One reason some people don't get involved with groups, is a fear of getting "sucked into a cult." So rather than simply stay away from everyone, here's a list to help you assess any social group on its cult-like-ness. 

This post is not about beliefs so much as behaviours. Not only religious groups can behave like a cult - so can businesses, employers, government institutions, even social groups. So be aware of these simple criteria of a cult. Make your own assessments if you're wondering about any group of people. Fore-warned is fore-armed. 

Here are the criteria:

1.     Authoritarian, dominating structure,  vs Empowering structure.
2.     Allegiance to one person’s teaching,  vs Various input.
3.     The only group with the way to paradise,  vs Recognizing other groups.
4.     Submissive & unquestioning loyalty, vs Critical loyalty.
5.     Suspicious of “outsiders,”  vs Open to all.
6.     Closed secrets, or even deliberate lies (justified deception),  vs Honesty, Open access.
7.     Mind control techniques, to control members: fatigue, repetition, intimidation, manipulation, threats,  vs Fair argument encouraged.
8.     Total control over all aspects of members lives; Abuse of members’ freedoms & rights to choose: theological, spiritual, social, psychological, choices, etc.  vs Empowering to work out implications.
9.     Require substantial financial support to the group,  vs work for Financial freedom & responsibility.
10.  Lives totally absorbed in group activities,  vs Encouraging wider life involvements.
11.  Lose personal identity (including name changes),  vs Individuality valued.
12.  Personality changes, paranoia / persecution complex,  vs Healthier self-image.
13.  Social disorientation, unable to socialize outside the group,  vs Interaction outside group encouraged.
14.  Severe guilt complexes,  [vs Acceptance of fallen-ness. 

List adapted from www.culthelp.info / 

      Is a right understanding of Marriage an essential issue?
I'm told some Baptists are wondering what to do with churches in the denomination that want to conduct and affirm gay weddings. Is gay-marriage an essential for unity among us, or a non-essential for freedom?
      First, in all things love.
That is, if male-female marriage is retained as an essential for unity in the denomination, and changers disagree with that and leave, there can and should still be love between us. Disagreeing doesn't mean we stop caring about each other. No-brainer.
      What message would non-affirmation send to LGBTQ people?
1. That love isn't contingent on agreement. It is presumptuous to suggest that affirmation is the only option when it gets personal. Many of us have found there is liberation in being loved in spite of disagreements, rather than dependant upon agreement. (The former is tolerance, the latter is bigotry.) So we provide unconditional love to others with whom we disagree. If love is conditional on affirmation, then where does one turn for love when opinions differ? Thus, here is a group who loves people anyway, whilst they change in theological, spiritual, psychological, social dimensions. This is the truelove.is testimony of more LBGTQ people than the activists. We can disagree over sexual mores, yet with real love and acceptance of the person, "warts and all," as we used to say.
2. That our definition of marriage and gender involves much more than the two people - God instituted it with male-female specifically built in as a sacred model to the world of Christ and the Church (Eph5). This is a non-negotiable theme in our foundational texts.
      "Isn’t marriage a non-essential issue over which we can agree to differ?"
Or is marriage actually sacred, not open to redefinition, an essential at least in the sense of worthy of denominational distinctive. Baptists drew a line about baptism: is marriage of that order?
Here’s the main point (which was mostly omitted during the marriage plebiscite debates, as people debated a handful of passages specifically prohibiting same-sex immorality): marriage is a majestic theme of some 600 verses winding throughout Scripture about marriage/divorce, faithfulness/unfaithfulness, husband/wife, and all in contexts assuming male/female-ness - such that if it is not male/female it is not marriage. This theme includes a special synergy between a man & woman, male-femaleness being part of the original Imageo-Dei (Gen1), and is specifically reiterated by Jesus (Mat19). Marriage is thus a sacred union, an object lesson of Christ and the church, our ultimate destiny in the New Jerusalem, indeed a salvation invitation, “The Spirit and the Bride say “Come!”” (Rev 21,22). This sacred union is therefore not something we can redefine to suit the winds of culture. It is specifically gender-defined by God, as part of our foundational creation, and our eternal destiny, which our puny human marriages are supposed to model in the meantime (Eph5).
      "Is marriage a salvation issue?"
Does an individual have to understand human marriage in order to be saved, no, salvation is not a theology test. But there must be our marriage-like covenant with, and submission to, Christ in view of his saving sacrifice for us. We’re saying “I do” to Jesus, just like …a marriage. Christ died for his Bride. Marriage (male-female) is part of our image-of-God foundations, our relationship with God, and our ultimate destiny. Faithfulness to marriage is about faithfulness to Jesus, which is about our salvation.
Recently I've observed how Naturalism and New Age converge upon the same sexual immorality as supposed gateways to evolution/enlightenment. Kinseyan Naturalism promotes sexual immorality as evolution; New Age Tantric Hinduism promotes sexual immorality as enlightenment. Why would worldviews from such seemingly different foundations land on the exact same marriage-destroying practices? Because they come from the same pit. Same as the gnostic temple prostitution which Paul confronted in his day. Marriage is a prime spiritual battleground. It seems to be more a salvation issue than the world is aware of. Pray into that.
      "Was sex a part of any apostles creed?"
Yes, the Jerusalem Council Acts 15:29. No sexual immorality (ie sex outside marriage [which is male-female.])
      "Does the fact that sex isn’t in most creeds mean it is not a salvation issue?"
Many sins are not mentioned in the creeds, but that doesn't make them ok. In fact we could say that in Christianity sexual morality was assumed as a given, until now. Likewise the nature of marriage a given.
Moreover a big salvation issue is whether we trust & obey Jesus or not, whether we listen to Jesus and do what he says - and what Jesus says on the nature of marriage is actually pretty clear.
      "Is gay marriage like divorce, something we’ll just get used to, and eventually justify?"
No, because in Mat19 Jesus allows for divorce due to hard-heartedness, but he re-affirms male-female marriage. To justify non-hetero marriage, you’d have to ignore Jesus affirmation, and that Biblical marriage grand-narrative.
      "Don’t we want to see love win, not truth win?"
It’s not either or, it’s only both. If it’s not truthful, it's not going to be loving. Good intentions alone pave the road to a bad destination. The road to heaven is paved with wisdom, truth in love.
      "Isn’t disunity a bad witness?"
Sure, so don't depart from Jesus' way. Listen to Jesus, unite around the truth of the matter. It is unity in the Spirit of Christ that is a good witness. Truth in love. Not mere contradictory affirmations of whatever, that’d be disunity. What good is salt if it loses its distinctive flavour. Our unity is in seeking first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, allowing him to add to us what we need. When our hearts are filled with love from him, we start to see our true identity is in him, not in sexual identity or any other idolatry. He leads us into his life-giving truth. God does love the whole world, yet not all will be saved. God loves Jew and Gentile alike as both find their unity in Christ - in fact Col3:11 is in a passage specifying putting off the sexually immoral self, and putting on Christ who is all and in all.
      "Who decides which way is the truth he will lead us into?"
The wisdom of scripture does indicate what his righteousness looks like. And one’s interpretation of scripture must include ALL the relevant passages, not just a handful, not just the love passages, but the ‘put off’ passages too, and the grand-narrative. So although one might not agree at first with his truth, over time the honest enquirer of the LORD will soon be led in that way.
      "So what is a denomination to decide?"
It is fair and fine for Baptists to retain Biblical marriage as a denominational distinctive (it is fair to say that marriage was always assumed to be male-female - until these recent challenges to that unity.) I’d say retain it as we do with baptism, for the sake of truth in love, unity in the Spirit, and scriptural integrity. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things, and if someone disagrees, this too God will make clear to them. Meanwhile they can either concede or secede.
      "What about free speech, freedom of conscience?"
Some have falsely compared this situation to Andrew Thornburn's case where we say he should have the right to think differently than Essendon on marriage, yet here we are saying gay-marriage Baptists should not be allowed to so practice within the Baptist union. This is a false comparison. Every club has its social (or formal) contracts, the parameters within which we agree to operate. A footy club is about playing footy, which has nothing to do with sexual mores: if you play footy you're a team-mate, regardless of whatever else you think about other things, we expect you to cooperate around footy. This makes footy a great Third Place community. A church's focus is around following Jesus, which does have something to do with sexual mores: if you seek to serve him, you're a team-mate, but just as there are rules in footy, there are moral parameters in the church within which to teach and protect the flock from wolves. So every denomination or church defines those, and participants are relevantly expected to concede to those. Thornburn's sexual mores are not relevant to footy, and it is totalitarian to say so. But they are relevant to church, where he may discuss divergence but is expected to ultimately concede to the relevant social contract.
      "Isn’t that still divisive?"
No, and it's actually manipulative to say so. Every group has agreed parameters. In this case the nature of marriage was always an agreed distinctive. (As a marriage celebrant I have a letter from the Baptists of WA about marriage after the plebiscite that clarifies this.) Now that some seek to change it, it’s not divisive to retain the distinctive. It should simply be a matter of the changer deciding that they are now outside the existing parameters of the group. That happens. And if the group disagrees, you can start your own group with your own parameters. What is divisive is for the changers to claim the retainers are divisive, and try to force a change in the name of "unity" - that’s off topic manipulation and should be rebuffed as such. Get back to thinking and praying about the issue itself. And if retainers resist the change, changers don’t get to take over the group and send retainers off to start their own group. Watch out for that deception.

The Holy Spirit.
"Jesus lived and ministered while on this earth filled with, led by, empowered by, anointed by, and sent by the Holy Spirit... "The Holy Spirit is the secret to living the Christian life... "Jesus finished the work the Father gave Him to do while depending upon the very same Spirit that now lives in me and you."
- Do read this Biblical foundation article, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, by Doug Holliday. Now. Read it? Good...

So when we tune in to the Holy Spirit, like Jesus did, like his followers did, in a dynamic relationship, life becomes much more interesting, more alive. In fact all of life is relational - the only question is, are we participating in that relationship well or poorly.

The problem for me is that, as a logical/rational Bible student/teacher, I can lean toward the rational so much that I forget about the relational reality by which I'm meant to be led. It's like studying about a loved one so much that I ignore them!
When I do that with Jesus, life gets colder, harder, and I get more anxious. I focus on my causes-and-effects. Which puts a lot of pressure on my puny self, because in reality I can never know enough to successfully plan my own path. No wonder I begin to fret: "I don't want to get this wrong, I have to nut it out"... My cause-effect is simply too ignorant compared to God's oversight.
Like natural selection which has a role but simply isn't powerful enough to create new kinds, cause-effect has a role, but simply isn't powerful enough to direct our paths. Only God does that. "The heart of man plans his way, but  the LORD establishes his steps." (Prov 16:9) Let's not kick against the goads of reality.
And worse than just me being too puny for cause-effect, my own rationality can make me blind to, and ungrateful for, God's many graces in my life. Jesus works in my life, in fact he enables me to participate in the life and work of God! ...and yet I steal his glory by crediting myself for what happens?
And even worse, leaning on my rationality is me trying to put myself in control - in the place of God! Trusting myself, the original sin - Yikes!

But here's the better way. Relationship is how life really works: Let the LORD direct my steps. Listen to Jesus and do what he says. Let the relational put the rational back in its place. Tune in to His promptings - "do this, trust me."
Recognise and respond to the glow of his active, manifested presence. Look for him in all encounters. Seek first God's Kingdom, and everything else will follow (Mt6:33).
[How? Read. & Pray. Get the Biblical worldview into your head. & Start each day listening, tuning in to the still Voice for what he might want you to do today.]

Suddenly life becomes more inspired. Enchanted with real spirituality. Less my job to figure out, and more my job to seek & trust him on this adventure, and see what he does next.
I work in a rational job, but I need to abide in this relational life, in the Spirit of Christ. It's better for me to teach and lead in this relational way because it is more true to real life.

And so I must keep laying the foundation of Christ at the centre of all of my life & work. For it is Jesus who makes it possible for me to participate in the life of The Father.
He did this through the cross and resurrection, and through the Spirit.
I get to live relationally participating in his life:
How deep are God's riches, and wisdom, and knowledge! How unfathomable are his decisions and unexplainable are his ways! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser?...  For all things are from him, by him, and for him. Glory belongs to him forever! Amen. (Rom11:34-36)

During 2021 we did have family camp, on the theme of Hearing God. We built in family times to train, including times of solitude and silent listening for the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. We were all met.

And about 40 people got to know each other better around the attractions of Busso.

During the year we were able to continue meeting with youth on Fridays, the Art club, various small groups, and continued our regular meeting together at the community hall. Gathering around the Gospel of John has been spiritually eye-opening - every chapter has more to say about how we should see spiritually. This isn't easy when our cultural default is materialism. We also found each section to have very specific implications, as if we had rigged the section to fit the circumstances, but the 12 month schedule had been planned mid year. God just knows what he's doing. It's our job to listen and do.

A core team of young adults joined OAC in delivering the Worldview Australia camp in January. Another big success, and as we tune in it seems the Lord wants to duplicate the ministry with many young people interested in stepping in to various directing roles to enable another camp to begin elsewhere midyear. So we're working on that now.

What's a boss meant to do? The state government says their staff must vaccinate, or the company will be heavily fined. Should bosses view these mandates as a medically warranted rule (like, 'stay home if you’re sick'), or as an unwarranted status division (like, 'stay home healthy or not, because you didn't comply') a breach of conscience & civil liberties.

(BTW see below for my view on vaccines [1] and mandates [2].)

Have we considered when a mandate might become an unwarranted breach of conscience?

Mandates over conscience-matters demand some of the population go against their conscience.
- So we might resist mandating as citizens concerned for the democratic power of the people.
- But more important to me as a Christian is whether a mandate might breach a biblical principle of maintaining our good conscience before God.
Here are some key passages and thoughts to consider:

1. Christians have God-given, Spirit-quickened, Word-informed consciences. Normally our conscience knows when we've done wrong, we would have to suppress it to think otherwise. Moreover a Christian conscience should be being cleansed & quickened by Word & Spirit.

• Romans 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
• 1 Timothy 1:19  Holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,

  2. This conscience should make us willing to make Christlike sacrifices:

• 1 Timothy 1:5 The goal of our instruction is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
• Philippians 2, make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

3. We each might have different roles to play, some to abstain, some to comply. For some, sacrifices might mean to risk having the vax for the greater good, for others it may mean to risk the state's wrath by fighting to preserve civic freedom of conscience.

• Romans 14:1-23 The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,  and every tongue shall confess[b] to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
• 1Corinthians 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

4. Following Jesus in this matter should bring unity despite diversity of practice. We should respect others' decisions on this matter of conscience.

• Romans 12:3 think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
• Philippians 2, make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.

5. We respect that governments play a role under God:

• Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
• Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God… 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

6. But under God we may also resist a disproportionate response, and as citizens we may bring another authority to bear:

• Acts 25:11 For if I have done wrong and have committed anything worthy of death, I don’t refuse to die; but if none of those things is true that they accuse me of, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar!”
• Acts 4:18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

7. So when it comes to a mandate: in good-conscience, listen to Jesus, and do what he says.

Bosses, it's simplistic to "just obey the government." Organisations have consciences, as well as the people in them. If your organisation-under-God protects people's conscience, stand by that, unless there is a really good and godly reason that outweighs it. If your organisation doesn't reference God, the consciences of your people still matter. So Christians, look to your God-given conscience, and prayerfully, sacrificially if need be, obey what Jesus tells you.

And whatever your call is, do be clear on how and when to resist a government mandate that does breach your line of good conscience. Because the greater good also requires civil liberty. And liberty of good conscience is important under God.

-----------
[1 - My view on vaccines? Consider them separately to the mandates issue. Good info accumulates here: https://creation.com/cmi-vaccination. Make an informed decision, weigh the risks of not having, as well as having. Then act accordingly.]

[2 - My view on mandates? Normally, forcing an injection upon people would be a breach of civil liberties, but the argument goes, it's ok if warranted by emergency conditions. So are we in emergency conditions? The emergency powers bill in WA was intended for short term emergencies such as earthquakes or floods, they were never intended for an ongoing situation like this, lockdowns of such magnitude and longitude were not envisioned. Once vaccines were available the use of emergency powers became disproportionate. Mandates should be subject to the normal scrutiny of any legislation. The costs of mandating vaccine status have been a disproportionate response for some time now. I am suspicious of the imposition of Pf&AZ to the exclusion of Novovax, Covax-19 (https://vaxine.net/projects/), and the broader immune response to the weaker Omicron..."Omicron has delivered us from Delta," (see Dr John Campbell at 5':30" and 7':19" here.)
Yes, if Covid came to WA earlier a wave of hospitalisations and deaths would have occurred, but this is inevitable anyway since emergency sanitary measures had suppressed normal death rates. Plus, we could have managed serious spikes with temporary field hospitals if necessary - all without a state of emergency, locked borders, lockdowns, exclusive vaccine mandates & compliance apartheid. I am suspicious of the continuance of these states of emergency.]

[* Update, 10 Jan 2024: 
"The People's Terms of Reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission." I am a co-signatory of this call for a Royal Commission into how the pandemic was handled in Australia, so that power excesses & abuses don't recur.