Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 39
investigation into The Family homes has led many academics to strongly criticise them and
to reveal some of the abuses they produced. Less evident is a discussion connecting
COG/The Family violence against its own members to the ensuing raids, although Kent‘s
(2004) discussion does address this issue within the context of his discussion of second-
generation defection from the movement. The raids had a great deal of influence on
COG/The Family dynamics. Shepherd and Shepherd (2005) investigate what changes have
occurred, and to what degree those changes have succeeded in directing The Family toward
a viable future. Note that The Family conceptualizes the raids as part of the suffering one
must endure as a dedicated follower of Christ (Davis and Borowik, 2002).
Bainbridge (2002) too has detailed the current characteristics of the group, although his
conclusion that the group‘s members are not that different from the general population is
discordant from many of his own findings, and it does not concur with Maria and Peter‘s
goals for the group according to Shepherd and Shepherd‘s (2005) analysis of current family
objectives and strategies. Together, however, these two works provide an abundance of
new information on the group, but both fail to adequately acknowledge prior abuses.
The Story of Davidito continues to generate different conclusions. Is this work largely a
benign piece of childrearing literature, as Melton (2004:30) asserts, or did it sanction and
encourage child adult sexual relationships, as Chancellor (2000:138) and Williams Boeri
(1998:220-221 2005:170-171 )maintain? These different findings are part of a larger
history of divisive scholarship on the group. For example, Zablocki and Robbins (2001b)
suggest that policy considerations and legal testimonies act as polarizing agents among
academics of NRMs.
Before Ricky Rodriguez killed Smith and himself, he made a video stating why he felt
compelled to direct violence toward his abusers. Discussing his childhood sexual abuses and
the anger he felt toward those who had molested him, he articulated his need for revenge,
not just for himself, but also for all the other children who suffered because of the group‘s
policies. His estranged wife commented on his torment, citing that the many years of pain
had left him unable to cope. At least 25 members of the first wave of the second generation
have taken their own lives in the past 13 years (Goodstein, 2005). The Children of God/The
Family has generated a good deal of negative popular press but as this article shows, one
must consider the many facets of this movement to come close to understanding the whole.
Although more than two decades of research have brought to light many features of
COG/The Family‘s history, as Chancellor comments, The Family as it exists today is still a
―secretive community‖ and ―it may well be that there are yet secrets of Family life hidden
from this study.‖ He adds to this observation, ―What could they possibly be?‖(Chancellor,
2000:xxii-xxiii).
Perhaps some former members are able to reveal some of these secrets. The Website
movingon.org offers a space in which ex-members can both stay in touch with one another
and offer each other support and advice. On this Website, additional accounts unheard in
most academic literature emerge. Yet other ex-members likely remain silent, perhaps too
embarrassed or ashamed to discuss their time spent in the movement. Some ex-members
may simply want to put their past behind them, not wanting or not able to discuss the
abuses they suffered. Yet others may have had positive life experiences in the group and
merely left because they moved on to other things in life perhaps they missed the
freedoms of the outside world.
Like the scholarship of previous years, contemporary research on COG/The Family likely
shall remain conflicted on certain issues. Some recent research provides evidence of
change, though: Despite some shortcomings, Chancellor‘s (2000) book alone examines the
movement in a way that no other recent researchers have.27 Navigating both the positive
and negative facets of the group‘s history, Chancellor has produced a more complete single
investigation into The Family homes has led many academics to strongly criticise them and
to reveal some of the abuses they produced. Less evident is a discussion connecting
COG/The Family violence against its own members to the ensuing raids, although Kent‘s
(2004) discussion does address this issue within the context of his discussion of second-
generation defection from the movement. The raids had a great deal of influence on
COG/The Family dynamics. Shepherd and Shepherd (2005) investigate what changes have
occurred, and to what degree those changes have succeeded in directing The Family toward
a viable future. Note that The Family conceptualizes the raids as part of the suffering one
must endure as a dedicated follower of Christ (Davis and Borowik, 2002).
Bainbridge (2002) too has detailed the current characteristics of the group, although his
conclusion that the group‘s members are not that different from the general population is
discordant from many of his own findings, and it does not concur with Maria and Peter‘s
goals for the group according to Shepherd and Shepherd‘s (2005) analysis of current family
objectives and strategies. Together, however, these two works provide an abundance of
new information on the group, but both fail to adequately acknowledge prior abuses.
The Story of Davidito continues to generate different conclusions. Is this work largely a
benign piece of childrearing literature, as Melton (2004:30) asserts, or did it sanction and
encourage child adult sexual relationships, as Chancellor (2000:138) and Williams Boeri
(1998:220-221 2005:170-171 )maintain? These different findings are part of a larger
history of divisive scholarship on the group. For example, Zablocki and Robbins (2001b)
suggest that policy considerations and legal testimonies act as polarizing agents among
academics of NRMs.
Before Ricky Rodriguez killed Smith and himself, he made a video stating why he felt
compelled to direct violence toward his abusers. Discussing his childhood sexual abuses and
the anger he felt toward those who had molested him, he articulated his need for revenge,
not just for himself, but also for all the other children who suffered because of the group‘s
policies. His estranged wife commented on his torment, citing that the many years of pain
had left him unable to cope. At least 25 members of the first wave of the second generation
have taken their own lives in the past 13 years (Goodstein, 2005). The Children of God/The
Family has generated a good deal of negative popular press but as this article shows, one
must consider the many facets of this movement to come close to understanding the whole.
Although more than two decades of research have brought to light many features of
COG/The Family‘s history, as Chancellor comments, The Family as it exists today is still a
―secretive community‖ and ―it may well be that there are yet secrets of Family life hidden
from this study.‖ He adds to this observation, ―What could they possibly be?‖(Chancellor,
2000:xxii-xxiii).
Perhaps some former members are able to reveal some of these secrets. The Website
movingon.org offers a space in which ex-members can both stay in touch with one another
and offer each other support and advice. On this Website, additional accounts unheard in
most academic literature emerge. Yet other ex-members likely remain silent, perhaps too
embarrassed or ashamed to discuss their time spent in the movement. Some ex-members
may simply want to put their past behind them, not wanting or not able to discuss the
abuses they suffered. Yet others may have had positive life experiences in the group and
merely left because they moved on to other things in life perhaps they missed the
freedoms of the outside world.
Like the scholarship of previous years, contemporary research on COG/The Family likely
shall remain conflicted on certain issues. Some recent research provides evidence of
change, though: Despite some shortcomings, Chancellor‘s (2000) book alone examines the
movement in a way that no other recent researchers have.27 Navigating both the positive
and negative facets of the group‘s history, Chancellor has produced a more complete single
