim … is to attain security through and have its members protected by one individual. It assumes that this is why the group has met. The members act as if they know nothing, as if they are inadequate and immature creatures. Their behavior implies that the leader, by contrast, is omnipotent and omniscient.

It is plausible that natural selection favored individuals who were good at discerning what the group wanted because preservation of their membership in the group gave them the best chance of survival. As a consequence, it is likely that human beings have evolved to be exquisitely sensitive to what the group wants. "Political correctness" probably has a long history.”

Leaders draw a power from their followers’ wish for an ideal parent, a wish that is latent in all adults no matter what kind of parent they had. Although cult leaders may be charismatic, they need not be as long as they are believed by the group members to possess superior powers and secrets. Cult leaders are authoritarian, encouraging dependence and discouraging autonomy. Obedience and loyalty are rewarded, and critical thinking is punished. Furthermore, to enhance dependency on the leader, pair bonding is discouraged. The leader must come first; family and lovers come last. The disruption of intimate relationships is accomplished by a variety of means: enforced chastity, separation of parents from children, arranged marriages, long separations, promiscuity, or sexual relations with the leader. All these aspects are counter to healthy leadership, which fosters growth, independence, and mature relationships and has as its aim that the followers will eventually achieve an eye-level relationship with the leader.

Dissent threatens the group fantasy that the members are being protected and rewarded by a perfect, enlightened leader who can do no wrong. The security provided by that fantasy is the basic attraction that keeps members in the cult despite highly questionable actions by the leader. Questioning the fantasy threatens that security, and for this reason, active dissent is seldom encouraged. To the contrary, dissenters are often declared to be in the grip of Satan. Sometimes they are scapegoated, and hidden, unconscious anger toward the leader is released against the dissenter. Almost all groups derive security from their shared beliefs and readily regard dissenters as irritations, to be gotten rid of. Nevertheless, the mark of a healthy group is a tolerance for dissent and a recognition of its vital role in keeping the group sane. Paranoia develops and grandiosity flourishes when dissent is eliminated and a group isolates itself from outside influence. As recent cult disasters have shown us, grandiose and paranoid cult leaders often self-destruct, taking their group with them.

What good is being in a group if membership does not convey some special advantage? In spiritual groups, the members are likely to believe that they have the inside track to enlightenment, to being "saved," or to finding God because of the special sanctity and, spiritual power of the leader. It follows that they must be superior to people outside the group: It is they, the converts, who have the leader's blessing and approval. Devaluation can be detected in the pity or “compassion” they may feel for those outside. This devaluation becomes most marked in the case of someone who elects to leave the group and is thereby considered “lost,” if not damned. The more such devaluation takes place, and the more the group separates itself from the outside world, the greater the danger of cult pathology.

Devaluing of the outsider is part and parcel of everyday life. Depending on which group we designate as the outsider, our scorn may be directed at “liberals,” “Republicans,” “blacks,” “Jews,” “yuppies,” or “welfare bums”: however the outsider is designated. Such disidentification can authorize unethical, mean, and destructive behavior against the outsider, behavior that otherwise would cause guilt for violating ethical norms. Devaluation of the outsider is tribal behavior and so universal as to suggest a “basic law of groups”: Be one of us and we will love you; leave us and we will kill you.

Devaluing the outsider reassures the insider that he or she is good, special, and deserving, unlike the outsider. Such a belief is a distortion of reality; if one considers the different circumstances of each person’s development and life context, one is hard put to judge another person to be intrinsically inferior to oneself. Certainly, actions can be judged, but human beings are one species, at eye level with each other.” End Deikman…….

Now, I know this does not cover everything. There are things in Deikman that I do not agree with completely, but he at least concentrates on behavior. Groups like The Roberts Group Parents Network (TRGPN) can also fall into the same behaviors without outside input, but TRGPN has regularly reached to outsiders so they can learn and improve their work.

I realize that your comments to me have your daughter in mind. I admire your will to find what is good in the JRG and to define them as “scriptural.” My question is how will she view the JRG once she “sees” what so many others that left have seen? Will she still agree with you about JRG being scriptural then?

If you wish to share anything I write with [your daughter], go ahead, but it may be premature for her at this time, as long as she yet experiences life in a self-sealing system. My words may be offensive to her and set you back in your relationship.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'd like to make my own flawed comments to help this discussion along. Like [ ], I am not a scripture expert, not an exegete or qualified 'eisegete' in hermeneutics, and I always found it tough going for me to keep up with Bible cult members as they tap dance through the scriptures to justify their behavior and salvation.

At the last meeting in Seattle, which I found especially rewarding, I spoke with several ex-members including [ ] re beliefs and their 'evangelical' positions. I felt the pressure of their witness and a desire to "educate" me. Someday, if we have time, you can try to respectfully deprogram the deprogrammer!

My intent, if I had the time with any anti-Catholic, would never be to win, only to clarify. The Roman Catholic church is a huge target but it is also a formidable fount of scholarship regarding its doctrines and "traditions"--Until we have time, argue with Ambrose or Augustine or someone living like Patrick Madrid www.surprisedbytruth.com, for example, and let me know how you did!

The main problem with the JRs "conformity to the Bible commandments" is not that they are so wrong, but that they are so RIGHT in their own heads. Being so "right" stems from a series of historical events that to me do not come from early Christian teaching or behavior [tradition]. Most of what I hear as "evangelical" views [for example in the runaway bestseller Left Behind series of books] is relatively newly formed by some 19th century Christian reactions. Fundamentalism solidified in the early 20th century as a reaction to both advances in science and in Biblical scholarship. Things just got too complex and strange for too many Christians not educated in modern advances. There was and is a great fear that scripture is undermined by acceptance of advances in strong science theory. For example, it is a common belief among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists that dinosaurs walked with humans less than 10,000 years ago and this to them is not only based on "scripture" but a kind of science. There is a bizarre anti-evolution via Darwin dogma among many Evangelicals. [For a brief but brilliant discussion of why Darwin's evolution theory is not only approved by Biblical Christianity but also why Intelligent Design ideas are weak and inapplicable, read Darwin and Intelligent Design by Francis J. Ayala (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006)].

Like so many current cult leaders, Jimmy Roberts inherited this restricted thought and restricted it even further. One restriction is to what version of the Bible one can use. As a deprogrammer, whenever I hear that a new religious movement uses only the King James or Old King James version, a BIG red flag goes up. My old cult, by any definition a New Age sect, also used only the King James because of certain and many odd phrasings that lend themselves to easy misinterpretation. These verses [Isaiah 45:11, for one] are commonly treasured by prosperity Gospel Christians. These verses allow for "prayer" to morph into magic or sorcery---"name it and claim it" [in the name of Jesus] Christians abuse the same KJ verses, for example.

The Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" has something to do with his view but I would submit that Jimmy Roberts follows "scriptura solo" or whatever he believes God puts in his head without regard to elders in the wider church who are fit to teach: See http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-2.htm

Jimmy Roberts was never fit to teach, thus the basis of the great error of his movement. He envisions that his "mystical" connection is somehow Godly. Mysticism in Christianity, in my view, is poorly understood by charismatic Christians today. For clarification I would recommend one of my favorite books, the classic study by Evelyn Underhill on "Mysticism" (1911)

I'll end this rambling note with this. The wider moderate Baptist, Catholic or Lutheran perspective from scripture does not condemn any JR member that tries their best to conform to commandments of God but it is unfortunate if those same people condemn all outsiders like me to perdition. I'd leave that final "respect" to God.

Joe

PS: These 3 books are good resources for Christians by Christians about the cult problem in aberrant churches.

I have been working out this problem of how to advise ex-members
and TRGPN with ties and sympathies to fundamentalist Christianity.
>Three useful books by Christians for Christians that specifically
address the evangelical subculture about cult recovery are:

Churches That Abuse by Ron Enroth (1992)

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff Van
Vonderen (1991)

Toxic Faith by Stephen Arterburn and Jack Felton (1991)