Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 38
Shepherd and Shepherd have brought together a wealth of new material and insights on the
current trajectory of COG/The Family that shall no doubt provide invaluable research
information for others interested in the movement‘s contemporary status (especially when
one pairs this research with the new information that Bainbridge‘s 2002 survey yielded).
Conclusion
Early in this article, I commented on the wide range of research findings on COG/The
Family, specifically the contradictory conclusions that sometimes emerge. As this article
illustrates, however, despite the different research focuses, many concordant findings have
surfaced also. In the following section, I address some areas in which there is consensus,
and others where there is not.
Williams‘ (1998) autobiographical account is a detailed description of FFing, a component of
the movement‘s history that all researchers acknowledge. Coupled with Chancellor‘s (2000)
analysis, a semantic puzzle emerges. Did FFing constitute prostitution or not? Clearly,
Williams suggests that it did, while Chancellor remains unsure. Injecting a structural
analysis, I suggested that, despite the religious framework and the women‘s rationalization
of the activity, the exchange of sexual activities for payment (both in cash and in goods and
services) does indeed constitute prostitution, albeit for religious ends.
Williams Boeri (2005) speaks to this issue and others in her overview of the sexual
socialization processes in the group. The process of socialization extends to members of the
second generation—a particularly important part of the movement, given that they were
born into the group thus, they did not choose to live in this high-demand environment.
While Chancellor (2000), Kent and Hall (2000), and Kent (2004) recognise the severity of
some of the disciplines and sexual abuses that the second generation endured, Chancellor‘s
account involves those who chose to remain in the group, while Kent and Hall‘s covers the
experiences of those who left. Despite the exodus of many of the second generation and the
drop-out of first-generation members, the movement has survived. Shepherd and Shepherd
(2005) describe and analyse the processes that have ensured the group‘s continuance, one
being the inclusion of the second generation in the decision-making hierarchy. From a
combination of these readings, one can appreciate the variety of experiences of the second
generation (both in the past, and at the present). It appears that although the movement
has evolved such that the needs of the current second generation are being met, still
deficient from the group‘s history is adequate care and consideration for the traumas that
some former members endured.
In 2002, long-time members of The Family, Lonnie Davis and Claire Borowik, presented a
paper titled ―The Family—1992–2002: A Decade of Transition‖ at a CESNUR (Centre for
Studies on New Religions) Conference. They outlined aspects of the movement‘s history,
including the recent organizational changes that Shepherd and Shepherd (2005) analyse
and they paid specific attention to some of the problems that these changes have
engendered, particularly the struggle to achieve balance between individual autonomy for
members and commitment to core group doctrines. Included too is a description of attempts
by The Family to reconcile with former members, and a brief mention of the group‘s
―apology‖ to former members. Woefully absent is an explicit discussion of what the apology
is for. Absent, too, is an adequate understanding and empathy for what some second-
generation members endured and the consequences that have remained with many of
them.
Prominent in Davis and Borowik‘s (2002) presentation is their discussion of the series of
raids that occurred in several communities of The Family around the world. Bainbridge
(2002), Chancellor (2000), and Melton (2004) all discuss these raids in some detail,
outlining their effects on members and their children. The mismanagement of the
Shepherd and Shepherd have brought together a wealth of new material and insights on the
current trajectory of COG/The Family that shall no doubt provide invaluable research
information for others interested in the movement‘s contemporary status (especially when
one pairs this research with the new information that Bainbridge‘s 2002 survey yielded).
Conclusion
Early in this article, I commented on the wide range of research findings on COG/The
Family, specifically the contradictory conclusions that sometimes emerge. As this article
illustrates, however, despite the different research focuses, many concordant findings have
surfaced also. In the following section, I address some areas in which there is consensus,
and others where there is not.
Williams‘ (1998) autobiographical account is a detailed description of FFing, a component of
the movement‘s history that all researchers acknowledge. Coupled with Chancellor‘s (2000)
analysis, a semantic puzzle emerges. Did FFing constitute prostitution or not? Clearly,
Williams suggests that it did, while Chancellor remains unsure. Injecting a structural
analysis, I suggested that, despite the religious framework and the women‘s rationalization
of the activity, the exchange of sexual activities for payment (both in cash and in goods and
services) does indeed constitute prostitution, albeit for religious ends.
Williams Boeri (2005) speaks to this issue and others in her overview of the sexual
socialization processes in the group. The process of socialization extends to members of the
second generation—a particularly important part of the movement, given that they were
born into the group thus, they did not choose to live in this high-demand environment.
While Chancellor (2000), Kent and Hall (2000), and Kent (2004) recognise the severity of
some of the disciplines and sexual abuses that the second generation endured, Chancellor‘s
account involves those who chose to remain in the group, while Kent and Hall‘s covers the
experiences of those who left. Despite the exodus of many of the second generation and the
drop-out of first-generation members, the movement has survived. Shepherd and Shepherd
(2005) describe and analyse the processes that have ensured the group‘s continuance, one
being the inclusion of the second generation in the decision-making hierarchy. From a
combination of these readings, one can appreciate the variety of experiences of the second
generation (both in the past, and at the present). It appears that although the movement
has evolved such that the needs of the current second generation are being met, still
deficient from the group‘s history is adequate care and consideration for the traumas that
some former members endured.
In 2002, long-time members of The Family, Lonnie Davis and Claire Borowik, presented a
paper titled ―The Family—1992–2002: A Decade of Transition‖ at a CESNUR (Centre for
Studies on New Religions) Conference. They outlined aspects of the movement‘s history,
including the recent organizational changes that Shepherd and Shepherd (2005) analyse
and they paid specific attention to some of the problems that these changes have
engendered, particularly the struggle to achieve balance between individual autonomy for
members and commitment to core group doctrines. Included too is a description of attempts
by The Family to reconcile with former members, and a brief mention of the group‘s
―apology‖ to former members. Woefully absent is an explicit discussion of what the apology
is for. Absent, too, is an adequate understanding and empathy for what some second-
generation members endured and the consequences that have remained with many of
them.
Prominent in Davis and Borowik‘s (2002) presentation is their discussion of the series of
raids that occurred in several communities of The Family around the world. Bainbridge
(2002), Chancellor (2000), and Melton (2004) all discuss these raids in some detail,
outlining their effects on members and their children. The mismanagement of the
