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.