Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 25
Another issue in my indoctrination was the amount of material I was subjected to during
most of my (approximately) two-year group experience. Five-hour services, Living Word
tapes, booklets, manuals, literature -I was completely immersed in the materials of John
Robert Stevens to the extent that I did not have the time to digest it, let alone think
critically about what was going on. I remember that in some of those long, sensory-
bombardment-oriented services we went to, I would become lightheaded.
When I look back now, I conclude that I experienced trance states. I was also exposed to
much suggestibility, group dynamics, and reinforcement from those around me, and a
repetitive, unified message that The Walk was my authority. In subtle ways, these
processes worked together to ensure compliance. One little manipulation, for example, was
to be asked, ―Do you have a revelation that this is Jesus speaking to you?‖ The implication
here was that if it (some directive from the leaders) was not a revelation to me, God was
not talking to me. The guilt thereby elicited made one feel very insecure.
Thus, noncompliance was evidence of a lack of submission, an independent spirit, or
rebelliousness. Because I was told that John Robert Stevens‘ experience was comparable to
that of the Apostle Paul, I considered noncompliance to him to be noncompliance to God. I
was hoodwinked. I didn‘t know enough Greek and Hebrew to distinguish the English terms
they were using from the original meaning of those terms in the Greek. ―Appearance,‖ for
example, is different from ―vision.‖ Not knowing such distinctions of language made me
susceptible to the false premises of the group, such as the notion that Stevens was just like
Paul.
The belief that these leaders were oracles of God, and that Stevens himself was the first
fruit of the resurrection, had a very powerful mediating influence on members, because they
naturally saw the leader as the pipeline to God. The leader was exalted beyond all others.
The group would fast for Stevens, for example, for something like two weeks, so he could
break through in the spirit realm. Such a level of sacrifice is a very important human
element in this kind of situation. The levels of sacrifice that people are willing to make and
the perceived benefits that are supposed to come from the sacrifice create a situation of
cognitive dissonance that plays an important role in cultic dynamics.
Thus, the issue of authority is foundational and fundamental to a cult structure. The key
issue is not only that the mediation is through a human agency, but that there isn‘t a higher
alternative. The human leader is viewed as having the authority of God.
This inappropriate authority can be easily abused. I remember Dr. Enroth‘s early article
―The Power Abusers‖ in Eternity Magazine. He lists specific characteristics of those who
abuse power. One thing that really stood out to me was when he talked about the authority
of Truth versus personal control over the mundane affairs of an individual‘s life. One of the
things you commonly see in a mind-control group that is different from orthodox Biblical
scripture is the lack of personal control over mundane affairs: What school are you going to
go to? Who are you going to marry? Shall you date this person? One of the things Dr.
Enroth pointed out in that particular article was that, according to an authority in Greek that
he consulted, exousia does not connote jurisdiction over private areas of your life rather,
it‘s an authority of Truth. This and many other words, however, are misused in ways that
magnify the authority and power of the human leaders.
In The Walk, living with other members also strengthened compliance to the group‘s norms.
So I was encouraged to live with other members, and I eventually moved to Redlands,
California. But some critical events preceded this move.
Examples of Submission
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio in 1973 we had our first Walk apostolic meeting. Here we submitted
to ministry. We allowed the group‘s leaders, who claimed a ―directive prophecy,‖ to decide
Another issue in my indoctrination was the amount of material I was subjected to during
most of my (approximately) two-year group experience. Five-hour services, Living Word
tapes, booklets, manuals, literature -I was completely immersed in the materials of John
Robert Stevens to the extent that I did not have the time to digest it, let alone think
critically about what was going on. I remember that in some of those long, sensory-
bombardment-oriented services we went to, I would become lightheaded.
When I look back now, I conclude that I experienced trance states. I was also exposed to
much suggestibility, group dynamics, and reinforcement from those around me, and a
repetitive, unified message that The Walk was my authority. In subtle ways, these
processes worked together to ensure compliance. One little manipulation, for example, was
to be asked, ―Do you have a revelation that this is Jesus speaking to you?‖ The implication
here was that if it (some directive from the leaders) was not a revelation to me, God was
not talking to me. The guilt thereby elicited made one feel very insecure.
Thus, noncompliance was evidence of a lack of submission, an independent spirit, or
rebelliousness. Because I was told that John Robert Stevens‘ experience was comparable to
that of the Apostle Paul, I considered noncompliance to him to be noncompliance to God. I
was hoodwinked. I didn‘t know enough Greek and Hebrew to distinguish the English terms
they were using from the original meaning of those terms in the Greek. ―Appearance,‖ for
example, is different from ―vision.‖ Not knowing such distinctions of language made me
susceptible to the false premises of the group, such as the notion that Stevens was just like
Paul.
The belief that these leaders were oracles of God, and that Stevens himself was the first
fruit of the resurrection, had a very powerful mediating influence on members, because they
naturally saw the leader as the pipeline to God. The leader was exalted beyond all others.
The group would fast for Stevens, for example, for something like two weeks, so he could
break through in the spirit realm. Such a level of sacrifice is a very important human
element in this kind of situation. The levels of sacrifice that people are willing to make and
the perceived benefits that are supposed to come from the sacrifice create a situation of
cognitive dissonance that plays an important role in cultic dynamics.
Thus, the issue of authority is foundational and fundamental to a cult structure. The key
issue is not only that the mediation is through a human agency, but that there isn‘t a higher
alternative. The human leader is viewed as having the authority of God.
This inappropriate authority can be easily abused. I remember Dr. Enroth‘s early article
―The Power Abusers‖ in Eternity Magazine. He lists specific characteristics of those who
abuse power. One thing that really stood out to me was when he talked about the authority
of Truth versus personal control over the mundane affairs of an individual‘s life. One of the
things you commonly see in a mind-control group that is different from orthodox Biblical
scripture is the lack of personal control over mundane affairs: What school are you going to
go to? Who are you going to marry? Shall you date this person? One of the things Dr.
Enroth pointed out in that particular article was that, according to an authority in Greek that
he consulted, exousia does not connote jurisdiction over private areas of your life rather,
it‘s an authority of Truth. This and many other words, however, are misused in ways that
magnify the authority and power of the human leaders.
In The Walk, living with other members also strengthened compliance to the group‘s norms.
So I was encouraged to live with other members, and I eventually moved to Redlands,
California. But some critical events preceded this move.
Examples of Submission
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio in 1973 we had our first Walk apostolic meeting. Here we submitted
to ministry. We allowed the group‘s leaders, who claimed a ―directive prophecy,‖ to decide
