Such an outlook is characteristic of groups that
adopt a philosophy of purity in that the ideals of
purity that guide them become so important that
they appear to obscure reality in many of its
aspects, notably when it comes to the capacities
of children.
In such occurences, the process of idealization
takes such a hold over followers that it hinders
their ability to discern the capabilities that
belong to humans from those that belong to
demigods more straightforwardly put, they lose
touch with what is realizable and what is out of
human reach. The developmentally normal
immaturity of the BCW children was severely
punished in such a context. Children’s consistent
failures to meet the ideals of purity set for them
by the pastor were interpreted not as human
failings in the face of a godlike ideal, but rather
as signifying the presence of evil, the dreaded
face of impurity. Thus, children’s incapacity to
conform to the group’s ideals was seen as proof
of their malicious nature and that which justified
not only their corporal punishment, but the
greater frequency, intensity, and constant
lowering of the age at which a child should be
thus punished.
Interplay of Elements
We consider the interplay of the seven following
elements to have led to the physical abuse of the
BCW children and to the scapegoating of those
amongst them who were less able to meet the
standards set by the leader. These elements are
(a) the presence of an active process of
idealization (b) in the context of a group
governed by both philosophies of purity and of
survival, (c) wherein the parents were
completely compliant (d) to their charismatic
leader, (e) who exercised plenipotentiary power
(f) and advocated the use of corporal punishment
toward children (g) as justified by his
fundamentalist doctrine. These elements
combined their effects and influenced each
other, producing results that no individual
member of the group could have predicted at the
beginning of their spiritual journey with the
BCW.
The leader’s discourse concerning himself as an
earthly god and his insistence on punishing
repeatedly and severely the BCW children for
attitudes and behaviors that were
developmentally normal, combined with his
demands for ever more money to build the
private estate that would house and protect all
BCW members, were signs that the process of
ideaization he shared with the members of his
church had become extremely radicalized. These
signs show that Pastor X’s worldview had
changed, and he was henceforth adopting
viewpoints much more consistent with a
philosophy of survival than a philosophy of
purity. The systematic projection of evil onto the
outside world and its complementary
construction of the exogroup as an enemy of the
endogroup also point in that direction.
Social-control agencies, such as the DPJE, were
thence portrayed as mortal enemies of the BCW.
It is a tribute to the clinical ability of the social
workers who contacted the individual BCW
families that the social workers were able—but
for a few families—to build a sufficiently
trusting relationship over the course of a year for
families to accept voluntary measures that
included a parenting project that was at odds
with the one their pastor had established for
them. This accomplishment is quite remarkable
since it must be noted that, when groups follow
a philosophy of survival, they most often
venerate their leaders as infalliable earthly gods,
a belief that Pastor X was certainly attempting to
establish in his group.
The DPJE’s strategy of working directly with
the parents of each family unit with a view
toward building durable working alliances
between parents and social workers, without
contact with the leader, appears to have been
successful in bringing an end to the physical
abuse and the social isolation of the BCW
children. Although the dissolution of the church
was not intended, it must be noted that by
fostering parental responsibility, the Youth
Protection Services appear to have contributed
to the peaceful breaking-away process most
members of the BCW experienced. The fact that
the efforts the pastor habitually exerted to
maintain and reinforce group cohesion and
loyalty toward himself and the church were
temporarily suspended by the active
investigations also seems to have helped the
DPJE fulfill its mission of assuring the
96 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015

protection of the BCW’s children. Indeed, the
usual group dynamics were disrupted by the
investigation, which contributed to the social
workers establishing a new context wherein
church members were individually solicited to
take responsibility for their own actions.
Members Confronted With Alternatives
Thenceforth, BCW members were faced with a
choice: (a) Remain loyal to group practices, to
the church, and to the pastor, which would have
entailed grave consequences, including the
likely probablility of their children being put in
foster care and, for some, of facing individual
criminal charges for assault or (b) follow the
view on child rearing put forth by DPJE social
workers who met with them. This latter path,
however, implied a repudiation of their leader’s
preachings, according to which the recourse to
corporal punishment was an absolute necessity
to rear Christian children. Members assuredly
experienced a conflict of loyalty as they battled
between loyalty to their leader and loyalty to
their children.
This situation certainly constituted a difficult
conundrum for members however, the situation
also allowed them freedom to think. Henceforth,
they could consult with whomever they wanted
they were presented with alternatives and they
benefitted from the assistance of a social worker
whose dual function, as a supportive figure and
as the representative of an authority figure, the
DPJE, seems to have been well adapted to the
needs of many members. Indeed, because the
alternatives were coming from an authority
figure, it might have been tempting for some
members of the BCW to simply adopt the
DPJE’s discourse on child rearing as a new truth
that replaced previous certainties. For others, the
realization that their way of treating their
children contravened the law seems to have
acted as an eye-opener, especially once they
understood that they were ultimately responsible
not only for their children’s safety, but also for
their develoment.
The process of juxtaposing the DPJE’s
arguments against corporal punishment with the
leader’s justifications for it resonated with the
inner doubts many BCW members had never
permitted themselves to voice whereas for the
few former members who more or less equated
corporal punishment with abuse, the DPJE’s
presence validated their views. As supportive
figures, the social workers were indeed helpful
to those parents who had silenced their doubts
and their dissagreement. The social workers
provided information about the normal
development of children and presented the
parents with other ways to discipline them. They
also assisted parents in developing better
parenting skills, teaching them how to encourage
and support the development of their children in
general. These dual roles were exercised in the
safety of each family’s home, so that breaking
away from the group, for those parents who
chose that route, was accomplished through a
progressive disengagment rather than by a
dramatic split. Public acts of breaking away also
did occur, since some parents felt the need to
show both their fellow followers and the social-
control agents that they had changed their values
and henceforth had abandoned corporal
punishment in all its forms.
Concluding Remarks
Few studies have focused on cases in which
social-control agencies have successfully
defused critical social situations in minority or
closed religious groups. Studies, like the one
reported here, show that there is much to be
learned by examining such interventions. In the
present case, the strategy aimed at gradually
weakening the hold the leader exercised on his
followers succeeded in allowing social-control
agents to develop working alliances with most of
the members of the group. Allowing social-
control agents to take the time needed to develop
such relationships with those who were the
parents of the abused children was an essential
component of the success of this intervention.
Not only does it take time to build relationships,
but it also requires agents to adopt a
nonconfrontational stance, which was key in the
success of this intervention. Efforts to make sure
all relevant social-control agencies cooperated
throughout the intervention likely succeeded
because they shared a common understanding of
the situation they were facing and of the risks
involved. Such a level of coherence seems to
have been achieved notably because the
different agencies involved worked with an
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 97