A few weeks ago while researching something totally different about the effects of cults; I came across the website mentioned in the previous post. The website found here… http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. He explains several aspects of his studies dealing with the subject of influence. In the previous post, we reviewed some information about “The Hot Seat Technique”; Rhoads wrote that this method was one of the more common influence tools used by cult leaders. We also reviewed how I experienced that technique at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). It appears that this technique was/is used frequently by Jane Whaley and her leaders.
In this post, we will review information from the same website, but on a different technique of influence. While introducing the subject of “framing”, Rhoads pointed out that this is just one of many influence methods and actually it “has only been lightly researched.” My interest has been peaked and for now, we will review the information presented and compare it to my experience during my years at WOFF. While we review this information on “framing”, we will also seek to answer the question “Is framing used at WOFF?” and if so, how and why and what results are seen? In general, is it a good thing when used there or is it a bad thing? These questions will not be answered in one post. There are several planned in order to give us a better idea about “framing” and life inside of WOFF.
There are two more concepts that we will consider in these posts in addition to “framing”. On this blog, there has been much posted about thought reform and how that worked at WOFF. One part of thought reform is the mystical manipulation as explained by Robert Lifton in his work “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]). You will find our introduction to this subject here.. https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=3238 .
Here is an excerpt from that post:
“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 (was)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.”
At the risk of getting ahead of myself, when I began reading this information on framing, my mind automatically began reeling with the correlation to Lifton’s work. Jane Whaley “framed” her services with the mystical, the spontaneous, and the elusive. To the unlearned, which I considered myself during that time; it seemed “normal” and almost necessary for her to bring the “word of God” to His people. When in reality, I look back and see how self-serving it all was. Jane used the “mystical” to build her power and further control over the members. It was a technique used to fashion a culture built around her, her gift, her ability to “hear God” and tell you when you weren’t hearing God; which for regular members – was most of the time.
The mystical manipulation coupled with the foregone conclusion of members that Jane was/is that person that was/is further along in the spirit; she was/is that person who could see clearer and hear more accurately- the will of God for your life. She became in essence- the voice of God to her faithful members. How do we know? Watch and listen and see for yourself. Do WOFF members make decisions or moves without consulting Jane? Is this just an exercise of good manners or one of necessity in their lives? When a crisis arises, do cell phones light up and frantic looks abound? Who are they calling? Do you know? So, for the members of WOFF, the framing is done by Jane. What is this “framing”? How did it evolve?
While I intend to give as much information as needed to make the comparisons, my writing will not replace your reading of the material for yourself. I do not intend to rewrite his entire work, but only draw out parts that are helpful to answer our questions about “framing” and life at WOFF. Rhoads continues as he outlines three situations where a type of framing occurs. The first situation is called a “reframe”. Basically, this occurs when a person has a decision to make between two options and considerations in the decision process are redirected or “reframed” to promote a certain conclusion regardless of other factors. He used an example of a man considering the purchase of a VCR. When the thoughts revolved around the movies he could watch and not the cost or affordability, the decision to buy becomes a foregone conclusion. This is “the least detectable and perhaps most powerful type of frame.” Why- because many times it occurs internally and we seek environmental clues to reaffirm our choice.
Does this occur at WOFF? At this time, I can only answer for myself. When my wife and I were asked by Jane Whaley about moving to Spindale in January 2002, we answered yes, we need the breakthroughs that we thought would come with moving into WOFF. That was the answer Jane wanted to hear. Was there even a chance we would say no? The question of practicality was reframed with the frame of spirituality. It was “obvious” staying in Greenville was “less spiritual”. Who wanted to be considered “less spiritual” or even God forbid- “rebellious”? Does that make sense? I was totally oblivious as to the requirements of living inside WOFF and how that would affect my life in the future. To the best of my remembrance, this occurred on the first Sunday evening in 2002.
The next type of frame explained by Rhoads is the “focus frame”. Plainly put, the focus of the question or decision is redirected to accentuate the perceived attractive qualities of a product or issue in order to influence the decision made. During the process of moving to WOFF from Greenville, being in the will of God was stressed, being with God’s people was stressed and having the children in a larger school was stressed. What was not stressed was the high unemployment in the county. What was not stressed was how difficult it would be to sell our home in Greenville. (it took a year…) What were not talked about beforehand were the MAJOR discipline issues in the household where we moved when we arrived in Spindale. What was not talked about was the absolute hand that Jane used to rule the lives of members in Spindale. We did not have the full picture while we lived in Greenville. We moved by focusing on the perceived spiritual benefits and not on the practical issues or realities. It was a basic snow job.
The next type of frame explained by Rhoads is the “contrast frame”. He explains this with an example of a couple being sold a set of encyclopedias while the salesman compares the prices to a can of soda a day for the education the books would bring to the children. Who would not want the education when it is compared to a soda? Likewise, who would want to stay in Greenville, SC and not move to WOFF; while you could lose your place in God or the call of God on your life or even your chance to make it to heaven? Do you see? Some stayed and tried to make the trips to Spindale. For most, it became too hard and they quit coming. They were considered “unspiritual” or “out of the will of God”. But, really, were they? Or had the contrast frame just not worked on them for some reason? The truth is many moved pursing the “education” and found it cost a lot more than a can of soda…. Oh, we became educated alright. When we moved into WOFF and things settled down a little, we began our education on how and why life revolves around being submitted to authority. Who was/is that authority? Who do you think? Do we need to “lock-in” about this?
We learned how life was framed at WOFF and who was at the center of every frame. In our next post on this subject, we will look at the parts of a “frame”. I will also share my observations on the continual use of fear to frame every decision and rule during my time at WOFF. We will discuss a new term – “fear-frame” as well as how this affected life at WOFF. Please, check back soon for the next post in this series. I believe this “fear-frame” concept is vital to understanding life for members of WOFF.
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 268.