We are continuing on the subject of thought reform. This post is the fifth in a series which will tell what thought reform is and what behavior is evidence of a thought reform environment. Our reference book is “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton (original copyright 1961, later published again in 1989, ISBN 0-8078-4253-2 [alk. Paper]). This work has been from Chapter 22 titled “Ideological Totalism”. The fourth post explained the “demand for purity” and how that affected members within WOFF. Next, we will review another characteristic of thought reform- “The Cult of Confession”. Did I see this characteristic of thought reform during my time at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF)? WOFF is run by Jane Whaley. As a review, I spent 16 years being involved in WOFF. My experience within the group is a “normal” one as far as I can tell.
Lifton begins by explaining his ideas on the subject by telling how close this aspect of confession is to the “demand for purity”. He tells in greater detail the effects of the written and public confession that were required in the Chinese thought reform environment. It has continued to astound me the correlations and similarities between Chinese thought reform and life at WOFF. Lifton writes, “Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself…In the totalist (cult leader) hands, confession becomes a means of exploiting, rather than offering solace for, these vulnerabilities.” (page 425)
He lists three special meanings that confession takes on in the thought reform that he studied. In my opinion, these meanings are the same in WOFF life. “It is first a vehicle for the kind of personal purification which we just discussed, a means of maintaining a perpetual inner emptying or psychological purge of impurity… Second, it is an act of symbolic self surrender, the expression of merging of individual and environment. Third, it is a means of maintaining an ethos of total exposure – a policy of making public (or at least known to the Organization) everything possible about the life experiences, thoughts, and passions of each individual, and especially those elements which might be derogatory.” (page 425-426)
From the first meaning in the list, the “perpetual inner emptying or..purge of impurity”… As odd as it may sound, this constant “purge of impurity” was used in many ways at WOFF. It was said over and over that you as a WOFF member could not go into the sanctuary of God with known sin in your life. You were expected to expose and confess sin before every service. Hence there was the common practice of members lining the hallway outside of Jane’s office before a service in hopes of catching someone to “lock-in” with and make things right before the service. This allowed the public confessions and all that included to seem like a natural progression when personal confession was required in order to stay in the group.
Lifton’s second point cannot be overstressed. “..it (confession) is an act of symbolic self surrender, the expression of merging of individual and the environment.” Combine this with the often preached doctrine of denying self and the stage is set for the individual to submit any so called personal desires to the perceived expressed desires or expectations of the group, as clarified by Jane Whaley. There were times when Jane would accuse or confront individuals publically and require “confession of sin” or relinquishment of a personal choice or freedom- for the good of the whole church. The dynamics of these events clearly required “self surrender” and the merging of individual with the environment (of WOFF). There was also the phrase “sanctify God before the people” which was used as a tool to force compliance with anything that would bring a member into agreement with the direction or expectation that Jane had for WOFF members’ behavior. Clearly, in order to continue at WOFF, a member was expected to participate in personal and public confession. A member of WOFF was expected to act a certain way in order to not bring dishonor to the group as a whole. Can other former members relate to this?
The third meaning Lifton writes about held true at WOFF also. There was a learned expectation of making known publically (within WOFF) any sin or behavior deemed as sin. The terms used at WOFF included – “keeping your heart open”. You were exhorted and instructed over and over to “not hide sin”, “expose it” and “get it out in the open.” Also, it was said at WOFF – “stay open before God, the ministers of God and God’s people”. This all sounded good and right until it went beyond the “ordinary religious, legal and therapeutic expression”. The message at WOFF was that confession of sin to the ministers and to Jane was required in order stay connected with God (Jane) and with the group.
The author continues, “The assumption underlying total exposure (besides those that relate to the demand for purity) is the environment’s claim to total ownership of each individual self within it. Private ownership of the mind and its products—of imagination or of memory—becomes highly immoral.” (page 426) At WOFF, the reference in Scriptures to “having the mind of Christ” was narrowly translated into having a mind submitted to the rules of WOFF. How do we know this? Why would this be true? It was evident because the rules at WOFF and the expectations at WOFF did not allow for “private ownership of the mind and its products”. Having your own thoughts or desires was a “sin” worthy of confession and/or getting prayer-deliverance. Totally exposing your thoughts was expected and required, almost as much as it was demanded. The fear of “having your own thoughts” was only superseded by the fear of being caught with your own un-confessed thoughts.
Lifton explains of the cult of confession that those who participate experience some form of cathartic release as they shed guilt from sin and form a “oneness” of seemingly deep and sincere proportions with other confessors. The individual pursues the experience and release, then in turn begins to covet the process and results of such oneness with the group. In my opinion, this whole psychological experience is easily confused as a deep spiritual event and all the credit for such “release” and freedom from guilt being aimed toward Jane Whaley. After all, she is perceived as the driving force to keep all WOFFers “opening their heart” and joining into such a sacred experience. During my years at WOFF, I did not realize that the harm of the individual losing their identity inside the group by the means of this type of confession and other techniques. I was oblivious to it, and as much as I could, as a WOFF member, I participated in it.
However, Lifton goes on to explain the inward conflict which arises as this system of confession continues and requires more and more of the individual. “But as totalist (cult) pressures turn confession into recurrent command performances, the element of histrionic public display takes precedence over genuine personal experience.” (page 426) The cult members who continuously are required to confess begin to concentrate on the method or standard or form of confession and not the heartfelt experience that comes with genuine unforced confessions. Does my confession meet the WOFF/Jane standard? Then WOFF members become confession actors playing a part in the overall WOFF-drama for that moment.
Continuing on, Lifton writes of this cult of confession, “In this sense, the cult of confession has effects quite reverse of its ideal of total exposure: rather than eliminating personal secrets, it increases and intensifies them.” He explains the parts of personal secrets and his observations that these “Personal secrets are always maintained in opposition toward self-exposure.”(page 427) He shows that there is a constant struggle for the person under this aspect of thought reform to keep the boundaries between personal and private secrets or thoughts from the ones allowed to be exposed to the public or the group. There is the constant review and assessment of what can be told and what cannot. The boundaries become “blurred” as time passes and there is an “inner struggle between resistance and self-surrender.”(page 427)
Can any former members relate to this struggle? When prayer started did you already have sorted out what could be told and what could not be told? When the “truth circle” formed did you already have your defenses strengthened and know where the line would be drawn during that session? When the line got crossed and you told more than you were ready to tell- how did that make you feel? Were you relieved and then did it transition into feeling violated? Or did you feel violated and confused right away? Why did the “good” feelings after a confession session not last and the regrets come back no matter how much you said you were fine with the whole deal? How long could you pretend that forced confessions were required to “walk with God”?
The last point Lifton makes in the section is very good. He notes of those in the cult of confession, “..The enthusiastic and aggressive confessor becomes like Camus’ character whose perpetual confession is his means of judging others: “(I) …practice the profession of the penitent to be able to end up as a judge … the more I accuse myself, the more I have the right to judge you.” The identity of the “judge-penitent” 8 thus becomes the vehicle for taking on some of the environment’s arrogance and sense of omnipotence.” (page 427, emphasis added) It is obvious to me that these observations about those who came through Chinese thought reform hold true for those members of WOFF and especially Jane Whaley. By continually telling their own “sins” they then take on the assumed ability to judge others who may or may not be in their group. I have seen it work both ways. Members of WOFF who are perceived as holding back “sin” or “secrets” reap judgment from fellow WOFFers. Outsiders who do not hold the WOFF standards are then described as “not walking where we walk” and “do not know Jesus”. It is all such a sham as WOFF members do not even hold every WOFF standard as they pretend is required.
We are not finished with this subject. The dynamics of thought reform and how it affects people are too important to rush through. We have more to contrast and compare from our resource book and my observations during my time at WOFF.
Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.
Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.
(Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 197.