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
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
