Earlier today, I watched the Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) video response to the People magazine article and the documentary published last month. My first impression was discomfort when members use the terms “never” and “total lies” and “no one made us do anything…” when denying abuse claims. This occurs less than four minutes into the video. My hope is the defensive members will come to realize, as I did, no one person is able to be present at all confrontations inside such a large group. The closest anyone comes to being aware of all events, happens when members call Jane to ask her counsel or permission. Even then, there are time and space limitations to that practice.  

In previous posts, I have explained “WOFF-think” and “WOFF-speak”, my attempt to understand how professionals and long-time members can deny years and years of very similar abuse claims by many ex-members who lived inside the group at different times.  

Today, I will explain why defending the WOFF-life and all that goes with it, is critical to each faithful member of WOFF. In order to understand my approach, first, we need to acknowledge there are different social dynamics at work inside WOFF.  We can believe that part of the testimony. Just how the dynamics differ from other accepted societal norms is what we will review today.  

The resource information comes from Janja Lalich. Janja joined the Democratic Workers Party (DWP) in mid 1975, not thinking it was a cult. In late 1985, the group disbanded. Lalich went on the study and then serve as an Assistant Professor of Sociology at California State University. She spent over 20 years studying groups very similar to WOFF and authored “Bounded Choice- True Believers and Charismatic Cults”- © 2004 University California Press. From this book and a blog post written by the author in January 2017, “Cults Today: A New Social-Psychological Perspective,” we will draw insights from her work which point to WOFF. I ask present and former members to honestly reflect on this post and reply if it confirms or denies their own experience. (http://cultresearch.org/cults-today-new-social-psychological-perspective/)  

In the post, Lalich admits some steer away from the term “cult”, she prefers it for definitive reasons and not judgmental ones.  

“A cult can be either a sharply bounded social group or a diffusely bounded social movement held together through a shared commitment to a charismatic leader. It upholds a transcendent ideology (often but not always religious in nature) and requires a high level of commitment from its members in words and deeds. 

My aim is to convey a systemic view of such a group, which includes a charismatic relationship and a promise of fulfillment along with a methodology by which to achieve it.”  

Does WOFF fit the definition? Do members share a commitment to a charismatic leader with a transcendent ideology, religious in nature, combined with a high level of commitment in words and deeds? 

The answer for me is – yes. That definition describes my experience. You may agree or disagree but tell us why.  

Lalich goes on to explain the power structures she observed in the two cults which were the focus of her early work: DWP and Heaven’s Gate. I will include a brief piece concerning each dynamic for clarification.  

• Charismatic Authority. This is the emotional bond between a leader and his or her followers. It lends legitimacy to the leader and grants authority to the leader’s actions while at the same time justifying and reinforcing followers’ responses to the leader and/or the leader’s ideas and goals. Charisma could be identified as the “hook” that links a devotee to a leader and/or his ideas. 
• Transcendent Belief System. This is the overarching ideology that binds adherents to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group’s rules and norms. It is transcendent because it offers a total explanation of past, present, and future, including the path to salvation. 
• Systems of Control. This is the network of acknowledged—or visible—regulatory mechanisms that guide the operation of the group. It includes the overt rules, regulations, and procedures that guide and control members’ behavior. … The effect is compliance, or better still, obedience. 
• Systems of Influence. This is the network of interactions and social influence that resides in the group’s social relations. This interaction and resultant group culture teach members to adapt their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to their new beliefs. The purpose of the systems of influence is to shape the group culture. 

It would be difficult for any honest member to deny the list above describes different aspects of WOFF. Number 1- is Jane Whaley. Number 2- is the preaching, teaching and personal counseling of Jane to impart her ideology or beliefs at that time. Contrary to the testimony of those on the radio program, “…no one made us do anything…”; number 3- exists inside WOFF. There are controls through unwritten rules, peer pressures and direct contact.  

Number 4- Systems of influence- present members deny these “systems” exist. However, there would be no unity of defense of there was no coordinated effort. Does anyone deny the number of times individuals practiced their testimony before a public meeting? When did they know they had it right? When Jane approved. Is there denial that weddings are rehearsed. Jane shapes the group culture with her words and actions every day.  

Lalich continues, 

“Meanwhile the leader’s goal is to perfect a body of followers who will continually strive for that impossible ideal and laud the leader all along the way. When the process works, leaders and members alike are locked into a “bounded reality”—that is, a self-sealing social system in which every aspect and every activity reconfirms the validity of the system. (emphasis added)  

Describing WOFF as a “self-sealing social system” gives us a picture of the effect of the boundaries put in place by Jane and her leadership. In the past, I referred to WOFF as a closed subculture. Lalich’s term gives more clarity. The purpose for the controls, the rules, the boundaries- especially against former members – is meant to keep present members sealed in their own “filter bubble”- to borrow a term from social media.   

Lalich- “Within this context, personal choices become organizational choices—and essentially, it is the leader who makes organizational choices, for no one else is qualified or has the authority to do so. At this point, personal choices, if and when they arise, are formulated within and constrained by the cult’s self-sealing framework and style of deliberation, which always puts the organization first.”  

Not only is the subculture itself “sealed,” Lalich goes on to explain that the individuals experience a “self-sealed” state in which they are sealed in the group and from the world and even from the freedom to explore their own nature- sealed from themselves.  

“As a consequence of successful indoctrination and resocialization, the individual has become, in a sense, a microcosm of the larger self-sealing system. He has entered what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton identified as a state of personal closure, or the closing in of the self in the larger self-sealed system. This becomes a psychological trap for the cult member. The closed state of mind that is the culmination of cult life is profoundly confining because the adherent is closed off both to the outside world and to (his or) her own inner life. (emphasis added) 

Have other former members experienced an awakening once you left WOFF? This is the effect of coming out from the “self-sealed” state and finding out who you really are and want to become.  

More from the post: 

“In other words, neither the charismatic leader nor others in the group need be present to tell a follower what to do; rather, having internalized the lessons and adapted her outlook, the loyal and true believer knows precisely what she needs to do to stay in the good graces of the all-knowing and all-powerful leader. The true believer needs only “imagine” what actions to take, knowing full well that she will act within the bounds of the cult’s reality, for in a sense her “self” has merged with the leader and the group. What other reality is there? The one thing the truly devoted adherent cannot imagine is life outside the group. … At this point, whatever choices remain are “bounded” ones. They are choices, yes, but not free ones…” 

In WOFF-speak, this process is known as “walking in the Spirit.” The test becomes when Jane learns of your personal choices daringly made without her input, she determines if you “heard God.”  

Is it clear why present members feel compelled to defend their way of life? Their own self has merged into oneness with the group and more importantly – the leader. They must use terms such as – “never” abuse, “no one made us do anything…”, the ex-member’s story was “total lies.” In many respects, they see “no other way to live.” That position itself makes it difficult to NOT become indignant when someone dares tell another side of the coin. Their words portray their “self-sealed” conundrum and betray their indefensible plight. 

In closing, I share a paragraph from – “Bounded Choice.” It was not written specifically about WOFF, but it is WOFF. The subject is the “LOVE” proclaimed as such a magnet for staying inside WOFF.   

“LOVE/FEAR 

As much as members love their leaders, so do they fear them because of the power they hold over the members’ lives, the threat of disapproval, and the expressions of paranoia that raise the specter of the “evil” outside world. Members also enjoy group solidarity and feel a sense of personal power and elitism (the filter bubble); yet, at the same time, they fear peer shunning or withdrawal of support. It is a tightrope to walk, with little room for error.” (page 255-256- analogy added) 

Is the “LOVE” the glue that seals members inside the subculture, and the FEAR of losing that “LOVE”, the power which keeps them inside the WOFF-filter bubble?  

Follow here:

Twitter – @religiouscults #exposeWOFF, #exposeWordofFaithFellowship

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/johnhuddleauthor

YouTube- religiouscultsinfo.com

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. Jane told me and Josh confirmed it.

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 666.