My article, πππ―π’π πππ«π 'π¬ πππ«π―ππ«π¬π’π¨π§ π¨π ππ’ππ₯π’πππ₯ ππ«π’πππ₯ ππ‘ππ¨π₯π¨π π² π’π§ ππ‘π ππ‘π’π₯ππ«ππ§ π¨π ππ¨π/ππ‘π π ππ¦π’π₯π², was published March 14, 2025 in the πΌππ‘πππππ‘πππππ π½ππ’ππππ ππ πΆπππππππ, π΄ππ’π π πππ ππππππ’πππ‘πππ Vol 8 2025.
You can read and download the pdf here: https://www.ijcam.org/articles/david-bergs-perversion-of-biblical-bridal-theology-in-the-children-of-god
You can also download the entire issue of that journal or the individual articles in it: https://www.ijcam.org/issues/vol-8-2025
I've also provided the entire article below:
David Berg's Perversion of Biblical Bridal Theology in the Children of God/The Family
by Perry Bulwer, B.A., LL.B.
ABSTRACT
In this article I examine the religious concept of mystical marriage between God and believers in the context of biblical bridal theology. I discuss its scriptural basis in the Old and New Testaments, and doctrinal disputes related to them. I then describe how David Berg, the self-declared endtime prophet and founder of the notorious Children of God, twisted those scriptures to formulate his own perverted version of Christian bridal theology, and I present the chronology of sexual doctrines in the Children of God, later known as The Family. I show how Berg gradually began to groom his followers to accept extra-biblical sexual doctrines that led to total sexual permissiveness based on his antinomian belief that Christians were no longer bound by the Mosaic law, or even secular laws governing certain sexual relationships. Those doctrines led to the widespread break-up of marriages and families, and sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children. I end with a discussion of how difficult it is for religious trauma survivors to find suitable therapists knowledgeable about spiritual abuse, but indicate that Christian-related abuse as occurred in the Children of God has significant similarities with forms of domestic abuse.
Key words: Children of God; The Family International; bridal theology; religious trauma; spiritual abuse; child abuse; sexual abuse; domestic abuse; mental health therapy
INTRODUCTION
Mystical marriage, also known as spiritual or divine marriage, is a metaphorical representation of the relationship between God and devout believers in God. It is a concept found in various religious traditions.
In Hinduism, mystical marriage is represented by the concept of Ardhanarishvara, a composite androgynous form of Lord Shiva and his consort Parvati. This form represents the union of the masculine and feminine aspects of the divine, and the realization of the ultimate unity of things—the self (atman) connected with the universal (Brahman). The idea of mystical marriage is also present in the tradition of bhakti yoga, in which the devotee seeks to unite with the divine through devotion, love, and surrender.
In the Islamic mystical beliefs and practices of Sufism, mystical marriage is represented by the dual concepts of fana (annihilation of the self) and baqa (the merging of the soul with the divine). It is characterized by a deep spiritual intimacy, love, and union with God, which is often described using the metaphor of the lover and the beloved.
In Christianity, mystical marriage is often associated with the writings of medieval mystics such as Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Clare of Assisi (1194-1253), and Teresa of Γvila (1515-1582). They and others described mystical marriage as the highest level of union between the human soul and God, where the soul deeply desires and experiences a profound intimacy with the divine. Many of them used the romantic, sensual, and even erotic language of lovers when describing their spiritual relationship with God.
In this article, I examine mystical marriage, or bridal theology, as it is presented in the Bible, and discuss various interpretations and doctrinal disputes over those scriptures. I then examine how David Berg ( founder of the notorious Children of God [COG]), perverted those scriptures when formulating his extreme sexual doctrines,which led to the widespread break-up of marriages and families, and the sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children.
Bridal theology in the New Testament is generally seen as a metaphor for the spiritual marriage between Christ and Christians. A related metaphor expresses the relationship between believers and God as that of father and children. Also, many consider the body of believers to be a familial relationship. Therefore, I conclude that religious trauma related to Christian dogma, regardless of denomination, church, sect, or organization, is a form of domestic abuse.
BRIDAL THEOLOGY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Bridal theology in the Old Testament is based primarily on the imagery of marriage found in various scriptures describing and emphasizing the covenantal love relationship between God and the Israelites. That imagery highlights the intimacy, exclusivity, and depth of the relationship between God and his people, and serves as a reminder of God's faithfulness even in the midst of their unfaithfulness. God is depicted as a faithful 'husband' (Is.54.5) who enters into a covenant relationship with Israel, a 'wife' who is sometimes faithful, sometimes errant.
The prophet Jeremiah described the relationship between God and Israel as a marriage covenant (Jer. 31:31,32). The prophet Isaiah similarly used the metaphor of marriage to describe that relationship: “. . . as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee” (Is.62.5). The book of Hosea also describes God's love for Israel in terms of a husband's love for his wife. The prophet's marriage to a harlot is an allegorical representation of God's love for the Israelites even though they had been unfaithful and pursued other gods.
The Song of Solomon is a poetic celebration of marital love, and the sexual union of a bride and groom who explicitly express their love for each other in sensual language highlights the beauty, intimacy, and exclusivity of their relationship. Throughout the book there are graphic descriptions of the lovers' bodies and erotic metaphors, suggesting sexual practices that are certainly provocative, perhaps even pornographic to more prudish readers. Although the Song of Solomon has no explicit reference to God, the Jewish tradition usually interpreted it as an allegory of the relationship between God and Israel, while many Christians read it as an allegory of Christ, the 'bridegroom,' and his 'bride,' the church.
However, there are doctrinal disagreements among Christians over whether that book should only be interpreted literally as extolling the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman, or if the book is an allegory of the spiritual marriage between believers and God, and furthermore, whether the 'bride' of Christ is only the whole body of believers, (i.e., the church), or if 'bride' also applies to individual believers.
As E. Ann Matter discussed in The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity: “The association of the Song of Songs with the love between God and the individual soul is present in the Christian tradition from the beginning….”i She cited Origen of Alexandria (c.185-c. 253), who was an influential but controversial Christian theologian who is “universally acknowledged as the founder of Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs.”ii “Origen . . . proposed that the Song of Songs could be interpreted as the soul’s yearning for God. Similar to other interpreters, Origen associated the soul with the female protagonist, and the divine with her male “beloved.””iii
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was also a proponent of applying Christian bridal theology to individual believers. He is best known for his collection of 86 sermons on the Song of Solomon in which he used erotic language to describe the relation between God and believers. He claimed: “. . . if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God a bride.”iv
Leon J. Podles, however, in The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, was critical of that individual interpretation by Origen and Bernard. He wrote:
The soul as the bride of God is an allegory in Origen and Bernard, but the allegory cannot be extended to the individual soul precisely because it is individual. In the New Testament, the bride is the Church. Even worse, this allegory was taken up into the increasing humanization of the relationship of the Christian and Christ, and the individual Christian person, body and soul, came to be seen as the bride of Christ…. Because of this extension of the metaphor of the Song of Songs, Bernard and the mystics who followed him used the language of marriage to describe the conformity of the soul to Christ, the transformation into Christ, and the deification of the Christian.v
In essence, viewing an individual as Christ’s bride elevates that person to a divine status as God’s partner, thereby confusing a divine/human distinction.
Christian author Erin Pavlicek is typical of those who considered the bride of Christ to be only the church, the body of believers as a whole. She was vehemently opposed to applying Christian bridal theology to individual believers. She provided two primary reasons for her opposition. First, she concluded:
The problem with adapting a theology from the Song of Solomon is that the book is taken out of context in accordance with its original intent and purpose. That is a clear perversion of scripture. The Song of Solomon is NOT a prophetic book. It was never written as a revelation of Christ, or as a standard for the marriage covenant He would fulfill. On the contrary, attempting to use this book as such is heretical. To arrive at deep theological conclusions based on the poetic verses that clearly elaborate upon marital love and sexual union are perverse at best, and heretical at worst….vi
In short, Christ had nothing to do with the construction of the Song of Solomon, so applying it theologically to his teaching makes unwarranted assertions about its meaning.
Second, Pavlicek believed that the sexual dimension of the Song of Solomon has troubling implications for understanding the divine/human relationship. On this point she said:
The Song of Solomon theology is a very alluring cult theology which operates by a seductive spirit, which is a type of false Christ…. Jesus is worshipped as a man who becomes our Lover. He becomes sufficient as our spiritual Husband. This teaching is a gross perversion of the scriptures.vii
Christianity is based upon the belief that Christ is the savior of humankind, not its lover.
Loss of an appreciation about the salvific, rather than the erotic, role of Christ has led to some unfortunate examples of misguided worship among some Christian groups:
I’ve witnessed and heard songs such as ‘Let Him kiss me,’ echoing Song of Solomon 1:2, among many others which are sung in hypnotic seductive rhythms. I’ve heard lyrics that are suggestive of sex with Christ wherein a marital bond is consummated. These musical rhythms and rhymes are no less graphic than their mantras, which use the Song of Solomon to support their perverse spiritual activity.”viii
Christians, therefore, cannot conflate eroticism with Jesus’ salvific role for humankind, and this kind of critique about the use of the Son of Solomon has particular salience when examining the theology of the Children of God.
BRIDAL THEOLOGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
At the core of Christian bridal theology is the belief that marriage is a sacred covenant ordained by God as a sign of love for humanity. It emphasizes the importance of mutual submission, selflessness, and sacrificial love as the foundations of a healthy and fulfilling marriage. The marriage covenant is generally seen as a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church, although scriptures in the New Testament regarding earthly marriage can also be interpreted as a metaphor for the spiritual marriage between Christ and individual Christians.
In Eph. 5.22-33, Paul discussed the dynamics of a Christian marriage relationship and explained the mutual responsibilities husbands and wives have to each other. Husbands were “to love their wives as their own bodies . . . even as Christ also loved the church,” and “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” He explicitly said that their union as “one flesh . . . is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
However, other Pauline epistles refer to mystical marriage where the bride can be interpreted as applying to both the church and individual Christians. In Rom. 7.1-4, Paul explained how a wife who is widowed is no longer bound by the Mosaic law of adultery, but is free to marry again. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” And 2 Cor. 11.2 states: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
In that respect, the Catholic Church has a liturgical rite called the Consecration of Virgins whereby women commit to a spiritual life as chaste virgins dedicated to serving the Church, either as nuns in a monastic order, or out in the world under the supervision of a bishop. Like the medieval mystics, consecrated virgins today represent both an image of the Catholic Church as the bride of Christ, and a personal mystical marriage to Jesus. In the current 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, Canon 604 states:
Similar to these forms of consecrated life is the order of virgins who, expressing the holy resolution of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are mystically betrothed to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.ix
The betrothal to Christ was mystical and did not contain an erotic, sensual element.
The term “bride of Christ” does not appear in the New Testament, but other scriptures also use the metaphor of bride and bridegroom to imply a mystical marriage relationship between Christians and Jesus. In Jn. 3.28-29, John the Baptist reiterated to his disciples that he is “. . . not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” John clearly implied that Jesus is the bridegroom and the bride is his followers. Other scriptures in the Gospels that compared Jesus to a bridegroom do not specifically mention a bride, but left it to the reader to infer who the bride is.
Mark 2.18-9, Lk.5.33-35 and Mt.9.14-15 all depict a scene where the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus why his disciples did not fast like they and the Pharisees did. The text in those versions is almost identical, so I will only cite the latter, where Jesus replied: “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.” The bridegroom is generally interpreted as referring to Jesus, so by inference the bride represented those who believe in him.
The only other reference to a bridegroom in the Gospels is the parable of ten virgins in Mt.25.1-13. That chapter was a continuation of Mt. 24 in which Jesus replied to his disciples' question in verse three: “And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” In response, Jesus described various signs and events they should watch for, and instructed them how to behave when the end comes. He also used several metaphors and parables to illustrate his endtime message, including the parables of a budding fig tree (24.32-35) and a faithful servant (24.42-51). Like those two parables, the ten virgins parable at the start of Mt.25, where they are waiting with their oil lamps for the bridegroom to appear, emphasizes the importance of staying prepared and watchful for signs of the end when Jesus returns. In this allegory, the ten virgins are Christians waiting for the second coming of Jesus, the bridegroom.
The mystical marriage metaphor continues in the apocalyptic book of Revelation, where the bridegroom is obviously Jesus, and his bride is described as both the righteous believers and the holy city, new Jerusalem. In that final book of the Bible, Jesus is referred to by over two dozen names, epithets, and titles, including the Lamb (Rev.5.8,9). Chapter 19.6-9 refers to the “marriage of the Lamb, and his wife hath made herself ready” by wearing “fine linen, clean and white,” which “is the righteousness of saints.” Those who are “called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb” are blessed. In chapter 21:2,9-10, John the Revelator described seeing “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” He said that an angel then took him away in the spirit to show him “the bride, the Lamb's wife . . . and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God”.
Christian bridal theology is a multifaceted concept that is various Christian denominations and sects understand and interpret differently, but its central message remains the same: a Christian marriage is a sacred covenant ordained by God, which is a reflection of the mystical marriage between Jesus and Christians. Some denominations, sects, and organizations (such as those in the Christian Patriarchy Movement)x apply an abusive interpretation of Paul's writings on the marriage relationship that requires wives to wholly and unquestionably submit to their husbands. However, few have perverted the biblical concept of bridal theology quite like David Berg did in his unique doctrinal writings on the subject.
DAVID BERG'S PERVERSION OF BIBLICAL BRIDAL THEOLOGY
In the 1960s, an inter-denominational charismatic movementxi in mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches spread to a variety of nondenominational churches and contributed to the development of the Jesus People movement. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, various Jesus People groups formed throughout the U.S. and elsewhere, including the Children of God in 1968, which was originally called Teens For Christ. David Berg (1919-1994),xii a former evangelical pastor in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, used his four teenage children to proselytize on the beaches of California, and soon realized that the hippie generation was ripe for recruitment with his radical message of dropping out to serve Jesus.
The Children of God, which later became known as The Family, quickly spread throughout the U.S. and within a few years had thousands of members in communes around the world. David Berg believed he was the final, endtime prophet, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that refer to a king named David living in the last days before the second coming of Christ. (Ezek.37. 21,24; Jer.30. 9,24; Hos.3.5). He predicted that Jesus would return in 1993.xiii Almost from the beginning, Berg remained isolated from his followers and communicated with them by means of letters, referred to as Mo Letters after his biblical alias, Moses.
For about the first five years, Children of God members were forbidden to date each other or have any sexual contact of any kind outside of marriage, (a union that required a leader's approval). In 1972, Berg wrote: “The rules of the revolution are strict…. Defile not the temple of the Holy Ghost--no smoking or smooching other than ‘greeting one another with a holy kiss’--and absolutely no dating without permission. Betrothals only for staff members after months of service and ready to go on their own with Team approval.”xiv
However, unknown to all but his inner circle, Berg had been living a sexually promiscuous lifestyle secretly behind the scenes for years, while imposing those strict sexual rules on most of his followers. Soon after forming the Children of God, Berg had several young lovers among his retinue, to whom he referred as his wives. He favoured his secretary, Karen Zerby (b. 1946),xv known to members as Maria. As the transcriber of his sermons and prophecies, she was a conduit to his followers and remained his constant companion. In effect, she became the co-leader and took control of The Family when Berg died in 1994.
The Old Church And The New Church
The first official Mo Letter, dated August 1969, is an esoteric prophecy titled “The Old Church And The New Church,”xvi wherein Berg cryptically referred to a sexual affair with one of his young followers. However, most members in the early years thought it was simply about the Children of God rejecting the church system. They did not fully understand the sexual innuendos, double entendres, and hidden meanings coded in the prophecy until years later when they learned the whole story behind Berg's relationship with Zerby:
My infant Church . . . obeying My slightest bidding, attending to My least will and caring diligently for these little ones that come of her — My Revolutionary Children…. Therefore shall the old vestures be removed and she shall be clothed in a new garment and a new look and all things shall become new and old things shall pass away and I will have a new bride who will love Me and obey Me and do My will…. For who is My mother and who are My brethren and who are My sisters? They that do the will of My Father. Not they that wear the garments of the relatives and who bear relationship in name only, but love Me not, neither obey Me, nor honour Me…. They claim to be Mine--My wife, My Church--but the relationship is in name only…. Therefore is this hypocrisy and not a marriage. This is pretense and not love…. Therefore, shall they say unto thee, ‘Whence cometh this one? And who is she and wherefore dost thou love her and why is this one in thy house?’ and I shall say unto them, ‘This is the Bride of Mine affliction. This is the darling of My Tribulation”…. Therefore do I delight in her and do highly honour her and do give her a place above all the maidens.xvii
In retrospect, Berg was describing, and attempted to justify, his conjugal relationship with his much younger follower.
When Berg took Zerby as his de facto wife, he was still legally married to his first. Jane Berg, known as Mother Evexviii in the group, objected to her husband's adultery and bigamy. At least one of their four children, Deborah,xix also questioned his new marital arrangement. However, Berg insisted his relationship with Zerby was God's will, so he used the prophecy to justify that relationship, to condemn Jane and Deborah for their disobedient resistance, and to prevent their dissension from spreading to others who resisted his sexual promiscuity.
In the prophecy's double metaphor, the old church represented both the Christian church system and Berg's old wife Jane, while the new church represented both the Children of God and his new bride Zerby. Although it did not refer to Jane and Deborah by name, they knew exactly what the metaphors and coded language meant. It was obvious to them that they were the intended target of Berg's wrathful criticisms, warning them and others that they should not doubt or question the so-called prophet's sexual activity.
In that purported prophecy, subtitled “A prophecy of God,” Berg usurped God's voice to justify his questionable beliefs and behaviour. It is the first documented example of Berg equating his own words to God's word. He believed that God spoke directly through him, and told his followers that his sermons and letters were the very "Voice of God Himself" and were required reading for at least two hours a day.xx From then on, Berg's prophecies featured prominently in the Mo Letters, conveniently sanctifying his increasingly extreme and extra-biblical beliefs and doctrines. He eventually began to relax the rules around marriage and sexuality by publishing his boundary-breaking beliefs in a series of letters.
One Wife
In 1969 and 1970, Berg wrote a couple letters that are essentially basic sex education for married couples. The letter, “Scriptural, Revolutionary Love-Making,”xxi is based entirely on scriptures, especially the Song of Solomon. The letter, “Revolutionary Love-Making,”xxii is a transcript of a lecture for newlyweds that Berg gave during a mass wedding of his followers in Texas. In both letters Berg praised the virtues of marriage.
In a 1972 open letter addressed to outsiders, especially the relatives of members, Berg also promoted conventional marriage, as well as denied the accusation that children of members were taken from their parents. He stated: “The marriage relationship is considered valid and sacrosanct and solemnized with the Holy vows of Biblical betrothal!... [C]hildren are in the same house with their own parents most of the day…. [W]e have much more family life, love and fellowship, than the average worldly home of today.”xxiii
However, that letter was a public relations ploy in response to negative media reports about Berg and the Children of God. In order to portray himself and the group in the best possible light, he left out crucial, controversial details about his life and beliefs, and outright lied about some things. By then, Berg's views on conventional marriage had already radically changed, and just three months later, in October 1972, he published the letter, “One Wife,” which redefined Christian marriage and families as secondary to the mystical marriage of Christians and Christ:
We are not forsaking the marital unit.--We are adopting a greater and more important and far larger concept of marriage: The totality of the Bride and her marriage to the Bridegroom is The Family! We are adopting the larger Family as The Family unit: The Family of God and His Bride and Children!
. . . [Personal private marriage] can only be tolerated provided it does not interfere with your marriage to God and your relationship with the rest of God's Wife--the Body, His total Bride! They say that the Bible doesn't teach plural marriage, but one of the greatest examples of all is the marriage of God Himself to His plural Bride composed of many members, all of whom are nevertheless One Bride!xxiv
These passages laid the basis for Berg’s removal of monogamy and the creation of new norms that allowed open sexuality among heterosexual members.
Using the excuse that he was creating the collective Bride of Christ by destroying monogamy, Berg claimed that in doing so he was following God’s will:
. . . God's in the business of breaking up little selfish private worldly families to make of their yielded broken pieces a larger unit--one family! He's in the business of destroying the relationships of many wives in order to make them One Wife--God's Wife--The Bride of Christ!…. God breaks up marriages in order that he might join each of the parties together to himself. He rips off wives, husbands or children to make up His Bride if the rest of their family refuses to follow! He is the worst "ripper-offer" of all! God is the greatest Destroyer of home and family of anybody! God does more to break up marriages than anybody!
Resistance, therefore, to these new norms meant that one was resisting the will of God.xxv
These new norms had dire consequences for parent/child relationships:
Don't forget this means your children, also! Special favouritism and partiality--that is selfish private property interest!... Partiality toward your own wife or husband or children strikes at the very foundation of communal living--against the unity and supremacy of God's Family and its oneness and wholeness!xxvi
By prohibiting parents from forming special emotional and nurturing relationships with their children, Berg was creating a cultic environment in which adults were to invest their emotions and efforts exclusively toward the group that he was molding.
That letter was a warning for members to obey God's will as Berg defined it, or risk losing any relationships with spouses or children. Members were now required to put “God's family” first, and to separate from their spouses and children if ordered to by leadership. Although that letter did not explicitly permit promiscuity among members, sexual permissiveness soon followed.
Revolutionary Sex
In 1973, Berg began to groom his followers to accept sexual doctrines that radically departed from conventional Christian dogma by writing a series of letters explaining his boundary-breaking beliefs on sexuality.xxvii The first one was “Revolutionary Sex,”xxviii in which Berg emphasized the godly naturalness of nudity, masturbation, and sexuality in general, and criticized religious dogma that sees sex as shameful. Some passages foreshadow later letters that opened the door to almost every kind of heterosexual (and in some contexts, lesbian) sexual activity. For example, he declared that the Bible only prohibits four forms of sexual activity--fornication, adultery, incest and sodomy--but claimed that God made “many exceptions, allowances and tolerations” for all of them except for male homosexuality.xxix
The Flirty Little Fishy
The next pivotal letters that unleashed the Children of God from traditional Christian sexual morality came out in early 1974. First, Berg revealed an unorthodox proselytizing method in the letter, “The Flirty Little Fishy,” which introduced the practice of religious prostitution to gain converts and supporters. The letter is mostly a prophecy based on the metaphor in Jesus' call to his first disciples to “follow me and I will make you fishers of men” (Mt.4:19). Berg expanded that metaphor, describing Zerby as bait used to sexually lure and hook men for Jesus.
The first paragraph explained that Berg and Zerby spent a night out socializing with friends. By this time they were living in England, isolated from their followers, so those friends either were not Children of God members, or were not aware that Berg was the group’s leader. Afterwards at home, Berg gave a prophecy about their interactions. Elsewhere in this letter Zerby asked him whether or not the people they met that night were spiritually receptive. The setting of that social event was left to the imagination of the reader (obviously, though, it was sexual), and the message was clear: Flirty Fishing,xxx or FFing for short, was a new proselytizing method meant for members to practice.
As in other Mo Letters, Berg cloaked his new, sexually deviant edicts to his followers in biblical images:
Help her to catch men, be bold, unashamed and brazen to use anything she has, O God, to catch men for Thee!--Even if it be through the flesh, the attractive lure, delicious flesh…. [T]he bait, impaled on Thy hook, torn by Thy Spirit, O Lord, crucified on Thy cross, Jesus!.... Are you even willing to be bait on God's hook or in His trap? Would you do anything for Jesus to help your Fisherman catch men, even to suffer the crucifixion of the hook or the danger of the trap? Are you willing to risk being eaten alive that "from henceforth ye shall catch men"? Think it over: How far would you go to catch men? All the way? May God help us all to be Flirty Little Fishies for Jesus to save lost souls…. Amen?xxxi
Regardless of the personal dangers involved in women putting themselves in sexual situations with men (including strangers), the potential benefits of gaining converts outweighed the very real possibility of being harmed. Berg represented the potential benefits as salvific for the men, but these sexual contacts quickly became fundraising- and resource-acquisition opportunities for the group.
The fledgling FFing ministry began to flourish a few months later when Berg and Zerby moved to the tourist hot spot, Tenerife (the largest of Spain's Canary Islands) in March 1974. Three months after “The Flirty Little Fishy,” Berg published “Beauty and the Beasts,” written one month after their arrival in Tenerife. The letter did not disclose that location, but it did reveal that they were FFing in dance clubs and bars with other women in their inner circle who had joined them there. It dispelled any doubt that FFing involved sex.xxxii Berg and Zerby eventually wrote dozens of letters about all aspects of FFing, pushing it as a primary proselytizing method and source of support and income.
The Law of Love
A month before “Beauty and the Beasts,” Berg wrote “The Law of Love,” which finally opened the door for members to engage in sexual promiscuity. Berg twisted New Testament scriptures that described the first Christians' communal lifestyle and spoke of sacrificial love. He applied sexuality to verses about giving up one’s life for others and sharing everything in common with fellow believers.xxxiii After that, the word 'sharing' becomes a euphemism for sexual intercourse, whether it was between singles, couples spouse-swapping or having sex with singles, or sex with outsiders in the Flirty Fishing ministry. Berg wrote:
For where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty--total and complete freedom from the bondage of the law…. ‘Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ ‘Therefore we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.’ Are you willing to lay down your life, or even your wife, for a [sexually] starving brother or a sister?... Are you willing to plant your seed into the furrow of the body of God's Earth, His Wife, His Church, that it may be warmed by the sun of His Love, refreshed by the water of His Word, and bring forth much fruit? As it is with the spiritual, so it is with the physical, and that's the final test…. ‘For whosoever saveth his life (or wife?) shall lose it, but whosoever loseth his life (or wife?) for My sake and the Gospel's, the same shall save it!’ Have you really forsaken all for Jesus and others?.... That is the ultimate ideal in total sharing, total giving, total forsaking all, total freedom, total living, total loving and total liberty in the total love of God!.... Are you revolutionary enough?”xxxiv
This supposedly total sexual freedom, however, came at the high personal cost of having to relinquish the freedom to set safe, personal boundaries, choose sexual partners or sexual circumstances, or to develop and cultivate special feelings for a partner of one’s choice.
In 1977, three years after “The Law of Love,” Berg explained that antinomian doctrine in more detail in the letter, "God's Only Law Is Love--What the Bible says about true free love!” He cited a few dozen scriptures and wrote: “Jesus therefore brought a new law of love, God's only law for the lovers of Jesus!... According to the Scriptures there is therefore no longer any law against sex that is done in Love, God's love, and hurts no one: It is no sin, neither adultery nor fornication!... God's only law is Love! We are totally, utterly free of the old Mosaic law.xxxv
Then in 1980, Berg made it obviously clear that the new sexual freedoms he encouraged applied to everyone without restriction (except for anal sex). In “The Devil Hates Sex,” Berg wrote: “As far as God’s concerned, there are no more sexual prohibitions hardly of any kind, except he sure seemed to hate sodomy and I don't see where He withdrew that…. There’s nothing in the world at all wrong with sex as long as it’s practised in love, whatever it is, whoever it’s with, no matter who or what age or what relative or what manner!... There are no relationship restrictions or age limitations in His law of love....”xxxvi
That letter clearly implied that both incest and sex between adults and minors was allowed under “The Law of Love.” In the original 1974 letter Berg indicated:
Any variation from the norm of personal relationships, any substantial change in marital relationships, any projected sexual associations should have the willing consent of all parties concerned or affected, including the approval of leadership and permission of the Body. If this is lacking in any quarter and anyone is going to be harmed or unduly offended, then your action is not in love nor according to God's law of love!xxxvii
Children of God leadership (which, of course, included Berg himself) now had the authoritative power to significantly control members’ sexual activities.
However, nowhere in Berg's or Zerby's writings are there any discussions of the fact that children and adolescents are incapable of freely or legally consenting to sexual activity with an adult, especially in the coercively controlled culture of the Children of Goc. Their writings revealed a complete ignorance of the concept of informed consent concerning sexual conduct between adults and minors.
After David Berg died in 1994, Karen Zerby took control of The Family along with her long-time lover, Peter Kelly. In 1996, they experimented with a new sexual doctrine called The Marriage of the Generations, “which encouraged young Family adults to have sex with Family members of their parents' generation. Maria [Zerby] hoped that this experimentation would help break down the barriers between the two generations. The pilot project took place at the Family Leadership Summit of 1996 in Maryland. Peter [Kelly] encouraged young Family leaders to spend time in bed with older Family leaders.”xxxviii
When Zerby received feedback from regional leaders that Family members might resist the new doctrine, she realized that she needed to groom them first, using prophecies to spiritually coerce her followers (like her demented mentor Berg had done). So before revealing that doctrine to them, Zerby insisted that members had to become even more sexually active by obeying and living the Law of Love more fully. In 1998, she wrote a 12-part series of letters entitled “Living the Lord’s Law of Love,”xxxix which was required reading and came with special instructions ordering the series to be read by each Family home as a group, not individually, thus increasing the peer pressure to conform.
Sex With Jesus - The Loving Jesus Revelation
One year after Berg died, Karen Zerby, eager to prove herself as The Family's prophetess by emulating her immoral mentor, formulated and introduced to members a radical new sexual doctrine based on bridal theology called the “Loving Jesus Revelation” (LJR). Loving Jesus was a term that members of the Children of God/Family International cult use to described their sexual relationship with Jesus. Leadership introduced it in 1995, and members were exposed to it as young as 12, but more fully from the age of 14. The Family described the Loving Jesus teachings as a radical form of "bridal theology," based upon an interpretation of the Bible in which the followers of Christ are his bride, called to love and serve him with the fervor of a wife. They took bridal theology further than other Christians by encouraging members to imagine that Jesus was having sex with them during sexual intercourse and masturbation. This radical teaching instructs male members to visualize themselves as women, in order to avoid a homosexual relationship with Jesus (male homosexuality was an offence warranting excommunication). It also instructed members to say "love words," or talk dirty, to Jesus as they are having sex. Karen Zerby published a list of sexually explicit expressions that her followers could use during sex with Jesus.xl
All of The Family's public and private publications, including those I cite above which were intended for members only, have been available online for the past two decades on two websites operated by former members working to expose the abuses in that cult. Before those publications were publicly available, Family leaders gave certain academics studying the group access to some of themxli as part of an early 1990s public relations ploy to paint a positive portrait of the group in the face of negative publicity.xlii In my memoir of life in that cult, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In a Doomsday Cult,xliii I documented the role those academic apologists played in white-washing The Family's public image by downplaying the widespread child abuse promoted in their publications.xliv In the academic articles and books that those apologists published, they conveniently left out the most damning evidence of systemic abuse that was directly connected to The Family's doctrines described in their publications. Instead of analyzing and connecting those doctrines to a long list of abuses committed in the cult, they denied them, xlv ignored them,xlvi excused them,xlvii or downplayed the cruel consequences they had on members, especially their children who were never members by their own free choice.xlviii
The unethical actions of those academic apologists that protected The Family, in the name of religious freedom, prolonged for many years the harmful and criminal abuses that children in the cult suffered. They never considered the religious freedom rights of The Family's children, which necessarily included the right to be free from religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court famously ruled in Prince v. Massachusetts: “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”xlix
CONCLUSION
David Berg's perversion of biblical bridle theology, his various extra-biblical sexual doctrines, and Karen Zerby's promotion and extension of those doctrines, were major aspects of the widespread, systemic abuses in the Children of God, currently known as The Family International. Many marriages and families were forcibly broken up; spouses were coercively separated from each other against their will, and children were separated from one or both parents, as well as from their siblings. Women were sexually exploitedl and thousands of children suffered a wide range of abuses, including:
religious indoctrination that denied them freedom of thought and freedom of religion, which necessarily includes the right to be free from religion;
isolation from society;
separation from parents, siblings, and other relatives;
educational neglect and intellectual abuse;
medical neglect;
child labour and financial exploitation;
sexual coercion, exploitation, assault, and rape;
cruel corporal punishment and extreme physical abuse;
spiritual abuse and threats, and
emotional and psychological abuse.
These negative experiences and emotions certainly exist within the lives of former COG/The Family members, and they have parallels in accounts from people who grew up in other abusive sects and cults.li
As an advocate for survivors recovering from the complex traumas that they experienced in The Family, especially those of the second and third generations who were born and/or raised in the group, I have heard countless stories of how difficult it is to find therapists who understand the dynamics of cult involvement, or specific issues related to religious trauma.lii I experienced that myself on my own path to recovery from my life in that cult.liii No psychiatrist or psychologist I saw could relate to my cult experiences.liv I lent my copy of the book, Cults In Our Midst,lv and the 1994 documentary, Children of God, lvi to one psychologist, yet she still admitted that she did not know how to counsel me.
Many survivors of religious trauma in other sects, churches, and organizations also have difficulty finding therapists who are familiar with the various issues they suffered as a result of religious and spiritual abuse. For example, in her 2022 memoir Behind the Dress,lvii Christine Faour told the story of her involvement with The Institute in Basic Life Principles,lviii an ultra-conservative evangelical organization that is part of the Christian Patriarchy Movement. She described seeking “help from psychologists but found that none of them could relate to what happened to her.,”lix which was the same experience that I and other ex-COG/The Family members have had.
Krystal Shipps is a mental health therapist who can relate to survivors of spiritual abuse and religious trauma, since she has experienced them personally. She described her own deconversion after leaving a spiritually abusive, fundamentalist Christian church, and the difficulty she had finding a suitable therapist certainly speaks to the difficulties that former COG/The Family members typically have. Her initial therapists were experienced, well-meaning, but nonreligious professionals who made her feel invalidated by their downplaying of her religious background, and only later did she find one whose understood the trauma and harm that she had experienced in her previous group. She discerned that a therapist working with a former member coming out of a totalistic, highly demanding religion had to be able “to attend to all facets of their [client's] history, development, social attachments, and sense of self—all without losing sight of their presenting problem.” Like other ex-members, she was having to unravel social and family relations that had be central to her identity, and re-think issues related to her “own mind, body, sexuality, and self-worth.” Now, subsequently as a therapist herself, she based her own therapeutic practice on attending to these multifaceted but interconnected counseling needs because, as a person who deconverted from one of these religions, she has been through the transition process herself.lx While a few former ex-COG/The Family members have themselves gone into mental health professions, most ex-members seeking counseling must hope that they find counselors who understand religiously-based abuse and trauma.
It seems, however, that many mental health therapists are not knowledgeable about psychological issues related to spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and cult dynamics, and therefore are unsure how to help survivors of such abuse. This lack of knowledge and resultant treatment uncertainty may be partly explained by what the authors of the 2024 scoping review, “Addressing Harm From Adverse Religious/Spiritual Experiences in Psychotherapy”, described as a “dearth of research on psychotherapeutic intervention for these concerns.” That review was “a synthesis of the psychotherapy recommendations for addressing harm from adverse religious/spiritual experiences that have been published in the peer-reviewed and grey literature.”lxi
While research is limited on effective therapeutic interventions for survivors of religious/spiritual abuse, the concepts of spiritual and religious trauma are not new. In “The Spiritual Abuse and Harm Screener and Its Revelations,”lxii Araya Baker discussed two books published in the 1990s on the subject. The authors of the 1991 book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church,lxiii coined the term “spiritual abuse.” Another influential book on abuse in religious settings came out in 1992, which was Ronald Enroth’s Churches That Abuse: Help for Those Hurt by Legalism, Authoritarian Leadership, Manipulation, Excessive Discipline, and Spiritual Intimidation.lxiv Enroth examined five areas conducive to religious abuse: “authority and power, manipulation and control, elitism and persecution, lifestyle and experience, [and] dissent and discipline.” These areas of abuse are very familiar to former COG/The Family members.
After discussing those books, Baker wrote:
Religion and spirituality are actually distinct concepts. Yet not much difference exists in terms of how leaders of organized institutions and groups use both to gain power and control over others.
Thus, both spiritual abuse and religious abuse overlap significantly with adverse religious experiences, which the Global Center for Religious Research defines as, ‘an event, series of events, relationships, or circumstances within or connected to religious beliefs, practices, or structures that are experienced by an individual as overwhelming or disruptive. These experiences have the potential of resulting in religious trauma.’lxv
Keep in mind that many of the former members of COG/The Family and other high-demand religions had experienced “overwhelming disruptive” experiences for years if not decades.
In Leaving the Fold (2006), Dr. Marlene Winell, who is a religious abuse survivor and psychologist, introduced and conceptualized the Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS). Winell’s theory of RTS built upon previous work about the process of religious and/or spiritual abuse, and offerred a framework for understanding the long-lasting and multifaceted impacts on one’s nervous system. RTS is not an official diagnosis in the DSM-5TR, but she described the concept as “the condition experienced by people who are struggling with leaving an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and coping with the damage of indoctrination. It can be compared to a combination of PTSD and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD).”lxvi Several years later, Winell published a trilogy of essays in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Today,lxvii urging the counseling and psychology professions to respect RTS as a legitimate form of trauma and abuse that is religious and/or spiritual as a serious form of abuse.
Although it may be difficult to provide all therapists with the necessary training to deal with specific issues presented by religious/spiritual abuse survivors, most psychologists and therapists are presumably familiar with family dynamics, domestic abuse, and coercive control outside of any religious or spiritual context. Therefore, given the shortage of therapists with knowledgeable insights on religious/spiritual trauma, I suggest that the therapeutic interventions applied in domestic abuse cases unrelated to religion can also be applied to cases where spirituality or religious dogma is the primary cause of the abuses their clients suffered.
A basic metaphor related to mystical marriage expresses the relationship between Christian believers and God as that of father and children: “Our Father which art in heaven . . .” (Mt.6 .9). And the relationship between a body of believers is commonly considered a familial one: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph.3.14). These metaphors are why numerous Christian cults and other religious organizations (including the Children of God/The Family) have the word 'family' in their names.
Given David Berg's perversion of biblical bridal theology and Karen Zerby's extension of his diabolical doctrines, almost all of the abuses experienced by those who were part of the Children of God were forms of domestic abuse. In the final chapter of my memoir about life in that cult I write: "I found it helpful to understand my experiences in the Family as a spiritual variation of long-term domestic abuse causing battered wife syndrome, a subcategory of PTSD. After all, I had been a bride of Christ according to the Family's version of bridal theology."lxviii
The correlation between religious/spiritual beliefs and domestic abuse does not only apply to extreme groupslxix like The Family, but also to many Christian denominations, churches, sects, and organizations, even those with conventional interpretations of bridal theology. The authors of a 2023 studylxx that “aims to comprehend the underlying dynamics influencing domestic violence” wrote, “religion and spiritual beliefs have been found to play a significant role in domestic violence dynamics. Certain religious interpretations and teachings can contribute to the acceptance of violence, particularly against women, as a form of submission or obedience.” This insight certainly was true in the Children of God, whose founder manipulated the “bride of Christ” imagery to justify extensive abuse against women and children. Seeing religious trauma, therefore, from the perspective of domestic abuse provides an understanding of the intimate, coercive aspects of religious/spiritual abuse, and why leaving abusive religious groups is often very difficult, in a similar way that leaving an abusive marriage or family is. I conclude that recognizing religious trauma related to Christian dogma as a form of domestic abuse, regardless of denomination, church, sect, or organization, is a helpful concept for survivors recovering from such abuse, therapists who help them, and academics who study the subject. Non-Christian religions, too, likely generate deviances and perversions that do harm to their followers, as happened to members of the Children of God/The Family. The scriptural bases will be different, but the negative consequences will be very similar if not the same.
i Ann E. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990, chapter five “The Marriage of the Soul” pp. 123–50. JSTOR, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhv3r.10>
ii Ibid, chapter two “Hidden Origins: The Legacy of Alexandria” pp. 20–48.
iii Jonathan Kaplan, “Why is a love poem full of sex in the Bible? Readers have been struggling with the Song of Songs for 2,000 years”, The Conversation, February 10, 2023, <https://theconversation.com/why-is-a-love-poem-full-of-sex-in-the-bible-readers-have-been-struggling-with-the-song-of-songs-for-2-000-years-198375>
iv Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent The Feminization of Christianity, Spence Publishing 1999, chapter six, “The Foundations of Feminization” pp. 103-105
v Ibid.
vi Erin Pavlicek, “Unveiling the Bridal Paradigm and the Song of Solomon Theology”, The Wordsmith Blog, post updated: 12.3.2019 <https://www.thewordsmithblog.com/unveiling-the-bridal-paradigm-and-the-song-of-solomon-theology/>
vii Ibid.
viiiIbid.
ix Code of Canon Law, Book II The People of God, Part III Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Section I Institutes of Consecrated Life, Title I Norms Common To All Institutes of Consecrated Life (Caan. 573-606) <https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann573-606_en.html#SECTION_I:>
x Kathryn Joyce, Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, Beacon Press, March 1, 2009 <http://kathrynjoyce.com/books/quiverfull/>
xi Julia Duin, “Pentecostalism from soup to nuts: A (near) complete history of this movement in America”, Get Religion, February 2, 2023 <https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2023/1/30/pentecostalism-from-soup-to-nuts-a-near-complete-history-of-this-movement-in-america>
xii David Berg https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/David_Berg. For a brief history of the Children of Good from 1968-early 1982, see David E. Van Zandt. Living in the Children of God, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 30-55.
xiii David Berg, “The 70-Years Prophecy of the End”, March 1972 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0156.shtml>
xiv David Berg, “The Revolutionary Rules”, March 1972 par. 9
<http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0000S.shtml>
xv Karen Zerby <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Karen_Zerby>
xvi David Berg, “The Old Church And The New Church - A Prophecy Of God”, August 1969 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/mlA.html>
xvii Ibid, pars. 11,13,17,18,20,24,25
xviii Jane Miller Berg, aka Mother Eve <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Jane_Miller_Berg>
xix Deborah Davis, (born Linda Berg) is the eldest daughter of David Berg and Jane Miller. <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Deborah_Davis> Deborah discusses the events surrounding her father's affair with Karen Zerby and the prophecy he used to justify it in chapters four and five of her book, The Children of God: The Inside Story, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1984. The book is free to read at: <http://www.exfamily.org/art/exmem/debdavis/debdavis00.shtml>
xx David Berg, "The Laws of Moses", February 1972, pars. 30-32,49 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0155.shtml>
xxi David Berg, “Scriptural, Revolutionary Love-Making”, August 1969
<http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0000N.shtml>
xxii David Berg, “Revolutionary Love-Making”, Summer 1970
<http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0259.shtml>
xxiii David Berg, "Survival", June 1972, pars.157-162 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0172.shtml>
xxiv David Berg, “One Wife”, October 28, 1972, pars. 3,9,20,22,23 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0249.shtml>
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Ibid.
xxviiSusan Raine and Stephen A. Kent, “The Grooming of Children for Sexual Abuse in Religious Settings: Unique Characteristics and select Case Studies, Aggression and Violent Behavior 48 (2019), pp.186-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.08.017.
xxviii David Berg, "Revolutionary Sex", March 1973 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0258.shtml>
xxix Ibid, par 16
xxx Flirty Fishing <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Flirty_Fishing>
xxxi David Berg, “The Little Flirty Fishy” January, 1974, pars. 17,19,99,100 <https://pubs.xfamily.org/text.php?t=293>
xxxii David Berg, “Beauty and the Beasts - Tips to the Lord's Lovers! For Our Dancing Girls and Flirty Fishes!”, April, 1974, par. 40 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0309.shtml>
xxxiii John 15:13; Acts 2:44; Acts 4:32; I John 3:16
xxxiv David Berg, “The Law of Love”, March 21, 1974, pars. 3,18, 21, 24, 26, 27
<http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0302C.shtml>
xxxv David Berg, "God's Only Law Is Love - What the Bible says about true free love!”
July 1977, pars. 14, 25, 30 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0592.shtml>
xxxvi David Berg, “The Devil Hates Sex”, May 1980, pars. 35, 67-69, 110 <http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/ml999_main.shtml>
xxxvii Supra, Note 29, par. 14
xxxviii James Penn, “No Regrets,” in the section Law Of Love and the Marriage of the Generations <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/No_Regrets#Law_of_Love_and_the_Marriage_of_the_Generations>
xxxix Karen Zerby (Maria) “Living the Lord’s Law of Love”, 1998 The individual letters are numbered 3199 to 3212 and censored versions are available at http://www.exfamily.org/cgi-bin/pubindex.pl?3201 religion was that they were on the verge of ‘going public,’ and were seeking advice on how to combat the negative publicity and other attacks they felt certain would result from this bold new public stature.”
xl Loving Jesus <https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Loving_Jesus>
xli One example appears in the work of Susan Palmer, who reported that she based her analysis of the Children of God partly on “a study of a cupboard of COG to Family literature [that was] undertaken with the assistance of a YA [Young Adult] who pointed out important passages in the Mo Letters, the Book of Remembrance and the children’s comic, Life with Grandpa.” (Susan Palmer, “‘Heaven’s Children’: The Children of God’s Second Generation.” P.9 in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God, edited by James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication.)
Another example is David Millikan, who indicated, “I requested access to all DO [Disciples Only] literature and, following a delay of several days during which permission was sought from World Services (the administrative branch of The Family, responsible for publications, communications, and statistics, often referred to as ‘W.S.’), the permission was given and I have had access to everything I have asked for and more.” (David Millikan, “The Children of God, Family of Love, The Family.” P. 182 in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God, edited by James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication.)
xlii For example, James R. Lewis indicated that the reason that Children of God leaders initially contacted him and other “scholars of alternative religion was that they were on the verge of ‘going public,’ and were seeking advice on how to combat the negative publicity and other attacks they felt certain would result from this bold new public stature.” (James R. Lewis, “Introduction: Meeting the Family: Face-to-Face With an Exotic Species.” P.vi in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God, edited by James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication.) See also James D. Chancellor, who indicated that in his first meeting with COG/The Family leadership, Zerby’s partner Peter Amsterdam, “was particularly interested in the possibilities for acceptance of the Family in the wider world of traditional Christianity.” (James D. Chancellor, Life in the Family: An Oral History of the Children of God. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2000:viii).
xliii Perry Bulwer, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In A Doomsday Cult, Vancouver: New Star Books, September 7, 2023 <https://www.newstarbooks.com/book.php?book_id=1554202065>
xliv Ibid., pp. 257-263.
xlv See, for example, Lewis, op. cit., p viii, who concluded, “while I do not claim formal competence as a psychologist, I can assert with some confidence that The Family does not abuse children.” Also see Susan Palmer, op. cit., p. 2, who returned from studying COG/The Family and faced questions from friends about “‘Do they abuse their children?’ ‘No they don’t, I’m convinced of it….’ 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, child abuse’ are ludicrous—but it is difficult to convince others.” One sociological study of the group’s use of prophecy mentioned the debate concerning the accuracy of claims that “group-sanctioned sexual abuse” existing in the group, but then stated, “we do not directly address these specific issues in this book” (Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, Talking With the Children of God: Prophecy and Transformation in a Radical Religious Group, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. ix. x).
xlvi One sociological study of the group’s use of prophecy mentioned the debate concerning the accuracy of claims that “group-sanctioned sexual abuse” existing in the group, but then stated, “we do not directly address these specific issues in this book” (Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, Talking With the Children of God: Prophecy and Transformation in a Radical Religious Group, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. ix. x).
xlvii See J. Gordon Melton, “Sexuality and the Maturation of The Family,” (P. 79 in Sex, Slander, and Salvation: Investigating The Family/Children of God, edited by James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton. Stanford, California: Center for Academic Publication), who interpreted that “in spite of Father David’s rhetorical flourishes, he had no intention fo creating a promiscuous anything-goes situation.”
xlviii Susan Palmer, for example, wrote, “the empowerment of youth is a theme that runs through the movement’s history” (Palmer, op. cit., p.17).
xlix Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) at 321.
l For a nuanced discussion of the Children of God’s understanding of, and impact on, women’s bodies, see Susan Raine, “Flirty Fishing in the Children of God: The Sexual Body as a Site of Proselytization and Salvation,” Marburg Journal of Religion 12 (1) 2007, pp.6-10.
li Robert H. Cartwright and Stephen A. Kent, “Social Control in Alternative Religions: A Familial Perspective, Sociological Analysis 53(4), 1992, pp. 345-361.
lii See: Margaret T. Singer, “Therapy with Ex-Cult Members.” Journal of Private Psychiatric Hospitals 94(4). https://cultrecovery101.com/cult-recovery-readings/therapy-with-ex-cult-members/.
liii Bulwer,op.cit., pp. 256-257.
liv Doni Whitsett & Stephen A. Kent, “Cults and Families,” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, (2003), pp. 491-502.
lv Margaret Thaler Singer and Janja Lalich, Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in our Everyday Lives (1995; revised and updated 2003) San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass
lvi Smithson, John [Director]. 1994. Children of God. United Kingdom: Great Percy Productions.
lvii Christine Faour, Behind the Dress: One Woman's life in a religious cult and the healing that came later, Legal Deposit Library and Archives Canada, June 3, 2022
lviii Institute in Basic Life Principles <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_in_Basic_Life_Principles>
lix Diane Crocker, Salt Wire, February 21, 2023 “How a Newfoundland woman found herself trapped in a cult by her ex-husband”
<https://www.saltwire.com/newfoundland-labrador/news/how-a-newfoundland-woman-found-herself-trapped-in-a-cult-by-her-ex-husband-christine-faour-sharing-story-of-her-life-with-the-advanced-training-institute-100826846/>
lx Krystal Shipps, “Leaving A High Demand, High Control Religion: What Is a Therapist’s Role?”, Psychotherapy Networker Magazine, January/February 2023
https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/article/leaving-high-demand-high-control-religion.
lxi L. M. Zaeske, et al, “Addressing harm from adverse religious/spiritual experiences in psychotherapy: A scoping review.” Practice Innovations, 9(1), 1–18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000237 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-65621-001
lxii Araya Baker, “The Spiritual Abuse and Harm Screener and Its Revelations”, Psychology Today, Beyond Cultural Competence, April 24, 2024, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-cultural-competence/202302/the-spiritual-abuse-and-harm-screener-and-its-revelations.
lxiii Jeff Van Vonderen and David Johnson, The subtle power of spiritual abuse: Recognizing and escaping spiritual manipulation and false spiritual authority within the church. Bethany House Publishers, 1991.
lxiv Ronald Enroth, Churches That Abuse: Help for Those Hurt by Legalism, Authoritarian Leadership, Manipulation, Excessive Discipline, and Spiritual Intimidation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
lxv Baker, op. cit.
lxvi Marlene Winell, Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. San Francisco: Apocryphile Press, 2006.
lxvii Marlene Winell, “Part 1: Religious trauma syndrome–It’s time to recognize it.” Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Today, 2011 May, 39(2). https://www.journeyfree.org/religious-trauma-syndrome-articles/
Dr. Marlene Winell, “Part 2: Religious trauma syndrome–It’s time to recognize it.” Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Today, 2011 September, 39(2). https://www.journeyfree.org/religious-trauma-syndrome-articles/
Dr. Marlene Winell, “Part 3: Religious trauma syndrome–It’s time to recognize it.” Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Today, 2011 November, 39(2). https://www.journeyfree.org/religious-trauma-syndrome-articles/
lxviii Supra note 36.
lxix Another example of a notorious doomsday cult leader with an extreme interpretation of bridal theology that broke up families is William Costellia Kamm, who also had an international following. “. . . Kamm was married and had four children but unknown to his wife, this self-proclaimed Messiah was planning on creating a royal harem, filled with 12 queens and 72 princesses--84 mystical spouses to bear his children to repopulate the earth.” Tara Brown “What life was really like inside the doomsday cult run by the paedophile known as 'Little Pebble'”, 9 Now, Australia
lxx Cintya Lanchimba, Juan Pablo DΓaz-Sanchez, and Franklin Velasco, “Exploring factors influencing domestic violence: a comprehensive study on intrafamily dynamics.” Frontiers In Psychiatry vol. 14 1243558. 7 Sep. 2023, doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1243558 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513418/.
No comments:
Post a Comment