Editor: Marty gave me permission to repost this.
To All Media Outlets, Reporters, Writers and Editors:
It is abundantly clear to most Americans that the “Westboro Baptist Church” is neither “Baptist” nor a “church” according to any commonly accepted meaning of either word. As a Christ follower, and a long time church attender, I enter this plea to stop using the phrase “Westboro Baptist Church” in favor of the more accurate “the Westboro cult.”
The journalistic profession has turned out a small number of plagiarists whose words were stolen from the creativity and hard work of others then passed off as their own. Yet, though some among your number bring a pall on the word “journalist,” I do not refer to each of you as “cheats,” “word thieves” or “plagiarists.” It would be inaccurate to label you thusly because of a few whose actions obviously do not represent the whole. But in the mass media we see, with alarming near-universality, a refusal to call the wackos from Westboro anything except a “Baptist church” or a “church.”
Please begin referring to all family and followers of Fred Phelps as “the Westboro Cult,” for that is exactly what they are.
A search last Friday, August 3, 2012, on news.google.com–the news search, not the web search–of the phrase “Westboro Baptist Church” returned thousands of stories from news outlets. An immediate follow up search of “Westboro cult” returned four (4) results, all of which appeared to be people making comments on news stories. The most consistent users of the phrase “Westboro cult” appear to be a few conservative bloggers.
Westboro “Baptist Church” is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions, associations, or denominations. It stands proudly independent, with little desire for “friendly cooperation.”
The overwhelming majority of churches in the United States do not fit these popular definitions of a cult regardless of how hard one stretched the description. But Westboro does. This is the definition from Wikipedia:
The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre. The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices.
Or what about this definition of cult from BING:
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief systemregarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false. [Emphasis in all cases mine.]
Even a general religious definition used at Cultwatch.com, defines “cult” as
a group claiming to be Christian [yet] teaches significantly different things from what the Bible teaches.
A brief glance at Westboro’s website (Godhatesfags.com) reveals they place even their picketing schedule above what they “believe.” The listed “Sister Sites” are filled with hatred. The Westboro cult is interested in attention and free publicity.
You will find no Christian leaders in America or the world, no ordinary church attender, and precious few non-Christians or atheists who consider the actions of Phelps’ group to be representative of orthodox, normal, true, or customary Christianity. Few would consider them to be a legitimate expression of a “church,” properly understood.
Simply stated, Fred Phelps and his Topeka followers are a cult, and should always be designated as “the Westboro cult.” They should never be called a “church,” nor should they be called “Baptist,” and it is grossly inaccurate, as well as offensive to millions of Americans, to continue to do so.
Sincerely,
Marty Duren
Absolutely spot on. That cult gives a terrible name for Christianity in general for using the term Church and Baptist in particular for using their name.
Now I have the Living Colour song “Cult of Personality” running through my head. Thanks Marty. 😉
You nailed it Marty. Good job. Here’s to readership, and followship.
Kevin, that was ridiculous. Don’t do it again.
I think the general public (sinners) understand that this is not a Baptist church. They could be called anything and still be hated singularly for what they do since they display such an imbalance in their belief. These people represent the church of Satan better than they represent a cult. I would think their controversy would better generate opportunities for us to witness.
I didn’t understand it.
I first saw the Westboro cult on television protesting at a soldier’s funeral and I heard ‘Baptist Church’ and was horrified . . .
I later came to know the truth, that the Westboro ‘Baptist Church’ was nothing like the Southern Baptist faith of my grandmother of blessed memory, thank God. And I have the good people on Southern Baptist blogs to thank for that reassurance.
Don’t take for granted that the ‘public’ knows the truth.
Please continue to work towards clearing up any misunderstandings for the sake of all Christian people.
Will do. Thanks
Marty,
I especially found this theological statement on their website offensive:
“We adhere to the teachings of the Bible…and insist that the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace be taught and expounded publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Although these doctrines are almost universally hated today, they were once loved and believed, as you can see in many confessions of faith.. Even though the Arminian lies that ‘God loves everyone’ and ‘Jesus died for everyone’ are being taught from nearly every pulpit in this generation, this hasn’t always been the case. If you are in a church that supposedly believes the Bible, and you are hearing these lies, then your church doesn’t teach what the Bible teaches. If you care about your never-dying soul, you will carefully read every word of this web site, along with the entire Bible.”
I cannot believe their hatred would extend toward such a perversion of doctrine. It is no secret that I am not a Calvinist, but in the same way that these folks are neither Baptists nor a church, I believe they are also not true Calvinists, even though they claim that they are.
I’ve been fighting the effort to make this another Calvinism free-for-all. I deleted some comments that tried to smear Calvinists by tying them to the Westboro cult. But I’d really rather we not make this one about Calvinism, unless someone can show me how Calvinism is relevant to Marty’s post.
I appreciate Rick’s spirit in this post, but I don’t think we are going to accomplish much of value by pursuing this line of discussion.
Personally, Rick’s “spirit” aside, I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would mention “theology” (especially Calvinism) in the same breath as Westboro.
This just needlessly picks a fight and has no bearing whatsoever on Westboro — who would delight in this post going up on SBC Voices.
This is a “Pogo Moment” for me: “I saw the enemy and . . . . “
Can we all just drop the discussion of Calvinism on this post? Please?
Rick-
I’m in full agreement. Anyone who would argue Calvinism is an influence on the Westboro cult might need to argue a lack of Calvinism influenced Charles Manson and David Koresh! Those scenarios are just preposterous in my opinion.
The very definition of cult indicates departure from, or no original adherence to, recognizable, orthodox doctrine.
I agree with much of what Marty has to say, but I fear the concept of journalists deciding what to call a cult and what to call a church. I think he is also incorrect that they are not a church according to any commonly accepted meaning of either word. One commonly accepted meaning is a congregation, and they are a congregation with a pastor and much else of what any church has. As Baptists, we have the right to decide that Westboro is neither Baptist nor a church according our biblical definition, but I don’t think journalists (as journalists) are qualified to do that. I am further troubled that he chooses to unchurch them related to not being affiliated with any known Baptist conventions, associations, or denominations. Thousands of Baptist churches in America are unaffiliated and sound in the faith. The distemper of the Westboro cult has little to do with their affiliation or lack thereof (though their lack of affiliation may be caused by their distemper). Finally, his argument about not calling journalists “thieves” and so forth is not parallel. Journalists don’t call themselves thieves; Westboro does call itself a church.
All that said, I have no problem viewing this bunch as a cult. They are wrong, hateful and a bad Christian witness whatever you call them. They are gearing up to protest/picket/whatever they do at the funeral of a young soldier from our area who was killed by an IED. This is one of the vilest horrid demonstrations in their repertoire — not to mention stupidest. Soldiers have been killed in wars from time immemorial, regardless of the country’s moral views on homosexuality or various and sundry other things.
Robert-
I can understand your concern about media designations and find myself in sympathy with it. I will be doing a follow up post on my blog tomorrow or Friday demonstrating some objective reasons why Westboro actually is a cult; that is, I’m not suggesting a change in nomenclature just because I do not like calling it a “church.”
Marty, here’s an example of what I see that could really go awry if journalists approached this way. Reporters on the presidential election could repeatedly refer to Mitt Romney as a member of the Mormon cult. Many Christians and Baptists might agree that that are, but would we want this kind of reporting? And I could see that it wouldn’t be a stretch for some reporters to refer to any who consistently and uncompromisingly oppose homosexual marriage and abortion as cults. Some have already labeled us “hate groups”. Let the journalists stick with calling them by their name and let Christians oppose them and call them out for what they are.
Just so I am clear, if Charles Manson had referred to his murderous family as the “Hollywood Hills Church,” you would prefer the media use that designation? If so, I appreciate your consistency (but I’ll agree to disagree on it).
Let me be clear also. I am not advocating that anyone just call themselves whatever they wish and everyone else is obligated to just accept it. But your proposition of Charles Manson does not deal with the same thing we have here. In contrast, Westboro is a church in at least one commonly accepted English usage of the term. It has met/existed as a congregation since the 1950s. It is also recognized as a church by the federal government and was recognized as such in Snyder v. Phelps. That does not mean we personally have to recognize them as a church, or that we can’t consider them as a cult. It does mean that in our (American) general (secular) understanding of the term they are a church. Linguistically, being a church and a cult are not mutually exclusive.
Robert-
I’ll agree with you with this caveat: There was a time when Westboro was a church. My contention is they no longer are.
It would be interesting to read a chronicle of the steps of how Westboro evolved from a ‘Church’ into what they are now
this didn’t happen all at once, likely
Is it known if Fred Phelps was always like he presents himself to be now?
I find it interesting that Westboro is 5-point Calvinist, and already knew they were. I would never, however, accuse SBC Calvinists of being like them. At least not unless someone gets way, way, way out of line.
We can find some similarity between any one of us and some aberrant group.
I know an Independent Baptist preacher who knew Westboro’s Fred Phelps years ago. But there is a world of difference between the two preachers.
David R. Brumbelow
Really, guys, I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.
Let’s not make this another Calvinism free-for-all. That was not Marty’s intent in writing this.
PLEASE?
I’ve asked three or four times and no one has heeded my pleas. So, simply, any mention of Calvinism on this post will get your comment immediately trashed.
I tried to be nice, people.
Good post, Marty! I linked to it yesterday as did many others.
Thx, Josh. Much appreciated.
As much as we don’t like the methods and manners of WBC, it is a mistake to insist that we call them a “cult.” This term has historically been reserved in Christendom for a group that views something other than the Bible as revelation and someone other than Jesus Christ as Redeemer. Sadly, they are Calvinist . . . but they are unlike any Calvinist I have ever met, living or dead. So don’t impugn Calvinism either.
I do not defend Phelps or his “church,” Baptist or otherwise. But to try to insist that the media call them a “cult” because we don’t like their behavior misses the issue.
They have badly distorted the message of the Bible as have many groups down through the centuries that go by the name Christian. We need to focus on the issue at hand. Simply calling them a cult will not remove the stigma that we think attaches to us because of them.
The greatest danger of WBC is exactly this . . . they are NOT a cult by classic definition and hold enough vestiages of truth to cause serious confusion. Simply giving them a new designation will not clear up the confusion.
Actually, Jeff, they are a cult under current definition which is substantially different than Walter Martin’s usage. I’ll be addressing this issue in another post. In short, there are some theologians who define cults as you have, but the defining of cults is no longer limited to theologians or to Christendom.
Most people who read of Westboro are not believers and there should be a line drawn demarcating them from authentic churches.
But do you really want the media doing that? The government?
Why not let readers draw their own conclusion about whether WBC is an “authentic church” or not?
I don’t find theological definitions of “cult” to be very useful in our pluralistic age. Most of the scholarship on cults these days is coming from sociologists and those in behavioral sciences. I’m not yet convinced that WBC meets the definition of “cult” from a sociological perspective.
If WBC is a “cult,” it’s a rather unique cult. David Koresh and Jim Jones didn’t (and certainly weren’t capable) of arguing before the Supreme Court!
I tend to think of WBC as a hate group as they quite literally promote hate. That label is a better fit than cult. BUT, I’m not sure conservative Christians especially really want the media to go down that path given the SPLC’s labeling of FRC and AFA (based on objective criteria too).
Can I weigh in BDW’s comment. Does calling WBC a “hate” group work? The media calls them this because of their stand on homosexuality in general. Dan Cathy is also considered this way though he would likely not come close to endorsing the methods of WBC.
I do not follow WBC and have not looked at them closely for several years. But it seems to me that they were not promoting hatred as such. They are deeply misguided in their approach to national sin but is this hatred?
Marty:
I am in the unfortunate situation of having to “defend” WBC against poor rhetoric and thus appearing to defend WBC. Let me be clear. I cannot defend WBC.
What consitutues an “authentic” church and who gets to decide this? You? Me? The Bible? Ok, let’s argue for the Bible. You know of WBC for its very public (and unbiblical) rhetoric on one issue. How does this alone make them NOT an “authentic” church? Is Phelps the sole elder and a dictator? I don’t know, do you? Even if he is, haven’t there been other Baptist churches who have practised this model? So are all Baptist churches without elder plurality not “authentic”? You and I might argue that they are weak and even unbiblical, but to say they are not a church by your definition or mine smacks of a form new landmarkism. How would you use the Bible to unchurch them?
Hear me clearly, I AM NOT defending WBC. I am only arguing that calling them a “cult” solves nothing. I will grant that Walter Martin’s classic definition also may not solve anything. But this is the point . . . “cult” has no standard, universally recognizable definition. In some orthodox countries, Baptists are considered as cults. Cult means whatever the user wishes it to mean.
So if you want to engage WBC, do so with the Scripture and not with semantics. You and I agree that WBC is deeply flawed in their understanding of the Scripture on this point and perhaps others. They appear to be hyper-Calvinist also (by any definition of hyper-Calvinism theologically rooted). But does this make them not a church or not Baptist?
Your skewed rhetoric does not help overthrow their error. Whether they are a church, Baptist or otherwise, is NOT the issue. They are clearly UNbiblical in they way they approach public sin. There is not one NT example of anything approaching their actions. It is on this basis that WBC should be refuted both directly and indirectly. Let’s hammer the fact that what they are doing is unbiblical, rather than simply dismissing them with a vague label that means different things to different people.
BDW and Jeff-
As much as I detest labels, Westboro is currently labeled as a church, a designation which seems ok to you. If they were referred to solely as “the Westboro hate-group” I would have not a problem.
I appreciate you do not like my choice of term, but that does not mean it is skewed. It is, in fact, correct, and far more accurate than “church.”
Its “uniqueness” does not relegate it to non-cult status, as Aaron implies. I do not even see how “uniqueness” applies at all, except that virtually all cults are unique from other religious bodies.
Marty
You are free to use words any way you want to. Words have meaning in context. You can call blue yellow and pink green. And you can argue that WBC is not a church by your definition. Good luck convincing the unbeliving world that they aren’t really what they claim to be without biblical support. Besides your own opinion, in what way are they not a church biblically speaking? I don’t know, do you?
Maybe their sole reason for existence is to attack sin . . . If this is the case, they would not be a church.
Maybe they don’t even use the Bible or observe the ordinances . . . or meet for worship. They might not be a church.
Demostrate biblically why they are not a church . . . I hate “defending” them, but your rhetoric is not helpful in refuting them. The media will continue to think of them as a church.
In the eyes of Catholic leaders, your church isn’t really a church either though. It’s an “ecclesial community.” I’m not sure why we’d want a theologically-based definition of “cult” in our very very diverse American religious landscape.
WBC is a church in that – aside from its activities beyond the walls of their church building – functions like not a few rural, independent, fundamental, predestinarian congregations.
The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye isn’t exactly mainstream, orthodox or whatever. But in our larger context – the context in which the media operates – AND per the First Amendment, it’s a church, a religious organization.
Also, uniqueness ought to matter. If you say WBC is a cult but it doesn’t look like a cult when compared to other notable cults in American history, then it’s “uniqueness” would seem to undermine the assertion that it is indeed a “cult” like the murderous Manson family and Davidians mentioned earlier.
What are the implications of calling WBC a “cult”? Are cults deserving of First Amendment protections? Free exercise of religion?
Historically, when individuals and groups have argued over the meaning of “religion” and “church,” the intent (or at least implication) has been to undermine the freedoms of that organization. Look at the Church of Scientology in Germany for a recent case. Or look at the growing number of folks here in the U.S. who are peddling the argument that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology, undeserving of First Amendment protection.
I’m not saying that’s your intent. I think I understand your intent and share your frustration. But what are the consequences of the media or the government going down this path?
“”” functions like not a few rural, independent, fundamental, predestinarian congregations. “””
I find this statement stratospheric in regard to a perception of reality.
Thank God this is not true.
Ok Larry, tell me how it’s not true?
You didn’t quote me fully either.
Jeff-
“Maybe their sole reason for existence is to attack sin . . . If this is the case, they would not be a church.”
Thank you. Please visit my blog tomorrow.
It is immoral for anyone with even a smattering of understanding as to what a local New Testament church is to give the Wretches of Westboro any consideration as such.
The “wretches of Westboro” – I like that. Maybe we could make that stick?
I hate to sound conspiratorial or anything, but my spidey-senses sometimes wonder if some in the secular press like to link Westboro to evangelicalism – as if we all share their homophobic extremism.
OK . . . Dave. “Homophobic?” Are they afraid of homosexuals? Their rhetoric is wrong. But shouldn’t we be careful with our own? Let’s not crawl into the gutter to refute them. They are not a cult, they do not hate, and I have never seen homophobia as part of their rhetoric. They oppose one tragic sin in a very public and extreme way. Let’s zero in on why their approach is unbiblical and refute that. If homosexuality is a sin, shouldn’t it be opposed, even publically? But is this the way to do it?
FWIW, they may appear to be homophobic to the public who accepts homosexuality. But I have not read in their literature any manifiestation of a fear toward homosexuals. THEY ARE WRONG in their approach–DEAD WRONG and UNBIBLICAL. But let’s be more precise in refuting them!
“””they do not hate”””
Surely, you cannot believe this.
They, themselves, refute that statement on their own website and in every action and word that comes out of their minds.
Are you willing to send your kids to their VBS?
Jeff-
Tell me “they do not hate” was a typo or I’m misreading it. Please.
Sigh . . . I AM NOT defending WBC. Do they “hate” . . . I don’t know their hearts. They oppose sin. Very unbiblically to be sure. But do they hate? I have not read a “I hate this sinful person or that . . . ” statement from them. Now I have not been on their website lately and I don’t wish to read their sad rhetoric. I know its unbiblical. End of story.
What they say is that “God hates . . . ” Is this a true statement? Even if it is, are they making it in a Christian . . . a biblical way? NO!
Let’s try, TRY to think clearly. We should oppose their excessive rhetoric and their unbiblical approach.
Would I send my kids to their VBS? Are you serious? I have said plainly that I oppose the way they address the issue as unbiblical. I would even say I hate it. But certainly do not “hate” them.
“We are the instruments of God’s hate to the world.”
“We are not here to ‘share Christ with others.'”
Direct quotes from Phelps adherents.
If you still hold your position, I have nothing else to say.
Ok. You have me in a corner. I wonder if this isn’t hyper, hyper Calvinism! So sad! This of course cannot be defended! But then wouldn’t the real issue be his hyper-Calvinism?
“”””they do not hate””””
?
“””then wouldn’t the real issue be his hyper-Calvinism?””””
This has nothing to do with “Calvinism,” hyper or otherwise.
I am absolutely stunned that a person posting on a Baptist blog cannot unequivocally denounce and emphatically deplore a cult like Westboro.
It is a “cult” in every way a cult is measured and yet, someone even questions that. It is no wonder to me why the American Church is stagnant and irrelevant to the cultural conversation taking place.
Our salt needs savor.
Yeah, I didn’t respond to Jeff’s comment because I wasn’t sure how to do so. If what Westboro does is not defined as hate or homophobia, I’m not sure if the words have meaning.
Jeff-
I humbly submit that your repeated references to Calvinism have nothing to do with it. It speaks much that you must coin terms like “hyper, hyper Calvinism” which has no definition to avoid using the word “cult” which is both definable and applicable. Calvinism, if ever authentically a doctrinal system held by Phelps, has long been distorted and drowned in their cesspool of hate. If there has ever been an example of “Call me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I say,” it is the Westboro cult.
Surely your legs are getting tired of jumping through so many hoops in your effort to avoid the obvious.
Marty,
Just a note on the idea of a “cult.” You are right on target from my perspective. My master’s degree is in philosophy of religion, and Westboro is a “classic” example of cultism.
The issue is even more troublesome because of their embracing of “hate” as a major stone in their organization building.
😀
Because I like Marty, I’m going to hijack his post!
OK, not really, but I do want give a more in-depth look at Westboro. Cf. Westboro Baptist Revealed: Evangelized, Interviewed, Reviewed
BDW and Jeff-
Here is the follow up post: Is Westboro “Baptist Church” a cult? Yes, it is.
I believe it is overly optimistic to believe that most of the media will call Westboro Baptist Church by anything other than it’s name.
It is “Baptist” and it is a “Church.” Not good representations of either, but it is what it is.
What we can hope for is that the media will give the descriptions of the church that add some context. The church is essentially made up of the Phelps family, and it is completely independent. I don’t know of a Baptist denomination that would want them.
There is some hope on this front, I believe. Within the last year, I even saw Alan Combs (sp?) describe this church as essentially a family group that has no affiliation to any major Baptist Church group.
I think that’s where we want to go.
Trying to get the media to parse out what deserves to be called a church, a cult etc. is real tricky.
With respect to the government, the test is basically whether the group or individual has sincerely held religious beliefs. They can be crazy beliefs, and they can be crazy people. But that doesn’t matter. If they have sincerely held religious beliefs, they are denoted as “religious” under the First Amendment.
Fred Phelps is an interesting guy. I think he went to Bob Jones 70 or so years ago. He’s a lawyer, and has been honored by the NAACP for defending the rights of African Americans.
He has also been a loyal Democrat.
He was a big Al Gore supporter for President in 1988, I think, and may have even been state co-chair for Gore. He also has run for public office – maybe Governor or U.S. Senator in the Democratic primaries in his state.
I’m glad that people are beginning to see that this has never been neither a church nor any relationship with baptists. They do not carry or show any baptist distinctives and I’m very happy to see that people are seeing them for what they are.
Louis: I disagree.
Watch the videos Marty put up.
http://www.martyduren.com/2012/08/13/the-most-hated-family-in-america-documentary-on-the-westboro-cult-video/