Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 32
In the ―The Big Lie!‖ Berg sets evolutionary theory and Creationism against one another in a
manner that presupposes a Christian audience (p. 109). Indeed, ―Because of the way in
which Berg attributes the doctrine of evolution to Satan and Creationism to God, he need
not worry that Christians will disagree with his arguments‖ (p. 105). Furthermore, while the
text does not demand adherence to the group, Mooney identifies that Berg shapes his
argument such that if one does not agree with his argument, ―one is a false Christian‖ (p.
110).
Mooney analyses the way Berg uses three specific techniques to imitate actual spoken
speech in his writing. First, his frequent use of capitalizations allows him to emphasize
words and sentences in the same way one can when talking. Second, his proclivity for
exclamation marks bolsters the power of the message he relates, although Mooney
identifies that his overuse of them reduces their effectiveness ―unless the text is read as
verging on the hysterical‖ (p. 111). Third, Berg‘s lexical (word) choices often serve to
ridicule evolutionary theory and ―contribute to the exploitation of emotion as they are highly
value laden‖ (p. 111).
Berg uses other means to legitimate his position. For example, he structures the text using
paragraph numbering that is similar to Biblical arrangements (p. 112). In addition, he sets
up his argument using a ―claim/denial structure‖ that allows him to establish an ―us‖ (true
Christians) versus ―them‖ (false Christians and non-Christians) dichotomy (p. 113).
Interestingly, he also identifies evolutionary theory not only as ―evil‖ and Satanic (p. 115),
but also as both a false religion (p. 117) and a false science (p. 119). Mooney notes that by
using scientific rhetoric to discuss both Creationism and evolutionary theory, Berg
establishes that Creationism is ―true science‖ (p. 117) and that evolutionary theory is ―false
science.‖ Moreover, Berg claims that the logic of Creationism clearly shows the
shortcomings of evolutionary theory indeed, he argues that one need look only to
Creationism for all one‘s answers. Strengthening this position is Berg‘s discussion of the
apparent absurdity of evolutionary theory and the impossibility of it (pp. 120–121). Berg
declares as well that evolutionary scientists and palaeontologists are professional liars who
deliberately misguide and miseducate people (p. 123). They are, he states, in no way
connected to ―true‖ scientists who merely observe what God has created. The emotional
potency of the piece is bolstered further by Berg‘s connecting evolutionary theory to Hitler
(p. 118), and his ability to instil shame in those who have any doubts about Creationism (p.
121).
Mooney‘s discussion is valuable because she addresses the role of language in community
making. She identifies how language, when emotionally laden and skilfully used, can help to
foster allegiance with, and commitment to, ideas and belief systems. Mooney systematically
dissects Berg‘s work, concluding that, despite the circular nature of Berg‘s arguments (p.
128), he convinces his readership of his authority. Moreover, although Mooney examines
only one Mo letter, it seems quite plausible that her analyses could be generalized to the
study of other Mo letters, given that Berg uses similar rhetorical devices in most, if not all,
of his publications.
Journal Articles
“Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The
Family,” by Stephen A. Kent and Deana Hall. In Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 17
(2000)20
This article examines the Teen Training Centres (TTC) and Victor Camps that the
movement‘s leadership instituted to overcome ―the classic problem that confronts sects,
which involves the cultivation of commitment and devotion among a second generation born
to parents who are members already‖ (p. 57). Thus, the purpose of the camps was to
reestablish Berg‘s authority and renew teen commitment to him. The authors note that,

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 33
despite the prevalence of these programs, only one other researcher—James Chancellor
(2000)—has explored them in any detail. They do provide, however, an overview and
critique of other scholars who make brief mentions of the programs (pp. 59–63).
A main concern of the authors is the propensity of other academics to negate or downplay
the effects that the programs had on the first wave of second-generation members. Hence,
Kent and Hall take seriously the concerns and ongoing problems that the second generation
experienced and continue to endure. They use the controversial concept of ―brainwashing‖
as a theoretical framework in which to locate the programs. Aware of the polemic that
surrounds the construct, they apply ―...the most restrictive definition of brainwashing...‖ (p.
57).21 They do not provide a definition of ―re-indoctrination‖ though, and they do not
explain the difference between the two concepts.22
The authors base their findings on carefully designed interviews (which Kent conducted over
a six-year period) with former members (pp. 58–59). They also integrate many of the
movement‘s own publications that deal with the problem of teenage revolt, and the
methods that the group‘s leadership used to try to reverse the rebellious actions. Of
particular interest is the authors‘ inclusion of the experiences of Merry Berg (David Berg‘s
granddaughter). Her disenchantment and subsequent ―crisis of faith‖ (p. 65) at the age of
14 resulted in horrific punishments in an attempt to re-indoctrinate her. These harsh
disciplines included several exorcisms, physical beatings, and finally her banishment to
Macao, where her uncle implemented a program of punishment, discipline, intense and
psychologically demanding questioning, and re-education in Berg‘s doctrines and beliefs
(pp. 66–68). Merry remained there for three years, and she and others state that they
endured physical confinement, ―silence restrictions,‖ intense labour, surveillance, physical
beatings, and at times, sexual abuse in these settings (p. 67). (The Victor Camps and the
TTCs emerged out of the early experimentation with Merry.) The physical confinement and
abuse that the children endured prompt Kent and Hall to conclude that even the most
narrow definition of the brainwashing thesis is indeed applicable not only to Merry‘s case but
also to many of the teens who went through the TTCs and Victor Programs.
The rest of the article outlines the many forms of disciplines and abuses that occurred in the
programs. Many of the narratives that emerge concur with those that Chancellor (2000)
includes in his book. Interestingly, the current members whom Chancellor interviewed cite
two reasons why they remained with COG/The Family despite their traumatic experiences.
First, they identify that the abuses were ―not normative‖ second, they say that they have
accepted the apologies of those responsible for meting out the punishments (Chancellor,
2000:240). The difference in attitudes between the members (whom Chancellor
interviewed) and the ex-members (whom Kent interviewed) leaves us with an interesting
puzzle. Kent and Hall posit that teen compliance was essential to the maintenance of the
group (p. 75). Hence, are the members who stayed more forgiving because the
brainwashing/re-indoctrination programs were successful in their cases? Or did the ex-
members leave because their experiences of abuse were more violent, more intense, or
more protracted? Alternatively, perhaps personality differences and personal coping
strategies are a variable. For academics with a stake in either supporting or refuting the
brainwashing thesis, another question arises: Do the acts that Kent and Hall describe
actually constitute brainwashing programs? It is likely impossible to reach agreement on
this issue, given the investment that academics on both sides of the debate have made
developing their own analyses.
By using brainwashing to contextualize this work, Kent and Hall have likely reduced the
probability that some other scholars will use their article as a research resource. Had the
authors chosen to explore the abuses and punishments within a different theoretical
framework, they might have garnered wider readership. In addition, the term
―brainwashing‖ (like the word ―cult‖) has become so loaded with varying definitions and