Megachurch Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, an enthusiast for Governor Rick Perry (the Texax governor for people who think that George Bush was way too bookish) has labelled Mitt Romney's church (Latter-Day Saints) a "cult." Jeffress made the charge while addressing a convention of right-wing "value voters." (The particular value which Jefress himself exemplifies is "smugness.")
According to Jeffress, Perry's church is a "religion" and Romney's is a "cult." By which he means, I suppose, that a "religion" is good and true and "cult" is bad and false.
But to an outsider, like myself, it appears otherwise. It appears that the one is older and the other newer. The origins of Christianity (not the Baptist part, but the religion generally) are decently obscured by the mists of antiquity. The origins of Mormonism are o so transparent and so unpersuasive. But on any rational scale, the religion (virgin birth, bread-into-wine, three-in-one) and the cult (golden tablets, magic underwear) are equally incredible. There's nothing that would allow one to claim superiority to the other.
A cult is a new religion; a religion is an old cult. How does a cult get to be a religion? It absorbs a whole lot of converts. It becomes wealthy. It asserts authority — such as the power to stigmatize newer religions as cults.
Similarly, a "myth" is an old but dead religion. A "superstition" is someone else's religion.
Here's a related question: what's the difference between a language and a dialect? The standard answer among linguists: "a language has a bigger navy."
Leave a Reply