After the initial introduction our conversation first focused on concerns the family expressed. Each member of the family shared his or her specific concerns regarding the group and how it had affected the young woman’s behavior. Her parents expressed profound sorrow concerning her recent decision to stop communicating with them. They explained that regardless of what she believed, they would always love her; therefore, they couldn’t understand why she had decided to cut them off. Her sibling talked about the many months that had gone by without any word from her and about how much she had been missed. In conclusion her husband explained that the young woman’s commitment to the group had seemed to supersede any practical consideration, including their marriage and the care of their small children.
The young woman’s parents explained that since she had become involved with the Call of God, she had drifted farther and farther away from family and old friends. Her sibling said the same thing. The husband expressed fears of a marital breakdown and child neglect. He said that due to his disinterest in the group, his wife was increasingly treating him like an unwanted stranger rather than like a loving spouse. He explained that she was so busy with the group that she was increasingly overlooking their small children’s needs. The husband said that from his perspective, the situation was progressively becoming worse and that at times his wife seemed hostile and angry when he mentioned his concerns.
After several hours of conversation about family concerns, the young woman became visibly agitated and protested that this was somehow an “attack” on her faith. I assured her that no one present wished to criticize her faith but rather the behavior of the group and the influence of its leader. At this point her mother emphasized that she respected her daughter’s faith and could see no conflict regarding religion within the framework of the expressed concerns. The young woman calmed down. I then reiterated that the focus of my work as a consultant was group behavior, not religious beliefs.
We discussed some basic elemental issues concerning Jesus and the New Testament. For example, Jesus once said, “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”764 We agreed that, according to this scripture, the claim that someone speaks for God may be false. According to the New Testament, Jesus also warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”765 He then further explained, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”766 We discussed this process of discernment based on a careful examination of the person’s fruits. How did they affect people? What did they produce? How did they behave? Could they be a wolf in disguise? I asked the young woman to become a fruit inspector based on this biblically mandated process, and she agreed.
At the end of the first day of discussion, which took approximately eight hours, the young woman agreed to sleep over at her family’s home, turned off her cell phone, and gave it to her mother. We also asked for her commitment not to communicate with anyone associated with the Call of God. She agreed to these terms at the urging of her family and husband.
Defining a Cult
We spent the following day discussing the nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult by examining historical cults. We focused largely on cults that claimed their behavior was based on a true understanding of the Bible and God. For example, we discussed cult leader David Koresh and his group known as the Waco Davidians. The Davidians firmly believed Koresh received special revelation from God. They also accepted him as virtually the exclusive means of truly understanding the Bible and God. The Waco Davidians remained loyal to David Koresh, even when he called on them to do battle with government law enforcement. They then endured a long standoff with authorities, which ended in tragedy. Eighty Davidians, including many children, decided to die in a fire rather than leave their leader.
We then talked about the notorious cult known as Jonestown, which remains the most horrific cult murder/suicide in modern history, claiming the lives of more than nine hundred people. Cult leader Jim Jones, like David Koresh, had a penchant for quoting and twisting scriptures from the Bible and then connecting them to chosen current events. Jones did so to manipulate and control his followers.
I then emphasized that both Koresh and Jones essentially saw themselves as prophets functioning in a pivotal historical role God had ordained to save humanity. Both leaders emphatically told their followers that the end of the world as they knew it was approaching. This doomsday scenario produced a kind of crisis mentality, binding the groups closely together and engendering greater dependence on the leader for a sense of security and safety. In this context doomsday predictions can be seen simply as a device cult leaders use to manipulate and control their followers.
We also discussed the evident mind-set of the Waco Davidians and people at Jonestown. Was it possible for any of them to disagree with David Koresh or Jim Jones? And if they did openly question the authority or revelation of these leaders, wouldn’t this have been tantamount to questioning God or rejecting the Bible?
Despite the controversy surrounding cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick and involuntary deprogramming, it was Patrick who first developed this questioning approach during the 1970s. He said, “The only thing I do is shoot them challenging questions. I hit them with things that they haven’t been programmed to respond to.” Patrick further explained, “When the mind gets to a certain point, they can see through all the lies that they’ve been programmed to believe.” He concluded that his process of asking such challenging questions results in effectively stimulating the mind “to start working again.”767
No one doing cult-intervention work today advocates involuntary deprogramming with adults, such as what Patrick did decades ago. But his basic approach of asking thought-provoking questions in the context of a voluntary intervention as a catalyst for critical thinking remains an effective tool contemporary cult-intervention specialists still use.
I then moved the focus of our conversation to the Call of God, asking if it was possible to question the leader of that group. Had he ever admitted to making a mistake? Had anyone ever questioned his authority or revelations? Had members of the Call of God ever expressed doubts or disagreements regarding the contents of any of his letters from God?
The young woman responded generally that of course her leader made mistakes and that everyone in the group was free to question him. When I asked her to please be specific and cite certain examples to illustrate this fact, however, she demurred and was unable to offer a single example. She couldn’t describe a particular instance when the leader had admitted to making a serious substantial mistake or had admitted that it was potentially possible for an error or contradiction to exist in one of his revelations or letters from God.
We then discussed the fact that, despite the leader’s reluctance to admit mistakes or faults in his teachings, there had historically been disagreements in the group, and these had led to some people leaving. It appears when any disagreement with the leader persisted, this situation would eventually end in the exit or expulsion of a member. Disagreements with the leader weren’t really tolerated.
I asked what the group response was like when someone left. What was the attitude of group members toward the person who left? She said that when people left, the exit was typically seen as something negative; the former member had somehow spiritually failed and disobeyed God.
I asked whether it was possible to disagree with the leader and yet still remain faithful and obedient to God. Was it possible or even conceivable that someone in the group might specifically call into question the pronouncements or behavior of the leader but still be considered godly and not antagonistic toward God? The young woman seemed perplexed and said she couldn’t imagine why anyone would question the revelations the leader of the group had received. But I suggested that by setting himself up as the exclusive spokesperson or mediator for God through his ongoing revelation, the leader of the group had achieved a position not only of singular importance but also of absolute power and un
questionable authority.
At this juncture to emphasize my point I asked her whether she could think of any group, church, or organization other than the Call of God where people might receive the same spiritual benefits. Was there any alternative, any another group where people might be equally spiritually fed? Was there another leader of equal authority who spoke the equivalent and uncorrupted truth? What group could she specifically think of by name, and where was it located? Like many cult members, she responded to this question by saying there were other true believers out there who weren’t members of the Call of God. But when I pressed her to identify by name a specific group, fellowship, or organized gathering of believers that represented an alternative to her group, the young woman couldn’t name one.
At this point I offered a possible conclusion based on our discussion. It was impossible in the Call of God to disagree with the leader and remain faithful. That disagreement with the leader was the equivalent of disagreement with God. This thinking then provided the leader with absolute authority and no meaningful accountability. The only way a member could sustain disagreement would be to leave the group entirely, and there was no legitimate reason to leave. Also, there was nowhere to go if the person left, because there was no equally viable alternative group anyone could identify. Only the Call of God had the truth, and everyone else had somehow fallen short and was in some way wrong. Any member who chose to leave was therefore not only a spiritual failure but also one separated from God and lost, according to the group.
Summarizing what we had discussed during the day, we concluded that the leader of the Call of God claimed to occupy a singular position of authority based on his published teachings; he could therefore be seen as the group’s defining element and driving force. We discussed the fact that this type of charismatic leadership is described as the first and foremost of the three criteria forming the nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult, according to psychiatrist and noted author Robert Jay Lifton in his paper titled “Cult Formation.”768
Thought Reform or Coercive Persuasion
The second day we focused on an examination of the use of thought reform or methods of coercive persuasion, which is the second criteria Lifton lists.769 We discussed how thought reform might appear and how a Bible-based cult group might employ it. I proposed that the way such control is expressed in such a cult can be seen as a preconceived and carefully constructed trap. In this way the cult victim is trapped and held in a box. This box is constructed with four walls and a floor or foundation, and it is shut tight with a lid.
Two supernatural images coupled with two corresponding claims represent the four walls of the box. The supernatural images are God and Satan, or the devil, and the two corresponding claims are heaven and hell. Whatever the leader or group dictates is what God wants. Therefore, obedience to the group or leader is seen as obedience to God. Anyone or anything else, most especially whoever or whatever opposes the group or leader, is apt to be labeled as the devil and thus be discredited. Lifton recognized this truth in his description of “loaded language,” one of eight criteria he used to define thought reform, which is characterized by “‘god terms’ representative of ultimate good; or ‘devil terms’ representative of the ultimate evil.”770
Correspondingly there is the promise of heaven as the reward for obedience to “God,” as expressed by the group, and the threat of extermination or hell as the punishment for disobedience.
Ted Patrick talked about the imagery of doomsday cults. “They give [cult members] the same thing over and over again, day in and day out…saying everything outside that door is Satan, that the world is going to end within seven years, and that if you’re not in their [group] you’re going to burn in hell.” A cult member may feel palpable fear regarding the prospect of life outside the perceived protection the box provides. Patrick concludes, “If he goes outside in that bad, evil, world,” he “is terrified of what will happen to him out there.” 771
The floor of the box created by Bible-based cults, what can be seen as its functional and operational foundation, is the group leader’s idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. Specifically, the Bible, as the group interprets it, becomes absolute biblical truth, and anything else is therefore unbiblical and false. Typically, this preferred interpretation of the Bible the group and its leader uses is self-serving and systematically engenders dependence on the group and reliance on it for a sense of safety and security. The Bible, as some groups use it, becomes a tool for manipulation and control.
Caught between these walls, the cult member becomes confined by the group’s interpretation of the Bible within the box. The cult member cannot effectively question authority or reflect or reason independently. In this context any alternate perspective is simply seen as striving against the biblical God or aligning with the devil. As Patrick notes, destructive cults frequently devalue critical thinking itself. He says, “It’s very painful, because they’ve been told that the mind is Satan and thinking is the machinery of the Devil.”772
The cult member thus becomes walled in and isolated. Confined in this space, he or she might have the will to intellectually try scaling a wall, but the box is tightly shut with a lid. This final sealing of the box is accomplished through the call to surrender. In cultic groups members are routinely encouraged to surrender their egos and critical thinking to a higher power. In Bible-based cults people are coercively persuaded to surrender their wills to “God.” In such a group, however, surrender to God is really surrender to the group and its authority, since that authority claims to exclusively represent and speak for God.
Authors Conway and Siegelman explained this type of surrender in their book Holy Terror: The Fundamentalist War on America’s Freedoms in Religion, Politics, and Our Private Lives. They say that such a suggestion to surrender is “employed by cult leaders to induce ongoing states of suspended judgment in their followers, calls to ‘surrender’ to ‘relinquish the will,’ to ‘let go’ or merely ‘let things float.”‘773 The authors note that “the principle of surrender is universal to religion, that all spiritual experience requires a ‘leap of faith’ and a ‘giving up of one to something higher’”774 But Conway and Siegelman found that when authoritarian-controlling groups use it, the “call to surrender may have a profound effect: to serve as a triggering mechanism in the process of indirect control.”775
To visually demonstrate these points during the intervention, we watched documentaries about two of the most radical cults in modern history, the Waco Davidians and followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown. The purpose of choosing such extreme examples of destructive cults was to demonstrate, through two agreed-on historically destructive cults, that the basic dynamics and mechanics of manipulation found in destructive cults are essentially the same. Despite the biblical and spiritual claims both the Davidians and the followers of Jim Jones made, they have long been historically categorized as destructive cults.
We observed the testimonies of cult members and former cult members, who explained their experiences and the reasoning behind their commitment to their respective groups and leaders. They explained how they had surrendered to the belief that this was a necessary part of the process required to serve God according to the Bible. Of course, they didn’t see this as submission to a cult leader but rather submission to God and his Word. But in practice, as historically recorded, surrender in the Waco Davidians and at Jonestown was actually total submission to the authority of cult leaders.
I asked her whether the basic message of salvation in Christianity depended on faith or on submission and devotion to a specific organized group and the dictates of its leader. Apologizing for being a Jewish observer rather than a Christian insider, I intimated that even I knew that Christians didn’t cite membership in organizations such as Call of God as the basis for their salvation. I pointed out that, according to the New Testament, “The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people”776 and that salvation is for anyone who accepts Je
sus as his or her savior per the basic beliefs of Christianity.
This belief is not restricted to one small organized group like the Call of God. But the leader of Call of God had routinely condemned any church or religious organization outside his group as lost and without salvation. Making such distinctions is important, because most, if not all, Bible-based cults that claim to be Christian are intolerant and condemning in regard to other Christians if they insist that salvation is essentially bestowed through them exclusively and achieved only by rigid compliance to the dictates and teachings of their leaders. I then linked this understanding to the documentaries about the Waco Davidians and Jonestown and pointed out that both groups shared such beliefs about the exclusivity of their respective groups and the unique authority of their leaders.
On the third day we specifically discussed in some detail the apparent lack of accountability and financial transparency concerning the leader of the Call of God. How was he accountable? Was there an elected board? Had he been elected? Who had appointed him? Where did the money go? How could that money trail be confirmed? Did anyone other than the leader actually know? We discussed that members of the group were expected to tithe and actively engage in fund-raising activities. Some had quit jobs, surrendered significant assets, and made personal sacrifices to support the group. Where did the money and assets go? Was there a published budget? Was there an annual audit?
At this juncture we reviewed the gathered documentation the young woman’s father had assembled. These documents, including real estate and corporate disclosure records, which disclosed in some detail the leader’s actual assets and most recently declared income. All his disclosed assets were held personally, and no assets could be found specifically titled to the group or a charitable organization. This information directly contradicted what the leader had been telling the group, which was that he had no interest in business or money; nor was he motivated, he said, by any hope for material gain. This discussion about the discrepancy between what the leader said and what the public records demonstrated, seemed to strike home with the young woman.
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 29
