Sex, Slander, and Salvation

Investigating The Family / Children of God
Edited by James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton

Center for Academic Publication
Stanford, California (1994)
ISBN: 0-9639501-2-6.

This compilation includes 16 comprehensive studies by scholars and experts from the fields of comparative religion, psychology, sociology, anthropology, law enforcement and theology.

To order a copy of Sex, Slander, and Salvation please contact
E-mail: family@thefamily.org

·          "Heaven's Children": The Children of God's Second Generation -- Susan J. Palmer

·          Update on "The Family": Organizational Change and Development in a Controversial New Religious Group -- James T. Richardson

·          The Family: History, Organization and Ideology -- David G. Bromley & Sidney H. Newton

·          Psychological Assessment of Children in The Family -- Lawrence Lilliston & Gary Shepherd

·          Field Observations of Young People's Experience and Role in The Family -- Gary Shepherd & Lawrence Lilliston

·          Keeping the Faith and Leaving the Army: TRF Supporters of the Lord's Endtime Family -- Charlotte Hardman

·          The Children of God and The Family in Italy -- Massimo Introvigne

·          From "Children of God" to "The Family": Movement Adaptation and Survival -- Stuart A. Wright

·          The Children of God, Family of Love, The Family -- David Milikan

·          The Family: Where Does It Fit? -- J. Gordon Melton

"Heaven's Children": The Children of God's Second Generation

Susan J. Palmer - Dawson College

Susan J. Palmer received her Ph.D. from Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, where she worked on a research project involving new religions, directed by Frederick Bird. She has engaged in research projects in new religions funded by the Social Science in the Humanities Research Council in Ottawa, and teaches in the Religion Department of Dawson College.

On September 8, 1993, I was flying over the Grand Canyon to visit The Family in Los Angeles. The leaders in L.A. had found out about my SSHRC grant to study children in new religious movements (NRMs) and had demanded, "We need to be studied, so why don’t you come out and study us?" They had offered unlimited access and cooperation (in contrast to Quebec NRMs I’d approached who definitely didn’t want me snuffling around their kids).

Looking down at the purple-orange crusts of the Grand Canyon, I thought of my family’s "warning", "What if you get hauled off to jail in the middle of the night as a child molester?" I didn’t know what to expect--utopia or distopia?

One week later I was back in Montreal, and everyone seemed to inquire, "Well, do they? Do they abuse their children?" "No, they don’t, I’m convinced of it." My friends looked doubtful. "Are you sure? That’s not what Time magazine said. How can you be so sure?" Now that I know the disciples, have studied their literature and tried to figure out their history and communal patterns, my own common sense is telling me these allegations of "kidnapping, rape, sodomy, and child abuse" are ludicrous--but it is difficult to convince others.

After living with the Family for an action-packed week and pouring over the Mo Letters, I decided that perhaps these people were, after all, merely Christian Fundamentalists with a heavy millenarian and communal emphasis. ... They "mess up" our categories, our preconceptions concerning the sexual repressions and hypocrisy of Christian Fundamentalists, particularly those who (like Father David) are inclined to denounce sin, doomsday, abortion and "sodomites."

One must consider that religious founders often display unconventional approaches to the moral dilemmas and obsessions of their age, and an uncanny ability to predict future trends through setting up laboratories of social, sexual and familial experimentation. Thus, the changing sexual mores and patterns of marriage and parenting from the COG days to the present might be analysed as reflecting, magnifying and occasionally even parodying social tensions and moral trends in the surrounding culture.

In attempting to chart the changing communal patterns and the development of parental roles and models of childrearing, I relied upon three sources: 1) Interviews; 2) 50 questionnaires were filled out, 35 in the San Diego Home and 15 in the L.A. Media Home; 3) A study of a cupboardful of COG to Family literature.

The Mo Letters mirror and magnify these larger shifting social dilemmas and it would be fairer to treat them as an exploratory narrative, rather than as evidence of pathology when quoted out of context.

My purpose in writing down my thoughts and experiences of the past week is to convey my impressions of life in The Family today, as related by an outsider who at least strives towards the elusive ideal of "objectivity." Next, what I find most extraordinary about The Family at this phase in their history is their success in socializing their children who, it seems, have absorbed their parents’ fiery evangelical spirit and intense religious commitment. Since Foster (1) (1981) and other historians have observed that one of the main causes for the decline of two great utopias in American history, the Shakers and Oneida Perfectionists, was their failure in inculcating religious values in their children, I am going to address the issue of how The Family has accomplished this feat. Finally, I feel compelled (more by a feeling of exasperation than by a larger sense of justice) to refute the lies and gross inaccuracies inundating the mass media concerning The Family--and to present my own theories as to why this particular NRM invites this currently fashionable brand of religious persecution--allegations of child abuse.

The media portrait of "the sex-for-salvation cult" suggests aging baby boomers enslaving and molesting little children. What I actually encountered was a society run by dynamic teenagers and young adults born into the movement. Attractive and clean cut, they brought to mind the Pat Boone Show rather than the ragged hippies who "forsook all" to become Children of God. Trained in music and choreography from an early age, they perform on the streets and make the outreach videos; they teach the children, preside over devotional services in the Homes, and deal with the public.

The Home in San Diego was a large, ranch-style L-shaped house with a swimming pool. After I had been introduced to the 15-odd adult brothers and sisters and finally mastered the ritual hug, I was taken on a tour. It was during the two-hour "Rest and Word" period (2:00-4:00 p.m.) and all the children were asleep. ... Four little "MC" boys (Middle Children) of 6-8 [years of age] lay in their bunks beside a fan’s cooling buzz. I was interested to note that they segregate their children’s sleeping quarters by sex at an early age. ... The children’s rooms were clean and pleasantly arranged, from the YC’s (Younger Children) of 3-5 [years of age] to the OC’s (Older Children) to the OT’s (Older Teens). On viewing the five empty bassinets in the Infants and Toddlers’s room, I asked, "Where are the babies?" "With their mothers," was the logical reply.

Two young teachers introduced me to The Family’s rich and extensive literature on childbearing and education. Parents consult the three-volume Childcare Handbook (1982), and the book Raise ‘em Right, which is a compilation of writing and theories from secular sources. The educational material used in their home schooling program contains a broad range of information in the same subject areas found in public schools. The main difference lies in the rejection of Darwin and the emphasis on Bible studies, prophecy and prayer. Various teaching methods are employed--books, workbooks, Family-produced "GAP" videos, a (secular) Skillbank computer course on reading, comprehension, dictionary, language tutorial, composition, grammar, spelling ("We consider it pretty godly") and field trips. The Family’s schooling has been registered under an umbrella school, and they periodically hand in samples of work, put out report cards and have been examined by schoolboard officials in five or six countries ("They have told us our program is superior to most regular programs").

Witnessing Expeditions

On the third day I was invited to accompany the children on a Get Out. The KIDS (Kind Inspired Dedicated Soldiers) and the JETTS (Junior End Time Teens) were well-groomed and dressed like any middle-class kids but in matching T-shirts, jeans and sneakers that were factory-donated, not personally chosen. Throughout the trip the teachers kept brushing their hair and spraying their small hands with an alcohol bottle. This latter custom, they explained, was picked up in Asia, where it was used as a safeguard against tropical diseases when children rode on subways or played in parks.

The next evening I drove the van for the Senior Teens and the YA’s witnessing/provisioning expedition. The girls resembled all-American upper middle class teens in shorts and blouses, their long hair brushed neatly. Eight young people and two guitars piled into the van and, before setting off, we prayed for safety. Sometimes the team would stop at a restaurant that knew them and had invited them back. ... We had already sung in a few restaurants, when they decided it was time for "provisioning." I pointed out an expensive-looking restaurant as a joke, and they said, "OK, stop!"

I panicked, "Come on, there’s no way we can barge in--nine strangers--and ask for free food!" But we pulled into the parking lot, prayed for the Lord to "soften the manager’s heart," and then the girls went in, asked to speak to the assistant manager, explained they were from a "Christian missionary movement," got permission to sing a few songs and started right away. The guests, surprised by the high quality of the performance, put down their forks and clapped. The girls performed exuberant choreography, and waiter and cooks gathered at the kitchen and stared. The eyes of some were tearful, evidently moved by the singers’ intense religious expression. After a few songs, everyone in the room was charmed by these talented, attractive, clean-cut kids--who then mentioned they were hungry and asked the manager to provide some food ... "just something simple."

To my surprise, heaping plates of burritos and salad arrived at our table, with sugarless drinks. While the boys wiped their mouths, the leader girl got them organized: "You go take those cooks in the kitchen. You take the manager and the waiter--take them into the hall, and I’ll talk to this table." It was now serious soul-saving time when receptive "sheep" would be warned of the impending End Time and invited to repeat a prayer so that Jesus could come into their hearts.

"Heaven’s Children," The Future of The Family

Family teenagers appear to be far more cautious and conservative than their parents’ generation in their attitudes towards sexuality. ... The second generation appear to regard their parents’ time of sexual excess with a kind of amused indulgence. A group of YA’s showed me their albums and pointed to photographs of their parents in their hippie heyday with pride. "There’s my Dad. He used to be a drug dealer before he got saved." "Did you see my Mom? She was in a biker gang when she met the disciples on Miami Beach." "My Dad was from a very old Argentinean family. They were very wealthy and he was a famous guitarist, but he forsook all because he really loved the Lord." "My Mom was feeling really depressed and guilty when she met the disciples because she’d just had an abortion. She was so grateful to the Lord when she met my dad and they had me." Whether their parents had been down and out or aristocrats, the point was they had forsaken all for Jesus, and their children looked back on them as legendary heroes and pioneers.

The rather wild impression I had received of the Children of God in the 70s was of an erratic band of rebellious hippies-turned-Jesus Freaks who indulged in what [sociologist] Roy Wallis (1979) dubbed "antinomian" behaviour (2) ... So, naturally, I wondered how they had arrived from there to here--to developing this rich, highly organized and elaborate culture of childhood.

The empowerment of youth is a theme that runs through the movement’s history. Today this pattern has returned. Now that the second generation have reached the same age as the original Children of God, they are being groomed to take over the administration and executive posts of the movement.

Footnotes:

1. Foster, Lawrence (1981) Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Marriage and the Children of God" in Salvation and Protest: Studies Wallis, Roy (1979) "Sex, of Social and Religious Movements (ed.) Roy Wallis. New York: St. Martins Press.

Update on "The Family": Organizational Change and Development in a Controversial New Religious Group

James T. Richardson - University of Nevada, Reno

Introduction

"Cult controversies" such as the one surrounding "The Family" are nothing new in contemporary history (Beckford, 1985). This paper offers a sociologically and social psychologically oriented assessment of The Family organization, also known previously as the Children of God (COG) and the Family of Love (FOL), in order to furnish more information for those in policy positions or the media, which plays such a major role in telling the public what it should think about exotic religious groups.

The report is based on earlier research on the precursor groups to The Family, as well as on reading of recent scholarly, legal, and popular media materials about The Family, along with conversations with members and leaders of The Family in several different countries. Included in my recent reading about The Family have been news reports from America, the U.K., Australia, and other countries, materials published by The Family, and some court documents relating to a number of legal actions involving The Family in several different countries. I have had recent contact with members of The Family in America, Hungary, and Australia.

Earlier particularly relevant work included two papers in which I and Rex Davis dealt quite specifically with the Children of God, as well as several papers in which the COG were discussed along with several other new religious groups. The two more focused papers were: "The Organization and Functioning of the Children of God" (Davis and Richardson, 1976), and "Experiential Fundamentalism: Revisions of Orthodoxy in the Jesus Movement" (Richardson and Davis, 1983). Other papers in which the COG and its newer forms were specifically discussed focused on recruitment, fund-raising, personality assessment of members, and other organizational and individual considerations (see Richardson, 1982b, 1985a, 1985b, 1985c, especially.)

This assessment will offer comments on several aspects of The Family, including an examination of changes undergone by the organization of The Family and its earlier renditions, from the point of view of social movements research and theory. This section will make use of a common theoretical perspective in the study of social movements, known as the "natural history" approach to social movement organizations. That approach focuses on the kinds of usual changes that occur in virtually any social movement organization, be it religious, political or otherwise. The history of The Family exemplifies such changes, and I will assess what has happened with the group, as well as comment on further changes that might be expected.

I will also discuss briefly the scholarly and legal status of claims that members of new religious groups such as The Family are "brainwashed" into participating in such groups. These claims have been made often, especially in the U.S, but they have come under heavy attack by most scholars who study such phenomena. Related to this is material summarizing the effects on individuals of participation in such groups. A brief scholarly interpretation of what happens when people leave such groups will be included, as well. Particularly I will assess problems with treating accounts developed by defectors as completely factual.

Evolution of the Children of God/Family of Love/ The Family

The Family has followed a rather predictable course in its evolution as an organization, even though it has, of course, had its own unique history (see Drakeford, 1972; Enroth, et al, 1972 for two popularized brief histories). That unique history results from the interaction of leadership decisions with other influences from both inside and outside the group, and over which groups such as the COG/FOL/Family often have little control.

The scholarly study of social movement organizations is replete with examples of significant organizational evolution occurring in a relatively short period of time. Nearly all textbooks and scholarly monographs dealing with social movements and social movement organizations discuss patterns of organization change. This perspective is sometimes referred to in the scholarly literature as the "natural history" approach to the study of social movements (see Lang and Lang's 1961 classic text, Collective Dynamics, for instance).

Two other social science scholars who have studied the COG in some depth, Roy Wallis and David van Zandt, make use of the natural history approach in some of their writings about the group (see Wallis, 1976, and van Zandt, 1985). Van Zandt, for instance, talks about twelve stages in the history of the COG/FOL. Rex Davis and I used the natural history perspective, as well, in our 1976 article on the COG, as does Enroth, et al. (1972) in their treatment of Jesus groups, including the early COG.

Davis and I described the organization and functioning of the Children of God, and concluded the following (1976: 327):

We do not mean to imply that the present structure ... is permanent. In fact, we are sure that modifications of this structure will be made, and that some changes are already taking place. The structure described is thus somewhat provisional in nature, but we do think it important to "freeze the moment" and at least describe the COG organization and functioning as of mid-1976.

That caveat was offered because of our knowledge of social movements derived from studying other movements, as well as the scholarly literature on this phenomenon. Indeed, the COG/FOL/Family and other new religious movements serve as good examples of how such organizations change, sometimes quite rapidly.

The changes that occur in social movement groups do so for two broad reasons, both of which are described in "The 'Deformation' of New Religions: Impacts of Societal and Organizational Factors" (Richardson, 1985b), which makes the point that changes occur because of both internal and external factors, not usually just because of the actions of an authoritarian leader. The COG were used as examples of many of the points made in this article, which makes use of the "natural history" perspective.

External factors were characterized as "a generally negative response from some major institutions within society" (1985b: 168). The institutions referred to included particularly: the "expansionist state," which was exerting control over larger areas of life than ever before, and thus impinging on activities of religious groups more than before; and the rise of the religious right, which made others in society more sensitive to the actions of religious groups. General social and economic unrest also played a role in the negative reaction to new religions, leading to less tolerance from many people for unusual groups and activities such as those exemplified by newer "high-demand" religious groups, of which The Family is one.

The generally negative response led to a "deforming" of some newer contemporary religious groups-including The Family-as they had to change in response to the pressure from these external factors. Considerable resources were expended in defensive efforts demanded by attacks from the state or from other quarters such as traditional religion or the newly developed "anticult movement" (see Shupe and Bromley, 1980, 1994).

Internal factors also played a crucial role. When most of the new religions started they were relatively homogenous in membership: mostly young middle class single white males from America. Then, many of the groups, including the COG, began to attract many different types of members, as they evangelized around the world. Also, more women were affiliating and families were being formed. Children were born, requiring attention and resources to care for them properly.

The COG/FOL/Family, as well as many other of the new religions, were getting "domesticated." This also "deformed" the groups from what they set out to be and do. No longer could they expect all members to spend their time and energy evangelizing in far away lands. Some members had to take care of their families, and ways to support the diverse membership had to be found.

Davis and I closed our first paper on the COG with some comments about changes in the group, a discussion that pre-dated yet informed the 1985 "deformation" paper. We noted (1976: 336-37) that changes were occurring in the COG not just because leadership dictated them, but for other reasons, including the following:

1. encountering different cultural realities around the world, and being forced to adjust to them;

2. working with the many different religious traditions was bringing about greater tolerance of other perspectives and ways of life;

3. the strong emphasis on radical evangelical techniques was being tempered by the realities of working in other cultures which are more positive toward other approaches to recruitment;

4. the development of families within the COG had a growing "domestication" effect, as COG leaders and members learn the reality of having to maintain husband-wife relationships and take care of the growing number of children, all of which detract from a singular emphasis on mission activities that dominated the COG in its earlier history;

5. the rapid growth and spread of the COG led to including many members from different societies and cultures, which in turn led to the development of new organizational patterns to handle the larger size and the increased diversity within the organization.

Thus, we knew in 1976 that the COG would change, and could see the general direction that change would probably take. We were correct, but there was a significant delay in implementation of the type of change we expected, brought about by directives from leadership, particularly David Berg. I refer here to a number of changes Berg proposed, but particularly to the development of the "flirty fishing" period in COG history, when they were also referred to as "The Family of Love." This development occurred just as our paper was being published, so the 1976 work does not discuss this aspect of group life. Flirty fishing lasted until about 1988, when it was terminated.

Some court documents not readily available to the public at this time trace this development, as do other papers in this collection. However, this phase of COG/FOL organizational life was analyzed by myself and Rex Davis in our 1983 paper, focusing particularly on the theological justifications offered for "flirty fishing" (Richardson and Davis, 1983).

We attempted to explain the apparently anomalous fact of the combining of fundamentalist Christian beliefs with a strong experiential orientation which has been found in some Jesus Movement groups. Most fundamentalist groups emphasize a specific set of beliefs to which a person must adhere to be a member. The beliefs or "fundamentals" take precedence over other possible sources of authority, including personal experiences with deity. Other groups, for instance charismatics (groups which "speak in tongues"), usually emphasize the experiential, and draw ultimate authority from personal experiences with their God or spirit.

In my research of the two largest Jesus Movement organizations, this creative melding of two sources of religious authority is well evidenced (also see Adams and Fox, 1972). One group was the COG/FOL/Family; the other one was known as Shiloh (we used a pseudonym of "Christ Communal Organization") about which I and two others wrote a book and a number of articles (see Richardson, et al., 1979 especially). Both these large groups combined a strong belief in what are usually called fundamentalist beliefs with a heavy emphasis on the experiential side of life. This was a somewhat unusual confluence of approaches to religious life that had typically been thought at odds with each other.

These studies led me to conclude that this unique confluence was a result of the backgrounds of most participants, who had come from the heavily experientially oriented youth culture in America. Heavy drug, tobacco, and alcohol use, as well as sexual promiscuity were common among the youth subculture from whence came most Jesus Movement members, including those in the COG and Shiloh (see Adams and Fox, 1972). Sex and drugs were part of a libertine experientially oriented lifestyle prior to many of the members "getting saved," and they did not completely drop this experiential focus as they became Jesus Movement participants. Participants partially substituted the experience of Jesus for other personal experiences, but remained open to other ways to relate their experiential focus to their new set of beliefs.

In the Shiloh organization the experiential co-emphasis took the form of "speaking in tongues," whereas in the COG, which was the only Jesus Movement group not to stress speaking in tongues, the experiential emphasis developed in the form of much more openness toward sexuality. That openness toward sex was manifested through "flirty fishing" and through the "sharing" concept. "Flirty fishing" involved witnessing to outsiders in such a way that it might even involve sex between female members of the FOL and those outsiders. The women involved had to be willing (as did their husbands) for them to "go all the way" if it was deemed necessary in order to "reach someone for Christ." Such decisions were made very seriously, but they were made nonetheless. "Sharing" refers to an openness towards sexual activity between adult members of a commune. If a partner was gone for a time, such as overseas on a mission, then another member might offer temporary comfort through sexual sharing, with the understanding and blessing of the missing partner.

It should be understood that COG members and leaders thought that acting out their sexuality as they did was sanctioned by God, and that sex was a way of expressing God's love to others, including, during the "flirty fishing" period, selected others from outside the group (see theological justification discussed in Richardson and Davis, 1983). The "sharing" practice probably still continues to some extent, but there is no data of which I am aware indicating its frequency or pervasiveness. My saying this is not to approve or condemn the practices of "flirty fishing," or "sharing," but to offer a perspective that may not be easy to appreciate for many observers.

The apparent openness toward sexuality in the COG/FOL could not last, of course. External pressures by governments and other institutional structures against such free sexuality combined with the worldwide spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases to bring about significant changes. Internal pressures brought about by demands of family life also interfered, especially the birth of large numbers of children who had to be cared for by their mothers. David Berg, under these pressures, directed that "flirty fishing" stop in 1988.

Not everyone in the FOL had been involved in "flirty fishing," and some, including a few current detractors, had left the organization over it. I think it is safe to say, based on my conversations with group members, that a significant portion of those who sanctioned the practice, either by involvement or not arguing against it, were pleased when the practice ended and a more normal life was allowed to develop. This led to less outside pressure, and allowed more concentration of resources, time and energy on taking care of family obligations of the group's communal houses, including especially the many children being born into the group.

The Family presently seems especially solicitous of its children's welfare. The organization has developed sound educational programs for their children in communes around the world, several of which I have observed first hand. They obviously expend significant amounts of their resources on such matters. Such concern cannot coexist for long with a radical evangelical thrust which demands that all be involved in missionizing activities. "Something has to give," and it seems that much radicalness is being shed in favor of doing well by the families of members.

My recent observations, coupled with reading other materials, lead to me think that The Family has evolved into a relatively stable pattern of managing sexuality in a manner much more in keeping with the values of ordinary society. "Flirty fishing" has been abandoned, and some earlier, controversial writings dealing with children's sexuality have been repudiated and withdrawn. The process of "sharing" seems to continue, at least with some adult members. However, I am not prepared to say that even the Family's practice of sexual sharing within the group is particularly radical within the context of relatively sexually liberated contemporary society. I do not think that the actual practices of ordinary society comport very well with the typically expressed sexual values of the greater society that sanction only sex in marriage and monogamy. There is a great deal of sexual activity outside the bonds of monogamous marriage in ordinary society, and the Family's practices do not seem as strange when viewed in that comparative light. What is strange is that The Family admits to the practice, makes no apology for it, and even offers a theological justification to those who care to listen.

In concluding this section, I will reiterate that all groups, including the COG/FOL/Family, go through a "natural history" of organizational evolution. They start out more radical, in part because the originators are typically younger, healthier, and unfettered with families and responsibilities, not to mention more idealized (Drakeford, 1972 best chronicles the colorful early history of the COG). Then the groups evolve, sometimes in fits and starts, toward a more normal existence. They are forced to do this because of external pressures and as a result of internal demands put on the group by increasingly diverse types of members, including particularly the presence of large numbers of small children in groups such as The Family, which does not practice systematic birth control.

The Family now seems much more "normal" than they once did. If that word ever gets out through the media, The Family may well fade into obscurity, simply because they are not doing as many strange things anymore, and few people will be very interested. Such relative obscurity will be a mixed blessing, of course, and at present some may think it could never happen. However, the history of many social movement organizations, some of which were quite radical indeed, suggest that The Family may well follow a similar path.

Brainwashing Allegations Against New Religions

A common accusation leveled by opponents of such new religions as the COG/FOL/The Family is that they "brainwash" people into joining the groups, and then use "mind control" to retain them as members (Shapiro, 1977; Shupe and Bromley, 1980; Richardson, 1982a). These pseudo-technical terms are used regularly in the controversy over new religions, typically as "social weapons" in efforts by some to encourage or seek more control over the groups (Robbins, et al., 1983; Richardson and Kilbourne, 1983). Users of these terms (and other synonyms) assume that few people would participate in such groups of their own free will. Such magical explanations, which often incorporate psychotechnology supposedly derived from the communist regimes, serves well for those who do not want their children or others to participate in such groups.

If people believe that the groups have some magical techniques against which there is little recourse, then this seems to justify taking harsh actions that would otherwise not be contemplated. Such actions may interfere with the free choice of individuals who are of age, and freedom of religion in society may be threatened, as well (Richardson, 1980; 1985a; 1991). However, scientific evidence concerning the brainwashing thesis is problematic at best (Anthony, 1990; Richardson, 1991). There is a basic incongruence between participation in most newer religious groups and being in a prisoner of war camp in Korea, that being the presence of physical coercion in one setting and its absence in the other. Most scholars reject such notions about why people join and participate in new religions. They cite the low membership figures and high attrition rates for those groups alleged to use the psychotechniques. (If the techniques are so powerful, why are the groups so small?) Also discussed by scholars are the processes whereby members are recruited and resocialized, which can be rather easily described in terms of ordinary social psychological processes (Solomon, 1983).

A recent summary of this evidence, "A Social Psychological Critique of 'Brainwashing' Claims About Recruitment to New Religions" (Richardson, 1994), summarizes the evidence, and offers an alternative view of what happens when people participates in new religions. This view is more "active" in its orientation, and involves an active, seeking person, wanting to try out a different lifestyle, ethic, and set of beliefs, at least temporarily (see Straus, 1976, 1979; Richardson 1985a).

Richardson (1994) includes, as well, an analysis of the types of negotiation in which most people are involved as they decide whether to join a group or not. Individual potential recruits usually retain considerable autonomy as they decide if they want to do the things required of members in a particular group. And research evidence reveals that most potential recruits simply refuse the entreaties and leave, and that many others leave rather soon after joining, factors which in combination explain the relatively small size of most groups (Bird and Reimer, 1983; Barker, 1983, 1984; Galanter, 1980).

This more active orientation was arrived at empirically from years of research on new religions, including the COG, which I first researched while spending a year in England in 1974-75. I started my research on new religions in the early 1970s with a view that something was indeed happening that seemed inexplicable and problematic. However, as I did field research with several major new religions, interviewing many members and leaders, I became aware of a simple truth: Most of the participants were there simply because they wanted to be, and further, that they would leave when the experience was no longer rewarding for them.

The theoretical papers deriving from this research offer an explanation of why people participate in such groups, and why they often leave, as well (Richardson, 1982a, 1985, Richardson, et al., 1986). This theoretical perspective offers a more adequate explanation of participation than other theories that stress trickery and magical techniques such as brainwashing and mind control (Anthony, 1990; Richardson and Kilbourne, 1983). Such approaches that stress volitional choice by participants undercut the anti-cult movement's efforts to get such groups declared as deviant and in need of social control. Nonetheless, the volitional perspective is much closer to reality than the view that participants in new religions such as The Family are there through trickery.

Personality Assessment of Participants

In 1983 at a conference at Wolfson College, Oxford, on "New Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion," I reviewed the personality assessment and clinical evidence from research in America and other countries on participants in new religions, including the COG. The resulting paper (Richardson, 1985c) is of interest since it includes research on the COG in Germany (Kuner's work; p. 214-215). Kuner's conclusion after his comparative and quite sophisticated research was:

As far as an influence on mental state and psycho-social development can be traced, the (new religious movements) prove themselves rather "therapeutic and/or resocialization groups" for socially alienated. The results ... give little support for the Anti-Cult Movement's point of view.

The overall conclusion I developed after the review by Kuner and other work, some of which also included COG members, was (p. 221):

The personality assessments of these group members reveal that life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful. Other information suggests that young people are affirming their idealism by virtue of involvement in such groups. Certainly there is some "submerging of personality" in groups which are communal or collective, simply because they do not foster the individualistic and competitive lifestyle to which we are accustomed, particularly in American society. However, there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few ... who have been involved in the controversy over new religions.

That research did not, of course, take the view that no one with a mental problem ever joins a newer religion. That would be an indefensible claim. Newer religions have their share of people with mental difficulties, just as do more traditional groups. The research does, however, take issue with the frequently made accusation by anti-cultists that the new religions cause a great number of mental problems. This effort to "medicalize" participation in newer religious groups has been relatively successful, even if it is misguided (Robbins and Anthony,1982).

Indeed, there is evidence that some people with mental problems are attracted to such groups, but that the groups serve an ameliorative effect for most of those (see discussion of this in Kilbourne and Richardson, 1984, as well as Galanter and Diamond, 1981). I would not, of course, claim that all who needed help obtain it in a newer religious group, but the research reviews show that often such is the case.

Some would like to paint all participants as having a mental problem caused by or exacerbated by the group's influence. This claim cannot be substantiated. Indeed, there is strong evidence of bias on the part of some who would make such a claim, and that the basic theoretical perspective used to base such a claim is itself faulty (Kilbourne and Richardson, 1986). In a recent article, "Religiosity as Deviance: Negative Religious Bias in and Misuse of the DSM-III" (Richardson, 1993), the point is made that there is a pervasive anti-religious bias in this major listing of mental disorders, and that the bias is especially noteworthy regarding newer religions. Any effort to apply the DSM-III (or more recent versions) to participants of newer religions should be looked at with considerable caution, and the self-interest of those making the claims should be examined.

Accounts of Why People Leave Groups

Two points will be briefly made in this section. One deals with what people think, in retrospect, about their experience in a group to which they no longer belong. A related point is then made about the credibility of accounts of former members, especially in circumstances in which their self-interest becomes involved.

As discussed in an article done by myself and two scholars in The Netherlands (Richardson, van der Lans and Derks, 1986), the accounts given about a particular episode of living in or leaving a group depends on who is making the account, and for what purpose. The veracity of any account is subject to question, and should be verified by a method of "triangulation," which means the researcher needs to ask different people who have different perspectives, comparing the views of all in order to understand what really happened in the group and during the leaving episode (also see Beckford, 1978a, 1978b).

An illustration may be helpful. If parents think their son should not have joined a religious group, then they have a bias and are selfinterested. They may think of themselves as failures if, after raising their child for years, that son decides to give up everything, including educational opportunities and join a group such as The Family. It is in the self-interest of those parents to adopt a "brainwashing account" of how and why their son joined the group.

If the parents kidnap their son from the group and put him through "deprogramming" in a way that results in the son staying out of the group, then it is also in the interest of the son to adopt a "brainwashing account" of why he joined. If the son does not "successfully" deprogram, and returns to the group, the parents can claim he was brainwashed too thoroughly, while the son will perhaps adopt a view that his parents are interfering with God's will for him. Which of these accounts is true depends on the perspective of the person making the claim.

Research by Solomon (1981), Wright (1984, 1987), Lewis (1986), and Lewis and Bromley (1987), some of which includes former COG/FOL members, on the process of leaving new religions shows that there is a strong relationship between the way in which people leave groups and the type of account they adopt. Those who are deprogrammed out of the group tend to adopt a "brainwashing account," while those who leave voluntarily do not. Those scholars suggest that the deprogramming process itself teaches what an acceptable account is, offering an explanation that lets all the parties (except the allegedly brainwashing group) "off the hook" in terms of personal responsibility.

Those who leave voluntarily, which most members eventually do, tend to take a view of the experience that accepts responsibility for their decision. They also are more prone to define the time in the group as a positive learning experience for themselves (Wright, 1987).

Some former members do develop an account that is negative. One key factor in the development of an account that is negative about experiences in the former group seems to be the contact with others who share a negative view (Wright, 1984, Lewis, 1986). Also, if there was some sort of conflict while in the group (perhaps a clash of personalities or a difference of opinion over some issue) which led to the person leaving, then they may develop a more negative account of what happened to them, and blame others for the decision to have participated.

The conclusion about accounts, then, is that care must be taken in accepting accounts as totally factual. Those leaving the groups and needing to be accepted back into their normal niche in society develop an explanation of what happened that will ease the transition. Some who enter quasi-professions such as deprogramming (or "exit counseling") need to develop especially strong accounts that justify what they are doing. They might even be classified as "cultphobes" because of the strong reaction they develop (Kilbourne and Richardson, 1986).

The need to be suspect of post hoc explanations includes, as well, accounts of those who remain in the groups, as they too have a perspective on what happened that may involve self interest. All parties have their own point of view, and those who review such situations must base their assessments on a combination of accounts, as well as on the independent assessments by professionals and independent scholars.

Conclusions

I will make one major point in conclusion, after a review of key areas of research concerning The Family. This group and its participants can be understood in rather ordinary terms from the social sciences. There is nothing so spectacular about these groups that cannot be grasped using common theories from sociology, social psychology, and psychology.

It serves no useful purpose to "demonize" new religious groups such as The Family, and claim that the participants act like robots, or engage in behavior that threatens the very roots of society. Certainly a group can "go bad," whether it be religious or otherwise. When that happens, the ordinary rules and laws of civilized society should allow recourse. However, it does not appear from this review and recent investigation that The Family has "gone bad." Indeed, by nearly any standard that could be imagined, The Family has become much more ordinary in their approach to life in general, and sexuality in particular. They have been "domesticated" by pressures from outside and inside the group. The Family certainly has had a colorful and even controversial past, but it seems to this scholar that its future looks much more normal. Indeed, years from now scholars may wonder "what all the fuss was about" concerning The Family.

James T. Richardson is Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno. He has been researching new religions for over twenty years, and has published five books and nearly seventy-five articles in journals and books.

The Family: History, Organization and Ideology

David G. Bromley and Sidney H. Newton

Virginia Commonwealth University

David G. Bromley is a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He has studied and written extensively about religious movements in America. Among his books is Strange Gods (1982) written with Anson D. Shupe Jr.

Sidney H. Newton is a graduate student at Virginia Commonwealth University.

The New Religious Movement known currently as The Family was founded in the late 1960s. It has undergone several transformations since that time and has been known variously as the "Teens for Christ," "The Children of God," and "The Family of Love." In 1967, [founder David] Berg moved his wife, Jane Miller (known in The Family as Mother Eve), and their children to Huntington Beach, California after hearing his mother's description of the "hippies" who had begun moving into the area. He and his family began witnessing to the "dropouts" and "druggies" and soon had enough help to take over a beach coffeehouse that had been run by Teen Challenge. An iconoclast himself, Berg was ideally suited to his audience. David Berg has led the movement since its beginnings in Huntington Beach, California. As early as 1952, Berg began to receive prophecies of the "end-time." This, coupled with a growing distrust of the "system" and "churchy" religion, led Berg to develop a more radical approach to missionary work.

From 1970 to 1971, the group lived a very disciplined life at the Texas Soul Clinic Ranch and developed a strict training program for new members. The goal of witnessing efforts was the total commitment of the "sheep." Joining required that the prospective member "forsake-all" worldly goods to the group and sever worldly ties. It was in reaction to this standard that the first anti-cult organization in the United States, FreeCOG, was formed. Despite the rigors of membership and the high level of dedication demanded, membership grew to about fifteen hundred.

After the move to Europe [in 1971], Berg began to encourage members to sell samples of the groups' literature, or "litness," in order to fund the growing movement. Berg himself withdrew from an active leadership role and established a hierarchical structure to maintain the day-to-day operations. Berg kept in touch with the membership and maintained authority over the movement through the "Mo Letters."

The movement has undergone many organizational changes during its history. The most dramatic of these, the Reorganization and Nationalization Revolution (RNR), was effected by Berg at the end of the 1970s. The new regulations required that the leadership in local homes be elected and include citizens of the host nation.

[In recent years] allegations of child abuse have placed the group at the center of a new controversy. The charges, stemming from selected quotes and art from old literature, as well as stories told by disaffected former members, have triggered a number of police raids on Family homes around the world. Investigations in a number of countries have exonerated The Family of abuse charges.

The Family's membership is quite different today than that of the "Teens for Christ" and the Children of God. The group has focused much of its attention on its younger members with home-schooling, teen missionary activities and the inclusion of teens within group leadership. At this time the Family claims a world-wide live-in membership of about nine thousand, two-thirds of which are teen-age or younger. The current emphasis placed on child rearing and teen missionary work reflects these demographics.

Psychological Assessment of Children in The Family

Lawrence Lilliston and Gary Shepherd

Oakland University

In his recent highly acclaimed book, The Culture of Disbelief, Stephen Carter writes about the trivialization of religion in America. Carter suggests that as we have moved through the last half of the twentieth century, it has become less acceptable for people to base important life and value decisions on religious principles. He goes on to suggest that for many Americans, political stands based on religious values are viewed with suspicion. Carter is well aware that there are enclaves of religious people who do make important life decisions and that there are many people who are influenced as voters by candidates who argue political positions from a religious perspective. He is also aware that we have the highest church going country in the world and that an overwhelming majority of Americans profess a belief in a god of some sort. However, his analysis suggests that most Americans prefer a rather bland, unchallenging type of religion that is embodied in comfortable platitudes and that does not call upon people to make sacrifices or to change lifestyles in dramatic ways. From his perspective as a constitutional lawyer, Carter suggests that the real attitudes of Americans toward religious issues, including that most important issue of religious freedom, are seen in the legal struggles that are waged around religious rights. Carter concluded that an examination of legal arguments, court decisions, and the reporting of this process in the media betrays the real consensual American attitude toward religion, that of trivialization as a basis for important life decisions.

Many social critics preceding Carter have written of a change in the basic standards for conduct and values in this country. This change has seen us go from religious-based standards of conduct, values, and world hypotheses to standards based on modern psychology. Thus, instead of evaluating our own and others' conduct and perceptions in terms of religion-based morality, we now measure these attributes against a standard of mental health. What is right for me and my adjustment? How is my self-esteem affected? Will my children grow up able to cope with emotional stresses? Social psychologist Roy Baumeister has written convincingly of the modern preoccupation with "self' and the way this preoccupation, and the corollary dynamic of escape from this preoccupation, is played out in a variety of self-avoidant and self-destructive behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse, masochism, and suicide.

In an interesting interaction of these two trends-away from religious standards and toward mental health standards-those who are proponents of either set of standards attack proponents of the other set. Thus, those who continue to cling most fervently to strong religious standards of conduct attack those who adopt mental health standards as sinful, ungodly, or satanic, and those who are devotees of mental health standards attack those who adopt religious standards as being fanatical, narrow-minded, and emotionally sick. Polls showing a high level of belief in god and church membership notwithstanding, most social critics feel that there are many more people who adopt psychological criteria for human conduct and values. Indeed, some of the strongest proponents of these psychological criteria may be seen in the pulpits of mainstream religious institutions. And although it is probably possible at some level to work out a compromise between the two sets of standards, such a compromise would be a weak one at best because the two sets of standards reflect a basic conflict between absolutism (strong religious) and relativism (strong psychological). Carter and several others have pointed out that support for the psychological value system is currently dominant and that this dominance can be readily seen in reporting in the mainstream media as well as polls measuring attitudes toward, for example, the Branch Davidians in Waco.

In light of these factors, then, it is no surprise to see attacks on those minority religions that stand at odds with the larger cultural view of conduct and values. Because some minority religions, such as several New Religious Movements, call upon their members to alter their lifestyles in important ways and to place religion clearly and uncompromisingly at the center of their lives, they stand in marked contrast to the type of relatively undemanding religion endorsed by most of the general population. Such a posture by these minority religions casts them as deviant in relation to larger societal values, and this deviance makes them vulnerable to attack. Although individual members of the larger society do not attack these groups in any great numbers, there is a receptive attitude toward charges against these groups of wrongdoing and of practices damaging to the psychological well-being of the members. As in the infamous and tragic case of the Branch Davidians, these charges are frequently featured in an uncritical fashion on television and in newspapers and news magazines, and they are received just as uncritically by the majority of consumers. These charges are particularly likely to arouse negative feelings toward these minority religions if they include allegations of child abuse and neglect. Virtually all researchers on the topic of child abuse, including sexual abuse, agree that abuse occurs at a regrettably high level in the general population. Moreover, most researchers believe that the data reliably shows an increase in abuse, including sexual abuse. Because of the unfortunate level of abuse in our country, the charge of abuse has a high degree of plausibility with the public and, as such, this charge is frequently made when someone wishes to attack another's character, such as in divorce proceedings or among disgruntled students and parents. It is not surprising, therefore, that such charges are commonly made against minority religious groups, and charges of child abuse and neglect have been made against New Religious Movements for the past twenty-five years. Even groups such as the Hare Krishnas, who have a theologically based, restrictive approach toward overt sexuality, have been charged by critics over the years with sexual abuse despite the evidence that abuse occurs among devotees at no higher rate, and probably at a much lower rate, than in the general population.

The Family has been particularly susceptible to such charges and has historically been targeted by critics because of their liberal attitudes toward sexuality, although these attitudes and practices have not remained static over the years. This liberal attitude toward sexuality, along with the commitment to communal living, has been sufficient to cause The Family a great deal of trouble over the years. Moreover, some critics have suggested that the liberal attitude toward sex has not been restricted to adults but has involved sexual relationships between adults and children. In 1993, the American media highlighted these charges in several news stories involving children being removed from homes around the world and adults being charged with sexual abuse. The basis for these charges lies in the testimony of ex-members who report that they were sexually abused as children in The Family. As supporting evidence, these ex-members frequently cite The Story of Davidito, typically referred to as the Davidito Book, which is a work describing the early life of David, the adopted son of founder and leader, David Berg, and the natural son of Berg's wife, Maria. Critics suggest that this book is a manual for sexual abuse of young children. It is worth noting that in all cases in which children have been removed from homes of The Family around the world, no evidence for sexual abuse has been found. The Davidito book does relate David's early witnessing of sexual behavior and encouragement to explore his own sexuality, and while these experiences would be characterized as sexually abusive or neglectful by most child abuse experts, there is no report of his having been actively molested or abused by adults. Moreover, there is no evidence of long-term negative effects on David. The first author, a clinical child psychologist with thirty years of experience, recently administered a psychological evaluation to David, who is now nineteen, and found him to be a bright, well-adjusted, and emotionally strong young man.

With these considerations in mind, the authors studied thirty-two children in two Family homes in California. It is worth noting that although these two homes were located in California, the residents had an international background. Thus, virtually all children and adolescents had lived in other Family homes around the world, including Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia. Since the attributes we discuss below are not primarily influenced by short-term situational factors, the findings regarding these young people are quite probably reflective of child rearing and educational practices found generally in Family homes. Subsequent to the study reported here, the authors also visited three more Family homes, and the observations reported here are supported by our impressions of the children in these three additional homes. During the time of the study, we lived in each of the homes and observed behaviors in every aspect of home life. Both authors observed and interacted with children at play, during academics, during outreach and witnessing, devotional services, and leisure time. We were given completely free and open access to all children and adults and were allowed to talk about anything we chose with every member of the homes. Additionally, the first author administered psychological assessments, including cognitive tests and personality tests, to the children, and the second author conducted in-depth interviews with teenagers and adults to assess their attitudes toward child rearing and socialization, education, and values, including sexuality. The second author also made extensive videotapes of all members of the homes during all activities. These videotapes arc available on request and provide probably the richest source of data currently available on the normal daily lives of children in The Family.

On the basis of this study, we found no evidence for child abuse among these children. Assessment by the first author of preschool and elementary-aged children indicated no psychological signs of abuse. Children interacted well with adults, including Family members as well as the authors. They displayed no anxiety or unusual fears or phobias around close interactions. This comfort in interaction was consistent with intensive clinical interviews which revealed no anxiety related to adults. On a measure involving identification and function of body parts, presented pictorially, no children indicated abnormal responses to bodily sexual areas as displayed in the pictures. No unusual themes were elicited and children's attitudes toward and understanding of the functions of the vagina, penis, and anus were age-appropriate and revealed no unusual patterns. It should be noted that this assessment was undertaken only after we had been in the home for several days, and the children and the authors had developed a comfortable relationship. Moreover, there was no indication that the children had been coached to provide appropriate answers. Such an approach in all likelihood would not have worked because the adult Family members had not been informed of the exact nature of the assessment in advance.

In interviews with adolescents in the group, the authors found no evidence for past sexual abuse despite intensive questioning. Again, the children at this age were quite comfortable with adults, showed no particular patterns indicative of unusual sexual experience, and in fact seemed somewhat more conservative regarding sexuality than age cohorts in the general population.

Apart from the issue of sexual abuse, psychological assessment indicated a general pattern of absence of pathology. None of the children displayed symptomatology of clinical significance. Emotional development was generally age-appropriate, and there were no indications of either significant anxiety or depression in any of the children. Ego functions were well developed: impulse control was appropriate indicating neither undercontrol nor suppression of spontaneity. Ego regulation, according to the important work of psychologists Jack and Jeanne Block, is the ability to adapt behavior to different situational demands and changes and to changes in ongoing situations. Both observational data as well as clinical assessment, using problem-solving fantasy measures, suggest that these children are generally high in ego regulation. Importantly, the Blocks' research suggests that levels of ego control and ego regulation in childhood are predictive of those same traits in adulthood. Thus, these children seem to be developing adaptive traits that will serve them well throughout their lives. Consistent with these developing personality traits, aggressive acting out was at a very low level and cooperative, prosocial behaviors were at a level considerably higher than found among age cohorts in the general population. Curiosity and creativity were high, and cognitive flexibility, the ability to approach situations and stimuli from different perspectives, was good. Functional skills for coping with stress were well developed and even superior, and social interactions with both peers and adults were excellent.

In the areas of cognitive and educational functioning, these children were well in advance of the norms. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Wide Range Achievement Test were given, and most children were above average in intelligence and all children were working at or close to potential. Children were typically two to four grades above age norms in reading and arithmetic. Problem-solving skills were very well developed, whether on abstract, concrete or interpersonal tasks. In general, these children and adolescents function at a considerably higher level than age-cohorts in the larger society. Virtually all children display what child psychologist Carol Dweck calls a mastery orientation toward cognitive tasks, and viewed failures and successes on the cognitive tasks in positive terms. The typical response to failure was a determination to work harder and the typical response to success was satisfaction in achieving competence as well as a determination to become even more competent. Goals were realistic, and behavior was generally task-oriented. In brief, the children were good workers who did not feel defeated by failure and who saw success as a sign of growth.

In sum, on the basis of psychological testing, clinical interviews, and behavioral observation, these children appeared to be emotionally well adjusted, cognitively advanced, and quite adaptive in interpersonal functioning. Moreover, because of the authors' opportunities to live in the homes with the children and to establish rapport to an uncommon degree, it is unlikely that deception could have occurred at a sufficiently important level as to not be detected by experienced researchers. Indeed, no such instances of deception were apparent.

The reasons for these levels of functioning are several. First, the homes provide a very supportive and caring environment for these children. Contrary to critics' claims, these children are treated quite well. They clearly have the impression that the adults are committed to them, and a loving and nurturant atmosphere is pervasive. And even though these homes operate with minimal material resources and little room for waste, there is a strong feeling of togetherness in the homes. This sense of mutual helping and support provides a strong and healthy context for growing children. Much criticism of The Family has involved the fact that children are moved around too much. However, there are other factors that suggest that this criticism is unfounded, not the least of which is the fact that Family children are moved no more often than are many children of parents who work in corporate America. For instance, the authors live and teach in a geographical area heavily dominated by the automobile industry and automobile-related businesses, and we commonly have many neighbors who have moved their children around fully as often as Family children. Many people who would be skeptical of The Family's moving children raise no such reservations regarding the children of corporate America. But just as the children of corporate America understand that their moving is related to parental values and goals, so do children in The Family clearly understand how their moving fits into the life of missionary work. In the final analysis the question is whether or not the children feel comfortable and relaxed in their home and whether they feel cared for and valued. It is clear that the children studied display such positive feelings. The children have clearly developed a sense of basic trust, they are strongly attached to their parents, and they have a strong sense of bonding with both natural siblings and peers in the homes.

Socialization practices in the homes are clearly based on the teachings of the religion. Through a combination of scripture and the writings of their leader, Father David, a strong authoritative support for the lifestyle is communicated clearly to the children. Moreover, the children see these teachings played out in the lives of their parents and other adults, and they are thus exposed to models for behavior and guides toward internalization of values. They also see how these religious values and beliefs are embodied in adults' relationships with them, the children. Emotional support and affection are clearly communicated, and discipline and correction are gentle and instructive. Children receive clear guidance from teachers and other adults, and adherence to the basic rules of the home and the religion is expected; however, autonomy is very much encouraged. Two points are noteworthy here. The first is that like all children, these over extend themselves, fail, have conflicts, and generally get into unpleasant situations. However, these situations are extremely well handled by adults, and through discussion and encouragement, problems are resolved. Thus, the children have relatively few arguments or conflicts of long-lasting significance. A second important point is that independence and leadership are strongly reinforced in the children and adolescents. Their opinions are sought and they play an important role in the functioning of the home. As a consequence, these young people are optimistic and feel quite empowered to take control of their lives. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a healthier, more growth-enhancing milieu than exists in these homes. Although the teaching of positive values for living is stressed, this socialization is in no way authoritarian. Indeed, based on universally-accepted research findings on the effects of patterns of parental socialization on personality development, the personality traits of the children, as described above, could not result from authoritarian socialization practices. The children are friendly, relaxed, spontaneous, and appropriately attached to parents, and these attributes are simply not found in hostile, authoritarian homes. Indeed, in many respects the Family homes provide a living laboratory in support of Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory of Development. Bronfenbrenner theorizes that development is sociocultural in nature and a function of the interaction between the individual and environmental systems, ranging from the fine-grained influences of direct interactions of the child with specific defined socialization agents (e.g., parents, school, church, etc.), through a layer of influence reflecting the interactions of these socializing agents with each other and their interactive effect upon the child (e.g., the coordination of values between school and parents and the communication of this coordination to the child), on through a layer of larger influences (e.g., social services, neighbors, friend of family, media) as these are filtered through the layers that are most immediate to the child. Bronfenbrenner then theorizes that the greater the coordination and consistency of influences and messages through these layers to the individual child, the greater will be adaptation and healthy development. In The Family, we seem to see these predictions of Bronfenbrenner being played out in a naturalistic environment.

As mentioned above, in addition to being well-socialized and emotionally healthy, children's performance on cognitive and educational tasks is remarkable. Again, observation in all five Family homes makes clear the reason for this good performance. Education has a high priority among this group, and this is reflected in performance on tests. The basic core of the educational system is the Standardized Home Based School Program. Children are tutored in these materials by several people in the homes, ranging from teenagers to adults. The tutoring is supportive and facilitative. Expectations of good effort are communicated, and natural reinforcers, such as praise, run throughout the process. There is a strong emphasis on a close tutor/child relationship, and the process seems to enhance positive feelings in both child and tutor. The classrooms are well maintained, and the children have a broad array of educational materials upon which to draw. Much of the material for preschoolers on up reflects the influence of Montessori, and in addition to the physical materials, the Montessori philosophy is clearly reflected in the style of teaching and tutoring. Children work at their own level and pace, and there is a great emphasis on the intrinsic motivation of insight and discovery. At the same time, social interaction is not ignored, and the presence of what Vygotsky calls the "zone of proximal development" is clearly salient. This process deals with tasks that are too difficult for the child to master alone, but which can be mastered with the guidance and assistance of adults or more skilled children. The flavor of Vygotsky's approach runs throughout the whole educational process.

One final variable plays a significant role in the social, emotional, and cognitive development of these children. That variable is the restricted use of television. The Family produces excellent videotapes featuring values training for children, and these tapes are sold worldwide in addition to being used for their own children. The Family also makes selective use of commercial films for entertainment and, in the homes we studied, they typically watched the evening news. However, virtually all other television is forbidden to children on the grounds that most television productions are harmful to the development of children as well as being unchristian. By now, it is acknowledged by most child development and educational experts that much television material is harmful to children in a variety of ways. At its worst, much of television programming teaches aggression and antisocial behavior, a distorted view of the world, and simplistic solutions to complex problems. In addition, in terms of simple time demands, time spent before the television takes away from learning cognitive skills, such as reading, as well as the learning of interpersonal skills. Although the relative absence of the influence of television is surely not the only variable to the healthy development of children in The Family, we believe strongly that these children provide strong naturalistic support for the validity of more controlled research studies pointing to the possible harmful effects of television on children.

In summary, our study suggests that the critics of The Family and their approach to child rearing and education are misguided. We found no evidence for child abuse or neglect. Rather, the evidence for a healthy environment for children was overwhelming. This evidence may be found in terms of our observational data, our interviews with members, and the direct assessment of the children themselves. Because The Family lies outside the mainstream of American religion, they have been targeted by critics for persecution, and because the general public, including representatives of the legal system, have little familiarity with these relatively small minority religious, they too easily believe the critics, who are disgruntled ex-members. The authors are well aware that individual cases of abuse may have occurred among members in the past and may well occur again in the future. Given the base rate of child abuse in the world, it would indeed be surprising if it never occurred among any given group with a few thousand members. However, the charges of widespread, institutionalized child abuse are clearly unfounded. The children we studied are simply too healthy to be products of a system in which abuse occurs at a high level. Perhaps in the future, critics, including especially those in the media, will draw upon resources such as this volume of writings by people who are not members of The Family but who have a scholarly interest in religion and religious freedom as background material for their analyses.

Lawrence Lilliston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, and a clinical-child psychologist in private practice. He has published research on the psychosocial development of children in new religious movements and in the areas of religion, values, and coping.

Gary Shepherd is Professor of Sociology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He has published extensively on Mormonism and religious socialization.

Field Observations of Young People's Experience and Role in The Family

Gary Shepherd and Lawrence Lilliston

Oakland University

In this chapter we wish to expand on observations and conclusions presented in the preceding chapter with two objectives in mind. One is to shift focus from younger children to teens. The second is to amplify our account of activities, interaction patterns, and socialization experiences of Family young people based more on informal observations than formal testing. In so doing we occasionally replicate ourselves, but this tends to occur with regard to points that bear repeating.

Youthful Face of The Family: Implications and Consequences

The Family's young people-infants through teens and early twenties-are immediately its most notable element. For outsiders who know only of this religious group through sensationalized media portrayals, the young have become a paramount focus because of persistent allegations of child abuse. In this view, the young are understood only as tragic victims of religious perversion who must be rescued from a life of unspeakable degradation enforced upon them by their own parents. For outsiders who come into direct contact with Family homes, young people dominate one's initial perceptions by their sheer numbers, appealing interpersonal qualities, and the overwhelming degree in which they are involved in virtually all aspects of homefunctioning. In this view, the young come to be understood as representing remarkably well socialized new generations who constitute The Family's best hope for survival against the weighty opposition of detractors and secular authorities.

Full-time membership in The Family as of this writing numbers about 10,000 people (scattered in approximately 50 countries). Of this number, somewhere between six and seven thousand are young people under the age of eighteen. These young people are not recruits who have been converted into The Family. They are the second, and even third, generation of children born into The Family during the last thirty odd years. These numbers point to several facts of importance about this new religious movement.

The first fact is that The Family is not really preoccupied with recruiting new members (or "disciples") into the organization as a result of their missionary activity. Rather the primary objective is simply to save as many souls as possible prior to the "End Time" via the evangelical mode of urging listeners to repent and accept Jesus as their savior. Individuals thus "saved" are not required, nor routinely urged, to forsake their current social obligations and join The Family.

A second numerical fact is that the family has been very successful in retaining the faith and commitment of its young people. Most new religious movements (including the Church Universal and Triumphant, which we lived with and observed intensively in Montana just prior to our initial stay in Family homes in California), experience difficulty in infusing the second generation with the equivalent motivation and conviction of the parent generation (individuals who were converted as adults). In contrast to this usual trend, our observations suggest that The Family's older youngsters are an increasingly vitalizing force, in some ways perhaps even more committed to the missionary work than their elders. (As many as 2,000 people may have dropped out of active Family home participation during the last five years, presumably because of the high level of commitment expected relative to the hardships and opposition that often must be endured in many parts of the world.)

Thus the face of The Family is a predominantly young face, and it is likely to remain so for several reasons. Birth control practices are not generally acceptable whereas sexual relationships are valued. The result is a high birth rate. It was not uncommon among adults we talked to of long-time Family membership (over 15 years) to report having ten or more children. Furthermore, young people are encouraged to marry soon after reaching the age of 18 and to begin having their own children soon thereafter. Finally, it is the case that even when some adults choose to leave The Family some of their teen-aged children elect to remain.

The result of these factors is a skewed age pyramid that is not likely to shift away from its youthful base in the foreseeable future. The San Diego home we stayed in provides a somewhat typical illustration: Of a total of 40 home residents (as of July, 1993), only ten people were over the age of twenty-one. Fourteen of the residents were under the age of eleven, and three mothers were expecting new babies (all of whom were successfully delivered in the fall after our departure). In the Michigan home we have more recently been visiting, only eight of 44 residents are over the age of twenty-one, and twenty-five are under the age of thirteen.

The age imbalance portrayed in these numbers in turn has several important consequences for The Family. Internally, it means that (1) a proportionately very large amount of time, energy and other resources is allocated to child care and socialization; (2) that home rules, interpersonal relationships, and Family philosophy have all undergone significant adaptive changes that reflect and accommodate problems associated with a burgeoning child-youth population; (3) and finally that The Family has perforce become unusually dependent on contributions of young people in both the operation of homes and in the performance of missionary and other outreach activities. Age imbalance also contributes to at least one important external consequence: It reinforces rumors, allegations, and public perceptions of Family-sanctioned child abuse.

Charges of child abuse, particularly sexual, do not, of course, originate in the mere existence of an usually large younger population. As pointed out in the preceding chapter, such accusations most obviously gain credence because The Family teaches a radically liberal view of sexuality and sexual relationships (at least from a traditional religious perspective) and actively practices these views. Two fundamental notions are invoked: One, that God created our sexual nature, so that it cannot be inherently bad; in fact it must be inherently good. And two, the law of love is the operating principle of human life and, appropriately applied, extends to heterosexual relationships between consenting adults outside the constraints of marriage. When these beliefs and certain applications are combined with communal living arrangements that feature a disproportionate number of young people, most outsiders don't think twice about accepting whole cloth the worst tales of anti-cultists and disaffected ex-members.

Reprise of Conclusions Regarding Charges of Child Abuse

The fundamental reason for our initial agreement to visit the California homes was to address these charges through direct observation of Family life. Our more clinically focused report summarizes assessment results (particularly for younger children) that produced no evidence of abuse. Here we want to emphasize the extent to which this outcome of more formal testing was corroborated by constant informal observation of interaction patterns and activities in the households in which we lived. We ate meals with Family members; engaged in simple household chores and recreational activities; observed daily devotional meetings and children's home-school classes; traveled with missionary outreach teams of young people to such destinations as restaurants and fire stations where they "witnessed" through song and literature; and we interviewed many members (both young and old) about their lives in the family and their attitudes concerning a multitude of personal and public issues. In all of these activities we were particularly alert for indications of potential abuse occurring. We detected none.

It is conceivable that a troupe of trained actors, while under constant observation for a period of days, might be able to sustain convincing, coordinating performances that would conceal the true nature of their lives and characters. But as we previously argued, it is inconceivable that young children and toddlers would be able to do so: It strains the bounds of credulity to believe that children who are physically and/or emotionally mistreated on a regular basis could suddenly be made to behave toward their putative abusers in such a way as to avoid giving off the slightest clue that anything was wrong and to instead consistently respond to older household members in persuasively secure and affectionate ways.

It is true that sexuality is not a repressed topic of interest in Family homes. Again, extra-marital relationships are condoned between adult members of households (although it has not been our impression that such liaisons are incessantly engaged in). Discussions of sexual issues and problems are open and candid. Family members did not avoid such discussions in our presence, nor did they inhibit normal behavior patterns tinged with sexual overtones, such as occasional wearing of a moderately revealing article of clothing, physical expressions of affection (a kiss, a hug, holding hands; but not "making-out" between couples), moderately sensual dance movements, etc. Teens are well informed about sex and are capable of talking about it without being either silly or mortified. After the age of 18 it is clear that young people engage in complete sexual relationships with one another, because a number of them are already a marital couple with a baby on the way. However, since 1986, Family rules prescribe instant excommunication for engagement in sexual relationships between adults and young people under the age of 21.

Our initial California observations have since been supplemented by visits to three additional Family homes (one in Michigan, two in Washington, D.C.) totaling approximately 100 other members and resulting in similar conclusions. Our overall sample of homes still remains small and non-random, but, as suggested in our earlier chapter, we nevertheless have several reasons to think that what we have observed so far is likely to be typical of Family homes throughout the world. The Family is a small, culturally homogeneous population that operates on the basis of a very standardized set of rules and values. High levels of geographic mobility insure circulation of membership between homes and countries, and this is also an important standardizing force. (In every home so far visited, we have seen the arrival of new members to the household from previous stations in such countries as Canada, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. These migrants appear to be quickly integrated into their new homes. They easily assume tasks and roles with which they are utterly familiar, and their smooth merger into the new home is further facilitated by the fact that they often already know many of the extant household members from previous associations over the years.)

Two additional considerations bolster our confidence in the reliability of our conclusions about the absence of child abuse. First, similar inferences are starting to be drawn by other colleagues (some of whom are represented in this volume) from their own recent observational experiences with The Family. Second, the succession of police raids, arrests, and formal changes brought against The Family by authorities in four different countries over the last four years have all failed to yield any acceptable proof of abuse. With the latest such case in Argentina rapidly unraveling at the time of this writing, more than 700 minor children have been removed from homes around the world, placed in state "protective" custody, examined for signs of abuse, and subsequently reunited with families after authorities have not uncovered evidence that would justify the original accusations.

We repeat: None of the above considerations mean that individual instances of abuse can't or don't occur. All long-term groups must be presumed to harbor a wide range of personalities and are subject to individual acts of deviance from established norms. But the above considerations do greatly decrease the likelihood that there are systematic abuses occurring throughout The Family as a matter of policy, custom, theology, or isolation.

Summary of Teen Educational and Social Functioning

We have previously described some of the personal characteristics of young people (particularly children) that we observed in California homes, some of the child rearing practices of parents, and the system of home-education for the elementary and nursery grades. Here we will summarize selected qualities, activities, and patterns of social interaction characteristic of the older youth, including the JETTS (Junior End Time Teens, ages 11-13), Older Teens (ages 14-17), and Young Adults (ages 18-20).

As a general rule, The Family's young people seem above average in intellectual and social development. In the preceding chapter we summarized younger children's performance profiles on several educational and psychological tests and noted the effectiveness of home schooling that children receive through the sixth grade level. We did not formally test teenagers, but as a group they did strike us as bright and creative problem solvers. However, while teens are encouraged to continue a series of self-study programs that can lead to high school certification, this objective is not accorded the same priority and institutionalized support as the mandatory elementary education program. Most teens are eager to become more deeply involved in basic Family work and missionary activities. Indeed, this orientation is shared by adults who also assume that the nearness of the End Time precludes the need for preoccupation with higher levels of education. Consequently our discussions with teens and young adults revealed them to be rather bereft of accepted notions of history, politics, economics, social science, and literature, i.e., the traditional liberal arts areas. For the most part, these young people do not seem to be critical thinkers. Virtually every subject they have learned at home is linked to or understood in light of a biblical or Family perspective.

We have seen very little evidence of ordinary teenage sloth and whining in the homes we have visited. To the contrary, one is immediately struck by the degree of disciplined responsibility assumed by teens of all ages within Family homes. The general impression conveyed is not that of fearful subservience, but rather of genuine acceptance (and usually enthusiasm) while carrying out a variety of tasks that tend to be outside the expected realm of performance for same-age counterparts in modern society. Of course enthusiastic task performance over a limited time period for the benefit of strangers is probably among the easiest of behaviors to simulate. And even when performances are collectively authentic there are bound to be surly exceptions.

Such exceptions are in fact discussed candidly in Family home literature. "Rebellious" young people-especially among the JETTS age group-emerged as a topic of considerable concern about six years ago. Typical concerns centered around the flourishing of such undesirable personal qualities as selfishness, pride, cynicism, faultfinding, complaining, defiance of authority, susceptibility to worldly allurements, and so on. This is a list of traits for pre-teenagers and teens that is not at all remarkable in the modern world. But in an intimate "gameinschaft" society that depends upon consensus, solidarity, and the subjugation of personal wants to collective needs, these are precisely the kinds of individualistic expressions that are perceived as most threatening and therefore most in need of being quelled.

An initial approach to this problem was the establishment of special youth centers in certain areas of the world (e.g., Japan, Mexico, and Brazil) where young people who had been identified as "problems" could be sent for an intensive period of social and spiritual "retraining and strengthening" under the direction of adult teacher-supervisors). (Contemporary jargon distinguishes between a teen who is "DT," meaning a "determined teen," which is bad; and one who is "IC," meaning "intensive care," which is very bad.) These centers were called "Victor" programs, signifying the hope that those who entered the program would be able to gain a "victory" over personal problems and return to their homes in a "yielded" state, with heightened motivation to make more positive contributions.

But the real solution to the problem of building high levels of commitment and conformity in a new generation has not developed from focusing resources on reformatory style rehabilitation programs for a minority of "delinquents." What has apparently happened instead is simply recognition of the need for parents and other Family adults to seriously devote much more systematic attention in every home to socialization issues that affect every young person. This recognition first began to be officially articulated about four years ago by Father David's wife, Maria, in a series of articles that promoted the now widely implemented "Discipleship Training Revolution" and resulted in the dissolution of the Victor Program. From a social psychological perspective, the essence of the DTR, as we observed it being applied in California, may be reduced to such basic principles as emphasizing positive rewards, listening, soliciting opinions and suggestions, conferring important responsibilities, and respecting decisions of young people when conscientiously made in the performance of their duties. When consistently experienced, the cumulative effect of these practices is to strengthen feelings of both personal worth and attachment to the purposes of the group.

These effects were in full blossom at the time of our California observations. According to one only slightly hyperbolic Family adult: "Eighteen-year-olds are running the whole show now. It's a challenge to keep our kids. There are some drop-outs, but with so much good training, the Lord will still find ways to make use of them." Below we present a brief sampling of some of the activities in which the operation of these integrative socialization policies are manifest.

Observational Examples of Youth Integration Activities

One of our first Family experiences in California was sitting in on the daily home devotional-an hour-long session of singing, praying, scripture applications, testimonials, and occasional skits. Older teens were completely in charge of these activities in both homes we visited. They selected the songs to be sung, provided the guitar accompaniment, dictated the format for collective prayer and scripture recitation, and led the discussion of goals that had been accomplished versus those that had not. These activities were carried out with natural ease and authority. Adult family members complied with directions, did not intervene in the programming, and in general responded to the young as one would to peer and status equals. At the conclusion of these sessions, a roundrobin of hugs and verbal expressions of affection and personal encouragement were exchanged among all members-young and old, male and female.

The most important devotional of the week is the Sunday communion service. Given the spiritual significance of this event, and the traditional assumption of sacramental officiating by the clergy in established religions, we anticipated that an adult leader might take charge on this occasion. Instead, a fourteen-year-old girl led the service with casual aplomb. She began with a few extemporaneous comments about the significance of communion, uttered an informal sacramental prayer, and then initiated the passing of a platter of bread and a glass of wine from which every household member except infants partook.

Older teens (particularly eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds, who are now accorded the status of "Young Adults") assume virtually the full range of "ministries," or roles, necessary for the functioning of Family homes. Some of the more visible of these roles include meal preparation; home maintenance and repairs; "provisioning" of food, clothing, and household goods; child care supervision; pre-school and elementary education; and finance and home budgeting. One eighteenyear-old girl was apprenticing to a traveling midwife (who in turn delivers a large percentage of Family births throughout the United States: Approximately 700 babies over the last eleven years). The young apprentice in fact successfully supervised the delivery of a baby in the temporary absence of the midwife after our departure. Younger teens and older children also make household contributions through regular chores such as house clean-up, laundry, table setting and dish washing, assisting in yard care and child care, and singing gentle wake-up songs for morning reveille in the various home sleeping quarters.

One more particularly good example of the implementation of youthful responsibilities may be cited in the area of finances. Individually Family homes do not open banking accounts: they do not have credit cards or write checks. All goods, services, and supplies that cannot be "provisioned" are paid for in cash. In one of the California homes, a young man who had just turned eighteen had been designated as the "money person," the person responsible for keeping the home's available cash, budgeting its expenditure for routine needs, and making decisions about its allocation to individuals who make requests for items that must be purchased. On one occasion we observed an older adult male-the home cook and one of the longest tenured members in The Family-approach this eighteen-year-old with a request for a small amount of money to buy an ingredient that was lacking for a meal entre he was planning to prepare. The young man checked his cash flow record and denied the request: Current cash level was low and other budgeted items and requests, in his judgement, had priority. He suggested the cook substitute a different ingredient that was on hand or prepare something else. The older man began to bridle, then stopped, grimaced, and without further argument accepted the decision.

Outside the home, young people also make substantial contributions to missionary and other outreach efforts. In so doing, they can concretely identify themselves at an early age with the fundamental purpose of The Family's existence. Outreach efforts may take a variety of forms for the young. It may be as simple as having children regularly create batches of drawings, cards, poems, or letters to send to people who have made donations, or to organizations that have permitted Family member visits, or to institutions that may have some other kind of potential relationship to The Family. Older teens assist in clerical computer tasks necessary for conducting the "mail ministry"-sending out of regular literature to "Turf Supporters" (former but non-alienated members), "Friends," and other sympathetic parties, solicitations and acknowledgments of contributions, etc. Older teens may also be sent considerable distances to offer volunteer relief aid in the aftermath of various natural and social disasters such as Hurricane Andrew, the Mississippi floods of summer '93, or the Los Angeles riots of spring '92.

But the most frequent, visible, and uniquely effective form that youthful outreach and missionary contributions take is through group musical presentations. Over the years, talented Family musicians and composers have created an impressive body of religious songs (emphasizing a folk-rock style) that virtually every member appears to know by heart. From an early age children are trained to sing and dance unself-consciously before audiences, and many also learn to play musical instruments, particularly the guitar. "Performance teams" of various youth age groupings are formed. Specific numbers are imaginatively choreographed and rehearsed. A wide variety of organizations and institutions (local businesses, shopping malls, senior citizen complexes, nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, juvenile homes, police and fire stations, etc.) are contacted to inquire about performance opportunities (which are especially forthcoming during Christmas, Easter, and other holiday periods).

The religious pitch linked to these performances is typically kept very general and low key, sometimes involving nothing more than the generic Christian religious content of the songs themselves. These performance opportunities are esteemed, however, because (1) they do convey a positive outreach message of Christian affirmation and hope; (2) they may open the door to further missionary inroads among receptive listeners, whose "hearts may have been touched"; (3) they convey an extremely positive image of The Family to the larger community that challenges stereotypes of debased cultists; and (4) they provide an ideal vehicle for introducing children and teens to a working conception of themselves as actual missionaries.

We accompanied performance teams on two separate occasions. The first was with a combined group of a dozen JETTS and older teens in a jam-packed van to a fire station in downtown San Diego. A musically talented married couple was in charge of the expedition, participated in the performance themselves, and maintained a constant stream of advisory suggestions and comments on lessons learned during both the drive into the city and the return home. The half-hour performance itself was polished, touching, and very well received by an audience of about 30 fire station personnel. Among the most affecting numbers was a rendition of "The Fireman's Prayer," composed and set to music by the adult male team supervisor.

The second outreach performance we observed was significantly different in several respects. The group was smaller, consisting of just female JETTS (who were under the supervision of an 18-year-old girl, the younger girls' designated "Shepherd"), and was not a pre-arranged performance date. This team drove to a community some 15 miles distant from their home and began searching for a promising restaurant where they might inveigh permission to perform. A modest Italian place was located, a parking lot prayer for success was offered, and an impromptu meeting with the manager was skillfully negotiated by the 18-year-old team Shepherd.

The manager's initial suspicion was mollified by demonstration of a photo album crammed with pictures of Family young people performing in other locales (including the White House for the Bushes during the 1992 Christmas season). When the manager said they could sing in a back room where no customers were currently seated, the 18-year-old asked if they might take a quick poll of customers themselves to see whether there would be any objection to the girls performing in a more central spot nearer the customers. The poll was taken, no objections were registered, and suddenly, in the middle of the restaurant, these six young girls between the ages of eleven and thirteen were confidently launching themselves into a mini-version of the same performance given previously at the fire station.

Reactions at tables ranged from indifference to pleased attention. As soon as the last number was completed, the girls quickly fanned out with literature in hand, trolling their audience of diners for potential receptivity to a more pointed religious message. Two of the youngest girls claimed later they had gotten two men to pray with them and were elated at having "saved" them. Meanwhile, the manager had ordered up deluxe pizzas "on the house," and the team sat down to feast. Prior to leaving, the team went into the kitchen area and serenaded the cooks. The expedition ended with a follow-up parking lot prayer of thanksgiving for its success. (Two days later, when the authors volunteered to treat the entire home to carry-out pizza, in order to reciprocate the hospitality provided us, a youthful provisioner was careful to choose this same restaurant from which to order over a dozen large pizzas.)

While the above observations clearly emphasize the degree to which young people are socialized to serve Family organizational needs, one should not imagine that life for the young is a relentless round of unrelieved work, religious indoctrination, and weighty responsibilities. The daily schedule allocates an hour of private "quiet time" and an hour of "get-out," or recreational exercise, for every home member. Sundays are designated as "Family Day," during which smaller nuclear families are expected to interact together in some enjoyable and relaxing activity. (In cases where adults or older teens are living in a home separate from their "flesh" families, they are "adopted" into one of the existing nuclear units.) Swimming, picnics, and intra-family soccer matches were the activities of choice we observed in California.

Parties are also popular forms of diversion. One regular occasion for parties is a collective birth celebration, held sometime during the appropriate zodiac period, for all home residents who share the same astrological sign. Such a celebration was planned in one of the California homes midway during our visit. Various activities involved in bringing this party to its conclusion are worth mentioning here, because they illustrate additional small but telling ways in which Family values are manifest in young people's routine home experience.

Basic ingredients (including some imaginative substitutes) for making a half dozen "carrot-chocolate" cakes from scratch were identified and prepared by a group of JETTS. A creative older teen adapted a Black and Decker power drill for mixing the batter in a large tub. What was missing was ice cream. The lack of ice cream for the party was presented to a group of younger children (who had elsewhere been engaged in a competitive team game revolving around knowledge of Bible passages) as an opportunity to pray for a "miracle"; i.e., the obtaining of the needed ice cream. The children enthusiastically bunched together and united their voices in a prayer for ice cream. An older teen provisioner then retired from the children's classroom to call local ice cream parlors listed in the phone directory, explaining that she represented a missionary organization that depended on contributions for its sustenance. Would the store consider donating ice cream for the party? Within a short time the teen returned with the news that "we have our miracle": Two different stores had each agreed to donate two gallons of ice cream. This announcement brought cheers from the children, followed immediately by a session of writing and illustrating thank-you notes to the store managers.

The party itself clearly represented a significant entertainment and social outlet. This was a "new" home, only established and operating for about a month prior to our arrival. This meant that at least some residents were still probably in the process of establishing personal relationships with one another, and a party-this was apparently the home's first-presents a number of different relationship opportunities that are not available in routine work settings. Additionally, a traveling Family film crew of four males (two YAs and two older adults) had just arrived, and the temporary presence of more males in a home where women outnumbered men contributed a small portion of extra excitement. Several females-particularly the YAs-exchanged jeans, shorts, and sundresses for dress-up apparel and make-up. Social dancing-including slow and cheek-to-cheek modes, "jitterbugging," and more contemporary, uninhibited movements to a hard rock beat and pulsating strobe light-quickly became the predominant activity. Dancing partners usually rotated between musical selections, and both males and females actively solicited new partners.

Concluding Comments

Space limitations preclude a fuller account here of additional relevant details from our initial, exploratory study of Family relationships. We are engaged in on-going research that we trust will soon permit a more comprehensive, comparative, and analytical assessment of this group's unique capacity for incorporating the creative energy and enthusiasm of its youth in its so-far successful struggle to survive in a world hostile to its existence. From the perspective of many outsiders who share such a hostile view, the preliminary report offered here will be a disappointment: No confirmation of sex crimes, nor of pathetic dupes being hypnotically controlled to serve the malevolent purposes of psychotic leaders. However, our report does point to at least two social truths that are always crucial to remember.

One truth is that things are rarely as they seem on their surface. A very old dictum in interpreting social behavior says that if people perceive something to be true it will, for them, become true in its consequences. If, in this case, we construct a general stereotype of destructive, religious "cults," we are very likely to begin applying this label to every new religious group we encounter that appears to depart from "normal" religion. We assume the worst, fail to make critical distinctions, are receptive only to evidence (oftentimes shaky at best) that supports our assumptions, and respond to members of groups thus defined in exactly the objectionable ways that characterize racial, ethnic, and gender prejudice.

The second, related truth is to acknowledge the difficulty in arriving at critical, rational judgments about complicated issues in a diverse social world. When issues arise outside the boundaries of our own direct knowledge, we typically seek advice or suggestions from sources that are presumably knowledgeable about these issues. For many, the mass media are such a source. In the area of new religious movements, however, the media's usual approach has been to elaborate upon and strengthen the very stereotype of religious "cults."

We can cite one personal example. After completing our observational visit in California, the authors were contacted by CBS television news to provide an interview for a special program they were doing on The Family. We agreed and the interview was video taped-a sober 20-minute summary of our research observations and conclusions. When the program aired, none of our interview was included. Nor was the information included from any other scholarly or objective sources to which CBS had easy access. The story presented to viewers was completely negative, lacking even a passing nod to the existence of evidence or views that might contradict the lurid opening program previews that trumpeted "Story coming up on a bizarre California sex cult!" When one of the authors called the producer to complain about such unbalanced, unprofessional reporting, the producer sheepishly agreed and lamented the need to employ a National Inquirer approach to the news in order to attract viewers.

A fierce struggle is being waged in many nations, our own included, to define what constitutes "valid" religion. This is, in some ways, simply the continuation of a very old struggle in modern guise. In past times, and in pre-modern societies, this conflict is couched in terms of religious heresy. In our own time and society, the conflict has been redefined in the language of secular criminology and psychology. The modern version of this struggle is not just being waged on television screens and in the pages of newspapers or magazines. It is also occurring in courtrooms and within all levels of government concerned with issues of social control. Perhaps it is too naive to hope, as expressed in the concluding statement of the preceding chapter, that some officials and opinion shapers prominently involved in this conflict will heed the cautionary notes sounded by scholars in volumes such as this. But in the aftermath of the Waco debacle, it seems worth a try.

Gary Shepherd is Professor of Sociology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He has published extensively on Mormonism and religious socialization.

Lawrence Lilliston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, and a clinical-child psychologist in private practice. He has published research on the psychosocial development of children in new religious movements and in the areas of religion, values, and coping.

Keeping the Faith and Leaving the Army: TRF Supporters of the Lord's Endtime Family

Charlotte Hardman

University of Newcastle

He drew a circle that shut me out. But I drew a circle that brought him in! ("Other Sheep" Mo Letter, No. 167/1972)

The Family are an international group of Fundamentalist Christian missionaries, better known under their old name, the Children of God. In the last few years they have had to confront an intensive anti-Family campaign. Since 1990, this campaign has culminated in charges of child sexual abuse being filed against them in Spain, Australia, Argentina, and France. In each case they have been acquitted; no evidence of abuse could be found.

Since 1991 I have been carrying out research on the Family as part of a more general research project looking at children in new religious movements.' I became interested in the group of "TRF Supporters" after being invited to one of their big fellowship meetings in London in 1993. 1 was excited when I realized that here was a lay congregation of Family supporters who shared beliefs and goals with the Family, yet chose to live a different lifestyle. This group offered children in the Family an important possibility of experimenting with an alternative to remaining in the full-time missionary Family, without having to leave the movement completely. As with many other new religious movements, the options prior to the introduction of TSers had been a clear-cut IN or OUT. For some second generation members, safe experimentation with the outside world was what they wanted, in order to help them make up their own minds about leaving or staying with the Family. TSers offer Family children a half-way house.

To explain the terminology, "TRF Supporters" (also known as TSers) is a term introduced to the Family in 1989 to describe "saved" ex-missionaries of the Family, ex-disciples of the Army of the Lord's Endtime Family, who continue to keep the faith and support their work in witnessing and saving souls but no longer live in "disciple only homes." The term TRF (Tithing Report Forms) is used by the Family to refer to the forms filled in by all "disciple only homes" and hence also came to mean "full-time member."' TRF Supporters now live independently, without Shepherds, deciding themselves the extent to which they adopt Family culture and rules. They continue to send their monthly tithing report and 10% of their income to World Services. The following paper looks at who the TRF supporters are, their status within the Family and how this is linked to the historical situation in which they emerged as a category in the Family, what they offer children in the way of an alternative, and what they reflect about Family values and beliefs.

Historical Background to the TRF Supporter Classification

The new classification was introduced at a time when a large number of Family members were returning to the US and Europe after intensive missionary work in the East. By the end of 1989, according to Family statistics, the Family population in Europe had increased by 25% and in North America by 38%. This was the result of the new restrictive visa policies in India and the leader Moses (Mo or Dad) Berg's positive reaction to everyone returning to their home countries—to their home fields. "Even though we're now having to leave some of the foreign Eastern fields and having to go home to the West, the Lord is blessing us with a new harvest in the West." The Homes at this stage had become much larger. Whereas in 1988 there had been 701 communities, by 1989 this had been reduced to 388—and with a population of 12,419, the average Home size was now 38. With larger Homes there was a need for close cooperative living in a way that had not been demanded of members since about 1979.

The stream of missionaries from the East and the larger size of Homes strengthened "the Army of the Lord," and at the same time highlighted both the problems some people were facing in, for example, keeping up with the pace of working at 100% demanded of disciples, and the inability of some members to stick to Family regulations. Given the growing number of teens as well as the returning missionaries, there were now more than enough people in the Army. It was also apparent that some disciples were handing over "Disciples Only" literature to anti-cultists, who were using the material against the Family, and this was further reason for tightening the Family. The diminishing loyalty of a few members was mentioned in an advisory from World Services:

... there are a number of weak folks who continue to receive DO mailings simply because they tithe and supposedly remain reasonably loyal ... a number of these weak people spend much of their time sitting around drinking beer, smoking, criticizing the Family and murmuring.

Now that we have discovered that our internal publications and inside info is being leaked to our enemies and the anti-cult network, the Lord is spotlighting these home fields, and many of these weak or independent supposed Family members are being brought into question. ("Tightening up our Family," 1989)

The focus of the Family in 1989 was, then, to raise the standard of behavior of its members, to totally eliminate from the Family those who would not obey Family rules, and to keep as a supportive group those who were still loyal but needed a different style of life. Every Home was visited and every adult interviewed by their National Shepherd. The news bulletin that was sent out at the time went as follows:

For any individual TRFers or Homes who are not reinstated to full D.O. mailings after their Home is visited, we would like to announce the establishment of a new reporting status. With the understanding that individuals of Homes who are not fully reinstated would still want to continue to tithe to the Lord's Work and would want to receive Family mailings, this new concentric circle of TRF disciples is being established.-"TRF Supporters."

TSers would receive much of the Family literature but not all Mo letters, Good News or directional literature and they were no longer held by Family regulations, communal lifestyle or the high standards of dedication required; they could be independent, pursue their own goals, live as they wished with their own families without having to answer to Family leaders. "TRF Supporter" status was given to those who might benefit from a different lifestyle and to give independence to those who clearly wanted more independence than the Family Army could offer. Disciples were expected to work for the common goal and give up personal ambitions.

There were several reasons for the introduction of the TS programme; one was tightening up the Army; another was bringing policy into line with practice. There were Family members already living in a style more like that of TRF Supporters than disciples; there was clearly a demand for a support group of people who did not have to be part of the "front line troops." Members of the Family themselves constantly use the military image to describe their roles. They talk about the "main fighting force" and the TSers as the "reserves" who want to be in the battle.

After RNR (1978-1981) there was a lot of coming and going. The Family had not been a "community" in the way that it is now-they had all been "doing their own thing," earning their own living and living mostly in units of couples and children. There were people who wanted to maintain this way of life. "The TS programme was the answer. Before it had been a black or white/all or nothing situation." After RNR when the Family was trying to live in communities again, there were rules and some members felt they were struggling to "make the grade" yet didn't want to leave the movement. At the time there was a contradiction in supporting the Family and its goals whilst questioning the degree of commitment required. "All the little rules and we found it hard to apply them all the time." Some wanted to leave but didn't want their children to leave; they felt they couldn't themselves give the kind of education and training the Family can offer. Communal living was a struggle for others:

It's against human nature to take other people into your home & share everything. It was our own weakness that we couldn't live with others. I simply had a battle with communal living.

Others missed the comforts of life. "The Family has a simple lifestyle and we found it hard to live so frugally." As one TSer put it:

Now, it's up to us how far we want to go. We're still Christians and we want to help the Family. But we're more individuals-we have freedom and choice to do what we want. In the Family as DO it's 100% commitment. Even people who want to join can't unless they have gone through 6 months of waiting and trying it out.

Other adults were faced with teens who did not want to live their lives as disciples serving the Lord in the Family and the Family had to find a way of dealing with them.

The emergence of the TS-ers is seen as having helped the group understand, define and satisfy an already existing demand, given the wide variety of people brought together in the movement. Deciding whether someone should be DO or TSer

involved discernment of the Holy Spirit. If someone has real commitment then maybe they should be disciple and not TRF Supporter, whereas for some maybe it's best for them to have a job and become a TSer. If people don't want to surrender some of their autonomy and work for the common purpose or they get fed up with the schedules and the rules then they will probably be happier as TSer.

The TSer classification was a solution, after two previous and unsatisfactory strategies, to the problem of those who, though loyal, detract from the evangelical fervor, smooth running and exciting pace of the fight to save souls. The Army of Family disciples have to work 100%, accepting schedules and rules. In the past discipline and authoritarianism and then extreme tolerance were both tried. In the Chain of Cooperation, for example, the method of dealing with problems was, I gather, at times heavy-handed and dogmatic, to try and overcome the slackness that had come about as a result of the RNR period in which people had operated "according to their own faith."

You just cannot have everybody running loose or you're going to have some key bad conduct ... we're no longer a bunch of harem-scarem, wild and woolly-headed hippies! . . . We're going to have to start excommunicating people who don't set a good example and are not good samples of our Family, lest the community thinks that's us! (The Future is here-And Needs Leaders, ML 1200, 1982)

In contrast to any over zealous and ruthless handling of problems, the Fellowship Revolution of 1981 emphasized cooperation and fellowship, and communities were encouraged to tolerate people who were perhaps not suited to the kind of rigorous life demanded of a Family disciple. To ask members themselves to be realistic about the kind of life they want to lead and to offer them the alternative as a TS-er reflects the generally more mature and tolerant attitude of the Family.

Berg wrote a significant letter in 1972 called "Other Sheep." It is still a key letter today, relevant to the introduction of the TRF Supporter Program. The letter reminds members of the Family that there are Christians outside of the Family, that they don't have to be in the Family to be Christians, that the Family had been extreme in the past in order to prove their ideal works, and that "Other Sheep," including ex-disciples, should be included somehow into the flock.

I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT WE NEED TO ACCEPT MANY OUTSIDERS AS ASSOCIATES AND FRIENDS. May I suggest that we do the same for Jesus People who are interested in us: Welcome their fellowship, share our literature ... Ban doctrinal arguments, condemnation and accusations! Love never fails...

WE USED TO HAVE THREE GRADES..... IF AFTER COMPLETING ANY ONE OF THESE ... A STUDENT DID NOT WISH TO CONTINUE IN OUR SCHOOL OR WAS NOT EVEN SUITABLE or capable of continuing to a higher level of leadership, and wanted to go home, we didn't call him a "Backslider" .. . we called him a "Graduate" . . . with a Graduation Certificate and our blessing to show he'd done the best he could, and we hoped he'd be a better Christian and a good witness for the Lord ... even though he didn't qualify for all-out, full-time service.

AS A RESULT, WE KEPT MANY OF OUR "GRADUATES" AS FRIENDS and co-workers, who continued to fellowship with us, pray for us, root for us, and even help to support us for years afterward, some of them even returning to go on with the Lord later.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE: (1) DISCIPLES-Full-time members of our Colonies, the 100 percenters who have taken our training and are serving the Lord full time with us. (2) GRADUATES-Those who have gone as far as they feel able, but don't feel suited to our type of life or ministry, and hopefully go back home to serve the Lord as best they can. (3) ASSOCIATES—Those who do not feel able to forsake all and join us, but love us, like to fellowship with us and help us all they can.

DISCIPLES WERE NOT THE ONLY CHRISTIANS! ... we should be as merciful and patient as possible with those who are following as far and as fast as they can, even though they may seem far behind us. (ML "Other Sheep," No 167, 1972)

The letter ends with the recollection of and comment on the line of a poem (quoted at the beginning of this article), "'He drew a circle that shut me out. But I drew a circle that brought him in!' Beloved, can't we do this with the Lord's 'Other Sheep'?" The introduction of TSers does this; it brings ex-disciples closer to the main army than any other category, such as "Catacombers," "Live-outs," and DFers. Catacombers are usually young people who want to become full-time disciples but are not considered ready, either because they are too young (i.e., under 18), have not finished their studies, or have other commitments outside the Family. Live-outs are older people with families and jobs whose commitments have never allowed them to become full-time disciples. DFers are those who receive the publication "Daily Food"—lay people who have received Jesus into their hearts and want to remain in Fellowship with the Family without ever wanting to be missionaries or disciples. Members of these categories have never been disciples as is the case with the TSers.

Status of TSers

In spite of the "Other Sheep" letter and the demand for something like a TS programme, most TRF Supporters nevertheless feel they have low status in relation to the disciples. None of the TS teens I spoke to felt they could talk about TSers and DOs as being equal but different. More common was the following feeling: "We feel embarrassed if we bump into DOs. What they're doing is exciting; we're just stuck with being TS because of our family." Several factors contribute to the lower status of TSers. Firstly, TSers do not receive all the literature that Family disciples do; they are therefore excluded from the most recent policies and orientations of the Family. "We don't have Good News or the Stuff from Dad, so we don't hear the latest, what the different revolutions are; we only hear about them through the grapevine." Second, inevitably the fact that the programme began as part of a process of "Tightening the Army" to make it more efficient has also contributed to the low status. As we have seen, at the time when the TS classification was first introduced some members were considered to be "the weak folks" who were sinning and committing offenses, unlike the "very dedicated folks," and these "weak" ones were asked to leave the Family or become TS. The people who were chosen to remain in the Family Army were the "folks we can count on." The letter "D.O. is for Doers of the Word" issued at the same time as the bulletin about the new TS programme made clear what behaviour was considered as offenses, sins or weaknesses, and whether people were to be demoted, reclassified or excommunicated. Behavior for which people would be excommunicated included bootlegging D.O. literature, sex with outsiders, sex with minors, violent behaviour, sex with new adult disciples in the Family less than six months, sex with outsiders, sex with minors (anyone under 21). The less serious offenses which were nevertheless still considered to be "offenses" included unbelief in the Letters, being critical of Father David, the Family or the Letters, persistent murmurers, troublemakers and "bad apples"; failure to obey Family rules or leadership, smoking, excessive drinking, excessive reading of worldly books, continual listening to System rock music etc. People who had been struggling with such "weaknesses," and for whom even many years of prayer and counseling within the group made no difference, were asked to become TRF Supporters. It was felt that if the weaknesses had been disruptive of the community over a considerable time and no improvements had been made, then it was only fair that the individuals should be asked to sort out the problem themselves.

In the years subsequent to the Chain of Cooperation (when some leaders had abused their power and use of discipline) there was a general concern to have a truly compassionate and loving style of shepherding. There was a definite emphasis on understanding problems that disciples had in their ministries and their relations with other members; on trying to inspire rather than condemn. Nevertheless, the Family has standards, it has rules and regulations. "Try and run an Army without them," I was told.

In order to maintain standards, the Family has adopted a general emphasis on overcoming personal weaknesses and cultivating Christian virtues in everyone in the Family. They believe that the ability to act unselfishly and sacrificially depends upon spiritual strength and maturity, and that once people are saved they have the potential to live the Law of Love by which people know how to act rightfully and lovingly. Nevertheless, I was repeatedly told, everyone has NWOs "Needs to Work On"-the Family term for weaknesses and bad habits. It is believed these can be worked on with prayer, counseling and renewed inspiration to "get the victory." Everyone was expected to adopt "Prayerfulness," "teamworking!' and "loving interactions with others." It was only when people could not achieve the changes necessary that they might be offered TS status. One man explained TS as:

Some people joined the Family for Jesus. They saw something about the way it was being done had the right results. Like joining a political party you stick with it through thick and thin if you believe the principles are right. Some weren't so sure. They liked what we did but they wanted to do it their way. If the way they wanted to do it was fairly close to our way then they become T'S. If further away then they become one of the "Other Sheep."

According to Family members the general attitude is that TSers, however, are definitely not "backsliders"-a traditional Christian term used to describe people who relapse into sin or error, returning to old ways. As one member said:

We can't consider them as backsliders-they're our brothers and sisters. It depends on what they do, what they did when they left. We wouldn't condemn them. One woman was asked to become a TSer because she found it difficult to concentrate on her children, which meant they were a handful. One girl was constantly screaming and being naughty to the other kids. We tried to help her, tried to work with her about how to disciple them. She was very permissive with them saying, "They'll learn eventually." She was so dependent on other people doing the childcare

work for her. It was more helpful for her to be a TSer. It was affecting the other kids. We had to pray about what was best for the Home and what was best for the individual. We expect a certain standard in the Family ... She's much better now ... Very often it helps if people become TSer and they can spend more time with their own children. The 1989 "Tighten the Family" letter talked about people not putting their whole hearts into being disciples. Some couldn't.

Some TSers were defined as having a "difficulty," like naughty children, and this meant it was eventually considered better for them and the Home they lived in for them to leave. Not surprisingly, this carried with it some negativity and contributed to the status of the category as a whole, however much it is now emphasized that the shift to TS status was a matter of optimizing options.

To give an idea of figures, about 2000 people dropped away from the status of "disciple only" and life in a D.O. communal Home in 1989. There are no Family statistics relating to the number who became TS.

From the TS adults and the children's point of view the main reason being a DO has higher status is that disciples are serving the Lord 100%—some say 110%! The TS teens declare that "because of what they know about being a disciple when their parents were disciples they would still like to be DO." And to stress how little she appreciated being TS one girl added, "Some who leave the Family say they would rather be completely 'OUT' than be a TSer!" Another expressed her desire to become DO, wistfully sighing, "You can only try DO when you are 16 but we are all trying to think of ways of getting in earlier."

One of the attractions of being a DO is the training and learning from others in a Family Home—at Nelly's knee—rather than going to school. They said it was partly the enthusiasm of the group which carries you through. "In the Family if you are a good cook you teach others to cook; if you're a good teacher you teach others to teach. After 'school' we (4 jets and 4 teens) were each allowed to learn what we wanted, using our talents. I chose kitchen; some wanted to learn to type."

Life as a DO is seen as living with a standard, an ideal, something to work towards and something to do all the time which feels worthwhile. Life as a disciple is seen as a good training ground for life. As one man said, "Dale Carnegie, Vincent Pearl and James Dobson—they all say that the building of character is more determining of success than formal education, and that's what you get in the Family." One mother explained the teens' reluctance to pursue higher studies:

When I became a disciple I had to put all my university education in the garbage. I leamt more in my time with the Family than I did learning philosophy at University. At their age they want to learn, but their curiosity is different: they're at an age when music is important, things that are exciting ... and they want to do things that will be needed as a missionary—like childcare. They know what skills are needed when there are 30 kids and 12 adults in a home and that's what they want.

Though missionary life may have higher status, many of the adults describe the shift from DO to TS as "a blessing" whereas for their children "it's a let down." Sara summed up the extent to which the adults shift gear: as a TRF Supporter she had been determined to put aside several hours each day to learn the guitar, learn to type, do healthy exercises-things she had not had time to do as a disciple. She is still trying to find the time.

The following are examples of reasons given to me by TS adults for leaving full-time missionary life with the Family and becoming a TSer:

1. Working too much and too fast; I have a slow rhythm. The rhythm in The Family is very fast. Everyone is giving their ALL I needed to slow down.

2. I had some lessons to learn. I needed to slow down and learn what I needed to.

3. We had teenagers who want as much of the world as they can get; they want to leave the Family. They want to be able to watch as much TV as possible, wear the clothes they want, drink and smoke.

4. I felt I could be a better mother without people telling me how to do things. "I actually wanted to teach my own kids."

5. We had a lot to find out for ourselves.

6. We felt rebellious-had joined the Family when we were 18 and 19, so we had 18 years and 21 years in respectively. We needed a change.

7. The Family has changed. It became a lot stricter and tougher and more disciplined. There was a general standard and every aspect of life was covered with certain rules. We began to think we didn't agree and couldn't see the importance of all the little rules. Now I can, but I had to have my own conviction.

8. Not being able to sustain the sacrificial role of "learning to be a humble person who will fit in and do the job that has to be done rather than what you want to do."

The TS group highlights the intensity with which the DO's live, the extent to which they have religious fervour and sacrifice their own desires for the sake of the group as a whole.

To be in the Family you must know that's what you want. There is pressure living within the community. We try to make everyone happy and we have counsels (once a week). If someone is having a hard time we try to work it out. If you are outside the group you are more likely to be able to do what you want when you want to. Here you have to plan it more: you have to take the larger family into account. If you make the whole "home" as your "family," the other children "as your own" then it comes naturally and other mums do it for you too.

In the life of the TSer the locus of control shifts from the community to the individual. TSers themselves find it difficult to describe the shift, though the main emphasis is on learning how to live individually rather than learning how to live in harmony with others in community; they live with more freedom of choice, more time to reflect on options, time to reflect about themselves and about how to act, increased responsibility, learning to make new friends, the challenge of having to take the initiative.

How TSers Live

TRF Supporters no longer live at the core centre. They live on the periphery as lay members yet they share the culture of the Family, dominated by their religion, their dependence on the Bible, belief in the "Endtime," witnessing and serving the Lord. They can continue their dedication to saving souls, loving others and living lives led by prayer. They can make their own rules, decide their own routines and boundaries.

Given the freedom one might imagine that TSers would find a new meaning system for their lives or that at least the followers would change. The sources of coherence, however, for their new setting, and the ideology for their everyday lives remain very much the same. Serving the Lord 100% is still the ideal.

How is it that the TSers can let go of the high standards required by the Army of the Family and at the same time keep their faith in those standards? This has to do with the ideology itself. As we have seen, the admission of weaknesses and mistakes is part of the Family ideology. Everyone has "NWOS" (Needs Work On), everyone can be selfish, jealous, self-righteous, lacking in love. Admitting them is part of spiritual growth. It is acceptable to make mistakes-man is weak. The gap between reality and the ideology is explained. The belief is that everyone can work for the higher standards and they are to be found in the Word-that the Scriptures are:

…the divinely appointed standard and guide to our faith and practice. Holding fast this truth, that "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of C3rod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), we strive to study, memorize and obey it, that we may grow in faith, wisdom and spiritual strength. (From Family Statement of Faith)

In addition, change and experimentation are believed to be part of the process to perfection:

TO STAY ALIVE, EVERYONE MUST HAVE MOVE-MENT! There must be change, movement, motion ..

IF WE DON'T BREAK OUT OF THAT OLD OVER-STRETCHED BOTTLE WE'LL FIND OURSELVES IN A BOTTLENECK ...

I'VE GOT MORE FAITH FOR THE GUYS WITH ENOUGH GUMPTION TO BREAK OUT OF THAT OLD-BOTTLE mold of nothing but colony life. (ML "Old Bottles" No 242 1973)

TSers have seen the Family pass through many different stages and changes, Revolutions and New Eras (RNR, Chain of Cooperation, FFing, being sent home to families, mobile era, Fellow Revolution, etc.) (see Richardson and Davis, 1983). They have seen the Family through many experiments, and to some degree to be a TSer is just another experiment doing whatever is needed in "the Last Days," in a way that is more constructive for them as individuals and for the Family as a whole.

The extent to which TSers still live "by faith" is exemplified by the way they still pray before doing anything-going in a car, crossing a road, doing some work-either silently or openly ... and still seek to have their needs met by prayer. When they have needs many TSers will, for example, "work on them making a needs list, praying on them, saving for them, looking in a car boot sales, or 'provisioning' (asking someone in the 'system')." They believe "the Lord will provide" but this does not entail just sitting back and waiting; they actively set the goal before them in a way that many "self-improvement" courses would applaud. When the goal is achieved it is interpreted as a "blessing" and sometimes a "miracle." Children are taught to go to the Lord themselves if they have needs: "They that shall preach of the Gospel shall live of the Gospel"—i.e., if you're working for God he'll give you a salary. This kind of goal-oriented attitude encourages effective positive thinking which may also contribute to the particular enthusiasm for sticking to Family ideology.

The Children

The second generation of The Family are seen as God-given for His glory-to love and praise Him; they are the future of The Family. The children of TRF Supporters are also viewed as gifts from God but whereas in The Family there are strong directives from the leadership, as in the Discipleship Training Revolution (DTR) of 1991, TS parents must decide for themselves how to raise their children and the extent to which they encourage them to serve the Lord. For some TSers the chance to focus on their own children, without having to look after all the children of a Family Home, was a major reason for becoming a TSer; for others TS status brings with it "loss of a kind of training for my kids I can never give them myself." "There's a lot of care and energy poured into the kids but as a TSer it's all on your shoulders. You pray and the Lord provides. He still does miracles but you have all the responsibility."

Inevitably, TSers reveal different individual notions about how children should be raised. Many, however, feel they are still finding out what works best without the rules of the Family to guide them. In terms of younger children TSers still use the manual Raise 'em Right, a collection of condensations of books on how to raise happy, healthy and secure children. One parent described TS parents as facing a new situation in which they are only just beginning to find out what the problems are that arise, let alone the solutions. Their teens expect some advantages from being TSers. In principle, they think they can now dip into the youth culture of the "system" whenever they want to, listen to rock as much as they want. The parents know that their teens "want something exciting and strong," but how far should they let them go? She said:

At first we didn't want them to listen to any heavy rock music—the kind of music many of us used to listen to before joining the Family when we took acid. But of course they need music. And then we realized it was better to let them listen to rock but we said no to the black stuff, that kind of satanic music that talks about depressing feelings and suicide.

TSers have had to balance bringing up their children within the faith without lowering standards at the same time as allowing them the freedom they want-letting them wear the clothes they want, watch TV, drink alcohol, make the friends they want, go to State schools. They want to know what it is they will be giving up if they do become disciples.

Most TSers live in single family units although there are a few who have joined forces with one other family. Some have a son or daughter who has remained as a disciple in the Family. Children of TSers who were over 15 and who wanted to remain core members were allowed to remain as "DO" (Disciples only), spending some days a week with their parents but working primarily as missionaries.

Children of disciples who are over 15 and think they want to leave the Family may be given the opportunity of staying with a TS family for a few months, though I was told "they often want to keep the door open so they can go back to DO" if they decide not to leave. The age of decision is between the ages of 14 and 16, and some decide as early as 12. Members I talked to emphasized that teens themselves have to decide what they want to do. "There are teens that leave, about 10% at a guess, and some of those come back." Many of these will live with TSers for a while to see what it feels like to live outside the Family to take a paid job, to be independent, to have a "system" boy/girl-friend, to go out by themselves. Teens I spoke to said they might find it difficult to make a final commitment to the Family without knowing what it was like "on the other side." Living with a TSer family gives them this opportunity.

Only a minority of DO teens experiment with TS life. Conversely, children of TSers describe the life of the DO in positive terms, if not superlatives. The Family has brought excitement to the life of their DO teens with various projects, the latest in London being The Coffee Shop, an outreach organized and run by teens with as little supervision as possible from adults. It should be said that there are plans to incorporate some of the TS teens. The song and dance routines of The Family teens have become an increasingly significant part of their outreach as talents have been professionalized on videos and tapes. TSer teens have not failed to notice the kind of training that is now being given DO teens, as the future of the Family. The life of a disciple appears to the TS teen "as a big responsibility and as challenging." Although they can participate in the "system's" youth culture to the degree that their parents allow them, many consider there is even more excitement in the life of the DO teen.

When the children of TRF Supporters have reached the age of 16 and if they want to become full disciples, they have to find themselves what is termed a "guardian." They have to express in writing why they want to become disciples and their parents have to agree. These requests are sent to the World Services in Geneva where the likelihood of commitment is given full consideration before acceptance is finalized. At the time of my research there were three TS children in London old enough to become disciples, but all three had decided to remain TRF Supporters or join the "System." One was going to an aunt and uncle, ex-members in the US. None of them was against the Family: they simply "wanted to do their own thing." One TS girl, nearly old enough to become a disciple, wisely explained, "Sometimes you just want to do what your parent doesn't agree with at all. You want to be outrageous. Sometimes you just want to be bad, to break the rules." Others who could become disciples in a year or two were anxious to see if they could find ways to join earlier.

In Conclusion

The TRF Supporters reflect the degree to which the children in the Family are offered a choice to remain as a disciple, to try out the wider society by joining a TS family, or to leave the group completely. Several mothers expressed the view that they would be surprised if all their children wanted to remain as missionaries for the rest of their lives, and that the best way to test out uncertainty is to try TS life. Horton (1967) argues that people from a closed system cannot have consciousness of their own system. Similarly it is assumed that totalism produces highly committed followers (Balch in Robbins, 1979). The children in the Family have clear insights into their own "system" with a clear capacity to reflect about their lives and whether it is what they want. They look at their own life in comparison to others-the lives of those they witness to, those in the mass media, and those of TSers or disciples.

The TS-ers are also an attempt to solve several inherent problems of The Family. Firstly, the tension between loving fellowship, charity, the law of love and at the same time the view of the Family as an army fighting a very tough battle "we are God's elite troops we are warriors & must keep moving & fighting & dying for Jesus." (ML 1033.81)

Love is the Answer—The whole World's problems—political, economic, social, religious and physical could be solved through the love of God and each other! That's what we teach and preach, and that's our message, our life, our goal, our love, our everything: To love God, and our neighbors as ourselves. (ML, 633, 1981)

alongside:

We have to go into all the World & Preach the Gospel & we can't do it very well if we're dragged down by a bunch of time-taking, energy-draining, spirit-depressing, retarded and handicapped people.... this is an army and we're fighting a very tough battle. (ML 1033, 1981)

or

Well just tell them flat out that we want to eliminate all of the weak links, people who aren't really willing to pay the price.... I'm sick of these backsliders and traitors and sickening betrayers and lazy sitters instead of soldiers.... We still want quality, not mere quantity!—A determined Gideon's band of dedicated disciples and workers for the Lord!—not a bunch of do-nothing sitters! (ML 2527, 1989)

These apparently conflicting attitudes in The Family reflected in the Mo letters and the problem of how to deal with people who hold up the main goals, the other sheep who have their own ideas, and who do not change after years of loving encouragement have been given a solution by freeing them from the Army. Can we see TSers as part of a more general shift in the Family from totalism to an acceptance of individual needs and differences?

Charlotte Hardman is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Newcastle. She was formerly a director of INFORM, Great Britain's highly respected information center on alternative religions.

The Children of God and The Family in Italy

Massimo Introvigne

Center for Studies on New Religions

The Children of God and The Family have had their share of controversy in Italy, but less so than in other countries. They have also been involved in fewer controversies in Italy than have other minority religious movements, old or new. Both the secular anti-cult movement and the religious counter-cult movement in Italy have regarded the Church of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses as their primary targets, recently placing the New Age movement at the top of their list of priorities. The Children of God were the subject of a strongly-worded press campaign in Winter 1978. An offshoot of this controversy, a Court case begun in Rome in 1979, was not decided until 1991. This is minimal compared to the hostile press Court cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology, particularly when one considers the controversy surrounding the Children of God and later The Family in other countries, including nearby France.

1. The Origins of the Children of God in Italy, 1972-1978

David Berg visited Italy in 1971 and seemed to have placed high hopes on a future missionary activity there. On March 19, 1972, a small missionary team headed by Faith, Berg's daughter, arrived in Rome in a van from Germany. They started witnessing to tourists and hippies on the steps of Piazza di Spagna and other favorite tourist locations. One of the first Italian converts was Emanuele Canevaro, scion of a noble family from Florence, who later was referred to as "our Italian king" in one of David Berg's visions,' and who put his Bassetto farm in Poggio Secco near Florence at the group's disposal. Canevaro's farm was later the home of the first Montessori school of the Children of God in Italy (Canevaro is no longer a member of The Family).

On Easter Sunday, April 22, 1972, Faith and her group gathered with the crowd in St. Peter's Square to hear Pope Paul VI. They tried to attract the attention of the crowd with signs in English and Italian reading, "The Love of Jesus is not Religion!—But Reality!" Although at the time the Children of God had only six members in Italy, they attracted the attention of a group of Little Sisters of Jesus, a female Roman Catholic order of nuns devoted to radical poverty and already active with the hippies. One of them, Sister Magedlena, proved a longstanding friend of the group, and rendered to the Children of God a number of important services in the following years.

Prospects seemed reasonably bright, and Faith went back to the England to report to her father. He was enthusiastic enough about Italy to write one of the MO Letters, Arrivederci Roma, in which he reported a vision of a river—God's will—coming down from Northern Europe to Italy, avoiding hostile France. "The current of the river is like God's will: you just flow with it." He went on to comment that the Children of God were "now beginning to invade the Catholic countries" where they would have to show themselves to be "pro-Catholic," to the point of honoring the Pope ("kiss the Pope's foot, if necessary") and attend Catholic mass. Rome thus became a critically important city: "All roads lead to Rome, they say, but we are going to find, God Willing, that all roads lead from Rome and through Rome!" Berg mentioned Emanuele and Sister Magedlena in the letter, and gave it the title Arrivederci Roma from a famous Italian song he fondly remembered, sung by one of his favorite performers, Mario Lanza ("it was," Berg noted, "the last song he sang in the last movie he made before he died," and in his vision he even "saw a big piazza and Mario Lanza with his arms outstretched over Rome").' MO's Letter Arrivederci Roma was printed in September 1972 and brought by Faith to Rome in October, where understandably it was received with considerable excitement. Although some of the suggestions to behave like good Catholics in Italy may simply sound like public relations strategies, Berg was at that time engaged in a re-evaluation of Roman Catholicism, and in another letter of September 1972—published under the title Are the Children of God Catholics or Protestants?-he concluded that "surely we Children of God have more in common with the Catholics than with the Protestants."3

On October 4, 1972, Sister Magedlena accompanied Faith and six other Children of God (small children included) to Pope Paul VI's general audience. At the end of his speech the Pope passed through the crowded hall and gave to the assembled faithful, including Sister Maddalena and Faith, his hands to kiss. An excited Faith reported in a MO Letter dated October 1972 that the Pope put his hand on her head twice and said to her (in Italian) "God bless you," and the Letter carried photographs of the Pope placing his hand on the head of a little baby from the group (today a grown-up member of The Family) and blessing a group including Faith, and of Faith playing guitar with a smiling Sister Magedlena. It is probable that most Children of God outside Italy did not realize that attending a general audience with the Pope was not an exceptional occurrence (in fact, thousands of people every year attend such audiences), but Faith's enthusiasm sounds genuine.4

A small coffee house was opened in the center of Rome where the Children of God tried to attract young people from the hippie subculture. In 1974 they added a disco in Via delta Farnesina in an old warehouse (the place has now been converted to an Italian public television's storehouse), later called by different names, including the O.K. Club. With the disco came real success for the Italian Children of God (who in 1974 had also started distributing MO Letters in the streets). The disco became popular and was attended by hundreds of young people; the success enabled the Children of God to expand their missionary activities all over Italy and to open a second coffee house in Via Melzo in Milan. When the press campaign against the movement began in 1978 there were around 300 Italian Children of God (including foreigners living in Italy), and some Italian members had started missionary activities in other countries.

2. The Campaign Against The Family of Love, 1978-1991

The consequences of the "reorganization" of February 1978, which disbanded the Children of God, dismissed a number of leaders, and initiated The Family of Love period, where felt in Italy as they were everywhere else. Flirty fishing and an emphasis on sexual freedom reached Italy through the movement's international literature, although according to later Court enquiries flirty fishing was more talked about than actually practiced in Italy.5 Even an ex-member who appeared on Italian public TV to expose the evil of the Children of God declared that she was acquainted with flirty fishing and sexual "revolutionary" practices through reading internal and external literature rather than through direct experience.'

A campaign centered on flirty fishing (labeled as "prostitution") and free love was, however, started in the Winter of 1978 by Rina Goren, a reporter for the Rome daily newspaper II Messaggero (Goren, then a young reporter, was propelled by the campaign into a successful career of investigative journalism, later mostly in politics). Goren, under the assumed name of "Sara," started attending the movement's Rome disco. As the subsequent police investigation declared, she gathered very little evidence of unorthodox sexual practices,' although she did collect rumors (mostly from youngsters who were not considered members of the movement because of their minor age-they were called "catacombs" in the group's jargon-and who were apparently inclined to gossip), and of course evidence of unorthodox theories on sex was not hard to gather from The Family of Love at that time. Goren, however, decided to go on with her story, relying mostly on information supplied ultimately by anticult movements in the United States and Europe, which had previously appeared in the German magazine Stem. The story had a number of follow-ups by Goren herself in II Messaggero, and was picked up by most of the major Italian newspapers. 142 articles and 4 TV stories appeared within one month. Since, however, little few evidence from Italy surfaced, and because most of the stories concerned The Family of Love abroad, interest died out quite soon, and by early 1979 the campaign had, in fact, come to an end.

The press campaign had, however, set in motion the sluggish machinery of the police. In January 1979, the Rome disco was raided and fifteen persons were identified as members of a "cult," possibly operating a "prostitution ring." On March 17, 1979, the Public Prosecutor of Rome indicted thirteen people, including Emanuele Canevaro, his wife Barbara, the manager of the disco, Angelo Giardinelli-and David Berg himself. He also ordered the arrest of these four people, although in fact only the Canevaros were arrested, and released immediately after their deposition. Berg obviously could not been reached by the Italian police, and Giardinelli was in Greece. In fact, he was busy with the production of the international missionary music show Music with Meaning. He had worked in the international team which had produced the show, and from Greece he helped produce national versions for several European countries, including Italy.

By 1980 the Family of Love took advantage of the new freedom of establishing private radios in Italy (where only a public radio had been allowed for decades), and the Italian version, Musica con Messaggio, was aired by dozens of small radios. Although the name Family of Love was occasionally avoided for being too controversial, by 1980 the controversy had largely been forgotten. What was not easily forgotten, however, was the Court action. Giardinelli was arrested in Greece in 1981 on the basis of an international warrant, and spent three and a half months in jail there before a Greek Court decided (and the Greek Supreme Court later confirmed) that the evidence offered by Italy was too weak to justify an extradiction. Italy, however, did not abandon its claim on Giardinelli and, when he returned to his native country in 1987 (and, unsuspectingly, made himself known to the authorities by applying for a new passport), the police again attempted to arrest him through an unsuccessful raid at his parents' home. At this stage, Giardinelli finally consulted with a friendly lawyer, who obtained the annulment of the warrant for arrest pending the group's commitment to trial.

Italian Courts are notoriously slow, but the fact that a case started in 1979 went to trial only after twelve years in 1991 also shows that the press and political pressure on the prosecutor was not very high. In the meantime, most of the original Italian members of the Children of God who had joined The Family of Love had spent some years in faraway missions (in the Far East or South America) and, because of visa restrictions in the mission countries and other strategical considerations, had participated in the return home of most European members in 1988. Flirty fishing had been stopped in 1987, together with many of the unorthodox sexual practices of the 1970s and early 1980s, and the literature on these subjects (including the very controversial letters suggesting that sexual initiation for children at an early age was permissible) was being eliminated. The former Children of God had come of age, and had opened their main new centers near Rome and Perugia. They were busy distributing their new attractive posters, music cassettes, and Kiddy Viddy videos for children, and above all organizing home schools for their children that were consistent with their doctrines.

Italian anti-cult literature was remarkable for, if anything, the minimal attention it paid to the Children of God/The Family of Love. Only professor Michele Del Re, a lawyer and law professor operating an anti-cult organization called Studio dei Culti Emergenti in Rome, devoted a significant portion of one of his books to flirty fishing, authoritian power structures, sex between and with minors, and brainwashing in the Children of God movement. His material for this 1988 book was, however, admittedly derived from American and German anti-cult sources, with very few references to Italy.8 This volume was intended for a popular audience. In a 1991 scholarly study of the legal aspects of brainwashing, Del Re was careful to introduce more sensationalistic accusations derived from ex-members of the Children of God with the caveat, "their accusers relate . . .

Overall-although anti-cultists at times mentioned flirty fishing and other practices as a graphic example of how bad some "cults" could be The Family of Love was largely a non-issue among critics of new religious movements in 1991. That the old case went to trial in 1991 was, in a sense, anachronistic. The Roman judges, however, made a reasonably careful assessment of the case. They concluded that Berg had indeed written the MO Letters found during the police investigation, but that none of them were outside the limits of what is legally permissible in Italy. The judges also regarded as "probable" that Berg was the final recipient of the ten percent of the group's revenues sent to Zurich and other foreign destinations, but there was no evidence that this was done by breaching any Italian law. They found "not the slightest evidence of fraud" in the group's dealings with actual and would-be members.

Their analysis of flirty fishing is particularly interesting. The judges concluded that it was only in "the last months of 1977 Berg started counseling the members that it was permissible for proselyting reasons to offer sexual contacts and services to perspective members, the more so when the latter were potentially good financial contributors to the cult." However, not only the young members, but also the older ones and even the leaders, were at the same time exponents and "victims" of this rather bizarre vision of sex and proselytism. In order to find someone guilty of the crime of causing or exploiting the prostitution of another person (prostitution per se is not illegal in Italy), the objective element of suggesting that someone offers his or her own body to an unknown partner for a fee or another reward is not enough. It is also necessary to show that the parties involved did in fact understand their activities as prostitution in the legal sense of the term. Among the Children of God, the judges argued, flirty fishing was not understood as prostitution but "as a personal contribution to the humanitarian aims that the sect always claimed to pursue."

This important conclusion shows the reluctance of Italian Courts to accept the distinction between deeds and creeds that has become a trademark of the anti-cult movement internationally. The same deeds—if carried out in the name of different creeds—are in fact subject to a different legal evaluation. If offering one's body for a reward is motivated by greed, only the action is prostitution, and causing this action to be performed by another is a crime under Italian law; if the same deed is motivated by "humanitarian aims" (perhaps The Family of Love would have preferred a more theological definition) there is no crime, although the material facts are the same. Besides, the judges added, there were only rumors that such activities occurred in Italy, the evidence showing only that sometime in 1977-1978 flirty fishing was regarded as theoretically permissible by the group's literature.10 The Court could have easily added that, by 1991, flirty fishing had been abandoned and a movement very different from the one active in 19771978 was now entering a new stage of its history in Italy.

3. The Family Goes Public, 1992-1993

By 1991 a new name, The Family, had replaced The Family of Love. Italian members were excited to contribute to the new missionary expansion of the movement in Eastern Europe, and in fact the first missions in the former Yugoslavian countries, Russia, Bulgaria and Albania were organized by Italians or were from Italy, with Italians also contributing to the missions in Romania and Hungary. The distribution of videos and other materials was meeting with considerable success, and the group's children's choir was the frequent guest of schools and other public and private institutions. The Italian Family-now reduced to some 250 members, most of them having never been members of the original Children of God-was living a quiet and peaceable life.

The Family, however, was not feeling safe. Events in Australia, Spain, and later in France and Argentina troubled the lives of Italian members in the 1990s. Nothing similar, so far, has been threatened in Italy, and Italian anti-cult groups are still comparatively uninterested in The Family. Incidents involving former members are minor, particularly when compared with what has occurred in other countries (one of them, Gabriella Valpondi, appeared on the national public TV in 1991, and another was interviewed by a couple of newspapers in Tuscany in 1992). In fact, it seems that international anti-cult organizations did try to recruit Italian ex-members for their international crusade against The Family, but with little success.

As in other countries, Italian leaders of The Family have decided to go public, and to initiate a campaign of contacts with scholars, officers of the Roman Catholic Church, reporters, and even leaders of Italian anti-cult and counter-cult groups. They have admitted (although at times downplayed) their early involvement with flirty fishing, and they recognize that their position on sexual initiation of minors was "questionable" and some of their attitudes "immature." They have, however, insisted that in the second half of the 1980s these practices have been not only abandoned, but have been strictly forbidden under penalty of excommunication.11 Perhaps an even stronger repudiation of past doctrines and practices would be in order. On the other hand, it is difficult to ask from any religious movement more than a certain amount of self-criticism. It is a paradox—and, in some countries, it has been a tragedy—that at the very moment when The Family seems ready to repudiate the most objectionable features of its past, the ghosts of this same past are evoked by anti-cultists before the press, the police and the Courts of justice. Serious scholarship has a responsibility to help prevent the potentially tragic confusion of The Family's past radicalism with its present lifestyle.

Dr. Massimo Introvigne is Director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), Italy's highly respected information center on alternative religions. He is also the author of many important scholarly works on magical religions and new religious movements.

From "Children of God" to "The Family": Movement Adaptation and Survival

Stuart A. Wright

Lamar University

At the same time that the touted "global village" moves closer to realization through satellite communications and advanced computer technologies, fragmentation and conflict across ethnic, religious and political lines remain firmly ensconced both within and between societies. One only has to point to a few recent episodes around the globe to be reminded of this fact-the "ethnic cleansing" taking place in Bosnia, the World Trade Center bombing by Muslim extremists, the growing disenfranchisement of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. and the ensuing "culture wars" (Hunter, 1991). As a sociologist of religion, I am always concerned about the role religion plays in such conflicts. It is known that religion can be a powerful source of unification, cohesion or solidarity. Durkheim's (1915/1965) work on religion largely reflects this functional perspective. On the other hand, Marx (1964) and others suggest that religion may contribute to conflicts, promoting in-group solidarity while encouraging adversarial relations with out-groups (heretics, infidels, heathen). Predisposition to conflict may be heightened by absolutist religious ideologies that are intolerant of other traditions and practices.

Some of the new religious movements that have appeared in the second half of the twentieth century, while sharing characteristics of historical sects (Wilson, 1970), may demonstrate some innovative and even evolutionary adaptations to the social environment. Here I refer to a kind of globalization process which, in the context of a changing world order, links pluralism, diversity and toleration to movement adaptability and strength (Wuthnow, 1978, 1980). Wuthnow suggests that the transitional condition of the world order, characterized by political instability and uncertainty, lends itself to the proliferation of new religious movements that seek to fill the void by constructing overarching, universal religious ideologies. As governments fail, national boundaries are redrawn and new alliances formed, the perception of a world crisis may help to legitimate the claims of religious movements as harbingers of a new world harmony and peace. Movements that are able to adapt to international audiences and diverse cultural needs are more likely to be successful in voicing such claims.

The characteristics of such movements suggest a religious response to a perceived world crisis—international political unrest, shifts in world economic markets, fragmentation of the normative order—that work to forge unification based on an alternate worldview, a profound ideological reformation. With the increased mobility and communications of the modern world, these movements are distinctly less culture-bound, provincial and territorial. In-group/out-group differences are much less likely to be drawn along the lines of race, ethnicity or class. They tend to be more syncretistic, eclectic and universalistic with regard to religious beliefs and cultural values. They draw their members from all over the world and incorporate features from these different cultures as they develop and expand. New religious movements may reveal varying degrees of globalization, but some that exhibit these characteristics would include Elizabeth Clare Prophet and the Church Universal and Triumphant, the Unification Church, ECKANKAR, Transcendental Meditation (TM), and a host of New Age movements (see Melton, 1992). One movement that has borne many of these features over its short life-span, though it has rigid fundamentalist roots, is The Family, formerly called the Children of God.

The Family

The Family is now a world-wide movement with approximately 250 communities in over 50 countries and 9,000 members. The movement originated in Huntington Beach, California in the late 1960s as a countercultural, Jesus Movement group. In the early 1970s, the movement's leader, Moses David Berg, instructed his followers to leave the U.S. after predicting God's judgement on America. The initial prophecy contained warnings of the comet Kohoutek striking the nation and inducing calamity and chaos in the U.S., marking the Great Tribulation as recorded in the Book of Revelation. Subsequently, Berg revised the prophecy suggesting that the more figurative language in his prophecy was not to be taken literally. In the following years, adherents traveled the world establishing communities and recruiting converts in foreign countries. As the ratio of American converts to foreign nationals changed, the movement also changed. The influences of indigenous cultures and new converts began to transform the movement from a California-based, hippie, fundamentalist group, rigidly and centrally structured under the authority of Moses David Berg to a more eclectic, multi-ethnic, decentralized missionary movement of relatively independent communities dispersed all over the globe. Indeed, the movement of today bears only a few organizational semblances with the movement founded over twenty-five years ago. It may be argued that the ability of the Children of God/The Family to adapt to change over time has contributed significantly to its survival into the 1990s. It is suggested here that adaptation to change through cross-cultural expansion, leading to marked increases in pluralism and diversity, is a critical reason why the movement has survived.

Pluralism, Adaptation and Survival

With the dispersion of the Children of God (COG) in the mid 1970s into Europe and Asia, the American core of the movement was soon faced with the repercussions of its own success. New converts, of course, brought with them their own cultural baggage. But more importantly, movement recruiters were also faced with learning the language and customs of the countries in which they resided. Members were encouraged to blend in and cultivate a rapport with local residents in order to bring them salvation, and achieve what Roy Wallis has called a "favorable ecology" (1987:86). The thrust of this initiative culminated in the "Re-Organization Nationalization Revolution" (RNR), a concerted strategy to integrate with native cultures in order to better train leaders and eventually transfer independent responsibility for the missionary work to nationals. In a 1978 letter outlining the RNR strategy, Moses David announced that "Just as Jesus had to leave his disciples so they could go on to greater works.... so our N. American leadership is going to have to step down and out of the picture and push forward the nationals in order to integrate and nationalize the many countries we're in" ("The Re-Organization Nationalization Revolution," #659, January 1978). He instructed followers to make "(a) genuine endeavor of identification with the people.... including their language, adopting their customs and dress, eating the food they eat, sometimes even assuming their citizenship.... to actually become one of them like Jesus did" (#659, 1978).

Later in this same letter, Moses David described the failure of typical American missionary efforts when nationals were not brought into the organizational structure. "If we can't get enough converts ... to run their own colonies and their own country," Berg cautioned, "then I will be highly disappointed, because then we are not missionaries, we haven't established anything native and we're just a foreign colonial empire." Berg recounted "horror stories" about missionary efforts that languished and collapsed because they had not "prepared the nationals to take over." When the Americans were forced to leave or kicked out of a country, he argued, there was no "native church" left behind.

Of course, the RNR initiative was not without substantial costs to the movement, largely in terms of defections. It is estimated that as much as one-third of the membership were lost in this reorganization. Veteran or high-ranking movement leaders were replaced, new converts and friends were lost, conflicts over policy and lines of authority arose, incomes declined and COG homes ran into financial debt (Wallis, 1982:92-93). But the RNR plan probably helped to secure the long-term survival ability of the movement, even though there were serious short-term costs.

The first wave of American COG members who settled in Europe faced immediate challenges to their own cultural beliefs and predispositions. Van Zandt (1991:41) notes that the "anti-system" message carried by American converts played less well to European youth because "it was no great revelation to them that American society was far from perfect." The Americans were required to make a number of adjustments to European culture in order to fit in and be successful in their witnessing. Some of these adjustments included the formation of Poorboy clubs or discos, the upgrading of dress and lifestyle of members, the refocusing of recruitment efforts aimed at middle-class individuals rather than social dropouts, and the softening of the COG's worldview (Richardson and Davis, 1983; Van Zandt, 1991; Wallis, 1982, 1987). Van Zandt writes,

Instead of society's dropouts and young radicals, the COG pursued those who were employed or in school. The COG found that such people were more receptive to the message, made better long-term members, and required less time to be spent dealing with their problems. Potential members also tended to be somewhat younger than before, a fact which led to the creation of a new status, "catacomb member," to account for members who, for reasons of age or legal condition, were unable to live in colonies as full-time members. This innovation, of course, reflected the COG's growing flexibility in dealing with the System (1991:45).

Sexual unions through proselytization ("flirty fishing') and marriages with indigenous nationals, almost all of which produced children, tied them inexorably to these foreign cultures. What mere recruitment, litnessing or preaching couldn't accomplish because of formidable cultural barriers, intermarriage and familial ties could. Indeed, the marriages of the American core of members to foreign nationals was strongly encouraged by Moses David as a part of the RNR plan.

In those colonies established for two years or more, all colony servants (leaders) must be national or integrated with a national and speak the language. ...So a capable American woman could marry a native husband and train him, or a capable American man could marry a native wife and train her (#659, 1978).

By converting and marrying the nationals, the message of salvation was no longer tied exclusively to the Americans but allowed to spread along kinship and relational lines of family members. When COG members finally did pick up and leave, they often had established a native work that continued after their departure. Occasionally, adult children would even remain behind in these countries to assist the indigenous missionary efforts and to sustain familial ties and communication.

According to Van Zandt, flirty fishing was adopted as a strategy specifically aimed at Third World countries. As the movement "left more affluent parts of the world, its normal recruiting pool of young and unattached people started to dry up. Flirty fishing brought the Family into contact with people who tended to have more status and responsibility in the local community" (1991:29). It also "dictated better clothing, more concern for cleanliness, and even the use of makeup to facilitate members' participation in the nightclub and discotheque scene" (1991:29). Wallis makes a similar observation, noting that after the introduction of flirty fishing, the movement shifted its target of potential converts: "Thenceforth, a movement which had seen its purpose as proselytizing among the alienated of society, the hippies and dropouts, would begin to direct itself more to the respectable and influential" (Wallis, 1982:80).

Aside from the effective strategy of nationalization, the increasing pluralism of the movement had a distinct appeal to certain segments of the wider population, particularly the young and the humanitarian-oriented. The text and the substance of biblical preachments in conventional churches frequently emphasize the universality of the Christian faith ("In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek. . ."). However, rarely does this amount to anything more than sentimental rhetoric and platitudes. On the other hand, the actualization of this message as embodied in a religious movement that offered living "proof," so to speak, by virtue of a highly heterogeneous membership certainly presented a marked advantage over other churches or sects in attempting to convince potential converts of the "truth" value of the message. It suggested consistency to a worldly, skeptical audience that is all too often cognizant of the numerous inconsistencies between religious belief and practice. Numerous converts to The Family that I interviewed expressed just such an opinion, indicating that they were more willing to listen to proselytizers and take their message seriously because the group's universal emphasis on "love" was expressed by members of such diverse nationalities.

The Miami Community

I was struck by this ethnic diversity upon first visiting the Miami community in the summer of 1993. My previous research on the Children of God (Wright, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987) was conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the RNR initiative had produced any notable results. During the decade of the eighties, there were few communities in North America, so monitoring of the movement became difficult. Only recently, since The Family has begun to resettle communities in the U.S. has this aspect of the movement come to the attention of scholars.

A major task in the data collection during the Miami visit was to conduct a census of The Family's community there. At the time of the study, there were six nuclear family clusters and a separate group or cluster of Family Teens. Family Teens are mid-to-late adolescents who have expressed in interest in training and preparation for leadership. The Family encourages young teens to achieve independence from their parents so that they can serve the Lord more fully. Family Teens essentially function as young missionaries, travelling in small groups, and are assigned to specific communities. Not all teens aspire to be independent missionaries and separate from families.

Out of a total of 49 members of The Family's community in Miami, 11 are adults, 22 teenagers, and 16 children. These 49 members represent 22 different countries, as measured by their origin of birth. All of the adult members had lived in at least three different countries and were conversational in three or four languages. The most common languages spoken were Spanish and English. Five of the six nuclear family clusters in the community represented four different nationalities each. Predictably, the adult members were most likely to be North American (8 of 11, 73%). However, the children and teens were more likely to be native-born Puerto Rican (5) or Chilean (5). In fact, of the 38 children and teens in the community, only 6 were native-born North American (16%). Most were born in Spanish-speaking countries of the Carribean, Central and South America. The full impact of this rich, ethnic amalgam could be seen in the clear leverage and ease of access to Miami's minority communities enjoyed by The Family.

The dramatic population shifts in the Miami area in recent years posed few problems for members of The Family. Not only were they conversant with Spanish-speaking residents, they were well-suited to the highly pluralistic composition of the city. Indeed, they seemed more than comfortable with it. Their own community served as a microcosm of Miami's own ethnic and cultural diversity. The Family's experience in Third World nations made them familiar with many Hispanic and Latin customs, insulated them from culture shock, allowed them to avoid the pitfalls of American ethnocentrism or xenophobia, and gave them a degree of "street-wise" knowledge and demeanor in their interaction with low-income, minority groups.

The Family Teens moved freely within and between these communities, even at night, witnessing on the streets and challenging minority youth with their salvation message in local hangouts, places where few suburban, middle-class white youth would venture. Though they took certain precautions to safeguard themselves from harm, such as always travelling in groups, one sensed that their mastery of the diverse cultural landscape gave them substantial confidence and courage.

Conclusion

Is it suggested here that the adaptation of this new religious movement to cultural pluralism and diversity through global expansion, spawned by changes in the world order, can be linked to movement strength and survival. It seems unlikely that the same COG movement that originated in the countercultural sixties in California could survive as an international movement today. Indeed, many of the key leaders and members out of that period were lost to the movement during organizational shifts or changes in policy and leadership, epitomized in the RNR plan. But these same shifts underscore both the difficulty and the significance of adaptation. Difficult because the innumerable obstacles to change-the inertia of institutionalization, the resistance of entrenched leaders to relinquish authority, the anomie and turmoil of reorganization-involved painful choices and actions. Significant because the survival of COG and its success in foreign cultures, it seems safe to say, was contingent upon this pluralistic thrust. Such adaptation will likely fare well for the Family's success in the future, both here and abroad, as societies become more pluralistic and each continues to chart a new course in the shifting political structures and boundaries of the new world order.

Stuart A. Wright is Associate Professor of Sociology at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Connecticut and is the former recipient of an NIMH Research Fellowship at Yale University to study the social and psychological effects of cult involvement among former members. Dr. Wright has published a book entitled Leaving Cults: The Dynamics of Defection (1987), as well as numerous journal articles and book chapters in edited volumes on this controversial topic.

The Children of God, Family of Love, The Family

David Millikan

Dr. Millikan is an ordained minister with the Uniting Church of Australia, former Head of Religious Broadcasting of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and winner of the United Nation’s Peace Award, Human Rights Award and New York Radio Awards. He is a former editor of National Outlook, and currently serves on the Commission for Doctrine in the Uniting Church. Dr. Millikan is the author of a number of articles and books on New Religious Movements, has produced several television documentaries and is an acknowledged expert on the theology of New Religious Movements.

I had the opportunity in November, 1992, to travel to a number of the Homes of The Family around the world. I visited a total of 12 Homes: in Japan, Thailand, India, Russia and England. During these visits I was given unsupervised access to members of The Family at all levels. I was able to have private conversations with teenage children and many of the adults. These conversations were either recorded or I was able to take extensive notes.

It is a popular response of outsiders to the rigors and eccentricities of life in a group like The Family, to say that the people who join are by nature weak and easily led. This is not my experience. It is also tempting to look to psychology for a set of definable characteristics that describe the susceptible "sect" person. This has been attempted in the past, where it has been assumed there is some defective aspect to a person’s character which makes them prey to the control of people like David Berg and others. Such an assumption does not survive the test of experience. The discussion of this matter in the psychological and sociological literature has been silent in the last ten years. There is too much diversity in the backgrounds of the people who join and remain happily within groups such as The Family.

The early attempts of the social sciences to account for the phenomenon of "sect" membership has floundered on a lack of precision. I do not believe it is possible to say that there is a "typical sect type of person". Nor can we say that members of these groups are weaker or more damaged than the norm. Indeed, I have found that they tend to be strong-minded people who have a higher than normal expectation of what the life of faith is meant to be about. They are people who are prepared to sacrifice their comfort and security in the pursuit of an ideal.. Eileen Barker says, "Those who join New Religious Movements are by no means always, or even usually, the pathetic, weak or susceptible characters that it is sometimes assumed they must be." (1)

Is The Family Christian?

The Family began to be given shape in the late sixties by David Berg. Berg is a child of fundamentalist, evangelical, millennialist, southern American Protestantism. His parents were both active as preachers and pastors in the small denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

He shares the views of many fundamentalist Christians that the mainline denominations have fallen into apostasy. The Christian fundamentalism of Berg's background was a reaction to the seduction of the churches by "modernist" theologies which were denying the infallibility of the Bible, supporting evolution and compromising the Christian teaching about the after life.

They believe in the Triune nature of God -- God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. They believe that the heart of the Christian message has to do with the need for salvation in Jesus Christ. Outside of this relationship, they do not allow that there is any salvation. They believe salvation occurs when a person invites Christ to come into their lives. This is done through the simple act of praying to Jesus and asking Him to come in. They further emphasize the decisive nature of this act by saying that it is eternal in its effects. They follow the school of thought which says, "Once saved always saved." They do not follow the equivocal position that one can be saved and later lose that salvation.

The literature of The Family is keen to make a distinction between salvation by "grace" and salvation by "works". They make it clear that salvation is not earned, or in anyway contributed to by the actions of mankind. They see it as an act of divine grace, unmerited and undeserved. They have a liberal attitude to the possibility of salvation outside of membership in the group.

Berg believes that God has given to The Family the task of speeding the Second Coming by bringing to an end the biblical obligation to spread the Gospel to the furthest ends of the world. When this task is finished, then the great events of the End Times can begin. A Scripture which is quoted to lend credence to this view is Matthew 24:14, which says, "And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." They are part of the "born again" view which sees conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord to be the essential and only point of entry into salvation.

And yet, unlike many fundamentalists, Berg is a universalist. He believes that people who have never heard the Gospel in this life are not condemned. They are given a chance to receive it in the next life. He believes that even many of those condemned to Hell will finally be released in time, to live outside the Heavenly City on the paradisiacal New Earth described in Revelation, chapters 21 and 22.

The Family believe that Satan is alive and active in the affairs of this world. Satan is the source of evil and suffering in this life. And he is unusually active in the world, because the end approaches. Such things as earthquakes, wars, the breakdown of moral values, the move towards centralized governments, The Family see to be "signs of the times" indicating the approach of the end.

Cult and sect

There is considerable discussion about the use of words like "cult" and "sect" in relation to groups like The Family. It is important to state clearly what these terms mean and how they should be used. The term "cult" has become overloaded by sensationalist reports in the media to the point that it is a difficult word to use. Most academics interested in this field prefer to use the term "New Religious Movement" rather than "cult". It is my opinion that there are some groups whose life is so aberrant and destructive that they move beyond the realms of what is acceptable in human society. Such a group I would call a "cult". I do not, however, believe The Family fits this description. I have had close contact with several cults, including one which led to the publication of my study Imperfect Company: Power and Control in an Australian Christian Cult, William Heinemann, 1991.

The Family is a fundamentalist Christian group who hold a series of theological views which are not unfamiliar to the history of sects who have surrounded the mainline churches. Their isolation is similar, and in some ways less severe, than groups like the Exclusive Brethren, the Church of the Brethren, the Amish, and a wide range of small sects and cults which group around the teachings of particular individuals.

Unlike many isolated and fundamentalist groups, The Family has been active in writing and explaining their beliefs to the world outside. They have an extraordinary amount of printed literature, videos and audio tapes.

Their own literature contains the following statement:

Just because some idea is openly discussed in print within our movement, it does not in any way mean that it becomes, or is even intended to become, standard practice, or indeed is ever practiced by any of our membership. (2)

This is an unusually open attitude to the right of personal judgment. Although The Family prizes obedience, and yieldedness as the keys to Christian maturity, the right of members to question has been enshrined in the Family literature. Certainly the rights of individual members are codified in a way that is not present in more restrictive groups.

It is common in all religious groups to see a gap between what the leadership or the literature calls for and the way in which lay people respond. For example, the Roman Catholic church has not changed in its teaching that contraception is a sin; in fact, recent words from the Holy Father reinforce the teaching of the church on this matter. But most Catholic couples in Western countries do not refrain from contraception. But the fact that they do not practice the Church’s teaching on this matter does not diminish their sense that they are still "Good Catholics".

The [Family] is not as isolated or closed as many other groups which operate in the name of Christianity. The categories are not as limited as that of many other fundamentalist groups. Several factors put them in a more liberal posture than many others. These factors are, that:

-- they can accept that people are capable of salvation outside of their walls

-- they can allow that there are people in the world and in the church with whom they feel a close and genuine sense of fellowship

-- they allow a remarkably open and free range of contacts with people outside of The Family

-- they recognize that there are people who preach the Gospel and win others to Christ outside of The Family

-- they allow that people within The Family can have reasons for leaving full-time involvement without jeopardizing their salvation or poisoning the life of the group through continued contact with them.

They allow people to move out of the inner circle of total commitment to take up life in the world. I know more than 10 people who have been full-time disciples in The Family but have moved outside the Homes and still maintain friendly relationships. Their literature has a number of discussions about the way to treat people who have left on good terms. This is one of the characteristics of the group which makes them more liberal and open than some others. It is most unusual for a group like The Family to allow their members to move away from total commitment and still maintain a relationship with them. It is one of the characteristics of a cult that it finds even the possibility of a person moving away anathema. Cults maintain the belief that there is no life outside of their walls. They will go to great lengths to hold onto someone who indicates a desire to leave. So it must be seen as significant that The Family accommodates the possibility of people leaving, and even provides a number of facilities for ex-members to maintain relationships with them.

I believe we must retain within society the right of groups such as this, when driven by powerful religious or philosophical beliefs, to put themselves at a distance from the dominant values of our culture.

Attitude to the mainline churches

Until recently Berg seems to have despised the churches with a fierce passion, but ... "He has mellowed out in this regard considerably, citing advantages of the churches, even encouraging Family members to direct converts to acceptable churches. We see that the Lord is directing us to work more closely with other Christians as we come closer to the days of Great Tribulation when all Christians will need each other like never before." This is a considerable change in Family attitudes.

He recognizes that the Church has many within it who are good and strong Christians. He has recently developed a more conciliatory attitude to the churches and has even suggested the possibility of The Family establishing a cooperative relationship with certain churches, with a view to them working together in following up some of their converts.

They have a remarkable preoccupation with the task of convincing others of the need to find salvation through Jesus Christ. As one of the leaders of the group in Australia said to me: "That’s why I joined, that’s what I am called to, and that’s what I do." In the Australian situation, one household in Sydney had been achieving conversions at an average above 70 per month. This was regarded as normal. A conversion is a situation where a person has been explained the basic beliefs necessary to understand the Gospel. They are asked if they wish to "accept Jesus Christ as their Savior from sin." If they say yes and pray a standard salvation prayer, then they are considered to be a convert.

It could be said that the entire activity of The Family is devoted to the end that people outside may be won to Christ.

The Biblical Interpretation of the Endtime

Much of the attention of the world outside The Family is directed to their teachings on sexuality. But the theological concepts which do most to influence their life are those associated with eschatology. At the heart of Berg’s vision, and indeed his greatest theological passion, are his revelations concerning the end of the world. They believe the world is about to end.

The Family believe this end will occur over a series of stages including a terrible time of persecution on earth known in the Bible as the "Great Tribulation" (Matthew 24:21), the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Rapture of the saved (Matthew 24:29-31), the awesome Wrath of God which culminates in the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation chapters 15-16), followed by the 1,000-year rule and reign of Christ on Earth, known as the "Millennium" (Revelation 20:1-6), which ends with the cataclysmic Battle of Gog and Magog (Revelation 20:6-10), and eventually the end of all punishment in Hell and the restoration of all -- or nearly all -- souls into a heavenly existence either inside the Heavenly City or on the recreated New Earth.

The major events of the End Times will center on the Middle East. The Antichrist is said to be a man who was most likely born in the Middle East and is presently making his way towards his goal of world domination. At first he will appear to be an attractive person who is able to bring some order into international affairs. This will occur at a time when people will have become so disillusioned with the degeneration in world affairs that they will gratefully look to him as an antidote to the chaos. He will set up his headquarters in Jerusalem where he will work relentlessly to create a form of reconciliation between the warring factions of the world, including the world religions. For the first time in history, all the major world religions will recognize his authority and unite under him in one form of worship, based on the Temple in Jerusalem. "For a while it will seem to be absolutely heaven on earth..." (The Book of the Future, 01/84, pg.55).

The Antichrist, along with his right-hand man, the False Prophet, will have the power to do miraculous things. He will cause disturbances in the natural order, he will be able to heal people of sickness. (Revelation 13:3,13,14.) But after 3-1/2 years he will suddenly change. God will pull off the restraints which have kept him in check and evil will be let loose "like a dam being opened or removed, a flood of iniquity is going to circle the World under the reign of the Devil himself in the person of the Antichrist." (3) At this stage the relationship between the Antichrist and the Devil will undergo a decisive change. The distance between them will collapse and Satan will come to possess the Antichrist until he will be the Devil himself. In effect, the Devil will incarnate within the person of the Antichrist. (Revelation 13:2.)

Once the true colors of the Antichrist are revealed, he will set about the tasks of bringing the world under his control. To achieve this end he will use the most sophisticated applications of modern technology. In particular Berg has described a central super computer which will differ in one fundamental respect -- it will have a soul, given to it by the Devil: "I’m convinced that the super computer will actually be demonically inspired to where it actually does have demon intelligence, ... it will be a real wonder, and will really be worshipped." (4) With this computer and other sophisticated devices, the Antichrist will take charge of peoples’ lives. He will enforce a financial system which uses an identification number which every one will have branded on or implanted under their skin.

Family members are convinced that the world is rapidly being prepared to receive the "mark of the beast" foretold in Revelation chapter 13, verses 14-18:

And he [the Antichrist’s false prophet] deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast. ... And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six [666].

The mark of the beast is one of the most feared dimensions of the end time. The Family believe this will be achieved through the implementation of a computer chip either in the hand or forehead.

Following the trends of the moment, it will become a cashless society: "Men will no longer buy or sell with money as a means of exchange, but with a number, a number which will be given to them permanently, without any possibility of counterfeit, change, manipulation or forgery, because it will be branded on each person." (5) This will occur either on the right hand or the forehead. This will be the instrument of his control. With this in place, no one will escape his scrutiny. The Family is concerned at the use of bar codes and the growth of a cashless financial order. They are alert to the recent moves in agriculture to inject animals with miniature plastic tags with identification numbers placed permanently under the skin. They oppose these moves not only for the civil liberties implications but because they see it as part of the inexorable progress of the Antichrist. They are alarmed that our societies seem so unaware that they are actually aiding and abetting the progress of the Antichrist by delivering the most powerful tools into his hands.

The control that Satan will exercise over the world through the Antichrist will almost be total. The Tribulation is a time of terrible persecution for Christians. Despite the protection which God will give through the special powers He gives, many of them will succumb to the persecution. "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:21). "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end" (Daniel 11:35).

The Family is conscious that the time is short and they are shortly to enter into the Tribulation. This is a 3-1/2 year period when the constraints against the Devil and his Antichrist are removed, and evil will expand in ways that are unimaginable to us now, followed by the Rapture and Second Coming of Christ.

During the time after the Rapture, when there will be rewards and feasting in Heaven for the saved, the 15th and 16th chapters of Revelation portray an earth that will feel the full fury of God’s anger. Out of the devastation of the Battle of Armageddon, some people will survive. The Millennium is about giving people another chance at salvation.

It must be emphasized that this is a widely held belief within large sections of Christianity. A number of large theological seminaries, such as Dallas Seminary and Bob Jones University in the U.S., teach these or similar views of the End Times as standard theology. These are, for example, the generally held views of the largest denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptists. The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold a similar eschatology. There are numerous other groups who would be in complete sympathy with this vision of the End Times. They would differ only in detail.

The Second Generation of The Family

There has been a shift in emphasis from a total concentration on activities outside of the Homes in the way of witnessing to a recognition of the role of the children and the demands of their care and nurture in the faith.

What I have seen of the education of the children around the world is excellent. They are taught in a loving and open atmosphere and they appear to enjoy the experience. The level of educational skills the children enjoy is above average.

This is the opinion shared not just by me, but other people who have had opportunity to test the children formally. One such person is Dr. Tim Watson-Munro. He was employed by the Police Department in Victoria, Australia, to prepare a report on the Buckley children from The Family. Watson-Munro formed the opinion that the children were well adjusted and well educated. His only reservation (which was not a serious one) was similar to my own, that the educational environment was less than full. For the teens, the educational materials available are limited to a narrow band of publications emerging from fundamentalist, Creationist frameworks, although it must be said that there is a concerted attempt within The Family to address this situation. They are at an early stage in developing more educational materials for this age range. They are in a sense growing up as a movement with their children, and what I observe is a change to greater diversity in the education.

The reasons given for the restriction of the children’s education are not unfamiliar to those of a large number of fundamentalist Christians who have the same concern about the "secular" tendencies in the educational system.

The argument has been put that these children are being educated in a way that puts them apart from the "values of the dominant society"; that this disadvantages them in that they are ill-prepared to operate effectively in the world outside. I do not accept this argument. What is primary in my mind is the emotional and spiritual health of the children. That I believe is not at risk.

Above the teenage level, life within The Family for young adults can be an exciting affair. Travelling through their Homes in Japan, Thailand, India, Russia and London, I encountered a number of young adults who were actively involved in the business of The Family. It was normal to find these young people fluent in at least two, often three languages. They take their language training seriously. Many of them were extremely competent in computing to the point that they were modifying software packages, operating at an advanced level in desktop publishing, and were communicating in a sophisticated manner through modems throughout the world. In Russia, for example, The Family has a massive literature distribution under way. In the last 4 years this has involved the printing and publishing of over 6,000,000 posters, most of which are colored. This is a complex and demanding situation, especially in contemporary Moscow. The young adults in Russia were heavily involved in organizing this operation; it is a rich world of experience for these young people. In Britain the young people in The Family were part of the purchasing and preparation of vehicles for the European sector. They were learning a high degree of mechanical skills involving major engine overhauls, and modifications to the interior of vans and so on.

In the last two years, there have been raids against Family Homes in Spain, Australia, France and Argentina. In all cases the claim has been made that the children seized have been abused. Despite extensive examination and probing by police and others, no charge has been sustained. No one has been found guilty. The pattern established in Australia is now being repeated. More than 600 children around the world have been examined by authorities. Dozens of court-appointed psychologists, child abuse specialists and social workers have examined them at times for periods of up to seven days, and no one has produced any evidence to support the allegations that they have been sexually abused. It is significant that none of the children asked to be protected from The Family or confessed to any incidents of sexual abuse.

One cannot judge the present behavior of The Family on the basis of literature which was written before 1986/7. This group has had a history of change. The changes in behavior and theological emphasis have been signaled in the literature emerging from World Services and David Berg.

The influences which are bringing about the present retreat from earlier patterns have to do with the advancing age of the older members, the arrival of many children and a general sense of conservatism which has developed with the passing of time. In the early days of the movement the membership was mainly young single people from the hippie era.

As to the beliefs of The Family and the manner in which those beliefs influence the education and attitudes of the children, I do not believe we can say that they are beyond the bounds of what should be tolerated in a liberal pluralistic Western culture.

In the context of religious history, there is nothing arbitrary or astonishing about their views. The Family, as they present themselves now, have a right to be respected within the diversity which makes up the contemporary pluralist nature of our society.

Footnotes:

Click on the number to return to the footnote location.

1. Eileen Barker, New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. London. 1989; page 33.

2. As early as 1974, Berg was talking about the need for people within the movement to exercise some judgment about the things which came from the leadership, even his. For example, "I don’t want anything done about anything unless your councils meet together and agree together, even if they are suggestions from me. If they don’t think it’s wise or best or well to do it, I don’t want’m to do it." ("Share the Know." DO 301A, 2/74, DB6, p.2.)

3. The Book of the Future, page 66.

4. The Book of the Future, page 74.

5. The Book of the Future, page 76.