72 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 5, 2014
Indeed, most of the Followers really didn’t know
much about their religion, as Rita Swan
observed later (p. 260). Their religiosity
consisted of mindless repetition and had little
room for understanding and creative thought.
Patrick’s reflections highlight one other
important feature of brainwashing in the
Followers church. It wasn’t done in a cruel way,
but through acts of kindness. We see here also
that brainwashing doesn’t involve only
manipulation of the brain, as is sometimes
assumed. Nor does indoctrination have to do
primarily with the beliefs a person holds, as is so
often maintained in the literature on
indoctrination.1 Brainwashing and
indoctrination involve the whole person. And
even acts of kindness can be a means of
indoctrination and brainwashing.
A final dimension of brainwashing is
highlighted in this book, and that is the demand
for certainty. In a moving husband-wife
conversation just after Theresa has announced
for the first time that a breakup of their marriage
is possible, Patrick tries to help Theresa think
rationally and critically about their faith but she
simply cannot. Instead, she accuses Patrick of
betrayal—“You didn’t hold fast” (p. 267).
Patrick’s sister, who had left the Followers
church much earlier, but returned after
retirement to support Patrick, sums up a healthy
intellectual and religious life: “As you get wiser
… you see how mysterious life really is. Only
the young and dumb … indulged in certainty”
(p. 370). There is some truth to this assessment.
The quest for certainty is dangerous.
Reading this book made me ask a few other
questions about brainwashing and indoctrination
that I had not really thought about before,
despite my having written quite extensively on
the subject. Is there perhaps a deeper problem
underlying the phenomenon of brainwashing? Is
brainwashing practiced and made possible
because of a moral flaw within human nature? I
do not want to pursue these questions here, but I
do want to juxtapose the phenomenon of
1 See my Teaching for Commitment: Liberal Education,
Indoctrination, and Christian Nurture. Montreal &Kingston:
McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993 (see especially pp. 234).
brainwashing with a review of what this book
says about human nature.
In reading this book, I found myself
overwhelmed with the perversity of human
nature. And this despite the fact that the author
does not highlight that theme. Indeed, to his
credit, Stauth goes out of his way to be as
generous as possible in describing the parents
who sacrifice their children in the interests of
their religious beliefs. Again and again he
reminds us that these people were essentially
good people. And as already noted, Patrick
describes the Followers as “good people” (p.
219). That is why it was so hard to get them
convicted in court. One defense attorney would
describe the Followers as “the most honest and
endearing people I’ve met in a long time” (p.
261). But while reading this book, I had
increasing difficulty in seeing the actors in this
drama as good, honest, and endearing.
Are parents who refuse to give their children
necessary and easily obtainable medical
treatment good people? Are parents who beat
their children, to the point of killing them in
order to drive the devil out of them (p. 173),
good people? Are church members who use
“bodily force to push people to hold fast” (p.
381) good people? I have difficulty
characterizing as good people who openly tell
lies in court under oath (pp. 93, 223).
Stauth does underscore the hypocrisy of the
Followers of Christ. For example, parents
would go to see a doctor when they themselves
needed medical help, but they refused to do the
same for their children (pp. 257, 329). Some of
the Followers did take their children to doctors
secretly, all the while espousing faithfulness to
church doctrine and practice (p. 218). Again, I
have to ask whether hypocritical people are good
people.
Lest we think that moral perversity is only a
characteristic of people belonging to churches
such as the Followers, let me go on to highlight
some moral defects of so-called “normal
people,” people of the establishment, people
who supposedly have not been brainwashed.
Consider for example the medical doctor,
Dr. Janice Ophoven, called in as a witness by the
defense in two of the important court cases
Indeed, most of the Followers really didn’t know
much about their religion, as Rita Swan
observed later (p. 260). Their religiosity
consisted of mindless repetition and had little
room for understanding and creative thought.
Patrick’s reflections highlight one other
important feature of brainwashing in the
Followers church. It wasn’t done in a cruel way,
but through acts of kindness. We see here also
that brainwashing doesn’t involve only
manipulation of the brain, as is sometimes
assumed. Nor does indoctrination have to do
primarily with the beliefs a person holds, as is so
often maintained in the literature on
indoctrination.1 Brainwashing and
indoctrination involve the whole person. And
even acts of kindness can be a means of
indoctrination and brainwashing.
A final dimension of brainwashing is
highlighted in this book, and that is the demand
for certainty. In a moving husband-wife
conversation just after Theresa has announced
for the first time that a breakup of their marriage
is possible, Patrick tries to help Theresa think
rationally and critically about their faith but she
simply cannot. Instead, she accuses Patrick of
betrayal—“You didn’t hold fast” (p. 267).
Patrick’s sister, who had left the Followers
church much earlier, but returned after
retirement to support Patrick, sums up a healthy
intellectual and religious life: “As you get wiser
… you see how mysterious life really is. Only
the young and dumb … indulged in certainty”
(p. 370). There is some truth to this assessment.
The quest for certainty is dangerous.
Reading this book made me ask a few other
questions about brainwashing and indoctrination
that I had not really thought about before,
despite my having written quite extensively on
the subject. Is there perhaps a deeper problem
underlying the phenomenon of brainwashing? Is
brainwashing practiced and made possible
because of a moral flaw within human nature? I
do not want to pursue these questions here, but I
do want to juxtapose the phenomenon of
1 See my Teaching for Commitment: Liberal Education,
Indoctrination, and Christian Nurture. Montreal &Kingston:
McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993 (see especially pp. 234).
brainwashing with a review of what this book
says about human nature.
In reading this book, I found myself
overwhelmed with the perversity of human
nature. And this despite the fact that the author
does not highlight that theme. Indeed, to his
credit, Stauth goes out of his way to be as
generous as possible in describing the parents
who sacrifice their children in the interests of
their religious beliefs. Again and again he
reminds us that these people were essentially
good people. And as already noted, Patrick
describes the Followers as “good people” (p.
219). That is why it was so hard to get them
convicted in court. One defense attorney would
describe the Followers as “the most honest and
endearing people I’ve met in a long time” (p.
261). But while reading this book, I had
increasing difficulty in seeing the actors in this
drama as good, honest, and endearing.
Are parents who refuse to give their children
necessary and easily obtainable medical
treatment good people? Are parents who beat
their children, to the point of killing them in
order to drive the devil out of them (p. 173),
good people? Are church members who use
“bodily force to push people to hold fast” (p.
381) good people? I have difficulty
characterizing as good people who openly tell
lies in court under oath (pp. 93, 223).
Stauth does underscore the hypocrisy of the
Followers of Christ. For example, parents
would go to see a doctor when they themselves
needed medical help, but they refused to do the
same for their children (pp. 257, 329). Some of
the Followers did take their children to doctors
secretly, all the while espousing faithfulness to
church doctrine and practice (p. 218). Again, I
have to ask whether hypocritical people are good
people.
Lest we think that moral perversity is only a
characteristic of people belonging to churches
such as the Followers, let me go on to highlight
some moral defects of so-called “normal
people,” people of the establishment, people
who supposedly have not been brainwashed.
Consider for example the medical doctor,
Dr. Janice Ophoven, called in as a witness by the
defense in two of the important court cases
