Lately, I have been reading “Breaking the Chains”- Overcoming the Spiritual Abuse of a False Gospel (Copyright © 2009 by Shari Howerton, ISBN- 978-0-9713499-4-0). There is so much that her church; Christian Gospel Temple (CGT) had/has in common with Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). Though there were some differences, many of the similarities are very important and I feel worth noting on this blog. This book is written in a very honest and forth right manner. I do not assume I can do it complete justice by posting certain quotes and drawing the conclusions that show the similarities. I recommend you visit the website – http://www.sharihowerton.com/ and consider purchasing your own copy. The author’s quest for personal growth and Truth is inspiring in many ways.
Howerton writes, “What I remember most about the ministry was how the ministers and their families were treated like royalty. It was as though they were the dignitaries and we were the common folk. … At some point, I realized that for all the talk of being like Jesus this behavior was very unlike Him. … I never thought of the ministers as servants. They were more like kings to me.” (page 107-108) Here I will just mention that during my time at WOFF Jane Whaley was treated as royalty in many ways. Not only was there the extensive wardrobe and obvious unchecked spending privileges; there was the heir of superiority that she carried which reinforced the self–acclaimed notion of her perfection. The notion of royalty carried over to her family and her extended family as certain allowances were made for them that were not afforded others. Do I need to elaborate? I certainly can for those who do not remember.
We move on with two more passages from Howerton and then I will explain my view on the subject. The author continues reciting an incident where she and some friends ran into the pastor’s daughter in a public place one afternoon. “This was another one of those red-letter days in my life that I have reflected on many times. … Somehow we got on the topic of Princess Diana. Becky (the pastor’s daughter) compared Diana’s rebelliousness toward the Queen and her attempts to change the protocol of the royal family with the young people in our church who challenged her dad and the way things had always been done at our church.” (page 108) Yes, the comparison was shocking to the ladies in the group, but it was a tell-tale sign of the dynamics within the group. Those dynamics were ones I have been very familiar with. Within WOFF though, there would be no uprising or challenging Jane’s authority by members- young or old. Those who dare such are put out, if once confronted, there was no IMMEDIATE submission to Jane. Ask any number of folks who were put out. It was/is Jane’s way or the highway. Of course, within WOFF, it is phrased – submit to God through Jane or leave. Is that really accurate or puffery? Should one person ALWAYS and FOREVER have that much power over people’s lives?
Howerton explains more about her group, “We were taught to please people; principally our pastor. Therefore, we quite naturally put Brother Mears (the pastor) on a pedestal. He did not warn against it or refuse the worship. He was between us and God in many ways. My personal relationship with God was stunted by the way I was taught to view my pastor.” (page 108) Again, I must concur and say, yes, I know EXACTLY what she is referring to in this passage. Do any other former WOFF members see the pattern here? While in WOFF, one never considers that other groups could have such an important person as Jane Whaley. But what does it sound like in this case? Did/Does Jane refuse the worship she receives on her pedestal? Is Jane between her members and God in many ways? Honestly, let’s be truthful! Are WOFF members encouraged or allowed to seek relationship with God apart from Jane’s direction or immediate oversight? Why? Could it be she functions as a god?
As a point of reference, what do visitors to WOFF notice when they see how Jane uses her eye contact with those on the stage who are singing or “sharing”? Does her mere look demand a reaction? One person, who visited several times, relayed to me that by merely watching Jane control those on stage told them a lot about how she controlled WOFF members in other situations; how perceptive this person was/is! What is the foundation of this control? Yes, besides fear. The center of control resides with Jane is in all areas of importance at WOFF. (relationships, jobs, housing, privileges of all types…) So, her look of approval or disapproval is worthy of a reaction. To a faithful WOFF member, pleasing Jane is the key to not only staying a WOFF member, but “fulfilling their call” and ultimately making it to heaven. If you doubt it, ask them. Ask, “Can you find your way in God without Jane’s help? Could you learn God’s way without Jane? How do others outside of WOFF ever make it to heaven? What is the benefit of staying at WOFF? Could you ever be happy outside of WOFF? Is there ever a good reason to leave WOFF?” Could this requirement to follow Jane lead to worship of a person instead of God? Really? Do those outside of WOFF see WOFF members with balanced respect for Jane or inordinate admiration or plain outright worship of her?
In considering this post, I remembered groups I had been a part of in the past that had “royalty” for leaders. Let me go back several years. In 1984, I was a part of a small Baptist church in Summerville, SC. The associate pastor and his wife were very friendly and helped me a great deal. During one conversation, the associate pastor relayed his experience while in school in Dallas, TX. He had taken a part-time job at a bank. This was years ago when the bulk of the deposits were paper checks. His job was to encode the checks. He expressed his shock at the LARGE checks that were being deposited in the account for Kenneth Copeland Ministries. It made quite an impression on him. Fast forward a few years to either sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s; I was attending a Kenneth Copeland convention in North Carolina with family members. Between meetings, we went to eat at a certain restaurant that happened to be where Kenneth Copeland was eating. I still remember the feeling of awe as I watched him go to the salad bar! Wow, was I engulfed in it or what! I can’t say if others in my group were so engulfed but, looking back they probably were.
Move on a few years to my attendance of a church in Sheldon, SC. The pastor was teaching a mix of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland stuff and some “original” stuff that was reflected in E.W. Kenyon’s books. I was a part of that church for over three years. It was different in many ways as the services started at 2:30PM on Sunday afternoon and could last three or more hours. During my time there, I met my wife and we were married in that church. I taught in some of the Bible studies held in member homes during the week and was headed to Africa on a mission trip in 1987. The leader certainly held status as “royalty” in my eyes and many others. That came to halt after my wife and I had dinner with him and his wife somewhere in either July or August of 1987. The “royalty” status was no longer after that evening. Soon after that we moved on to another church. When we approached the leader about leaving, he sent us out with God’s blessing and no apparent ill will. No, though he had “royalty” status, leaving that ministry was not equal to leaving God or going straight to hell.
Several years later, after joining Word of Life and then WOFF, the concept of a church leader having “royalty” status was not totally foreign, as in years past I had been a part of other groups where the leaders “enjoyed” that adoration from their members. But, it was not until Word of Life and then WOFF, that the royalty would condemn those who left the group with such statements as you will never make it, you will miss God, you will go to hell or die early or you will be lost when you leave the only place God has for you… The royalty status of the leaders seemed to have added the quality of dictator or at a minimum cult leader. For sure, one common characteristic of cults is those who leave are shunned, told they will lose their salvation and other negative things. In my experience, a group that places their leaders in “royalty” status may not always be a cult, though it is never a healthy situation. But, when the leader goes on to other controlling characteristics common in cults groups and begins to condemn those who leave and threaten them with sickness, destruction and calamity; they and their groups should be considered very dangerous.
Consider this, if a group leader has to threaten folks who are considering leaving or have left; doesn’t that say more about the leader than the folks who leave? Aren’t these threats confirmation that the group leader’s authority or power is based on fear and not love or faith in God? So, Jane, go ahead and confirm who you really are – threaten away. No matter how many times you scream, “We are not a cult!” it does not change who you are. You show who you are by what you do.
Please, read the previous post and consider sharing your experiences… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=3690
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 250.