Women Are Not Property

Epstein and his enablers. The online "rape academy" with 62 million views in one week. College athletes enabled by their coaches. No, it's not all men, but it's certainly a lot of men. A recent article quipped that "It's not all men but it's always men". And yes, there are women who enable rapists — Ghislaine Maxwell is as guilty as Epstein was — but even when women are involved it's always for the benefit of men. A critical step to attacking the rape culture is for men to speak up and confront other men. 

Why don't men confront other men who are abusing women? One reason is the suspicion that the abused woman will defend her abuser. This happens, as any cop who responds to domestic disturbance calls will attest to. I ran into this problem in my own life over twenty years ago, I heard some shouting outside my bedroom window and saw a family member assaulting his girlfriend. I ran outside and intervened. When the dust settled, the abuser claimed that I had attacked him, unprovoked, and the girlfriend backed him up. Other family members took his side. After everyone left I realized that there was one person besides myself who had witnessed the assault. When I asked him why he didn't intervene and had remained silent afterwards, he told me he didn't want to get involved. 

And that sums it up. Men don't want to get involved. Maybe it's fear of the abuser turning on them, maybe it's a cynical belief that as soon as they get home the abuse will continue. Maybe they just think that perhaps she provoked him. Whatever it is, it has to change. This is not to suggest that women aren't perfectly capable of defending themselves. A few years ago I witnessed a customer in the bar where I was sitting grab a woman bartender, before I even knew what was happening the other two women on duty intervened and threw the guy and his two buddies out. But it's a fact of life that the typical man outweighs and is stronger than the typical woman. A man determined to abuse a woman who is by herself has the advantage. 

One strategy that some men employ to assist a woman who is the subject of determined unwanted attention is to pretend to be her husband or boyfriend, whereupon the "bro code" kicks in and the woman is left alone. Women will often tells the creep that she has a husband or boyfriend to fend off potential trouble. I'm not going to suggest not doing this, but why does it work? The reason the "I'm her boyfriend" intervention works is that men will respect another man's property while not respecting the personhood and autonomy of a woman. It's definitely the mindset of the creep in this scenario. He has zero respect for the woman's disinterest, for her right to determine with whom she will interact, for her very rights as an independent entity; but once it is suggested that she belongs to another man, he backs off. But what does this say about the mindset of the intervening man? True, he is to be lauded for involving himself and getting the other guy to back off, but he is doing it by pretending that the woman in question is his property. 

Okay, maybe the term "property" is a bit harsh. Maybe "under the protection of" is more politically correct. But it can't be denied that in terms of the larger culture we are going backwards in the realm of women's rights. The right-wing "trad wife" movement is advocating for a barefoot and pregnant past. Members of Congress are suggesting that the husband be the one to cast votes for his entire family, disenfranchising women. 

This isn't going to change because I write a blog about it, but it has to change. 

Stupid Social Security Reposts (Again)

This stupid post makes its way around Facebook periodically. No, I do not copy and paste, because it's mostly bullshit. The original post in ARIAL, my comments in bold courier font

Concerning Social Security payments, my contributions have been made for nearly 40 years on every salary I received. I always had a job. The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this.

Well, it's probably more than 1% that forwards it — because people are dumb. Social Security payments have been called "benefits" for as long as I can remember. It's nothing new.

I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

One thing that I don't understand though, is what is the big objection to calling a Social Security check (more likely a direct deposit) a "benefit"?. I met the requirements by having payroll tax deductions taken out of my paychecks and I BENEFIT from my meeting of those requirements. I guess the idiots who make these up got tired of getting "entitlement" explained to them.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

I won't argue against the figures that indicate that privately invested money would have yielded more retirement income than what the typical person receives as Social Security payments, but seriously, how many people would do that? Investing 15% of their income? Especially in the early years of lower income? Many people living paycheck-to-paycheck find it very difficult to save, let alone invest.
Even as it is, I just calculated that if I live until 80 I will receive roughly twice what I and my employers were FICA taxed over the course of my working life (51 years). I don't argue that it would be more than if invested in something like a mutual fund, but it's certainly more than if there was no Social Security.

A big myth is that what we "paid in" is our money setting in an account somewhere. The money that came out of our paychecks immediately was used to pay people who were then receiving benefits. OUR benefits are based on a formula that takes into account a portion of our lifetime earnings.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger "Ponzi scheme" than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer.

But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a "benefit", as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.

Just because they borrowed the money doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

There's another big inaccuracy in this copy & paste job. The whole myth of "they took our money & used it elsewhere". Until just a few years ago the amount of revenue collected via FICA payroll deductions exceeded what was paid out in benefits. By law, this surplus was invested in US Treasury bonds, which paid interest into the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). Right now it's reversed: the benefits being paid out exceed what is coming in, so the difference is being taken out of the SSTF. The SSTF balance will be down to $0 in around 7-10 years. After that payroll deductions of current workers will cover 70-80% of benefits payments. The whole "Congress raided Social Security myth" persists. Democrats blame the Republicans, Republicans blame the Democrats. But there's no blame needed, because it didn't happen. The Social Security Administration is required by law to invest any surplus in US Treasury Securities. This is what is meant when you hear about "the government" borrowing money from the Trust Fund. Look at what happens to your money when you deposit it in a bank. Even though there is a vault in every bank with cash in it, this does not represent all the bank's deposits. Once you put your money in a bank, a percentage of it is loaned out, and some is invested in interest-bearing securities. Currently, banks are required to have a cash reserve of 12% of assets. That means that 78% of what has been deposited in a bank isn't physically there in the form of piles of cash. It's earning its keep. This is similar, but not identical, to what happens to the surpluses in the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund, rather than sitting on a pile of cash, is freeing up the cash for current use, paying out benefits to current retirees. If, rather than investing in Treasury securities, the Trust Fund invested in private securities, it would be a similar situation, except that the cash would now be in the hands of private companies (or individuals), rather than the US Government. Having this cash in government hands, rather than private investors reduces the amount of borrowing needed to make up annual budget deficits.

Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it. Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

99% of people won't Cut and Paste this to their timelines. Will you?

Please, for the sake of our country, Copy & Paste. It's important. Then type Done!

This affects everyone! I don't know what the originator of this, or other Social Security posts, intends to accomplish. The problem isn't that Congress or a past president "stole" or "borrowed without paying back" our money, it's not that your direct deposits are called benefits or entitlements. What are the people who repost or share these posts demanding be done?

In reality, what needs to be done is to find a way to make up the 20-30% gap between revenue from payroll taxes and paid benefits that will exist when the Trust Fund is depleted in 8-10 years. Increase or eliminate the income cap? Increase FICA withholding by a percentage point? Means test benefits? Something that no one yet thought of? That's what we should be getting worked up about. Not these imaginary "raids", or whining about "our" money. Previous articles about Social Security: https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2020/01/social-security-tutorial.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2017/12/social-security-trust-fund.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2021/07/social-security-misunderstanding.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2018/10/entitlements-social-security-trust-fund.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/01/social-security-part-2.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/06/are-republicans-eliminating-social.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/01/social-security-part-1.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-myth-of-them-borrowing-or-stealing.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/05/another-blog-post-about-social-security.html

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part LI - Could I Be Fooled Again?

Am I susceptible to getting sucked into a cult again? Did my experience inoculate me from similar influences? Am I as smart as I think I am?

If the culture, as well as the state of technology in 1978 been what it is now, would I still have been convinced to become a cult member? What-ifs are "iffy" things, you never really know what you would have done if circumstances had been different, nor do you know what the cascading effects of your actions had been if you had chosen differently. But one of the main differences between now and then is the widespread availability of information. Not that all the available information is accurate, but it's orders of magnitude easier to not only access information, but also to spread lies. In 1978 the internet was a science fiction dream, not to mention the possibility of everyone holding a powerful computer in their pocket being outlandish fantasy. What would my teenage self have done if the internet and smart phones had existed in 1978? 

Me in 1978 was intensely curious not only about my own religion, but about other religions as well. Part of this was because I was bemused by the huge number of religions to choose from. In addition to Christianity, the faith I was raised in, there was Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others I was only dimly aware of. And not only that, besides Catholicism, which I was taught was "The" Church, there were a number of Protestant Churches. (I naively thought that the Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Baptist churches in my neighborhood were the extent of it) I visited the churches of the other Christian denominations in my neighborhood and read all that I could about other religious traditions. It didn't lead me anywhere. It wasn't until I met people from The Way that anyone so much as suggested that firm answers could be found. Since no one else was making any kind of case for determining truth, I defaulted to the only people I knew who at least attempted to do so. But what if resources available on the internet had been at my fingertips? Hard to say.

The vast pools of information would have definitely given me more options. A deep dive into Catholic theology may have served to convince me that truth could be found there, or the labyrinthine and evolving arguments on the nature of Jesus could have convinced me that it was all double-talk. Educating myself on theology would have likely inoculated me against the facile and simplistic descriptions of what Catholics and mainstream Protestants believed peddled by The Way. It's almost impossible to speculate what direction I would have gone in spiritually, but with virtually unlimited options, I doubt that I would have settled for joining one little group that claimed to have all the answers. 

Another question is easier to answer. When accusations of being a cult first surfaced in the late seventies, the information was scant. Newspaper articles by disgruntled ex-Way people or Christian pastors copied over and over so you could barely read the print were the main source of anti-cult information. I was never swayed by the information that I saw, mainly because it bore little resemblance to what I saw in my interactions with other Way people. Church centered people often threw the "cult" label around based mainly on doctrinal differences. I was far from convinced, and the attacks strengthened my resolve, kind of like a martyr. But in 2001, when Wayworld was roiled by accusations of sexual coercion and corruption in the lofty ranks of Way leadership the internet was available. It wasn't just people who objected to The Way's nonstandard theology or misrepresentations of fairly innocent situations, this time it was internet posts by people currently in The Way who shared very plausible stories that were consistent across wide parts of the country. People compared notes and researched Way beliefs and the background of The Way's founder. This information helped solidify my reasons for getting out. The problems that could with little effort be swept under the rug in 1978 were revealed in the bright light of day in 2001. 

Would I have gotten involved specifically in The Way if the internet had existed in 1978? Would I get fooled again? Probably not in that way, but I'm not so egotistical to think I'm so much smarter than the rest of society that I wouldn't have fallen for something. After all, I would still have been a naïve teen, searching for answers. The 1978 Tom hadn't seen or experienced everything that the 2026 Tom has.

The internet is not an unalloyed positive though. Millions of people have gotten caught up in outlandish beliefs based on unsupported and twisted information on the internet. Would I have become a wearer of the metaphorical tinfoil hat if all of this was available in 1978? Impossible to say. I can say that the one thing that my involvement in The Way and my escape from it have made me a skeptic. One of the positive aspects of the methods that The Way used to indoctrinate was by undermining the authority of what they called "denominational Christianity" (as if they weren't themselves a denomination). Naturally this was done in order to bolster their own credibility, but in most cases the contradictions in mainstream Christian doctrine and the misunderstandings of what was written in the Bible were correctly identified by them. The Way substituted unquestioned beliefs in their doctrine instead, but for most of us, the tendency to question and "research" was too ingrained. It proved their undoing. Once I was no longer involved in cult life I found that not only was I no longer interested in being a "joiner", I was skeptical of any dogmatically stated opinions, no matter whether it was religion, politics or any other category. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part 50 - Insidious Leadership Influences

One of the hallmarks of cult involvement is obedience to authority. If you're a cult member you're expected to obey, no matter what, and if you're a cult leader you expect unquestioning obedience all the time. Deviation from this standard is seen as no less than sin. How does this translate into the non-cult world? 

I didn't finish college. I didn't have any technical or vocational skills. In order for me to make a living wage at any job that I had, management was the only realistic path to make more money. Eventually I became good at it, but I first had to unlearn my cult's attitude toward management. As it happens I was first attempting to climb the management ladder while still involved in a cult. I was 19 when I first became involved with The Way International, and in my early twenties when I first became a manager. Add to the mix having grown up in New York City, where being direct is valued more than being "nice", contrasting me with the people I was managing. 

One of the core tenets of most cults, and The Way International was no exception, is that the leader is not to be questioned. This, of course applies primarily to a cult's "supreme leader", but it also applies to anyone down the line in any kind of leadership role — local or state leader, even parents. The presumed infallibility of any subsidiary leader is subordinated to the levels of leadership above him, but is considered sacrosanct within his area of responsibility. So much so, that even when a leader is shown to be wrong, or even kicked out of The Way, that leader's previous decisions are considered to be blessed by God and not subject to questioning by the peons. 

Shortly before I left The Way Craig Martindale, the Way's President, was forced out following legal action against him involving coerced sex with a follower. My thinking, and the thinking of many Way followers at the time, was that Martindale obviously did not have God's Word foremost in his mind — how could we trust the doctrine in the extensive series of classes that he had been putting together if he thought it was okay to cheat on his wife? His class series, The Way of Abundance and Power contained many novel takes on The Bible that many were unsure of, but the remaining leadership assured us that what he taught was still valid due to some mystical connection due to him being the "Man of God" at the time. 

The Way underwent a "civil war" during the late 80's after the death of its founder. Martindale, his replacement, had to deal with dissension amongst upper leadership and when the dust settled the organization had splintered leaving a stub of its former membership and leadership. This caused the new Way president to conclude that any questioning had to be the result of demonic possession. After all, he was the anointed  as the leader of God's people (he was literally anointed by his predecessor in an installment ceremony) and any dissension had to be rebellion against God. He adopted a "yelling" style of addressing the membership and became even more insistent on unquestioning obedience. While not universal, his style soon became the norm among subordinate leadership and his harsh methods of communication became the standard and influenced any Way men and women interested in becoming leaders. 

Leadership style was also something that set a terrible example to those of us who had less lofty leadership roles. Martindale's style, as I mentioned before, was yelling. His style could also involve name-calling and insulting those who weren't on board 100%. Think Donald Trump, but spouting Bible verses. This leadership template made its way down the ladder to local leadership, who also got their points across with unyielding bluster and yes, yelling. Even the ones who didn't yell, were inflexibly dogmatic in their approach. These were my examples of how to be a godly leader. Or even a secular leader.

In my work life I gravitated toward management roles — managing people and operations was something I was good at. Each year The Way put on a conference called God's Word in Business and Profession. In its early iterations it had sessions geared toward specific businesses and gave guidance on how to apply Biblical principles at work. There was an opportunity to meet with people in the same line of work and compare notes. Eventually it became just another "teaching" event, with nothing specific to business or profession. But I would attend these conferences and soak up the example of what being a leader meant and became a bit of a yeller myself. (To be fair, my own dad was a bit of a yeller himself. I respected his example as a father and picked up some of his habits in addition to the example set in The Way)

During most of my time in The Way in the nineties (after having been out during the eighties) I worked for the Omaha World-Herald newspaper as a Circulation Manager, but in 1999 I changed companies to become a manager with B&R Stores, a local grocery chain at one of their Super Savers. With the World-Herald my management was mostly at a distance, but at Super Saver there was much more face-to-face management. In my management series I talk about different types of managers, but in retrospect I was definitely a bad one in my first years there. In Managers Part-III - Sources of Power I cover the ways managers can assert their influence over subordinates. I relied upon what is called "Legitimate Power", which is simply the authority that comes with the title, rather than any personal charisma. I was swayed by my Way experience to think all it took was the title and the implied authority that came with it. In a cult like The Way that was all it took; if you're claiming that the title as bestowed by God, then anyone arguing with the cult leader was arguing with God. 

Of course in the real, non-cult, world, you can't claim divine favor in order to get people to listen to you. Nonetheless, I had internalized the idea that my job title entitled me to lord it over people. Even in the non-cult world this is not uncommon. There are several sources of management power: 

1. Legitimate Power: The ability to influence other due to one's position, office or formal authority
2. Reward Power: The ability to influence others by giving or withholding rewards such as pay, promotions, time off, etc.
3. Coercive Power: The ability to influence others through punishment
4. Expert Power: The ability to influence others through special knowledge or skills
5. Referent Power: Power that comes from personal characteristics that people value, respect or admire

Many managers, especially inexperienced ones, lead with a combination of numbers 1-3, while effective managers lead from number 4 or number 5. As a new, inexperienced manager I not only harbored the misconceptions about leadership that most rookie managers entertain, but I had the additional burden of years of examples of poor leadership from cult leaders — including the way that information was conveyed — by yelling. Even after I left The Way, the ingrained habits that I had developed didn't disappear. I gained a reputation for being rough on people and stalled in my advancement in the company. It didn't help that my immediate supervisor was a "nice guy" (not necessarily an effective manager, just very likable!) and the contrast between us made me look even worse. Not to mention my very East Coast personality! 

This isn't to say that there aren't managers out there who don't have cult backgrounds but are nonetheless dictatorial in their leadership style, I've worked for a few of them in my time. In my case it was the cult influence that molded me into the type of manager who expected unquestioning obedience and who yelled when I didn't get it. Fortunately I had several bosses who recognized my potential and took the time to show me how my approach was suboptimum. They gave me constructive feedback regarding my style and how it was perceived. By this time I was out of The Way and was open to different ways of doing things. By the time the company decided to rotate all the Assistant Store Directors (my position at the time) to different stores, I had rehabilitated my reputation and was viewed as a straight-talker, and was very direct, but a manager who coached and developed younger employees and managers. 

As time went by the template of dictatorial leadership started to fade. What really changed my outlook about leadership was a change in my immediate supervisor. The new boss was most assuredly not the same as the old boss! Not a "nice guy" at all. He was convinced that he needed to restore order to a lax work force after the benign leadership of his predecessor. He wasn't all wrong in his assumptions, but he came down hard on the managers and employees. We also got a new Human Resources Coordinator, a former school principal who was every bit as tough as our new boss. The change in circumstance — observing the affect the new guy had on morale, allowed me to see just how toxic my own approach had been. I spent a lot of my time talking people out of quitting in response to the new manager's style and the rest talking my boss out of firing good people. Within a short period of time I became the "good cop". 

In response to seeing someone else as the "bad cop", I began to reevaluate my own approach, putting my Way-influenced management style behind me, revisiting the management lessons I learned from "Managing Management Time". By the time I was transferred to another location a few years later I had completely rehabilitated my reputation among the managers and employees. Unfortunately corporate management still saw the "old me" and it was a long time before I saw a promotion. 

Cult involvement can be all-encompassing. It can affect everything you do. Even when you get out, it can take a while to flush the toxins out of your mental and spiritual system. What had been impressed upon me as godly leadership poisoned the career path that I had taken. It could have been worse but I eventually changed course. 

As part of my new approach I was far from a pushover. I still had employees who viewed any type of correction as getting "yelled at", and I was not at all patient with employees who persisted in arguing about everything. However, instead of yelling, or demanding blind obedience, my goal was to teach employees why they had to do things. 

We're all products of our environment, nature and nurture, and my environment for decades was a religious cult, which couldn't help by affect my outlook on life, but once out, I was willing to make changes and put it behind me. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part LI

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLIX - So, You Think You're NOT in a Cult?

Cultishness is not just one thing, it exists on a continuum. On one end there's the People's Temple of Jim Jones, which ended with scores of dead adults and children, on another end there are groups where people live among us, with regular jobs and ordinary lives, with the cultishness out of view. 

At several points in this series I have emphasized that what makes a cult isn't what you believe, it's what you do. Groups which are regularly characterized as cults often have beliefs that fall outside the mainstream, and are often viewed as "wacky", but what about those mainstream beliefs? Aren't they a little wacky too? 

The main reason that a belief is not considered crazy is that it's familiar. If you grew up in a "western" nation, it's likely that you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian community. Even if you're not religious yourself, the underlying assumptions are bound to have influenced you. Assumptions that there is a God, that there's an afterlife that includes some version of Heaven and Hell, that praying is something that you do. But if you were brought up without any religious influences, how likely would you consider any of those things? And if you are religious, are a regular church goer, your beliefs are a bit more specific: you believe that God exists as a Trinity composed of three "persons" who are at the same time separate and distinct, while the same; you believe that one of those persons became human due to a "virgin birth"; you believe that this person broke multiple laws of nature and physics (miracles); you believe that he was killed, but was alive again three days later and subsequently "ascended" into "Heaven" (when you know that there's nothing up there to ascend into) and on and on. You believe these things because someone told you to believe them. There's no way to objectively checks these things out, no way to verify them, yet you choose to believe them. As part of your belief you accept the authority of leaders (they may be ministers, bishops, or even the pope) as they extrapolate the beliefs in the religious realm and apply them to political, social and family matters. Everyone who believes differently than you is wrong, society must be molded to conform to your beliefs.

Sure, you're not in a cult.

Maybe you think that you're not in a cult because you're not being brainwashed. But you cling to your beliefs and will not even consider that other points of view might be valid. If someone in what you call a cult thought like that, wouldn't you consider them brainwashed?

Okay, well, you're not drinking poisoned store brand Kool-Aid knock off, or letting your teenage daughter marry the Man of God. But those are just the extremes. There's plenty of cultishness in between free-thinking and group suicide.

Think about what you unthinkingly accept, and how you want those things to be imposed on everyone, and tell me again that you're not in a cult.

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part 50

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLVIII - Infallibility

Tied closely with the need for promoting division, the idea that the cult leader is infallible is an essential ingredient in cultishness. You'll probably never hear a cult leader unambiguously claim to be infallible, and often they will insist that they're not, but their action belie their words.

In the cult that I was a part of for many years, one of the attractions was that the cult leader was insistent that he would teach us how to read and interpret the Bible for ourselves and we would not be subject to any man's interpretation. He preached that the Bible in fact interpreted itself, and if you just kept in mind several "keys to interpretation", everything in the Bible was crystal clear and unambiguous. This, as I later realized, was bullshit. Even if you accept the idea that there is a way to glean the Bible's meaning without any ambiguity or contradictions, the shear number of groups, all insisting on different interpretations should put that idea to bed. 

When I first became involved in this cult there were few churches who claimed to encourage their members to study the Bible, rather than merely listen to what the pastor had to say about it on Sunday. Anyone who was saying that study of the Bible would result in understanding the Bible was rare, if not  unique. This is no longer the case, evangelical and fundamentalist churches and their members have multiplied across the land, and they all believe that their interpretation is the right one, despite multitudes of differing interpretations, all insisting that they're right. It's not so different in the political realm. Everyone is a Constitutional scholar these days, and anyone who thinks that the Constitution is clear and not open to interpretation is engaged in wishful thinking. But I digress.

In any cult that professes to show the way by allowing self-study, you'll sooner or later run up against a disagreement with the cult leader. And the cult leader always wins the argument. Have you been studying as long as the leader? No? Then how can you even consider disagreeing with his conclusions? Do you have the spiritual connections that the leader has? No? Maybe come back when you do. Or perhaps the rebukes are a little softer. It's suggested that you should hold your objection "in abeyance", put it "on hold" until you are spiritually mature enough to understand. It doesn't take long, if you stick around, for you to simply stop questioning and accept whatever is presented to you. Interpretations and explanations by the leader that are clearly unsupported start to sound logical. You start spouting them yourself, even though you really can't explain them. You internalize what you've been told and convince yourself that it all makes sense. You eventually reach the point where you can barely tolerate differing opinions, because in your mind, what you believe is so self-evidently true, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. 

One example of the cult I was in parroting something the leader said despite the evidence of their eyes involves a book called Witness of the Stars. It was written in the 1800's by an ultra-dispensationalist Anglican minister — its premise was that God had arranged the constellations in such a way that they told the story that is written in the Bible. The cult's founder latched on to this theory. One of the things he used to say regarding it was "there's no stars in the north" (never mind why he said that — it's a long story). But if you look at the northern sky there is no shortage of stars! Years later his successor claimed that he had figured out what he meant: there were no stars in the "gap" between the constellations of Ursa major and Ursa Minor. But guess what? There are stars visible to the naked eye there too! I once asked a leader to explain that to me. The "answer" was that there were no telescopes in Biblical times, so they couldn't see those stars. What? Even something that could clearly be seen to be false had to be "explained" so that it wouldn't look like the Man of God had made a mistake. 

Things that can be checked physically, however, are rarely where a cult leader invests his authority. It's usually the interpretation where he claims his connection to truth. As I have pointed out in other parts of this series, the road to establishing an aspiring prophet's bona fides begins with undermining conventional authority. For a religious cult examples of how mainstream Christianity deviates from what's actually written in the Bible aren't difficult to find. Oftentimes they're insignificant, not having any real effect on core doctrine, but they serve the purpose of pointing out the perception of erroneous teaching. Contradictions, real or perceived, within the Bible are also abundant. The cult leader, now that he has succeeded in undermining the credibility of the consensus authorities, offers his own explanations for the contradictions, how they're not really contradictions, at the same time chastising the mainstream denominations for ignoring these apparent contradictions. By now it's clearly established that the cult leader knows what he's talking about and can graduate to inventing his own unique doctrines. The cult members had been groomed to be so enamored with the cult leader's wisdom and godliness, that they will accept virtually anything he says as truth. 

In order for a cult to maintain control whatever the leader says has to be treated as Truth. The core beliefs have to be treated as beyond question and dissenting views as ridiculous or even dangerous. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIX

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLVII - Division

"Can't we all just get along?"

If you're running a cult, or just in a cult, the answer is an emphatic "NO". Cults don't maintain their allure by being like everybody else, they do it by pointing out, without equivocation, that they are most certainly different, in all ways, from everybody else. An atmosphere of isolation, if not physical, than assuredly mental, is cultivated to accomplish two related goals. The first goal is to instill a feeling of uniqueness, of being special, set apart, in the followers. A second goal derives from the first — to portray anyone outside the group as being deficient in some way: ignorant, weak, stupid, or even evil. 

The goal of instilling a feeling of being special is often accomplished by presenting the followers with supposedly secret knowledge. People want to feel like they know something that nobody else knows, that they are privy to information that is not widely known. Consider how popular what we generally call conspiracy theories are. The Moon landings were fake; Obama was born in Kenya; 9-11 was an inside job and a plane really didn't hit the Pentagon that day; a Democratic Party run pedophile ring is being run out of a pizza restaurant basement (that doesn't have a basement) in D.C.; and of course, Trump (and Kari Lake) won their elections by a landslide. The cult that I was a part of accomplished this by finding the weak points in what most Christians believed about the Bible and pointing out what appeared to be contradictions. They then provided explanations that appeared to make more sense than what most denominations taught. This approach served to undermine any confidence in what orthodox Christians believed and cement the reputation of the cult leader as a teacher of The Truth. 

Once the reputation for promoting "accuracy" is established, cult control takes two parallel paths: one is the demonizing of outsiders by claiming that what the cult teaches is godly, so everything else must be devilish, evil; the other path promotes the idea that the cult leader is never wrong in his pronouncements. I'll tackle infallibility in my next post, but this demonization is critical to maintaining division between the cult and "the world", i.e. everybody not in the cult. 

Once the idea of this sharp division between the cult and "the world" in solidified, loyalty to the cult and its leader becomes the only option, even in the face of red flags and even irrefutable evidence of abuses. Cult members may recognize that something is wrong, that they are being taken advantage of or abused, but they believe that the alternative, returning to the evil outside world, is worse. True believers don't even get as far as doubting — they simply refuse to accept that anything bad has occurred and chalk it up to attacks from demonic forces trying to "take down" the cult and its leader. 

Anyone who is even minimally politically engaged will notice how this describes the supporters of former president Donald Trump. From the beginning of his political career, promoting division was his method of securing loyal followers. Democrats and liberals have been assigned the role that Satan normally plays in religious cults, and Trumpists credulously believe whatever their leader tells them to believe. They ignore clear criminal activity, preferring to think (I use the word "think" very loosely) that the "Deep State" or the Media the media is out to "take him out". Any evidence that refutes what their cult leader says is called "fake news". Trumpism is a cult, and appears to have taken on a life of its own even if Trump himself appears to be losing influence. 

A side effect of the division that is promoted in a cult is that even personal relationships get redefined in this good vs. evil paradigm. If there is a disagreement between friends or family members or spouses, the argument can quickly become seen as a reflection of cult vs. the evil, demonic world. The individual who is more locked into the cult mindset, convinced that they are right, views the other person as evil in some way, "devil possessed", and incapable of being right. There is no place for consensus or compromise in a cult. The cult that I was part of went through a long period of purges, where strict adherence to the cult's beliefs were more important than recruitment; purity was valued above growth. People became quick to accuse others of being possessed, rather than work out their problems. 

An enforced division between "us" and "them" is essential to a cult maintaining its control of its members. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLVIII

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLVI - How Do Cults Retain Members?

What anyone who seeks to understand the workings of cults and why people are drawn to them need to understand is that it's not always obvious that there is anything bad going on. Anti-cult people often point at "wacky" beliefs without being aware of any actual abusive or harmful actions. 

People who have seen friends and family members get involved with cults often assume that their loved one has been brainwashed. Brainwashing, when mentioned by cult opponents, is often misunderstood, not only in how it works, but in its actual effectiveness. People assume that just because an individual changes their apparent focus or loyalties resulting in perceived changed behavior then there must be some malign influence causing this abrupt break. The truth is that for most people a cult, at least in the early stages is offering the recruit something that they want. They see the cult as a positive in their life. This becomes something that the cult can use to retain members. The new recruit sees what they believe are the obvious positives of cult membership while family and friends, believing that they see something that the new cult recruit doesn't, invest a lot of time and energy trying to convince their son, daughter, or friend, of the dangers of being involved, even suggesting that brainwashing is involved. This is bound to cause resentment and inevitably, a rift. In many cases the well-meaning family and friends don't really have a clear idea about why the cult is a cult, other than a vague suspicion of "the other". The cult plays up this rift, often predicting that it would happen as evidence that they're on the right path. Christian-derived cults point to similar statements by Jesus in the Gospels to "prove" that separating from one's family and "the world" is the way to godliness. You see this in politics as well, with the MAGA cultists often able to point to the opposition by "the Left" as evidence that they're right. 

In extreme cases, family members engaged in deprogramming. I don't know if this happens these days, but it was quite common in the seventies and eighties. My own parents, according to one of my siblings, consulted a deprogrammer while I was part of a Way program in Western Nebraska. The deprogrammer himself cautioned them that if it didn't take, they would lose me completely. 

I was aware of several attempts to deprogram people when I was in The Way, some successful, some not. Typically a deprogramming would begin with an invitation for the cult member to meet with parents for an innocuous reason, like a birthday or anniversary. The cult member would be told to meet his family at a hotel or at an out of the way location. Instead of his family he would be greeted by professional deprogrammers who would hold him against his will, often physically restraining him. The specific methods would vary, but the deprogramming target would be subject to non-stop attacks on his cult beliefs, his cult leader and his cult friends. Techniques like sleep deprivation would be employed. Most of these deprogramming attempts sounded more like brainwashing than what the cults did. It shouldn't strain the imagination to see how an unsuccessful deprogramming attempt would do more damage to the familial relationship than would staying in the cult. The existence of frequent deprogramming attempts, as well as societal anti-cult hysteria, served only to solidify an us against them mindset that cult leaders jumped on to justify continued membership. You must be involved in something good if "the world" is against you.

As I stated at the outset of this article, in most cults there's nothing obviously bad happening, at least initially. On the contrary, nobody joins an evil, controlling, abusive cult. They join groups that provide something that they value. Any problems are either not visible, or are ignored. It's only later that they realize that they did in fact join an evil, controlling, abusive cult. Most people, if they stick around through the honeymoon period, are in it for the long haul. This is true, not only of cults, but, for example, many jobs. At my last job, it was often said that if you made it to five years, you're a lifer. We had a lot of turnover among new people, but there's also many people who have been there for 30, 35 or 40 years. Cult leaders know this and typically refrain from coming down too heavy on new recruits so as not to drive them off before they have internalized the perceived benefits. While a new recruit is basking in whatever perceived benefits are accruing, the cult is also busy hammering home the message that what the cult has, nobody else can offer. For me it was the claim of Biblical accuracy. I was won over initially because I desperately wanted, not just to believe, but to know. The Way did a good job of convincing me that they were the only ones that were interpreting the Bible correctly — which was important to me. Once I was convinced of that, I was hooked. 

Once a cult member is hooked, convinced of the correctness and importance of the cult's central claims, a species of the sunk cost fallacy helps keep the momentum going (or inertia if you prefer). In economics "sunk cost" is the money or time that you spent that, no matter what else happens, you're not going to get back. The sunk cost fallacy comes into play when an individual uses the fact of those irretrievable expenditures as a rationale for continuing to expend time or money on the initial investment. For example, you buy a used car for $5,000. You soon realize that it's a lemon and spend $1,000 one month, $450 the next, and another $800 later on to repair its many problems with no end in sight. The sunk cost fallacy tells you that you've already spent so much on this bomb that you will have wasted all that money if you sell it now for $2,000. The victim of this fallacy doesn't consider that she may yet spend much more to repair the car and that taking $2,000, even if it's technically a loss, would put $2,000 in the bank and save untold future dollars. She is focused on the money that she will never get back, rather than preventing future expenses. 

Cult members often think like this, after a number of years they may notice problems - abuses and control issues — any number of red flags, but wave them off because they think that all the the time invested in the cult would be wasted, and even worse, their family who warned them that they were getting into a cult, would be able to say "I told you so". Pride is a powerful thing. Cult leaders hardly have to do anything to encourage this thinking. It's so intrinsic to human behavior that they just have to sit back and watch it unfold. 

Even when the red flags get too numerous to ignore, many cult members still hold on, balancing in their minds the perceived benefits against the abuses. This is similar to the dynamic that you see in an abusive relationship. The abused spouse often sticks with the partner who physically and mentally abuses, forgiving and repeatedly returning to the abuse. There's many reasons for this, but it comes down to a calculus where the bad and the good are put on a metaphorical scale and the good is imagined to outweigh the bad. This may seem insane and incomprehensible to an outsider, but it's a fact of human nature. A more prosaic example involves employment. How many of us continue in jobs that we hate? I would guess quite a few. Why would that be? The money outweighs the sexually harassing boss; the flexibility outweighs the long commute, could be any number of things, but it's math that we do every day with all aspects of our lives: we tally up the positive and the negative; if we decide that the positive carries more weight than the negative — even by a tiny bit — we stay with it. Cult involvement is no different. It only looks crazy to someone who hasn't been in the midst of it (but is in the midst of their own craziness). 

In short, cult retention of members isn't something magical; it doesn't involve brainwashing or blackmail, it's just a simple understanding of how people think and feel. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLVII

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLV - How Do Cults Recruit?

"Sincerity is the key, if you can fake that, you can achieve anything"  ~ Attributed to various people

Cults appeal to that part of ourselves that is searching. Sometimes what's being searched for is love, or a sense of belonging. Sometimes what's being searched for is answers, knowledge of the world: the mundane or the spiritual. Sometimes people are attracted to "secret knowledge". Cult recruiters have to be sincere  not appear as con men and women. Even if they are. 

Contrary to widespread belief you don't have to be stupid, or a broken person to get caught up in a cult. Shortly after I left The Way I was friends with a woman with whom I had many religious and philosophical discussions. When I revealed that I had been in a cult, her attitude toward me changed; she couldn't believe that someone whom she viewed as intelligent and discerning would be foolish enough get involved in a cult. She didn't realize that part of what made me discerning was that I had gotten out of a cult and knew their tricks. 

The recruiting tool that I am most familiar with, having been on the receiving end as well as employing it on others, was the search for answers, the search for knowledge. Love bombing, or overwhelming a potential recruit with attention and offers of friendship was something that I had heard about, and saw rarely, with hardly any success. Someone who is just looking for a friend, or who has a crush on one of the cult recruiters has, in my opinion, a shallow attraction to the cult itself. If there isn't enough commonality to maintain a friendship, or the crush proves to be not interested, that usually ends the involvement. I saw this with the family member who first introduced me to The Way. When her friendship with the local Way leader soured, her involvement ended. Seekers after knowledge, once hooked, tended to stick around, ignoring potential red flags. 

A cult recruiter who is offering answers though, is relying on the recruitee having just enough information to see the plausibility of the cult's doctrine, but not enough to be able to see through the subterfuge. They have to be able to undermine faith in the reliability of mainstream sources of information in order to strengthen the cult's position as the arbiter of truth. My initial exposure to The Way indicated that they at least thought that they had all the answers, and as I stuck around and enrolled in their classes, what they were teaching seemed to make sense and fit together. Of course, if I had any background in studying the Bible I may have spotted the weakness and contradiction in many of their positions. Unfortunately no one in my circle of family and friends had the knowledge to contradict what I was being taught. Once I was hooked, I became invested in their doctrines and was willing to overlook red flags because they were providing something I craved — knowledge of the Bible. Having access to that knowledge outweighed the problems that I encountered along the road, even in the early days. And it made me feel special — I enjoyed the feeling of possessing secret knowledge, that I was among the spiritual elite. 

And that's an important key to cult recruitment and retention: providing people with something that they want, and making them feel like they are part of something greater than themselves. Whether or not any of it is true. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLVI

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLIV - What IS a Cult?

There's no universally agreed upon definition of for cults. But there are some common features: 

1. Shared unquestioning commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology
2. Belief that the group has all the answers
3. System of behavioral control, including isolation
4. Dissent is not tolerated

Google "cults" and you'll likely find more characteristics, but the four I have listed are the main overarching categories. Note that I haven't mentioned unorthodox beliefs. Mainstream Christians often categorize groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (The Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses as cults based solely on their beliefs which deviate from the majority of Christian denominations. I won't argue with an ex-Mormon or former Jehovah's Witness if they tell me that they left a cult, but a Catholic or Protestant who accuses those groups of being cults is likely doing so based on what they heard about their beliefs. 

Sure, a belief that Joseph Smith received his revelation by translating the divine message that was inscribed on gold plates, or that the "Lost Tribes of Israel" moved to North America or that in the afterlife there's the possibility that we get to be gods of our own planets, just like God was once a mortal before his becoming God — sounds crazy. But does a virgin birth, a man ascending bodily into the heavens after being raised from the dead, talking donkeys and one family with a boat full of animals repopulated the world after a year-long flood make sense? No religion makes sense to those outside that religion. 

Among the four main indicators of cultishness that I cite, there is definitely a continuum. Many groups believe that they have all the answers, systems of control vary in seriousness and differ among different cultures, and how much dissent is tolerated can be situational. I grew up a Catholic, in my opinion there is some mild cultishness involved in being a Catholic. Most Catholics that I know would never even consider being anything but a Catholic, and if they think about it at all, consider that as far as religion goes, "The Church" has all the answers, but as long as one isn't too overt or obnoxious about it individual Catholics pick and choose what aspects of Catholic doctrine to adhere to. The dominant behavioral control among Catholics is peer or family pressure. 

A cult does not have to have a religious focus. A contemporary example of non-religious cult behavior is the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) followers of Donald Trump. There's an inarguable unquestioning commitment to a leader who is followed no matter what; they believe that in the realm of politics and governance, Trump has all the answers and dissent is most assuredly not tolerated. Even the behavioral control and isolation applies. Although they still have whatever jobs they had before becoming a Trump supporters, and are often involved in their communities, they have willingly isolated themselves from anyone who isn't 100% on board with their views. Anyone who differs is branded a socialist, anti-American, a traitor or even a pedophile. Not that different that a religious cultist claiming their opponents are devil-possessed. 

Cults come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but it's a cult's actions, their behavior, that defines their cultishness, not necessarily their beliefs. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIV

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLIII - The Ethics of Deprogramming

I'll argue that cults are generally bad things and people shouldn't get involved in them, but is it justified to forcibly remove cult members from the a cult?

Not usually. 

Of course, those cults that involve adult men with multiple teenage girls as their "wives", or if there is definite physical abuse going on, there should be intervention. But most cults are pretty boring. 

During my involvement with The Way International my parents considered "deprogramming" me in order to "free" me from my supposed mental imprisonment. They went so far as to consult with a deprogrammer, who actually talked them out of the attempt, pointing out that failure would mean that I'd likely never want to have anything to do with them ever again. They chose not to risk it. Mom and Dad never spoke of it, but many years later one of my sisters spilled the beans. At the time there was a lot of media focus on cults in the wake of the forced mass suicide at The People's Temple in Guyana. Parents whose children were in cults assumed that all cults were potentially going to end up like Jim Jones' followers. The cults that attracted the most attention also tended to have beliefs or practices (or both) that were far enough outside the mainstream as to appear "weird". The assumption was that the only reason that anyone would get involved in a cult was that they were brainwashed. Mind control was the only way to explain it. If you didn't think about it too deeply. 

Family members often point to how their loved ones "changed" after getting involved with a cult, not only their beliefs, but their behaviors and loyalties. But is that so unusual when new recruits to a cult are more likely to be young and actually looking to change their lives? Many people who have had family members join the military, especially those who have seen combat, could attest to the changes in the outlook of their loved ones. People change their political orientation all the time. A new cult member typically is looking for some meaning in their life and a cult often provides that meaning. Is it any wonder that they are often exceedingly gung-ho about their new life's focus? 

What about when the honeymoon period of cult involvement has ended and the cult member begins to experience some of the abusive treatment? Surely that's brainwashing? Not so fast! We can compare someone who stays in a harmful cult to someone who stays with an abusive spouse, sure that she loves the man who beats her every day, or is afraid that she won't be able to survive on her own. Or someone who hates their job but won't look for a new one. Justified or not, logical or not, people continue in harmful situations either because they fear that the alternative is worse, or have made the calculation that the perceived benefits outweighs the downside. I personally have done both — I stayed in a marriage that was mentally abusive because I was afraid that I'd lose my children and afraid to be perceived as a failure, rather than get out; I continued in a job that was terrible on many, many levels because I judged that the financial benefits outweighed the negatives that I had to endure. 

People join cults because they make a decision to get involved in something that they believe gives them what they want — whatever that may be. People stay involved in cults because they make a decision that staying in is the better alternative to getting out. Are they making the "right" decision? Who knows? Unless one knows all the variables in another's life, how can you decide what is best for that person? Spoiler alert: you can't. 

So what about deprogramming? You don't hear too much about deprogramming these days, or cults for that matter. But back in the eighties there were a lot of people making big money from the families of young people involved in cults. I know of several people who were the target of deprogrammers, some succumbed and left their cult, some escaped the deprogrammers and went back. What did deprogrammers actually do? Their first step was kidnapping the target of the deprogramming. Kidnapping! Often violently. The head deprogrammer sent hired muscle to abduct the target who would then be locked away from the world, often in an isolated farm house of hotel room. The abductee didn't usually even know what city they were in. They were allowed no contact with their fellow cult members, were not allowed to leave and sometimes were physically restrained. In one case that I know about personally, he had his shoes and socks taken away to deter escape! In extreme cases they were sleep deprived and subject to what could be described as torture. Various psychological methods of persuasion were also employed — the cult's beliefs were questioned and mocked, accusations made about the cult leader, and in one case that I am familiar with, the abductee's fiancée, who was also a cult member, was accused of cheating on him! The methods used by deprogrammers appear closer to what would be consider brainwashing than what the cults actually engaged in. 

If cults, in particular the one I was involved in, had brainwashed their members, it would stand to reason that it would be difficult for someone to leave. Yet during my own involvement I saw people freely walk away, new people, as well as those who had been in for decades. My own cousin, who got me involved, walked away within a year, presumably because she decided that it wasn't providing anything that she wanted or needed that she wasn't getting anywhere else.

Finally, in the United States we have the right of free association, as well as the right to the religion of our choice. No one has the right to forcibly convert (or de-convert) someone else...even if they think the other's beliefs are harmful — or weird.

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIV

Review article on Brainwashing: Part IX - Brainwashing

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLII - Blindness & Brainwashing

Recently, a family member referred to my time in the cult called The Way as "blindly following". Many anti-cult crusaders have referred to cult members as "brainwashed". I thought I had presented pretty clearly why I had gotten involved in The Way, why I stayed involved in The Way, and how I extricated myself without any help from the supposedly unblinded (no offense to my blind friends, by the way!) 

Most people who are involved in religion begin their involvement because it was their parents' religion. Some embrace their family's faith wholeheartedly, some observe the outward forms, others question it and start to follow a different faith. Of the outward observers, if you never discussed religion with them (it's a taboo subject after all) you might never know they weren't inwardly religious. Of the questioners, some of them give up on all religion, some, for various reasons, pick a new one. Some of those "new ones" turn out to be cults. 

But what makes a cult a cult? Not their beliefs. Every faith has beliefs that seem bizarre to those outside the faith, but seem perfectly normal to those who grew up surrounded by it. The religion that I grew up in believed:

• The creator of the universe somehow caused a virgin to become pregnant with himself
• The resulting child, when he reached adulthood, had to be killed in a blood sacrifice either for atonement, forgiveness of sins or as a sign of his love, or all three
• He rose from the dead after three days
• He physically levitated into the sky after a further 40 days
• This man, God, and the "holy spirit" are all "God", yet at the same time distinct "persons"
• This man and his followers could break the laws of physics at will
• It was possible to break the laws of physics yourself by praying to, not only this three-in-one God, but his mother (who also levitated into the sky without dying) and any sufficient holy followers who were coincidently dead

I could go on and on. Naturally this isn't how a Catholic would describe their beliefs, but it's the way it looks to an outsider. And a majority of the people in this country would subscribe to most of these beliefs. Non-Catholic Christians wouldn't pray to Mary or to saints, but you can't really argue with the rest. The purpose of the previous listing isn't to make fun of Catholics or their beliefs, but to point out that if you're going to make judgments about the "weirdness" of cult beliefs, take a look at your own. 

A related measure of cultishness is whether a group calling itself Christian has beliefs that are in line with Christianity. If you are of the opinion that you can objectively determine whether any group's doctrines are authentically Christian you're likely part of one of those groups that think they have a lock on the truth. The number of mutually exclusive versions of Christianity that exist is staggering. Sometimes the difference is their opinion on church governance: episcopal or by committee? Other times it comes down to the minutiae of Christology, which the rank and file don't understand anyway. And does anyone really understand the doctrine of The Trinity? If the Bible was as clear and unambiguous as Bible believers think it is, wouldn't you assume that there would be fewer competing versions? Or are they all Satanic, except your version.

Some people get it right and determine that a cult is a cult because of actions rather than beliefs. But again, they fail to pick the beam out of their own eye, such as the widespread coverup of child rape by the clergy of one major denomination or the ostentatious lifestyles of many ministers running megachurches.

There are a lot of reasons why people join and stay with cults. My reasons are pretty simple. 

As a young man I was dissatisfied with the lack of answers I felt that my church offered. There was too much "take it on faith" for my taste. So I started looking around. I went to services in the churches of other denominations. I read about different religions. I was getting nowhere fast. I was introduced to The Way through a family member who was attending Way meetings. This relative worked in the same office as the local Way leader. I have no idea what her motivations were, what she was looking for, or what attracted her. I do know that she stuck around for a few months and lost interest. So either she was immune to the brainwashing, or maybe there wasn't any brainwashing. I stuck around. 

Why did I stick around? Because it made sense to me. They tried to make it make sense. Granted, it was all based on the premise that the Bible was inspired by God, but that was no different than any Christian denomination. There was little "take it on faith". Anything that we were expected to believe was documented in the Bible. Sometimes pretty poorly, but documented nonetheless. This appealed to me. Even though I didn't have the theological background to be able to separate the serious Biblical research from what turned out to be pretty shoddy exegesis, it was more than I was getting from my church leaders. In fact, I gave my parish priest the opportunity to address the discrepancies between Catholic and Way Biblical interpretation. All I received was a smirking reference to 2000 years of history. If I was going to go with longevity I'd become a Hindu. 

During my early days in The Way it was obvious that my family disapproved. Almost 50 years have gone by, so it's difficult to ascertain exactly what they disapproved of. The most obvious thing earning their disapproval was that I was leaving The Church. All branches of my family that I am aware of have been Catholic for many generations. In addition to the religious devotion, Catholicism was cultural. Our particular neighborhood was made up mostly of White Catholic ethnic groups. I don't think I was aware of Protestants until I was in high school. My own parents were very religious — my father attended mass every day if possible. I still remember the look of anger and disappointment on my Dad's face when I told him I was no longer going to mass since I no longer considered myself a Catholic. The theological grounds for disapproval were probably related to the disapproval of simply being not-Catholic, but since most Catholics were not steeped in the myriad details of the Bible they were unable to address my confident (or arrogant) assertions that I now was in possession of The Truth. It's possible that they were swayed by the long shadow that had been cast by The People's Temple mass "suicide" in Guyana a year after my initial involvement. A group that had been labeled a cult had done something heinous, therefore, in the minds of the general public, any group labeled as a cult was equally dangerous. Unfortunately the cult appellation had been applied without any subtlety, usually slapped on any group that differed doctrinally from what was perceived as the mainstream. Down deep, I think what made my parents think I was "blinded" or "brainwashed" was their perception that I had somehow "changed".

There's nothing like the enthusiasm of the newly converted. Whether it's religion or politics or the newly sober, it's the new recruit who is loud and in your face about it. And I sure was in everyone's face about it. It started out during the three-week introductory class. I'd come excited about some new thing I had learned and want to talk about it. To be clear, this wasn't some doctrine spun about billion year-old space aliens storing souls in a volcano, or Jesus appearing to the Native Americans, this was stuff that you could trace directly to a Bible verse or two. Of course I was excited, this is what I had been searching for: answers! In response to the obvious discomfort that my parents had with what I was sharing, my mode became less excited and more arrogant that I had The Truth and they didn't. I suppose I had changed.

What my parents didn't know that in addition to my search for spiritual truth, I was also kind of drifting. I had no real goals, was doing poorly in school (not due to lack of intelligence, but lack of ambition) and was drinking a lot. I wasn't taking any hard drugs, but it's likely that I would have gone that path if not for The Way. Being involved in The Way gave me a sense of direction that came of being intimately involved in something greater than myself. I had a mission, I had purpose that I didn't have before. Making "moving the Word", i.e. proselytizing. Maybe my priority seemed weird to my family, and evidence of an unwelcome and unhealthy "change", but I don't want to see that alternate history where I didn't have that set of goals. 

After a year I moved into a series of "Way Homes" with other Way people, and a year later left the state as part of the missionary program called Word Over the World (WOW). I had planned on entering the Way's leadership program, The Way Corps, but was unable to put together the tuition. A lot of people, including my family, thought that my wanting to cut ties and move to another state as a WOW was prima facie evidence that I was in a cult. The truth was that only a small percentage of Way members at any given time were part of any of their programs, and some never were involved beyond the twice-a-week "Twig" meetings. The heavy involvement was mostly people my age (19-22 at the time) — people with children at home, or retirees, or men and women with professional careers tended to live outwardly normal lives. In my early days I saw few attempts at controlling the daily lives of Way members by the leadership, and there was no concerted effort to keep people from leaving. People left all the time.

After one year as a WOW I elected not to return to New York and got married, getting two stepsons in the deal. I lived pretty normally for a while, even dropping out of Way involvement (but not Way beliefs) for a few years. When my wife and I returned to active involvement we found that The Way's founder had died and that a power struggle had broken out. When the broken glass had all settled, the founder's designated successor was still in charge, but 80% of the members and leadership and split off to start their own groups. The leader, having survived the coup attempt, became increasingly paranoid and instituting greater and greater controls. Public pronouncement's became more and more unhinged and practices and doctrines became more oppressive. There were purges. I stayed through all of that. Why?

Why does anyone stay in an uncomfortable, or even dangerous, situation? Why do people stay in crappy jobs or women with abusive husbands? I had decided, at least for me, that an accurate "true" teaching of the Bible was worth something. Right or wrong, I thought that The Way taught the Bible correctly, and I didn't know of any church which taught it any better. Certainly not the church of my youth, my return thereto being the subject of many family prayers. The abuses and attempts at control didn't come all at once, like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, and it was a while before they came for me. For me, I was balancing the pros and the cons every day. Eventually the cons outweighed the pros. 

Rather than following along blindly, or being pitifully brainwashed, I made decisions every step of the way. Were some of these decisions based on false information? Absolutely. The Way's founder wasn't the great Biblical researcher that he made himself out to be. Were some of them based on wishful thinking. Also absolutely. Are "cult" members unique in making decisions that turn out to be bad, or get involved with and stay in bad situations? No. 

Don't assume that us ex-cultists are somehow different from the rest of you.

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIII