Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 63
[Elders] I know there are questions, but we don't need to get into all the specifics,
saints, and lay out the whole conversations and everything that we had with [the
target], because we were there and that's what's taken place just like we've said.
Secrecy aids in the creation of a mythical portrait of the target within each member's mind, even
though no facts are shared by the leadership. In this regard, Graeme Newman (1978), in his
discussion of the Holy Inquisition, notes that ―the secrecy in which [the inquisitions] were
conducted stimulates the suspicious mind of the ordinary person and at the same time serves to
prevent any record or investigation of ―what really went on.‖ (p.87). The main body of evidence
used at the target's inquisition are his responses to the initial warnings.
Exploiting “Catch-22s” and Frustration Formation
Targets reported being placed in impossible dilemmas, in which targets confessed that they were
guilty. If they did not confess their guilt, no reconciliation meetings took place. Moreover, the fact
that no reconciliation meetings took place indicated that the targets were not only guilty, but
were continuing to sin, because only active sinners would refuse to meet in reconciliation
meetings. Targets often reported that reconciliation meetings were simply ―gang-ups‖ in which
the leadership brought a support team but the targets were not allowed witnesses in their own
defense. If the targets insisted on third party arbitrators, the leadership used that as evidence of
a factious spirit, and of a basic lack of trust in the goodness of the elders. Anyone who lacks basic
trust in the elders, the sect argues, obviously harbors negative attitudes, and negative attitudes
could ―spread‖ to others. This may be accomplished by the targets' being militant in attempting to
clear themselves.
The following case serves to illustrate the numerous attempts by targets to ―legally‖ clear
themselves by discussion with the elders. At this juncture, encounters with the non-falsifiable
system are clearly focused. Members struggle in vain to apply the ―right‖ rules of communication
and confrontation, only to discover they can never succeed.
[Ralph] On Saturday I talked to [one of three local OASIS elders]-- and confronted
him on Matthew 18, because I felt that he had dealt wrongly with me in going to
the church first with what he considered sin in my life, without first confronting me
on that, according to Matthew 18. We talked about several other things, and he
said he would think about what I told him, and get back to me later. On the next
Wednesday, I talked with them [the remaining two elders] and I confronted them
both with the same thing, that they had gone to the church first about a specific sin
that they ―saw‖ in my life without fast confronting me on it, and they both said that
they did not feel that this was a Matthew 18 situation, but a Romans 16:17
situation, wherefore they thought they need not apply Matthew 18. The [next]
Wednesday, [one of the elders] called our house... and felt it necessary to confront
me on Titus 3, vv 10-11, which reads in the King James, ―A man that is an heretic
after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he as such is subverted,
and sinneth, being condemned of himself.‖ [He] gave me a first warning... and
after asking a particular question and talking for about one minute, he gave me a
second warning... I got all three of them within a couple of minutes. He was kind of
giving me this -―Well, you shouldn't really be doing this [speaking what I know
about the church]. I'll have to do something about it. And I said, ―Is this a
warning? And he said, ―Yes.‖ And I said, ―Okay, I just wanted to know where we
were at.‖ And then a minute later I said, ―Oh, is this the second warning?‖ And he
said, ―Yes.‖ And I said, ―Well, where does that put m now?‖ And he said, ―This
means that we are free to take disciplinary action against you.‖ And they did. I
have written down that the next Tuesday... they had a church meeting where my
sister, another one, and I were all rejected according to Titus 3.
[Elders] I know there are questions, but we don't need to get into all the specifics,
saints, and lay out the whole conversations and everything that we had with [the
target], because we were there and that's what's taken place just like we've said.
Secrecy aids in the creation of a mythical portrait of the target within each member's mind, even
though no facts are shared by the leadership. In this regard, Graeme Newman (1978), in his
discussion of the Holy Inquisition, notes that ―the secrecy in which [the inquisitions] were
conducted stimulates the suspicious mind of the ordinary person and at the same time serves to
prevent any record or investigation of ―what really went on.‖ (p.87). The main body of evidence
used at the target's inquisition are his responses to the initial warnings.
Exploiting “Catch-22s” and Frustration Formation
Targets reported being placed in impossible dilemmas, in which targets confessed that they were
guilty. If they did not confess their guilt, no reconciliation meetings took place. Moreover, the fact
that no reconciliation meetings took place indicated that the targets were not only guilty, but
were continuing to sin, because only active sinners would refuse to meet in reconciliation
meetings. Targets often reported that reconciliation meetings were simply ―gang-ups‖ in which
the leadership brought a support team but the targets were not allowed witnesses in their own
defense. If the targets insisted on third party arbitrators, the leadership used that as evidence of
a factious spirit, and of a basic lack of trust in the goodness of the elders. Anyone who lacks basic
trust in the elders, the sect argues, obviously harbors negative attitudes, and negative attitudes
could ―spread‖ to others. This may be accomplished by the targets' being militant in attempting to
clear themselves.
The following case serves to illustrate the numerous attempts by targets to ―legally‖ clear
themselves by discussion with the elders. At this juncture, encounters with the non-falsifiable
system are clearly focused. Members struggle in vain to apply the ―right‖ rules of communication
and confrontation, only to discover they can never succeed.
[Ralph] On Saturday I talked to [one of three local OASIS elders]-- and confronted
him on Matthew 18, because I felt that he had dealt wrongly with me in going to
the church first with what he considered sin in my life, without first confronting me
on that, according to Matthew 18. We talked about several other things, and he
said he would think about what I told him, and get back to me later. On the next
Wednesday, I talked with them [the remaining two elders] and I confronted them
both with the same thing, that they had gone to the church first about a specific sin
that they ―saw‖ in my life without fast confronting me on it, and they both said that
they did not feel that this was a Matthew 18 situation, but a Romans 16:17
situation, wherefore they thought they need not apply Matthew 18. The [next]
Wednesday, [one of the elders] called our house... and felt it necessary to confront
me on Titus 3, vv 10-11, which reads in the King James, ―A man that is an heretic
after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he as such is subverted,
and sinneth, being condemned of himself.‖ [He] gave me a first warning... and
after asking a particular question and talking for about one minute, he gave me a
second warning... I got all three of them within a couple of minutes. He was kind of
giving me this -―Well, you shouldn't really be doing this [speaking what I know
about the church]. I'll have to do something about it. And I said, ―Is this a
warning? And he said, ―Yes.‖ And I said, ―Okay, I just wanted to know where we
were at.‖ And then a minute later I said, ―Oh, is this the second warning?‖ And he
said, ―Yes.‖ And I said, ―Well, where does that put m now?‖ And he said, ―This
means that we are free to take disciplinary action against you.‖ And they did. I
have written down that the next Tuesday... they had a church meeting where my
sister, another one, and I were all rejected according to Titus 3.
