----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics: Clarifying the
Confusion" (an article from Viewpoint column of the Christian
Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 46) by Michael D. Langone and
Paul R. Martin.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
In the late 1960s and early 1970s increasing numbers of parents
began to observe and report striking and frightening changes in
their young-adult children. Formerly serious, high-achieving,
well-adjusted students would suddenly drop out of school, shun
their families and friends, and devote themselves completely to
unusual groups that parents and others quickly identified as cults.
In many cases, parents also worried about their children's physical
well-being because of the groups' dietary, health, work, or sexual
practices. Although evangelical parents obtained some information
focused on doctrinal and historical issues from organizations such
as the Christian Research Institute, parents who did not identify
with evangelicalism had nowhere to turn and typically worried alone
for long periods of time. Gradually, they began to find and help
each other.
Occasionally, these individuals would find a mental health
professional or clergyman who sincerely listened to their concerns.
Parents would typically voice such observations as: "That's not my
kid"; "He talks like a robot, as though he were programmed"; "She
was fine, but now she seems like a different person." Soon, these
parents and professionals realized that they were observing a
process akin to what was popularly known as brainwashing. But they
didn't know what to do. Their children wouldn't listen, or their
responses to all questions and complaints seemed programmed. They
sometimes succeeded in persuading their children to leave the
groups, and the term "deprogramming" was used to describe the
process of countering the cults' "programming." Partly because of
these successes, the cults' antagonism toward parents hardened.
Parents found they could no longer gain access to their children.
Seeing no other options, some parents -- with the help of
former cult members -- began to take their adult children off the
street, bring them to secure places, and detain them there until
they had listened to a detailed critique of the cultic group.
Frequently, these encounters lasted three days or more. But the
process usually worked. Hundreds of cult members renounced their
cults. In time, the term "deprogramming" came to be associated with
this initially coercive process, even though originally
"deprogramming" did not imply coercion. Soon, a network of
deprogrammers developed, with some even earning their living as
deprogrammers. Although most parents were ethically and emotionally
conflicted over the deprogramming process, it seemed at the time to
be their only option in a desperate situation. Hundreds of these
parents felt as though deprogramming had brought their children
back to life. The ex-members felt that they had been liberated from
a psychological prison.
Because deprogramming had come to be associated with coercion
and confinement and because it so often worked (about two-thirds of
the time), it caused quite a controversy. Cults railed against it,
in large part because it was effective in persuading their members
to leave. But even some cult critics denounced it on legal and
ethical grounds. Others additionally felt that a more sophisticated
understanding of cults opened up alternatives to deprogramming.
These persons -- some of whom were helping professionals or clergy
-- believed that parents tended to let their emotions dominate
their actions. They began to help parents with their distress and
help them communicate more effectively, so that they would be able
to persuade their children to speak voluntarily with someone
knowledgeable about cults. The term "voluntary deprogramming" came
to be associated with this process. It soon became clear, however,
that the adjective "voluntary" did not remove the negative
connotation "deprogramming" had acquired. Gradually, the term "exit
counseling" replaced "voluntary deprogramming." (Some exit
counselors prefer the term "cult education consultant," but that
term has not as yet caught on.) Today, there are many exit
counselings and few deprogrammings.
Exit counseling refers to a voluntary, intensive, time-limited,
contractual educational process that emphasizes the respectful
sharing of information with cultists. Because some persons who
perform deprogrammings like to call themselves "exit counselors,"
the two terms are sometimes confused. A recent JOURNAL article on
"exit counseling" angered many exit counselors in large part
because it failed to stress the distinctions between exit
counseling and deprogramming.
These distinctions, however, are important. Deprogramming
entails coercion and confinement. In exit counseling the cultist is
free to leave at any time. Deprogramming typically costs $10,000 or
more, mainly because of the expense of a security team. Exit
counseling typically costs $2,000 to $4,000, including expenses,
for a three-to-five day intervention, although cases requiring
extensive research of little-known groups can cost much more.
Deprogramming, especially when it fails, entails considerable legal
and psychological risk (e.g., a permanent alienation of the cultist
from his or her family). The psychological and legal risks in exit
counseling are much smaller. Although deprogrammers prepare
families for the process, exit counselors tend to work more closely
with families and expect them to contribute more to the process;
that is, exit counseling requires that families establish a
reasonable and respectful level of communication with their loved
one before the exit counseling proper can begin. Because they rely
on coercion, which is generally viewed as unethical, deprogrammers'
critiques of the unethical practices of cults will tend to have
less credibility with cultists than the critiques of exit
counselors. Neither the authors, the organizations for which they
work, nor the publisher of this journal endorse involuntary
deprogramming.
Ethical concerns obviously are much greater with regard to
deprogramming than exit counseling. Deprogramming advocates
maintain that its coercive aspect is a regrettable but necessary
step in freeing people from evil groups. They point out that the
law has long recognized that competing rights and needs can
sometimes produce situations wherein an undesirable action might be
necessary to prevent something worse. This has often been called
the "necessity" or "choice of evils" defense. An example would be
running a red light in order to get a bleeding person to a
hospital. Running the red light is a legal violation, but in such
an emergency it would likely be deemed to have mitigating
circumstances. Obviously, with regard to deprogramming the central
question is whether the evil to be countered is terrible enough to
mitigate the culpability of the coercion.
Determining the ethical defensibility of a particular
deprogramming is not always simple. Generally speaking the most
defensible cases will involve minor children, especially when the
cult prevents parents from seeing or communicating with their
child. With regard to adults in cults, a reasonable likelihood of
imminent danger to the life of the cultist is probably a critical
factor in ethically defending a deprogramming. Imminent danger,
however, may not always be a sufficient justification of
deprogramming because other interventions may be reasonable to
pursue (e.g., obtaining a court order to remove the endangered
person from the group).
Whether a particular judge or jury will accept the necessity
defense for a deprogramming is a matter that is independent of,
though related to, the ethical defensibility of the deprogramming.
A parent, for example, may believe that his or her child is in
imminent danger, that an exit counseling is not possible, and that
there is not sufficient time to obtain a court order. The parent's
opinion may be sufficiently reasonable, based on the facts of the
case, to be ethically defensible. However, a judge might reject the
necessity defense because he or she believes that there had indeed
been time to obtain a court order, or that it was reasonable to
first attempt an exit counseling. The judgment of the legal system
determines the acceptability of a necessity defense, regardless of
the ethical defensibility of a particular deprogramming, although
the more ethically defensible a deprogramming is the more
acceptable is the necessity defense likely to be.
Historically speaking, when deprogrammings have resulted in
lawsuits or criminal charges, judges and juries have in many cases
decided in favor of parents and deprogrammers. In other cases
courts have exonerated the parents but held the deprogrammers
liable. Occasionally, both parents and deprogrammers have been held
liable. Although there have been attempts to pass laws that would
essentially sanction deprogrammings in advance, these attempts have
failed repeatedly, in large part because many believe that such
laws would create more serious problems than they would solve.
Thus, the ethics and legality of deprogramming have been and
continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
In order to evaluate the ethical and legal implications of
intervening on behalf of a loved one, we suggest that families
consider the following questions:
1. Is the family's decision based primarily on the welfare of
the cultist, rather than entirely on their own psychological needs?
2. Do they have adequate information to conclude that their
loved one is indeed imperiled by a cultic group and that an
intervention is warranted? Have they consulted with experts,
including legal experts, if warranted? Before they implore their
loved one to make an informed decision about cult affiliation, they
ought to make sure _they_ have made an informed decision about
intervening.
3. Have parents contemplating an ethically defensible
deprogramming carefully considered whether there are any less
restrictive options with a reasonably good chance of eliminating
the imminent danger? The greater the danger and the lower the
probability of success of less restrictive alternatives, the more
ethically defensible will be the deprogramming.
4. In the case of deprogramming, is the family's decision
sufficiently well informed that they would be emotionally and
intellectually able to defend it in court if need be? Families
should remember that they may have to demonstrate that the
deprogramming was _necessary,_ not merely that the cult is harmful.
Because not all jurisdictions and judges will accept the necessity
defense, parents and/or deprogrammers may be charged with a crime
regardless of the apparent "necessity" of the deprogramming.
5. Have they carefully checked on the competence and integrity
of those who may conduct the intervention? Although many helpers
are ethical and competent, we have heard reports indicating that
some have exploited vulnerable families and/or may not be as
competent as they claim, at least with regard to certain cases. If
families fail to check out a prospective helper, they may be led to
participate in an unethical and possibly illegal and ineffective
intervention.
Ethical helpers will not rush families to a decision (whether
for deprogramming or exit counseling) merely because it meets the
financial or emotional needs of the helper. Most deprogrammers and
exit counselors work hard to help cult members make informed
decisions about their group affiliations. Some, unfortunately, do
not pay as much attention to their ethical obligation to make sure
that the _families_ with which they work have made truly informed
decisions. If they did, there would, in our opinion, be even fewer
deprogrammings than currently occur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dr. Langone* is executive director of the American Family
Foundation. *Dr. Martin* is director of the Wellspring Retreat and
Resource Center.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
End of document, CRJ0121A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics: Clarifying the
Confusion"
release A, June 30, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for
information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.