Framing Defenses:
This is the last post in the series on “framing” (as far as I know). Our source text, which is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. is found here.. http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html . In the previous post, we mentioned the definition of “framing” written by the author: “A frame is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment.” We have covered several aspects of how this influence tool is used at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). As stated in previous posts, my opinion is that this framing tool is compounded with fear to actual form a “fear-frame” that explodes on its hearers with such power to freeze the listener and hinder rational decisions. Jane Whaley has constructed a total control environment for the WOFF faithful. This control is exercised many times with the use of such “fear-frames” as we have explained in the previous posts.
Previously, we discussed studies that make it clear –“that a human’s first priority is not to lose–gains are secondary to the “no loss” rule.” Add the tendency to “not lose” with the “fear-frames” used by Jane Whaley at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) and it becomes clear that life at WOFF is not what a first impression might reveal. Jane uses “fear-frames” to build into her faithful fears of losing something near and dear such as family, jobs, houses, salvation, and prospect of missing heaven, friends and so on. In order to gain “fear-relief”, her faithful members go to Jane for “the word of the Lord”. Actually, that is a super-charged religious euphemism which actually means they are seeking relief from the fears of losing that “something” where Jane holds sway over them. As I agreed with another former member earlier this week, this whole scenario is hard to understand unless you have been inside WOFF or a group like WOFF where fear is the modus operandi of the leader. I am trying to break it down as best I know how. This forum does not allow me to cover all the material Rhoads covers on the subject. I suggest you take the time and read the series on his website.
Rhoads does offer some “Frame Defenses” which we will cover in this post. Rhoads writes, “How does one defend oneself against manipulative frames? A difficult question, to be sure. I believe most frames escape notice, because humans are generally too busy or distracted to realize an issue has been framed.” He then goes on to list five techniques that will help reveal when a manipulative frame is being used. I will review these and add my thoughts as to their use against the “fear-frames” within WOFF. Even after reading this information, I do not pretend to have a full understanding of the “framing” subject or the defenses. Readers are welcome to comment and add their insights to help myself and others learn more.
“1. Write the decision, with “vs.” between issues. Then ask: “Are these truly the issues, or have they shifted?” If so, reframe.” This one has been a little cloudy for me. Let’s reference a rule from WOFF and write it in this manner. Jane Whaley requires male members to wear blue or white shirts in the sanctuary for services, especially Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings. I have seen people sent home to change and/or get a better shirt so they could return to the service. How would this be written? Wearing blue/white shirts vs. being sent out of the service. The understanding for the WOFF faithful is that wearing the right clothes is important to “holy righteous living” and therefore important to God. The first outwardly noticeable thing that happens to a new member is they are dressed in acceptable “WOFF-dress”. Is this truly critical and vital to one’s salvation? Or is it just a Jane requirement? The Scripture used for justifying the WOFF rules on dress is Exodus 28:2-
“And you shall make for Aaron your brother sacred garments [appointed official dress set apart for special holy services] for honor and for beauty.” (Amplified Bible)
Does it really make sense to base a whole line of strict WOFF practices on one Scripture? Where is the New Testament reference to dressing “WOFF”? As I see it, these practices end up producing haughtiness and pride and not the humility that Jesus portrayed. It appears that the issue shifts from pleasing God to pleasing Jane. Is that accurate?
Defense number 2- “If a decision seems to be a simple open-and-shut case, ask, “What other frames would be appropriate? Is this decision really this simple or is an existing frame making it seem so?” Okay, let’s try this one. It appears from my experience at WOFF and what I have learned since leaving, that to Jane and her faithful, it is an open and shut foregone conclusion that if you belong to WOFF – you have a Jane Whaley determined odds on–chance of making it to heaven. If you are not a faithful, tithing, obedient WOFF member, get ready for a one way ticket on the hell-slide. Is the question of eternal destination that simple or is the existing “fear-frame” of WOFF making it seem like that? “What other frames would be appropriate?” Well, is it feasible that of all the millions and millions of confessing Christians in the world only those submitted to Jane Whaley will make it to heaven? That is even fewer than 144,000 as believed by some other groups.
What is a way to frame such a question that makes more sense when you consider a loving God that may have an interest in folks who are not just followers of Jane Whaley in Spindale, NC? Could God have failed to the point that unless Jane approves of someone- they don’t get into heaven? Could God have turned over the judgment of sinner and saint to the one and only Jane Whaley? Does Jane Whaley “hear God” perfectly every time? If so, then WOW. If not, would it be just your lot that she would have an off day when your time came to be considered for heaven? What is a more prudent way to value WOFF membership? Would it be safe to say that WOFF membership means more to Jane and her followers than it ever could mean to God? Would it be safe to say that Jane’s thoughts on who will make it and who will not, count for nothing compared to the wisdom, love and compassion of God? Do folks other than WOFF members make it into eternal bliss – heaven? What about all the folks born before Jane was born? Do/did they have a chance to make it to heaven? If we consider the WOFF standard portrayed today- no, people born before Jane became aware of her awesome responsibility to approve heaven’s members- had/have no chance. What a bummer for them! So, do non-WOFF members make it to heaven? I would have to say from what we hope for – yes. Then why do WOFF members act differently? I know I acted the same way when I was among them. I must confess this is very sad and truly embarrassing.
Defense number 3- “Remember that you are in charge of your frames. Ask yourself, “What’s important here?” and then act accordingly.” Honestly, while I was a WOFF member, I had no idea that I was “in charge of the frames”. Once I was submerged in the WOFF-lake-of-fear, then considering I was in charge of anything seemed doubtful. Jane set the tone and subject of every public meeting, every private meeting and all else at WOFF. She was the frame-builder and for sure a fence-builder (of fear) – as mentioned previously. But, it is good to know that I am charge of the frames now. How can that message be given to present WOFF members? While awash in WOFFness, being is charge of anything is highly unlikely – to the faithful WOFF members. That is part of the definition of “faithful” as I see it. WOFF faithful give up, at least in their minds, the ability to know and determine – “What is important?” I know, now, in reality, I had the power all the time, but while inside it is clouded and covered with the fear which Jane uses. WOFF members do not determine what is important in their lives- Jane does. Once they try, their membership status is in doubt. So, part of getting free of the fear Jane uses is relearning that you have the right to determine what is important in your life! Yes, this is a good defense and now it is a good offense also!
From Rhoads, defense number 4 – “If you encounter a situation in which a communicator stands to benefit from your compliance, ask: “What’s the agenda for the person presenting this information? Why is this particular aspect of the topic being made salient?” Be suspicious. Attempt to counter with alternate frames.” This defense is obvious now, but during WOFF days, Jane down played her agenda or benefits and claimed to be acting on God’s commands “to serve the people”. She always played off her benefits and small and her sacrifice as LARGE! Oh, my! Did she ever call her sacrifice – LARGE! We WOFF members were blamed for her physical illnesses and other such non-sense. She blamed WOFF members for loosing witchcraft at her! In reality, she CHOSE to do what she did/does and she deserves every consequence she received. But, when you are a faithful WOFF member, you do not see the benefits Jane received from us believing her mantras. She claimed to only make $600 a month. She claimed to be up all night praying for “God’s people”. (We were led to believe that was only- us!) It was hard to piece together the lifestyle she lived and the total benefit package she received- why? Well, Jane hid a lot of it from the regular members. I know more now about this. Jane would not serve God for free, no matter what she says. She said at least one time, “God, if I have to live in a hut, I just want to serve you.” Why was I so slow in putting this all together? Did I assess her motives by her words and not her actions? That can cause a person much heartache.
Rhoads ends on a note of caution with defense number 5 – Beware of anything that physically frames. Like a TV! … It’s a frame! Anything you see on TV has already been framed for you. The same goes for the web, radio, newspapers, and magazines, as well as pictures in museums! A frame isn’t necessarily bad, but keep in mind that it does require you view the situation from a certain perspective. With this caution, I must add that when a person walks into a door- you are entering into a situation that has been framed. My reference is about specifically walking into the sanctuary of WOFF. All services are “framed” to a certain degree back in Jane’s office. She calls it “getting ahold of God for the direction of the service.” From what I saw, she carries the liberty to “go in a completely different direction” and claim God told her to do it… So, in reality what does that make Jane? She is the “master-framer” at WOFF. And in reference to defense number 5- Jane keeps her folks from reading newspapers, watching TV or listening to the radio, why? She does it because she cannot control the frames or content of the media when it is a live feed or when a regular member has unhindered access. She may have to “deal with someone’s sin, if they go off reading the newspaper or listening to the radio!” She would tape certain shows and have RF edit them. Were these presentations “framed”? You think? We spent a whole service in a May seminar one time just watching TV preachers and listening as Jane told us “where they were missing God.”
For sure, life at WOFF is framed. Hopefully, something in this list of defenses will help you stay away from being “framed” to your hurt. There is so much more that could be covered on this subject, we may come back to it in a future 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 271.