Recently, a local college professor answered my email inquiry. This person has studied “new religious movements” as well as other groups for years. Their work includes a recently published book dealing with a certain aspect of these groups.

This professor acknowledged in the reply that they had read my blog and other resources on Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). My email was this person’s first exposure to WOFF or Jane Whaley. The reply contains this assessment, “From my reading, it seems to be a Pentecostal “prosperity gospel” group with some rather extreme practices and beliefs. Scholars would call what they do “antinomianism,” meaning that WOFF’s leaders (and presumably, some members too) believe that their special spiritual state allows them to transcend the laws and morals of mainstream society and other forms of Christianity. It certainly wouldn’t be the first such group to take this approach.”

The term “antinomianism” was new to me. I did some further reading about the term. In a source found here: http://www.theopedia.com/Antinomianism . The definition mentions that “antinomianism” is the opposite of legalism. So in order to apply the professor’s assessment within this definition, it warrants mentioning that Jane Whaley and the LEADERS exhibit “antinomianism”, but they apply a heavy dose of the extreme opposite, legalism, to the regular members. It is definite continuum according to the situation at hand. For instance, WOFF members are denied the rights of “mainstream society” when it comes to freedom of press or access to media and freedom of speech. (Dissent is squashed!) That is the application of “legalism” on the regular members is at the behest of Jane Whaley and leadership. They apply this from the standpoint of antinomianism. Jane Whaley acts as if she is above common morals and accepted religious mores in this country and applies legalism evidenced by the numerous and ever growing list of rules, restrictions and “don’ts” that are required of the regular members.

From Jane’s confession that she could do certain things not allowed by regular members, “that sin is not in me, it won’t touch me…”; reveals that she definitely has the perception that she has reached a “special spiritual state allows them (her) to transcend the laws and morals of mainstream society and other forms of Christianity.” (even the WOFF brand..)   There are rules and restraints that she does not consider apply to her. All the while she is confessing a “narrower place in God” or a “higher level of restraint”. For example, she has a television in her home and some report, two satellites on top of her home. Regular WOFF members do not have televisions in their homes. She has free access and denies others the same. She also claims to follow behind others and check to see if members tithe, while not revealing the amount of tithes and offerings received by WOFF, her spending or ministry spending to the regular members. Why the double standard in many areas? One answer is “antinomianism”.

Another part of the definition for the term is “lawless”. Odd, but this still applies. Jane Whaley and her leadership apply “laws” to others out of legalism yet, in many cases they don’t see the necessity to abide by such laws. One reason given, “I walk in a higher place in God.” For example, recreation water sports like fishing and skiing and use of jet skis has been frowned on as wasteful or unnecessary, for years at WOFF. Yet, from the testimony of at least two folks about a house owned by WOFF leadership members in SC; there are jet skis and a houseboat at this location. Also, at times of “reaching out to others”, leadership men would enjoy fishing trips on the coast. A person or persons, not in the church, but targeted recruit(s), would accompany these WOFF men and this would be the excuse to fish and do “normal” stuff. Regular WOFF members would not be allowed to go fishing, “who has the time”? Does the term “Pharisee” mean anything here?

Another example is traffic laws. Jane advocates strict adherence. Yet, several members have had speeding tickets. One time in Mayo, SC; a person in leadership passed me on a stretch of road where the speed limit was 45 mph. I was doing 45mph. Everyone in my van saw this person driving in excess of 45mph. No one said a word, sad. The legalism applied to regular members seems to only feed the ability for Jane Whaley and her leadership to walk in “antinomianism”. The fear of consequence allows others free pass into such behaviors.

In relation to the post about Jane BELIEVING everything she says and practices, found here… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=2733 the professor has this to say:

“In the vast majority of cases, leaders of cults, sects, and new religions actually believe everything they preach, and really believe that they are doing the best thing. Jim Jones is an excellent example. He really believed it all. They also really believe that they deserve all the adoration/money/sex/prestige whatever they get from their followers, since they believe themselves to be “special.” And in most cases, the members believe it too. It really does make sense to them, as long as they are still inside it. There are always a few exceptions, of course, of leaders who are intentionally pulling the wool over the eyes of the followers, or followers who really don’t want to be there but are too afraid or codependent to get out.”   

From her actions, Jane Whaley does believe she is “special”, in my opinion.  Her confession of the office of an “Apostle” is only minor evidence of such a belief. The demand that all major decisions about her members be cleared through her is additional evidence of the belief of her “specialness”. The control over the daily lives she exhibits over her members as well as members of other churches in other countries that follow her teaching is but more evidence of the perception she has of her own self.

In my opinion, the phrase “too afraid or codependent to get out” is so accurate. In the post found here, that subject of dependency is explained, in part… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=1869  Jane Whaley promotes the members dependency on her and the others in WOFF; and thus for some, their ability to leave is weak. When the desire to leave is recognized, many need help to follow through. Because I had a job outside the church and a vehicle, the function of leaving was not as difficult.

So, we have another term to describe WOFF-“antinomianism”. It describes not just WOFF, but other groups who seek to live above the law of the land or even above the legalism they put on others. For those who have never been involved, it may seem hard to grasp. For sure, life at WOFF many times was hard to grasp and did not completely make sense in some regards. Maybe that is why I am a former member.

Lastly, I want to give a shout out to Sam Whaley. I saw him at the Statesville Auto Auction on Tuesday. He looked a little shocked to see me, but responded when I reached for his hand and greeted him with a smile. I would expect no less of him as Sam has always been a very friendly and cordial person. Do others agree?

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 149.