In Search of Respectability

Happy Mormon families and Unificationist-funded newspapers are just two ways marginal religions try to shed the “cult” image.

This year marks the one-hundredth anniversary of the Mormon Manifesto of 1890, which called for the prohibition of polygamy. The official Mormon explanation of this most remarkable reversal in doctrine and practice is that it came by a revelation from God. A more down-to-earth explanation is that it was prompted by Utah’s intense desire for statehood. Congress had determined that polygamy must be prohibited by the Mormons as a condition for entering the Union.

The manifesto is significant because it signaled the beginning of a century-long process by the Mormon church to enter the mainstream of American religion and American life—an effort that has been by and large successful. No longer are Mormons viewed as a strange religious subculture made up of fanatical extremists who shun outsiders. On the contrary, they are often viewed in very positive images—good neighbors, resourceful businessmen, and families with traditional values.

This evolution is a natural historical process characteristic of most religious movements that originate outside established denominations. An abundance of zeal and self-righteousness dominate the foundational years as a new sect seeks to reform or restore true religion. But as time marches, the early enthusiasm begins to diminish. The charismatic leadership languishes. Idealism is replaced by pragmatism.

As a second or third generation arises, the next stage emerges. New leaders and followers (many of them born and raised in the movement) begin to weary of their alien status and see the advantage of moving into the mainstream.

The process is so common that sociologists of religion regard it as a natural development in the life of a religious group. Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals were all regarded as sectarian in the early stages of their development, but today they have become either mainline denominations or at least have entered the mainstream of evangelicalism.

Moving Into The Center

While this process is natural and predictable, for Christians concerned with true doctrine we must make a distinction between two goals of legitimization: to become part of mainstream culture and to become part of the mainstream Christian church.

This distinction is especially important to keep in mind because some groups are not content to wait for the historical process. For those groups most anxious to discard the “cult” label, legitimization is consciously and strategically sought. In fact, they are sometimes so anxious that they disguise their most controversial attributes.

As a result, the unwary observer could easily mistake one of these groups for just another sectarian branch of orthodoxy moving into the mainstream. Indeed, sociologists often make no distinction. They compare the process of legitimization of Mormonism, for example, with that of Quakers and Methodists—as though they were all within the same circle of orthodoxy.

The Mormons stand out in their effort to attain “respectability,” but they are not alone in wanting to be recognized as a legitimate religious denomination. In fact, the century-long effort of the Mormons has been nearly outstripped by the Unification Church, led by Sun Myung Moon. They have made amazing progress in only a few decades. The charges of kidnaping and brainwashing have faded as news stories of conservative political activism and educational symposiums have come to the fore.

How does a sect engineer an image-changing transformation? There is no published guidebook available, but if there were, it would surely outline a multipronged approach that would focus both on religious beliefs and secular life and would utilize the latest innovations in managerial skills and computerized technology. Indeed, those unorthodox groups that have been most successful in changing their images have employed highly sophisticated public-relations teams who promote their cause through well-orchestrated media events and slick advertising.

The Mormons are exhibit A in this respect. Television commercials featuring happy scenes of traditional family living flow smoothly into the closing byline of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings with fervor America’s best-loved hymns.

The Mormons also make good use of the print media and the video market. Brochures abound that seek to frame the movement in traditional religious terminology and images. One such pamphlet is entitled “The Falling Away and the Restoration Foretold.” Here we read that the apostle Paul, along with Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Roger Williams, prophesied the restoration of the gospel by Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. We are led to believe that the most prominent authorities for mainstream Protestant Christianity gave support to a man who denounced the same orthodox Christianity that these figures represent.

But the Mormons are not alone in the quest for respectability through the public-relations media. The Worldwide Church of God utilizes all the latest techniques of advertising. During Herbert W. Armstrong’s last years, his world tours became cover-story photo opportunities for Plain Truth magazine. Aides arranged meetings that brought him in contact with such world leaders as Golda Meir, King Hussein, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin. According to his estranged son, Garner Ted Armstrong, those trips were simply “glorified autograph-hunting tours—window dressing.”

The Way International publishes a sleek family periodical, The Way magazine, with an attractive design and full-color photos. The articles are biblically oriented and could easily be mistaken for an orthodox Christian publication.

Service Projects

It would be cynical to suggest that all humanitarian projects sponsored by these nontraditional religions are purely public-relations efforts. In many cases they are genuinely charitable endeavors. But it is through such efforts that the Unification Church, the Mormons, the Worldwide Church of God, and other unorthodox movements have attained a measure of respectability.

One of the most effective and all-encompassing efforts by a sect to move into the mainstream of American religion through educational, ecumenical, and humanitarian programs has been that of the Unification Church. Professional conferences—scientific, philosophical, and religious—are sponsored by the New Ecumenical Research Association (New ERA) and are offered free of charge to educators, lawyers, ministers, and other professionals. Held at posh resorts, sometimes in exotic locations such as the Bahamas, they serve to win influential friends who might otherwise shun any association with the “Moonies.”

Other programs supported by the Unification Church come under the aegis of patriotic organizations, such as the American Constitution Committee or the Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles, but all of them help to serve Moon’s movement. This is true even with the organization’s “mission” outreach. The International Relief Friendship Foundation is an example. It was founded by church members for the purpose of church outreach, but it has remained a separate relief organization, which allows it to benefit from government funds for many of its projects. These projects have been conducted in some 40 countries throughout the world and include such community needs as irrigation systems and elementary schools.

It appears that the Unification Church has also sought to attain legitimacy through a more hidden agenda. In recent years, several cases have been reported by the news media where the church and its business interests have given behind-the-scenes financial and administrative support to a variety of political, media, and business organizations. One example is the American Freedom Coalition (AFC), a broad-based political-action lobby recruiting conservative Christians and others on issues such as antiabortion and anticommunism. Although the AFC has not publicized its ties to the Unification Church, the connections have not gone unnoticed. The group has come under fire since press reports revealed that several top AFC administrative officials are members of the Unification Church and that the organization itself has received some $5 million since 1987 from Unification business interests.

Under Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God also advanced many humanitarian and cultural programs. According to William Martin, writing in the Atlantic, it was Stanley Rader, Armstrong’s closest aide, who “convinced Armstrong that the best way to gain respectability and facilitate his mission to world leaders would be to establish a foundation that could sponsor a wide range of educational, cultural, and humanitarian projects.” It was not long before the Ambassador Foundation became the most visible focus of the church. Besides humanitarian projects, the foundation sponsors celebrity concerts at Ambassador Auditorium in Pasadena (Calif.)—which have included such top performers as Arthur Rubinstein, Marilyn Horne, Luciano Pavarotti, and Vladimir Horowitz.

In some cases, the new religions not only orchestrate media attention, but they own the vehicles of media themselves. The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist. Unificationists control a growing worldwide network of magazines and newspapers, including Insight magazine, the Washington Times in Washington, D.C., and most recently in Seoul, South Korea, the Segye Times, inaugurated on February 1, 1989. It should be noted that these publications represent serious journalism and are not simply promotional efforts, but they do add to the credibility and respectability of the movements.

Doctrinal And Practical Shifts

Has the openness and the effort to enter the mainstream signaled a change in doctrine among unorthodox religious movements? Yes, in some respects it has. Pressure from the outside (as well as from the inside), for example, forced the Mormon establishment to acknowledge charges of racism and to reconsider its prohibition of blacks in the priesthood. Since that prohibition was lifted in 1978, the church has eliminated its most vulnerable point of criticism, and, according to a Chicago Tribune report, blacks have been “flocking to Mormon life.”

Similarly, the Christian Science establishment has weakened its dogmatic stance against medical treatment. When two students died during a measles outbreak at the church-sponsored Principia College in Elsah, Illinois, in 1985, a school official insisted that students “are free to go to an outside hospital. It’s a matter between them and their conscience. If someone chooses medicine, we will still love and support them.” Such a response, prompted by concerned members as well as outside pressure, was a significant reversal of Mary Baker Eddy’s doctrinaire views on the subject.

A shift in methodology has also occurred within the Unification Church. The misleading proselytizing of the 1960s, rationalized as “heavenly deception,” brought hundreds of young people unwittingly into the movement. Often feeling depressed and rejected, unwary youths were befriended by strangers who never identified themselves as being involved with Sun Myung Moon until the “victim” was “hooked.” In recent years this practice has been abandoned—and actually renounced. Here again, the pursuit of respectability in the face of derogatory news accounts prompted the change.

But do religious movements outside the bounds of historic orthodoxy ever move into the mainstream of Christianity? Most such groups differ so fundamentally with orthodox Christianity that such a transition is virtually impossible without denying the very beliefs on which the movement is based. In some instances, however, there have been significant transformations.

One of the most striking examples of doctrinal transition in recent years has occurred in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS), long considered to be simply a smaller version of Mormonism. From the beginning, however, the RLDS was a very distinct movement, and in the last decade it has veered even further away doctrinally from its Utah cousin.

No longer does the movement maintain that it alone is the one true church. Rather, it sees itself as one of many Christian denominations. And no longer does it teach salvation by works. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The church continues to uphold its belief in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and other cardinal doctrines of the faith.

RLDS worship services are very similar to Protestant forms, and such Mormon doctrines as the plurality of gods and baptism for the dead are rejected. The Book of Mormon is viewed by some as merely a fictional volume, and the Bible is the Word of God. Joseph Smith, many believe, made poor judgments in some areas, but not to the extent his detractors claim because his beliefs, they argue, have been grossly distorted by the Utah Mormons.

Pastor Ted Griggs of Grand Rapids testifies that after his own personal experience with Christ, he felt “called to reach out to a lot of people in the pews who have not met Christ.” He preaches from the Bible, strongly supports the ministry of Billy Graham, and considers himself a born-again Christian.

He concedes, however, that his views are not shared by all. Indeed, the church has gone through a stormy transition period, and some still cling to the old beliefs. Others have come to regard both the Book of Mormon and the Bible as historically unreliable. And still others have become so disillusioned by the changes in the church that they have split into their own loosely connected congregations, known either as the Restored Church of Christ or the Church of Christ, Restored.

Where the church as a whole is headed is difficult to determine at this point, but President Wallace B. Smith, who has presided over the dramatic transition thus far, has come a long way since the days of his great-great-grandfather, Joseph Smith, Jr.

Another movement in transition is the Pasadena, California-based Worldwide Church of God. There appears to be an unusual openness in the movement today that was not evident during the Armstrong era. Heading the movement is Pastor General Joseph W. Tkach (Armstrong’s designated successor), who is now presiding over a review of the church’s doctrinal position. In March of 1988 he wrote to the entire membership of the church that “none of us is infallible, and I am the first to know that I surely am not.” He went on to say that he would not shrink from his responsibility to correct any doctrine proven to be in error, stating that God’s “judgment is on me if I don’t take action to correct that wrong.”

Michael A. Snyder, assistant director of public affairs, insists that “the Worldwide Church of God makes no claim to being the exclusive assembly of all members of the body of Christ.” This surely is a significant shift from the teachings of Armstrong.

Snyder also maintains that the movement is “a Christian church, believing that the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is the only means by which a person may be redeemed and ultimately saved,” that salvation is “by grace—the free, unmerited pardon by God through the sacrifice of Jesus,” and that “Jesus is the Son of God and must be the personal Savior for every Christian who is to be saved.”

The leadership of the Worldwide Church of God must be commended for its commitment to reassess previously held doctrines and practices. This is a positive step, but as yet there is no indication that the movement will reject its long-standing denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

Still Heretical

The major doctrines of most of these nontraditional religions have remained essentially the same. Mormonism continues to be the religion of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The Book of Mormon is still given more prominence than the Bible, and the belief in the plurality of gods and the eternal law of progression (“As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”) is still propagated.

Moreover, genuine efforts of reform have been squelched. In 1982, in a sermon at Brigham Young University, Bruce McConkie, one of the church’s twelve apostles, criticized a campus movement among students who wanted a “personal relationship” with Christ. He condemned the “creeds of Christendom” (the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds) as “what Lucifer wants so-called Christian people to believe about deity in order to be damned.” He referred to specific doctrines that teach God’s nature is spirit and triune as “lies about God.” As far as Jesus is concerned, McConkie insisted, “We worship the Father and him only and no one else.”

Beneath the veneer of respectability, Christian Science and the Unification Church still retain the heresies of Mary Baker Eddy and Sun Myung Moon.

Should We Cooperate?

In their pursuit of legitimacy, unorthodox cults have unwittingly been served by evangelical Christians. Christians should be aware of tactics that seek to cover over doctrinal heresy with a veneer of respectability that simply serves to promote a group’s status in the already crowded pluralistic landscape of American religion. It is tempting for Christian leaders to welcome the participation and organizational skills of Unification Church members when volunteers are desperately needed.

But there is danger in cooperating with unorthodox religion, warns Robert Dugan, director of the National Association of Evangelicals’ Washington Office on Public Affairs. “To join a coalition of which they [Unification Church members] are a major partner, for a future agenda of political input which is unspecified, I think is extremely dangerous and plays into their hands.”

At the same time, Jerry Falwell joined with Mormons and other unorthodox groups in his Moral Majority, and Tim LaHaye and other prominent evangelicals lent support to Sun Myung Moon in his tax-fraud case. These seemingly justifiable cooperative ventures nonetheless resulted in added respectability for unorthodox religious movements.

How should Christians respond to these groups? Should they cooperate with them on common political or moral causes? Should they support them in legal battles in defense of their constitutional rights? These are tough questions that perhaps can only be answered on a case-by-case analysis, without losing sight of the fact that the apostle Paul warned fellow believers not to give assistance to those bearing false doctrine.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.