Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2009, Page 52
make you free.‖ That saying from the Gospel of John 8:32, ―And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free,‖ works to keep as many people in controversial groups
as it does to help them out!
After the 1987 failed deprogramming event mentioned by Erin, I went on with my career
with more preparation and insight. In the following two years, I conducted interventions
that involved more than a dozen groups other than CUT. Through the end of 1989, I
encountered at least fourteen more CUT members in mostly surprise interventions arranged
by their family members. All fourteen either already had moved to Montana to prepare for
doomsday or were about to move there—in other words, members very committed to the
cause. I met with all of these folks at the family homes. All fourteen of them left CUT during
our talks. Only one of those cases began coercively as a ―house arrest,‖ but even that
ended within four hours of my meeting the CUT member. I ended the security and we had
an open, productive discussion for the next three days.
Is it possible that these ―victims‖ of intervention freely chose to leave CUT based on new
facts, structures, and insights that my colleagues and I provided through deprogramming
(a.k.a. exit counseling) sessions? Was that a violation of their freedom of religion? Or was it
a way to heal them from a sick, self-sealing plausibility structure that could have ―infected‖
and contained their choices and lives for years to come? In those cases, I took nothing
away—what I did was assist the group member to heal from an illness of sorts. All they
―lost‖ was a social straightjacket and a constricted thought process. After a successful
intervention, clients have a clearer idea how to avoid the ―illness‖ in the future, no matter
what group they join.
Erin‘s choice of scholars (she mentions Lorne Dawson, Lowell Streiker, and J. Gordon
Melton) who seem (to me) to form her opinions offer their own forms of constriction. When
it comes to perceptions of what deprogrammers and the so-called anti-cult network (ACM)
does, I see as much stereotyping among that clique of scholars as they accuse the ACM of
doing to new religious movements. I have studied the books and been to many conferences
where I delivered papers on both sides of this fence. Both sides are guilty of some
stereotyping over this hot-button problem. The split as I see it comes as much from
academic and territorial jealousy as it does from point of view. One has only to sit in a
courtroom to witness this split as ―experts‖ pontificate under oath! The nonmonolithic,
highly diversified ACM is primarily driven by a desire to fix a problem and to help victims
heal. Most academics in sociology of religions are trained to sustain a liberal, comparative
understanding of religious movements and cults by any other name. They prefer to observe
the evolution of these groups while avoiding conflict with them—unless, of course, it is the
ACM!
I have mined gold and diamonds from both sides to carry on my work with ex-members.
Erin has yet to find value in the more expanded and dynamic views of what she calls the
ACM. One barrier is language.
As long as one continues to form concepts about a group based on a pejorative notion, new
values, thoughts, and ideas can remain blocked from awareness. (As I see it, psychological
and social constriction is what people commonly mean by brainwashing). Sociologists of
religion who tend to tolerate ―new religious movements‖ have been railing about the
pejorative use of ―cult‖ for decades. They are entirely correct but what some scholars do
not always see is how that sharp insight cuts both ways.
From 1986 through 1992 I worked at times with security arranged by families. Some of
these cases involved ―kidnapping‖ or coercive detention. Since 1992, I refuse to assist any
case that involves coercive detention at any stage.
make you free.‖ That saying from the Gospel of John 8:32, ―And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free,‖ works to keep as many people in controversial groups
as it does to help them out!
After the 1987 failed deprogramming event mentioned by Erin, I went on with my career
with more preparation and insight. In the following two years, I conducted interventions
that involved more than a dozen groups other than CUT. Through the end of 1989, I
encountered at least fourteen more CUT members in mostly surprise interventions arranged
by their family members. All fourteen either already had moved to Montana to prepare for
doomsday or were about to move there—in other words, members very committed to the
cause. I met with all of these folks at the family homes. All fourteen of them left CUT during
our talks. Only one of those cases began coercively as a ―house arrest,‖ but even that
ended within four hours of my meeting the CUT member. I ended the security and we had
an open, productive discussion for the next three days.
Is it possible that these ―victims‖ of intervention freely chose to leave CUT based on new
facts, structures, and insights that my colleagues and I provided through deprogramming
(a.k.a. exit counseling) sessions? Was that a violation of their freedom of religion? Or was it
a way to heal them from a sick, self-sealing plausibility structure that could have ―infected‖
and contained their choices and lives for years to come? In those cases, I took nothing
away—what I did was assist the group member to heal from an illness of sorts. All they
―lost‖ was a social straightjacket and a constricted thought process. After a successful
intervention, clients have a clearer idea how to avoid the ―illness‖ in the future, no matter
what group they join.
Erin‘s choice of scholars (she mentions Lorne Dawson, Lowell Streiker, and J. Gordon
Melton) who seem (to me) to form her opinions offer their own forms of constriction. When
it comes to perceptions of what deprogrammers and the so-called anti-cult network (ACM)
does, I see as much stereotyping among that clique of scholars as they accuse the ACM of
doing to new religious movements. I have studied the books and been to many conferences
where I delivered papers on both sides of this fence. Both sides are guilty of some
stereotyping over this hot-button problem. The split as I see it comes as much from
academic and territorial jealousy as it does from point of view. One has only to sit in a
courtroom to witness this split as ―experts‖ pontificate under oath! The nonmonolithic,
highly diversified ACM is primarily driven by a desire to fix a problem and to help victims
heal. Most academics in sociology of religions are trained to sustain a liberal, comparative
understanding of religious movements and cults by any other name. They prefer to observe
the evolution of these groups while avoiding conflict with them—unless, of course, it is the
ACM!
I have mined gold and diamonds from both sides to carry on my work with ex-members.
Erin has yet to find value in the more expanded and dynamic views of what she calls the
ACM. One barrier is language.
As long as one continues to form concepts about a group based on a pejorative notion, new
values, thoughts, and ideas can remain blocked from awareness. (As I see it, psychological
and social constriction is what people commonly mean by brainwashing). Sociologists of
religion who tend to tolerate ―new religious movements‖ have been railing about the
pejorative use of ―cult‖ for decades. They are entirely correct but what some scholars do
not always see is how that sharp insight cuts both ways.
From 1986 through 1992 I worked at times with security arranged by families. Some of
these cases involved ―kidnapping‖ or coercive detention. Since 1992, I refuse to assist any
case that involves coercive detention at any stage.
