Seen from the perspective of psychology, movements championing antinomianism or millenarian social orders create an atmosphere in which previously repressed and subconscious wishes may be permitted public expression. As even historians know, this subconscious material is usually sexual....”
--Dr. Stephen A. Kent, “The Lustful Prophet.”*

What a sick f(*k!
--Susan, comment on previous post.

As I had written earlier, in the series about the International Church of Christ, cult members, through relentless thought reform and indoctrination, find their own identities submerged under that of their founders. They not only parrot the words of the leader, but they internalize what they interpret as his/her opinions or attitudes, and this results in a uniformity of action and belief. In short, joining a coercive cult means making a journey away from who you are, and towards the person you believe the founder to be. Cult leadership usually falls to followers who have most completely internalized the leader’s personality.

So if you want to understand what went on in the minds of the Children of God, you’d first have to get into the head of David Berg. In a 1994 paper titled “The Lustful Prophet: A Psychosexual Historical Study of the Children of God’s Leader, David Berg,” sociologist Dr. Stephen Kent (University of Alberta) offered a psychodynamic portrait of the CoG founder which chronicles the real (and in some instances, perhaps imaginary) sexual horrors he faced in his youth. In this study, Dr. Kent depicted Berg as a tortured soul., under the thumb of a demanding, hypocritical, and hypercritical mother. He could only find his own sense of authority after her death. But without her to whip him into line, he had nothing else to keep him in check. And because of profound psychological damage, Berg didn’t have it in him to channel that angst, anger or betrayal into something positive. Instead, he developed the sexual dogma and policies of his ministry in a neurotic quest to exact vicarious revenge on his mother, not to mention real payback on his ex-wife (Jane Miller Berg, aka Mother Eve), and just about any woman he could get his hands on (literally).

Trouble began early for David Berg when one of his family servants took it upon herself to molest him until the age of three, when his mother happened to walk in on them. Berg’s mother, Virginia, physically attacked the woman, about whom Berg spoke fondly for the remainder of his life.** In a Mo Letter titled “Revolutionary Sex” (GP, 27 March 1973), he wrote:

SO, YOU SAY‚ IF ONANISM IS NOT MASTURBATION, THEN WHAT ABOUT MASTURBATION?—Isn't that one of the prohibited sexual offenses? My mother certainly prohibited it‚ told me it was very naughty and dirty, slapped my hand for doing it when I was little, and even threatened to cut it off if I didn't stop! She even slapped our poor little Mexican maid out of the house in Oklahoma when I was only three years old when she caught her putting me to sleep in this pleasant fashion, a common practice amongst many other more primitive cultures! So I soon learned that you not only weren't supposed to do it in front of other people or even members of your own family, but absolutely not at all, that it was strictly forbidden‚ naughty, nasty, dirty, bad, wicked, sinful and maybe even worse! I was told all those false old horror tales of all the people who got terrible diseases, wrecked their health and went insane by doing it! [emphasis original]

Examining the above passage, Dr. Kent noted not only the molestation, but Virginia Berg’s reaction to it. Rev. Virginia (left) was not just any itinerary preacher. She was a bit of a rock star among clergywomen who, like her contemporary Rev. Aimee Semple McPherson, packed ’em in with a combination of fiery rhetoric and sex appeal. Virginia commanded much more respect on the Bible circuit than her husband and fellow minister, Hjalmer. So through much of his early development, David’s care was left to various relatives and servants, in this case a Mexican woman, whom he called Maria.

While we can certainly understand Virginia’s reaction as a defense against her son’s molestation, David understood something entirely different. This maid was the adult female of his life, an ersatz mother who not only bonded with him emotionally, but gave him physical pleasures to boot. His mother’s violent reaction to her therefore left him with feelings of guilt, for Berg understood that he was somehow the cause of the assault. Most important, he saw it as an act of betrayal. As he wrote in a Mo Letter titled “Real Mothers” (DFO, 18 November 1975):

EVEN THAT POOR LITTLE MEXICAN BABYSITTER MY MOTHER SLAPPED OUT OF THE HOUSE WHEN I WAS THREE FOR PUTTING ME TO SLEEP BY FONDLING MY PENIS, I even felt that was unjust and unfair! I don't think I ever forgave my mother for that, really. I thought that was very very mean and unfair when the poor little girl was only trying to put me to sleep!--Besides, I liked it!

I LIKED IT WHEN SHE PETTED AND SUCKED MY PENIS TO PUT ME TO SLEEP--AT THREE YEARS OF AGE! Well, why shouldn't I?--I still like it! [emphasis original]

Furthermore, if his mother reacted that strongly, David, as a three-year-old, must have felt as though he had done something terribly wrong. As Dr. Kent wrote:

A female adult manipulated his penis and may even have orally copulated him.... He liked the physical sensationm, but he seemed distressed at seeing the maid who had fondled him get violently expelled from the house by his mother, who in turn made him feel fearful and guilty over his sexual urges and sensations.

If he could no longer be with the one he loved (Maria the Mexican maid), Berg would have to settle on loving the one he was with (his hand).*** His masturbatory habits infuriated his mother, who would continuously chastise him when she caught him doing it. The situation came to a head four years after the Maria incident when she caught him yet again. Violently outraged, Virginia went into the kitchen to grab a large butcher knife, then assembled the entire family and all the servants. In front of his father, two elder siblings, and everyone else Virginia gave David a choice. He could either (1) strip naked and masturbate to climax in front of everyone, or (2) she would simply chop off his penis. Reliving the incident in a Mo Letter titled “My Childhood Sex!--Doin’ What Comes Naturally” (DO, 8 November 1978), Berg wrote:

SHE BROUGHT A WASHBASIN, A LITTLE BOWL & A KNIFE, & SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING TO CUT IT OFF! Oh, I was terrified! I was absolutely petrified! I almost never forgave my mother for that, threatening to cut it off & embarrassing me in front of the family! But that didn't stop me. It felt too good to quit! I just kept it up in secret, my terrible secret sin! [emphasis original]

Later that year, while staying with relatives, Berg engaged in sexual intercourse with a cousin about the same age. According to him, she initiated the contact after watching her parents do it the night before. Berg remembered the experience as a little painful, but otherwise quite enjoyable. He became so engrossed in the act, in fact, that he didn’t pay any attention to his surroundings until they had finished--whereupon he discovered, to his terror, that his uncle had watched the whole thing from the door. Despite the fact that he had just witnessed the deflowering of his seven-year-old daughter, this man didn’t think to stop them. Instead, he, like Virginia, invited the household servants to watch with him. Thinking that his uncle would tell his mother, David ran away, seeking refuge at a neighbor’s house for seven hours. To his surprise, no one mentioned the incident again. If the uncle told his mother, she apparently decided to keep the butcher knife in its drawer.

What you have at this point is a child, who, after undergoing a daily regimen of sexual assaults, acts out in a way that many other abused children do: compulsive self-gratification. Instead of realizing that her son had a real problem, one that he was in no way responsible for, Virginia Berg threatened him with a choice of castration or intense humiliation as if he could really control himself. By that point, he could not, for he saw the activity as immensely pleasurable, and could not genuinely see anything wrong with it. The only thing he could do, according to the above quote, was to stay mum on his “terrible secret sin.”

Berg’s relationship to his mother might have also been complicated by a factor that Dr. Kent didn’t discuss. While we might see Virginia’s reaction to Maria the maid as one originating from the maternal instinct to protect, one could also speculate that she might have reacted more out of jealousy. In resenting Maria for having a closer relationship to her son than she, it’s possible Virginia might have also envied their sexual intimacy. In a Mo Letter titled “Sex with Grandma” (DFO, 11 June 1982), Berg candidly discussed the erotic tension within their relationship.**** And he strongly suspected that his mother had a deeply rooted desire to have sex with him, as evidenced when, by necessity, they had to sleep a night in the same bed:

I REMEMBER MY HEART WAS POUNDING & I WAS ACTUALLY SO EMBARRASSED THAT I DON’T RECALL SAYING A WORD! I think I was almost stunned speechless & even horrified that maybe my Mother was having sexual thoughts about me!—Which she may have been for all I know, & I wouldn’t blame her! Her husband had not been living with her for a long time & she was a woman with a lot of drive, of Jewish background—& Jewesses are notoriously very sexy—& here she was sleeping in bed with a strong virile young man, right next to him on a cold night, & now wrapped around him trying to get warm! She surely must have had some small sensation, if not more, even as I was having! [capitalization original]

AND PERHAPS IF I HAD NOT BEEN SO CONSERVATIVE & EXTREMELY NARROW-MINDED IN MY THEOLOGY & RELIGION AT THAT TIME & so absolutely frightened by my Mother’s seeming abandon at the moment, I might have reacted a little more responsively & perhaps have satisfied both of us & our tremendous sexual needs, & it could have developed into a beautiful sexual relationship! “*****

As mentioned earlier, Berg had a rather checkered career as an evangelist. One ministry kicked him out, ostensibly for his affair with an underage church secretary. And Rev. Fred Jordan, his main mentor, eventually fired him too. Family life became an economic and emotional struggle. In short, during his twenties, thirties, and forties, Berg floundered. His mother never let him forget it, either. She professionally regarded him as a third-rate Fred-Jordan clone, telling him that he would never amount to anything.

Rev. Virginia Berg wasn’t alone in her assessment. David’s wife shared her mother-in-law’s opinion. As Berg wrote in Mo Letter “Real Love Never Fails” (DFO, 31 October 1977):

I THINK IN MY LAST DAYS WITH MOTHER [his wife, Jane Berg], BEFORE I MET MARIA [Karen Zerby], I'D ALMOST GIVEN UP ON MYSELF. Mother had practically won me over to where I agreed with her that I was no good, of no account and could never accomplish anything, would never get anywhere, and I wasn't a man of God. I wasn't spiritual, I didn't pray enough or read my Bible enough, and I didn't get down on my knees and moan and groan like she did. I have sometimes, especially over her. [emphasis original]

From Berg’s language (e.g., he called Jane “Mother” and Zerby simply “Maria”) and his depiction of their relationship here and elsewhere, one could gather that he saw his wife and mother as quite similar in function, particularly in regards to their criticism of him (which he obviously saw as so much ball-breaking). Moreover, both women frustrated him to a significant extent: mother because of her lack of professional approval, and personal disapproval over his sexual proclivities; and wife because of her lack of professional approval, and because of her sexual rejection of him. Curiously, he regarded the sexuality of both women as intimidating, especially in their putative desire for him. As Dr. Kent explained:

Berg himself admitted to being 'so bashful and so holy that I was afraid to touch her [Jane] to loosen her up,'… and he could not touch his wife's breasts for perhaps a year…. For the first years of their marriage, David and Jane were too inhibited even to talk about sex… although somehow they were able to work things out sufficiently well enough that she allegedly was able to have multiple orgasms at some point in their relationship…. He remained irritated, however, about his wife's persistent habit of getting hungry or having to go to the bathroom "RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT all"….

Considered together, David and Jane's sexual life seems to have had deeply-seated problems--problems that afflicted them individually and as a couple. Jane, too, must have felt dissatisfaction with aspects of the marriage, since apparently she ran off with another man in 1960, after which 'David quickly went to retrieve her' (Hill, 1981, p.23).

Jane and Rev. Virginia Berg did differ in a couple of key respects. For starters David had a much longer personal history with his mother than he did with his wife. Most important, David Berg had always stood in the shadow of his mother, and would continue to do so until the late 1960s. After all, Berg came to Huntington Beach, CA at the request of his mother, whose last ministry serviced a growing number of Jesus Freaks, flower children and hippies. So, even then, as an evangelist, he took a back seat to his mother. Even his kids’ Christian rock band, Teens for Christ, upstaged him, as young people crammed into coffeehouses primarily to see them, not him.

Berg, in fact would never be free of his mother’s specter until 15 March 1968. On that date, Rev. Virginia died--a few months shy of her eighty-second birthday. As they say, with death comes rebirth. Born on that day, or shortly after, were David’s true colors. After forty-nine years of stifling himself, and fearing his mother’s wrath, her death uncorked five decades worth of piss and vinegar against the woman, and everything she stood for. As his elder daughter, Linda Berg Davis (who now goes by the name Deborah), told Dr. Kent in a 1988 interview:

[Davis]--Well, it was down at the Light Club [Teens for Christ‘s major venue]. He went down and spoke publicly, which he usually never did. Well, up to that time I don't think he ever had. He went down to the Light Club, and he got up, and the press was all invited to come and everything to hear . . . ; the press was there and all my grandmother's old friends.... And there he just blows them all away. He just damns the system and damns the church system . . ., damns the war [in Vietnam], damns the political system, damns parents for raising their kids wrong--I mean, oh, everything.... [A]ll of my grandmother's friends just . . ., you know, turned and didn't have anything to do with us after that. So it was kind of like all this vehemence of [sic: against] everything that he was disgusted with or mad about or--he just came out against it after she died. And [he] just began to practice what he really wanted to and how he really wanted to be.

[Kent]--So it sounded like he was not only damning the system, but also damning his own upbringing.

[Davis]--Yeah, his own--of course he was. He was damning his own upbringing, and it was too traditional, and it was oppressive. But he--like he never did it while my grandmother was alive. It was after . . . she was gone that he came out . . ., you know, when he came out with all of that.

In Freudian psychology, the id is the psyche’s wild child, the unbridled lust and desire that the human has for food, sex, power and everything pleasurable. The superego, on the other hand, is the law and order cop, the moralistic, authoritarian part of the psyche that tells us what we shouldn’t, mustn’t, or can’t do in order to stay within the boundaries society sets for us. Freud saw these two as forever in conflict with each other. The ego constantly has to mediate between these extremes to balance the desires of the individual with the needs of the community that supports him.

That’s why I think Dr. Kent was most astute in noting that Berg’s subsequent deviance towards authoritarianism and perversion came from having a weak, almost non-existent ego. While in pop-psychology terms it might seem impossible that someone so hideously narcissistic, self-righteous and self-centered as David could have a weak ego, in the true psychological sense this is exactly what happened to him. Virginia, in many ways, served as both David’s superego and ego. He never mediated between desire and responsibility. He just did what his mother told him to do--with the exception of gratifying his perpetual horniness; even then his mother‘s influence kept it from blowing up into what it would become. Consequently, his ego never developed. With the superego gone, the only thing Berg had left was pure, unadulterated id in concentrated form.

While Freudian psychoanalytic theory offers a satisfying explanation for that aspect of Berg’s being, Dr. Kent wisely noted that many aspects of David’s personality and psychology had little to do with Sigmund’s teachings. In fact, Berg had a real tendency to turn Freudian theory on its keyster.

________________
*'Antinomianism' refers to the tendency among religious sects to break with previously established rules, customs or traditions in deference to some new enlightenment or knowledge.

**Berg’s sister, also named Virginia, never really play a large role in the development of the Children of God, so I won’t distinguish between the two. All references to Virginia Berg here are to his mother.

***According to many sources, Berg began masturbating at the age of seven, after a Sunday School classmate recommended it. But Berg’s account here strongly suggests he simply took up where Maria left off.

****Because CoG members usually referred to Berg as “Dad,“ they considered Virginia Berg ‘Grandma.’

*****Despite his virulent anti-Semitism, Berg took pride in having distant Jewish ancestors. Whether or not he actually had Jewish ancestors, I’m not sure. Still, one can see in this, and in previous quotes, that Berg wasn’t the least bit politically correct.

To read earlier posts in this series, click here.