In the last post, we used this book, “Recovery From Cults” – Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse– Edited by Michael Langone- (copyright © 1993 American Family Foundation – ISBN 0-393-31321-2) as a resource. Today, we will continue in this resource and compare more material to my experience in Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). I experience a gamut of emotions when I discover results from studies used in a resource book that coincide or mirror what I experienced at WOFF. It brings me joy and sadness at the same time to identify with material that researchers have discovered about cult groups- religious or otherwise. The years within the group can’t be changed, but, by sharing my thoughts on this blog, I hope to help others who have been in such groups find resources that will help. There is sadness in knowing that those I love and cherish are still a part of WOFF.
Where is your happy face? How many times did we hear that, say that, think that, while inside WOFF? Now, don’t get me wrong, every group that asks that question of their children or even the adults is not automatically a cult. But, as we review the following excerpt, just remember what it felt like when you were asked that question or witnessed others being prodded and pushed to smile- no matter how ugly or emotional the scene had become. Remember the consequences for those children who would not submit to the prod and crack even a little smile. For sure, the use of this saying would ebb and flow over the years. But, no one can deny that “Where is your happy face?” was a favorite for years at WOFF.
In our resource text, the editor reviews different research studies along with clinical observations which tell when people are most likely to join a cult as well as the circumstances around a person leaving a cult.
“ Clinical observations (Ash, 1985; Clark, 1979; Langone, 1991) and research studies (Galanter, 1989; Langone et al., in press) suggest that people join cults during periods of stress or transition, when they are most open to what the group has to say. Approximately one third appear to have been psychologically disturbed before joining, as evidenced by having participated in pre-cult psychotherapy or counseling (with figures varying from 7% to 62% of subjects among six studies: Barker, 1984; Galanter, et al.;1979; Galanter & Buckley, 1978; Knight , 1986; Sirkin & Grellong, 1988;Spero, 1982). The majority, however, appear to have been relatively normal individuals before joining a cult.” (page 40 emphasis added)
Joining- “during periods of stress or transition”; that is confirmed in my case. My wife and I were in transition out a church where we had been heavily involved, but, left with lots of questions. What I would like to know if the figures varied according to what type of cult a person a joined? There are several types, not just religious cults. Did a person joining a meditation cult have statistically more mental problems than one joining a religious cult? Were there vast differences in the intensity of mental issues? Also, it is satisfying in some ways to know that the majority of these studies were done BEFORE WOFF got cranking with lots of folks. I have no information that WOFF survivors participated in any of these studies.
“Wright (1987) and Skonovd (1983) found that leaving a cultic group was very difficult because of the psychological pressure, a finding consistent with clinical observations. There is much evidence, reviewed earlier, of psychological distress when people leave cultic groups.
And yet the majority eventually leave. Why? If they were unhappy before they joined, became happier after they joined, were pressured to remain, left anyway, and were more distressed than ever after leaving, what could have impelled them to leave and remain apart from the group?” (page 40)
What is the author asking? What is he pointing toward? First off, it does not take a study to prove to me that leaving a “cultic group” can be difficult and cause “distress”. But, I understand for those who have never been inside, they need to see the facts and consider several different groups. Which survivor of WOFF left totally stress-free? I need your name. Otherwise, my experience confirmed the clinical observations! I do think the line of questioning is valid and would be of interest to many folks. If WOFF is such a wonderful place to live, why do folks run away in the middle of the night and some leave with only the clothes on their backs? If the WOFF sub-culture is such a blessing, why is there so much fear used on folks to scare them to not even think about leaving? If true “peace” is found inside WOFF; why does Jane send her leadership to chase folks who reject that “WOFF-peace”? Why would she have to force folks to stay, if life was so good? We learn answers in the next paragraph. We will break it down in parts in order to compare it to the WOFF experience.
“The inescapable conclusion seems to be that the cult experience is not what it appears to be (at least for those groups that deem it important to put on a “happy face”), either to undiscerning observers or to members under the psychological influence of the group.” (page 40)
Okay, so there you have it. Scientists have learned what those inside WOFF knew and may not have been willing to admit. WOFF-life is just “not what it appears to be (at least for those groups that deem it important to put on a “happy face”)…” Putting on the “happy face” fools no one in the long run. Those who do it know deep down inside that it is a fake move. Those who see it – many times- know that it is all for show. But, just as the Emperor who had new clothes… few if any are willing to admit the sham, the charade, and the utter lies that people are being forced to tell themselves in order to stay a part of the group. We move on.
“Clinical observers, beginning with Clark (1979) and Singer (1979), appear to be correct in their contention that dissociative defenses help cultists adapt to the contradictory and intense demands of the cult environment. So long as members are not rebelling against the group’s psychological controls, they can appear to be “normal,” much as a person with multiple personality disorder can sometimes appear to be “normal.” (page 40 emphasis added)
In order to understand more completely understand this passage, I had to look up “dissociative defenses.” I found a short explanation which I will quote below. It was in an article explaining how folks deal with trauma.
Trauma-Related Affect, Defenses, and Dissociative States ELIZABETH HEGEMAN, AGNES WOHL
“With the resurgence of interest in traumatized populations, therapists have been confronted with a new set of challenges to their training in verbal psychotherapy. In addition to the dynamic formulations based on repression and defenses against awareness of internal conflicts, we now understand that there are several types of defensive adaptations to traumatic experience— including “dissociation,” which can be defined here as a discontinuity either between psychic structures within the self, or between the self and the external world (Bromberg, 1998, p. 130). Dissociation is a “glitch” or a dead spot inside the self, or between the person and the world, that arises when the self is overwhelmed by terror, dread, or the perception of malevolence or danger. Dissociation blocks verbal access to experience and disrupts coherent self-experience. It may take the form of trance, of a sudden numbing or loss of feeling, or a flashback of intense experience. Memory for traumatic events, the feelings and sensations that go with them, and crucial aspects of self can be unintentionally blocked in what appears to be an attempt to preserve functioning. Awareness of the feelings of terror, helplessness, betrayal, and pain often returns in uncontrolled bursts of reenactments, nightmares, and flashbacks, only to be blocked off again as the dissociating person returns to a frozen state of affectless numbness. “Empty,” “zoned out,” and “dead” are common descriptions of the latter. (resource link accessed April 13, 2012- http://www.psybc.com/pdfs/library/manage_trauma.pdf )
As we break this down, our resource text is saying that cult members use internal defense mechanisms to live inside the group which has “the contradictory and intense demands”. Shall we list these contradictions and demands found inside WOFF? My list will only reflect my experience. Other survivors will have their own list. There was a demand to NOT talk about any questions pertaining to Jane’s “gift” or her undisputed authority, or her financial decisions, or the pervasiveness of WOFF rules, or any desire to leave, or any doubts as to the practices of the group… shall we go on? I did a whole series on the “WOFF Contradictions.” (https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=2500 )
So, internally, members had to deal with these contradictions and intense demands in some way. Dissociation to deal with the present WOFF reality was a common defense mechanism. It became a way for many to deal with the intense internal conflicts which were inherent with WOFF membership. BUT, letting it show on your face was a SIN! How many times did folks, young and old, get corrected for “spacing out” or “checking-out?” That is when you were jerked back into the present WOFF-reality and told to find your “happy face”. You were being encouraged to look “normal”. For a season at WOFF, it was the mantra. Where is your happy face? Every group that says this is not a cult, but, if it is used to cover up real issues and ignore destructive group dynamics, then run from that group.
We will finish the paragraph from our resource text.
“However, this normal-appearing personality, as West (1992) maintains, is a pseudopersonality. When cultists leave their groups, the flood gates open and they suffer. But they don’t generally return to the cult because the suffering they experience after leaving a cult is more genuine than the “happiness” they experienced while in it. A painful truth is better than a pleasant lie.” (page 40)
How do we end this post? Leaving a group like WOFF is tough. But, living inside will be tougher. The “pleasant lie” is still a lie.
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”.
Guest posts reflect the opinions of the writers. Their opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of John Huddle or any other persons affiliated with this blog.
Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, for posts written by John Huddle, any information about WOFF is from his 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 396.