tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73079647069052701022024-03-05T07:06:32.802-08:00Blog of Lom (Löma) Nal<big><b>Thought Reform & Spiritual Abuse vs. Benign Religion:</b></big><br> Thought Reform (Mind Control, Coercive Persuasion, Undue Influence) and Spiritual Abuse versus Benign Spiritual Experience and GrowthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-56760117091424591952014-08-02T09:27:00.000-07:002014-08-02T09:27:06.166-07:00Anti-Cult Community and CatsOver 10 years ago, Steve Eichel (then Steve Dubrow-Eichel) obtained a number of certifications in psychotherapy for his cat Zoe (whom he renamed into Dr. Zoe D[ie]. Katze, that is, Zoe the cat - translated from German). He did it in order to show how easy it is (or was) to obtain fake diplomas, certificates, and credentials in the field of psychology. Here is his article about this story: <a href="https://freedomofmind.com//Info/articles/credentialing.php">https://freedomofmind.com//Info/articles/credentialing.php</a><br />
<br />
Well, it would be much more easy for him to take another of his cats, rename him, for example, into Dr. John Der Kater (that is, John the tomcat), make him a member of a number of anti-cult organizations (including ICSA, of course), and grant him a title of "cult expert." Really, anyone, including a cult member, a cult leader or a cat, can become a member of ICSA. And anyone can call himself or herself "a cult expert" (including a cat, of course). I do not know why Steve Eichel did not make any of his cats a cult expert, an anti-cult activist or an anti-cult mental health professional. I think he definitely should do so.<br />
<br />
Actually, probably, it would be not so bad if there would be many feline "mental health professionals" (FMHP) in the anti-cult movement. At least, they can not psychologically harm people in the same way as their human colleagues. So, if Steve Eichel creates a FMHP department within ICSA, I think they will be the most harmless group of anti-cult mental health professionals.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-1779628911175213372014-07-30T10:09:00.002-07:002014-07-31T04:17:25.618-07:00Anti-Cult Abuse and Its Cover-UpSteven Hassan ended his first book, Combatting Cult Mind Control with the quote from Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (<a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk377528.html">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk377528.html</a>)<br />
<br />
His main thought was that in order to defeat the evil of cults, people should resist the cults and not to be silent. Some people (including myself, actually) were very impressed and inspired by that and decided to stand against the evil of cults.<br />
<br />
This is good, of course. But what about anti-cult abuse? What do mental health professionals do when they know about unethical and abusive behaviors of their colleagues? <b>Most of them do nothing</b>. Well, they may gossip behind the abusers' backs about those abuses, but their gossips will never do any good and will never put the end to those abuses.<br />
<br />
In fact, mental health professionals who (rightly) accuse cults for abusive behaviors, but who tolerate a similar behavior of their colleagues or/and behave this way themselves are hypocrites. Why do they consider that the same kind of behavior is wrong when it is practiced in cults, but it is normal when it is practiced by their colleagues in the anti-cult field? And if they do not consider it to be normal, why do they tolerate it? I believe that until they condemn abusive behavior of their colleagues, they have no moral right to condemn abusive behavior of cults because it is hypocrisy. And even if they are not involved into such behavior, their cover-up enables the evil in the anti-cult field to triumph and enables corruption in the anti-cult field.<br />
<br />
Here is one example. Every country has police. Police is necessary for normal life of any country. Without police a country will encounter uncontrollable growth of crimes and will be in a chaos. However, in some countries, police becomes corrupted. This happened, for example, in Russia and other countries of the former USSR. It became quite usual for policemen to take bribes and some of them even got involved into criminal groups. Of course, not all the policemen became like this. Some remained honest and fulfilled their duties as they should. But since many policemen were involved in bribes and other crimes, police began to be viewed as a criminal organization in the society. Most people stopped trusting police. There have been many attempts to reform police and to get rid of the corruption, but their effectiveness is questionable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, is it normal when policemen behave like criminals? Of course, not. I think no one will argue with that. But why is it considered normal when anti-cult mental health professionals behave like cult leaders and abuse people in the same way as cults do? Why many people in police are concerned about its corruption and try to do something to change the situation, but anti-cult mental health professionals do not do anything?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-47694688359272292342014-07-30T06:48:00.004-07:002014-07-30T06:48:49.432-07:00Psychotherapy and Post-Cult RecoveryThere is a common belief in the anti-cult movement that ex-members of cults should seek for psychological counseling or therapy and better if this counseling/therapy is provided by mental health professionals who are knowledgeable about cult issues.<br /><br />It looks quite logical, but there is one problem. There are no independent studies that indicate that it is so. There are probably millions people who left cults and most of them have never went to therapists who counsel ex-members of cults. Most of them probably do not know that they "should" do that. Who can say that they are in a worse position than those who go to therapists for years? I know some ex-members of my former cult (and some of them were very seriously abused by it) who have never contacted the secular anti-cult movement and did not seek therapy after their leaving, but who have very happy and fulfilling life now.<br /><br />So, there are no independent data that indicate that ex-members of cults need therapy. Well, of course, therapists who counsel ex-cult members often say that it is very important for them to get therapy, but do not forget that these therapists earn money from counseling ex-members of cults. Also, some people who were counseled say that they got help, but it is quite subjective and not all of the people who were counseled are satisfied with their therapists. When people believe that therapists help them, it is very easy for them to feel better regardless of whether they really get help from the therapy or not. In medicine, there is a famous placebo effect: when people believe that a certain pill is a very effective medicine, many of them will feel better, even if this pill is absolutely useless. Of course, placebo effect exists in psychotherapy as well. And, as I wrote, there are no independent studies that therapy for the post-cult recovery really helps.<br /><br />In 1952, H. J. Eysenck published his classic study (<a href="http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm">http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm</a>) where the main conclusion was that psychotherapy does not affect people's recovery from psychological disorders: whether people undergo therapy or not, the result will be the same. This study sparked a lot of controversy, and there have been many attempts to disprove this study, but they do not look very satisfactory to me. I know that there are many cases when researchers publish studies that indicate that certain psychotherapies do not help or even harm, people who practice them try to disprove these studies. Of course, people who practice such therapies (whether they are really harmful or not) are unhappy that someone criticizes them, but this reaction itself does not mean that the researchers wrong when they say that these therapies are harmful. I think it is a very similar situation with Eysenck's study. If any psychotherapy is useless, than, it means that all the practicing psychologists, psychotherapists, and all the other mental health professionals should close their practices and seek for another job. But do they want it? Of course, not.<br /><br />So, Eysenck's study indicated that any psychotherapy is useless for treating psychological disorders. And there are no independent studies that indicate that psychotherapy has any benefit for ex-members of cults.<br /><br />There is another problem. There are some "popular" diagnoses that are often given to ex-members of cults, such as PTSD, C-PTSD, and DID (or DD NOS). Some of these diagnoses are very controversial by themselves. C-PTSD has never been considered as a valid diagnosis by DSM. DID is also a very controversial diagnosis (even when it is not applied for ex-members of cults). Moreover, DSM does not say anything about cults or disorders that have been caused by cults.<br /><br />There are some mental health professionals who prefer not to give any diagnoses. Well, I do not think that is is better. Suppose, you go to a medical doctor and he or she does not give you any diagnosis. What does it mean? Usually, it means that: (1) either you are healthy and do not need any medical aid or (2) he or she does not know what is the problem with you and how to treat you. In either case, you will probably not go to this doctor for treatment. But why should anyone go to a therapist who does not give any diagnosis?<br /><br />Another point is that probably there are no two mental health professionals who counsel ex-members of cults who would agree with one another. They disagree on, practically, everything: on the definition of a cult and what groups are cults and what are not; on the definition of cult mind control (thought reform or whatever other term is used); on the definition of post-cult recovery; on what therapy is more helpful for ex-members of cults; and on many other things. In this diversity of opinions, who is right and who is wrong? Probably, no one is right. And, actually, this diversity of opinions just shows that the whole secular anti-cult field is far too subjective.<br /><br />Well, I like to say that I have never been under psychotherapy (including therapy for post-cult recovery) and have never needed it. But who can prove that it is an exception and not the rule? And who has ever proven that ex-members of cults need therapy? No one.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-24900541367769827352014-07-30T01:08:00.000-07:002014-07-30T01:08:12.375-07:00Cult and Anti-Cult AbuseQuite frankly, I do not have much desire to write about cult abuse here. There are a lot of books, articles, websites, etc. about cult mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, undue influence, and spiritual abuse. I do not want to write another article about it.<br />
<br />
What is less known (but is not less dangerous) is that secular anti-cult movement (including mental health professionals who counsel members and ex-members of cults) is not so benign as many people believe.<br />
<br />
Several months ago, a social worker John Matthew Knapp lost his license due to his ex-client's complaint. Well, this case is quite unique due to several reasons. No, Knapp was not the only abusive and unethical mental health professional in the anti-cult field. But he was somewhat "unlucky" because his ex-client was courageous enough to file a complaint against him and patient enough to wait several years while her complaint was being investigated. He also was "unlucky" because his licensing board did not reject her complaint. Another social worker who is licensed in the same state was very surprised that they did not reject the complaint and told that in many cases licensing boards do not care about complaints.<br />
<br />
Yes, John Knapp was somewhat "unlucky," but he is not the only abusive and unethical mental health professional in the anti-cult field. However, not always people file complaints against abusive and unethical mental health professionals. Moreover, many people in the anti-cult field prefer to cover up cases of abusive and unethical behavior of their colleagues. This is why other abusive and unethical mental professionals in the anti-cult field are more "lucky" than Knapp.<br />
<br />
When Steve Eichel, the current president of ICSA, gave his first speech in this position, he said (<a href="http://icsa-salon.blogspot.com/2012/09/at-end-of-its-annual-conference-in.html">http://icsa-salon.blogspot.com/2012/09/at-end-of-its-annual-conference-in.html</a>):<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Following Lorna Goldberg as President of ICSA is going to be a great challenge. Lorna is a class act. As I said at the ICSA membership meeting in Montreal, I have heard criticisms about almost everyone I know in this organization (including me); I have never heard a negative comment about Lorna."</blockquote>
<br />
Well, think about this sentence: "<b>I have heard criticisms about almost everyone I know in this
organization [ICSA] (including me); I have never heard a negative comment about
Lorna [Goldberg].</b>" Doesn't it mean that he considers that it is something <b>unusual</b> when people do not criticize someone in ICSA and it is something <b>normal</b> when they do so.<br />
<br />
Another interesting thing is that he did not say that this criticism was invalid. In fact, if the criticism had been invalid, he would not probably praised Lorna Goldberg <b>for not being criticized</b>. His words about Lorna Goldberg actually indicate that he considers that she is better than others exactly because other people do not criticize her. [Actually, unlike Steve Eichel, I did hear criticism about Lorna Goldberg from one person who is her ex-client, but, to me, that criticism looks like misunderstanding and not a valid criticism.]<br />
<br />
So, Steve Eichel admits that most people in the ICSA have been criticized and probably most of this criticism has been valid. This means that probably some of these people have been criticized for unethical violations and other such things. What is his response? He just does not care. ICSA website (<a href="http://www.icsahome.com/articles/profile-eichel-it-3-2">http://www.icsahome.com/articles/profile-eichel-it-3-2</a>) states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[O]ne of his favorite quotations: “Less judgment, more curiosity.”"</blockquote>
<br />
Well, I do not really know what he means by curiosity, but judgement is obviously criticism. Thus, the obvious conclusion is that criticism is discouraged in ICSA. It is well-known that criticism is discouraged in cults, but it is less known that it is also discouraged in, at least, some of the anti-cult circles. In other words, it is fine for anti-cult mental health professionals to be unethical, but it is wrong to criticize them (and even if they are being criticized, the criticism should be neglected).<br />
<br />
Another interesting observation is that some of the anti-cult mental health professionals who discourage criticism when their colleagues are being criticized, at the same time like to criticize people whom they do not know (for example, religious people or religious leaders, politicians, etc.). It looks quite strange that they consider that any criticism is fine unless someone among their colleagues in the anti-cult is being criticized. If it is not hypocrisy, then, what is it?<br />
<br />
Although some anti-cult people prefer to suppress criticism and not to speak about the problems in the anti-cult field openly, there are others who go to another extreme and criticize almost everyone, like, for example, the "unholy trinity" - Rick Ross, Cathleen Mann, and Monica Pignotti. However, the problem is that their criticism is not constructive: their goal is criticism for criticism, not for any improvement. Also, these people are not any more ethical than those whom they criticize, but they will never admit it. So, they are actually hypocrites.<br />
<br />
Among the anti-cult people (whether it is said openly or behind people's back), it is quite popular to say that their opponents are unrecovered (from their cult involvement) and behave like cult members or leaders. Well, it is actually an interesting statement because most people in the anti-cult field are ex-members of cults and because most anti-cult people believe that ex-members of cults will <b>never</b> fully recover. Even the anti-cult people who have never been cult members might have grown up in dysfunctional families or have other problems that they have never recovered from. So, the anti-cult movement may be defined as a group of unrecovered people who behave like cult members or leaders.<br />
<br />
Even the anti-cult people admit that, at least, many people in their field behave in the same way as people in cults, which means, of course, that the anti-cult movement is not any better than the "kingdom of cults." But what is worse is that it is considered to be <b>normal</b>. So, since cults are abusive, no wonder that the anti-cult movement is abusive as well.<br />
<br />
Well, apparently, the goal of the anti-cult movement is to fight against the cult abuse. But it does not fight against its own, anti-cult abuse. Probably, there is a need in the anti-anti-cult movement in order to fight against the anti-cult abuse, but this new movement may become corrupted itself.<br />
<br />
I think that the best solution for ex-members of cults who do not want to be abused again is to leave not only their cults, but also the anti-cult movement. Eventually, you will not miss anything because most anti-cult mental health professionals do not believe that the full recovery from cults is possible. In other words, if you leave the anti-cult movement, you will not miss your chance to recover from your cult involvement.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-20272983302054805922013-08-14T02:38:00.000-07:002013-08-14T02:38:53.305-07:00Psychology and Theology (4)Writing about Christian psychologists, I have not mentioned Dr. Gary R. Collins yet. I have his two books - <i>Christian Counseling: A Comprehensive Guide</i> and <i>Christian Coaching: Helping Others Turn Potential into Reality</i>. After reading about various kinds of Christian counseling, I was quite interested about Christian coaching.<br />
<br />
The difference between coaching and counseling, as Collins puts it, is that counseling deals with people's problems and their past, while coaching deals with their realization of their potential and their future. Counseling deals with the negative side and brings people to "zero," while coaching deals with the positive side and brings people from "zero" forward.<br />
<br />
It seems that Christian counseling and Christian coaching are not always so clearly divided as Collins describes it. Some things from the realm of Christian coaching (for example, setting life goals) are sometimes included into Christian counseling. On the other hand, some things from the realm Christian counseling (not only such things as stress management, grief and loss, but even such things as phobias, anxiety, depression, etc.) are sometimes included into Christian coaching.<br />
<br />
It may be that sometimes it is hard to divide counseling and coaching. For example, during the process of coaching, a coach may find out that a client has some problems that need to be dealt with. If the coach has sufficient qualification in counseling, he or she may counsel the client instead of sending him or her to a counselor.<br />
<br />
However, the main idea is that counseling helps people to get rid of their problems, while coaching helps people to realize their potential. So, counseling is for people who have problems (who might have mental disorders), while coaching is for mentally healthy people.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2013/07/post-cult-recovery-and-post-cult.html">another blog post</a>, I considered the difference between spiritual aspects of the post-cult recovery and post-cult spiritual quest. Spiritual aspects of the post-cult recovery are in the realm of counseling, while post-cult spiritual quest is in the realm of coaching. This is one of the applications of the distinction between the realms of counseling and of coaching.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I believe that even purely psychological aspects of the post-cult recovery include not only matters inside the realm of counseling, but also matters inside the realm of coaching. On the one hand, ex-cult members may have some psychological problems, and these problems are in the realm of counseling. On the other hand, they also may need, for example, to set life goals and to reach them. This is the realm of coaching. In other words, "negative" aspects of the post-cult recovery are in the realm of counseling, while "positive" aspects of the post-cult recovery are in the realm of coaching.<br />
<br />
I believe that it is possible to get rid of all the post-cult problems. They do not need to be permanent. In other words, the "negative" side of the post-cult recovery does not need to take the whole life. On the other hand, I do not think that the "positive" side of the post-cult recovery should take the whole life either. Well, during various transitional periods of life (moving to another city, getting a new job, getting married or divorced, and so on), people need to deal with things in the realm of coaching. Exiting a cult is also a transitional period of life. This is why the post-cult recovery includes some matters within the realm of coaching. However, when ex-cult members have other transitional periods of life, which have nothing to do with cults, although these periods will be within the realm of coaching, they will have nothing to do with the post-cult recovery. In other words, I believe that the "positive" side of the post-cult recovery, which is within the realm of coaching, only has to do with the transitional period of life after leaving a cult and has nothing to do with other transitional periods of life or other kinds of situations that may be in the realm of coaching.<br />
<br />
Although there is a tendency to pay much more attention to the "negative" side of the post-cult recovery, I think that a more balanced approach would be to view it as a combination of the "negative" and "positive" sides.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-25636694510478248602013-08-07T10:46:00.000-07:002013-08-08T08:53:32.549-07:00Psychology and Theology (3)In another blog post, I mentioned Dr. Jay E. Adams, the founder of so called nothetic counseling who promotes the idea that, with the exception of organic reasons (such as brain damage), all the mental disorders come from sins committed by people who suffer from these disorders, and that, instead of psychotherapy, they need to confess their sins. As I mentioned, one of the problems with this approach that it may lead to spiritual abuse.<br />
<br />
It is usually believed that this approach uses only biblical and Christian principles and does not use psychology. It seems to be the most popular approach within The Scripture Against Psychology aka "Nothing Buttery" view. However, reading his book <i>Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling</i> (published in 1970) where he introduces his approach, I found out that his approach has much to do with psychology. In this book, Adams criticizes Freud and Rogers, but admires ideas of secular psychologist Dr. Orval Hobart Mowrer, and actually admits that he used Mowrer's ideas for his nouthethic counseling.<br />
<br />
Adams writes in <i>Introduction</i> to <i>Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling</i> (pp. xiv-xviii):
<br />
<blockquote>
... I remembered the name of a man whose works a Christian psychologist had once mentioned to me. That man was O. Hobart Mowrer.
<br />
<br />
I read some of Mowrer's works, including <i>The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion</i>, and <i>The New Group Therapy</i>, which he had just published. These books astounded me. Mowrer had gone far beyond my own thinking. He was flatly challenging the very existence of institutionalized psychiatry. He stated outrightly that he believed that current psychiatric dogmas were false. He cited evidence to demonstrate that psychiatry largely had failed. I corresponded with Mowrer over certain points. In that correspondence Mowrer invited me to participate in his Eli Lilly Fellowship program at the University of Illinois, where he is Research Professor of Psychology. I went to the University of Illinois, where I worked under Mowrer during the summer session. That was an unforgettable experience for which I shall always be grateful. Getting away from all else and concentrating on the question of counseling for two months was exactly what I needed.
<br />
<br />
During the summer of 1965 we worked in two state mental institutions, one at Kankakee, Illinois, and the other at Galesburg, Illinois. In these two mental institutions, we conducted group therapy with Mowrer for seven hours a day. Along with five others, I flew with him, drove with him, ate with him, counseled with him and argued with him five days a week. I learned much during that time, and while today I certainly would not classify myself as a member of Mowrer's school, I feel that the summer program was a turning point in my thinking. There in those mental institutions, under Mowrer's methods, we began to see people labeled "neurotic, psychoneurotic, and psychotic" (people of all stripes) helped by confessing deviant behavior and assuming personal responsibility for it. Mowrer's emphasis upon responsibility was central. Mowrer urged people to "confess" their wrongs (not to God, but) to others whom they had wronged and to make restitution wherever possible. Mowrer is not a Christian. He is not even a theist, and we debated the issue of humanism all summer.
<br />
<br />
During that time I made a study of the principal biblical data on the subject of counseling, which special reference to what Scripture says about conscience. That summer's experience left me with some large convictions. First, I discovered why the large majority of people in mental institutions are there. Spending so much time with such persons afforded the opportunity to get to know and understand them. Apart from those who had organic problems, like brain damage, the people I met in the two institutions in Illinois were there because of their own failure to meet life's problems. To put it simply, they were there because of their unforgiven and unaltered sinful behavior. Secondly, the whole experience drove me back to the Bible to ask once again, "What do the Scriptures say about such people and the solution to their problems?"
<br />
<br />
Reading Mowrer's book <i>The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion</i>, as I said, was an earth-shaking experience. In this book Mowrer, a noted research psychologist who had been honored with the Presidency of the American Psychological Association for his breakthrough in learning theory, challenged the entire field of psychiatry, declaring it a failure, and sought to refute its fundamental Freudian presuppositions. Boldly he threw down the gauntlet to conservative Christians as well. He asked: "Has Evangelical religion sold its birthright for a mess of psychological pottage?"
<br />
<br />
In <i>Crisis</i>, Mowrer particularly opposed the Medical Model from which the concept of mental illness was derived. He showed how this model removed responsibility from the counselee. Since one is not considered blameworthy for catching Asian Flu, his family treats him with sympathetic understanding, and others make allowances for him. This is because they know he can't help his sickness. He was invaded from without. Moreover, he must helplessly rely on experts to help him get well. Mowrer rightly maintained that the Medical Model took away the sense of personal responsibility. As a result, psychotherapy became a search into the past to find others (parents, the church, society, grandmother) on whom to place the blame. Therapy consists of siding against the too-strict Super-ego (conscience) which these culprits have socialized into the poor sick victim.
<br />
<br />
In contrast, Mowrer antithetically proposed a Moral Model of responsibility. He said that the "patient's" problems are moral, not medical. He suffers from real guilt, not guilt feelings (false guilt). The basic irregularity is not emotional, but behavioral. He is not a victim of his conscience, but a violator of it. He must stop blaming others and accept responsibility for his own poor behavior. Problems may be solved, not by ventilation of feelings, but rather by confession of sin.
<br />
<br />
From my protracted involvement with the inmates of the mental institutions at Kankakee and Galesburg, I was convinced that most of them were there, as I said, not because they were sick, but because they were sinful. In counseling sessions, we discovered with astonishing consistency that the main problems people were having were of their own making. Others (grandmother, <i>et al</i>.) were not their problem; they themselves were their own worst enemies. Some had written bad checks, some had become entangled in the consequences of immorality, others had cheated on income tax, and so on. Many had fled to the institution to escape the consequences of their wrong doing. A number had sought to avoid the responsibility of difficult decisions. We also saw evidence of dramatic recovery when people straightened out these matters. Humanistic as his methods were, Mowrer clearly demonstrated that even his approach could achieve in a few weeks what in many cases psychotherapy had been unable to do in years.
<br />
<br />
I came home deeply indebted to Mowrer for indirectly driving me to a conclusion that I as a Christian minister should have known all along, namely, that many of the "mentally ill" are people who can be helped by the ministry of God's Word. I have been trying to do so ever since.</blockquote>
<br />
So, this idea that all the people who have mental disorders and various psychological problems are responsible for their problems comes not from the Bible, but from secular psychology. In fact, it seems that Adams' approach is better than Mowrer's because he emphasizes that counselees should be treated with love and sympathy, while he never mentioned that Mowrer treated his clients this way.
<br />
<br />
Well, maybe this approach is currently more popular among Christian ministers than among secular psychologists, but the fact is that it comes from secular psychology and not from the Bible. In fact, there are some biblical objections to this approach.
<br />
<br />
The Bible does not make such emphasis on admonition as Adams does. The Bible speaks not only about admonishing, but also about comforting one another. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (NASB): "We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone." The Bible often encourages Christians to sympathize with one another, for example, Rom. 12:15 (NIV): "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn."
<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://juda.etspraha.cz/texty/katedry/Jazyky/anglictina/cr_ebc/cr_ebc09.htm">chapter 9</a> of <i>Effective Biblical Counseling</i>, Larry Crabb writes:
<br />
<blockquote>
Jay Adams has become widely known for his confrontational approach. In his insistence that his model is the only truly biblical one, he argues that the Greek word <i>noutheteo</i>, which includes the idea of verbal, directive, instructive confrontation, provides the central concept of Christian counseling. In chapter 1 I referred to Colossians 1:28 where Paul states that he "<i>nouthetically</i> confronts" people in an effort to promote their maturity. Although I agree with Adams that Christian maturity is the central goal of biblical counseling, I do not think that the strategy of confrontation exhausts all possible ways to achieve the goal. Certainly there are times when strong firm confrontation is right and necessary. But there are other times when gentle support, encouragement, concerned listening, exploration of inner dynamics, reflection, clarification, and acceptance of feelings are desirable.
<br />
<br />
A confrontational model is not nearly broad enough to cover all the ingredients of effective Christian counseling. Paul told the Thessalonians to <i>nouthetically</i> confront those who were disorderly in their actions, people who were stubbornly resisting their responsibilities. But he also instructed them to comfort people who were despondent or fainthearted. The Greek word for comfort is <i>paramutheo</i> and literally means to "speak close." It was used to describe an emotional expression of support and love without a hint of confrontational rebuke. To harshly confront a fainthearted person not only would be cruel but also positively harmful. Paul also advised them to hold strongly onto those who were weak. The thought seems to be that some people need to borrow from another's strength on occasion. Other encouragements to bear each other's burdens support the idea that the local body of believers is to be an interdependent fellowship including confrontation, supportive encouragement, strong assistance, and likely a host of other behaviors. Counseling then includes far more than confrontation and sometimes may not include confrontation at all. John Carter suggests that the word <i>parakaleo</i> and its cognate [148] <i>paraklesis</i> offer a "much more adequate model of counseling (than <i>noutheteo</i>) from a Biblical perspective." He points out that, whereas <i>noutheteo</i> and its cognate occur only thirteen times in the New Testament, <i>parakaleo</i> or one of its forms is translated (in the King James Version) twenty-nine times as "comfort," twenty-seven times as "exhort," fourteen times as "consolation," and forty-three times as "beseech." He also makes the more important point that <i>paraklesis</i> is listed specifically as a gift to the church (Rom. 12:8). Vine says that <i>parakale</i>o denotes "to call to one's side, hence, to call to one's aid. It is used for every kind of calling to a person which is meant to produce a particular effort, hence, with various meanings such as comfort, exhort, desire, call for ... (and) beseech."</blockquote>
<br />
I agree with Crabb's criticism of Adams' approach here. Blaming all the people for all their problems, telling them that they need to repent, confess their sins, and change their behavior may seriously harm them, and the Bible does not encourage this. It encourages to comfort and support people who have problems, but this side is lacking in Adams' model.
<br />
<br />
I guess that abusive pastors may use Adams' ideas in order to blame people for all their problems. However, the thing is that this idea comes not from the Bible (as many people wrongly believe). This idea comes from secular psychology. Many ex-members of Bible-based cults and abusive churches tend to believe that Christianity is harmful and secular psychology is safe. But it is not really so. And, as I mentioned, Adams' approach seems to be much more compassionate than Mowrer's approach.
<br />
<br />
Another problem with Adams' approach is that he considers that there are two sources for mental problems: organic problems and personal sins. He states that the Bible does not say that there is any third source. Well, the Bible does not clearly says about organic mental disorders or about mental disorders that come from personal sins. However, the Bible does say much about demon possession that may cause conditions very similar to mental disorders. Adams does not mention demon possession at all.
<br />
<br />
Some Christians tend to pay too much attention to Satan and demons and blame them for all their sins (thus removing their own responsibility). This is one extreme. Adams seems to neglect demon activity completely. I believe that this is another extreme. The Bible not only speaks about demon possession (when a person is completely controlled by a demon or demons), but also about Christians' war against Satan and demons (in Ephesians 6:10-18 and some other passages). In chapter 5 of <i>Christian Counseling A Comprehensive Guide</i>, clinical psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins mentions several possible reasons for mental problems, including organic problems, sins, demons, etc. Although he believes that demon possession is very rare, he does not deny it completely. I think his approach is more biblical. It seems that Adams' idea that there are only two sources of mental problems (organic problems and personal wrongdoings) comes from Mowrer and not from the Bible. It would be hard to expect that Mowrer believed in demons if he did not believe in God. Well, if a person is demon-possessed, of course, he or she should not be blamed for all their problems (though some people may intentionally invite demons). I guess it may be one of the reasons why Adams does not speak about a possibility of demon possession.
<br />
<br />
Then, the third problem is that Adams selects only the biblical passages that support his ideas and neglects those that do not match his ideas. For example, writing about biblical counseling, he quotes only the verses that mention admonition (in Greek "nouthesis") and rejects those that mention comfort, consolation, etc. In the same way, he "proves" that the cause of depression is always sin, taking three psalms (32, 38, and 51) where Psalmist sinned, experienced depression, confessed, and rejoiced. However, there are many more psalms where Psalmist experienced depression because he was oppressed and persecuted by his enemies. Adams does not mention them at all, obviously, because they do not match his theory. Actually, the only conclusion that can be made after reading and studying Psalms is that depression sometimes may be caused by unconfessed sin, but in many cases, it is caused by other reasons, such as ill-treatment or wrongdoings of other people. This conclusion does not match Adams' theory that is based on Mowrer's moral model of responsibility rather than on the Bible. So, he does not mention these psalms at all. This point is probably quite important for ex-members of cults who suffer from depression. Those who use Adams' model of counseling would probably tell ex-members of cults that if they experience depression, it is because of their own sins. However, the Bible clearly says that in many cases (probably, in most cases) depression is caused by other reasons, such as other people;s wrongdoings toward them. In other words, if ex-cult members suffer from depression, it is not their fault, but most likely it is the cult leaders' fault.
<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Adams' model of nouthetic counseling is based on Mowrer's ideas and contradicts the Bible.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-63342597614661407082013-08-05T09:35:00.003-07:002013-08-05T10:48:59.489-07:00Post-Cult Recovery and Other Life ProblemsAfter leaving cults, many people spend long years in their post-cult recovery - up to 20 or 30 years, sometimes, the rest of their life.<br />
<br />
However, it is quite obvious that people may have problems regardless of their cult involvement. People may have various problems during their childhood and adult life. People who have never been involved in cults may have these problems, and obviously people who were in cults may have them too. In other words, not all the problems that ex-members of cults may have are related to their cult involvement in any way.<br />
<br />
Some psychotherapists tend to believe that all the people's problems are related to their childhood experiences. So, they take much time, analyzing these problems. However, some people's problems are related not to their childhood, but to various experiences later in life.<br />
<br />
In a similar way, some people in the anti-cult field and some ex-cult members tend to believe that all their problems are related to their cult involvement. However, they may have some pre-cult and after-cult problems that are not cult-related at all. If people believe that all their problems are cult-related, they may neglect other problems, and I do not think that it is a correct approach.<br />
<br />
Well, during the recent four years and especially recently, the most problems I had to deal with were not cult-related at all. Some of them were pre-cult (including some childhood-related problems), some were after-cult, but not related to my cult experience at all.<br />
<br />
I think I should say here that I do not consider that to have problems and to have mental disorders is the same thing. Well, of course, people who have mental disorders have serious problems. But mentally healthy people may also have some problems.<br />
<br />
Well, there are different definitions of what mental health is. Moreover, some of them are culture-related. For example, in the <a href="http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf">World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)</a>, there is diagnosis "Neurasthenia" (F48.0). This diagnosis is absent in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Regarding this difference, there is an interesting explanation in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurasthenia">Wikipedia article on neurasthenia</a>: 'Americans were said to be particularly prone to neurasthenia, which resulted in the nickname "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/26/arts/one-step-back-where-are-the-elixirs-of-yesteryear-when-we-hurt.html">Americanitis</a>."' Well, in Russia, neurasthenia is still considered as a valid diagnosis, and it is still called "neurasthenia," not "Americanitis." It has never even been renamed to "Russianitis." Most Russians have never been given this diagnosis (that is, of "neurasthenia," not of "Americanitis" or "Russianitis"). However, in Russia, it is not viewed as a serious mental disorder, just a kind of "nervosism."<br />
<br />
Moreover, in ICD-10, there is diagnosis "Mental disorder, not otherwise specified" (F99), which can be used if no other code from F00-F98 may be applied. Well, I guess this diagnosis gives a lot of freedom to fantasy of some mental health professionals. <br />
<br />
Anyway, my point is that what some mental health professionals consider as a disorder, others may not consider this way, and vice versa. Also, speaking about people who have some problems (including psychological post-cult problems) I do not mean to say that all of them have mental disorders.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-29049306002455963072013-08-01T04:25:00.000-07:002013-08-01T08:00:17.731-07:00Psychology and Theology (2)In chapter 1 of <i>The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An Introduction</i>, John D. Carter, S. Bruce Narramore write that conflicts between theology and psychology are in fact "conflicts between either the facts of Scripture and the theories of psychology, the facts of psychology and our (mis)interpretation of Scripture, or between the theories of psychology and our misinterpretation of Scripture." Then, they write:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>For years large portions of the the evangelical church have been influenced by the Keswick Movement. This movement, in espousing a "deeper" Christian life, has frequently taught a morbid form of self-denial and debasement that can stir up neurotic feelings of worthlessness and self-contempt in people prone to guilt and self-devaluation. <...><br />
<br />
Responding to such misrepresentation of biblical Christianity, many psychologists have attacked the Christian faith for promoting psychologically unhealthy attitudes and for being in conflict with accepted principles of psychological health. Ellis, for example, states that religion "consequently is self debasement and self abnegation as, of course, virtually all the saints and mystics have clearly stated that it is. In the final analysis, then, religion is neurosis. This is why I remarked at a symposium on sin and psychotherapy held by the American Psychological Association a few years ago that form a mental health standpoint, Voltaire's famous dictum should be reversed, for if there were a God it would be necessary to uninvent him."<br />
<br />
In this conflict between one view of Christianity and one psychological viewpoint we have a rather typical example of mutual misunderstanding. Although some Christians do interpret the Christian concepts of humility and sacrifice in a self-debasing manner, most theologians would agree that this is a serious distortion of scriptural teaching. Similarly, many respected psychologists (Allport, 1950; Fromm, 1950) object to Ellis's diagnosis of religion as neurosis. The apparent conflict dissolves when we take another look at biblical teachings, which in fact do not propound a neurotic self-abasement, and at psychological research, which does not support the implication of Ellis's theory.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I know theology much better than psychology. I am not familiar with Ellis' works, but I know very well what the Keswick Movement teachings are. The Keswick view on a human nature is extremely negative. Most Christians believe that people have a sinful nature as a result of Adam's fall, but there are different views on what the sinful nature is and how it affects people. The Keswick concept is that the whole human nature was corrupted and thus the whole human being in total is viewed as evil, as the expression of Satan. They also believe that all the people (both Christians and non-Christians) will remain in this condition until death. So, they believe that the whole human nature is completely evil and corrupted and will not be cured in this life. This is how a person who believes in Keswick teachings is expected to view oneself. However, the Keswick teaching does not stop here. It proposes its solution to this problem. This solution is to receive Christ as one's life and everything and to live every minute and every second in union with Christ, completely denying oneself and accepting Christ as everything.<br/>
<br />
This is the main idea of this teaching. So, there are actually two problems with it. First, it has a very negative view of a human being. Second, it sets very high and unattainable goals. In my opinion, this teaching really may lead to psychological problems and it also may lead to spiritual abuse (and I know cases when it really happened).<br />
<br />
As Carter and Narramore correctly noted, it is not the only view of Christianity and many Christian theologians reject is. Just a couple months ago, I reread some of the literature of the Keswick movement, for example, <i>The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life</i> by Evan H. Hopkins and a number of books by Andrew Murray. Evan Hopkins is considered to be the founder of the Keswick Movement, and his book <i>The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life</i> is considered to be "the standard textbook of the original Keswick teaching." Andrew Murray is considered to be "Keswick's foremost devotional author" who wrote much more books than any other of the Keswick writers. Rereading this literature, I noticed two things that I did not notice before: <br />
<br />
1. The teachings of these authors are based mainly on their own ideas rather than on the Bible. Of course, as any Christian authors, they do quote the Bible a lot, but their interpretation of the biblical verses they quote is not correct. They take verses out of their context, misinterpret them, and so on. In other words, the Keswick teachings have no solid biblical foundation. They are not based on the Bible.<br />
<br />
2. The Keswick teachings set unattainable goals. They require a person to reject all their own thoughts, feelings, desires, and so on, and to do this constantly, literally every second. It is obvious that it is just impossible to do so. Since the failure to reject one's own thoughts, feelings, and desires is viewed as a sin, this can easily make a person feel guilty. Of course, the problem is not with the person who fails to live this way all the time, but with this teaching itself. The Bible never teaches that a person should reject all their thoughts, feelings, and desires. This teaching is a serious misinterpretation of what the Bible actually teaches.<br />
<br />
Although the Keswick teachings may lead to psychological problems, I strongly disagree with Ellis' statement that "religion is neurosis."<br />
<br />
Carter and Narramore give one more example of an apparent conflict of psychology and religion: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Freud's (1913/1953; 1927/1961) assumptions about religion provide another good example of the confusion of fact and theory. In transferring his theory of the psychosexual development of the individual to his study of culture, he concluded that the idea of God is simply a myth created to cope with primitive people's anxiety in the face of natural disasters and the child's ambivalent feelings (love and hate) toward the same-sexed parent. <...><br />
<br />
Some people would hold that with this analysis Freud "disproved" religion or at least "explained God away." But as soon as Freud began speaking about the existence or nonexistence of God, he left psychology and entered the domain of philosophy and religion. Even if it could be demonstrated that people's concept of God arises from the intimate relationships with their parents, this would not justify the conclusion that God does not exist. A psychological fact is just that. It is not and can never be an ontological statement about the existence of God. If God so willed, He could have chosen to plant the rudimentary concept of Himself in the mind of every person through this very process.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, according to my understanding, most psychologists rejected Freud's concept of Oedipus complex, which he used for his statement that "religion is neurosis." However, it seems that some of them still believe that "religion is neurosis," even though they do not believe in Oedipus complex. It looks quite self-contradictory.<br />
<br />
Also, it seems that a common problem of some secular psychologists (like Freud, for example) is that they tend to leave psychological facts and go too far in their theories, entering the domain of philosophy, which, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with psychology. It is quite obviously that there is a conflict between religion and atheist philosophies, but it is not a conflict between religion and psychology. I agree with Carter and Narramore that there is no need to view theology and psychology as contradicting one another, that is, according to the view of "Psychology Against Religion" or "The Scripture Against Psychology."<br />
<br />
In their book, Carter and Narramore present their model of integration of psychology and theology on the basis of the principle that they call "the unity of truth":<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Christianity affirms that God is the Creator of all things and that this establishes a basic unity of all truth, whether found in scriptural revelation or scientific experimentation (Gaebelein, 1968; Holmes, 1977). Given this unity of truth, it is possible to integrate truth arrived at from different sources and with different methodologies.</blockquote><br />
<br />
This principle comes from a widely accepted theological teaching of two kinds of revelation: general (through the nature) and special (through the Bible). Since both the general and special revelations come from God, there is no conflict between them. Scientific knowledge has to do with the general revelation, and there is no contradiction between scientific facts and proper interpretation of the Bible.<br />
<br />
Although it is a widely accepted position in Christianity, many Christians do not agree to consider psychology in the same way as any other science. In principle, they do have some reasons for this. In psychology, there are a lot of various theories, and many of them have more to do with secular anti-religion philosophies rather than with psychology itself or with psychological facts. Also, in psychology, there are many different views, and psychologists disagree with one another even on fundamental things, such as a definition of mental health. There are more different opinions and disagreements in psychology than in any other science. In this way, psychology reminds more of philosophy with its different branches, schools, and opinions than of any other science. Well, the thing however is that Christian theology does use philosophy. Since the earliest times of Christianity, theologians used various kinds of philosophy. Of course, Christian theology usually does not accept atheist philosophies (though some liberation theologians managed to use Marxist philosophy in combination with the Bible). In the same way, there is no need to accept psychological theories that contradict the Bible. However, psychology contains not only theories, but also facts, such as various experimental data. There is no essential difference between facts of psychology and facts of any other science and there is no reason to reject them.<br />
<br />
Not only those who belong to "The Scripture Against Psychology" camp criticized Carter's and Narramore's concept of integration of psychology and theology, but even some of integrationists, such as Larry Crabb. Crabb argued that, although errors are possible both in science and in interpretation of the Bible, he considers that the interpretation of the Bible (even though it may be mistaken) should be given preeminence over scientific facts because of the authority of the Bible.<br />
<br />Well, Crabb is a psychologist and not a theologian. It seems that he does not realize that the process of interpretation of the Bible involves the usage of a lot of data from sciences such as linguistics and history. So, interpretation of the Bible is not completely separated from scientific facts. Also, one of the principles of interpretation of the Bible is that the proper interpretation of the Bible should not contradict scientific facts.<br />
<br />
In the past, people believed that the Bible says that the sun goes around the earth. Not only Roman Catholics, but also Protestants, including the leaders of Reformation Martin Luther and John Calvin, condemned Copernicus because they believed that his teaching was heretic. Eventually, it became clear that Copernicus was right and Christian theologians changed their interpretation of the Bible. It is important to note here that the understanding of the verses such as Joshua 10:13; Psalm 93:1; Ecclesiastes 1:4-5, which were used against Copernicus, was changed because their previous understanding contradicted the scientific fact, not because of any other reason. The current understanding of these verses in Christianity is that these verses present phenomenological view, not scientific fact. That is, when for a person on the earth, it seems that the sun goes around the earth, and so people still say about sunrise and sunset, although both words are not scientific, but are just daily life terms. The Bible is not a scientific book, but it does not contradict the Bible.<br />
<br />
It is important to note here that the principle that the Bible does not contradict the science means that the Bible does not contradict scientific facts, not scientific theories. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution does contradict the Bible (at least, the most accepted understanding of the Bible because there is a theory of theistic evolution that combines the theory of evolution with the Bible). However, even though Darwin's theory is very popular, it is still a theory, which has never been proven.<br />
<br />
Well, I believe that the same principle should be applied to psychology. Of course, there is a contradiction between many psychological theories and the Bible, but I do not think that there should be any contradiction between psychological facts and proper understanding of the Bible.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-83760461152540674512013-07-29T13:02:00.000-07:002013-07-29T13:02:45.068-07:00Post-Cult Recovery and Post-Cult Spiritual QuestAfter leaving religious cults, ex-members may need to deal with spiritual issues. I think that dealing with spiritual issues of the post-cult recovery and post-cult spiritual quest are different things. I consider post-cult recovery as the process that has a purpose to completely eliminate damage caused by the cult. It can be compared to recovery from a disease. (By using this comparison, I do not mean that all the ex-cult members need therapy. I consider post-cult recovery as an educational process rather than a therapeutic process.) However, spiritual quest is a process that does not have to do with any damage. It can be compared to physical exercises. A person who is recovering from a physical disease may need to take some medicines and at the same time do some exercises. After he or she is recovered, he/she will stop taking medicines, but may continue to exercise.<br />
<br />
I consider that in a similar way, ex-members of cults may feel a need to deal with both post-cult recovery and post-cult spiritual quest. People who have never been in cults, obviously, do not need post-cult recovery, but they may feel the need for spiritual quest. So, post-cult recovery is like getting recovered from a disease, while spiritual quest is a "healthy" process, but both of them may go together.<br />
<br />
It may be not so easy to separate spiritual aspect of post-cult recovery and post-cult spiritual quest. For example, after leaving a religious cult a person may have a need to reconsider beliefs. Will it be a part of recovery or a part of spiritual quest? It seems that getting rid of the cult indoctrination will have more to do with recovery, but formation of new beliefs will have more to do with spiritual quest. However, practically, the process of reconsideration of beliefs will probably be one process when a person gets rid of the cult beliefs and substitutes them with new beliefs. Well, in a sense, it may be compared to therapeutic exercises. On the one hand, therapeutic exercises are medical procedure to help a person is recovery from a disease. But on the other hand, they are physical exercises.<br />
<br />
My personal process of reconsideration of my beliefs after leaving the cult, probably, consisted of two steps. In the beginning, I examined the cult doctrines and checked them with Christian theology and other (non-cultic) interpretations of the Bible. At this step, I made conclusions that the cult doctrines were wrong and not biblical. But after that, I studied theology, the Bible and Bible commentaries more. I studied various views, various interpretations, and various doctrines. Then, I compared them, considered them, and made my own conclusions before accepting any of them. It was the second step, and it was deeper and required more studies. So, I would consider the first step as a part of post-cult recovery, while the second step as a part of post-cult spiritual quest. However, I understand that for many people both steps may take place together.<br />
<br />
In fact, probably, many people never do even the first step. They just reject any religion in total without any careful examination of the cult doctrines. I do not think it is good, actually. Let me explain why. I grew up in an atheist country and in an atheist family. I was a convinced atheist. I became a Christian one year before getting involved into a cult, but I was not a member of any church at that time and obviously I did not have sufficient time to become very grounded in Christian faith before joining the cult. After leaving the cult, basically, I had two options: to keep the cult beliefs or to return to atheism. I chose the second option. Many ex-members of cults do this, actually. However, if later I had felt that atheism does not satisfy me, what would I have done? It would be quite naturally for me to return to the cult beliefs because I had just these two options. Then, it would have been very natural and easy for me to return to the cult. Unfortunately, I saw this quite often among ex-members of the cult I was involved in. Some people were years out of the cult (one person was 10 years out of the cult), but they eventually came back. Why? I think one of the reasons was that their belief system was never changed. When I left, I decided that I did not want to ever come back. It was one of the reasons why I began to reconsider my beliefs.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if I had not reconsidered my beliefs, I would have still had some other problems. For example, suppose I am talking with someone or read something and suddenly I hear or read something about the Bible or Christianity or just about religion. (In fact, I had such situations very often.) How would I have reacted? Any such mention of religious things would have reminded me about the cult. I would have still view the Bible through the "glasses" of the cult interpretation of the Bible. Any mention of Christianity would have brought me remembrance about the cult doctrines and practices. So, any mention of anything that has to do with religion would have been very triggering to me. Well, it was how I reacted very soon after leaving the cult, but I do not react this way now. For example, the first thing I think when I hear or read about the Bible is my current understanding the Bible. If I think more, I think about other views and interpretations. And only after I think more, I may remember about the cult teachings, but they do not trigger me any more.<br />
<br />
Well, I would not say that post-cult spiritual quest is mandatory for ex-members of cults. In fact, I even would not say that post-cult recovery is mandatory. Everyone is free to decide: to recover or not. However, I believe that post-cult spiritual quest and spiritual aspects of post-cult recovery are very beneficial.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-55120231850555941962013-07-28T07:57:00.000-07:002013-08-07T06:42:24.184-07:00Psychology and Theology (1)Are psychology and theology (or religion) related or not? If they are, in what way? This is an interesting question. <br />
<br />
Article <i>Secular and Sacred Models of Psychology and Religion</i> by Dr. John D. Carter published in <i>Journal of Psychology and Theology</i>, Volume 5, no. 3, Summer 1977, pp. 197-208, gives eight models of psychology and religion, four of them are secular and four are Christian. This article was later republished in <i>Psychology & Christianity Integration:
Seminal Works that Shaped the Movement</i>, pp. 210-219, edited by Daryl H. Stevenson, Brian E. Eck, Peter C. Hill (2007). These models were also reposted in <a href="http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Biblical%20Counseling"><i>Biblical Counseling Seminar Materials</i>, pp. 47-50 by Dr. Edward Watke Jr.</a>:<br />
<br />
<b>I. Four Secular Models of Psychology and Religion.</b><br />
<b><i>A. Psychology <u>Against</u> Religion</i></b><br />
1. Science or the scientific method is the only valid means of truth.<br />
2. Truth claims other than science are destructive.<br />
2. Religion is a myth rather than truth, and is destructive.<br />
3. Religion's destructiveness is its prohibitive or inhibitive effect on its members and on society.<br />
4. "Scientific" (valid) psychology is the solution to individual problems.<br />
Examples: Ellis and Freud<br />
<b><i>B. Psychology <u>of</u> Religion</i></b><br />
1. Man is a spiritual-moral being (at least, in a humanistic sense).<br />
2. Religion, technology, science or society which denies man's spirit, and thus his nature, creates pathology.<br />
3. Most or all religions have recognized the spiritual-human quality of man and thus have the right approach.<br />
4. The particular cultural-social-theological definition of man must be discarded in favor of a truly psychological definition of human functioning.<br />
5. Good psychology translates the valid insights of religion into psychology and uses them for human good.<br />
Examples: Fromm, Jung, and Mowrer<br />
<b><i>C. Psychology <u>Parallels</u> Religion</i></b><br />
1. Religion and psychology are not related.<br />
2. Each exists in its own sphere. One is scientific and the other is not.<br />
3. Religion is a personal (and social) matter, while psychology is intellectual and academic.<br />
4. Both religion and psychology can be embraced. There is no conflict since they do not interact.<br />
Examples: Thorne<br />
<b><i>D. Psychology <u>Integrates</u> Religion</i></b><br />
1. A unifying or integrating view of truth in religion and psychology is both possible and desirable.<br />
2. The truth or insights from psychology or religion will have some correspondence with the other discipline.<br />
3. The truth or valid principles of religion and psychology are in harmony and form a unity.<br />
4. Religion as socially manifested may be pathological but its intrinsic nature is not.<br />
5. Valid religion and religious experiences are helpful in transcending the pains of existence or in assisting in the maturing process of growth.<br />
Examples: Allport, Frankl, and Guntrip<br />
<br />
<b>II. Four Christian Models of Psychology and Religion</b><br />
<i><b>A. The Scripture <u>Against</u> Psychology</b></i><br />
1. Basic epistemological assumption: Revelation is against reason, i.e., the Scripture is contradictory to human thought both rationally and empirically.<br />
2. Soteriology and the Fall are stressed so as to eliminate and ignore creation and providence.<br />
3. Basic psychological assumption: The Scriptures contain all the precepts of mental health.<br />
4. All emotional problems are spiritual problems because they result from disobedience.<br />
5. All problems can be solved by obedience to Scripture if the individual is confronted with a relevant passage of Scripture.<br />
Example: Adams<br />
<i><b>B. The Scripture <u>of</u> Psychology</b></i><br />
1. Basic epistemological assumption: Human reason is more fundamental, comprehensive (technical), and contemporary than revelation.<br />
2. Creation and Providence are stressed so as to ignore or eliminate soteriology and the Fall.<br />
3. Basic psychological assumption: Psychology has discovered the basic principles of emotional health, maturity, and good interpersonal functioning.<br />
4. Emotional problems can be solved by consulting a therapist or applying the principles of emotional maturity and good interpersonal relations.<br />
Examples: Relational theology<br />
<i><b>C. The Scripture <u>Parallels</u> Psychology</b></i><br />
1. Basic epistemological assumption: Revelation can never be reduced to reason nor can reason be reduced to revelation.<br />
2. God requires obedience to both revelation and to reason. Hence, there is an implicit tension existing in the approach.<br />
3. Both Creation-Providence and soteriology are stressed but they belong to different spheres.<br />
4. Spiritual problems should be dealt with by the pastor; emotional problems by a psychologist or psychiatrist.<br />
Examples: Clement (Isolation) Meehl (Correlation)<br />
<i><b>D. The Scripture <u>Integrates</u> Psychology</b></i><br />
1. Basic epistemological assumption: God is the author of both revelation and reason because all truth (and truths) are God's truth and thus ultimately a part of a unified or integrated whole.<br />
2. Creation-Providence is stressed equally with soteriology.<br />
3. All problems are, in principle, a result of the Fall but not, in fact, the result of immediate conscious acts.<br />
4. Since values are significant both for the Christian and for therapy, a genuine Christian therapy is necessary.<br />
5. <i>Paraklesis</i> is the pattern for this type of therapy.<br />
Examples: Crabb, Hulme, van Kaam, Wagner, Carter, & Mohline<br />
<br />
In his book <i>Effective Biblical Counseling</i>, Dr. Larry Crabb gave somewhat funny names for the four Christian approaches:<br />
1. <i><b>"Separate But Equal"</b></i> (the Scripture parallels psychology);<br />
2. <i><b>"Tossed Salad"</b></i> (the Scripture and psychology are integrated with the tendency to view both of them as equal);<br />
3. <i><b>"Nothing Buttery"</b></i> (the Scripture against psychology);<br />
4. <i><b>"Spoiling the Egyptians"</b></i> (the Scripture integrates psychology; the Bible has preeminence, and only the components of psychology that are consistent with biblical teaching and principles are integrated). This approach is between the second and the third ones.<br />
<br />
For a long time, I considered psychology and theology to be two completely different things and dealing with two different subjects, that is, my approach was "The Scripture Parallels Psychology" or "Separate But Equal." However, eventually, I came to conclusion that my approach was not correct.<br />
<br />
The Bible does have a lot to say about psychology. Systematic theology includes parts that have to with psychology - anthropology, hamartiology (the teaching about sin), and some part of soteriology (the teaching about salvation). There is such a thing as Biblical psychology, which is rather a part of Christian theology than a part of secular psychology. This approach is presented, for example, in <a href="http://ia700201.us.archive.org/21/items/systemofbiblical00delirich/systemofbiblical00delirich.pdf"><i>A System of Biblical Psychology</i> by Franz Delitzsch</a> (notice that this book was published in German in 1861 when, for instance, Sigmund Freud was only five years old), in <a href="http://www.prcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Biblical-Psychology.pdf"><i>Biblical Theology</i> by Prof. Herman Hanko</a>, in <a href="http://trinitycollege.edu/assets/files/ECBragg/ChristianPsychologyR.pdf"><i>Christian Psychology</i> by Dr. E. C. Bragg</a>, and in many other works. Such approach is based on the Bible, not on the secular psychology. In fact, it existed long before modern secular psychology came to existence. Then, there is a branch of theology which is called pastoral theology. It includes pastoral care and pastoral counseling. Again, these things existed long before modern secular psychotherapy.<br />
<br />
Well, supposedly, psychology deals with psychological problems and theology deals with spiritual problems. But it is not so easy to make a distinction between psychological and spiritual problems. For example, such things as anxiety, depression, irrational fear (phobia), sense of guilt, and a number of others are usually considered as psychological problems and many people go to therapists with them. However, the Bible has a lot to say about these things too. Of course, the biblical solution and the psychotherapy solution are different, but the point is that both of them deal with the same kind of problems. <br />
<br />
As far as I understand, Sigmund Freud is considered to be the founder of modern psychotherapy. He used some ideas of Johann Heinroth who was a Christian psychiatrist and used Christian approach (<a href="http://www.hdbp.org/psychiatria_danubina/pdf/dnb_vol25_no1/dnb_vol25_no1_11.pdf"><i>Johann Christian August Heinroth: psychosomatic medicine eighty years before Freud</i> by Steinberg H., Herrmann-Lingen C., Himmerich H.</a>). Well, of course, Freud took away all the religious elements from Heinroth's works because of his anti-religious bias. Anyway, my point is that modern secular psychology has not appeared in the end of the 19th century out of nothing. It did use some things from Christianity, which had existed long time before.<br />
<br />
Thinking over all this, I came to conclusion that it is not very correct to view psychology and theology as two completely different things ("The Scripture Parallels Psychology" aka the "Separate But Equal" approach). <br />
<br />
I do not think that psychology should be rejected completely ("The Scripture Against Psychology" aka the "Nothing Buttery" approach). On the one hand, it seems that most people who prefer this approach use so called "Nouthetic (that is, admonishing) counseling" promoted by Dr. Jay Adams. Originally, this approach seems to be an extreme reaction to various unsupported ideas from the secular psychology, including the tendency to reduce people's responsibility for their socially harmful actions and view them as mental health disorders, such as Antisocial personality disorder aka Dissocial personality disorder. Adams rejects the concept of mental disorders and views all the psychological problems as the results of sins committed by people who have these problems. Counselors who use this approach first try to discover the sins committed by their clients and then tell them that they should repent and confess their sins and change their behavior. I think it is quite obvious that this approach may lead to spiritual abuse. In addition, this approach presents the Bible and Christian teaching in a very legalistic way. It neglects Bible passages on God's love, acceptance, support, comfort, consolation, encouragement. Christian religion is religion of grace, not religion of law. So, this approach misrepresents the core of Christianity. Therefore, I disagree with this approach. On the other hand, although I do not agree with anti-religious position of many secular psychologists and their philosophical premises, I do not think that psychology (or any other science) should be rejected.<br />
<br />
I prefer more balanced integration approach, that is, "The Scripture Integrates Psychology" aka the "Tossed Salad" or the "Spoiling the Egyptians" approach with more inclination toward the latter approach because it gives priority to the Bible. There are many different approaches within the integration position. It seems that one of the most popular approaches within "Spoiling the Egyptians" approach is the view on Biblical counseling promoted by evangelical psychologist Dr. Larry Crabb. Actually, his views changed over the years. In his early writings, he paid more attention on right thinking, right behavior, and right feelings, but in his later writings, he changed his emphasis to acceptance (like in his book <i>Connecting: Healing Ourselves and Our Relationships</i>). <br />
<br />
In chapter 5 of this book, he writes that secular psychologist Carl Rodgers promoted connection through unconditional positive regard. Rodgers "offers acceptance without the atonement and understanding rather than forgiveness. In his thinking, there is nothing terrible in us that requires forgiveness. The problem is merely disconnection, a state of detachment that is the result not of rebellious independence from God but unfortunate psychological development. The atonement is therefore irrelevant. Unconditional positive regard is the total answer. <...> Rodgers sees no need for the atonement. In his mind, there is no sin to forgive." Crabb, being an evangelical, does not agree with Rodgers' rejection of the existence of sin and need of atonement and forgiveness. However, he strongly agrees with his concept of acceptance. He writes, "Why then do I feel so drawn to the kind of community that Rogers envisions, where acceptance supplants judgment, where we continue calling out the good in each other in spite of whatever ugliness we see? Why do I want to see some of Rogers's thinking rub off on pastors and on me?"<br />
<br />
Well, this is a good example of integration approach when Christians use good things that secular psychology can offer. However, Rodgers was not the first person who promoted acceptance. Jesus said in John 6:37 (NIV): "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." He said in Matthew 11:28 (NIV): "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." He also said in Matthew 9:12b-13 (NIV): "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Jesus accepted all the people who came to Him. In Romans 15:7 (NIV) Paul wrote: "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." In Romans 14:1-3 (NIV) he wrote: "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." Acceptance is a biblical principle. It is not just something invented by Rodgers. And just like many Christians fail to practice what the Bible teaches about acceptance, I do not believe that many secular psychologists who like Rodgers' ideas really practice them.<br />
<br />
His ideas actually seem to be quite utopic. As far as I understand, his main idea was that any human being is good, but this inner goodness cannot be manifested because of outward restrictions, and he viewed this as the main cause of psychological problems. His solution was that all the outward restrictions should be removed in order that this inner goodness may be manifested. It was in this context that he promoted complete acceptance of a person as totally good. Well, I guess it is quite clear what will happen in any society without any laws, any cultural norms, without government, police, and so on. In fact, the Bible gives an example of it. Judges 17:6 and 21:25 (NIV): "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit." I do not think that many people would like to live in a society of chaos described in Judges. My personal attitude to Rodgers' ideas is similar to Crabb's. I agree with Rodgers' idea of acceptance, but disagree with his philosophy of secular humanism.<br />
<br />
I do not agree with everything written by Crabb (and as I have mentioned, he changed his views over the time), but I definitely like his emphasis on acceptance and connection. In my opinion, this approach is much better than legalistic Adams' Nouthetic counseling (often called "Biblical counseling"). Actually, both Adams and Crabb call their approaches "Biblical counseling," but their views are completely different.<br />
<br />
Well, there are many approaches in the secular psychology and there are many approaches in Christian psychology as well. I do not agree with everything there just because it is Christian (or supposedly Christian). However, I do believe that the Christian approach can be more effective than the secular approach.<br />
<br />
About one month ago, I got interested in Christian approach to psychology, that is, the integration approach. I began with two books by June Hunt <i>Counseling through the Bible: Biblical Counseling Keys</i> and <i>Counseling through Your Bible Handbook</i>. I liked in her books that she presents an integration of psychology and theology. She identifies some problems and gives some information about them from psychology. She also gives Bible verses and spiritual principles of dealing with these problems. So, her counseling is based on the Bible and centered on Christ. When I was reading, studying, and considering over some chapters of her books, I prayed a lot and also read the Bible. In other words, I had not just human resources to deal with my problems, but I turned to God. It was really helpful for me, and I got rid of several problems. For example, I think most people heard very negative things about the Soviet psychiatry. I encountered it when I was a child. Actually, they did not treat me. They just examined me and did not find any problems, but the way how they examined me was very traumatic for me. This childhood experience affected me more than all my cult experience. Sometimes, I got help from other people for dealing with some of the problems that had to do with that childhood experience, such as phobia of mental health professionals. However, it was only recently that I got recovered from my childhood trauma completely. After I worked through and prayed through my childhood experience, I noticed that not only I do not feel any pain anymore when I think about it, but I even do not understand why this experience was so traumatic for me and affected my life so much. God has healed me from it. Completely. When I think about this now, three weeks later, what I feel is great joy, praise and thankfulness to God. Christian psychology works. It really works. God does heal psychological problems better than any human psychologist.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-25247305302249673862013-07-26T07:54:00.001-07:002013-07-29T07:44:56.228-07:00Psychological and Spiritual Post-Cult Recovery: Reconsidered View (Part 2)According to my observation, it is easier to identify post-cult psychological problems that are manifested in the secular realm (in daily life activities, work, and so on) than those that are manifested only in the religious realm (in religion-related activities). There are, at least, two reasons for this: 1) the literature on the post-cult recovery mostly pays attention to problems that affect daily life rather than those that affect religious activities; 2) since problems that are manifested only in the religion-related activities are usually not manifested in daily life, it is harder to notice them and people who completely reject religion after leaving cults may never notice that they have problems.<br />
<br />
However, there may be cases when religion-related psychological problems may cause problems in the secular realm. In Chapter 2 of <i>Releasing the Bonds</i>, Steven Hassan writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the Jehovah's
Witnesses, a person can have a severe phobia against merely walking
into a church building. I remember hearing about an incident involving
a young Jehovah's Witness who refused to participate in an emergency
evacuation from a public school into a church. The ten year old
boy, absolutely would not enter the building, and had to be carried
in crying and screaming, because he thought the church was filled
with "devils." </blockquote>
<br />
Well, in principle, a phobia against a walking a church building is a phobia usually manifested only in the religious realm. It is one of the problems that I previously considered as spiritual and not psychological post-cult problems. Indeed, many atheists (among ex-members of cults) may never have a need to enter a church building and never learn if they have this phobia. Usually, it is only when they decide to go to church that they may discover that they have this phobia. However, in the case that Steven Hassan described, there was an emergency evacuation into a church. In this case, religion-related phobia was manifested in daily life. So, even if ex-members of cults completely reject religion, their religion-related problems may eventually become manifested in non-religious realm. This is one of the reasons why I think it is important to deal with these problems also, even if ex-cult members are not going to come back to religion.<br />
<br />
I do not know how many ex-members of cults have or had a phobia of going to church. I had it, and it took me a very long time to discover it. For a long time, I had a kind of irrational fear when I was thinking about going to church and felt uncomfortable if I did go to church. I could not really understand the reason. I invented various explanations and excuses, but I did not understand that it was a phobia indoctrinated by a certain cult teaching (it was not a JWs teaching, I have never been a JW). When I realized it, identified that teaching, and identified that irrational feeling as a cult-induced phobia, I got rid of it. Two days later, I went to church and felt just fine there. This experience took place in the middle of December last year. Since that time, I did not have any religion-related post-cult problems. Well, at least, I have not been aware of their existence. <br />
<br />
It was 10 year after I left the cult that I discovered that I had the
phobia of going to church and got rid of it. It took me a long time because I did not have
any desire to go to church for a long time. If I had not decided to
start going to church (at least, sometimes), I might have never discovered
it. One year before that, I discovered that I had a phobia of celebrating Christmas, which was also induced by a certain cult teaching. Again, I discovered it only when I thought about celebrating Christmas. Otherwise, I might have never discovered it. Likewise, I discovered that I was triggered by some things in the Bible when I began to read it. If I had not read the Bible after leaving the cult, I would not known that I had this problem. There were also other similar cases. It was only when I began to do some religious things (reading the Bible, celebrating Christmas, going to church, and so on) that I discovered that I had some psychological problems related to these activities. So, it took me quite a long time to discover and identify them and probably I would have still had them if I had remained an atheist after leaving the cult.<br />
<br />
Previously, I considered that I had finished my psychological post-cult recovery in April 2009 (that is, by that time, I had finished dealing with psychological post-cult problems that are manifested outside of the religious realm). And I considered that I had finished my spiritual post-cult recovery in December 2012 (that is, at that time, I had finished dealing with psychological post-cult problems that are manifested only in the religious realm). Moreover, I considered psychological post-cult recovery mandatory and spiritual recovery optional. So, I considered that had I finished my post-cult recovery in April 2009 because I finished the mandatory part of it.<br />
<br />
However, I changed my views regarding these things. I no longer believe that psychological recovery is mandatory and that spiritual recovery is optional. I believe that they both are necessary. In addition, I no longer believe that psychological and spiritual recovery should be separated. I believe that they are parts of one process of post-cult recovery. This means that I have to admit that I did not finish my post-cult recovery in 2009. At the best, I finished it only in the end of the last year. However, I am not sure that I have no other post-cult problems that are usually manifested only in the religious realm because it was quite hard for me to discover them. This means that I have to admit that I do not know if I am fully recovered from my cult involvement or not.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-45079843032485657512013-07-23T09:23:00.000-07:002013-07-29T07:44:46.407-07:00Psychological and Spiritual Post-Cult Recovery: Reconsidered View (Part 1)Previously, I made a distinct separation between psychological and spiritual post-cult recovery on this blog. Eventually, I came to conclusion that I should not make this distinction.<br />
<br />
First, let me give some definitions. I define psychological post-cult recovery as recovery from post-cult psychological problems, which are manifested in the secular realm,
though also might be manifested in the religious realm. I define spiritual post-cult recovery as recovery from post-cult psychological problems, which are manifested only in the religious realm.<br />
<br />
Let me give an illustration. Some of the common post-cult psychological problems are triggers and phobias. Among the problems that I had to deal with after I left the cult, were: 1) being triggered when I read the Bible; 2) phobia of celebrating Christmas; 3) phobia of going to church. These problems (triggers and phobias) were post-cult psychological problems, but they were manifested only in the religious realm, that is, only when I tried to do some religious activity: to read the Bible, to go to church or to celebrate Christmas. These problems were not manifested outside of religion.<br />
<br />
Previously, I considered dealing with such kind of problems as spiritual recovery. I considered dealing with other problems, which are manifested outside of religion, as psychological recovery. I believed that in order to recover from cults, it is necessary to get rid of the psychological problems that are manifested outside of religion, but I considered that it is optional to get rid of the psychological problems that are manifested only in connection with religion.<br />
<br />
I do not think it was a correct approach. Triggers and phobias are still triggers and phobias, regardless of whether they are manifested outside of religion or not. So, I believe that anti-cult psychological problems should be dealt with regardless of where they are manifested.<br />
<br />
The reason why I made a separation between them was that secular mental health professionals in the anti-cult field usually do not pay attention to the post-cult psychological problems, which are manifested only in connection with religion or religious activity. Many books on post-cult recovery neglect these problems completely.<br />
<br />
Paul Martin, the founder of Wellspring center, addressed both the post-cult problems as I considered as a part of psychological recovery and those that I considered as a part of spiritual recovery. In Chapter 10, <i>Post-cult Recovery: Assessment and Rehabilitation</i> in the book <i>Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse</i> (edited by Michael D. Langone), he described how both kinds of problems were dealt with in Wellspring program of recovery. He did not make a separation between these two kinds of issues, and now I agree with his approach much more.<br />
<br />
A number of ex-member of Bible-based cults and abusive churches leave religion completely. It is not a secret that most of them leave it because they feel pain from their former cult involvement, feel that religion triggers them, and have other post-cult psychological problems related to religion. They think that their leaving religion will help them. Secular mental health professionals who counsel ex-members of these groups usually see nothing wrong with their leaving religion. Some mental health professionals even promote atheism or secularism as a safe and better option.<br />
<br />
The problem with this approach is that some post-cult psychological problems never dealt with. They are simply put away and forgotten, but not got rid of. So, it seems that people who never deal with these problems never fully recover. They still have some post-cult psychological problems that they never dealt with. The problem here is not that these people left religion. The problem is that they still have some post-cult psychological problems, which they neglect completely.<br />
<br />
When people had carefully dealt with these problems and then decided to leave religion, it is a completely different situation. But I do not know if there are such people. According to my observation, when ex-members of Bible cults and abusive churches deal with post-cult psychological problems related to religion, they eventually restore their faith in God. When they do not deal with these problems, they remain atheists or agnostics.<br />
<br />
Although I previously believed that it is necessary to deal with post-cult psychological problems that are manifested outside of religion, but not necessary to deal with those that have to do with religion, I think it was a wrong idea. I believe that both kinds of problems should be dealt with in order to be fully recovered. I also think now that these two sets of problems should not be separated, that is, I believe that psychological recovery and spiritual recovery should not be separated. It is one post-cult recovery, not two post-cult recoveries.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-21335853192041544652013-03-29T10:54:00.000-07:002013-04-01T00:11:11.757-07:00My Statement regarding Steven HassanAlthough I did not plan to post on this blog anymore, I decided to make an exception and post this statement.<br />
<br />
I wrote a number of critical posts regarding Steven Hassan on this blog. I also criticized him in other places. However, I came to conclusion that I actually was not objective and not fair to him.<br />
<br />
There are several people who criticize Hassan's professional work (his counseling, his books, etc.): Monica Pignotti, Cathleen Mann, Rick Ross. Some people (David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy, and Michael Langone) did this in the past in the book entitled Recovery from Cults. However, this book was published a very long time ago. I used some of their ideas in my criticism of him, including some posts on this blog.<br />
<br />
However, I am not a mental health professional. There are many different opinions in the mental health field. And the anti-cult field is especially controversial. There are different approaches to mind control / thought reform theories, to exit counseling, to cult recovery. According to my observation, professionals who work in this field often disagree with one another. Well, it is hard for me to make any conclusions here because I am not a mental health professional. I just do not have sufficient professional knowledge to make objective conclusions here.<br />
<br />
Moreover, it may be a matter of the personal preference what approaches are used. It happens in many other fields as well. For example, there are different computer operation systems: Windows, Linux, Mac OS. Some people spend much time in endless debates which OS is better, for example, Windows or Linux. Well, the thing is that it is just a matter of the personal preference. Some people prefer Windows, some prefer Linux, and that is all. Suppose a person who is not very knowledgeable about computers will read these debates about Windows vs. Linux. Will he or she be able to make an objective conclusion? Probably, not because he/she does not have sufficient knowledge.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I just do not have sufficient knowledge to be objective regarding Hassan's (or anyone's else) professional work in mental health field. Well, I may like some ideas of some professionals, but I just do not have sufficient qualification for making any conclusions in this field. It would not be objective. In the past, I agreed with some professionals who criticized him. But the thing is that I cannot really make conclusions regarding these matters. In fact, if I agree with someone's criticism, it means that I consider this person as an "expert" and a higher "expert" than Hassan. But really I do not know.<br />
<br />
So, I have to admit that I was not objective and fair to Hassan. I want to make clear that I have never considered him as my friend. I just want to be fair to him as well as to anyone else.<br />
<br />
<b>Update.</b> I removed my critical posts regarding Steven Hassan from this blog and from my <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/lemanalsite/">site</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-72909709647279893212012-06-22T17:43:00.001-07:002012-06-24T01:52:57.837-07:00My New BlogI started a new blog: <a href="http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/">http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/</a> This blog will be specially for posts that have something to do with Christian subjects, as it is clear from its title.<br />
<br />
I decided to start a new blog because this blog has been originally focused on the post-cult recovery and because I know that many people in the anti-cult community are quite negative toward Christianity (and religions in general).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I do not believe that I have to spend the rest of my life on the post-cult recovery as many ex-cult members believe. Besides being an ex-cult member, I have many other sides of my life. At the present, my being a Christian is more important for me than being an ex-cult member.<br />
<br />
On my new blog, I shared some of the most important experiences of my Christian life:<br /><a href="http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/regeneration-being-born-again.html">http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/regeneration-being-born-again.html</a><br />
<a href="http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/baptism-with-holy-spirit.html">http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/baptism-with-holy-spirit.html</a><br />
<a href="http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/divine-healing.html">http://a-christian-blog.blogspot.com/2012/06/divine-healing.html</a><br />
None of them had anything to do with cults or thought reform.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-74068792820745885692012-04-03T09:44:00.006-07:002012-04-03T10:34:42.761-07:00More about My Personal Experience of Post-Cult RecoveryIn my blog, I always made a distinction between secular and religious sides of post-cult recovery, though it seems that most people do not make this distinction. Usually, I used the term "psychological" for the secular aspect. I think, maybe "psycho-emotional" will be better. Also, usually, I used the term "spiritual" for the religious aspect. However, as I found out, atheists also like this term. So, I will call this aspect "religious" instead. I personally do not like the word "religion" very much because it is often used as just a set of some rituals. However, the origin of this word is much better. According to the most famous hypothesis, <a href="http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Religion">it is from Latin "religare" (to bind)</a> and thus means "union with God." There are two other hypotheses: 1) that it is from Latin "relegere" (to treat carefully) or 2) from Latin "religere" (to recover). I prefer the concept of religion as a union with God.<br /><br />I never liked the idea promoted by some people in the anti-cult community that post-cult recovery is practically (or actually) life-long. Unlike some people in the anti-cult community, I do not believe that every ex-cult member should get therapy after leaving a cult. I never had any therapy myself. Also, I stated in my blog that <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-about-spiritual-recovery.html">I do not consider religious aspect of post-cult recovery to be mandatory</a>, that is, I do not consider that after leaving a cult, a person should return to their pre-cult religious beliefs or to become an evangelical (or whatever else).<br /><br />Three years ago, I wrote in my blog that I think that <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-about-psychological-recovery.html">I had finished my post-cult recovery</a>. One person <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2009/05/symptom-lists-positive-and-negative.html?showComment=1241790960000#c7050761522464141264">disagreed with me</a>, stating that and that I may not know that I am not recovered and if people did not reconnect with God, they are not recovered. Other people in the past also strongly recommended me to get therapy, saying that if I do not have symptoms, I may be in denial. In another post, I wrote that two and a half years ago, <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-about-my-personal-experience-of.html">I had a careful psychological and psychiatric examination</a>. The professionals who examined me did not find that I had any disorder. Why should I get a therapy then?<br /><br />For those people who believe that those who have not reconnected or reconciled with God, I can testify: by now, I have completely reconciled and reconnected with God. I have fresh and new relationship with God and I consecrated myself to Him. I do not have any spiritual problems caused by my cult involvement. Well, I guess that some people now may call me a religious bigot and claim that my consecration to God indicates that I am not recovered. Somehow, many people in anti-cult community believe that it is OK to go to church once a week and forget about God all the other time, but if a person is a devoted Christian, it is something wrong and indicates that this person is "unrecovered," "mind-controlled," and so on. There are too many opinions in the anti-cult field and they contradict one another. As for me, I consider myself recovered both psychologically and spiritually.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-65012488778038083662011-09-07T00:29:00.000-07:002011-09-23T11:08:19.322-07:00John Knapp Leaves New York StateLast week, John Knapp left New York State for Indiana. Apparently, he went to be with his girlfriend Kimmie Deckard who lives in Bedford, Greene County, Indiana. However, in the current situation, it looks like that the real reason for his leaving NYS is different. He met Kimmie online on June 14, when he was already under investigation and it was 2 weeks after the previous registration of his license ended. So, his leaving NYS looks like another attempt to avoid punishment for his ethical violations. His other attempts were:<br />1) missing the time for renewal of his registration, though later he had it renewed;<br />2) public announcement that he is going to leave his profession, though until now he is listed in <a href="http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA">NYS board database</a> as a registered LMSW.<br /><br />Also, his recent leaving NYS for Indiana looks similar to his leaving California for NYS in mid-1990s after a conflict and split with Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer over The Margaret Thaler Singer Foundation, Inc., a non-profit of which he was executive director.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-14288847226850381362011-08-30T11:38:00.000-07:002012-01-26T12:06:47.948-08:00John Knapp Blames the Victim (Part 3)<span style="font-weight: bold;">Update (01/26/2012). </span><span>Currently, Knapp's website does not work. So, all the links to his website are not working.<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>. Knapp made some changes on his website. So, it is currently not accessible at its usual URL <a href="http://thechsca.org/">http://thechsca.org/</a>. However, it is accessible at <a href="http://184.154.238.114/">http://184.154.238.114/</a>. So, I added the working links to his website in parentheses in bold.<br /><br />Knapp posted a new article regarding Monica on the CHSCA website: <a href="http://thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting">http://thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/145-monica-pignotti-bfw-120-days-same-subject-and-counting</span></a>). This article is actually their private correspondence that took place on May 2, 2011. As usual, his comments are filled with disinformation.<br /><br /><blockquote>More stomach-churning drama, going on for the last 22 months!!! The same accusations, threats, and tortored logic—nearly verbatim.</blockquote><br /><br />All the emails below his statement were sent on May 2, 2011. <a href="http://thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??">The next set of their private correspondence posted by Knapp began on August 25</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??</span></a>). Nothing before May 2 and nothing between May 2 and August 25. Where is "drama, going on for the last 22 months"? No evidences. Just empty, groundless, and false accusations.<br /><br /><blockquote>Carol did not report to me. When I set it up, I gave each of us one vote. The two of them had the power to overrule me at any point. So, in some senses, I was responsible to her just as much as she was responsible to either me or Lema.</blockquote><br /><br />Probably, first, I need to explain what he probably means here. In January 2010, he set a forum for anti-cult activists on his Knapp Family Counseling website. He invited some people to join this forum, including Carol and me. In March 2010, Carol and I became co-moderators of this forum and in April or May 2010 we became co-administrators. The three of us discussed together many things related to the forum and we voted for the decisions regarding the forum. However, Carol's and my position as co-administrators was not equal to Knapp's because of many reasons. The last word on any decisions was always up to him. Sometimes he was not available for a long time and we waited for him without carrying out our decisions. In order to join the forum, new members had to send him their personal information and this information was available only to him. The forum was located at his website, not on a service like Yahoo! Groups, Google Groups or another public service. The software used for his forum was phpBB3. Unlike, for example, Yahoo! Groups, phpBB3 has special privileges for the forum creator. Forum creator cannot be banned by other administrators and only forum creator is able to delete the forum. Eventually, Knapp did delete his forum. I could not do that and I could not remove him from the forum, although I had access to all the administrative options that may be available for a person who is not a forum creator. Carol did not have access to all those options. On the other hand, he could remove us from the forum at any time.<br /><br />In May or June 2010, he began to share with Carol and me about his plans to create a non-profit which is now known as the CHSCA. Its name that he used in communications with us was the Knapp Center. Although Knapp wanted me as well as Carol to join it, I have never gave my agreement to join it. The reason for this was that I was not clear about Knapp's plans regarding this organization at all. The only thing he actually said was that he had a "clear vision" of what should be done in the anti-cult community that nobody has ever seen. This is why he was planning to create a non-profit. However, I had no idea what this "clear vision" was about. This is why I had never agreed to join his non-profit. I agreed only to listen about his plans about it, but he never actually revealed them, keeping saying that he would send us business plan which he never did.<br /><br />According to Knapp's words, there was some connection between Knapp's forum and his non-profit that he was going to create. I was never quite sure about it. It seemed that he considered his forum for anti-cult activists as a part of his non-profit. Moreover, he somehow implied that since Carol and I were co-administrators of his forum, we were also a part of his non-profit. However, as for me, I gave my agreement to be a co-moderator and co-administrator of his forum, but I never gave my agreement to be a part of his non-profit. It seems that Knapp did his best to get me involved into his non-profit without my understanding of what he would be and even without my desire. This actually quite bothered me and it was at this point that I began to reconsider what kind of person he is.<br /><br />So, although Knapp may claim that he gave Carol and me a vote and equal position in his then future-to-be non-profit (as he kept telling us at that time), it does not make sense since I did not give my agreement to join that project. Also, Knapp told us that he wanted to create his non-profit in order to carry out his "clear vision" of what should be done in the anti-cult field. He never shared its vision with us and I do not know what it is about. So, due to this reason, Carol's and my position in his non-profit could not be equal to his.<br /><br />Although he kept saying to Carol and me that he gave us the same position as his, in his last email to both of us (sent on August 1, 2011), he made it clear that we did not have the same position. We never had the same authority as he did.<br /><br />So, his statement that we "had the power to overrule" him "at any point" is simply not true.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-604030244430777232011-08-26T12:36:00.000-07:002012-01-26T12:06:44.613-08:00John Knapp Blames the Victim (Part 2)<span style="font-weight: bold;">Update (01/26/2012). </span><span>Currently, Knapp's website does not work. So, all the links to his website are not working.<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>. Knapp made some changes on his website. So, it is currently not accessible at its usual URL <a href="http://thechsca.org/">http://thechsca.org/</a>. However, it is accessible at <a href="http://184.154.238.114/">http://184.154.238.114/</a>. So, I added the working links to his website in parentheses in bold. In addition, he removed his posts from Facebook. However, they are still available at his website.<br /><br />Knapp posted the same article about Carol Welch on Facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=249892368377121">Carol Welch—Cyberstalker</a>. One of his favorite manipulative technique is to play victim games and now he is doing this, trying to gain people's support. Here is a quote from one of his comments:<br /><br /><blockquote>As you know, along with many, many others, including Carol Welch, I was permanently changed by my 23 years in the Transcendental Meditation organization.<br /><br />I'll never be the man I was born to be.<br /><br />I suffer from intermittent depression, moderate-to-severe dissociation, and although only hospitalized once for suicidality 10 years ago, the Abyss is no stranger even today.</blockquote><br /><br />First of all, who is the therapist and who is the client? A client hires a therapist in order to get help for his or her (client's) problems, not in order to cure the therapist from his/her problems. From <a href="http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp">NASW Code of Ethics</a> (which Knapp is supposed to abide by):<br /><br /><blockquote>4.05 Impairment<br /><br />(a) Social workers should not allow their own personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties to interfere with their professional judgment and performance or to jeopardize the best interests of people for whom they have a professional responsibility.<br /><br />(b) Social workers whose personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties interfere with their professional judgment and performance should immediately seek consultation and take appropriate remedial action by seeking professional help, making adjustments in workload, terminating practice, or taking any other steps necessary to protect clients and others.</blockquote><br /><br />So, if Knapp has mental health problems, he has to seek professional help and take the necessary steps to protect his clients instead of trying to use his clients to help him to heal or trying to make them responsible for his mental health condition. This is an ethical violation on his side.<br /><br />By the way, attacking Carol Welch who is his former client, he made, at least, two more ethical violation. From <a href="http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp">NASW Code of Ethics</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>1.12 Derogatory Language<br /><br />Social workers should not use derogatory language in their written or verbal communications to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients.<br /><br />4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception<br /><br />Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception.</blockquote><br /><br />He did write many lies about Carol in his article and comments.<br /><br />As for his legal threatenings, they are completely empty and I do not think they deserve any attention.<br /><br />After his attacks on Carol Welch, he went on attacking Monica Pignotti, MSW, PhD (for her supporting Carol) and me:<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/139-monica-pignotti-phd-is-this-cyberharrassment??</span></a>)<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/140-more-carol-welch-cyberstalker-crap%E2%80%94featuring-monica-pignotti-phd">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/140-more-carol-welch-cyberstalker-crap%E2%80%94featuring-monica-pignotti-phd</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/140-more-carol-welch-cyberstalker-crap%E2%80%94featuring-monica-pignotti-phd"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/140-more-carol-welch-cyberstalker-crap%E2%80%94featuring-monica-pignotti-phd</span></a>)<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/141-more-carol-welch-fan-mail-from-flounders-monica-pignotti-phfuckingd">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/141-more-carol-welch-fan-mail-from-flounders-monica-pignotti-phfuckingd</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/141-more-carol-welch-fan-mail-from-flounders-monica-pignotti-phfuckingd"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/141-more-carol-welch-fan-mail-from-flounders-monica-pignotti-phfuckingd</span></a>)<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/142-more-carol-welch-private-fluff-and-bluster-from-monica-pignotti-phfuckingunemployedd">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/142-more-carol-welch-private-fluff-and-bluster-from-monica-pignotti-phfuckingunemployedd</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/142-more-carol-welch-private-fluff-and-bluster-from-monica-pignotti-phfuckingunemployedd"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/142-more-carol-welch-private-fluff-and-bluster-from-monica-pignotti-phfuckingunemployedd</span></a>)<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack</span></a>)<br /><a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/144-monica-pignotti-bfw-can-not-stop-herself-so-i-blocked-her">http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/144-monica-pignotti-bfw-can-not-stop-herself-so-i-blocked-her</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/144-monica-pignotti-bfw-can-not-stop-herself-so-i-blocked-her"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/144-monica-pignotti-bfw-can-not-stop-herself-so-i-blocked-her</span></a>)<br /><br />He actually posted the private correspondence between Monica and him and added his comments. Well, I think that anyone who reads what he wrote about Monica, will come to conclusion that he does have serious mental problems.<br /><br />I noticed that, although he got a number of supporting comments under <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=249892368377121">his Facebook post on Carol Welch</a>, there are no comments from his supporters under <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=250409628325395">his Facebook post on Monica</a>. This probably means that he is losing supporters because they see that he has serious mental problems.<br /><br />Also, his attacks on Monica who is a social worker are another ethical violation. From <a href="http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp">NASW Code of Ethics</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>2.01 Respect<br /><br />(a) Social workers should treat colleagues with respect and should represent accurately and fairly the qualifications, views, and obligations of colleagues.<br />(b) Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications with clients or with other professionals. Unwarranted negative criticism may include demeaning comments that refer to colleagues’ level of competence or to individuals’ attributes such as race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability.<br />(c) Social workers should cooperate with social work colleagues and with colleagues of other professions when such cooperation serves the wellbeing of clients.</blockquote><br /><br />Although Knapp publicly announced that he is going to leave his profession, he is still listed in <a href="http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA">NYS board database</a> as a registered LMSW:<br /><center><h3>License Information<br /></h3></center><hr /> <p> </p><center> 08/27/2011 </center><br /> <b>Name : </b> KNAPP JOHN MATTHEW <br /> <b>Address : </b> BURKE NY <br /> <b>Profession : </b> LICENSED MASTER SOCIAL WORK <br /> <b>License No: </b> 071643<br /> <b>Date of Licensure : </b> 12/01/05 <br /> <b>Additional Qualification : </b> Not applicable in this profession <br /> <b> <a href="http://www.op.nysed.gov/help.htm#status"> Status :</a></b> REGISTERED <br /><b>Registered through last day of : </b> 05/14 <br /><br /><br />I do not know when he is going to leave his profession and whether he is going to do that at all. Until now, he is under the obligation to keep NASW Code of Ethics. However, he violated it many times.<br /><br />Regarding <a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack">his post about me</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/143-desperate-for-attention-as-ever-lema-nal-rejoins-the-attack</span></a>), I really do not have much to say. Many people use various pseudonyms and nicknames in Internet, including many people in the anti-cult community. I have never stated that I live in Chechnya, but if he thinks this way, I do not care. Only blog owners, website owners, and webmasters know how many people visit their blogs or websites, unless they make this statistics public which I did not. I already replied him that his accusation of Carol in "sexual harassment" is a defamation and I have nothing to add to this. When we talked on Skype, he said that he had <span style="font-weight: bold;">studied</span> NLP because cults use it, but did not use it himself. Now he denies his own words and changes them. Well, it is a very usual behavior for him, by the way.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>. Carol posted an excellent response on Knapp's accusations: <a href="http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/p/my-statements-addressing-john-m-knapps.html">My statements addressing John M. Knapp's allegations & accusations</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-11922128854003187032011-08-26T07:00:00.000-07:002012-01-26T12:06:40.686-08:00John Knapp Blames the Victim<span style="font-weight: bold;">Update (01/26/2012). </span><span>Currently, Knapp's website does not work. So, all the links to his website are not working.<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Update</span>. Knapp made some changes on his website. So, it is currently not accessible at its usual URL <a href="http://thechsca.org/">http://thechsca.org/</a>. However, it is accessible at <a href="http://184.154.238.114/">http://184.154.238.114/</a>. So, I added the working links to his website in parentheses in bold.<br /><br />John Knapp has a habit of blaming other people for his own wrongdoings and of completely twisting the situation. However, even knowing that, I did not expect that he would attack his former client Carol Welch whose "fault" was that she filed a complaint at him to the New York State Office of Professions and wrote about her personal experience with him on <a href="http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/">her blog</a>. Instead of admitting his wrongdoings, feeling sorry for what happened or apologizing to Carol, he prefers to attack her in his new article entitled <a href="http://www.thechsca.org/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/138-beware-carol-welch%E2%80%94cyberstalker">Beware Carol Welch—Cyberstalker</a> (<a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/138-beware-carol-welch%E2%80%94cyberstalker"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/138-beware-carol-welch%E2%80%94cyberstalker</span></a>). This article is just full of lies and twisting the situation.<br /><br /><blockquote>Unfortunately, these two [Carol Welch and me] have launched an incredible campaign to discredit me and to apparently have my license to practice therapy taken away. Carol Welch lodged a complaint with my licensing board last Septmember and has made false and defamatory statements in many places on the Internet, calling those clients of mine she knows at home and making false claims, and also calling colleagues, friends, and board members. <...><br /><br />I have sufficient credentials to practice counseling and therapy. Although, because I have no intention of defending against Carol's complaint to my Board, I'm likely to lose the licensure soon. Since Carol, to my knowledge, has never presented evidence of criminal behavior or ethical breaches, I feel the Office of Professions should never have entertained the complaint in the first place. <...><br /><br />Briefly, here are the false claims I know of: <...><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I have practiced unethically and traumatized a client.</span></span> (Carol Welch, <span style="font-style: italic;">ad nauseum</span>) This is the most damaging allegation, I feel. Carol Welch has submitted a complaint to my governing licensing board. I learned of this in April. The investigator from the office of the professions would not discuss the specifics of the allegations with me. So I’m not sure what to think. This investigator could hardly contain her scorn and disdain for me, whom she obviously believed had traumatized Carol intentionally. She made flat out false assertions to me regarding Carol being my client when we worked together, the illegality of practicing therapy over the Internet, and numerous other “facts” about which she could have determined the falsity for herself. Investigators are <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> credentialed therapists. They are clerks. They are rarely schooled in the law. Their job is simply to gather facts. Some clerks come to believe they have power—and therefore wisdom. These are very dangerous people.</blockquote><br /><br />Well, <span style="font-style: italic;">if</span>, as Knapp states, Carol's accusations against him in her complaint were wrong, why did Knapp preferred not to defend himself? Why did he prefer not to present his side to the investigator?<br /><br />Instead of defending himself, first, he missed the time of renewal of his registration. His registration expired on May 31, 2011, but he renewed it only in the beginning of August. Now, he states that he is going to leave the social work field because, according to his words, he is "ashamed to be associated with the field" and because of "the horrific state of the mental healing profession."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">If</span>, as he states, Carol's accusations were wrong, why did not he try to defend himself to the NYS Board, preferring to attack her from his website? Well, the reason is very simple. Her accusations are <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> wrong and she did present evidences of his ethical violations to the NYS Board. He is unable to refute these things. This is why he decided not to defend himself. It is much easier to attack Carol, posting lies about her on his website, because, of course, not all the readers of his website know what really happened. And it it much easier to use his website in order to accuse the investigator of believing Carol's "wrong accusations" instead of having the direct and open dialog with the investigator regarding the complaint.<br /><br />Knapp's article is just full of his lies about Carol and other people. I think this is one of the worst one:<br /><br /><blockquote>Finally, Carol’s attacks on my character started shortly after I made it clear to her that I would not engage in a sexual relationship of any kind with her, despite her oft-repeated requests after our therapeutic relationship ended.</blockquote><br /><br />Well, according to my understanding, Knapp and Carol never met in person. Knapp lives in New York State. Carol lives in North Caroline. Although it may be possible to practice psychotherapy through Internet, it is definitely impossible to have sexual relationship through Internet.<br /><br />In addition, there is an obvious problem of timing here. Knapp indicates it as the time "after our therapeutic relationship ended." What was this time? Knapp convinced Carol that their therapeutic relationship ended before she joined his forum and became a co-moderator and co-administrator. However, their therapy sessions continued after that, though he called them "life coaching." She continued to pay him. So, in fact their therapeutic relationship ended only with the conflict. Now, could Carol possibly "make requests for sexual relationship" with Knapp after the conflict when she was seriously wounded by him and when he cut all the contacts with her? Of course, not. Could she possibly make such requests before she joined his forum or became a co-moderator and co-administrator? Of course, she could not either. Otherwise, Knapp would not have invited her to the forum and would not have asked her to be a co-moderator and co-administrator of the forum.<br /><br />So, Knapp's accusation toward Carol is not only completely false, but also completely illogical. The same is with his other accusations.<br /><br />Knapp accuses Carol of defamation:<br /><br /><blockquote>I find her tactics, as I discuss below, terroristic, defamatory, and sadistically cruel. <...><br /><br />Carol has <span style="font-style: italic;">loudly</span> proclaimed that she does not care if she is breaking defamation or slander laws saying, “I will not be silenced!” <...><br /><br />I have waited patiently for over a year for Carol to work through this, allowing defamatory, damaging, and personally devastating statement after statement go by unchecked. I thought I owed her some time to come to grips with her pain on her own.<br /><br />Today, because Carol’s cyberattacks, bullying, and defamation have not stopped—for over one year, mind you—I have reported the situation to the authorities and am seeking legal recourse for relief in the irreperable damage to my emotional well-being, family life, and professional career.</blockquote><br /><br />However, it is Knapp who makes defamatory statements regarding Carol, not vice versa.<br /><br />By the way, since he could not "prove" to the investigator that Carol's accusations of him in her complaint were "wrong," I do not think he is really able to "prove" this in the court of the law. So, his threatens are empty. In fact, he made similar legal threatens toward me over a year ago when I posted a question regarding the point we had disagreement (it was the term "spiritual trauma") in two online groups. Although I did not mention his name there and even did not imply that I had a disagreement over this point with somebody, he accused me that I was going to defame him and damage his reputations and threatened me with legal actions against me. This was another example of his empty legal threatens.<br /><br />Now, here are my responses to some of "the false claims" he listed:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The CHSCA is not incorporated or is operating illegally.</span></span> (Lema Nal) Our website displays verifiable information that we are a charitable nonprofit corporation in Delaware. More US companies incorporate there than any other state. It turns out the service we used to incorporate did not register us as a foreign corporation in New York. This mistake isn’t uncommon. We are applying now.</blockquote><br /><br />What I actually stated was that the CHSCA is not incorporated in New York State where it is apparently located. I did not check the databases of each of 50 US states to see if it was incorporated in another state. I did not make statements that it was not incorporated anywhere in the USA.<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">There are no people involved in the Center other than me.</span></span> (Lema Nal) The staff are listed prominently on the website. Our 15-member advisory board includes nationally and internationally known figures. (There are a number of bios yet to be added.)</blockquote><br /><br />I never made statements that no other people, except Knapp, are involved in CHSCA. In fact, I even mentioned some of those people on my blog.<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I practice NeuroLinguistic Programing or Ericksonian hypnosis unethically.</span></span> (Lema Nal) I never studied NLP, don’t know how to practice it. I’ve read academic articles on hypnotism. I don’t know how to do it. I don’t know why this individual claims I used NLP on him. My former supervisor is trained in NLP. Once or twice she invited me to a training. I politely declined. It’s not unusual that a practitioner supervises someone with a different theoretical perspective. I also have Republican friends. I wouldn’t vote for them.</blockquote><br /><br />Knapp himself admitted that he studied NLP in our last Skype conversation in the end of July, 2010. He now denies his own words.<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Practicing counseling over the Internet is unethical.</span></span> (Lema Nal, Carol Welch via New York State Office of the Professions investigator) Practicing distance counseling or psychiatry has been common for over a decade. I belong to the International Society for Mental Health Online, a professional organization and subscribe to their suggested ethical guidelines. I am a member of the NASW and abide by their ethical code.</blockquote><br /><br />It was not my idea. However, as a comment, I can say that one of the problems with the Internet therapy is that the software used for it (such as Skype) does not guarantee the confidentiality while it is obligatory that therapeutic sessions should be completely confidential. There are other problems with using Internet for psychotherapy as well. In fact, Knapp does not abide by NASW ethical code. For example, he made several ethical violations toward Carol which she reported in her complaint.<br /><br />Well, I really do not have time and desire to get into the detailed refutation of all the Knapp's lies and misrepresentations. I think what I have written so far is sufficient.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-62675532062819491952011-08-26T00:11:00.000-07:002011-10-17T10:14:13.923-07:00My Personal Experience with John KnappSome time ago, somebody asked me what had happened between Knapp and me. I think that some other people may have the same question. So, here I post my answer to this person:<br /><br /><blockquote>Well, I and another person (who was Knapp's client at that time) were moderators and administrators of his forum. He began to share with us that he was going to create a non-profit anti-cult organization and wanted us to join it. He never answered my questions regarding this organization, keeping saying that he would send us a business plan (which he never did). On the other hand, he kept trying to involve us into it and even acted as if we already joined it (although I never gave my agreement to join it). I did not like this. In addition, I remembered that in the past somebody accused him of using manipulations. I knew that this person was knowledgeable about NLP. So, I suspected that Knapp used NLP (now I am quite sure that he does). I asked him about his attitude to NLP. He replied only when I asked him the third time. He admitted that he studied it, but denied that he used it.<br /><br />Very soon after he eventually answered this question, he and I got a serious conflict over a small matter (the other moderator and administrator tried to keep neutral position). We discussed such things before many times and did not have any problems. This time he behaved as a different person: he kept writing offenses, threatens, manipulations. I did not expect such behavior from him. Actually, he misunderstood my position regarding the matter we were arguing about. When I explained my position again, he agreed with me and it seemed that the conflict would be solved. However, unexpectedly, he changed his behavior again. He sent me and the other moderator and administrator an ultimatum email. The main idea was: "either you agree to submit to me in everything or you have to resign within 24 hours." I did not reply him at all (and never contacted him again). He deleted his forum in about 11 hours after he sent us that email. The other person tried to contact him, but he replied that he did not want to continue their contacts.<br /><br />Well, this is what happened between us. I think that Knapp intentionally created this conflict because I began to suspect that he used NLP and other manipulative techniques. I think he also used them before, when he involved us as moderators and administrators of his forum and when we were helping him with his forum. However, I was not aware of it at that time.</blockquote><br /><br />The opinion of the other co-moderator and co-administrator of Knapp's forum who was involved into this conflict can be read <a href="http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/p/complaint-overview.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Regarding the question whether Knapp practices NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), I am sure he does. By the way, since he is LMSW, he is required to have a supervisor who is LCSW. <a href="http://www.changepathsblog.com/about-rich-liotta-and-rosemary-lake-liotta/rosemary-lake-liotta-lcsw">His supervisor</a> and <a href="http://www.changepathsblog.com/about-rich-liotta-and-rosemary-lake-liotta/richard-f-liotta-phd">her husband</a> are certified NLP trainers. Knapp and his supervisor even had offices in the same building. Well, there is nothing illegal with having a supervisor who is a certified NLP trainer. However, this is a perfect situation for the deep and thorough study of NLP. So, to me, it indicates that Knapp seriously studied NLP. People usually study NLP in order to use it, not just to have information about it. And I am sure that he did use NLP toward me and other people.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-41604812425189299132011-08-25T10:50:00.000-07:002011-10-17T23:16:46.397-07:00Megan C. Singer, ASW and John M. Knapp, LMSW (Part 2)John Knapp published a post on CHSCA website entitled <a href="http://184.154.238.114/blogs/reckless-speculation/item/136-the-mental-health-field-isnt"><span style="font-style:italic;">The Mental Health Field</span></a>.<br /><br />In this post, he states that he is going to leave his profession:<br /><br /><blockquote>As I'll be announcing very shortly, I'm stepping totally out of the social work and psychotherapeutic world after 11 years. I’m ashamed to be associated with the field.</blockquote><br /><br />Well, whatever he may say about his reasons, I do believe that if he is really going to leave his profession, it is because one of his former client's complaint at him. She posted the text of the complaint on her blog: <a href="http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/p/complaint-overview.html"><span style="font-style:italic;">Complaint Overview</span></a>.<br /><br />Knapp has a habit of blaming other people for everything. Now, he accuses the whole mental health community. I understand that there may be problems in this field as well as in any other field. However, this does not vindicate Knapp's personal behavior toward other people, including his clients. His ethical violations and abuses toward his clients have nothing to do with "the horrific state of the mental healing profession" (a quote from his post).<br /><br />On the other hand, in his post, Knapp highly praises Megan Singer and anyone who reads this post will have an impression that they have very good relationships. Here are some quotes from his post:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Megan,<br /><br />Not like you need this, but I have been proud to know you for a very, very, <span style="font-style:italic;">very</span> long time. You’re generous, caring, thoughtful, creative, and altruistic.<br /><br />What’s not to love?<br /><br />You’ve been an extraordinary help to me personally whenever I’ve asked you. <...> You’re a <span style="font-style:italic;">hell</span> of a human being. <...><br /><br />Next time you have a mo for a phone chat or FB note, I’d love to talk about the horrific state of the mental healing profession. I’m moved to tell you this because of what you are going through:<br /><br />As I’ll be announcing very shortly, I’m stepping totally out of the social work and psychotherapeutic world after 11 years. I’m ashamed to be associated with the field. For many of the reasons you so eloquently demonstrate in your brave post here. <...><br /><br />Megan, back to you, because this screed really is about my admiration and respect for you:<br /><br />Fuck the credentials, girl. YOU are a HEALER. Trust your gut and follow your heart. Everything else is just details.<br /><br />And fire every flaming asshole who doesn’t measure up to your standards.<br /><br />Because you are RIGHT.<br /><br />I’m not a believer, but I <span style="font-style:italic;">pray</span> you find the healer you deserve and who is worth a tenth of what you are.<br /><br />J.</blockquote><br /><br />In <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2011/05/megan-c-singer-asw-and-john-m-knapp.html">another post</a>, I wrote that she banned me from her Facebook group at the request of "one of the leading cult experts of the country" (her words). I identified this "expert" as John Knapp who is actually not a "cult expert." She denied it and wrote me about Knapp:<br /><br /><blockquote>I'm on your side regarding John Knapp. I'm aware of the duplicity going on with him; and wish I was not associated with him even on a collegiate level.</blockquote><br /><br />In addition, <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2011/05/megan-c-singer-asw-and-john-m-knapp.html?showComment=1307075876893#c5146249548338587716">she was very angry that I wrote about this situation on my blog and even tried to threaten me</a>.<br /><br />Well, I think anyone who compares Megan's statement about Knapp with Knapp's statements about Megan and her comment under his post, will come to conclusion that Megan lied me.<br /><br />Since Megan is an active Catholic, I think she may be interested to read what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 (NIV):<br /><br /><blockquote>Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”</blockquote><br /><br />Megan's current behavior is similar to Knapp's. Both of them lied to me and both of them threatened me. And, of course, I do not believe Megan's words that it was not Knapp who asked her to ban me. By the way, some of the Knapp's words in his post may imply this: "You’ve been an extraordinary help to me personally whenever I’ve asked you."<br /><br />It is sad to say, but Megan as a social worker might end up in the same way as Knapp - abusing her clients and having her clients complain at her - if she does not stop admiring him and imitating him.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-22851334739777977652011-07-01T23:25:00.000-07:002011-08-06T09:25:05.294-07:00John M. Knapp, formerly LMSWOne month ago, John Knapp's registration as LMSW (Licensed Master Social Work) in New York State expired. He is no longer registered by New York State Office of the Professions: <a href="http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA">http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA</a>. This means that he is not allowed to practice as a social worker (<a href="http://www.op.nysed.gov/help.htm#status">http://www.op.nysed.gov/help.htm#status</a>):<br /><blockquote>To practice within New York State, a professional must be licensed and REGISTERED.</blockquote><br />Moreover (<a href="http://www.op.nysed.gov/opd/">http://www.op.nysed.gov/opd/</a>):<br /><blockquote>Practicing a profession without a license and current registration is a felony in New York State.</blockquote><br />However, until now, Knapp has never mentioned on CHSCA website, Knapp Family Counseling (KFC) website, Facebook pages, Twitter posts, and LinkedIn group that his registration expired one month ago. He continues to use "LMSW" title which he cannot use now. On CHSCA website, there is a list of services offered by CHSCA: <a href="http://thechsca.org/what-we-do/services-we-offer-you/item/48-services-we-offer-you">http://thechsca.org/what-we-do/services-we-offer-you/item/48-services-we-offer-you</a>. It includes therapy as currently available service. On his KFC website, there is a page "Available Services & Fees": <a href="http://www.knappfamilycounseling.com/available.html">http://www.knappfamilycounseling.com/available.html</a> where he states: "I offer individual and group counseling via office visits, phone, and online." He did not make any corrections or changes on that page. I think these mean that Knapp continues to provide therapy. There is no indication that he is currently not available as a therapist. If he continues to practice, his actions are not only unethical, but also illegal.<br /><br />I do not think he forgot that he was required to renew his registration in order to continue to practice. I think he did it intentionally. He is under investigation by NYS Office of the Professions because his former client filed a complaint at him: <a href="http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-m-knapp-lmsw.html">http://tossandripple.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-m-knapp-lmsw.html</a>. Probably, he did not renew his registration in order to avoid their punishment for his ethical violations toward his former client. However, if he continues to practice now, this is even worse because it is a felony.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Update (posted on August 6, 2011)</span>: I just learned that Knapp renewed his registration and now his status appears as "Registered." When I checked his license information a couple days ago, he was not registered. So, even though he is registered now, he practiced without registration for over two months.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-7091411708396053302011-06-23T22:38:00.000-07:002011-06-24T11:01:38.008-07:00It Gets Better Project and the CHSCAJohn Knapp posted on his CHSCA website video <a href="http://www.thechsca.org/what-is-spiritual-abuse/exercises-you-can-do-to-promote-healing/item/118-it-gets-better">It Gets Better by Kate Bornstein</a>. Kate is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Bornstein">a former Scientologist and an open transgender person</a>. Knapp announced that <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/theCHSCA/status/76780501242884096">Kate Bornstein had joined the CHSCA advisory board</a>. However, below Kate's video on the CHSCA website, there is a note which was written by someone else:<br /><br /><blockquote>Publication on theCHSCA.org does not imply the author endorses the CHSCA, our mission, services, or opinions. We seek to represent a wide range of thinking—to as wide an audience as possible. We encourage readers to exercise critical thinking on all material posted at theCHSCA.org. Opinions expressed are solely the author's and may or may not reflect the values, ethics, or policies of the Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse, Inc.<br /><br />Specifically, we made an erroneous announcement that Kate Bornstein had joined our Advisory Board. This was executive director, John Knapp's mistake. Kate is not associated in any way with the CHSCA. But we love her anyway.</blockquote><br /><br />In the past, Knapp announced many people who, according to his words, joined the CHSCA advisory board. It is quite possible that Kate Bornstein was not the only one of these people who actually never joined it and who is not associated with the CHSCA.<br /><br />Also, introducing Kate's video, Knapp failed to give any background of It Gets Better project or even to mention that Kate Bornstein was not the only person who made a video on this subject. He also failed to mention that this subject has nothing to do with cults. In addition, he failed to mention that It Gets Better project has nothing to do with his non-profit CHSCA. It is well known that Bible-based cults like to take biblical verses out of their context in order to make them speak what they want. It seems that Knapp used the same tactic.<br /><br />A lot of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people and some non-LGBT people participated in It Gets Better project. The purpose of this project is to encourage LGBT teenagers who are discouraged because of being bulled for who they are and some of whom are thinking about committing a suicide. On <a href="http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/">It Gets Better project website</a>, there is a detailed description of it. I do believe that this project is very important and that it is very good that Kate Bornstein participated in it. However, Kate was just one of many people who participated in this project. On <a href="http://www.itgetsbetter.org/video/">It Gets Better project website</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject">YouTube</a>, there are many videos from It Gets Better project and they have nothing to do with cults.<br /><br />Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were among the people who participated in It Gets Better project. Their speeches there give some background of it.<br /><br /><br /><object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HzcAR6yQhF8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HzcAR6yQhF8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><br /><br /><object width="640" height="510"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zXBpW8GCDtY?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zXBpW8GCDtY?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><br /><br />In <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2010/12/heresy-of-mind-control-and.html">one of previous posts</a>, I embedded two other videos from It Gets Better project, by two open gays and Christian ministers Gene Robinson and Mel White. Many other videos from this project can be found on YouTube, on <a href="http://www.itgetsbetter.org/video/">It Gets Better project website</a>, and on other websites.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-3861706994162525312011-06-03T04:23:00.000-07:002011-08-06T09:36:07.683-07:00John Knapp Has No Right To Practice As LMSW NowJohn Knapp's registration as LMSW (Licensed Master Social Work) in New York State expired in May 31, 2011. Now, he is <a href="http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=72&plicno=071643&namechk=KNA">not registered</a> which means that he <a href="http://www.op.nysed.gov/help.htm#status">is not allowed to practice as a social worker in New York State</a>:<br /><blockquote>To practice within New York State, a professional must be licensed and REGISTERED.</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Update (posted on August 6, 2011)</span>: I just learned that Knapp renewed his registration and now his status appears as "Registered." When I checked his license information a couple days ago, he was not registered. So, even though he is registered now, he practiced without registration for over two months.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307964706905270102.post-59304173481696916882011-05-21T05:05:00.000-07:002013-10-15T01:39:09.022-07:00Megan C. Singer, ASW and John M. Knapp, LMSWExactly one month ago, Megan Carmel Singer, a former member of the Local Church of Witness Lee and Associate Social Worker (ASW) in California banned me from her then Cults group at Facebook which she just renamed to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_2211301939">Cult Awareness & Recovery</a> and unfriended me at Facebook. She did not inform me about banning me and did not explain her reasons for banning me. I never violated any group rules. In addition, since May 2008 until April 2011 when Megan banned me, I was a co-administrator of this group. I emailed her and asked why she did so. The only thing she let me know was that "one of the leading cult experts of the country" complained at me and this was why she immediately banned me, although she was still "exploring the issue." After I emailed her again, she replied that I should "sit tight" and "be patient." I asked her again what were the accusations against me. She did not reply. The day before yesterday, I emailed her again and asked what was the conclusion of her "investigation." She did not reply me. However, she changed the settings of her group after my email.<br />
<br />
Well, I never saw such hostility as Megan has showed toward me. As far as I know, moderators and administrators usually let people know why they ban them and people who were banned have a right to know why they were banned. However, until now, Megan refused to let me know why she banned me. I did not expect such hostility from Megan because she and I cyber-met 4 years ago and, to my understanding, we never had any problems before she banned me.<br />
<br />
Since Megan has not been very active in the anti-cult field, she probably does not know that there is no such an official title as "cult expert" because there is no organization that certifies people as cult experts. This title is usually self-assumed. Consequently, there are no "leading cult experts of the country."<br />
<br />
Although Megan did not want to reveal me the name of this "cult expert," it was very easy for me to understand who this person is. His name is John M. Knapp. Of course, he is not a "leading cult expert of the country" and even not a leading professional in the anti-cult field in the USA, though he does have such ambitions and I think he may present himself as such.<br />
<br />
Knapp has been a member of Megan's group for almost two years. He did not often post there. However, as soon as Megan banned me, he and another member began to promote his CHSCA. So, I think one of the reasons he had Megan ban me was to have a freedom to promote his non-profit there. Before Megan banned me, I was a co-administrator and could easily delete his posts.<br />
<br />
Well, Knapp has quite a remarkable trait. When he has problems with people, he does not deal with them directly. Instead, he spreads various slanders about them. I know of some of his slanders regarding me and other people. However, he speaks them behind their backs. At the same time, he may try to have good relationships with these people. Ironically, just after Megan banned me, Knapp sent me two invitations to connect with him at LinkedIn, though he did not try to contact me since August 1, 2010 when we had a split. Also, I am well aware of Knapp's ability to separate people and break their friendships. In addition, I understand that he is unhappy at my blog posts about him. So, his behavior does not surprise me at all.<br />
<br />
However, Knapp's behavior does not vindicate Megan's behavior toward me. I was a moderator and administrator of Knapp's forum for 5 months. I heard what he said about some people and organizations. However, I also used my mind and critically evaluated what he said. I also considered my own experience with these people. I have never behaved in such a hostile way toward people even when I believed Knapp.<br />
<br />
Megan refused to let me know the accusations against me and did not want to name the person who accused me. She refused to let me an opportunity to speak in my defense. I never violated the rules of her group. The conflict between Knapp and me had to do with his forum and non-profit and had nothing to do with Megan's group. All this is unfair. In addition, her two replies were full of arrogance. BTW, Megan has been a member of my groups as well. Although she banned me, I did not ban her because she did not violate the group rules. I decided to be fair to her even though she is unfair to me.<br />
<br />
In this situation, I can no longer endorse Megan's group which is currently called <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_2211301939">Cult Awareness & Recovery</a> and which may soon become a branch of Knapp's CHSCA which I cannot endorse either.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Update.</span> After I published this post and let Megan know about it, she emailed me. She wrote that I may rejoin her group and apologized to me. However, until now, she did not let me know what happened: she did not give me any names, any accusations against me, and so on. So, this situation still looks quite odd to me.<br />
<br />
<b>Update (08/18/2012).</b> <i>Since I had written this post, Megan left the Facebook group Cult Awareness & Recovery. Currently, its admins are other people. Knapp is no longer a member of this group either. Somebody added me to that group, so I am a member of this group now.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9