We continue with examining the true cost of being a member of Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF).  This past week I saw the cost of living in Jane Whaley’s group from another perspective. Let me set the scene. In the post about a recent exit drama, I mentioned a phone conversation with Jane. (link here- http://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=4782 ) During this conversation, Jane began to remind me how many lawsuits WOFF has “won”… She was telling me of her record and how she had met every challenge. Now, I am no expert on the details of the court rulings. I was on the inside during these court cases and have discovered since I have been out that I was only told part of the so called “truth” about these decisions. Regardless of the details now, let it just be said that this litany of Jane’s “perfect court record” has been repeated enough for many if not most folks in Rutherford County to believe it without question. Others who talk to Jane confirm she tells this often, as well as it is on their website.

While on the inside, I heard this “praise report” and record of “victories” over and over. I thought it was great! Wow- those Jewish lawyers were worth the millions of dollars that WOFF and whoever paid them! Wow- we showed them! When you were inside you counted the victories as “blessings”. But, now that I am out, I think I was deceived –AGAIN about life inside WOFF.  Please, keep reading.

Also, while inside WOFF, it never occurred to me to ask why it was such a common occurrence for families to have their custody battles orchestrated by Jane. Why would a church be so concerned and take up the cause or get in the middle of custody battles or adoptions? Hmmm… Why is that? Could Jane believe that everything about her members is her business and reflects on her? Yes, I think so. But, if WOFF was a normal, Protestant, evangelical church why would they be so intoxicated and dedicated to defending their perception or reputation in the community? You tell me. Do all the other Christian churches in Rutherford County make it their mission to educate and grow their own attorneys? Why does Jane see the need to have in-house legal defense? What is the cost of all this court activity? I believe there are many sides to this issue. I will expound on two of them.

First, a quote from a newspaper article covering the settlement between Rutherford County DSS and WOFF. The article is listed “DSS settles lawsuit with WOFF”- Digital Courier/August 4, 2005 by Jerry Stensland. (source link- http://www.rickross.com/reference/wordoffaith/wordoffaith77.html )

“The agreement also closes and expunges from the state database all prior cases of child abuse involving the WOFF religious practices, including cases back to 1995. …DSS has multiple restrictions on where and how it speaks with WOFF members and their children. DSS is also prohibited from referring any current and former WOFF members to the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center or Mary Alice Chrnalogar or similar entities or persons considered to be cult deprogrammers.”

While inside WOFF, I remember hearing parts of this settlement. Now, that I am out; I see its effect in a different light! In regards to the part: DSS is also prohibited from referring any current and former WOFF members to the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center or Mary Alice Chrnalogar or similar entities or persons considered to be cult deprogrammers.” With this stipulation, DSS becomes very ineffective in properly assessing the needs of former or present WOFF members. This one prohibition seemed good while I was inside because as a WOFF member, I had no idea the true nature of WOFF.  Members in a mind control or religious cult group have no idea what they are a part of until they leave!

Additionally, the statement earlier in the article by John Carroll goes to prove my point. “DSS Director John Carroll said Wednesday he didn’t consider the new protocol to be burdensome.”  So, he accepted the prohibition of referring former WOFF members to Wellspring as not “burdensome”. It causes me to wonder if he fully understands the scope of emotional damage inflicted on many WOFF members. Is his opinion still the same – today? In my opinion, one of the net effects of this ruling was that WOFF members are not being fully protected by unhindered fair investigative powers of DSS into accusations of abuse of children or adults and their ability to suggest remedies for that abuse. What did this ruling truly cost WOFF members? Could we say the full protection of their overall emotional and physical safety is in doubt?

Second, as a result of WOFF members being in the courts so many times over the recent years and showing no small desire to win at any cost to defend what seems so precious to Jane – her reputation; there has been a price paid by WOFF members that I feel certain they know nothing about. Over the last few months, I have learned of an attitude prevalent within the community at large and certain government offices specifically. The attitude contains a disproportionate fear of “taking on the machine” of WOFF and their resources and their lawyers. I hear phrases such as “the separation of church and state” put forth as excuses for not investigating to the fullest accounts of abuse or neglect. Some have said – It is just not worth it.  Former members have walked away or been bought off after bringing forth accounts of abuse and thus wasted the resources. Really?

So, elected government officials entrusted with the duty to protect EVERY WOFF member are also to trust that Jane Whaley and her leadership will treat all of her members with the utmost respect and care while never stepping on or demanding surrender of any civil rights or personal freedoms of their members? How has that been working out? The same government officials that protect citizens equally without prejudice to race, creed, color, religion, national origin or sexual preference; back off  when it comes to protecting the safety and physical well being of WOFF members?  Does that sound right? After being inside and now outside and hearing accounts of recent survivors of WOFF, I would say that the cost present and former members pay for this attitude is GREAT! Yes, I know that protecting someone from the very religious leader they worship is a complicated issue for sure. But, does that mean we just sit and wait for another Jonestown? Do we allow certain WOFF members to be treated with less respect than some folks treat their pets, all in the name of “religious freedom”? God, help us all.

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”.

Guest posts reflect the opinions of the writers. Their opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of John Huddle or any other persons affiliated with this blog.

Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, for posts written by John Huddle, any information about WOFF is from his 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 381.