These "brainwashing" concepts originate from the 50s during the Cold War era, mostly as a result of propaganda against Communist regimes. They were later capitalised on and rebranded by the anti-cult movement in the 70s and by relatives who wanted to force their loved ones to abandon religious and spiritual groups they did not agree with. The anti-cult movement even went so far as to use these concepts to justify such things as deprogramming which literally involved kidnapping people, depriving them of sleep and food, and in some cases even abusing them sexually as part of the deprogrammer's techniques to "persuade" them to leave the "undesirable" group.
What most people do not know is that "brainwashing" and "coercive persuasion" theories were later rejected in the 90s by reputable scientific organisations such as the American Psychological Association, as well as judicial courts in the U.S., like happened in the Fishman case. Such organisations and courts determined that the "coercive persuasion" theories regarding "cults" lack scientific rigor, with critics pointing out that the arguments were mostly based on prejudices and often engaged in the very tactics they claimed to be countering.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Freedom For Faith, an Australian organisation that partners with Christian churches and is dedicated to advocating for religious freedom, has voiced serious concerns about the "Inquiry". As they pointed out, many of the criteria used to identify a "cult" applies also to mainstream religions, albeit described in pejorative terms. These include criteria such as demonstrating love and affection for new members, inviting people to social events, providing support for vulnerable people and "voluntary isolation", like happens in some monastic orders.
The Victorian "Inquiry" article starts with a disclaimer:
This Inquiry is not about judging or questioning anyone’s beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.
This is a common anti-cult movement tactic that tries to evade the issue of religious freedom. They always have to state, "for the record", that they are not against anyone's "beliefs". However, this is not entirely true. Sure, the anti-cult movement is technically not against any beliefs that do not affect people's lives in a way that is contrary to the values of society. You could, for example, believe that purple unicorns created the universe and this would be of no concern as long as it doesn't produce a radical change in your lifestyle. But even well known Christian beliefs and practices such as "putting God first" (Matthew 22:37-38), "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39), "selling possessions and giving to the poor" (Luke 12:33), and even "going into all the world to preach the Gospel" (Mark 16:15) can be seen as "coercive" by the anti-cult movement if they lead to people actually practising them in a significant way.
But religious freedom is not just freedom to believe, it is also freedom to practice, as described in the Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
However, on the issue of practice, the Inquiry "guidance note" puts it this way:
What we’re focused on are those groups that use techniques that can harm individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially, or even physically.
Harmful or abusive practices can happen in any group—religious or not—and our concern is with those actions, not the beliefs behind them.
Harmful or abusive practices can happen in any group—religious or not—and our concern is with those actions, not the beliefs behind them.
On the surface, it looks reasonable. No genuine religious or spiritual community actually wants to cause emotional, psychological, financial or physical harm, even if abuses sometimes occur. The Inquiry article rightly says that abuses can happen in any group, religious or not, yet it claims that they are only targeting those actions. However, if that were really the case, they would not be doing an Inquiry that targets "cults" and "organised fringe groups". They would, instead, be doing an inquiry into coercive tactics done by anyone or any group, including mainstream religions, secular businesses and perhaps even the government itself. So, it seems they really DO want to target certain religious minority groups and certain beliefs and practices. To do that, anti-cultists often use definitions and criteria that are described in very negative terms but are sufficiently vague that they can be applied to almost any group they wish to attack, at the same time that they refrain from using such definitions when it suits them.
In our case, anti-cultists are arguing against us in these three ways:
- Teaching people to forsake all and work for love, as Jesus taught, amounts to causing "financial harm";
- Ignoring demands to leave the group, as made by relatives, and/or being criticised by other members of the community amount to "emotional harm";
- Freely choosing to donate a kidney amounts to "physical harm" on the part of the JC community, because that is where members learned that they could make such a donation, if they wanted to do so.
The rest of the Inquiry article basically follows the discredited anti-cult theories of "brainwashing" and "coercive persuasion", with all the vague language, double standards and circular reasoning that go with it, (e.g. we know that a group is a "cult" because they engage in "coercive tactics" and we know that these tactics are "coercive" because they are being used by "cults").
For example, the Inquiry says they have adopted the following definition of a "cult":
a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.
The emphasis on the word "and" in the quote above is from the Inquiry article itself. Presumably it is there to emphasise that both parts of the definition must be present for a group to qualify as a "cult". However, both parts of the definition include terms that are undefined and that could be interpreted to apply to virtually any religious group.
For example, the first part talks of "a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person" or even to an "idea", which would include both Jesus and his teachings. But who determines when such dedication is "great" or "excessive"? The anti-cultists, of course!
Jesus Christ, the greatest spiritual role model for Western society, definitely teaches a type of devotion and dedication to him that would be considered "great" and "excessive" to anyone who does not believe him. So, any group that dares to teach people to have a strong commitment to the things that Jesus taught could be branded as a "cult", depending on where the line is drawn between "reasonable devotion" and "great devotion". As Freedom For Faith pointed out, even the dedication and devotion manifested by monasteries or evangelical churches can be considered "great" and "excessive" by a secular society.
The second part of the definition also uses terms that lend themselves to interpretation and can easily be used unfairly against any group that has high standards. For example, what does isolation from friends and family mean? Within the Jesus Christians, we do not "isolate" in terms of cutting off all contact with relatives, but we do live together in community, which naturally means living away from home (usually in accessible urban areas). And even though many of our members have good relationships with their respective families and maintain regular contact, not all of them do. Are our members not allowed to cut contact with conflictive relatives, for example, without our group being accused of "coercive control"? (NOTE: We do not teach that contact must be cut with conflictive relatives, even if this may be advisable in some circumstances. We usually advocate for people to do their best to improve such relationships as much as possible, though there are also limits to how far people can go to accommodate particularly conflictive relatives, especially when they actively seek to cause problems and harm to members of our community).
Other parts of the definition like powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving the group are all issues that we genuinely wrestle with (and we imagine that other groups do as well). Any sincere and committed religious group like our own does not actually want members who join or stay with the group under perceived pressure or fear, at the same time that any Christian church or community worth their salt would want to protect their members from particularly negative influences. That is why we constantly push for people to think for themselves, to question things, for leaders to be accountable, to consider both sides of the argument, etc. For the anti-cultists, this is not only never enough, but they believe they alone have the right to define and interpret any of these terms. In short, the only thing that would satisfy them is for us to stop being a community of people committed to living out the radical teachings of Jesus. This we cannot agree to.
This article would become extremely long if we had to go through each of the different "signs" that the "Inquiry" is using to identify "cults" and "coercive control" to point out all the inconsistencies, vague terms, etc. that the anti-cultists use against any group they want to attack. All that is needed for people to see how unfair such definitions are is to ask themselves how they could be applied to virtually any religion or spiritual movement. Organisations like Freedom For Faith have done that, and we applaud it, though their critiques and concerns seem more along the lines of making sure that the interpretations do not get applied to the mainstream churches, even if they do get applied unfairly to other movements.
Regardless of what happens with this Inquiry, the truth is that Jesus was clear in saying that if we put into practice his teachings, people would eventually hate us and persecute us. (John 15:18-20) He said that he had not come to bring peace but division (Luke 12:51), that families would be divided over him (Matthew 10:35-36), and that we must put him first even to the point of "hating" our loved ones (and our own lives) if we wanted to be his disciples. (Luke 14:26-27) He said that if people demonised him, they would say even worse things about us, (Matthew 10:24-25) and that our loved ones could even betray us to death. (Matthew 10:21) Of course, just mentioning these facts as we have done in this paragraph may be "evidence" enough for the anti-cultists (and possibly the people behind the Victorian Inquiry) to label us as an "extreme cult".
In fact, the Australian Herald Sun, which seems to lean towards tabloid journalism, has published an article in relation to the Inquiry, specifically mentioning our community in a list of "Victoria's most extreme and controlling cults". They have also specifically listed "donating kidneys to strangers" as grounds for considering us one of "the most disturbing doomsday groups".
Upon further inspection, it can be noted that they limit their accusations against us with such statements as: "often described as creepy and controlling"; "accused of deliberately isolating recruits to brainwash them" (without mention of who "accused" us of this and what evidence they presented); and "allegedly urge its members to donate their kidneys" (despite even disgruntled ex-members clearly stating that there was never any pressure to donate kidneys in our community).
In other words, they have zero evidence for these claims, but they make for a juicier story within the fear mongering that the anti-cult ideology represents.
(For much more reliable information on our group's history, beliefs and practices read this 2025 Academic Research Paper and this 2018 Academic Ethnography.)
To be clear, we think it is fine for the government to deal with coercion wherever coercion truly exists (i.e, violence, real psychological abuse via threats, etc.), whether such coercion is employed by "cults", churches or by anyone else (including the anti-cultists). But the type of "coercion" that the anti-cult movement promotes, which is the same type of "coercive control" that this Victorian "Inquiry" seems to be adopting, is an imaginary type of "coercion" that only exists when the anti-cultists (or prejudiced people working for the government) say it does. In short, it seems to be just another tool that can be used (and is already being used around the world) for justifying the persecution of religious and spiritual minorities that teach values that differ from mainstream society. Specifically targeting “cults” and “fringe groups” reveals the prejudiced intent behind the whole Inquiry.
The anti-cultists may argue that what we have described in this article amounts to nothing more than a "persecution complex", but for us it is simply a sign of the times and what eventually lies ahead for all true Christians in a spiritually decadent world.
