Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 59
wrong. We deliberated for two days and I argued with a passion why we should not
put this guy out of the church.
Finally, Toni, who was one of the elders in the church in Ames at that time, said,
―Pete, let's go for a walk.‖ Laughter and jeers from the audience] And I said,
―Okay, let's go for a walk.‖ And he said, ―Pete, what's the problem?,‖ and I said,
―Tom, I don't know.‖ And then he said, ―Pete, there has to be a problem. This is
clear as day what we have to do.‖ And then he looked me straight in the eyes and
he said, ―Brother, what sin are you harboring in your heart? You cannot execute
justice because you are not a righteous man.‖ And I didn't know if I should faint or
throw up at that point. And I knew there was [sin in my life]. And I thought
[reflectively] and I finally was humbled by God, and I said, ―You're right, Tom,
there is a sin in my life. I have a sin in my life and I am no better off than that
brother we're vying to put out of the church.‖ And Tom said, ―Brother, you need to
repent and get right with God. And when you get right with God, come on back,
we'll be waiting for you in the room.‖ And that was the end of our conversation. I
went, got alone with the Lord -it took about two minutes, [Laughter from the
crowd]. I told the Lord I was sorry, thanked Him for His forgiveness, walked into
that room, took about five minutes to review the details, and one of the brothers
looked at me... and he said, ―Pete, what do you think?‖ And I said, ―Good night,
Art, I was as blind as a bat! This guy has got to go out on his ear if we're going to
love this man, and if we're going to do right for the church!‖
Sin had blinded my eyes because I could not execute justice because there was
wickedness there in my own heart
In this case, the dissenting elder experienced an ad hominem shift. Argumentum ad hominem is
an effective ploy used generously within the sect. Sometimes referred to as blame-shifting,
argumentum ad hominem is a rhetorical tactic designed to disarm an opponent by attacking
and/or appealing to feelings and attitudes rather than to the subject under discussion. The fact
that this elder failed after two days of intensive lobbying by the other four leaders to be convinced
that the target should be excommunicated literally forces the leadership to attempt another, more
subtle, tactic than the one ineptly used for 48 hours.
The head elder takes the unconvinced member aside for a walk and, in private, proceeds to
convince the man of the ―wickedness‖ in his own heart In a matter of minutes the man is shown
that he has been hindering the justice of God because of unconfessed sin in his own life. (e.g. see
MacDonald, 1986).
The earlier participants in such meetings express misgivings, the less hostages they will become,
and the more readily able to survive the disagreement by a simple exclusion in subsequent
meetings. If participants disagree after the process has gone on for a significant period of dm,
they can actually be viewed as co-conspirators and even traitors themselves.
[Tokens] may also be expected to demonstrate loyalty to the dominant group.
Failure to do so results in further isolation signs of loyalty permit the token to
come closer and be included in more activities. Through loyalty tests, the group
seeks reassurance that tokens will not turn against them or use any of the
information gained through their viewing of the dominants' world to do harm to the
group. They get his assurance by asking a token to join of identify with the majority
against those others who represent competing membership or reference groups in
short, dominants pressure tokens to turn against members of the latter's own
category. If tokens could, they make themselves psychological hostages of the
majority group. (Kanter, 1977:172)
wrong. We deliberated for two days and I argued with a passion why we should not
put this guy out of the church.
Finally, Toni, who was one of the elders in the church in Ames at that time, said,
―Pete, let's go for a walk.‖ Laughter and jeers from the audience] And I said,
―Okay, let's go for a walk.‖ And he said, ―Pete, what's the problem?,‖ and I said,
―Tom, I don't know.‖ And then he said, ―Pete, there has to be a problem. This is
clear as day what we have to do.‖ And then he looked me straight in the eyes and
he said, ―Brother, what sin are you harboring in your heart? You cannot execute
justice because you are not a righteous man.‖ And I didn't know if I should faint or
throw up at that point. And I knew there was [sin in my life]. And I thought
[reflectively] and I finally was humbled by God, and I said, ―You're right, Tom,
there is a sin in my life. I have a sin in my life and I am no better off than that
brother we're vying to put out of the church.‖ And Tom said, ―Brother, you need to
repent and get right with God. And when you get right with God, come on back,
we'll be waiting for you in the room.‖ And that was the end of our conversation. I
went, got alone with the Lord -it took about two minutes, [Laughter from the
crowd]. I told the Lord I was sorry, thanked Him for His forgiveness, walked into
that room, took about five minutes to review the details, and one of the brothers
looked at me... and he said, ―Pete, what do you think?‖ And I said, ―Good night,
Art, I was as blind as a bat! This guy has got to go out on his ear if we're going to
love this man, and if we're going to do right for the church!‖
Sin had blinded my eyes because I could not execute justice because there was
wickedness there in my own heart
In this case, the dissenting elder experienced an ad hominem shift. Argumentum ad hominem is
an effective ploy used generously within the sect. Sometimes referred to as blame-shifting,
argumentum ad hominem is a rhetorical tactic designed to disarm an opponent by attacking
and/or appealing to feelings and attitudes rather than to the subject under discussion. The fact
that this elder failed after two days of intensive lobbying by the other four leaders to be convinced
that the target should be excommunicated literally forces the leadership to attempt another, more
subtle, tactic than the one ineptly used for 48 hours.
The head elder takes the unconvinced member aside for a walk and, in private, proceeds to
convince the man of the ―wickedness‖ in his own heart In a matter of minutes the man is shown
that he has been hindering the justice of God because of unconfessed sin in his own life. (e.g. see
MacDonald, 1986).
The earlier participants in such meetings express misgivings, the less hostages they will become,
and the more readily able to survive the disagreement by a simple exclusion in subsequent
meetings. If participants disagree after the process has gone on for a significant period of dm,
they can actually be viewed as co-conspirators and even traitors themselves.
[Tokens] may also be expected to demonstrate loyalty to the dominant group.
Failure to do so results in further isolation signs of loyalty permit the token to
come closer and be included in more activities. Through loyalty tests, the group
seeks reassurance that tokens will not turn against them or use any of the
information gained through their viewing of the dominants' world to do harm to the
group. They get his assurance by asking a token to join of identify with the majority
against those others who represent competing membership or reference groups in
short, dominants pressure tokens to turn against members of the latter's own
category. If tokens could, they make themselves psychological hostages of the
majority group. (Kanter, 1977:172)
