We are continuing on the subject of thought reform. This post is the third in a series which will tell what thought reform is and what behavior(s) is evidence of thought reform. 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]). I will work from Chapter 22 titled “Ideological Totalism”. The second post explained the control of communication and how that affected people within WOFF. Next, we will review another characteristic of thought reform- Mystical Manipulation. Did I see this characteristic during my time at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF)? WOFF is lead by Jane Whaley; I spent 16 years being involved in that group.
Before I answer that question directly, let me say that I have hesitated for weeks in writing this post as well as all the ones in this series. As I reviewed the material and considered the direction that each post may take, I had come to the unpleasant realization that I have been under the thought reform which I was learning about. I was subject to it while at WOFF- for many years. That is a fact which I cannot deny. At this time, I cannot say with confidence that I see all measures of thought reform that were used against me. Many days, I feel like I am standing on the shore of a vast lake or ocean that is full of new thoughts and deeper more accurate understanding of what happened to me. There is so much that happened which I do not comprehend the full effects- yet. By telling what I have experienced and putting my thoughts out in the light, I am gaining some semblance of understanding and comfort. For sure, I am not alone in admitting that I was under the control of Jane Whaley. She controlled my life as well as the lives of my family directly and indirectly for years. Hundreds and even thousands of people have been and are being controlled by Jane Whaley. Some of those people have left WOFF, many still remain as members.
Several folks have asked me how I think Jane can sleep at night knowing the number of lives she has affected negatively and/or destroyed. My answer is evolving, but at this time, I do not think Jane has the least bit of concern for the folks who have “betrayed God”, “left God’s will”, become “Judases” or “attack God and God’s people”. I agree with Lifton when he writes, “For they (“the totalist administrators”=cult leaders) look upon the milieu control as a just and necessary policy… Having experienced the impact of what they consider to be an ultimate truth (and having the need to dispel any possible inner doubts of their own), they consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more or no less than “truth”.” (page 421 emphasis added) Jane feels totally justified in doing what she does because it is to establish “truth”. Has anyone ever heard her say that besides me? Is it ironic or sad that establishing this “truth” affords her a lifestyle that is way beyond most all of her members? Her outward focus on “blessings” or material goods betrays, at least in my mind, her verbal attempts to take a moral high ground that would justify her measures to control people. For me to point out from personal experience inside WOFF that her measures of “helping” members have evolved over the years to closely resemble the thought reform methods of the Chinese means nothing to her. My admission of being under these measures will not bring the least bit of concern or regret from Jane or her leaders. Why?
In my opinion, the transition of Jane Whaley from a sincere “minister” wanting to truly help people into a leader of a religious controlling group—cult was gradual. The transition came one day at a time, one service at a time. From what I can tell, this all began in the 80’s when Jane, Sam and a handful of others came back from Oklahoma. Each time Jane was allowed to make decisions that established new rules, directions or procedures within WOFF without any restraint and without any input from Sam or others, then the focus of power became more concentrated in her and through her. That combined with her extreme fervor and desire to see all members keep those rules and live in “holy righteous living” or “truth” fed her rationale that no matter what it took, she was going to mold this group into being “God’s people”. Simultaneously while loudly pointing out everyone else’s shortcomings and sin, she would also point out that she could do certain forbidden things because “that sin was not in her.” There evolved a double standard and a blatant disregard for how the standards she set for others affected them personally; as long as the rules were kept and the sin was “driven out” or kept out.
Robert Lifton writes about “mystical manipulation”, “Initiated from above, it seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment. This element of planned spontaneity… must assume for the manipulated a near mystical quality.” (page 422) Who would deny the apparent “spontaneity” in the WOFF services? Each WOFF services appeared to be directed or planned by Jane in the meeting of leadership before each service. But in reality and practice, she changed the direction of many services “because God was speaking her…”. She said many times, “I had not planned to go this direction but I feel God speaking me to do this” or say this or change directions…. Who can deny that this is the way Jane Whaley leads WOFF services? Then at the end of the service, “Well, look how God lead us, He knows what He is doing.”
I point these things out as a warning and at the risk of being misunderstood. By pointing out how Jane ran her services and to my knowledge, still does run her services; I risk people misunderstanding my intent and purpose. My intent is to point out the similarity of Lifton’s observations about Chinese thought reform measures and how they include the mystical manipulations and comparing that to the methods of Jane Whaley. Is she the only non-denominational, Protestant, evangelical leader of a church to say these things? No. Does that mean that every leader of a church who says these things is practicing thought reform? No. In my opinion, were the mystical and mysterious manipulations by Jane during the services part of the overall package of establishing her power and her “call” and her “authority”? Yes. Was I aware of it while it was going on? No. Had I witnessed the use of these phrases before in other churches and felt no warning? Yes. Am I leery of these phrases now? Yes. Will I ever trust another minister if they seem to depend on these phrases for leading services? I seriously doubt it.
Lifton continues, “One is asked to accept these manipulations on a basis of ultimate trust (or faith)”. (page 422) This is so true at WOFF. There is an expected deep level of trust and faith in Jane Whaley’s ability to hear God that is required to continue at WOFF. Once a person feels this trust slipping and mistrust begins to grow, then a decision has to be made. Will I stay or will I go? Leaving WOFF has already been laid out as a path to hell, disease, accidents and the like. So, staying is a choice many make even when the trust in Jane Whaley begins to slip. When the “child like faith” in Jane and God’s will for them at WOFF turns to doubt and muffled suspicion, some still find a way to stay. It is of this state that Lifton writes, “The individual then responds to the manipulations through developing what I call the psychology of a pawn. Feeling himself unable to escape from the forces more powerful than himself, he subordinates everything to adapting himself to them. (page 423)
When I read this paragraph I wanted to shout and cry at the same time. This made so much sense when considering how I was able to stay as long as I did and how I witnessed others who had made the decision to stay at WOFF. These other members had from all appearances given up trying to fight the forces that ran WOFF which were voiced through Jane Whaley. The idea of leaving and battling the thought of going to hell, dying early or having their family stay at WOFF seemed too large; so they resolved to adapt as best they could and tough it out. This was reflecting Lifton’s phrase- “psychology of a pawn.” WOFF is full of members who are pawns of Jane Whaley. I know because I was one – for a time and saw many others in the same position.
Lifton ends this part of his observations with these thoughts, “But whatever his response – whether he is cheerful in the face of being manipulated, deeply resentful, or feels a combination of both—he has been deprived of the opportunity to exercise his capacities for self-expression and independent action.”(page 423 emphasis added) To this, I suspect Jane and her member’s would agree. Since at WOFF, the teachings include the complete “denial of self”. Expressing “self” is not good and shunned as “sin” at WOFF. Does anyone else see the imbalance with this teaching and how easily members could be manipulated by it? We will continue with comparing Lifton’s observations from Chinese thought reform to what I witnessed at WOFF in the next post.
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 195.