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,
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,
