Disappointment

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 25 of 189 · 20 per page

• From Reading Biblical Literature: Genesis to Revelation (2016)

  Lecture 35—Letters for Sojourners 235 up at the door. One is well dressed in fine clothes with fancy jewelry. The other is poor and dirty and wearing shabby clothes. How should the visitors be treated? ● This simple question points to a clash in value systems. Social convention would say that wealth usually warrants privilege. The wealthy person should be invited to take a comfortable seat at the gathering, while the person in rags would stand by the door or sit on the floor. ● But James asks how that common practice fits the fundamental conviction of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. He insists that in God’s eyes, the poor person has value. The writer goes on to say that there is nothing inherently virtuous about being wealthy. ● James highlights the difference between the two systems of value. On the one hand, social convention assumes that the wealthy are worthy of higher honor than the poor. On the other hand, the command to love one’s neighbor eliminates the idea that a person’s value can be equated with social class. James challenges readers to put their belief into practice, even when it runs counter to social conventions. Doing so is what integrity requires. ‹ At this point, the writer of James takes issue with a certain understanding of Paul’s ideas. ● In the letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that people are set in right relationship with God by faith, not by doing what the law requires. He used the example of Abraham as a person of faith. ● James assumes that some readers thought Paul’s message was that all that counts is having the right beliefs—actions are not important. James makes a sharp critique of that idea, arguing that faith without works is dead. You can have all the right beliefs about God, but if belief does not lead to action, then it is lifeless. James uses Abraham as a clear example of someone who put faith into practice. ‹ Both James and Paul insist that faith rightly takes the form of action, and both agree that saying one thing and doing something else shows a lack of integrity. But there is also tension between these writers because their concerns are not exactly the same. T o read Paul’s emphasis on the relational aspect of faith alongside James’s emphasis on the ethical implications helps ensure that we keep both dimensions in mind. Reading Biblical Literature: Genesis to Revelation236 In the 16th century, Martin Luther believed that James lacked substance, while Paul was the superior theologian; others have tried to even out this claim.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  He wanted to find an entirely new significance in the ancient oracle that would bring comfort to the Jews who were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Maccabean wars. This would become typical of Jewish exegesis. Instead of looking back to uncover its historical meaning, the interpreter would make the text speak to the present and the future. In order to seek out the hidden message in Jeremiah, Daniel put himself through a rigorous ascetic programme: ‘I turned my face to the Lord God begging for time to pray and to plead with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.’ 35 On another occasion, he said, ‘I ate no rich food, touched no meat or wine, and did not anoint myself, until these three weeks were over’. 36 As a result of these spiritual disciplines, he became the recipient of a divine inspiration: Gabriel, the angel of revelation, flew towards him and enabled him to discover a new meaning in the problematic passage. Torah study was becoming a prophetic discipline. The exegete now prepared himself to approach these ancient documents by purifying rituals, as if he were about to enter a holy place, putting himself into an alternative mental state that gave him fresh insight. The second-century author deliberately described Daniel’s enlightenment in a way that recalled the visionary experiences of Isaiah and Ezekiel. 37 But where Isaiah had received his prophetic initiation in the temple, Daniel found his in the sacred text. He did not have to eat the scroll like Ezekiel; instead he lived with the words of scripture constantly in his mind, interiorizing them, and found himself transformed – ‘purged, purified and made white’. 38 Finally the second-century author made Daniel predict the successful outcome of the Maccabean war by finding an entirely novel message in Jeremiah’s words. In riddling, enigmatic verse, Gabriel indicated that whether it took ‘seventy weeks’ or ‘seventy years’, the Maccabees would win through! The text had proved its holiness and divine origin by speaking directly to circumstances that the original author could not have foreseen. 39 Sadly, the Hasmonean dynasty founded by the Maccabees was a huge disappointment. The kings were cruel and corrupt; they were not descendants of David; and, to the horror of the more pious Jews, they violated the sanctity of the temple by assuming the office of High Priest, even though they were not of priestly descent. Outraged by this sacrilege, the historical imagination of the Jewish people projected itself into the future. At the end of the second century there was an explosion of apocalyptic piety. In new texts, Jews described eschatological visions in which God intervened powerfully in human affairs, smashed the present corrupt order and inaugurated an age of justice and purity. As they struggled to find a solution, the people of Judah split into myriad sects, each insisting that it alone was the true Israel.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  Torah study was becoming a prophetic discipline. The exegete now prepared himself to approach these ancient documents by purifying rituals, as if he were about to enter a holy place, putting himself into an alternative mental state that gave him fresh insight. The second-century author deliberately described Daniel’s enlightenment in a way that recalled the visionary experiences of Isaiah and Ezekiel.37 But where Isaiah had received his prophetic initiation in the temple, Daniel found his in the sacred text. He did not have to eat the scroll like Ezekiel; instead he lived with the words of scripture constantly in his mind, interiorizing them, and found himself transformed – ‘purged, purified and made white’.38 Finally the second-century author made Daniel predict the successful outcome of the Maccabean war by finding an entirely novel message in Jeremiah’s words. In riddling, enigmatic verse, Gabriel indicated that whether it took ‘seventy weeks’ or ‘seventy years’, the Maccabees would win through! The text had proved its holiness and divine origin by speaking directly to circumstances that the original author could not have foreseen.39 Sadly, the Hasmonean dynasty founded by the Maccabees was a huge disappointment. The kings were cruel and corrupt; they were not descendants of David; and, to the horror of the more pious Jews, they violated the sanctity of the temple by assuming the office of High Priest, even though they were not of priestly descent. Outraged by this sacrilege, the historical imagination of the Jewish people projected itself into the future. At the end of the second century there was an explosion of apocalyptic piety. In new texts, Jews described eschatological visions in which God intervened powerfully in human affairs, smashed the present corrupt order and inaugurated an age of justice and purity. As they struggled to find a solution, the people of Judah split into myriad sects, each insisting that it alone was the true Israel.40 This was, however, an extraordinarily creative period. The canon of the Bible had not yet been finalized. There was still no authoritative scripture and no orthodoxy and few of the sects felt bound to conform to traditional readings of the Law and the Prophets. Some even felt at liberty to write entirely new scriptures. The diversity of the Late Second Temple period was revealed when the library of the Qumran community was discovered in 1942.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  42 The author of the epistle to the Hebrews, who was probably writing at about the same time, was even more radical. He was trying to console a community of Jewish Christians who were beginning to lose heart by arguing forcefully that Christ had superseded the Torah, was more exalted than Moses 43 and that the sacrificial cult had simply foreshadowed Jesus’s priestly act in giving his life for humanity. 44 In an extraordinary passage, the author saw the entire history of Israel as exemplifying the virtue of pistis, trust in ‘realities that at present remain unseen’. 45 Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets had all exhibited this ‘faith’: that had been their greatest, indeed their sole achievement. 46 But, the author concluded, ‘they did not receive what was promised, since God made provision for us to have something better, and they were not to reach perfection except with us.’ 47 In this exegetical tour de force, the whole of Israelite history had been redefined, but in the process the old stories, which had been about far more than pistis, lost much of their rich complexity. Torah, temple and cult simply pointed to a future reality because God had always had something better in mind. Paul and the author of Hebrews showed future generations of Christians how to interpret the Hebrew Bible and make it their own. The other New Testament writers would develop this pesher and make it very difficult for Christians to see Jewish scripture as anything more than a prelude to Christianity. The Jesus movement was becoming controversial even before the disaster of 70. 48 Christians, like all the other Jewish groups, were shocked to the core when they saw Herod’s magnificent shrine reduced to a pile of burnt, stinking masonry. They may have dreamed of replacing Herod’s temple but nobody had envisaged life without a temple at all. But the Christians also saw its destruction as an apokalypsis, a ‘revelation’ or ‘unveiling’ of a reality that had been there all along but had not been seen clearly before – namely that Judaism was finished. The temple ruins symbolized its tragic demise and were a sign that the end was approaching. God would now pull down the rest of the defunct world order and establish the kingdom. The destruction of the first temple in 586 BCE had inspired an astonishing burst of creativity among the exiles in Babylon. The destruction of the second temple spurred a similar literary effort among the Christians. By the middle of the second century, nearly all the twenty-seven books of the New Testament had been completed. Communities were already quoting Paul’s letters as though they were scripture, 49 and readings from one of the biographies of Jesus that were in circulation had become customary during Sunday worship. The gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would eventually be selected for the canon, but there were many others.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  Buber, Rosenzweig and Frei all argued that the study of the Bible should not be confined to the ivory tower of academe but should be applied rigorously to the contemporary scene. Midrash and exegesis were always supposed to relate directly to the burning issues of the day, and the fundamentalists should not be the only people who attempt this. Buber and Rosenzweig both stressed the importance of listening to the Bible. Throughout this biography, we have considered the ways in which Jews and Christians have tried to cultivate a receptive, intuitive approach to scripture. This is difficult for us today. We are a talkative and opinionated society and not always good at listening. The discourse of politics, media and academe is essentially adversarial. While this is undoubtedly important in a democracy, it can mean that people are not really receptive to an opposing viewpoint. It is often apparent during a parliamentary debate or a panel discussion on television that while their opponents are speaking, participants are simply thinking up the next clever thing that they are going to say. Biblical discourse is often conducted in the same confrontational spirit, very different from the ‘listening ear’ proposed by the Hasidic leader, Dov Ber. We also expect immediate answers to complex questions. The soundbite is all. In biblical times, some people feared that a written scripture encouraged a slick, superficial ‘knowing’. This is surely an even greater danger in the electronic age, when people are used to finding truth at the click of a mouse. This makes a truly spiritual reading of the Bible difficult. The achievements of the historical-critical method have been magnificent; it has given us unprecedented knowledge about the Bible but has not yet provided us with a spirituality. Fishbane is right: the horoz and pesher exegesis of the past are no longer an option. Nor are the elaborate allegories of Origen, who was able to find a gospel miqra in every word of the Hebrew scriptures. This type of figurative exegesis offends modern academic sensibilities, because it violates the integrity of the original text. But there was a generosity in allegoria that is often lacking in modern discourse. Philo and Origen did not dismiss the biblical texts with disdain but gave them the benefit of the doubt. Modern philosophers of language have argued that ‘the principle of charity’ is essential for any form of communication. If we truly want to understand the other, we have to assume that he or she is speaking the truth. Allegoria was an attempt to find truth in texts that seemed barbarous and opaque and then ‘translate’ them into a more congenial idiom. 1 The logician N. L. Wilson has argued that a critic who confronts an alien body of texts must apply the ‘principle of charity’. He or she must seek interpretation, which ‘in light of what it knows of the facts, will maximize truth among the sentences of the corpus’.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  With the help of those Israelites who had remained in Babylonia, the Golah were about to transform their medley of texts into scripture. CHAPTER 2 Scripture Once the Judahites had completed their second temple on Mount Zion, they imagined that life would continue as before. But they were overcome by spiritual malaise. Many were disappointed with the new temple, which could not compete with the legendary splendour of Solomon’s shrine; the Golah had encountered stiff opposition from foreigners who had settled in Judah during the exiles’ absence in Babylonia; and they had received a less than cordial welcome from those Israelites who had not been deported by the Babylonians. The priests had become lazy and apathetic and provided no moral leadership. 1 But at the beginning of the fourth century, in about 398 BCE, the Persian king dispatched Ezra, his minister for Jewish affairs, to Jerusalem with a mandate to enforce the torah of Moses as the law of the land. 2 Ezra would make this set of hitherto miscellaneous teachings an absolute value, so that it became the Torah. The Persians were reviewing the legal systems of all their subjects to make sure that they were compatible with the security of the empire. An expert in Torah, Ezra had probably worked out a satisfactory modus vivendi between Mosaic law and Persian jurisprudence. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was appalled by what he found. The people were not maintaining the holy separation from the goyim that P had prescribed: some had even taken foreign wives. For a whole day, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were dismayed to see the king’s envoy tear his garments and sit in the public street in the posture of deep mourning. Then Ezra summoned the entire Golah to a meeting. Anybody who refused to attend would be cast out of the community and have his property confiscated. On New Year’s Day, Ezra brought the Torah to the square in front of the Water Gate. Standing on a raised wooden dais, he read the text aloud, ‘translating and giving the sense, so that the people understood what was read’, while Levites 3 versed in the Torah circulated among the crowds, supplementing this instruction. 4 We are not sure which laws were proclaimed on this occasion, but, whatever they were, the people had clearly never heard them before. They burst into tears, frightened by these unfamiliar demands. ‘Do not weep!’ Ezra insisted. They now ‘understood the meaning of what had been proclaimed to them’.

• From The Bible: A Biography (2007)

  But the Israelites who had not been deported to Babylonia, most of whom lived in the territories of the former northern kingdom, could not share this vision and would resent this exclusive attitude. The new temple, a rather modest shrine, finally completed in 520 BCE , made Yahwism a temple faith once again. But another spirituality began, very gradually, to develop alongside it. With the help of those Israelites who had remained in Babylonia, the Golah were about to transform their medley of texts into scripture. CHAPTER 2 Scripture Once the Judahites had completed their second temple on Mount Zion, they imagined that life would continue as before. But they were overcome by spiritual malaise. Many were disappointed with the new temple, which could not compete with the legendary splendour of Solomon’s shrine; the Golah had encountered stiff opposition from foreigners who had settled in Judah during the exiles’ absence in Babylonia; and they had received a less than cordial welcome from those Israelites who had not been deported by the Babylonians. The priests had become lazy and apathetic and provided no moral leadership. 1 But at the beginning of the fourth century, in about 398 BCE , the Persian king dispatched Ezra, his minister for Jewish affairs, to Jerusalem with a mandate to enforce the torah of Moses as the law of the land. 2 Ezra would make this set of hitherto miscellaneous teachings an absolute value, so that it became the Torah. The Persians were reviewing the legal systems of all their subjects to make sure that they were compatible with the security of the empire. An expert in Torah, Ezra had probably worked out a satisfactory modus vivendi between Mosaic law and Persian jurisprudence. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was appalled by what he found. The people were not maintaining the holy separation from the goyim that P had prescribed: some had even taken foreign wives. For a whole day, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were dismayed to see the king’s envoy tear his garments and sit in the public street in the posture of deep mourning. Then Ezra summoned the entire Golah to a meeting. Anybody who refused to attend would be cast out of the community and have his property confiscated. On New Year’s Day, Ezra brought the Torah to the square in front of the Water Gate. Standing on a raised wooden dais, he read the text aloud, ‘translating and giving the sense, so that the people understood what was read’, while Levites 3 versed in the Torah circulated among the crowds, supplementing this instruction. 4 We are not sure which laws were proclaimed on this occasion, but, whatever they were, the people had clearly never heard them before.

• From Bastard Out of Carolina (1992)

  He might have looked meaner, but he had a sweetness about him that Garvey didn’t. He’d always given us stolen candy and never pushed us around like Garvey did. But unlike his brother, Grey just didn’t have any luck. When he turned thirteen, he suddenly began to grow thick red-brown hair on his chest and arms. He tried to shave it off with his daddy’s straight razor, but that only made it grow back thicker. Garvey made fun of him for it, and in defense, Grey pretended stubbornly that he was proud of his “manly growth,” of how he was “turning into a bear.” It did make him look more different from Garvey—a lifelong ambition anyway. The only problem was that the hair didn’t grow back thicker, just patchy, and it itched him. It ruined his toughguy image, the way he was always standing around scratching at the reddish-brown hair on his forearms and the backs of his hands. Sometimes he’d seem to fall into a kind of trance, looking off into the distance, frowning and scratching. I found him standing like that back of Woolworth’s Friday. night. It was late—well past midnight—and I’d had trouble sneaking out of Alma’s house quietly enough not to wake Reese, so I was nervous and itchy myself. Grey scared me, standing out in the parking lot with the light pouring down from the Texaco sign across the street lighting up everything. A shadow hid the potato sack between his legs, and for a minute I thought he’d forgotten my hook. “Don’t sweat it,” he laughed when I demanded the hook. “I got it right here.” He squatted down and opened the sack, pulling out a four-pronged blackened object trailing a chain. “You ruined it!” I hissed. “I fixed it!” he almost yelled, and then looked over his shoulder and around the lot. “The paint will make it invisible when we throw it up the wall.” I grimaced and reached out to trace one paint-spattered point. It was still sharp, but the scary razor-and-steel feeling was gone. I swallowed hard. I had really loved the shine of it. “Those suckers had too much gleam on them for safety.” He sounded proud of himself for thinking of it. “Specially after I sharpened the points a little.” He dropped one shoulder and leaned close to me. “I just toned down the light-catching side of the thing. Still kept it sharp. The hard part was painting the chain. Did each link separate so it wouldn’t get all stiff and gummy. That’s a heavy-gauge chain there. Soldered, I think.” He grinned and scratched his hands happily.

• From Bastard Out of Carolina (1992)

  His hands came over and took hold of mine. He nodded intently twice, as if that were a whole conversation. His hands pumped my own. When he let go of me, I rocked on my feet. Then he was walking away. I wanted to call after him, but that would have drawn attention to both of us, and he had waited a long time to come up to speak to me. People were still milling around the gymnasium that night at the town meeting—his neighbors, most likely—and I doubted any of them would have known what he said. There were probably very few people in the world who knew his story, and that seemed to be the way he wanted it. I understood that. It was the second heartbreaking moment of that long day. The first had occurred that afternoon when I had been talking to the young teacher caught up in the censorship ruling made by the local school board. Hers had also been a stern, stubborn face, but young, so terribly young and passionate and determined. She was the one who had chosen Bastard Out of Carolina for her high school class, and when a parent complained she had set about trying to explain the choice, to say why she thought it important for the students to read. She had spoken about how young people develop a moral sense, and how hidden violence affected small communities, and how bringing that violence into the open made it possible to strengthen and enlarge concepts of social justice. “I didn’t think they would do all this,” she said. “I didn’t think they would ban the book. I didn’t think they would be so angry.” I looked into her face and understood what I had not before I had come three thousand miles to try to be of use in the case. I understood how deeply hurt she was, and how little help I could be. It was not that she was going to lose her job as a teacher, though that seemed to have already become inevitable. I saw how much more she was losing—perhaps the way she had seen what the young people in her class were losing. She was being forced to let go of her sense of justice, of how it worked, and of her conviction that justice as she understood it would always triumph. She wasn’t sure she could teach anymore. No, she was sure. She couldn’t. Maybe she would go back to school. Maybe she would study law. I did this , I thought. I messed up her life . Irrational, maybe.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The appeal was not entertained. The Emperor, who soon afterwards concluded peace with the Pope (June 29, 1529), and with the King of France (Aug. 5), refused even to grant the delegation of the Protestant States a respectful hearing at Piacenza (September), and kept them prisoners for a while. From this protest and appeal the Lutherans were called Protestants; with good reason, if we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains the same to this day. It is the duty of the church at all times to protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny, and every kind of iniquity. But the designation, which has since become a general term for evangelical Christians, is negative, and admits of an indiscriminate application to all who dissent from popery, no matter on what grounds and to what extent. It must be supplemented by the more important positive designation Evangelical. The gospel of Christ, as laid down in the New Testament, and proclaimed again in its primitive purity and power by the Reformation, is the basis of historical Protestantism, and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of Speier was based objectively upon the Word of God, subjectively upon the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the liberal decision of the Diet of 1526.953 Unfortunately, the moral force of the protest of Speier was soon weakened by dissensions among the signers. Luther and Melanchthon, who at that time were quite agreed on the eucharistic question, seriously objected to all political and military alliances, and especially to an alliance with the Zwinglians, whom they abhorred as heretics.954 They prevented vigorous measures of defense. Philip of Hesse, who was in full political, and in half theological, sympathy with the Swiss and Zwinglians, brought about in October of the same year the conference at Marburg in the hope of healing the Protestant schism: but the conference failed of its main object, and Protestantism had to carry on the conflict with Rome as a broken army. § 116. The Reconciliation of the Emperor and the Pope. The Crowning of the Emperor. 1529. The Emperor expressed to the Pope his deep regret at the sacking of the holy city. His breach with him was purely political and temporary. The French troops again entered Lombardy. Henry VIII. of England sympathized with Francis and the Pope. The Spanish counselors of Charles repre-sented to him that the imprisonment of the vicar of Christ was inconsistent with the traditional loyalty of Spain to the holy see.

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  The doctor seemed indifferent at first and said he couldn’t understand why there were any concerns. The wife explained that she was unhappy and very concerned about what she regarded as radical recent changes in his behavior since he became involved with Landmark. The doctor immediately responded that the LGAT had been a very positive experience and that he failed to see why his wife saw his continuing involvement or enthusiasm about the training as a problem that required discussion with a consultant. At this point the doctor’s wife explained that his behavior had substantially changed and that she saw those changes as negative, not positive. Specifically she cited that he was constantly talking about Landmark to their friends and his colleagues at work. She said people outside Landmark didn’t appreciate this, especially at the workplace, where it was most often not only unwanted but inappropriate. She concluded that, in her opinion, the LGAT and its philosophy engendered an intensely self-centered and frequently offensive demeanor and that her husband’s apparent obsessiveness with it had become increasingly difficult to deal with and endure. Again the doctor reacted by stating there was nothing wrong with the LGAT and that it was instead an inspiration, it was enlightening, and it addressed many human problems. At this juncture I asked the doctor if he had studied the history of Landmark Education. Based on his comments, it was evident that he hadn’t. I opened my bag and brought out a prepared file filled with research, including news reports and other relevant material regarding Landmark, formerly known as Erhard Seminar Training or EST. I explained that the privately owned company had a deeply troubled history of complaints, lawsuits, labor violations, and bad press. We looked over news articles from the United States and the United Kingdom. These reflected the continuing controversy that has historically surrounded the company and its founder, Werner Erhard, for decades. Recounting Werner Erhard’s personal history, I asked the doctor how it could be that the originator of Landmark’s training hadn’t evidently benefited directly from the philosophy in his personal life. Erhard has been married and divorced twice, and he has reportedly had deeply troubled relationships with his children.1057 But this personal turmoil occurred largely after his supposed epiphany of self-realization. Why hadn’t his philosophy been more effective in helping him with his own personal relationships? And if the EST/Landmark philosophy had largely failed its founder, how could it be expected to help others in their marital and family situations? The doctor disregarded Erhard’s personal history and simply said that the training had worked for him. Once again, however, his wife immediately disagreed and pointed out the strain she felt and said the LGAT seemed to be causing a rift in their relationship. I pointed out similar complaints regarding the strain EST and Landmark training had caused in families and marriages, specifically the estrangement it might potentially create if a spouse or family member disagreed or objected to the LGAT or its philosophy.

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  Though the group and its leader were relatively obscure, it had drawn some attention in this region of Italy, and people called it a “cult.” The leader often recruited people through personal and family relationships. It seems likely that the leader may have believed he could recruit the engineer through his love interest. The investigator had also interviewed the parents of the engineer’s former fiancée. He told us that her older sister, an early devotee of the leader, had recruited her. We later met with her parents, who explained that both of their daughters had completely cut them off after they raised critical concerns about the group. It had been years since the mother or father communicated with either of their children. They were quite surprised but happy when their daughter briefly visited them accompanied by the engineer to announce her engagement. They didn’t fully understand the situation, but hoped the marriage might end the leader’s control over their daughter. Though sympathetic, the parents now felt that the situation was hopeless and wouldn’t assist in any intervention effort. We waited at the private investigator’s office one morning to meet the young woman. As planned, she appeared promptly at the scheduled time to pick up her belongings. But when she saw us, she immediately became furious. The meeting ended quickly, in less than fifteen minutes, and was a complete failure. The only aspect of this effort that might be considered meaningful was that the engineer experienced a kind of closure. But he left Italy disappointed and heartbroken. This failed intervention illustrates a very important point. Without ongoing communication and meaningful access, there is no basis for likely success through an intervention effort. In my opinion, though a desperate approach like the one the engineer devised may at times be the only alternative, such an approach will most likely end in failure. If at all possible, waiting for a more viable alternative is almost always better. This may take considerable time and planning, and it may also involve some investigation to locate the cult-involved person and learn more about his or her daily life. For example, does he or she live independently or with members of a particular group? Is there any level of communication that currently exists and can be developed? Is there a possibility that the cult-involved person might visit family members or old friends outside the group? Does the cult-involved person communicate with anyone on a regular basis outside the group? Is he or she independently accessible in some other way through a workplace situation or somewhere else outside the group? If the answers to such questions repeatedly lead to the conclusion that there is no way to communicate with, or have any meaningful access to, the cult-involved person, then there is no reason to retain a cult-intervention specialist or consultant.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AMBROSE. But our Lord sought, not because He was ignorant that the fig tree had no fruit, but that He might shew in a figure that the synagogue ought by this time to have fruit. Lastly, from what follows, He teaches that He Himself came not before the time who came after three years. For so it is said, Then said he to the dresser of the vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none. He came to Abraham, He came to Moses, He came to Mary, that is, He came in the seal of the covenant, He came in the law, He came in the body. We recognise His coming by His gifts; at one time purification, at another sanctification, at another justification. Circumcision purified, the law sanctified, grace justified. The Jewish people then could not be purified because they had not the circumcision of the heart, but of the body; nor be sanctified, because ignorant of the meaning of the law, they followed carnal things rather than spiritual; nor justified, because not working repentance for their offences, they knew nothing of grace. Rightly then was there no fruit found in the synagogue, and consequently it is ordered to be cut down; for it follows, Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground? But the merciful dresser, perhaps meaning him on whom the Church is founded, foreseeing that another would be sent to the Gentiles, but he himself to them who were of the circumcision, piously intercedes that it may not be cut off; trusting to his calling, that the Jewish people also might be saved through the Church. Hence it follows, And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also. He soon perceived hardness of heart and pride to be the causes of the barrenness of the Jews. He knew therefore how to discipline, who knew how to censure faults. Therefore adds He, till I shall dig about it. He promises that the hardness of their hearts shall be dug about by the Apostles’ spades, lest a heap of earth cover up and obscure the root of wisdom. And He adds, and dung it, that is, by the grace of humility, by which even the fig is thought to become fruitful toward the Gospel of Christ. Hence He adds, And if it bear fruit, well, that is, it shall be well, but if not, then after that thou shall cut it down. BEDE. Which indeed came to pass under the Romans, by whom the Jewish nation was cut off, and thrust out from the land of promise. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Or, in another sense, the fig tree is the race of mankind. For the first man after he had sinned concealed with fig leaves his nakedness, that is, the members from which we derive our birth.

• From Fragments (7)

  The Anacreontea are a collection of poems from the Roman and Byzantine periods which were at- tached to the Anthology of Constantinus Cephalas. They are imitations of the traditional Anacreon, Anacreon conceived as a light-hearted, jovial old man who had no other interests than love, wine, and song. The superscription in the manuscript claims Anacreon himself as author, and consequently they were accepted as genuine even as late as last century. In fact, the prevalent conception of that poet has come altogether from these imitations rather than the genuine fragments. As long as the Anacreontea were supposed to have come from Anacreon himself, they received the most extravagant admiration and were lauded to the skies. Just so soon, however, as it was known that they were spurious, many went to the opposite ex- treme and found them all an absolute abomination. In reality, as is to be expected of a collection from the hands of different authors of different periods, their merit varies widely. Some, e.g. nos. 31 and 32, are perfectly worthy of Anacreon. Others, e. g. no. 13, are worse than worthless, coming in the III Lyric Songs of the Greeks category either of the grotesque or silly, or of medi- ocre insipidity. The reasons for rejecting the genuineness of the Anacreontea are various. In the first place, some are attributed also to other writers, e. g. no. 5 to Julian, and others show that the author himself had no desire of palming off his work as Anacreon's. In no. I Anacreon appears to the author in a dream, in no. 58 we find an exhortation to imitate Anac- reon, in no. 20 he is mentioned with Sappho and Pindar as one of three great lyric poets, apparently of the past, and in no. 14 there appear references to him which never could have been made by himself ; for he appears surrounded by a sort of halo which shows that he had become a traditional figure. In the next place, there are references to conditions and circumstances which are much later than the time of Anacreon, e. g. Rhodian painters (no. 15), the Par- thians (no. 26b), the Stoic philosophy that the sun feeds itself from the sea (no. 21), and the use of doves as letter-carriers (no. 14). On the other hand, references to the peculiar circumstances and persons which surrounded the real Anacreon are wanting. We see nothing of the court favorites like Smerdies or Cleobulus, only the shadowy name Bathyllus, with no reference to real personal traits or events. Furthermore, there are almost no traces 112 Anacreontea

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  I have compassion for the practitioners but I think the supervisors have been duped by the master’s party line,” Thomas Brown told the press. “I challenge any gay person in this city to get any Falun Gong practitioner to state they do not agree with their master’s belief. I have never heard them refute what he has said. There is deception here.” He added, “I think it is a vote that will come back to haunt some of the supervisors.”809 Brown’s roommate, Samuel Luo, called the resolution “a huge disappointment” and warned that the group will use it “to recruit members. It makes it hard for people like me to get family members out of the cult.” Luo’s concern included his parents’ involvement with Falun Gong and how the group has affected their lives and family relationships. Thom Lynch, executive director of the LGBT Community Center, told the press, “I think it is great that the leadership in the Chinese community recognizes the homophobia of this group and I would support their efforts not to let them march [in a Chinese New Year parade].”810 In response to such statements, one Falun Gong practitioner wrote me, “Actually all orthodox (upright) religions view this matter in the same way, Christianity included, it is very hard to reach heaven when practicing homosexuality.”811 Falun Gong Media In 2006 a woman named Wang Wenyi briefly drew attention through what seemed to be a purposely planned publicity stunt. Attending a White House event to honor Chinese president Hu Jintao with an official press pass, Wang unfurled a banner for Falun Gong and screamed at presidents Bush and Hu. Wang had gained entrance to the highly secured area with an official press pass issued through a newspaper called the Epoch Times .812 Falun Gong appears to have followed in the lead of the Unification Church, which effectively controls the Washington Times . Followers of Li Hongzhi control the Epoch Times . John Nania, editor in chief of the Epoch Times US editions; its Boston editor, Martin Fox; and the newspaper’s opinion editor, Stephen Gregory, were reported to be Falun Gong practitioners.813 A cable television network named New Tang Dynasty Television, which is a New York City nonprofit satellite broadcaster, is also operated by a staff that includes members of Falun Gong.814 These media interests seem to essentially function as public relations arms for Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong. As one news report about the Epoch Times noted, the publication “tends to be remarkably sympathetic to the controversial sect and generally provides a platform to preach Falun Gong’s beliefs.”815 When Wang Wenyi interrupted the White House function, she shouted, “President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong! Falun Dafa is good.”816 That wasn’t exactly a question from the press or behavior expected from a legitimate journalist. But it does reflect the public relations agenda of Falun Gong.

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  When Wood died in 2011 at the age of sixty-seven, no one she knew professionally through her long career found out until it appeared in a newspaper. 2012—Alleged Abuses of David Miscavige 2012 would prove to be a very bad year for Scientology, both in court and generally through negative media exposure. Seemingly endless bad press would engulf the purported cult, first through former members claiming the church had abused them and also through the breakdown of its most famous member’s marriage, that of movie star Tom Cruise. In January 2012 Debbie Cook, formerly one of the most high-ranking staff members of Scientology, sent out an e-mail raising questions about the organization’s fund-raising tactics. It seems that Cook hoped to reform the church from within and urged thousands of Scientologists who received her e-mail to take on what she called the “responsibility that every Scientologist has” regarding the legacy of L. Ron Hubbard.887 Cook claimed that despite seemingly endless appeals for needed money, Scientology actually held more than $1 billion in cash reserves. Fifty-year-old Cook had served Scientology faithfully since she was a teenager. She’d risen in its ranks and assumed command of the church’s important hub in Clearwater, Florida, reportedly “the most revered Scientology spiritual center anywhere.” Cook ran Clearwater for seventeen years before leaving in 2007.888 In a prepared statement she said after her January e-mail, “I am not trying to pick a fight with the Church, nor am I bitter, or blasting or any of the other things concocted by other media outlets. I am simply asking my friends to do their part, the part that Mr. Hubbard asked of all Scientologists, which is to make sure that they only follow the workable technology laid out in policy and bulletins written by Hubbard exactly as he wrote them. This is the responsibility every Scientologist has—to keep it unadulterated.”889 Cook and other former Scientology staff seem to feel that David Miscavige, Hubbard’s successor and the current head of Scientology, has somehow adulterated Hubbard’s teachings. Like Cook, David Miscavige started with Scientology when he was very young. His father, Ron Miscavige Sr., brought him into the organization as a small and sickly boy, suffering from asthma and severe allergies. But by the time he was twelve, David Miscavige was reportedly already providing Scientology’s version of religious counseling, called “auditing.”890 Dropping out of high school at sixteen, Miscavige embraced Scientology full time. “I wanted to dedicate my life to this…The thought of hanging around two more years in that existence so that I could match up with the status quo meant nothing to me because I knew that in two years I would go and work with the church anyway,” he explained in an interview.891 Miscavige became a staff member of Scientology in what is known as the Sea Organization (Sea Org), working within the “Commodore’s Messenger Organization.” “Commodore” was the title Hubbard gave himself when he created a personal navy within Scientology.

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  The study determined that the market was already saturated and that adding more casinos was therefore not advisable.1150 I asked the young man what limits Amway had set regarding how many distributors were selling its products in a given area to avoid market saturation. What specific policies or rules reflected Amway’s ongoing effort to avoid having too many distributors in the same place? Did Amway set limits concerning distributors by area? The young man couldn’t think of any limitations Amway had ever set regarding the number of distributors in an area. In fact, distributors were encouraged to recruit more distributors in their area regardless of how many there might already be in the neighborhood, city, state, or region. Another focus of discussion was how Amway or Quixtar people make money. That is, what is the primary focus of Amway? Is it the sale of its products or the promotion of its multilevel business plan in an effort to recruit more distributors? I pointed out that historically lawsuits filed against Amway have asserted that distributors are pressured to buy products and “motivational materials” and that it is a relatively small group of “kingpins” presiding over thousands of down-line distributors who make significant amounts of money. Reportedly, I said, Amway‘s elite make most of their money selling materials, known within Amway or Quixtar as the “tool and function” end of the business. The ratio of tools income as opposed to regular Amway business is reportedly “nine-to-one or more.”1151 The son readily admitted that he had paid for such motivational materials and that based on his experience, the focus in Amway was often on recruiting more distributors rather than on simply selling company products. He also acknowledged that he and other distributors were pressured to purchase Amway products. I pointed out that reportedly “Amway distributors earn an average of just $115 a month.” And that “just a quarter of 1% (0.26%) make more than $40,000 a year.”1152 I asked the young man whether it was really possible for him to make enough money through Amway to support himself, considering the expense of buying Amway products and tools. This analysis seemed to disturb the young man. He said that all businesses included some risk but admitted that it wasn’t rational to be in a business without the reasonable hope of future success and profitability. He, like other Amway distributors, hoped to somehow be not an average distributor but rather an exceptional one. But was it reasonable to expect this outcome given the numbers? The question now was why anyone would engage or remain in a business without a reasonable hope for meaningful success. Didn’t Amway/ Quixtar people understand that the odds were stacked against success, as the numbers reflected? Why would people make a business commitment if it wasn’t in their own best interest? After all, isn’t business about making money? At this juncture I pointed out that Amway had settled a class action lawsuit for $56 million.

• From Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out (2014)

  Substantial historical documentation was available about this particular group through news reports and court records. The organization had often been called a “cult.” I assembled a file and flew in to prepare the family for the intervention. When I met with them the day before the intervention, we discussed what could potentially go wrong and what our respective roles would be during the process. On the day of the intervention, when I met the son for the first time, talking with him was difficult. Hours passed, but we were unable to maintain an ongoing exchange of ideas. He would talk—often, it seemed, to himself—then drift away into an apparent alternate world of his own, disconnected from his surroundings. After almost a day of the parents and me trying to engage the young man, without success, I asked his mother and father to meet with me privately in another room. I explained that it was impossible for me to share information without a meaningful level of communication. I advised the parents to seek help from a doctor in their local area. The situation was outside my expertise, and I couldn’t help them. Later doctors established that the young man had experienced a kind of mental breakdown, and he was hospitalized. His cultic involvement may have caused this in part, or there may have been an underlying condition his group involvement somehow exacerbated. In any event the problem wasn’t something an intervention could address; it instead required the immediate attention of a doctor. Hopefully, these examples of failed interventions can help those who are concerned better understand the possible problems that may develop during an effort. It has been said that whenever information is shared during an intervention, the effort can be seen as successful. When families retain a cult-intervention consultant, however, they usually expect much more defined results. That is why I have very specifically defined the net result of a successful intervention. That is, the person who is the focus of the intervention decides to leave the group or cultic situation by the conclusion of that effort. It’s important to reiterate again that meaningful communication and access are the foundations for any intervention. Until those crucial elements or ingredients are developed or are evident, there is no need to retain a specialist or consultant for an assessment or to prepare for an intervention. CHAPTER 23 MOVING ON Generally most cult members eventually move on and leave the group. Sadly, this separation may take place after they have experienced years of deception, exploitation, and destructive consequences in their personal lives. Cult members frequently experience psychological, emotional, and at times physical or sexual abuse. The experience of each former cult member will vary according to his or her individual involvement in the group and its level of destructive behavior. Members in many destructive cults are encouraged to become increasingly dependent through the use of coercive persuasion techniques. The net result of such cultic manipulation culminates in a form of undue influence.

• From Augustine: A New Biography (2005)

  The deacon Eraclius was a special case, and he came next. He had provided the funds to build the shrine of Saint Stephen (whose coming to Hippo we will witness with suitable astonishment shortly). He had also bought a house and donated it to the church, just a few days ago, by an extraordinary coincidence, and he, too, would set free a few slaves later that day. “Don’t let anybody say, ‘He’s a rich man,’” Augustine entreated the congregation. “Don’t let anybody think it, don’t let anybody speak ill of him, don’t let anybody go gnawing at him and his fine spirit.” Happily for Augustine, his subdeacons seemed to be ethically clean, but not so the priests. They were poor men, and, well, a couple of explanations were in order. First, there was Leporius. He was wellborn but came to Augustine and the clerical life in poverty, the poverty that came from selling what he had and giving the proceeds to the poor, not here in Hippo, but Augustine knew where he’d done it. Leporius also looked after the expenses of Augustine’s monastery, and of course he had built a pilgrim’s hostel for the church: Augustine told him to. Oh, and a basilica in honor of the eight martyrs, he built that as well. And bought a house so he could use its stone for his hostel, but then the stone wasn’t necessary, and so the house had been rented, the income going to the church. People call it “the priest’s house,” but it’s not—really, it’s not. And then one last piece of good news. Remember the son and daughter of Januarius, quarreling over their inheritance? Augustine had been planning to resolve it, but sometime since the first sermon they had spontaneously kissed and made up and there was no quarrel left. Augustine was delighted. After a warning to the congregation to beware of giving gifts to clergy (give to the monastery and all the clergy will benefit equally), there was the case of the priest Barnabas. Had he really bought a house from the fine gentleman Eleusinus? No, Eleusinus had given it to him. The sermon breaks off about there. These sermons tell us all we know of this band of brothers, this holy and pious tribe of self-sacrificing ascetics. Whatever the truth of Augustine’s protestations, we are left with an unmistakable flavor of a community less drastically cut off from the secular world than Augustine wanted, one of ordinary people with ordinary wants and quarrels, too ordinary for Augustine’s comfort. That’s what he had to live with. And it wasn’t the worst. We’ll reserve the story of Antoninus of Fussala, the worst of Augustine’s bad boys, for its place in a larger story.

• From Augustine: A New Biography (2005)

  Not only the Donatists ensnared Augustine’s men. A subdeacon, an old man by Augustine’s standards, was found to have been a secret Manichean hearer and to have been teaching the sect’s doctrines. Augustine banished him, and we know the story from his letter warning another bishop not to be taken in by the man if he came his way. Another cleric, in the early years of Augustine at Hippo, needed to be warned not to allow Manichean texts to be read in public.314 Augustine addressed that behavior as an oversight (and some seemingly devout texts might well find readers who did not appreciate the doctrinal fine points), but others might not be so tolerant. (And those who would think that Augustine had never really left the Manichees behind would treat these cases as shocking revelations.) The most exceptional group of people devoting themselves to the religious life under Augustine’s care turn out to be no easier to handle than the priests and deacons. Augustine’s sister was ensconced at Hippo as the leader of a religious community for women. A letter Augustine wrote to her315 has long been taken as a “rule for women” and forms part of the disciplinary basis of numerous modern religious orders. Read attentively, it reveals not only the glories but also the challenges of such a community. It begins with a foul breath of discontent in the air. The women want him to come and visit them to straighten things out, but he thinks that this will only make things worse, and that they know that. Their community is riven with quarrels, rivalries, hostilities, disagreements, backbiting, insolence, and muttering. He has several particular requirements to impose on them (including the assignment of a male supervisor). There was to be no singing of impermissible songs (old Donatist hymns?). They were to avoid all forms of unchastity, and he realizes that the absence of men from the community does not make such misbehavior impossible: “The things that people do when they take no thought of modesty, even women with women, when they are laughing and playing shamefully, shouldn’t be done—I don’t say just by widows and virgins devoted to Christ with holy purpose but not even by married ladies or by girls who will be married.”316 Class distinction persists in the women’s house. Those who have been somebody in the world outside should not turn their noses up at those who came to religion from poverty,317 but neither should anyone take it amiss that some of the more delicate sisters got special treatment in the way of clothing, bedding, and food.318