from their earliest age to loosen Satan’s grip on
them. The minister thought that, as children
aged, it became more and more difficult to
correct their nature and drive evilness out of
them. He therefore ordered that punishment be
extended to include children less than 1 year of
age. Infants in arms at the day-care center were
spanked with a smaller wooden rod if they did
not sleep during nap time, did not finish
drinking their bottle, or even if they cried. The
five-lash rule was abandoned, leaving the
number of lashes to the discretion of the one
administering the punishment. As before, the
children’s attitude during the spanking counted
in the number of lashes received so if a child
tried to protect her buttocks with her hands, for
example, she was hit until she adopted an
attitude of submission.
Another BCW development in 1983 was the
introduction of public corrections. Fathers
henceforth had to administer spankings during
religious services. If a father was absent, the
pastor replaced him. Although the number of
lashes was usually decreed when the punishment
was announced to the child, more lashes would
be added for various reasons, most often for lack
of the proper attitude during the administration
of the punishment itself. The number of lashes
during these public corrections was generally
higher than at school, sometimes as many as 50.
With such high numbers, it was not uncommon
for children to present burn marks and lesions,
and sometimes they remained permanently
scarred. Testimonies of church members present
Pastor X as a man who, at that point of the
trajectory of the group, had become convinced
of his godlike qualities.
Despite these excesses, the BCW members
accepted Pastor X’s doctrinal conviction that
punishment was necessary to ensure their
children’s salvation. Although some later
admitted to being shocked by the severity of the
punishments administered, they added that it did
not change their belief that administering
corporal punishment was proof of their love for
their children and of their obedience to the will
of God. Some followers, including one who was
a police officer, said they were aware that those
outside the group might see the type of
punishment used in their church as excessive
but they added that the degree of use did not
shake their belief in the soundness of its
practice.
1985—Formal Investigation
Very few members feared being brought before
a court of law because of the way they treated
children, arguing that they had so little contact
with people outside their church that they did
not think about such things. Despite the group’s
isolation and the followers’ trust in their leader,
rumors did begin to circulate in the nearby town
about the treatment inflicted on children in the
BCW. A number of former members, although
they did not disclose the exact nature of the
physical punishment administered to children,
possibly for fear of being held responsible for
their own actions during the time they belonged
to the church, nevertheless helped bring the
issue to light. The rumors they initiated came to
the attention of the police in 1984. A formal
investigation was opened in January 1985 when
a woman, while still a member of the BCW—
and at the insistence of her husband who had
already left the church—lodged a complaint
against the pastor for the assault of her 5-month-
old baby who had been beaten at the day-care
center. Alarmed by the punitive practices
described by the complainant, the municipal
police reported the case to the Child Protection
Services of the region (DPJE3), with the request
that they investigate a potential situation of
generalized child abuse at the BCW.
Meanwhile, the investigation led by Windsor
police ran up against a wall of silence on the part
of both members and former members of the
BCW. In these first phases of the DPJE’s
investigation, members wanted to protect their
way of life, proclaiming that they were
answerable only to God, whatever their actions.
The former members, for their part, feared
incriminating themselves if they revealed how
badly children were treated while they were still
members of the church. After 2 months of
investigation, the police reported a dozen more
cases to the DPJE in addition to the one already
3 DPJE refers to the Direction de la Protection de la Jeunesse de
l’Estrie, which can be translated in full as Office of Youth
Protection of the Eastern Townships.
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 89
them. The minister thought that, as children
aged, it became more and more difficult to
correct their nature and drive evilness out of
them. He therefore ordered that punishment be
extended to include children less than 1 year of
age. Infants in arms at the day-care center were
spanked with a smaller wooden rod if they did
not sleep during nap time, did not finish
drinking their bottle, or even if they cried. The
five-lash rule was abandoned, leaving the
number of lashes to the discretion of the one
administering the punishment. As before, the
children’s attitude during the spanking counted
in the number of lashes received so if a child
tried to protect her buttocks with her hands, for
example, she was hit until she adopted an
attitude of submission.
Another BCW development in 1983 was the
introduction of public corrections. Fathers
henceforth had to administer spankings during
religious services. If a father was absent, the
pastor replaced him. Although the number of
lashes was usually decreed when the punishment
was announced to the child, more lashes would
be added for various reasons, most often for lack
of the proper attitude during the administration
of the punishment itself. The number of lashes
during these public corrections was generally
higher than at school, sometimes as many as 50.
With such high numbers, it was not uncommon
for children to present burn marks and lesions,
and sometimes they remained permanently
scarred. Testimonies of church members present
Pastor X as a man who, at that point of the
trajectory of the group, had become convinced
of his godlike qualities.
Despite these excesses, the BCW members
accepted Pastor X’s doctrinal conviction that
punishment was necessary to ensure their
children’s salvation. Although some later
admitted to being shocked by the severity of the
punishments administered, they added that it did
not change their belief that administering
corporal punishment was proof of their love for
their children and of their obedience to the will
of God. Some followers, including one who was
a police officer, said they were aware that those
outside the group might see the type of
punishment used in their church as excessive
but they added that the degree of use did not
shake their belief in the soundness of its
practice.
1985—Formal Investigation
Very few members feared being brought before
a court of law because of the way they treated
children, arguing that they had so little contact
with people outside their church that they did
not think about such things. Despite the group’s
isolation and the followers’ trust in their leader,
rumors did begin to circulate in the nearby town
about the treatment inflicted on children in the
BCW. A number of former members, although
they did not disclose the exact nature of the
physical punishment administered to children,
possibly for fear of being held responsible for
their own actions during the time they belonged
to the church, nevertheless helped bring the
issue to light. The rumors they initiated came to
the attention of the police in 1984. A formal
investigation was opened in January 1985 when
a woman, while still a member of the BCW—
and at the insistence of her husband who had
already left the church—lodged a complaint
against the pastor for the assault of her 5-month-
old baby who had been beaten at the day-care
center. Alarmed by the punitive practices
described by the complainant, the municipal
police reported the case to the Child Protection
Services of the region (DPJE3), with the request
that they investigate a potential situation of
generalized child abuse at the BCW.
Meanwhile, the investigation led by Windsor
police ran up against a wall of silence on the part
of both members and former members of the
BCW. In these first phases of the DPJE’s
investigation, members wanted to protect their
way of life, proclaiming that they were
answerable only to God, whatever their actions.
The former members, for their part, feared
incriminating themselves if they revealed how
badly children were treated while they were still
members of the church. After 2 months of
investigation, the police reported a dozen more
cases to the DPJE in addition to the one already
3 DPJE refers to the Direction de la Protection de la Jeunesse de
l’Estrie, which can be translated in full as Office of Youth
Protection of the Eastern Townships.
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 89
