In the 1990s, a “refinement” of the process was introduced by interventionists like Carol Giambalvo, Steven Hassan, Rick Ross, and Mary Alice Chrnalogar, namely “exit-counseling.” This is much like deprogramming, with two major differences: it is _voluntary_ on the part of the cult member, and it is more respectful on the part of the exit-counselor — i.e., there is no browbeating or harangu-ing. In fact, I know exit counselors who have actually driven cult members to the airport when they refused to stay and listen to him/her. Most people outside the counter-cult world do not recognize the differences between “deprogramming” and “exit-counseling” and so frequently use the terms interchangeably. Thus, Wellspring has sometimes been accused of engaging in or condoning “deprogramming” when in fact it has only ever approved of “exit-counseling.”
With that as background, Sam, I will now say that Wellspring has _never_ “participated directly or indirectly, witnessed, approved, encouraged, advised, counseled, in the process of a de-programming of a GC person(s) in any shape or form” — and you can add any other verbs or adverbs you wish to your list. I will qualify my state-ment only to add, “as far as I am aware.” I was on the Wellspring staff for 17 years, from its third year of exis-tence (1988) until my retirement in June 2005, and I do not know any instance in which anyone there did any of the above, not just in regard to GC* members, but in regard to _any_ member of a cult or aberrational church. Certainly, I don’t know what some secretary or other staff person may have told a parent or other person on the telephone or by e-mail, but I _do_ know it has always been Wellspring policy not to recommend deprogramming. As a matter of fact, it was strict policy not even to give out the names of exit-counselors.
Over the years, Wellspring has counseled numerous individuals who _were_ deprogrammed, but their depro-grammings were in every case arranged by the parents or others apart from any involvement by Wellspring. And in almost every case, the ex-cult member was grateful their parents loved and cared enough about them to arrange their interventions.
If this is not clear enough for you, Sam, I suggest we continue the discussion through private e-mail ex-change. My e-mail address is: cltexprt511@yahoo.com. I am still open to receive the particulars of any cases you _know_ of in which Wellspring _was_ involved in a deprogramming of GC* members — and I’d appreciate knowing the name(s) of whomever “informed” you of such. This, however, is my last comment on this issue on this forum.

I should have asked Larry, early on, if he or anyone in Wellspring has done “exit counseling” on/with GC folks. He has not yet answered this when I last approached him.

I find that when we cannot question both sides there something wrong. That’s tantamount to a dogma position in reverse.

I have been mistreated by Wellspring folks (motivation of “set-up” and then publicly trashed at a conference). I find that lacking integrity the other way. Puff, I would encourage you not to swallow everything they say without a critical mind. It sure appears that way that you won’t question the accusers to make sure their data is valid, credible, and consistent in every point.

As for registering with my email on the other forum, I cannot. It rejects me. It will take long names because it shows my name is already in but I cannot access it.

Puff: I think Nate is cheating on his wife. I seem to recall hearing something about his unfaithfulness a few weeks ago.

Nate: That’s ridiculous, Puff! I’m not cheating on my wife.

Puff: Well, wait a minute. Are you saying you aren’t cheating on your wife NOW? As in, you might have done so in the past but aren’t currently?

Nate: Absolutely not, I have NEVER had an adulterous relationship with another woman! I find the very notion offensive, please stop insisting that I have done so.

Puff: Hold on a second. I see through your “clever wordplay.” You’re a very sneaky person Nate, but you’ve clearly avoided my question through the use of ambiguous terms that could mean a wide range of things! Now I am going to ask you, this time with the clearest language possible, have you EVER had any sort of inappropriate physical contact with another woman since you’ve been married? This INCLUDES kissing, OR holding hands!

Nate: Puff, you’re completely out of line! I told you already, I HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY FAITHFUL TO MY WIFE. Do you need me to translate this conversation to pig latin? Unless you have some sort of evidence you’d like to submit, please stop accusing me of adultury.

Puff: WHOA WHOA WHOA. Now you’ve crossed some DEFINITE LINES. Oh, you’re a sneaky one Nate. With your verbal gymnastics and clever manuvering, you’ve hardly answered my question at all! On top of that, you’ve proven to the world you’re a RACIST.

Nate: I’m sorry about my remark, it was out of line, but I don’t consider myself a racist at all. Puff, I am going to tell you one last time, and then I will cease to respond to you. I have NEVER cheated on my WIFE, in any manner, EVER.

Puff: Ah ha! So you still refuse to answer my question! You’ve never “cheated” on your wife? That term could mean MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. You are still being so unclear. It’s so obvious that you are GUILTY!!! Also, I notice how tactfully you use the word “wife,” probably to clear you of any wrongdoing when she was just your FIANCEE! Now, I am going to ask you again, using more precise terminology…

(And on and on it goes.)

And no, we’re not bringing over the various Wellspring “debates.” Larry Pile has been nothing but a valuable resource to us, and questioning his integrity and motives in almost every thread was getting tiring. Plus, please keep in mind that while you have accused him of wrongful behavior, you have never provided any actual proof or testimony other than your own feelings. Given Larry and even Wellspring’s website denies any involvement in deprogramming, it seems rather unlikely they were involved in such activity. Continuing to assert that they were is tanamont to slander (well, libel).

I might bring over one of the past debates about Wellspring’s motivations, but the deprogramming charges are not coming over. The current moderator’s are in agreement on this.

That said, you are still welcome to join us.

I noticed that none of my responses to Larry Pile have been included in the new forum. For appropriate balance, I would suggest they be included.

I am confused. I still feel like inaccurate conclusions were jumped to after my posts that may have buried them. I would still like to know what Larry thinks about this interpretation!

Phillipeans 1:12-18 covers this topic.

The ones inside won’t come out until they are ready to come out. That applies to the leaders as well.

You’ll need to click Register and register an account, and then go to the Ask Larry Pile forum (at the url above) and then you’ll find the various questions to you separated into individual threads. If you have any questions about how to use the forum, let me know.

So what if the local leaders make their decision based on what they are told by somebody else (like a bishop or pope)? Under the dictionary definition, that would be a violation of autonomy. Under the GCx definition, it’s none of your business – just obey what your local leaders say.

Larry

If the issue (s) was/were merely that of GC* pastors, teachers and others preaching Christ “out of envy and strife” I wouldn’t mind so much. But I know of no ex-leaders or ex-members who make that charge. I for one have always believed and said that so far as I can tell the founders (including McCotter) and other leaders are all sincere. And I DO rejoice that Christ is being and has been preached — often with great clarity and success.

What I criticize is the damage that has often been inflicted on new converts (and “old” ones too) by authortaritarian leadership/discipleship, of which this blog is prime evidence.

I also object to the past (?) climate in GC* that led leaders and others to play fast and loose with the truth on many occasions.

Notice also that, though Paul didn’t name any names in Phil. 1, he did point out the problem in a negative way.

Larry