A Walk Through Greenwich Village: The International Church of Pancakes, Pt. II
Addendum 9/15/10; edited 9/14/10 for accuracy and clarity. My thanks to Keith Stump.
The aspects of thought reform outlined by Dr. Margaret Singer give only a small sampling of the hell Tiffany went through with the NY Church of Christ. In an essay titled “Control Mechanisms in the ICC,” former member Keith Stump delved considerably deeper into the control techniques of the New York Church of Christ's parent organization. What follows is a brief outline of what he terms “The Architecture of Control” and “The Culture of Control”
The Architecture of Control
1. Illusion of wisdom--Church members seem to be authorities on the Bible, but in reality memorize a series of passages over time to give the illusion that they have mastered its text. Tiff was especially fond of quoting 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13, verses 4-7.
The ICoC further fostered the illusion of wisdom by requiring new members to make out “sin lists,” outlined confessions of past transgressions. Like Dr. Ewen Cameron’s pre-admission interviews, these made the subject feel as though the manipulator knew everything about her. It also led to false confessions if the manipulators deemed the person’s sins too paltry. For that reason, many members overdramatize the cult’s role in turning their lives around by exaggerating their past misdeeds. In this case, Tiffany left me with the impression (although she never said this) that she had engaged in a form of prostitution while strung out on drugs.
2. Artificially induced guilt--the church demands such high standards--not only of worship but obedience--that they’re nearly impossible to maintain. So church elders have an easy time finding fault. For example, when the pastor talked about a righteous person having the faith to murder someone or commit suicide in that Easter service I attended, he most likely knew that many of them would at least say to themselves “I don’t know if I could do that.” That little sliver of doubt would be enough to induce guilt.
3. Control of loved ones--more accurately, the control of access to loved ones outside the church, as illustrated by Tiff’s estrangement from her father and brothers.
4. Control of goals and decisions--anything from getting a haircut to getting hitched.
5. Discipleship partners/disciplers--see previous post
6. Eradication of boundaries--As Stump puts it, “The member is not free to tell his or her leaders that some particular aspect is none of their business.” The church fosters this by providing no avenue of privacy. For example, Tiff lived in an apartment with three other members. The place had two bedrooms, neither of which had a door. They had access to every phone call she made at home.
7. Breaking sessions--A dressing down or worse harassment over a perceived sin. Usually the sin is “pride” or individuality.
8. Fear--mostly of not being saved, or going to Hell.
9. Elimination of options--When ordered to do something, members aren’t given any options, and if necessary others will team up to show them why they have to take the course of action asked of them.
10. Manipulative affection--The most common term for this is ‘lovebombing.’ At first, cult members make you feel really good about yourself by praising you and lavishing you with attention and affection. Some cults go so far as to include sexual favors. In Tiffany’s case, this was muted in favor of a general sexual vibe, because of the stated anti-sex position of the church.
People like Tiffany, who are super attractive, and enthusiastically offer attention, fawning admiration, an unstated promise of sex, or outright sex are sometimes referred to as ‘lures.’* If you’re lonely or bored, lures can be a lot of fun. Once you join the cult, however, they become off-limits. After all, they’re out getting some other poor soul to join.
The Culture of Control
1. The vocabulary of control--Coded language that hides the agenda of the church. Click on the link for examples. During my time with Tiffany, I heard all of them, most more than once.
2. Denial that control exists--This is of particular importance when dealing with outsiders, especially new recruits (e.g., when Tiff said to me, “C’mon. It’s not like we’re going to lock you in a dungeon and throw away the key.”)
3. Control is good--Though this seems contradictory to denying that control exists, both aspects work sorta in tandem. After two years' refusal to acknowledge that the church didn’t control every aspect of her life, Tiff gave up her bicycle because the church told her to. To me, those wheels represented the last bit of freedom she had.
4. Poisoning the well--Preemptively dismissing a dissenting viewpoint by labeling it “spiritual pornography,” “persecution” or “opposing God.”
5. Propaganda--The belief in such things as the “persecution” by outsiders and blind obedience is fostered through all media outlets available to the church, especially music.
6. Illusion of Joy--Not only do church members have to comply, but they have to convince their disciplers that they like it. They smile constantly, no matter the circumstance. Everything they do on behalf of the church has to be extremely enthusiastic. Otherwise, church elders would deem them “lukewarm,” something the ICoC considers as an egregious a sin as rebelliousness.
7. Unwritten rules--A lot of church policy consists of unwritten rules, some of which consists of behavior expressly forbidden officially (i.e., to outsiders), but nevertheless demanded by church leaders. One example would be the torture of new recruits through sleep, water, and food deprivation.
8. The illusion of change--The church’s transgressions started to become known after the 20/20 exposé. Thus, it has periodically declared to either having reformed or to be in the process of reforming. More on that later.
9. The illusion of God’s hand--The insistence that church leaders are acting on God’s authority, and that doubting them is rebellion against Him.
10. Denigration of all other religious groups--The ICoC maintains that it alone is the one true church, and that all other faiths, including other Christian sects, are evil and will go to Hell.
11. The illusion of mission--Maintaining the belief that they have been charged by God to evangelize the world into their brand of Christianity.
12. Induced instability and transition--Basically, these are tactics designed to foster the feeling of uncertainty, or in other words to recreate the dangerous time that led the member to the group in the first place. The ICoC does this by a number of tactics, one of which (very similar to Jonestown, BTW) is the constant manufacturing of false crises.
_________________________
See Stump's comments to this post. The ICoC did not use "lures" in the way that many cults did, because of the risk of extramarital sex, and thus subsequent alienation from the church. I would still aver that her actions would remind someone of a lure in the classic sense, and could conceivably serve the same function.
The aspects of thought reform outlined by Dr. Margaret Singer give only a small sampling of the hell Tiffany went through with the NY Church of Christ. In an essay titled “Control Mechanisms in the ICC,” former member Keith Stump delved considerably deeper into the control techniques of the New York Church of Christ's parent organization. What follows is a brief outline of what he terms “The Architecture of Control” and “The Culture of Control”
The Architecture of Control
1. Illusion of wisdom--Church members seem to be authorities on the Bible, but in reality memorize a series of passages over time to give the illusion that they have mastered its text. Tiff was especially fond of quoting 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13, verses 4-7.
The ICoC further fostered the illusion of wisdom by requiring new members to make out “sin lists,” outlined confessions of past transgressions. Like Dr. Ewen Cameron’s pre-admission interviews, these made the subject feel as though the manipulator knew everything about her. It also led to false confessions if the manipulators deemed the person’s sins too paltry. For that reason, many members overdramatize the cult’s role in turning their lives around by exaggerating their past misdeeds. In this case, Tiffany left me with the impression (although she never said this) that she had engaged in a form of prostitution while strung out on drugs.
2. Artificially induced guilt--the church demands such high standards--not only of worship but obedience--that they’re nearly impossible to maintain. So church elders have an easy time finding fault. For example, when the pastor talked about a righteous person having the faith to murder someone or commit suicide in that Easter service I attended, he most likely knew that many of them would at least say to themselves “I don’t know if I could do that.” That little sliver of doubt would be enough to induce guilt.
3. Control of loved ones--more accurately, the control of access to loved ones outside the church, as illustrated by Tiff’s estrangement from her father and brothers.
4. Control of goals and decisions--anything from getting a haircut to getting hitched.
5. Discipleship partners/disciplers--see previous post
6. Eradication of boundaries--As Stump puts it, “The member is not free to tell his or her leaders that some particular aspect is none of their business.” The church fosters this by providing no avenue of privacy. For example, Tiff lived in an apartment with three other members. The place had two bedrooms, neither of which had a door. They had access to every phone call she made at home.
7. Breaking sessions--A dressing down or worse harassment over a perceived sin. Usually the sin is “pride” or individuality.
8. Fear--mostly of not being saved, or going to Hell.
9. Elimination of options--When ordered to do something, members aren’t given any options, and if necessary others will team up to show them why they have to take the course of action asked of them.
10. Manipulative affection--The most common term for this is ‘lovebombing.’ At first, cult members make you feel really good about yourself by praising you and lavishing you with attention and affection. Some cults go so far as to include sexual favors. In Tiffany’s case, this was muted in favor of a general sexual vibe, because of the stated anti-sex position of the church.
People like Tiffany, who are super attractive, and enthusiastically offer attention, fawning admiration, an unstated promise of sex, or outright sex are sometimes referred to as ‘lures.’* If you’re lonely or bored, lures can be a lot of fun. Once you join the cult, however, they become off-limits. After all, they’re out getting some other poor soul to join.
The Culture of Control
1. The vocabulary of control--Coded language that hides the agenda of the church. Click on the link for examples. During my time with Tiffany, I heard all of them, most more than once.
2. Denial that control exists--This is of particular importance when dealing with outsiders, especially new recruits (e.g., when Tiff said to me, “C’mon. It’s not like we’re going to lock you in a dungeon and throw away the key.”)
3. Control is good--Though this seems contradictory to denying that control exists, both aspects work sorta in tandem. After two years' refusal to acknowledge that the church didn’t control every aspect of her life, Tiff gave up her bicycle because the church told her to. To me, those wheels represented the last bit of freedom she had.
4. Poisoning the well--Preemptively dismissing a dissenting viewpoint by labeling it “spiritual pornography,” “persecution” or “opposing God.”
5. Propaganda--The belief in such things as the “persecution” by outsiders and blind obedience is fostered through all media outlets available to the church, especially music.
6. Illusion of Joy--Not only do church members have to comply, but they have to convince their disciplers that they like it. They smile constantly, no matter the circumstance. Everything they do on behalf of the church has to be extremely enthusiastic. Otherwise, church elders would deem them “lukewarm,” something the ICoC considers as an egregious a sin as rebelliousness.
7. Unwritten rules--A lot of church policy consists of unwritten rules, some of which consists of behavior expressly forbidden officially (i.e., to outsiders), but nevertheless demanded by church leaders. One example would be the torture of new recruits through sleep, water, and food deprivation.
8. The illusion of change--The church’s transgressions started to become known after the 20/20 exposé. Thus, it has periodically declared to either having reformed or to be in the process of reforming. More on that later.
9. The illusion of God’s hand--The insistence that church leaders are acting on God’s authority, and that doubting them is rebellion against Him.
10. Denigration of all other religious groups--The ICoC maintains that it alone is the one true church, and that all other faiths, including other Christian sects, are evil and will go to Hell.
11. The illusion of mission--Maintaining the belief that they have been charged by God to evangelize the world into their brand of Christianity.
12. Induced instability and transition--Basically, these are tactics designed to foster the feeling of uncertainty, or in other words to recreate the dangerous time that led the member to the group in the first place. The ICoC does this by a number of tactics, one of which (very similar to Jonestown, BTW) is the constant manufacturing of false crises.
_________________________
See Stump's comments to this post. The ICoC did not use "lures" in the way that many cults did, because of the risk of extramarital sex, and thus subsequent alienation from the church. I would still aver that her actions would remind someone of a lure in the classic sense, and could conceivably serve the same function.
Labels: cults, ICoC, mind control



32 Comments:
At 3:32 PM,
dr.alistair said…
this all reminds me of the way a baptist friend of mine behaves. i have had to distance myself from him on a number of occasions because of his will-to-control.
it is breathtaking how much permission he gives himself to try to dominate others.
the irony of it all is that he doesn`t even go to the church. he is just this free-agent dogmatist ranging around looking for "sinners" to judge and condemn, all the while doing most of the things he decries in others.
At 3:45 PM,
dr.alistair said…
shit, then i read the vocabulary of control and it reminded me of the time i went to "junior leadership" in high school because i was a top athlete and my coach felt it would be good for me.
it turned out to be a subtle cult and many of the jocks and jockettes spoke in terms like that about the leadership programme.
i lasted until the late bus and then got outta there.
growing up with a jesuit father made me sensitive to mind-dontrol language.
a.a. is another one.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a0.html
my deepest apologies to anyone who suffers from the need to consume alcohol or any other substance in a way that will damage you, but the fact needs to be stated that a.a. is a mind-control cult designed not to help the person with the affliction, but to perpetuate the organisation.
i suspected as much while my father was a member, but in my professional training it has become obvious.
At 4:29 PM,
..................... said…
i don't have a lot to say at this point except to think about what you've written.
At 6:41 PM,
Kate said…
ok that... that comment right there from Foam, is why I appreciate her so much. I have diareaha of the mouth 90% of the time... Even a pregnant pause crushes me and I feel the need to talk! Its a curse..
Anyway... to what Doc A was saying about AA...
I am sitting here holding a blue plastic coin that was my brothers.... from AA... It says My Grace Is Enough for You... Celebrate Recovery (and there is a big cross through the celebrate recovery bit)
Not sure if I would go as far as to say it was a 'mind control cult'... ok I am sure that I wouldnt go there...
I am so far from an expert on the topic, that I hesitate to write my opinion... but it is just that... and opinion based on having been to 2 meetings with my brother(no one even spoke to me until I spoke to them...) and having lived with him as an alcoholic for 22 years of his 35 year life... This organization was OFTEN the only thing that kept him going when he was in a bad way... His sponsors... would you consider them cult leaders??? idk...but several times I got calls from them in the middle of the night or on holidays helping out a bad situation. Not what I think of, at least, when I think of mind controlling people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult sites AA as being studied and concluded it was a cult... but a 'beneficial one'. My problem with that is that the word CULT has such a negative connotation connected to it.
So are all cults bad?
At 3:21 AM,
foam said…
soooo, that is a very interesting question that kate asks..
are all cults bad..
and, kate, you don't have diaharea of the mouth..lol..what a phrase.
At 8:54 AM,
Enemy of the Republic said…
This is an awesome post. I think of many of the Christians I know--perhaps they aren't in a cult, but they follow many of these dictates that you outline. I don't see that in my church or I'd be gone--we know we are fallible and no one uses it as a way to dominate others. And Jesus didn't do that either. But churches like that could be worshipping Captain Kirk for all they care; it's the control and dominance that matters.
At 2:38 PM,
X. Dell said…
Dr. Alistair, I'm sure you recognize projection and externalization when you see it. Sounds like your friend would have wound up in a book of Freudian defense mechanisms by now.
But since you mention it, part of what probably keeps people blind to cultish behavior are those very defense mechanisms (denial, blocking, dilution, projection, externalization, etc.).
One thing too, about your friend is that he's invoking God's name to convince whomever of his own authority. Seems like that might be literally interpreted as saying the Lord's name in vain.
As far as the vocabulary of control goes, one can see how insidious it is, just by looking at it. Then again, when one thinks of PSYOPS, the kind of coded vocabulary people use to obfuscate a number of power relations (from head of the household to ruling party) in everyday life.
I'll look into the AA thing. Since I've already read Kate's comment, I'll add my two cents about that there--I hate repeating myself.
Foam, think away. See if you can guess where I'm headed. And you're right, if Kate has what she said she has, we should be able to smell it by now.
Enemy, what you said sounds close to what a lot of former ICoC members say: namely, that it wasn't a church with cultic aspects, but rather a cult that used religion as a base. For all intents and purposes, they could just as well be worshipping Captain Kirk.
The first part of your comment really reflects something that might be looming a bit more in many people's minds. Where is the line between religion and exploitative cult?
Kate, I see where you're coming from, here. I'm not going to argue with your point, for I understand the agony you have gone through regarding your brother, and sympathize.
I will, instead take this out of the realm of the personal, and offer something else to consider. Imagine that an organization does some good things, in some cases one can argue that they are life-saving.
But for every action, even good ones, there are consequences. And sometimes the consequences are hard to predict. Sometimes what we assume to be rock-solid truth is based upon a premise that doesn't hold water.
By the 1960s, many medical researchers had found (through 1957 Michagan study, a 1962 London study and another 1962 Yale study that have been repeated since) there were far more efficient ways to treat alcoholism than total abstinence, or at the very least without the religious mysticism of AA, and that the recitivism rate (i.e., how many people actually fall off the wagon) for AA wasn't very good by comparison, over the long run (the number of peer-reviewed studies on AA is very small, and doesn't really address why it has successes when it does--so while initially it looks better than cognitive-based approaches after a year, that percentage drops off precipitously the following year, and thereafter, according to annectodtal evidence--we would cite harder evidence, but there isn't any). Yet, AA aligned early with government boards, teaching organizations, and really formed the basis of our current beliefs on alcoholism.
Furthermore, as opposed to other treatment options, a number of non-drinking ex-AA members say that their membership in the organization put tremendous strain on their family relationships and finances. Dr. Arthur Cain wrote in a 1964 Saturday Evening Post article:
"The wife of a Texas member described some unfortunate consequences of A.A.'s creed that the struggle against alcohol must be the most important ambition in a member's life. 'This must be placed above wives or husbands, children homes, or jobs. They must be ready to abandon these things at any time.... The tragic part is, some of them while searching for this sobriety and serenity actually do exactly that.'
If you read further down in the Wikipedia article, you'll find the following sentence: "Twelve-step programs use thought reform techniques such as mystical manipulation of spiritual beliefs, coercion of members' contacts outside of the group, and unconditional love. From this perspective, critics of twelve-step programs warn of detrimental iatrogenic effects of twelve-step philosophy, and label the organizations as cults."
Iatrogenisis means that the cure became more dangerous or deadlier than the affliction. Ex-members talk about getting cut off by their families, going into debt, not being told about medical research that runs counter to the tenets of the organization. Worst of all, in many cases, it has instructed its members to build a self-identity based upon one aspect of their lives. Furthermore, it positions itself as the only cure.
So, might it be possible that while helping some people, it could be devastating others? By shaking their self-confidence? By making it more difficult to relate to family? To live within a budget?
Since one of the admitted (stipulated) cultic aspects of AA is that it encourages its members to speak highly and enthusiastically about it, the annecdotal evidence we get from members might not be the whole story, and thus leave a false impression of the group's success with them.
But if something goes tragically wrong, or if the AA member's quality of life doesn't improve in the long-term, do we see this more of the individual failing the system, or of the system failing the indiviudal?
At 7:05 PM,
Enemy of the Republic said…
This is where the Pauline epistles and certain sections of the OT have reared a lot of damage. There are so many juicy verses one can take out of context in which guilt, dominance and projection of the whole Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God come into play. They are successful because they cater to an emotionally needy and often unstable crowd, who need the euphoric boost that the church meetings provide. This is not Christianity, but a perversion of it, and I can usually smell it a mile away. Yes, some people are rigid as well as devout on issues of behavior and belief, but that does not make them part of what you have described. Their religious beliefs are not a source of manipulation. I've seen the likes of the church you describe in various non-denominational, Pentacostal and Southern Baptist circles. They can ruin people. I am not dissing all of these sects, but the extremists who have recruitment and retention down to a science.
At 7:16 PM,
dr.alistair said…
well yes, the individual stories of success and sobriety in association with a.a. are heartening and challenge anyone`s criticism of the program.
my father was sober 10 years and gave the credit to a.a., meanwhile he was hostile, agressive and paranoid in his sobriety.
stopping self-medicating is one part of healing, but one has to cope with the underlying cause of the behaviour.
it is difficult to make distinctions for the individual in 12 step programs because there are no controls to compare results.
statistics measure the actions of groups and not individuals.
my approach to treatment of those with issues surrounding drugs and alcohol is primarily cognitive with nlp and hypnosis in support.
these methods sneak into the pop-psychology of the a.a. meetings and members are constantly "shrinking" eachother, and while i`m sure the intention on the part of memebers is mostly good, the outcome can be as bad as any other form of self-medication.
i don`t have room or the permission to expand my experience here, but i will say that i`ve known an a.a. member for over 10 years and have fallen into direct coflict with him over my views.
his position is that i have no right as a "lay" practitioner to treat his type of illness and he has become a vocal critic of my work in the community.
At 7:33 PM,
X. Dell said…
Alistair, perhaps you can tell us more aout the efficacy of cognitive therapy after a one-year period, the only one tested by AA.
At 11:17 PM,
Libby said…
x-i'm just kinda curious (maybe i missed it?)how long were you talking to Tiff?
At 6:34 AM,
Kate said…
"...Imagine that an organization does some good things, in some cases one can argue that they are life-saving. "
You CAN say that of many organizations... I worked for a homeless shelter for years in Philly. Religiously based (although nondenominational)... I watched it work for about 1/3 of the people. I watched it all out fail for about 1/3 (ie they left the program b4 the end of the 6 weeks no better off and in many cases probably worse off) and 1/3 I really dont know what happened to.
There were times when these people were told to 'call in favors' from people they knew to get help with housing or jobs or child care... there were many many times when drugs and alcohol were issues...Families were broken apart due to lack of room OR one parent was using and the other wasnt... I watched 2 women have their children taken away from them by childrens services...
I would say that there were many who would consider this a wonderful facility/opportunity for those in dire situations(I do)... but for others there were terrible consequences. THAT doesnt make it a cult though... does it? No organization can be the 'end all be all' for anyone.
Its interesting that De Als friend didnt think he had the right as a lay person to treat the illness. I think that is a personal opinion. My brother gravitated to people who were successful in living sober with the disease over people like psychologists who werent as well though. I dont think he would have said the shrink didnt have the 'right' to do what they did... more that they couldnt fully understand it so it wouldnt be AS helpful. I guess he needed a recovering shrink lol.
Its like women not going to a male GYN because they 'cant know' what a woman feels... True and for some that may be significantly important... but for others there it is not.
Oh and I am a big advocate for self medicating... and talking to whomever you can about your issues... blogging even... continuing to try to work through your thoughts, feelings and ideas so they dont fester and become 'problems' I think having gr8 friends to bounce things off of all my life was monumental in keeping me somewhat normal! lol It wasnt enough when I had the 4 deaths in a row, but then... well you know the rest...
I guess my real question for you, getting back to your post...
Are all cults bad?
see... diareaha of the mouth again! lol Oh and you wouldnt smell it as my shit doesnt stink (I threw in the curse word just for you! lol)
At 9:28 AM,
dr.alistair said…
cognitive therapy means becoming aware of feelings.
once a person becomes senstive to thier feelings they have the potential to become master of them.
in the context of a post there isn`t room to explain the process entirely, but i will give a sketch.
most people negotiate thier daily existance using sight and sound.
the sensations they experience are external.
the touch sensations steer them from thier bed to work and back again.
the sight images help to aquire targets and find things.
for most people hard at work emotions are virtually useless, and so become firstly ignored, and then avoided.
and this is sufficient for robotic repetitive tasking.
the problem comes when persistant negative feelings pierce through this conditioning, or never allow the robotic modality (unconscious competance.) to be attained.
these disruptive feelings manifest in panic and anxiety. psychology has many terms for this. free-floating anxiety, generalised anxiety, etc.
these conditions are distinct from psychosis, wherein there may be disruptions in the physical and neuro-chemical archetecture of the brain.
the cognitive therapist works with the client with anxiety to recognise the trigger points of their condition and to spot the precise moment of onset and the precise location of the feelings in the body and how these feelings migrate.
literally from neuron to neuron, electro-chemically.
i build a precise model of my clients visual, auditory and kinesthetic map so that i can understand how they do thier anxiety and then show them ways of breaking the chain of stimulus-response in them.
this is a tremendously intimate process and sometimes brings out strong emotional responses in my clients that match the intense psychic energy needed to maintain such levels of functioning.
kate said she saw about a 30% success rate in the homeless program.
i am successful with roughly half of my clients.
when i say successful, i mean stopping destructive substance consumption.
there are some who, for the duration of our sessions, manage to stop and then return to drinking and then there are those who come infrequently and struggle.
the clients who do the deep work and stick with it until they get relief are the successes.
it is important that my clients don`t think that i`m in any way an expert on thier condition. i knew nothing of thier experience until they told me.
this understanding allows them to work toward thier own astery for them, and not in a teacher-student relationship, or with any sort of co-dependance.
this approach is a blend of cognitive inquiry, nlp and hypnosis.
the challenge my a.a. friend felt was that i wasn`t an expert in his experience and that i wasn`t qualified to treat him.
what he was really saying was that i wouldn`t play a co-dependant game.
in transactional analysis that is what`s called an adult to not-ok child discourse.
he wanted to stimulate a not-ok child response from me, and i wasn`t going for it.
At 11:24 AM,
JohnB said…
I don't know about you, but if someone called me "rebellious", I would take that as a compliment...:)
At 12:32 PM,
Kate said…
lol to Johnb's comment... I think I am far more rebellious as an adult than I ever was as a kid. I guess there is a confidence factor that goes with being able to challenge.
Hey Dell, I had a look at that link about the Ipod and it confirmed what I thought... that there really isnt some easy way to get around it... I have to burn copies then download them to my new computer... the bit that I hate about that is that they come without all the information attached... all I get is Track 1, Track 2... no title, artist etc. BIG FAT PAIN IN THE butt. *wink
Thanks for sending it!
At 1:31 PM,
Dale said…
I feel and fear these posts are taking over my life. But I'm okay with that.
At 4:42 PM,
Ray said…
X. Dell:
If you're interested, here's a link to a NY Times article about the schism with Veronica Lueken's followers:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E5D71E30F935A15754C0A96E958260
It gives a concise history of Lueken's followers and what caused the split.
It would make an interesting study to see what control dynamics you discussed in this post are at work within each group.
Ray
At 8:20 PM,
X. Dell said…
Libby, if you're asking how long did we hang out, between 1995-1997. Two years.
Kate, keep running off at the keyboard. Thanks for the substantial contribution.
Perhaps I should clarify. The word 'cult' today has taken on a negative connotation, mostly because of groups like the ICoC who use some type of heavy indoctrination that some call 'brainwashing,' others call 'thought reform.' But in it's basic meaning, cults are neither good nor bad.
Now if you're asking me if, in a neutral sense of the term's meaning, if a cult necessarily bad, I would have to say no. That depends on the cult.
But if you're referring to a cult that requires mind-control, then there's something that's extremely problematic. Your example of the homeless program is a good one. Even if a group attempts to use mind-control for beneficent purposes, there's always going to be a consequence, and the vast majority of times those consequences aren't good in the short run, and fail in the long run.
In Tiff's case, the promise of a better life was a lie. The group's purpose wasn't to help her. It was to exploit her for all it's worth. Becoming estranged to her family was but one part of what she lost. The ability to choose a mate, or anything else, for that matter, isn't something that anyone can honestly say is beneficial to her. The constant breaking down of confidence, etc., the constant instillation of fear.
Since I doubt very seriously that the church would have taken Tiff in a strung-out condition (how could she tithe?), I think this aspect was a lie as well.
The example that you gave of AA is a bit more nuanced, since it has become so ingrained into our culture as a virtuous organization, that criticism of it is rare, and usually muted. Furthermore, they can demonstrate some efficacy, even thoush such is not typical by their own measure.
Think of it as a trade-off. You might be getting something. But there will be a price to pay. I wouldn't counsel people away from AA, or to AA unless they had exhausted every other avenue available. In the latter case, however, I would still see a potential harm from being in that program, as many within th program are now beginning to tell their stories.
As for the iPod, I thought the link said that you can download iTunes to any format, including mp3s, and showed you how. I must have sent you to the wrong link. Either that, or I misunderstood your question.
Alistair, thanks for the explanation. This does clarify how other methods can and do work without the subscription to a belief system, or cultic behavior.
John, no one has ever called me a rebel. A hippie, yes. Stubborn, yes. Eccentric, yes. But never a rebel.
Dale, in my worst nightmares I become a cult leader. Messy situation.
Ray, when you commented about Lueken in the previous post, I started to flex my Google muscles. That is an interesting situation, and to think that it happened in my own neck of the woods (right off the #7 train). I'll take a look at this link as soon as I can. Right now, I'm facing what I hope will be my last deadline for awhile. But you're right. It would be informative if their are control tactics similar to those used by groups like the ICoC.
At 9:08 AM,
SJ said…
Looks like I've missed a very good discussion. Work's been keeping me busy often till into the night...
At 9:31 AM,
dr.alistair said…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
the missing element in cults is us.
we are the one`s responsible for taking on power over others.
give the average person permission to be unreasonable to others and they will. give the majority of those people permission to be cruel of worse...they will.
this is how cults work.
we are the ones who become the manipulators.
cults bad?
they are as bad as the people in them and the types of permission they are given.
i have had corporate bullying clients who have various forms of psychological problems stemming from pressure at work from bosses permitted to tyranize their employees.
and in that sense corporations are cults also.
At 10:32 PM,
Keith said…
This is the Keith Stump that wrote the article "Control Mechanisms in the ICC" that you blogged about a couple of years ago in "A Walk Through Greenwich Village: The International Church of Pancakes, Pt. II" which I only just now stumbled upon.
I suppose it is too old to worry about now, but I just wanted to say that it would appear that you may have confused me with another Keith Stump, a disciple of Herbert W. Armstrong and a leader in the former Worldwide Church of God. It is he who is a "prolific writer" on religious issues. I have written very little other than "Control Mechanisms in the ICC". In fact, I am now an atheist and quite disinclined to right about such things.
But, it is of little consequence.
I read about your account with the ICC member and I found it very strange. This person's behavior was well outside what is forbidden to ICC/ICoC members. I do not know what happened in that instance, but what "Tiffany" did would be very abnormal and forbidden by ICoC dogma.
For example, it is forbidden for a woman to attempt to recruit a man. She may invite him to cult activities, try to get him connected with a men's recruitment team, but she may not directly recruit a man. That would be leading a man and a sin in the view of ICoC dogma.
As far as marrying you, that too is extremely unusual. Typically, a person entering the ICoC who is not married is required to do one of two things with current romantic involvements: terminate the relationship or give the partner an ultimatum to join to cult right away or they'll split up. I've even known people who had been engaged break off the engagement.
But, once in the cult, any dating or getting married is strictly within the cult. To date or even go on a single date with anyone else to totally forbidden and a terrible sin requiring a breaking session or even expulsion from the group.
So, this is very strange indeed.
As for the arranged marriage, I have never been able to confirm such a thing, though I have heard claims of such. Nevertheless, pressure to date a particular person or outright orders not to date another are commonplace. But that only occurs within the cult, since dating or marrying outside of the cult is highly forbidden.
My best guess is that "Tiffany" may have had her true personality attempting to escape the cult. As a single, she would have lived with several other single women in the cult, and the cult would have seen to it that she had little money, so leaving the cult may have meant becoming homeless. Maybe she thought that if she could marry you, it would give her a chance to escape. But, says the cult personality, you would have to join the cult in order to be eligible to marry her.
But that is just my guess, I don't really know. It is most unusual.
At 6:26 AM,
X. Dell said…
Keith, welcome to The X-Spot, and thank you for clearing up the confusion with names. I strive to be as accurate as I can, even if late, and will change that anon.
I can only write or say what I actually witness, and this is about as faithful an account as memory recalls. This was indeed Tiffany's behavior, including the talk of sex and marriage.
I actually visited her apartment in Brooklyn, which she shared with three roommates (two bedrooms, no doors). She introduced me to a number of her friends within the NYCoC. So the church definitely knew of our relationship. They knew I frequently saw her alone. They could have construed that any way they wanted to. But were I them, I'd either suspect, or worry that a woman who spends that much time with a man alone might at least have thought about a romantic liaison. I could only assume that whatever she did with me, she did with the NYCoC's permission. They were very strict with her.
I have virtually no doubt that what you say is accurate, yet I find it difficult to square with my experience. While I knew that all marriages happened "in house," I never gave a thought about there stance on dating. To be honest, I never considered what Tiff and I did dating, until reading your response, and recalling her talk of marriage.
Your hypothesis pretty much matches the one that I posted two years ago. Tiff wanted freedom, and sadly I wasn't prepared at the time to give her the assistance she really needed. And I think I concur with your interpretation of "arranged marriage" as actually pressure to marry or date someone--although Tiff seemed to have gotten a deadline.
Still, I'm puzzled at what you wrote, here, and will have to think about it further. I honestly cannot think of any other explanation of her behavior than as a "lure," which is germane to cults. If you say that this is forbidden, I'll have to think of other reasons--not for Tiff's behavior, but for the church's tolerance for it.
BTW, good article.
At 9:19 AM,
Keith said…
Another possibility (if she were romantically interested in you) was that they might have given her a deadline for you to get involved in the cult. She wouldn't have been allowed to convert you directly, but she would easily have been allowed lure you in, in hopes of getting you hooked up with a men's recruitment team.
I could see a conversation with her leaders going something like this:
Tiff: He really loves god, I know he does. He just needs a chance to be studied with.
Leader: Disciples cannot be unequally yoked with an unbeliever. There are plenty of brothers for you to marry. This guy will send you to hell.
Tiff: But, I know him, I know he wants to be a disciple, he just needs to learn the truth that the denominations are going to hell, then he'll become a disciple.
Leader: Ok, if you're sure, you can reach out to him in public, but not date him. You have until the end of the year for him to be in a study [that is what the cult calls the indoctrination sessions].
I base this conjecture on a real situation in which the man who was engaged came to town, without the fiancé, for graduate school. He was converted. He had to suspend the engagement in order to be allowed in the cult. He was told she had to join the cult too or that was the end of their relationship. He gave her an ultimatum, so she moved into town and joined the cult too.
However, my best guess is that she was trying to pass you off as "just friends" or a "family friend" or "it's like he's my brother". She then may have claimed said that she was just trying to get you interested enough to attend a Bring Your Neighbor Day or maybe a Bible Talk.
So she may have, without the cult's knowledge or approval, tried to get you to join the cult so you could get married. When that didn't pan out, again without the approval of the cult, she went for broke. When she saw that your love for her wasn't enough to bring you into the cult, she chose the cult over you.
I know that other cults have their women (and men) use sex or romance to lure people into the cult. But the ICC did not do that. They feared non-marital sex too much to risk it.
A big problem in the cult was that there weren't enough men to go around (women were a lot easier to convert for some reason). Women in who were not leadership would have trouble getting boyfriends or getting married. So, some women would secretly start dating outside the cult, in hopes of getting a husband. They would hope to bring the man into the cult. However, such activity would be utterly forbidden, an extreme "sin" and severely chastised when it was found out. Sometimes the woman would be totally kicked out of the cult, other times she would be suspended from the cult for month to "find out where her heart was".
That is about all that I can think of. I cannot conceive that the cult would have allowed a woman who was already in the cult to try to lure a man into the cult with romance (unless she were a recent convert and the relationship already existed). That sort of thing was strictly forbidden.
The one thing I can say with near certainty: your don't have any reason to feel guilty for not handling the matter better. It really didn't matter what you said or did, you would have had almost zero chance of persuading her. Everyone who wasn't in the cult was deceived by the devil and spiritually blind, so anything you said was just the devil's lies form her POV. The cult indoctrinated her far too well for you to have had a realistic chance of getting her to leave. She may have been toying with the idea of leaving the cult, but clearly wasn't ready to do so. You couldn't have rescued her by any means at your disposal.
At 9:29 AM,
Keith said…
An addendum:
If the cult had allowed her a chance to lure you in by a certain date, I must stress this would have been very unusual. She would have had to beg for permission to attempt to bring you in if the cult knew she was romantically interested in you. And even if permission were granted, they would have regarded her as "struggling" (which was codeword for being on the brink of leaving the cult).
If she kept the romantic part secret from the cult, and passed you have as "just a friend of the family" or something, then I can see the cult permitting her to try luring you in.
BTW, do you know how long she had been in the cult when you started seeing her?
At 3:30 PM,
X. Dell said…
Keith, I have to thank you for your input. You have given me quite a bit to think about over the past two days, and you've persuaded me to reassess some of the things I've thought and felt in a different light.
I think the "smoking gun," as it were, was your statement that the church did not use lures because of the high risk of extramarital sex. I could see why that would be important to the ICoC, especially if one partner were an outsider. Your alternate explanation is plausible, although I was certain at the time (given her interaction with other men) that the vibe wasn't directed at me personally. At the time, I thought, "That's just how she is." Later, after taking a serious study of cults, I simply ascribed any fawning behavior to lovebombing. In hindsight, I could very well have misinterpreted a lot of things. I still find it difficult to believe she had a romantic interest in me (a close friendship, maybe). I'm thinking the marriage talk came from external pressure to get hitched to someone (this was after knowing her for two years, and having no clue she would say something like that). But I have little doubt about your observations, and if your speculation is correct this episode in my life meant something quite different than I thought it did, although my opinions and thoughts of the Church itself haven't changed one whit.
Your previous comment did prompt me to think about one possibility. Tiff worked at a major record label, as did a few other people from the NYCoC, and after that first night, she frequently sought my advice about music industry matters. Specifically, she wanted me to help her form a marketing strategy to help some of these acts find a more general market. Although the musicians in question were quite good, I didn't think that possible. Still a good part of what we discussed (at least before the sex talk) were ideas she would run across me.
I thought, maybe, they wanted to "spread their message" so to speak, and perhaps legitimize the church by creating its own celebrity (as does, say, Scientology). And given the presence of CoC people at this corporation, I thought the church might have made an exception to normal policy in order to gain expertise in an area important to them.
Given what you said here, however, that hypothesis seems rather grandiose, problematic, and unlikely. When you put it in terms of risk, there would be little to gain by such a decision. It would be safer (and just as effective) to groom Tiff as an expert in her own right, which she certainly was capable of becoming.
I also agree with you (as I posted) that I never really had any power to get her out of the ICoC, and any delusioins I might have had for doing so were based more on my ego than anything else. My point was that I didn't do her any favors, and I could have been more patient.
I'm going to look over this series of posts, and perhaps emend some of the things I've written (I know, but better late than never).
As for how long Tiff was in the NYCoC, it's a bit of a cloudy issue, because the timeline of events she gave me never matched completely. The best I could pin it down would be a little under two years (maybe as little as a year and a half, or eighteen months) by the time I met her (Jan. 1995), judging from what Nketia said about her relationship with Tiff, and what Tiff said about her own involvment.
At 10:20 PM,
Keith said…
Your comment about her being involved, however remotely, in the entertainment industry is telling.
The mid-90's were the heyday of the ICoC producing propaganda about itself, complete with its own "news"
videos called "KNN" (Kingdom News Network). Which were done with professional graphics, lighting, and editing.
The cult was very much eager to break into the entertainment industry, even writing its own musicals. The New York City ICoC in particular had a very activity "ministry" for those in the entertainment industry. They spread the news far and wide when Geoffrey Owens (who played "Elvin" on the Cosby Show) joined the cult. The NYC congregation even had special services geared to the schedules of entertainers (who usually had to work at night and couldn't easily attend evening services).
So, if you had any sort of involvement in the entertainment industry, there would have been heavy pressure to recruit you -- especially if you were some member's coworker. So, "Tiffany" may have been under extreme pressure to get you interested in the cult and hooked up with a men's recruitment team.
However, I can say confidently that the ICoC leaders would never have authorized the use sex or romance to lure in an outsider. [Hell, they didn't even allow their members to masturbate!]
So, sexual talk (which itself would have been forbidden) or suggestions of marriage would definitely have been of "Tiffany's" unauthorized choices.
At 8:23 AM,
X. Dell said…
I think I'm getting a better handle on this. Tiff's talk about sex always confused me, for I knew the position of the Church on it. I once even brought to her attention the fact that we were talking more and more about it. According to you (and this makes sense), these overtures were not approved by the church. These were "unauthorized choices" she made, calculated risks to accomplish something hoping that the ends would justify the means, at least in the NYCoC's eyes.
I'm thinking too that her "unauthorized choices" might have been driven by psychological factors. As I wrote earlier, her mom entered this suicide pact with her boyfriend when Tiff was very young. She was alienated from her father during the time I knew her, and she often said she felt neglected by him. That makes sense to me. I can picture that as Tiffany matured, she reminded him more and more of her mother, and of the pain that he might never have resolved. I have other female friends (with better support systems) who felt neglected by their fathers, and some were quite aware that it had a bearing on how they acted around men. It was as though they were desperate to please them, just as they were desperate to please their emotionally absent dads. A professor is an easy metaphor for a father. And sex, attention and love are three concepts that often find themselves entagled together.
While she might have been able to rationalize some of these actions to herself, and explain them away to the ICoC enough to let her continue, then that might explain why things went on as long as they did (two years). It might also explain the "deadline to marry," which in this context is more a directive to reel in, or cut bait.
At the time, I was signed to a label affiliated with WEA, the largest of the majors. I was also teaching at the media department of a large university, where I networked with numerous professionals in the music, television and film industries (often bringing them to class, when their schedules permitted). Had I reached the stage of a men's recruitment team, I might very well have been asked to exploit (and consequently exhaust) these connections for the next few years.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments here, Keith. Thank you for taking the time with this.
At 8:47 AM,
Keith said…
On reflection, we may be over-complicating this. She might just have really, really wanted to have sex. Since not even masturbation was allowed to bring relief in the ICoC, but rather only the pleasures of marriage, she may have simply wanted to have sex. Maybe her actions were just all about that, but were made strange and desperate because her childhood experiences and her ICoC indoctrination were preventing her from acting according to human nature.
At 12:54 PM,
X. Dell said…
Perhaps we could be overcomplicating this in terms of Tiff's actions and reaction. It wouldn't be my first guess, though. First off, the simplest of human interactions can be full of complexity. Secondly, if Tiff simply wanted sex, she could have grabbed a far less obstinate (not to mention a far more attractive) beau from a student population of 17,000.
Given the impression you, she and others have given of the cult view of members' outside relationships, I wouldn't be able to comprehend why the NYCoC tolerated ours for two years, especially since her roommates (and Nketia, and another student I didn't mention) were well aware of it. It comes back to your original objection to my initial belief that she was simply a lure. I guess, in the end, it's not her actions that puzzle me as much as those of the church.
Your speculation, whether accurate or not, offers something new for me to consider. And looking back at those days, it does make sense.
At 1:31 PM,
Keith said…
A lure that was supposed to be platonic would definitely be something the ICoC would do, but they wouldn't authorize a sexual or romantic lure (other than the previously mentioned exception of luring in a preexisting partner).
The ICoC put intense pressures on its members to recruit, especially in high-visibility congregations and "ministries". The NYC entertainment "ministry" was one of the places where the pressure would have been the most extreme in the mid-90's.
There really isn't anyway to know for sure why "Tiffany" acted as she did, unless she shows up on this blog and explains herself. And, maybe not even then.
Even though these events happened years ago, I think it is important for people to keep others aware of what cults do. When cults splinter, as they almost always do if they don't expire beforehand, people are tempted to think it is all over, water under the bridge. But, cults just continue to adapt to the times, and new cults form. People need to be made aware of them.
So, I applaud your efforts to remind people of what this cult did in ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
At 4:03 PM,
X. Dell said…
A platonic lure would make sense, and it's something that would allow her to explain any "unauthorized" behavior geared towards eventual recruitment.
It would surprise me if Tiffany found these series. But if she did, it would be interesting to read what she might have to say, whether or not she was still with the NYCoC.
Over the years I've kinda marveled at the adaptability of cults, from the Scientologists' takeover of the Cult Awareness Network to the viral videos and apparent celebrity endorsements one finds on the Internet. They're certainly resourceful, and sometimes well-funded.
I had a number of encounters with various cults in New York, and see cultic behavior more and more in the mainstream of religious, marketing, and political thought. I've always thought someone has to say, "Um, wait a minute." To borrow from an old folk song, when one and one and fifty make a million, maybe the message will be heard.
Thanks (last time, I promise) for the article and for stopping by.
At 8:17 PM,
Keith said…
I think I should leave things here, for my part of this particular topic.
I again thank you for your blogging on this. If you should wish to consult me again on some cult-related matter, please feel free to contact me. I don't want to put my email address online, but you may contact me through my youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/ScientistKeith)
Post a Comment
<< Home