The book received a generally positive reception, with praise for the quality of ideas expressed and its summarization of the controversial debate over cult research.

The academic study of new religious movements has been noted to be unusually hostile, with scholars holding strong opinions as to the influence of cults on society.

[4] The two editors, Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins, are opposed on this topic,[2] and state that their primary goal with the book is to restore a "moderate perspective" to cultic studies and encourage dialogue between the two camps.

[1][2] Beit-Hallahmi's chapter argues that most cult scholars are "collaborationists", bought off by the groups they aim to study, who unfairly advocate for new religious movements.

He believed that the book failed to achieve a middle ground as it had intended, and included little if any dialogue between the two camps, describing the writers as "preaching to their respective choirs".

[5] In the American Journal of Sociology, Karla Poewe commented that the book failed to achieve its stated goal of encouraging balance between important research objectives.

[4] "Ultimately, parts of it may be analogous to the 1994 The Bell Curve volume by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein on race and intelligence that gave some temporary solace to right-wing social conservatives.

This book will not settle the polemics discussed for dissenting social scientists and likely will convince no one suspicious of the anticult movement's agenda, but it does have some good material."

[1] Dana Kaplan said that the volume was organized in an uneven manner with chapters of varying quality, which to her indicated that "the editors were a bit at a loss on how to divide up the material".

He writes that "[i]n many respects this is an excellent book, containing insightful essays written from a variety of perspectives," noting however that "[n]ot a single paper in the collection makes use of quantitative data or conducts any other kind of formal theory testing", decrying the scarcity of connections to research on group influence from social psychology or sociology in general.

[1] "It is a telling fact that several of the more polite writers refer to their colleagues as scholars rather than scientists, the implication being that they all operate outside any framework of precise measurement and hypothesis testing."

Bainbridge noted the acerbic tone of many writers in the book toward those on the opposite side of the debate, with "each faction accusing the other of selling out and forsaking intellectual integrity for material gain".