International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 8 2025 120
this bold new public stature.”49
1
Another example
appears in the work of Susan Palmer, who reported
that she based her analysis of the Children of God
partly on “a study of a cupboard of COG to Family
literature [that was] undertaken with the assistance of a
YA [young adult] who pointed out important passages
in the Mo Letters, the Book of Remembrance and the
children’s comic, Life with Grandpa.”50 A final example
is David Millikan, who indicated, “I requested access to
all DO [Disciples Only] literature and, following a delay
of several days during which permission was sought
from World Services (the administrative branch of The
Family, responsible for publications, communications,
and statistics, often referred to as ‘W.S.’), the permission
was given and I have had access to everything I have
asked for and more.”51 In my memoir of life in that
cult, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In a Doomsday
Cult, I documented the role those academic apologists
played in white-washing The Family’s public image by
downplaying the widespread child abuse promoted in
their publications.52 In the academic articles and books
that those apologists published, they conveniently
left out the most damning evidence of systemic
abuse that was directly connected to The Family’s
doctrines described in their publications. Instead of
analyzing and connecting those doctrines to a long list
of abuses committed in the cult, they denied them,53
49 James R. Lewis, “Introduction: Meeting the Family: Face-to-Face
With an Exotic Species,” in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The
Family/Children of God, ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford:
Center for Academic Publication, 1994), vi. See also James D. Chancellor,
who indicated that in his first meeting with COG/The Family leadership,
Zerby’s partner Peter Amsterdam, “was particularly interested in the
possibilities for acceptance of the Family in the wider world of traditional
Christianity.”
50 Susan Palmer, “‘Heaven’s Children’: The Children of God’s Second
Generation,” in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/
Children of God, ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford: Center
for Academic Publication, 1994), 9.
51 David Millikan, “The Children of God, Family of Love, The Family.”
in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God,
ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford: Center for Academic
Publication, 1994), 182.
52 Perry Bulwer, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In A Doomsday Cult,
(Vancouver: New Star Books, 2023), 257–263.
53 See, Lewis who concluded, “[W]hile I do not claim formal
competence as a psychologist, I can assert with some confidence that The
Family does not abuse children.” Also see Palmer, who returned from
studying COG/The Family and faced questions from friends about “‘Do
they abuse their children?’ ‘No they don’t, I’m convinced of it’… Now that I
know the disciples, have studied their literature and tried to figure out their
history and communal patterns, my own common sense is telling me these
allegations of ‘kidnapping, rape, sodomy, child abuse’ are ludicrous—but it is
difficult to convince others.”
ignored them,54
1
excused them,55 or downplayed the
cruel consequences they had on members, especially
their children who were never members by their own
free choice. 56
The unethical actions of those academic apologists who
protected The Family in the name of religious freedom
prolonged for many years the harmful and criminal
abuses that children in the cult suffered. They never
considered the religious freedom rights of The Family’s
children, which necessarily included the right to be
free from religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court famously
ruled in Prince v. Massachusetts: “Parents may be free to
become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they
are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of
their children before they have reached the age of full
and legal discretion when they can make that choice
for themselves.”57
Conclusion
David Berg’s perversion of biblical bridal theology,
his various extra-biblical sexual doctrines, and Karen
Zerby’s promotion and extension of those doctrines
were major aspects of the widespread, systemic abuses
in the Children of God, currently known as The Family
International. Many marriages and families were
forcibly broken up: spouses were coercively separated
from each other against their will, and children were
separated from one or both parents and siblings.
Women were sexually exploited,58 and thousands of
children suffered a wide range of abuses, including:
• religious indoctrination that denied them freedom
of thought and freedom of religion, which
necessarily includes the right to be free from
religion
• isolation from society
• separation from parents, siblings, and other
relatives
54 Shepherd’s sociological study of the group’s use of prophecy
mentioned the debate concerning the accuracy of claims that “group-
sanctioned sexual abuse” existing in the group, but then stated, “we do not
directly address these specific issues in this book.”
55 See Melton in Sex, Slander, and Salvation, who interpreted that “in
spite of Father David’s rhetorical flourishes, he had no intention of creating
a promiscuous anything-goes situation.”
56 Palmer, in Sex, Slander, and Salvation, wrote, “the empowerment of
youth is a theme that runs through the movement’s history.”
57 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) at 321.
58 For a nuanced discussion of the Children of God’s understanding
of, and impact on, women’s bodies, see Raine.
this bold new public stature.”49
1
Another example
appears in the work of Susan Palmer, who reported
that she based her analysis of the Children of God
partly on “a study of a cupboard of COG to Family
literature [that was] undertaken with the assistance of a
YA [young adult] who pointed out important passages
in the Mo Letters, the Book of Remembrance and the
children’s comic, Life with Grandpa.”50 A final example
is David Millikan, who indicated, “I requested access to
all DO [Disciples Only] literature and, following a delay
of several days during which permission was sought
from World Services (the administrative branch of The
Family, responsible for publications, communications,
and statistics, often referred to as ‘W.S.’), the permission
was given and I have had access to everything I have
asked for and more.”51 In my memoir of life in that
cult, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In a Doomsday
Cult, I documented the role those academic apologists
played in white-washing The Family’s public image by
downplaying the widespread child abuse promoted in
their publications.52 In the academic articles and books
that those apologists published, they conveniently
left out the most damning evidence of systemic
abuse that was directly connected to The Family’s
doctrines described in their publications. Instead of
analyzing and connecting those doctrines to a long list
of abuses committed in the cult, they denied them,53
49 James R. Lewis, “Introduction: Meeting the Family: Face-to-Face
With an Exotic Species,” in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The
Family/Children of God, ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford:
Center for Academic Publication, 1994), vi. See also James D. Chancellor,
who indicated that in his first meeting with COG/The Family leadership,
Zerby’s partner Peter Amsterdam, “was particularly interested in the
possibilities for acceptance of the Family in the wider world of traditional
Christianity.”
50 Susan Palmer, “‘Heaven’s Children’: The Children of God’s Second
Generation,” in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/
Children of God, ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford: Center
for Academic Publication, 1994), 9.
51 David Millikan, “The Children of God, Family of Love, The Family.”
in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God,
ed. James R. Lewis and Gordon Melton (Stanford: Center for Academic
Publication, 1994), 182.
52 Perry Bulwer, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In A Doomsday Cult,
(Vancouver: New Star Books, 2023), 257–263.
53 See, Lewis who concluded, “[W]hile I do not claim formal
competence as a psychologist, I can assert with some confidence that The
Family does not abuse children.” Also see Palmer, who returned from
studying COG/The Family and faced questions from friends about “‘Do
they abuse their children?’ ‘No they don’t, I’m convinced of it’… Now that I
know the disciples, have studied their literature and tried to figure out their
history and communal patterns, my own common sense is telling me these
allegations of ‘kidnapping, rape, sodomy, child abuse’ are ludicrous—but it is
difficult to convince others.”
ignored them,54
1
excused them,55 or downplayed the
cruel consequences they had on members, especially
their children who were never members by their own
free choice. 56
The unethical actions of those academic apologists who
protected The Family in the name of religious freedom
prolonged for many years the harmful and criminal
abuses that children in the cult suffered. They never
considered the religious freedom rights of The Family’s
children, which necessarily included the right to be
free from religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court famously
ruled in Prince v. Massachusetts: “Parents may be free to
become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they
are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of
their children before they have reached the age of full
and legal discretion when they can make that choice
for themselves.”57
Conclusion
David Berg’s perversion of biblical bridal theology,
his various extra-biblical sexual doctrines, and Karen
Zerby’s promotion and extension of those doctrines
were major aspects of the widespread, systemic abuses
in the Children of God, currently known as The Family
International. Many marriages and families were
forcibly broken up: spouses were coercively separated
from each other against their will, and children were
separated from one or both parents and siblings.
Women were sexually exploited,58 and thousands of
children suffered a wide range of abuses, including:
• religious indoctrination that denied them freedom
of thought and freedom of religion, which
necessarily includes the right to be free from
religion
• isolation from society
• separation from parents, siblings, and other
relatives
54 Shepherd’s sociological study of the group’s use of prophecy
mentioned the debate concerning the accuracy of claims that “group-
sanctioned sexual abuse” existing in the group, but then stated, “we do not
directly address these specific issues in this book.”
55 See Melton in Sex, Slander, and Salvation, who interpreted that “in
spite of Father David’s rhetorical flourishes, he had no intention of creating
a promiscuous anything-goes situation.”
56 Palmer, in Sex, Slander, and Salvation, wrote, “the empowerment of
youth is a theme that runs through the movement’s history.”
57 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) at 321.
58 For a nuanced discussion of the Children of God’s understanding
of, and impact on, women’s bodies, see Raine.
