As we continue with a review of the question- Is Simple Assault a Vital Part of the Word of Faith Fellowship Practices?– let me acknowledge how absurd the question may sound to some and how obvious the answer may seem to others. For those that have only seen the sweet side of Jane Whaley and never lived inside the group under the ongoing, smothering, confining fear-hold that she has on her faithful members- then yes, even the question is surreal. For those individuals, I ask you to hang on and finish reading the series before you totally dismiss the question. My hopes are to at least give you some food for thought concerning your ideas of conduct inside Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF).

Before this series is over, I hope to give everyone reasons to pause and consider the practices of WOFF in a new light. In order to do this, we will eventually be breaking down and discussing what has become ominously known as the “Injunction” from June of 2005. For those that may not know, WOFF sued Rutherford County Department of Social Services (RCDSS) and in June of 2005, there was a COMPROMISE reached. The stipulations of the compromise worked out by lawyers from each side included guidelines for handling of certain types of complaints concerning the conduct of WOFF members. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

During the last couple of days, I have been reflecting on the last post and realized I left out some important points. I put forth the information I had obtained about the increased physical contact between adults and between children and children and adults, as a means of “correction”.  My information is from other folks and thus I have not been an eye witness to the actions. All that being noted, with what I know about life inside of WOFF from my time there, it does not seem out of the realm of possibility that the behavior dynamics inside the group have evolved into more overt physical contact. It is in some ways shocking, but, believable. Other groups who operated in the same or similar manner as WOFF also evolved down the same path to physical abuse. Groups such as Peoples Temple, FLDS, Tony Alamos group, Mountain Rock Church to name a few.

The quotes below are an outtake from an article titled “Children and Cults” from a chapter in Michael Langone’s book, “Recovery from Cults”. ( Copyright ©1993 American Family Foundation, Publisher W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31321-2) viewed March 3, 2013, found at factnet.org– http://www.factnet.org/node/1382

A couple of quotes:

This chapter will examine the capacity of cultic and related authoritarian groups to harm children, physically and psychologically. The groups with which we are concerned are exploitatively manipulative and threaten children because they a) live by an absolutist ideology that dictates harsh physical discipline and/or the rejection of medical intervention, b) function as closed, often physically isolated, societies which resist any investigation of possible child abuse, and c) use religious beliefs to justify their ideology and reclusive nature. Their absolutist ideology provides a rationalization for child abuse. Their limited interaction with members of mainstream society (e.g., members don’t visit doctors; children attend group-run schools) tends to close off the normal means by which authorities learn about child abuse and neglect. Their religious nature magnifies their capacity to avoid scrutiny because they can invoke the First Amendment in order to curtail investigative efforts…” (page 327)

“Psychological Dynamics

Markowitz and Halperin (1984) provide the most complete and compelling explanation of why child abuse and neglect is likely to be associated with cultic groups. First of all, because these groups are centered on the personality of a charismatic leader, the leader’s idiosyncratic beliefs, no matter how mundane, may influence the group’s child-rearing practices.

Because these groups’ ideologies tend to be nonfalsifiable, subjectivist systems that are threatened by the outside world, ideology must be treated as sacred and unchallengeable. This feature becomes especially destructive with regard to children, in that, as Markowitz and Halperin (1984) note, “there is a primacy of ideology over biology…childcare may be seen as a disposable superfluity” (p. 145).

The cult’s hierarchical structure and its setting itself up as “family” turn parents into “middle-management” with regard to their own children. How they discipline their children, what activities they encourage in their children, what they teach their children: such decisions are dictated by the group’s leader… (page 328 -329) Though the material is from several years ago, it is a good read. I did not find information about children of these groups, abusing other children in their group under the blessing of the leader. WOFF leadership may be forging new ground there.

 The part that was told to me which absolutely fits into what I know about life inside of WOFF is the pressure to have the person(s) receiving the slap or physical force to admit that is was good for them.  I did not expand on that in the last post, but, I vividly remember the now Doctor “C” standing in a church service, in front of Jane Whaley and telling the whole congregation that he asked Jane to spank him. I don’t remember if he was still a teenager or in his 20’s. He said it helped him get a “breakthrough.” So, for those males receiving a slap to stand and tell how they needed it and they got a “breakthrough” is NOT out of line with what I have personally witnessed in years past. This makes the whole scenario VERY believable.

To restate from this source link –http://www.chetson.com/felonies/assaults/  viewed February 28, 2013-

“An assault can be an unlawful touching, or it can be an act in which the victim is never touched, but is put in imminent fear of being touched. A touch is a general word, meant to describe everything from a slap to a strike with a bat, to worse.” (emphasis added)

So, in a simple answer to the title question: Is Simple Assault a Vital Part of the Word of Faith Fellowship Practices?– when you acknowledge the “imminent fear of being touched” as an assault, the answer is Yes- Simple Assault is a VITAL and in reality a common practice for the faithful members inside of WOFF. Not only is it possible to be touched, there is the constant fear of being touched, if you break the unwritten rules or worse- express doubt as to Jane’s perfected ability to hear God for your life. The environment of fear that controls decisions of faithful WOFF members is very pervasive and definitive. There is an evident reason for the fear, violations bring some form or “correction” and/or retribution to change the behavior of the member. This “correction” is most always in a public format and in my opinion, includes some form of assault.

In addition, I have been touched and have witnessed others being touched in a prayer circle- with force. In the past, I have referred to these as “scrums.” Large groups of people “praying” over one person at the bottom of a pile.  Several of these folks are literally on top of the person receiving prayer.  Whether goal was to “get the demons out” or break down your willingness to run, the result was many times the same- submission the group directives and known desires. In my opinion, there is a definite assault on the person’s ability to think clearly and say “no” to what was being done to them, when receiving this type of prayer.

Let me make it clear, I am not questioning the belief of those who think these actions are religiously beneficial. If it is believed that slapping someone brings them closer to God, then the belief should not be questioned. It is when your actions upon your belief, which under any other set of circumstances would constitute a violation prosecutable under North Carolina General Statutes; I have a big problem with that. In my opinion, it is when you ACT upon that belief that it becomes a violation of the law. As we noted in the last post, when the law is broken against one person, it is a violation against all of society. When someone inside of WOFF knowingly or unknowingly has their rights violated, it affects the whole of society.

We have quoted from Michael Gordon’s article in the Charlotte Observer before and because there is so much there, we will quote again in this post. The article was published November 17, 2012 after Mr. Gordon’s visit to the church and interviews with several other individuals. The source link is here- http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/17/3673039/word-of-faith-fellowship-sees.html#storylink=misearch

Word of Faith Fellowship sees ‘persecution’ for a godly walk; critics see an abusive church

Word of Faith sees ‘persecution’ for ‘godly’ walk; critics see an abusive church

“Most probes of Word of Faith have focused on its treatment of children. In an interview with the Observer last month, Lowry said his dissatisfaction with the church started in part over how children are disciplined. Carmona says he was paddled far more often by church leaders than by his father. Once again, Jane Whaley dismisses those accounts as lies and says children are almost exclusively disciplined by their parents. Abuse by anyone, she says, is not tolerated.

In 2003, a district judge took four children away from a church family and put them under the control of the Rutherford County Department of Social Services. The children’s mother had given custody of the four to Brooke Covington, Jane Whaley’s adopted daughter, and her husband Kent. Later, the mother wanted her children back.

The judge gave them to DSS instead. “The court finds that WOFF authorities attempt to exercise complete control over the mind, body and spirit of its members, both adults and children,” he wrote.

This control stems from the use of “physical and mental discipline through excessive corporal punishment, blasting and other practices and behaviors found herein. The environment created at WOFF has an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of children.”

In the end, two of the four children returned to the Covingtons when they became old enough to choose where they wanted to live. The other two rejoined after the judge’s order was overturned on appeal. All four remain a part of the Covington family now. (Update: one has recently left the Covingtons and the church)

Following that case and a series of other child-neglect investigations that stretched back to the mid-1990s, the church and a group of Word of Faith parents filed a federal suit in 2003 against the county’s DSS. In it, they accused the agency of violating the families’ religious freedom as well as DSS rules governing child-neglect cases. According to the suit, a DSS investigator told parents the agency intended to remove every child and “padlock” the church.

The two-year legal fight ended in 2005. The church received $305,000 along with DSS guarantees that strong prayer, discipleship and other core beliefs could no longer be the sole basis for future child-abuse claims. Two agency supervisors were banned from taking part in any other probes of the church. In addition, 12 ongoing child-abuse investigations involving church parents were closed.  According to published reports at the time, DSS claimed the church spent more than $1 million in legal fees.

Jane Whaley says the congregation sued because DSS ordered that children be excluded from strong prayer and other religious experiences, which she says was ordering her to forsake God. In the end, she says, God stood with Word of Faith, and its children continue to thrive.  “DSS,” she said in her recent sermon, “walked into the wrong church.”

A pointed finger

Church critics, which include several child-protection professionals, still believe that some Word of Faith children remain at risk, and, because of the suit, government oversight is hindered.

“We washed our hands of it,” says David Reno, a former chairman of the Rutherford County DSS who joined the agency’s board just as the settlement to the church’s suit was being reached. “The end result is children with Word of Faith are not being protected.” (emphasis added)

Valerie Pearce, a senior attorney for the Council of Children’s Rights of Charlotte, says she was stunned when she read the 2005 settlement.

“… A government agency has had their hands tied by an agreement that limits their ability to investigate abuse and neglect,” Pearce says. She has been looking into a custody fight between a Rutherford County woman and two Word of Faith members seeking permanent custody of her son.  “That agency is under a federal mandate. This agreement sounds crazy to me.”

But Rutherford County DSS Director John Carroll said his office has continued to protect children. “Nothing in the settlement keeps us from investigating a report,” he says.  Asked if DSS has investigated any complaints concerning Word of Faith since the settlement was signed, Carroll declined comment.”

Let’s give a big Thank you to Michael Gordon for the article. He reported several sources and several angles of the whole WOFF debate. After reading the article and following the course of this post, I have had great interest in the settlement between WOFF and RCDSS filed in June 2005. While I was inside, I did not have a copy of the settlement and relied on what I was told from the pulpit. There was a general feeling at that time that WOFF was impenetrable– After all, we had “won”, right? During that time, I had the feeling of being justified and elated that our “religious freedoms” had been protected from the far reaching arms of the Rutherford County DSS. After leaving WOFF and learning things which I had no way of knowing while inside, I am beginning to wonder, what was the true cost of the “victory” won by WOFF? Did anyone really win?

The comments of David Reno and Valerie Pearce have raised questions in my mind. My dealings with John Carroll can be summed up in this exchange: Carroll, “Well, you know about the injunction, right?” To which, I answered, “Yes…” The topic that day was not about children, but, the settlement or injunction as it has been called, was cast over the conversation as a restrictive guiding light to not do certain things or even suggest certain things should be done with complaints against conduct at WOFF. Because the term seems ominous and seems to have everyone in a frozen state of panic, I have had to admit my obvious ignorance as to what the settlement actually says- until I was able to obtain a copy.

In future posts, we will quote parts of the settlement, as well as other sources, and raise questions as to its strength or applicability with the new practices that have evolved at WOFF. If the settlement is sound, it will withstand the scrutiny. If it needs revisiting, revision or vacating, then that should happen as well. Please, return for more on this subject as well as others of great interest.

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. 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 431.