In the book, “Recovery From Cults” – Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse– Edited by Michael Langone- (copyright © 1993 American Family Foundation – ISBN 0-393-31321-2), we find a definition of a “cult” that is worth noting. It is derived by the author from two sources. The first source is from a conference in 1986 sponsored by the American Family Foundation, the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute and the Johnson Foundation. Next, he uses some concepts from the work of Singer and Ofshe as mentioned in previous posts. Here is the definition:

    “A cult is a group or movement that, to a significant degree, (a) exhibits great or excessive devotion to some person, idea, or thing, (b) uses a thought-reform program to persuade, control, or socialize member (i.e. to integrate them into the group’s unique pattern of relationships, beliefs, values, and practices), (c) systematically induces states of psychological dependence in members, (d) exploit’s members to advance the leadership’s goals, and (e) causes psychological harm to members, their families, and the community.” (page 5)  

   Langone goes on to write that, “Of course, some groups that cause concern do not meet all the definitional criteria, while others become more or less cultic over time…Not all destructive groups are cults, although all cults, as defined here, will tend to be destructive.” (page 5) Why do I use this definition as a resource? Because in my estimation, it helps clarify what some may consider as grey areas or what could be called a clouded perspective. Some may see my perspective as skewed. When in reality, I have been open to debate on the facts and existing knowledge of Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). After being under the teachings of Jane Whaley for a time frame of sixteen years, I left the group in 2008. Since then, many questions have been raised in my mind when reflecting on my experiences and firsthand knowledge of the inner workings of WOFF. This blog documents my search for answers.

    Let’s review the different parts of the definition quoted and compare to my knowledge of WOFF. From the first part of the definition: “(a) exhibits great or excessive devotion to some person, idea, or thing”. Does the question of whether that applies to WOFF even have to be answered? WHO do WOFF members show “excessive devotion to”?  There could be some wrong answers which would include “Jesus”. Why would that be wrong when WOFF calls itself a “Christian” church? It is wrong because every faithful WOFF member in crisis – calls, inquires of and fears Jane Whaley – not Jesus. Jane confuses the matter by saying she “hears Jesus” and “speaks for God”. But, in reality, no member other than Jane is trusted to make decision and “hear God” for themselves, without Jane’s right to overrule and “show them where they missed God”. Clearly, Jane has inserted herself between her members and God. If you doubt this, you have never been a faithful member for any length of time.

   The second part of the definition: “(b) uses a thought-reform program to persuade, control, or socialize member (i.e. to integrate them into the group’s unique pattern of relationships, beliefs, values, and practices)”. In my opinion, from the years of involvement and my study after my departure, I see no other name to call what transpires at WOFF other than “thought-reform”. While inside, it was called, “God’s ways”, “holy righteous living”, “submission to God”, “walking in the ways of God”, and so on. I believe there are two key words in this part of the definition; control and unique.  Who can dispute that the main objective for leadership when a new member arrives in WOFF is to gain control over that member by merging or integrating them into the structure at WOFF? We have shared how this happens. Jane dictates to many members their job, living choices, clothing choices, relationships, pet choices, schedules and so on. Some receive quicker integration than others. It all depends “where Jane thinks they are walking”, translated: how far can they be pushed and still remain a member?  

    When considering the uniqueness of WOFF- who else can directly or exactly imitate WOFF-ways? It can’t be done since there is only one Jane Whaley. She is the focus of EVERYTHING at WOFF and by that fact alone WOFF-ways are then classified as unique. WOFF has a “unique pattern of relationships, beliefs, values, and practices” that was founded and continues to be subject to change by the authority of one person- Jane Whaley. Others may try, but, Jane has the final word. In previous posts, we have discussed my understanding of how this process at WOFF qualifies as “thought-reform”. You may use the Word Search in the right hand column to find other posts by searching for thought reform or start here with this link:  http://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=3225

   The third part of the definition: “(c) systematically induces states of psychological dependence in members”. It almost would be moot to expound on this part except for the fact that some readers may be new to this blog. We have shared about the “psychological dependence” in previous posts. We can summarize by saying that WOFF members are dependent on Jane to relieve their fears of her displeasure with what they might think, say or do that would be against her counsel or direction. The fear of Jane is the tool of choice for controlling WOFF members. Jane chooses fear to create the “psychological dependence”. WOFF members are told that this dependence is the “fear of God”, when in reality it is the fear of a god.

   The fourth part of the definition states, “(d) exploit’s members to advance the leadership’s goals”. Of all the visible evidence for this definition, this may be the most elusive. That is because faithful WOFF members will tell you they serve God with all their heart and that includes in their minds doing God’s will — as Jane directs. For the faithful WOFF members, they do not see this excessive devotion and subsequent life choices that are molded to advance Jane’s goals, as being in contradiction with God. To them, in practice, serving Jane is serving God. Is that “exploitation”? In my opinion, yes, as I do not believe serving a person should be confused with serving God in this scenario. Why? Because when WOFF faithful members “serve Jane’s wishes, as unto the Lord”; the social structure and environment of WOFF does not allow individual choices each time to consider an alternative to anything Jane demands or “hears God” for them. In Jane’s world, she is always right. When you live in Jane’s world for any length of time, you will know that “Jane is always right” or you will not stay in her world for much longer. When you make the choice to join WOFF and go along with any of the first parts of this definition, to Jane and her leadership that means you want to serve God by serving Jane and her directives. If you ever decide differently, and express a desire to consider another way, then that is the devil influencing you and YOU have the problem and not WOFF or Jane. It is my understanding that to Jane, she NEVER exploits her members in ANY WAY. Many former members would take exception to that premise.

   The last part of the definition states: “(e) causes psychological harm to members, their families, and the community”. Does this happen in WOFF or even outside to the families of WOFF members or in the community around WOFF? Is there “psychological harm” to adults or children inside now or those who have left WOFF? Do we need to list the child-custody cases from previous years? Do we need to list former and current WOFF families that have been separated by WOFF-ways, shunning or other effects of WOFFness? Did Jane’s decision to cut off all holiday celebrations for WOFF members cause any psychological harm to families inside or outside the group? How would we know? Do any readers care to answer that one? The list of answers to these questions would be long and would no doubt prove the point. How about the resulting outcome to WOFF members when they show signs of “weakness” or doubt and express any desire to leave? They are many times castigated and openly rebuked. Would that cause psychological harm? Do you think it just might?

   We will close here and take up other insights from this book in future posts. Langone has put together several keys which in my opinion help us understand WOFF, Jane Whaley and other groups that function in a similar manner.  

   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 279.