The Dilemma of Defining Cults and New Religions

The definition of “cults” and “new religions” is usually highly controversial and easily influenced by ideology and subjective emotions. Those with a negative attitude regard them as the more dangerous and abnormal among all religious beliefs and practices; those with a positive attitude regard them as constructing unique religious meanings and religious experiences. This roughly presents two main approaches to defining cults and new religions, namely, secular anti-cult organizations and the sociology of religion.

对于“膜拜团体”（cults）与“新宗教”（new religions）的界定，通常存在很大的争议，而且易受到意识形态和主观情绪的影响。持消极态度的人认为，它们是所有宗教信仰和实践中较为危险和反常的；持积极态度的人认为，它们构建了独特的宗教意义和宗教体验。这也大致呈现出界定膜拜团体与新宗教的两条主要进路，即世俗反膜拜组织和宗教社会学。

I. The Dilemma of Defining the Scope of Cults and New Religions

一、膜拜团体与新宗教范围界定的困境

Over the past few decades, social scientists have attempted various methods to rehabilitate the term “cult,” and although they have achieved some success, it still generally carries negative connotations. At the same time, they have proposed alternative concepts. Besides “new religions” or “New Religious Movements (NRMs),” which are the most commonly used, there are also “alternative religious movements,” “emergent religions,” “controversial new religions,” and “marginal or peripheral religious movements,” among others, but most of these are less than ideal. When is a group considered “new”? What is “alternative”? What kind of group is both new and alternative yet relatively uncontroversial? What does it mean to be “marginal”—merely a matter of group size, or a distinctive social characteristic? The term “emergent religions” seems to cover certain features, but because many new religions have been overlooked by society, they cannot be said to have “emerged.” In short, no concept is perfect.

在过去的几十年中，社会科学家已经尝试了多种方法去修复“膜拜团体”这一术语，尽管取得了一些成功，但在通常意义上仍然具有消极的涵义。与此同时，他们也提出一些替代性的概念。除“新宗教”（new religions）或“新宗教运动”（New Religious Movements, NRMs）使用最普遍外，还有“替代性宗教运动”（alternative religious movements）、“浮现中的宗教” （emergent religions）、“争议性新宗教”（controversial new religions）和“边缘宗教运动”（marginal or peripheral religious movement）等，但这些大都不甚理想。什么时候一个群体才被认为是“新的”？什么是“替代性的”？什么样的群体既新且具有替代性，但又相对没有争议？成为“边缘”又意味着什么——仅仅关乎群体规模的大小，还是指一种独特的社会特征？“浮现中的宗教”一词似乎涵盖了某些特征，但是由于很多新宗教一直被社会所忽视，因此也不能算作“浮现”过。总之，没有一个概念是完美的。

However one defines new religions or new religious movements, they remain important and elusive social entities and organizations. As the sociologist of religion Lorne Dawson points out, they are not only “intrinsically interesting,” but their beliefs and practices are often “unusual, even bizarre.” The emergence of new religions runs throughout history. In a sense, every religious tradition was once “new” or “alternative” at a particular time or in a particular place. For example, at one point in history, no form of Christian faith existed. When Christian faith emerged as a conscious social organization, it was, like today’s new religions, universally feared and suspected. More than a thousand years later, as the dominant social and religious force in Europe, the Christian faith was introduced to North America by zealous Catholic missionaries and imposed on indigenous peoples, for whom such a religion was equally new, alternative, and dangerous.

无论如何定义新宗教或者新宗教运动，它们仍旧是重要的难以捉摸的社会实体和组织。正如宗教社会学家罗恩·道森（Lorne Dawson）指出的，他们不仅“发自内心地感兴趣”，而且其信仰与行为常常是“不寻常的，甚至是奇异的”。新宗教的出现贯穿整个历史。某种意义上说，每种宗教传统在特定时间或特定地点都曾是“新的”或“可替代的”。例如，历史上有一时期，任何形式的基督教信仰都并不存在。当基督教信仰作为一个自觉的社会组织出现的时候，也曾像今天的新宗教一样，被普遍性地惧怕和怀疑。一千多年之后，作为欧洲主导的社会和宗教势力，基督信仰被热心的天主教传教士们传入北美，并强加给当地土著居民，对他们来说，这样一种宗教同样是新的、可替代的以及危险的。

Evangelical anti-cult groups often simplify and reduce new religions. Secular anti-cult organizations and the media, by contrast, treat new religions as diverse and complex in doctrine and practice, either originating from various cultural traditions or directly constituted by such traditions. For some new religions, such as the Unification Church and the Branch Davidians, they have already developed specific doctrinal and practical models, having split off from their parent Christianity. For other new religious movements, it is difficult to characterize them as having a “religious” tradition. For example, Scientology combines technological innovation, therapy, health management methods, corporate operations, and globalized organizational forms, making it difficult to position solely on a religious level.

福音派反膜拜团体常常将新宗教进行简化和还原，世俗反膜拜组织以及媒体则不同，对于它们来说，新宗教是多样的、在教义和实践层面具有复杂性，它们或起源于各种文化传统、或直接由这些传统内容构成。对于一些新宗教如统一教、大卫支派等，它们已经具备了特殊的教义与实践模式，从自己的母体基督教中分离了出来。对于另外一些新宗教运动，则很难称其具有某种“宗教的”传统。例如，科学教将技术创新、治疗、健康管理方法、企业运营和全球化的组织方式结合在一起，这就很难仅仅在宗教层面上对其进行定位。

II. The Definition by Secular Anti-Cult Organizations and the Challenges It Faces

二、世俗反膜拜组织的界定及其受到的质疑

(A) The International Cultic Studies Association

（一）国际膜拜团体研究会

Currently, the largest and most influential global non-governmental organization researching cult issues is the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), founded in 1979 under the name American Family Foundation (AFF). In the early 1980s, a series of tragic group incidents occurred in North America, such as Heaven’s Gate and the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple, leading the AFF to adopt a tough and critical stance toward cults. In a collection of essays edited by Michael Langone, psychologist Margaret Singer classified groups such as the Peoples Temple as evil organizations employing mind control. The book argued that some extreme new religious movements use psychological manipulation to harm members, calling on people to combat them by attacking cult leaders, doctrines, and activities, and to help cult members through radical measures including forced deprogramming.

目前，国际上规模最大、最有影响的研究邪教问题的全球性非政府组织是国际膜拜团体研究会（the International Cultic Studies Association，ICSA），创立于1979年，当时的名称为美国家庭基金会（American Family Foundation，AFF）。20 世纪80年代初，北美发生了一系列悲剧性群体事件，如天堂之门、人民圣殿教成员自杀等，因此AFF对膜拜团体采取强硬和批判的立场。在迈克尔·朗高尼（Michael Langone）编辑的论文集中，心理学家玛格丽特·辛格（Margaret Singer）将人民圣殿教等组织归为采取精神控制的邪恶组织（evil organization）。该书指出，一些极端新宗教运动使用心理操控对成员造成伤害，号召人们通过攻击膜拜团体领袖、教义及其活动与之做斗争，就是帮助膜拜团体成员采用包括如强制脱教（deprogramming）之类的激进措施。

The AFF’s academic resources came primarily from psychiatric theory and practice; many concepts requiring careful distinction and analysis were taken for granted. Its conference language lacked academic terminology, and broad discussions made it difficult to gain new knowledge. Against this backdrop, in 2004 the AFF renamed itself the ICSA, beginning a transformation in philosophy and working methods to better reflect the organization’s focus and the national and academic dimensions of cult research. The ICSA claims to be a global network of people concerned about psychological manipulation and psychological harm in cults, alternative movements, and other contexts, with a mission to educate the public and help those who have been harmed through research and professional perspectives.

AFF的学术资源主要来自精神病学的理论和实践，许多需要缜密区分和辨析的观念被认为是理所当然的，其会议语言缺乏学术用语，泛泛的讨论很难获取新知。在这样的背景下，AFF在2004年更名为ICSA，在理念和工作方式上开始转型，以更好地反映组织的关注点以及膜拜团体研究的国家维度和学术维度。ICSA宣称它是一个由关注膜拜团体、替代运动及其他环境中的心理被操控和心理受伤的人士组成的一个全球性网络，其使命是用研究和专业的视角教育公众并帮助那些受过伤害的人。

(B) The International Cultic Studies Association’s Definition of Cults

（二）国际膜拜团体研究会对膜拜团体的界定

Based on the ambiguity and limitations of the definition of cults, and given that certain specific organizations and movements change over time and space, it is unwise to define them directly. ICAS member Singer analyzed the characteristics of cults from three aspects: the cult leader, the relationship between the leader and followers, and the procedures for controlling members: (1) Cult leaders’ titles are all self-proclaimed; they are eloquent, claiming to have a special mission or special knowledge. They are often determined, domineering, and usually describe themselves as possessing charisma, demanding that members worship only them. (2) The structure of cults is DCZY [democratic centralism]. They appear innovative and exclusive, but in practice implement a double moral standard, requiring members to be open and honest within the organization and confess everything to the leader, while simultaneously encouraging members to deceive and manipulate non-members. (3) Cults are extremist in controlling their members’ behavior and also in ideology, requiring members to undergo a significant lifestyle change or abandon their original way of life. They essentially have only two major purposes: recruiting new members and accumulating wealth. Langone and others summarized fifteen characteristics of cults: (1) Showing excessive enthusiasm for their leader, treating his belief system, ideology, and practices as truth and law. (2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. (3) Excessive use of mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, etc.) to suppress members’ doubts about the group and its leader. (4) The leader sometimes prescribes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel, such as specifying what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, etc. (5) The group is elitist, proclaiming that the leader has a special, exalted status, such as being considered a messiah, a special being, an incarnation, etc., or that the group or leader is carrying out a special mission to save humanity. (6) A “we versus them” polarized mentality, which may lead to widespread social conflict. (7) The leader is not accountable to any authority. (8) The group teaches or implies that any means are necessary and justified to achieve so-called lofty ends. This may lead members to engage in reprehensible or immoral activities, such as lying to relatives and friends. (9) The leader controls members by inducing guilt; peer pressure among members of similar age is a common tactic. (10) Requiring members to cut off ties with relatives and friends and fundamentally change their personal goals and activities before joining the group. (11) Being preoccupied with recruiting new members. (12) Being keen on accumulating wealth. (13) Expecting members to invest excessive time in the group and group-related activities. (14) Encouraging or requiring members to socialize only with other members within the organization. (15) The most loyal members feel there is no life outside the group. They believe there is no other way out and often fear retaliation if they leave the organization. These characteristics are very operational for distinguishing so-called cults, but they also clearly carry ideological biases, and therefore have been questioned.

基于膜拜团体定义上的模糊性与局限性，且一些特定组织和运动在不同时空会发生变化，直接为其下定义并不明智。ICAS成员辛格从膜拜团体领袖、领袖与信徒的关系以及控制成员的程序三个方面分析膜拜团体的特征：（1）膜拜团体领袖的头衔都是自封的，他们能言善辩，声称自己负有特殊使命或具有特殊知识。他们往往有决心、专横，且通常将自己描述为具有克里斯玛（charisma），要求成员只能崇拜自己一人。（2）膜拜团体的结构是DCZY的。它们看上去具有创新性和排他性，实际上实行双重道德标准，要求成员们要在组织内公开和诚实，向领袖坦白一切，与此同时又鼓励成员们去欺骗和操控非成员。（3）膜拜团体在控制其成员的行为方面是极端主义的，在意识形态上也是如此，要求成员经历一次生活方式的重要改变或放弃其原有的生活方式。它们基本上只有两大目的，即招募新成员和敛财。朗高尼等人总结了膜拜团体十五条特征：（1）对其领导人表现出过分的热情，将其信仰体系、意识形态和实践视为真理和法律。（2）质疑、怀疑和持不同意见会被劝阻甚至受到惩罚。（3）过度使用改变心态的练习（如冥想、诵经等）以压制成员对团队及其领导人的怀疑。（4）领导人有时会非常详细地规定成员应该如何思考、行动和感受，如规定穿什么衣服、住在哪里、是否要孩子、如何管教孩子等。（5）这个群体是精英主义的，他们宣称领袖具有特殊的、崇高的地位，如领袖被认为是弥赛亚、一个特殊的存在、一个化身等，或者这个群体或领袖正在执行一项拯救人类的特殊任务。（6）“我们对抗他们”的两极分化的心态，可能会导致广泛的社会冲突。（7）领导人不向任何当局负责。（8）这个群体教导或暗示，为了达到所谓崇高的目的，任何手段是必要的与正当的。这可能会导致成员参与一些应该受到谴责或不道德的活动，如对亲友撒谎等。（9）领导人通过诱发成员的内疚感控制他们，在年龄相仿的成员间施压是其惯用的手段。（10）要求成员切断与亲友的联系，并从根本上改变他们加入团体之前的个人目标和活动。（11）全神贯注于扩充新成员。（12）热衷敛财。（13）期望成员投入过多的时间在团体和与团体相关的活动上。（14）鼓励或要求成员只与组织内其他成员社交。（15）最忠诚的成员感觉在群体之外没有任何生活可言。他们相信没有别的出路，并且经常担心如果离开组织会遭到报复。这些特征对于分辨所谓的膜拜团体非常具有操作性，也明显带有意识形态的倾向性，因此受到了质疑。

(III) Questions Raised about the ICSA Definition

（三）ICSA界定受到的质疑

Some scholars have doubted whether these characteristics can actually constitute a “cult,” mainly in three aspects: (1) There is no indication of how many of these “characteristics” a group must have to be called a “cult”; (2) There is no proper definition of what is “excessive” and “abnormal” belief, practice, or behavior, nor is there proof of their harmfulness; (3) There is no clear distinction between potentially dangerous minority religious groups and a large number of other religious and social groups that exhibit similar characteristics but cause little or no harm to their members or society as a whole. ICSA uses the above characteristics to identify potentially dangerous groups and, on this basis, makes recommendations to the families, friends, and local governments of potential cult members. However, these characteristics are controversial, and secular anti-cult organizations cannot provide answers to these questions.

有些学者对这些特征能否实际构成“膜拜团体”产生了怀疑，主要表现在三方面：（1）没有迹象表明，具有多少这些“特征”才能使一个团体称得上“膜拜团体”；（2）对于什么是“过度的”和“不正常的”信仰、实践或行为没有适当的界定，也没有证明它们具有危害性；（3）那些可能存在危险的少数宗教团体，与表现出相似的特征、但对其成员或整个社会有很少或没有危害的大量其他宗教与社会团体之间，并不存在明显的区别。ICSA利用以上特征识别潜在的危险群体，并在此基础上向可能加入膜拜团体的人的家人、朋友和当地政府提出建议。但是，这些特征是有争议的，而对于这些问题世俗反膜拜组织并不能给出答案。

First, the “we versus them” issue. ICSA believes that suspicious groups have a “we versus them” polarized mentality, which may lead to war between such groups and society. In a given society, for example, evangelicals and orthodox Protestants in the United States account for at least one-third of the population. There is a strict distinction between those who “accept YS as JSZ” [Jesus as Savior] and those who do not. Secular anti-cult writer Dave Hunt once wrote: “The only reason to be familiar with other religions and other religious writings is to show those who follow erroneous systems their errors, in order to save them.” If a cult is formed because one believes one’s worldview is correct, then many religious and political groups throughout history fall into this category.

第一，关于“我们对抗他们”问题。ICSA认为可疑团体有一种“我们对抗他们”的两极分化的心态，这可能会引起这类团体与社会的战争。在特定社会中，例如美国的福音派与正统基督新教徒至少占人口的三分之一。“接受YS是JSZ”的人们与不接受的人们之间保持着严格的区分。世俗反膜拜团体作家戴夫·亨特（Dave Hunt）曾写道：“熟悉其他宗教和其他宗教著作的唯一原因，是为了向那些遵循错误系统的人展示错误所在，从而拯救他们”。如果一个膜拜团体形成的原因是相信一个人的世界观是正确的，那么在历史上很多宗教和政治集团都属于这种情况。

Second, the “mind-altering practices” issue. According to ICSA, dangerous religious groups use “mind-altering practices” (e.g., meditation, chanting, condemnation, etc.). What one person considers unreasonable chanting or meditation time, another may find has little impact on their spirituality. For example, many Roman Catholics pray the rosary for hours every day. Secular anti-cult organizations deploying such a subjective quantification exposes their lack of deep understanding of the history and practice of devout and ecstatic religious experience. Moreover, these practices are foundational to many dominant religious traditions, including Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, yet secular anti-cult organizations do not include them in their list of dangerous cults.

第二，关于“致幻实践”问题。据ICSA称，危险的宗教团体使用“致幻实践”（例如，冥想、念咒、谴责等）。一个人认为不合理的吟诵或冥想时间，另一个人可能觉得这些时间对他们的精神几乎没有影响。比如许多罗马天主教徒每天祷告玫瑰经（rosary）长达数小时之久。世俗反膜拜组织配置这样一个主观的量化,暴露了他们缺乏对虔诚和入迷的宗教体验的历史和实践的深刻理解。另外，这些实践多是一些占主导地位的宗教传统的基础，包括基督教、印度教和佛教，世俗反膜拜组织没有将它们包括在危险膜拜团体的列表中。

Third, the “accumulating wealth” and “recruiting new members” issue. ICSA is concerned that cults are keen on “accumulating wealth” and “recruiting new members.” In terms of attracting new members, many religious groups openly proselytize. If recruitment is a characteristic of religious activity, in a religiously pluralistic society, according to ICSA’s standards, only relatively few groups can escape condemnation. For Christianity, the two main goals of the multi-billion-dollar Protestant televangelism industry each year are to persuade non-Christians to convert to evangelicalism and to encourage consumers of televangelism programs to make financial contributions. Scandals related to the televangelism sector are well known. Although they meet this characteristic on the ICSA list, they are rarely accused of being dangerous cults.

第三，关于“敛财”与“扩充新成员”问题。ICSA担心膜拜团体热衷于“敛财”与“扩充新成员”。在吸纳新成员方面，许多宗教团体公开劝诱改宗。如果招募是宗教活动的特征，在宗教多元社会中，根据ICSA的标准，只有相对较少的群体可以逃脱谴责。对于基督教来说，每年数十亿美元的新教电视布道产业的两个主要目标是劝说非基督教徒皈依福音派与鼓励收看电视福音布道活动的消费者做出经济贡献。与电视福音布道活动部门相关的丑闻众所周知。虽然它们满足了ICSA列表中的这项特征，但被指控为危险膜拜团体的很少。

Fourth, the “investing excessive time” issue. ICSA believes that when a group exhibits “expecting members to invest excessive time in the group and its related activities,” it is potentially dangerous. However, this characteristic is again based on extreme subjectivity and ambiguity; it cannot distinguish which groups may have potential problems. What is “excessive time” for some may be insufficient for others. Furthermore, for thousands of years, people around the world have made lifelong commitments to their religious paths, many abandoning other aspects of life in the pursuit of divinity. For example, Carmelite nuns or Zen disciples wholeheartedly devote themselves to their spiritual path and are rarely considered victims of dangerous cults.

第四，关于“投入过多时间”问题。ICSA认为，当团体展现出“期望成员投入过多的时间在团体及其相关的活动上”时，就有潜在的危险。然而，这个特征再次建立在极端主观性和模糊性上，它无法区分哪些群体可能存在潜在的问题。对一些人来说是“过多的时间”，对另一些人来说可能是不够的。此外，数千年来，在世界各地人们都对自己的宗教道路做出了一生的承诺，其中许多人在寻求神性的过程中放弃了其他的生活。如，卡梅尔（Carmelite nuns）修女或禅宗弟子全心全意地献身于他们的精神道路，很少被认为是危险膜拜团体的受害者。

Therefore, considering that on the one hand secular anti-cult organizations have not provided empirical evidence to support the “brainwash” or “mind control” hypothesis, and on the other hand most “cult” characteristics are insufficient to characterize them, other methods are needed to discuss these groups. If this is not done, it may perpetuate the stereotype of cults and lead to widespread public ignorance of new religious movements.

因此，考虑到一方面世俗反膜拜组织没有提供经验证据支持“洗脑”（brainwash）或“思想控制”（mind control）假说，另一方面多数“膜拜团体”的特点都不足以对其进行表征，需要找到其他的方法来讨论这些团体。如果不这样做，那么有可能使膜拜团体的刻板印象一直存在，并导致公众对新宗教运动的普遍无知。

III. A Solution from the Sociology of Religion — The Invisible Order

三、宗教社会学的解决方案——看不见的秩序

(I) Definition of “Invisible Order”

（一）“看不见的秩序”的定义

Scholars have already proposed some new concepts to define new religions in late modern society, among which a relatively influential one is the concept of the “unseen order.” In 1902, William James, in his famous Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, defined “religious life” as “the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.”

学者们已经提出了一些新的概念，来界定晚期现代性社会中的新宗教，其中比较有影响力的一个概念是“看不见的秩序”（unseen order）。1902年，威廉·詹姆斯（William James）在爱丁堡大学著名的吉福德讲座中，将“宗教生活”定义为“相信有一种看不见的秩序，为这种秩序和谐地调整自己以达到至善（supreme good）”。

This definition has three main principles. First, it does not restrict “religion” to those traditions that believe in some supreme being, but allows for a broad understanding of religious belief and practice. Second, this expanded understanding sets aside the question of “authenticity,” which is a matter of great concern to stakeholders in the cultural context surrounding new religious movements. Determining whether something is “real” is no longer the focus of attention. Third, and most importantly, it avoids the so-called benevolent, moral fallacy that religion always represents a force for good in society, while negative social impacts stem from false or erroneous religious practices. For example, the Aztecs’ “unseen order” assumed the existence of a war god who was perpetually fighting other deities to ensure the people’s prosperity. Because the war god required a constant supply of blood to maintain his fighting strength, the Aztecs had the custom of human sacrifice. Although this was a mechanism of social control, from the Aztecs’ perspective it was a “harmonious adjustment” to what they understood as the “unseen order.”

这个定义有三个主要原则。第一，它并没有把“宗教”限制在那些相信某种至高无上存在的传统之中，而是允许对宗教信仰与实践进行广义的理解。第二，这种扩大了的理解搁置了“真实性”问题，这在围绕新宗教运动的文化语境中让利益相关方十分担忧。现在确定其是否为“真实”的问题已经不是关注的重点了。第三，最为重要的是，它避免了所谓善良的、道德的谬论，即宗教在社会中总是代表善的力量、而负面的社会影响源于错误或虚假的宗教实践。例如，阿兹台克人的“看不见的秩序”假定战神的存在，战神永远在和其他神祗战斗，以保佑人民的兴旺。由于战神需要源源不断的血液来保持其战斗力，因此阿兹台克人有献祭活人的习俗。尽管这是一种社会控制机制，但在阿兹台克人看来，这是为了向他们所理解的“看不见的秩序”进行的“和谐地调整”。

(2) The Practice of the “Unseen Order” in New Religions

（二）新宗教有关“看不见的秩序”的实践

In many cases, the narratives of new religions stand not only in opposition to the legitimate beliefs of the broader society, but also in opposition to mainstream social customs that regulate human relations. For example, although the Unification Church of Korea acknowledges the authenticity of the Bible, it challenges traditional Christian faith by advocating special doctrines, such as the claim that its founder, Sun Myung Moon, received from God implicit truths about this world that are inaccessible to non-members. In the theological system of the Children of God / “The Family,” all current Christian churches lack legitimacy because they have all abandoned God and succumbed to material, depraved, and evil temptations. The Raëlian movement holds that the traditional Christian interpretation of the creation myth in the Bible is a misreading. Humanity was not created by God, but by the “Elohim” (which they translate as an advanced extraterrestrial race “from the heavens”). These Elohim possess the ability to create life from DNA and used Earth as a laboratory. This opposition is also manifested in the fact that many new religions particularly emphasize that humanity has become separated from its original purpose, leading to all sin, depravity, and suffering. For instance, a prominent theme in Unification Church doctrine is that humanity deliberately violated God’s plan, bringing about moral decay and a loss of belonging. Scientology is convinced that humanity has been cut off from its inner divinity and is mired in the quagmire of the material world.

在很多情形中，新宗教的叙事不仅站在了广大社会的合法信仰的对立面，也站在了调节人类关系的主流社会习俗的对立面。例如，尽管韩国统一教承认《圣经》的真实性，但通过主张类似其教主“文鲜明（Sun Myung Moon）受神启获得的关于这个世界的隐含真理，而非统一教成员无法获得”等特殊教义，对传统基督教信仰构成了挑战。在上帝之子/“家”的理论体系中，当下所有的基督教会都不具备正当性，因为他们都曾抛弃上帝，接受物质、堕落的以及邪恶的诱惑。雷尔教派认为，传统基督教对于《圣经》中创世神话的表述是一种误读。人类不是由上帝、而是由“耶洛因”（Elohim，他们译为“来自天上”的先进的外星种族）所创造。这些耶洛因具有从DNA中创造生命的能力，并将地球作为实验室。类似的对立还表现在，许多新宗教都特别强调，人类已经与最初目的相分离，从而导致了所有的罪恶、堕落与痛苦。例如，统一教教义的一个突出主题，便是人类故意违背上帝的规划，带来了道德的沦丧以及归属感的缺失。科学教确信人类已经同内在神性相割裂，陷入物质世界的泥淖之中。

Each imagination of the “unseen order” demonstrates, at the practical level, its understanding of the “supreme good.” Just like the myths of new religions, their rituals and practices are also confrontational in nature. Followers of Scientology believe that the practice of auditing can help them overcome physical weaknesses that arise with age and trauma. Unification Church members regard Sun Myung Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han, as the “True Parents,” acknowledging Moon as the Second Coming of Christ, thereby integrating the Unification Church with God’s plan for creating humanity. Members of the Children of God / “The Family” believe that by reinterpreting Christianity’s long-standing stance on human sexuality, they can draw closer to Jesus’s teaching of “making love the foundation of all human relationships.” For advanced practitioners of Transcendental Meditation, “TM-Sidhi” and “yogic flying” enable them to achieve balance with the “unseen order” of the material world and natural laws.

每种关于“看不见的秩序”的想象在实践层面上展示了他们对于“至善”的理解。就像新宗教的神话一样，他们的仪式与实践也具有对抗性质。科学教的信徒认为，审察实践（practice of auditing）能够帮助他们克服随年龄的增长、以及由创伤所导致的身体虚弱。统一教教徒将文鲜明与韩鹤子夫妇当作“真父母”，承认文鲜明是基督复临，从而将统一教与上帝创造人的规划结合在一起。上帝之子/“家”的成员相信，通过重新阐释基督教长期以来对于人类性行为的立场，可以更加接近耶稣“将爱作为所有人际关系基础”的训诫。对于高级超验冥想修行者来说，“超验静坐”（TM-Sidhi）和“瑜伽飞行”（yogic flying）能够使他们所身处的物质世界和自然法则的“看不见的秩序”达到平衡。

(3) Viewing New Religious Movements as Social Experiments

（三）将新宗教运动视为社会实验

In many traditions, religious communities are organized according to systems of mythological narratives and rituals. Through specific organizational means, they adapt themselves to conform to the requirements of the “unseen order.” New religions also differ socially from established religious organizations. Although new religions can hardly be called “new,” they are always capable of rediscovering, reintegrating, and recreating certain ancient beliefs, practices, and rituals, possessing distinctive social characteristics. New religious movements are “new” at the organizational level; for example, most first-generation members contribute the main force to promoting the movement’s development. Typically, these converts to new religions do not represent the general public in society. Most people in new religious movements share some common traits: white, middle-class, well-educated adults. These movements are often led by charismatic figures whose ideas constitute a challenge to the existing social order, and their charismatic authority consolidates strength for the movement. Because new religions lack relatively fixed organizational traditions, they frequently undergo rapid and frequent changes in organizational form to adapt to various pressures and challenges in their “life” cycle.

在许多传统中，宗教共同体都是根据神话叙事体系与仪式体系组织起来。通过具体的组织手段，他们通过自适应以符合“看不见的秩序”的要求。新宗教在社交方面也不同于既有的宗教组织。尽管新宗教很难称得上“新”，但它们总是能够对一些古老的信仰、实践、仪式进行再发现、再融合和再创造，具有与众不同的社会特征。新宗教运动“新”在组织层面，例如大多数第一代会员，为推动相关运动的开展贡献了主要力量。通常来说，这些皈依新宗教的人并不能代表社会中的普通大众。新宗教运动中的大多数人都有一些共同点：白人、中产阶级、受教育程度良好的成年人。这些运动常常被克里斯玛式（charismatic）人物领导，他们的思想构成了对既有社会秩序的挑战，他们的克里斯玛式权威为运动凝聚了力量。由于新宗教没有相对固化的组织传统，它们在组织形式上经常发生快速和频繁的改变，来适应其“生命”周期中的各种压力和挑战。

From this perspective, new religious movements can be seen as experiments through which a consensus foundation can be built for a new or reformed “unseen order,” and some people can be persuaded to join them, “harmoniously adjusting” themselves toward a particular religious worldview. Just as in the natural sciences, some new religious experiments will succeed, witnessing the emergence of what some scholars call a new world faith. For example, Rodney Stark views the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) as an emerging world religion. Some movements fail early on. Still other experiments in religious innovation have had terrible consequences for both participants and innocent bystanders, a relatively representative example being the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo. Just because something is experimental does not mean it is inherently noble or wise. Organizations like Aum Shinrikyo, in pursuing their particular vision of the “unseen order,” have done terrible things. Typically, when new religions begin to employ concepts related to the “unseen order,” controversy follows, and their experiments pose a challenge to the existing social order. Sometimes, new religions, as the antithesis of mainstream faith, though small in scale and scattered in strength, still come into conflict with the existing social order, endangering mainstream social institutions.

从这个角度看，可以把新宗教运动可以看作一些实验，通过这些实验，可以为一个新的、或改良后的“看不见的秩序”构筑共识基础，并且说服一些人加入它们，向着某种特殊的宗教观进行“和谐地调整”。就像在自然科学中一样，有些新的宗教实验会取得成功，见证一些学者所谓的新世界信仰的出现，例如，罗德尼·斯塔克（Rodney Stark）将耶稣基督后期圣徒教会（摩门教）视为正在兴起的世界性宗教。有些运动则在早期就失败了。还有一些宗教创新的实验对参与者和无辜的旁观者都产生了可怕的后果，这其中比较有代表性是1995年奥姆真理教对东京地铁的沙林毒气攻击。仅仅因为某件事是实验性的并不意味着这件事本身就是高尚或明智的。比如奥姆真理教这类组织，为了追求他们对“看不见的秩序”的特殊愿景，做出了可怕的事情。通常，当新宗教开始运用“看不见的秩序”的相关观念时，争论也会随之而来，它们的实验对现有的社会秩序构成了挑战。有时，新宗教作为主流信仰的对立面，尽管规模小、力量分散，但仍然会与同现有社会秩序发生冲突，危及到主流社会体制。

Whether from a political, economic, scientific, artistic, or religious perspective, when an individual or group thoroughly reorganizes its understanding of the world—in the case of new religions, a fundamental reorganization of the understanding of the “invisible order” related to the world—this increases the likelihood of conflict with mainstream views. In such circumstances, the new perspective not only offers an alternative way of thinking but also implies that the mainstream understanding is incorrect. Broadly speaking, the essence of religion is the assertion of a single truth, and in a religiously pluralistic society, these competing claims are often tolerated. However, new understandings of truth often challenge mainstream thought to a significant degree. These conflicts are not necessarily problems inherent in the new understanding or behavior itself, but rather the antagonistic relationship between deeply entrenched worldviews and those that question their correctness. Sociologists of religion attempt to understand new religious movements within a complex context. They try to demonstrate that whether or not a group is accepted as a legitimate religion, it is a complex product of society, culture, and politics, and that it is inappropriate to make a brief, empirical, and objective comparison of new religious movements with the characteristics of established religions. They argue that the most useful approach is to understand those controversial groups called cults as experimental social movements.

无论它的视角是政治的，经济的，科学的，艺术的或宗教的，当一个人或一个团体对世界的理解彻底重组，在新宗教的情况下是对与世界相关的“看不见的秩序”的认识出现了根本性的重组，这就增加了与主流观点发生冲突的可能性。在这种情况下，新视角不仅提供了一种可供选择的思维方式，它还暗示主流的理解是不正确的。从广义上讲，宗教的本质是主张唯一的真理，而在宗教多元化的社会中，往往会容忍这些相互竞争的主张。然而，对真理的新理解往往会在很大程度上挑战主流思想。这些冲突不一定是新认识或新行为本身的问题，而是根深蒂固的世界观和那些质疑其正确性的世界观之间的对立关系。宗教社会学家试图在复杂的背景下理解新宗教运动，他们试图证明无论一个团体是否被接受为合法的宗教，它都是社会、文化、政治的复杂产物，将新宗教运动与一系列固有宗教的特征进行经验地客观地简要比较是不妥当的。他们认为，最有用的方法是把那些被称为膜拜团体的有争议的群体理解为实验性社会运动。

(IV) Evaluation of the “Invisible Order”

（四）对“看不见的秩序”的评价

First, the conceptual tool of the “invisible order” proposed by sociologists of religion has certain advantages for analyzing cults and new religions. First, it can stimulate the explanation of specific narratives, religious myths, and beliefs, thereby enabling a description of the nature of the “invisible order,” an explanation of the relationship between the “invisible order” and the everyday world, and an account of how individuals can find the path to ultimate goodness. Second, these mythical stories are embodied at the concrete level in various prescriptive behaviors, religious rituals, and practices. These practices and behaviors connect believers to the “invisible order” in a way that is obvious, meaningful, and, for the practitioner, undeniable. New religious movements explicitly emphasize myths, beliefs, rituals, and practices in a cultural sense, which distinguishes them from established religious groups and constitutes a significant difference from mainstream culture.

首先，宗教社会学家提出的“看不见的秩序”这一概念工具对于分析膜拜团体和新宗教来说具有一定优势。第一，它可以激发对于特定叙事、宗教神话和信仰的说明，从而能够描述“看不见的秩序”的性质、阐释“看不见的秩序”与日常世界的关系，并说明如何使个体寻找到走向至善的道路。第二，这些神话故事在具象层面体现为各种规定性的行为、宗教仪式与实践。这些实践和行为用一种明显的、有意义的，以及对于实践者来说不可否认的方式，将信徒与“看不见的秩序”联结。新宗教运动在文化意义上明确强调神话、信仰、仪式以及实践，这区别于既有宗教群体，也构成了它们与主流文化的显著差异。

Second, the “invisible order” has certain defects. The “invisible order” only takes note of the particularities of new religions, treating them as experimental forms of belief and providing a relatively reasonable explanation for their bizarre worldviews and behaviors. However, it overlooks the potential or already manifest dangers within new religions. Although relevant scholars argue that incidents such as the Heaven’s Gate suicides and the confrontation between the Branch Davidians and the FBI are only a minority, and that the vast majority of new religious movements are relatively low-key and safe, their harmfulness does indeed exist, attracting worldwide attention. Coupled with negative media coverage, this has fixed the public’s impression of new religions as terrifying, strange, repressive, and provocative. If one attempts to overturn people’s entrenched views, greater attention should be paid to their dangerous aspects; merely viewing them as “harmonious adjustments” is unlikely to dispel people’s fears.

其次，“看不见的秩序”存在一定的缺陷。“看不见的秩序”只注意到新宗教的特别之处，将其视为实验性信仰的方式，为其离奇的世界观和行为提供了较为合理的解释。但是，它忽略了新宗教中潜在或已经显现出的危险。尽管相关学者认为天堂之门的自杀事件、大卫支派与FBI的对抗等恶性事件只是少数，绝大部分新宗教运动都比较低调且安全，但是其危害性也确实存在，吸引了全世界的目光，加上媒体具有负面色彩的报道，让人们对于新宗教的印象就定格于恐怖、奇怪、压抑与挑衅。若试图扭转人们固有的看法，应该更加重视其危险的部分，仅将其看作“和谐地调整”难以消除人们的恐惧。

New religious movements have intricate connections with traditional religions in terms of belief. The “invisible order” seems to suggest that any religion has the potential to become a cult, differing only in the manner of their “harmonious adjustment.” Moreover, the boundary between ordinary religions and cults becomes blurred, making it practically more difficult to identify cults. This perspective creates two potential hazards: either pushing all legitimate religions into opposition, causing people to panic at the mention of religion, or pulling cults toward legitimation, further increasing the costs of religious governance. Neither outcome is desirable.

新宗教运动与传统宗教在信仰方面有千丝万缕的联系，“看不见的秩序”似乎认为任何宗教都具有成为膜拜团体的潜能，只不过它们“和谐地调整”方式不同。而且普通宗教和膜拜团体的界限也变得模糊，在实践上加大了辨别膜拜团体的难度。这种视角会造成两方面的隐患，要么将所有合法宗教推向对立面，使人们谈宗教色变；要么将膜拜团体拉向合法化，进一步增加宗教治理的成本。无论哪种都不是我们希望看到的。

All the above problems stem from a root issue: the extension of the “invisible order” is too broad. It not only has explanatory power for cults but also seems to have explanatory power for all religions. Due to this broad extension, it is easy for people to equate cults with ordinary religions, thereby overlooking their harmfulness. Although the sociologists of religion who proposed the “invisible order” repeatedly emphasize that this is an objective academic study of cults, if their criticism of ICSA is too harsh and thus a form of subjective critique, then does their relative tolerance also fall into another form of subjectivity?

以上问题都出自一个根源性问题，即“看不见的秩序”外延过于庞大，它不但对膜拜团体具有解释力，而且似乎对所有宗教都具有解释力。由于这种宽泛的外延，使人们容易将膜拜团体与普通宗教等同起来，从而忽视其危害性。尽管提出“看不见的秩序”的宗教社会学家一再强调这是本着客观的态度对膜拜团体进行学术研究，但是如果他们对ICSA过于苛刻是一种主观性批判，那么他们的相对宽容是不是也落入了另一种形式的主观性呢？

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The primary issue and focus of research on cults is the definition of cults and new religions, which is also the foundation for a series of work including warning, governance, and assistance. The debate between secular anti-cult organizations and the sociology of religion over the definition of cults and new religions is mainly academic. It may currently be difficult for academia to reach a definition of cults and new religions satisfactory to all parties, but this does not mean research cannot be conducted. Secular anti-cult organizations led by ICSA focus on the harm caused by cults and new religions to individuals. To expose their harmfulness, they primarily adopt operational definitions in the process of definition. Many negative characteristics are not unique to cults and new religions, but these definitions have ideologically pushed them toward the negative. To avoid this problem, the sociology of religion has not rushed to define cults and new religions but instead uses the “invisible order” to attempt to explain the behavior of cults and new religions. However, due to the broadness of its extension, the boundary between cults, new religions, and ordinary religions becomes blurred. Although each approach has its own problems, both are undoubtedly successful within their own domains. ICSA’s theories and methods have saved many people harmed by cults and new religions, while the “invisible order” is a conceptual tool accepted within religious studies. Their ongoing debate also continuously advances research on cults and new religions.

膜拜团体研究的首要问题和关注焦点是对膜拜团体与新宗教的界定，这也是对其警示、治理、帮辅等一系列工作的基础。世俗反膜拜组织和宗教社会学界对于膜拜团体与新宗教界定的争论主要体现在学术上。学界目前或许很难对膜拜团体与新宗教下一个各方满意的定义，但这并不表明不能对其进行研究。以ICAS为首的世俗反膜拜组织关注膜拜团体与新宗教对人的伤害，为了揭露其危害性而在界定过程中多以操作性定义为主。很多负面特征并非膜拜团体和新宗教所独有，这些定义在意识形态上已经将其推向了负面。宗教社会学为了规避这个问题，没有急于对膜拜团体与新宗教下定义，而是利用“看不见的秩序”试图解释膜拜团体与新宗教的行为，但由于其外延的宽泛性，使膜拜团体与新宗教和普通宗教的界限变得模糊。虽然二者存在各自的问题，但是在其自身的领域内无疑是成功的，ICAS的理论和方法挽救了很多遭受膜拜团体与新宗教伤害的人，“看不见的秩序”是被宗教学界接受的概念工具。二者的争论也不断推进对膜拜团体与新宗教的研究工作。

At the practical level, the world today is undergoing changes unseen in a century, and China’s governance of cults faces a complex internal and external environment. Internationally, cults are intertwined with issues such as ethnicity and human rights. Domestically, new theistic and pseudo-scientific groups are constantly integrating and reinventing themselves, and new types of cults are more covert and harder to identify. If they collude with overseas anti-China forces, they could endanger national security. These new problems increase the difficulty of governing cults. Although ICSA’s standards are not logically perfect, they are more operable and provide a reference for our understanding of new types of religion, especially for alerting us to certain cults in their embryonic stage. As for the “invisible order,” while it may not provide clear indicators for determining whether an organization is a cult, it can serve as a perspective for in-depth understanding and research of such organizations, providing a basis for constructing a discourse and narrative system for cult governance.

在实践层面，当今世界正处于百年未有之大变局，中国的膜拜团体治理面临复杂的内外环境。国际方面，膜拜团体与民族、人权等问题相互交织牵扯；国内方面，新有神论、伪科学团体不断整合翻新，而且新型的膜拜团体隐蔽性更强，不易甄别，如果与境外反华势力勾结将危及国家安全。这些新问题增加了治理膜拜团体难度。ICSA的标准虽然在逻辑上不够完美，但是可操作性更强，对我们认识新型的宗教提供了参考，尤其对一些膜拜团体在萌芽期就能有所警觉。至于“看不见的秩序”，可能在界定某个组织是否属于膜拜团体的问题上不能提供明确的判断指标，但是可以通过这个视角去深入了解和研究这个组织，为构建膜拜团体治理的话语和叙事体系提供一定依据。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心