Posted by Carol on August 07, 2004 at 04:10:55
I just finished reading "Life in The Family: An oral history of the Children of God," by James D. Chancellor.
One of the first things that hit me, especially in the interviews with Peter Kelly and Noah--who appears to be a very highly placeed PR guy in the US--is the frequency with which Kelly or Noah say something to the effect that, "I never thought about it that way." I also noticed this pattern in the interviews with First Generation disciples about their understanding of a given situation or doctrine--longtime members just don't do a lot of thinking beyond what is immediately apparant to them.
Very few of the people interviewed by Chancellor seemed to be able to look at something Berg wrote or an event occurring within the community and see the short or long-term implications of a particular teaching or the movement's social dynamics at the time things were happening. Of course, when these same people are asked to look back and talk about how things played out historically, THEN they can see how Berg's teaching might have been "misinterpreted" or "taken too literally" or --perhaps-- how Berg himself was responsible for the subsequent unfolding of catastrophic events, such as raids on Family homes for child abuse.
As a group, Family members aren't particularly gifted with insight into the implications of their beliefs or likely outcomes associated with their actions. Family members in Chancellor's book keep saying, "mistakes were made" (passive voice, as though they don't quite know how to identify WHO made the mistakes), but also, "we made mistakes" (collective voice, as though individual responsibility for a decision doesn't exist). I think one mother may have actually said "I made a mistake" with regard to exposing her daughter to sexual exploitation as a child.
The feminist in me wants to respond: Yes, you made a mistake, sister, but so did the man who raped your child. Has he been investigated for that crime? Or has he "repented" (moved on) to a leadership position of power and influence where he can get away with perpetrating on other young girls? Or better yet, has he "repented" (wised up) to where he's content to share with the ones who are just barely legal?
Peter Kelly says, "Yes we made mistakes, but we learned from our mistakes." OK, The Family figured out adult/child sexual contact isn't a good idea. They figured out that aggressive public witnessing leads to prison and expulsion from Moslem countries. They figured out escort services really are about prostitution and not about witnessing the gospel message. They figured out that some former members aren't "backsliders" but really were seriously hurt by the organization, and it's good public relations to make amends with people they've wronged. They figured out that trying to beat teenagers into submission doesn't work, and maybe they should try supporting and empowering young people in their aspirations. And on, and on, and on.
From the Family's perspective, each mistake is viewed as a different lesson to be learned, and all mistakes are "in the past"--Like what happened five or ten years ago has no logical relationship to the set of circumstances they must deal with in the here and now or the immediate future. With the First Generation, the past never seems to inform the present in a very meaningful way. "Well, we'll never do X again. Oops, we'll never do Y again. Yeah, my bad--I'll never do Z again, either."
But what if X, Y & Z aren't separate, unrelated events, but in fact share a common set of causal factors? There seems to be some consensus in Chancellor's book that "bad leadership" has been a fairly consistent problem from the beginning of the Family's history and that the RNR didn't exactly fix the problem. Of course, "bad leadership" is like the passive condition in which "mistakes were made."
Family members in Chancellor's book can point to specific leaders in their immediate experience who were cruel, harsh, corrupt, hypocritical, or just plain stupid, but they aren't able to follow the logic of "bad leadership" all the way up to the top. Some people can admit that Berg had some "weird ideas" and was "really out there," but that's about as far as it goes. Nobody seems to see the role that Karen Zerby and Peter Kelly have played over the last 30 years in formulating "bad leadership."
Another major factor I see underlying the Family's pattern of mistakes is the notion of "revolutionary" discipleship. What this stance does is put Family members in a counter-dependent position. How could they explain their bad choices if they didn't have the System as a starting point for what they don't want? I mean, they might have done some really horrendous things to their kids, but can you IMAGINE what they would have done if these kids had been raised in the System? (Chancellor actually makes this typical Family thinking error in one of his Cornerstone articles.)
The rejection of "the System" is a rejection of all the wealthy of information produced by human institutions and relationships that make up a highly complex world. What this means in practical terms is that people who dedicate themselves to the "ideal" Christian life in The Family are continually re-inventing the wheel.
The fact is, thousands of years of human history and social evoluation have taught people a few things. More to the point, two thousand years of Christian faith lived out in a myriad ways has taught people who embrace that particular religious identity and who follow that particular spiritual path a few things that work in their favor and many things that don't. But because the Family has to keep re-inventing the wheel (they are revolutionary!), they keep running the vehicle of their faith off the road into the ditch.
"Oops, learned from that, didn't we? No more square wheels. We're using hexagons this time. Round wheels? Hell no, we don't use Antichrist Systemite wheels in The Family--that wouldn't be revolutionary!"
In my classes on family systems theory, I was taught a concept called "second order change." What second order change signifies is a fundamental shift in the dynamics of family relationships. If there's been a problem with power and control, with a second order change there is an appreciable redistribution of power and reorganization of the control mechanisms.
I'll start to believe The Family has changed in a significant way--that is, the organization shows evidence of second-order change--when they quit trying to re-invent the wheel. I will assume they have quit trying to re-invent the wheel when there has been an appreciable redistribution of power and reorganization of the control mechanisms.
The real test of the Family's survival will come when Zerby & Kelly fade into their dotage and members of the second generation take charge. We can only hope that these "heirs to the kingdom" aren't the short-sighted, counter-dependent blockheads their parents were.