Daily Kos

"The Family" and its use of cells, explained

Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:44:40 PM PDT

A few days ago, I wrote a post expressing concern re Hillary Clinton's reported involvement in a cell-church group operated by the longest-running political dominionist group in existence--some folks considered this a wee bit controversial, in part because it was "OMG CANDIDATE DIARY" (to be honest, I'm worried about her) and partly because folks noted "there is no clear evidence this is coercive".

After some discussion with Jeff Sharlet over in Fred Clarkson's article on "The Family"--in which he's discussed info that will be included in his upcoming book--it would appear that not only does "The Family" use the same model as other coercive groups using pyramid-like structures, but may well have originated its use politically.

A history of cell-church groups, revised

In my initial history of cell-church groups, I had noted that the earliest use I had documented for the use of cell-groups in any manner was the late 40s-early 50s within the Assemblies of God (a group known for its promotion of neopentecostal dominionism--being quite possibly the originators of it from a very early period).

For those unfamiliar with the term "cell church"--especially those of you new to the ongoing series I've done here on DailyKos--a "cell church" is a group of six to twelve people plus a "shepherd" or "leader" (who is quite frequently in a "cell" of leaders with a "shepherd" over them, and so on and so on till you get to the leader of the entire group).  

It's a setup like AmWay (essentially a religious pyramid scheme); there is also, typically, a lot of "big brotherism" (define big brotherism here) that goes on within cells and among shepherds to their "flock".

The tactic (based on a history I've done ) appears to have been invented so that "cuckoo congregations"(define this term here) could be set up in other churches to target other members for conversion - with the goal of everyone eventually being in a "cell".

The cell church tactic has been adapted to infiltrating political groups.  It's also become very popular in neopentecostal dominionist megachurches, and  in Southern Baptist churches -- as a management tool for growing megachurches very quickly and keeping an "iron fist" of control over  memberships that can stretch into the tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of Yoido Full Gospel in South Korea).

Recent research I've done regarding the history of the violent "Joel's Army"/"Joshua Generation" group "Watchmen At The Walls" has pushed back the use of cells in church steeplejacks probably to the late 1910s-early 1920s (again originating with the Assemblies)--and recent info from Sharlet which is to be published in his upcoming book "The Family" indicates that not only did "The Family" originate the practice but cell-church groups may have already been in semi-common use politically.

Specifically, Sharlet has traced the origin of political cell-church usage in "The Family" to one Frank N.D. Buchman, who may well have become acquainted with the practice via the use of cell-churches in China (later notable promoters of highly abusive cell-churches in China and among Chinese emigre communities include Watchman Nee and Witness Lee).  In the 20s, he eventually was kicked out of China--in no small part because he accused other missionaries of being homosexuals.

Buchman well may have been one of the first dominionists in the US not affiliated with a neopentecostal church; he was a Lutheran, and in 1921 onward he founded an early dominionist group originally known as "The Oxford Group" and later becoming known as Moral Re-Armament (it has since gone through another reinvention and is known now as Initiatives of Change, and would superficially appear to have toned down some of its rhetoric).

Moral Re-Armament spawned not only Alcoholics Anonymous (a program that has come under criticism because of its reliance on a deity) but the program "Up With People"; its "Four Absolutes" (absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness and absolute love) were seen to waffle in practice (there's some evidence that an early version of "bait and switch evangelism" or "heavenly deception" may have been used in that "absolute love" could require the telling of "white lies"), and the group became enough of a personality cult (around Buchman and--in a manner similar to that of neopente dominionist groups and what has been reported re "The Family"--the emphasis of "rhema" (personal revelation) along with and even over "logos" (the written Word)) that the conservative Catholic League itself warned Roman Catholics against association with the group as of 1951.

The Catholic League article actually does have some interesting info on the group:

The basic tenet of MRA is that the reformation of the world can only be achieved by creating a moral and spiritual force, by convincing all men of the necessity of absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness, and absolute love. As helps to the practice of these cardinal virtues and to the further development of their moral life, the members of MRA engage in the exercises of sharing, surrender, substitution, and guidance. It is the last practice in particular that is of interest in an evaluation of this group.

Many leaders, Buchman states, are convinced that the world needs a moral and spiritual awakening, and they put their case in striking phrases. But that is only words. The problem facing men is how to do it. To solve this difficulty Buchman turns to God:

   Now I find when we don’t know how, God will show us if we are willing. When man listens, God speaks. When man obeys, God acts. The secret is God-control. We are not out to tell God. We are out to let God tell us. And He will tell us.

   The lesson the world most needs is the art of listening to God. [2]

Listening to God is the heart of MRA. As a program of spiritual reformation, it must be performed according to protocol. Everyone must set aside a "quiet time" of fifteen minutes a day to listen to the voice of God. Although "anyone can hear the words of the Lord," it is also necessary to obey certain rules:

   The first rule is that we listen honestly for everything that may come—and if we are wise we write it down. The second rule is that we test the thoughts that come, to see which are from God.

   One test is the Bible. It is steeped in the experience through the centuries of men who have dared, under Divine guidance, to live experimentally with God. There, culminating in the life of Jesus Christ, we find the highest moral and spiritual challenge—complete honesty, purity, unselfishness, and love.

   Another excellent test is, "What do others say who also listen to God?" This is an unwritten law of fellowship. It is also an acid test of one’s commitment to God’s plan. No one can be wholly God-controlled who works alone. [3]

Buchman is sure that he has this direct guidance from on high:

   In a revolution I went through not long ago, God gave me direct orders to stay in a place which the authorities had said was the most dangerous of all. I stayed. Others, who fled in search of safety, nearly lost their lives. My friend and I were perfectly safe. [4]

The results of his listening are clear. He finds that God’s thoughts become his thoughts. In fact, "direct messages come from the Mind of God to the mind of man—definite, direct, decisive. God speaks." [5]

This gift is not limited to himself. Everyone can, in fact, must, receive his instruction directly from God:

   We accept as a commonplace a man’s voice carried by radio to the uttermost parts of the earth. Why not the voice of the living God as an active, creative force in every home, every business, every parliament? Men listen to a king when he speaks to his people over the air. Why not the King of Kings? He is alive, and constantly broadcasting. [6]

Thus divine guidance must become the normal experience of ordinary men and women. "Any man," says Buchman, "can pick up divine messages if he will put his receiving set in order. Definite, accurate, adequate information can come from the Mind of God to the minds of men." [7]

Receiving this communication from God to begin a life governed by absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness, and love is only the first step. It is the reform of self which must come before anything else can be accomplished. But the aim of MRA is more comprehensive. Buchman envisages the change not only of individuals, but, through them, of the entire human race:

   Wherever I go people say one thing: "If only so-and-so would be changed!" You probably thought of the very person. Or you probably thought of five persons. Well, think of five persons changed. Think of nations changed. Is that the answer? The world is looking for an answer, and, by the Grace of God, there is an answer. But be clear on this point, the answer is not in any man or any group of men. The answer rests in the living God. It rests in a God-controlled person. It rests in a God-controlled nation. It rests in God-controlled supernationalism. [8]

Individual change of hearts leading to the reformation of the world is the plan and purpose of MRA. Moral Rearmament, therefore, is not a new organization which prescribes allegiance to a system of truths or precepts, but avowedly is only a means of deepening the truths which every man must hold. It is neither a church nor a religious sect. There are no dogmas to profess; no rites to practice. MRA exists only to change the lives of men, to make zealous reformers out of sinners, who still remain members of their individual churches. "Catholic, Jew and Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Confucianists—all find they can change, where needed, and travel along this good road together." [9]

(Footnotes: [2] Buchman, Frank N.D., Remaking the World (London, 1955), p. 35.
[3] Ibid., p. 36.
[4] Ibid., p. 40.
[5] Ibid., p. 72.
[6] Ibid., p. 13.
[7] Ibid., p. 14.
[8] Ibid., p. 25.
[9] Ibid., p 166.)

In a move that eerily mirrored the use of cells in "The Family"--and in better-known coercive groups such as Campus Crusade and (most infamously) Maranatha, the use of cell-churches to promote official dogma was rampant--and even at this embryonic state, warning signs abounded:

Frank N.D. Buchman, founder of MRA, was born in 1878 of Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. He studied for the Lutheran ministry at Philadelphia, also travelling abroad to England and Germany. Assigned to a poor parish at his own request, he soon brought it to a flourishing condition by his zealous activity. In 1904 he turned to work with youth, and took up a position as chaplain in a youth center. But a disagreement arose between him and the administration over the use of funds for the institution, and Buchman left to travel in Europe. Here, in the English village of Keswick, as he attended a Sunday afternoon session of the village church where a woman evangelist preached about the cross and how Christ had taken on Himself the sins of the world, Buchman had a "spiritual experience." He suddenly saw that all his knowledge of Christianity was only theoretical. His duty was to put it into actual practice. Since personal sin was the cause of the world’s evil, there was need for personal repentance. The very first step of his conversion was to write the six members of the committee in Pennsylvania and ask their forgiveness for his part in the argument.

Returning to America, he carried out his intention of imparting to others his own grasp of the religious truth he had seen by converting the atheist son of the family with whom he was boarding. Through his connection with the YMCA, and then Harvard University as a lecturer in personal evangelism, Buchman began to form followers in the ivy league colleges of the East. Soon the practice of house parties, at which students and often prominent men and women gathered to seek the "change," became prevalent throughout the country. One of the principal techniques for this metanoia was a public confession of one’s fault’s, a device that caused trouble, particularly on college campuses, where the confessions were largely sexual.

(Of note: One of the most frequent warning signs of a potentially coercive group is the unethical use of confessions, especially public confessions.  This is an issue that is in fact one of the most frequently forms of systemic religious abuse within cell-church groups.)

The Catholic League was not the only mainstream church at the time to warn about potential abuses in Moral Re-Armament; the Church of England also specifically condemned the group, and the TIME Magazine article is especially enlightening as to the degree of abuse that was occuring--and some other disturbing statements by Buchman that would be mirrored by the present-day leader of "The Family":

Imported to America, the Oxford Group went well for a time among Ivy League undergraduates, who responded to the shiny-eyed intensity of the group's weekend "house parties" in well-staffed mansions, with their morning "quiet times" and their public confessions of sins. The four tenets of Frank Buchman's version of Oxford Group Christianity were "absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness and absolute love," and so much absolutism was bound occasionally to end in tears; at Princeton, for instance, President John Hibben summarily banned Frank Buchman from the campus.
. . .
God-Guided Elite. Buchman meant M.R.A. to be a "God-guided campaign to prevent war by moral and spiritual awakening." It failed to prevent war, and it earned considerable censure for seeming to rely heavily on "changing" dictators; Buchman had the misfortune to exclaim publicly: "I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler." After World War II, M.R.A. turned to attacking Communism.

Another article detailing potential abusive practices in many of Buchman's groups including some specific concerns re Alcoholics Anonymous also notes other practices of concern that point to Moral Re-Armament having been coercive in practice--among others:

Although one can find parallels between AA and the Craigie Foundation, AA really owes its existence to the Oxford Movement, founded by Lutheran minister Nathan Buchman. Buchman, in response to what he believed to have been a personal mystical religious experience, started the First Century Christian Fellowship in 1921. The goal of this group was to establish a world culture based on what Buchman considered to be the beliefs and practices of the early Christian church. Buchman tended to see everything in the context of a battle between good and evil. His vision was messianic and he equated his work and goals with God. He believed that any philosophy or ideology, particularly Communism, which disagreed with his vision of a world-wide theocracy, was inspired by Satan. He established the Four Absolutes: absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness, and absolute love. He referred to himself as "soul surgeon." New members of his group were expected to undergo rigorous self-examination, openly confess their sins and weaknesses, surrender themselves to God, and make restitution to anyone they had harmed in the past. Additionally, they were expected to promote the organization for no fee and fund raising was a key activity of members of the fellowship.

Buchman also promoted the Four Cs: confidence in Buchman the soul surgeon, confession of sins, conviction (or acknowledgement) of one’s sins, conversion to the principles of the First Century Christian Fellowship, and continuance of practice of the Fellowship rules. Besides the Four Absolutes and the Four Cs, members were also encouraged to live by specific fellowship slogans, which included "give news, not views," "win your argument, lose your man," and "J.E.S.U.S. just exactly suits us sinners." Buchman’s explicitly stated goal was mass conversion that ultimately would lead to humanity being ruled by "God-Control."

The First Century Christian Fellowship grew rapidly in the 1920s. Buchman targeted recruitment activities towards men of power and influence and towards college students. He fully expected his followers to adhere to his dictates totally and to accept the veracity of his mystical experiences without question. Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of negative publicity resulted from his methods of recruitment and his group was often called both a cult and "Buchmanism."

In 1929, following a series of revivals he held in England, Buchman changed the name of his group to the Oxford Group and the organization continued to flourish under the new name. His hatred of communism allowed him to see fascism as a reasonable alternative and in 1936, he was quoted as saying "I thank heaven for a man like Adolph Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism. Think what it would mean to the world if Hitler surrendered to the control of God? The world needs the dictatorship of the living spirit of God. Hitler is Christianity’s defender against Communism." Although he later admitted that he had been duped by Hitler, he did not issue a retraction. Understandably, that interview did irreparable harm to the Oxford Movement and in 1939, Buchman again changed the name of his movement, this time calling it "Moral Rearmament." The influence of Moral Rearmament peaked in the 1940s and its membership declined greatly following Buchman’s death in 1961.

In other words, dominionist orgs were hitting on the concept of cell-churches widely as early as the 1920s.

Based on Sharlet's research--to be published in his book next month--"The Family" apparently directly adopted the tactics used by Moral Re-Armament (presumably also including the coercive tactics that  got the group banned from Princeton in a remarkably similar manner to how Maranatha was banned from multiple state universities and Campus Crusade has also found itself occasionally banned) full-scale when the group was founded in 1935, integrating the use of cell-church groups in 1942--and already at that time using the specific term "cell group".  In fact, much of the statements by Buchman (and Moral Re-Armament during his leadership of the group) and by "The Family" seem frighteningly similar enough--in particular the explicit targeting of world leaders for recruitment and the promotion of Jesus Christ as a cult of personality--one could legitimately make the argument that "The Family" may be the standard-bearers for what was known as "Buchmanism" in the Fifties.

Sharlet is supposedly going to be publishing a full history of this in his upcoming book--it is going to be very interesting, IMHO, what comes out once "The Family" hits the bookstores.

Recruitment, as it works in "The Family"

Many folks in the various threads re "The Family" have had many questions to the effect of "I heard Barack Obama and John McCain were also involved in this--can you clarify?".  Much of the confusion is in part because of the specific terminology that "The Family" uses to describe its various levels of involvement--terms that not only don't exactly have the same meaning as their plain-English equivalents (another danger sign of coerciveness, by the way) but also refer to specific levels common in "pyramid-based" coercive groups.

Again, my descriptions are in part based on confirmation Jeff Sharlet has provided in regards to how the cell structure in "The Family" operates, combined with my own research and experiences.

Level 0: Recruitment via the National Prayer Breakfast

What I will refer to as "Level 0" is, to my knowledge, not named internally in "The Family" but is the level at which people are invited to the National Prayer Breakfast; Level 0 is the "recruitment level", where people are invited to a seminar and the group scouts likely folks out for potential further recruitment.  Attendees don't necessarily agree with the ideology.

Level 0 in other groups (in these examples, I'll be using Scientology's internal structure as well as AmWay's; both are pyramidal coercive groups familiar to most--Maranatha and other abusive "discipling and shepherding" groups also have similar internal setups) would be the "personality tests" given by Scientologists (or the purchase of the book "Dianetics") or "business development seminars" held by AmWay or Scientology frontgroups.  

Typically at Level 0 in recruitment, almost no practical info is given re the group save that it's a great way to improve yourself (or to network)--it's pretty much only once folks have joined (and, most of the time, not even then) that they realise the level of mire they have just gotten themselves into.

Inside the Beltway, things are complicated by the fact that the National Prayer Breakfast essentially operates as a semi-mandatory attendance event--at least if a politician wants votes.  (In part, we can thank groups like "The Family" for this situation.)  It's not a dissimilar situation from a person working for a business who is told by his boss to attend "business development seminars" (which turn out to be AmWay or Scientology recruitment events) and who is at risk for either being fired, demoted, or not being eligible for job advancement if he doesn't attend these seminars.  

Fortunately, this would also appear to be the maximum extent of involvement of Obama and McCain, according to Sharlet.

Level 1: Indoctrination of "Friends" via cell-groups

Level 1 is probably the initial level at which true involvement occurs with "The Family"; this level is internally referred to as "Friends of The Family" and is the first level we start seeing things of real concern.  (The following description should, I hope, explain why I am now gravely worried for Mrs. Clinton and what she's gotten herself into.)

Level 1 in "The Family"--and in most other pyramid-style groups (as we'll get into)--is the level of initial indoctrination and "shepherding".  In "The Family", there's evidence (which, again, Sharlet will be discussing in full in his book) that indicate the same coercive practices common across pyramidal cell-groups may be occuring.

In particular, at least one comment by Sharlet has indicated that quite a bit more than innocent "Bible study" goes on in these cells, and that other potentially more coercive activities may go on in the inner circle:

I've never accused them of "conspiratorial mind control" but I do document that this is about a lot more than worship and Bible study, which are just fine. In fact, the inner circle of the Family does very little of either -- Doug Coe rejects church, and elite believers are encouraged to seek the advice of Jesus by direct consultation in a cell group, with scripture rarely consulted.

This is more than a little dangerous.  In fact (we'll need to wait for Sharlet's book to come out to document more of it, alas), this is a rather strong hint that potentially abusive tactics may be in use (the use of unethical confession tactics by "Family" predecessor/model Moral Re-Armament are already a concern, and disallowing people to read the Bible for themselves (and requiring specific, leader-inspired interpretations) removes a powerful form of "reality testing" for persons in Bible-based groups).  In addition, the specific advise to not participate in mainstream churches is very, very worrisome--it's a classic method to isolate people from communities that might threaten the dogma of what is promoted by Coe and by "shepherds".

The fact that group leaders promote authoritarianism in general also does not exactly relax one--it is extremely common in abusive "cell church" groups for leaders to claim direct personal revelation from God, and opposition to the group leaders to be opposition to God.  

Level 1 initiates in pyramidal groups are generally not trusted to leadership positions within the group, are privy to only some of the info, and are essentially seen as "infants in need of instruction" internally--so they do tend to be shepherded and shadowed, in part because the group doesn't yet see them as "loyal faithful" and doesn't trust them not to leave or to bugger up.

There are equivalents to this elsewhere.  Level 1 in AmWay is typically the level where people have joined the group, are not yet Diamonds, but are trying to peddle Quixtar merchandise to their relatives et al.  (This is also where they are encouraged to join the AmWay "business motivational organisations" where quite a bit of the reports of coercive practices come from.)  In Scientology, this is the level where people are in the group, aren't yet privy to the secrets about Xenu et al, are running up their credit cards with "auditing" sessions, and often join the Sea Orgs (a paramilitary/missionary group within Scientology) as a method of alternate payment for their E-Meter sessions.)

In addition, there's a potential second form of coercion that "The Family" has in their deck that is rarely available to "level 1" in abusive pyramidal groups (other than groups using org-owned living and working arrangements)--namely, "The Family" really can threaten to derail a political career if their mark gets too out of line.  The only comparable common level of potential coercion over someone's career and livelihood that I'm personally aware of is with Scientology after someone has signed themselves into the Sea Orgs (and that's in part because, at that point, they do often end up in employment with Scientology as well as in Scientology-provided housing as well as force their members to sign coercive (and, likely, illegal) "contracts" where members forfeit their right to sue for damages); generally pyramidal groups do not get this sort of ammo until the "Level 2" recruitment stage.

This is the level at which Hillary Clinton is presently a member (and why I have concerns for her at this point).

Level 2: Leaders--what "The Family" sees as its "membership"

Level 2 are the shepherds and "faithful leadership" of pyramidal-style groups--those who've been in it long enough, and indoctrinated enough, to be seen as the "true faithful" and thus privy to the truth of what really goes on in the org.

In "The Family", Level 2 is what the group terms "members" (this is, as an aside, how "The Family" can legitimately claim that Hillary Clinton is not a "Member" of the group--"Member" refers to the leadership circles).  Most of the skunk-works goes on here; people at this stage are pretty much isolated from religious observances outside of "The Family" (and religious groups approved by the org).

Level 2 in AmWay is roughly equivalent to the Diamond level; Level 2 in Scientology would be the OT VIIs and above who've paid out $400,000 US to hear the "Super Secret of Mankind" (namely, that all of humanity's troubles are the direct result of "enturbulation" (oppression and even frank possession) by "body thetans"--alien ghosts which were the result of a mass genocide by Evil Alien Overlord Xenu when he chucked millions of other aliens in the volcanoes at Kilahuea and Las Palmas some 73 million years ago--and most religions/theologies/etc. outside of Scientology are the result of "engrams" (implanted images) shown to these unfortunates before they were dumped in volcanoes to such a level as to give poor Lady Pele a permanent case of indigestion).

Most of Sharlet's writing (before his book) where he's mentioned politicians by name have involved presumed Level 2 members of "The Family".  The Level 2 members have the private Family-owned apartments et al; they also toe the line very carefully because it could explode messily if they were to escape.

Fairly confirmable Level 2 initiates (or, as "The Family" terms them, "members") include U.S. Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and U.S. Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.  (All six of these lived in Family-provided apartments.)

Other members (present and past) of Congress that may either be "Friends" or "Members" (not much documentation besides Sharlet's writing exists on this) include Senators Don Nickles and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, John Ensign of Nevada, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Conrad Burns of Montana; House members that may be either "Members" or "Friends" include Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.

Level 3: The men behind the curtain

Level 3 are essentially the true leaders of the org--the DeVos clan and the heads of AmWay IBOs would count in the case of AmWay, whilst L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavaige would count as examples in Scientology.

In the case of "The Family", the "Level 3" candidate would be Douglas Coe, who is considered one of the 25 most influential "evangelicals" in the US (in large part due to his leadership in "The Family").  There are potentially other leaders as well that would qualify as "Level 3" management; the group decentralised much of its internal structure in 1972.

Interestingly, "The Family" uses front-groups, but does not use the "church loophole" to avoid filing a form 990 (501(c)3 groups--of which "The Fellowship Foundation", the "core group" of "The Family", is one--are generally required to file a form 990 in lieu of business tax forms, but there is a specific exemption applying only to churches that allows many coercive religious groups to hide their finances almost entirely--Scientology has hidden much of the worth of its assets via this exemption, and so have many of the televangelists now being investigated by Congress).  

Because of this, form 990s for the org are available online; Richard E. Carver (listed as president of the org) can thus be added to the list of "Level 3" leaders as can Marty Sherman, Stan Holmes Jr., Frank J. Sizemore III, John May, and Charles McCleod--all of whom are listed as being in upper management of the org.  Charles Mendies of New Delhi, India is also listed as a "ministry coordinator"; Douglas Coe is also specifically listed.

An additional listing includes Eric Sanson as VP of "The Family"; Kirk Mitchell as secretary; Leroy Rooker as treasurer; Rod McAllister, Ronnie Cameron, David Parks, David Laux, Denny Pierce, Doug Crane, Robert Perry, Larry Franklin, and Mike Foster as "directors"; and Doug Coe as an "associate".  However, this organisational table is more than a little misleading; literally everyone on "The Fellowship Foundation's" board of directors serves all of an hour a week without compensation, with Coe doing most of the running (as the only 40 hour/week board member), and thus can be said to be the true brains of the operation.  (He is also the sole paid board member, earning over $51,000/yr based on the 2005 form 990.)

At the end of the form, practically the entire Coe family are listed as employees and "associates" (which may be the term that "The Family" uses in practice for its leadership)--Timothy S. Coe (Doug Coe's son and "associate", $110,000 yearly salary); Janice Coe (Doug Coe's wife and "associate", $2,400 yearly salary); David Coe (another son of Doug Coe and "associate", $110,000 yearly salary); Paula Corder (a married daughter of Doug Coe and "associate", $21,000 yearly salary); Alden Coe (son-in-law of Doug Coe and "associate", $12,500 yearly salary); and finally Elena Cole (daughter-in-law of Doug Coe and "associate", $12,500 yearly salary).

Interestingly, a second frontgroup of "The Family" (listed in the form 990 for "The Fellowship Foundation") is Wilberforce Foundation--it, too, does not use the "church loophole", is apparently a "Young Christian Leader's" training facility (think like Campus Crusade's "Leadership U"), and is directly run by David Coe (Doug Coe's son).  The group is listed as being in "common management" with "The Fellowship Foundation", and (in addition to Tim Coe and David Coe, who are listed as vice-president and treasurer respectively) Jerry Jonker is listed as president and Marty Sherman as secretary (Sherman is also listed as being associated with "The Fellowship Foundation).  All leaders save for Jonker also are substantially paid--Tim and David Coe to the tune of $110,000 yearly, with Sherman being paid $121,200 yearly.

The lack of the use of the "church loophole" is surprising, especially since "The Family" did use this loophole for "C Street Center", the frontgroup that actually manages the apartment housing.

For that matter, the form 990s are turning out to be quite interesting reading in and of themselves--more on that in another post.

Tags: Religious Right, Scandals, Coercion, History, Dominionism, Abuse, Jeff Sharlet, Hillary Clinton, The Family, Doug Coe, Religion, Books, Fellowship Foundation, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 40 comments

  •  Tip jar (45+ / 0-)

    Wanted to post this one as a dedicated (non-candidate-diary) post, so as to give a rather more complete explanation of just where my concern is coming with.  (Unfortunately, much of what Sharlet has dug up and revealed so far in posts is not doing a whole lot to reassure me and is actually confirmatory of a very bad gut feeling of mine.)

    •  This is becoming quite the educational series. (13+ / 0-)

      The formal and informal processes used to acquire, "normalize," train and then subsume people should be part of our educational structure.

      That is, if education is a real preparation for life in this century. In a sense, it would be the practical flip side of logic and rhetoric.

      This is valuable work and I thank you for it.

      "But their gift is an empty snake, Carrying hypocrisy in its mouth like venom" - Sami Al Hajj

      by walkshills on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This all sounds worse than Kool-Aid drinking (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Woody, Pris from LA
        •  Unfortunately, there's meat to this stuff (14+ / 0-)

          This is an area where I honestly do wish this was tinfoil-hattery.  (I'm also prepared that people are going to accuse me of this.  So it goes.)

          The sorts of abuses I've noted have, sadly, occured in so many other pyramidal-style groups that many exit counselors consider pyramidal-type orgs potentially hazardous if used as directed (among other things, there's a study--which I'll be writing on more extensively--that specifically shows longterm personality changes in members of groups actively using cell-churches or similar structures).

          Also, much of my info (that is not public record) regarding practices within "The Family" and the cell-group structure within the org has in fact been confirmed by Jeff Sharlet (who has a major book out on "The Family" due next month that is the product of nearly a decade of research)--enough has been confirmed, in fact, that alarm bells are definitely ringing.  (It's not just in my case, either; several other people I know researching cell groups, including an ex-Maranatha worker, are observing much the same danger signs.  We may well be the canaries in the mine with this, but it's definitely something of concern.)  

          Sharlet's work is the first extensive expose of "The Family"--in large part because the org has worked very hard to seal most of its records (I'm actually a little surprised the form 990s are still floating around, because after Sharlet started publishing info on "The Family" in Rolling Stone, Harpers and Mother Jones the majority of the archives of "The Family" were sealed).  

          As I've noted to folks screaming "TINFOIL!" re some of the stuff Troutfishing and Military Religious Freedom Foundation have publicised with a groundbreaking study on dominionist infiltration of the military, we are now entering areas in research on dominionism where the people writing about this may be doing some of the first research even in an informal context.  There are writers who are regular contributors on here and on Talk to Action that are, literally, the latter-day Sara Diamonds of their fields of research (and for some time, Sara Diamond was one of the few people writing about this stuff--her book "Spiritual Warfare" is still one of the few books on neopentecostal dominionism in particular rather than Christian Reconstructionism).  

          This is pretty much the stage we're at with Sharlet's new book--nobody has ever done an extensive research project on this group, it may well be very difficult to repeat this research due to active attempts by the org being written about to squelch bad press, but once it's out it will be serving as a good base for related forms of research.  (It's actually little-appreciated how difficult it can be to get this stuff published to begin with, especially with well-politically-connected groups; a similar expose on the inner workings of Hillspring Assemblies of God in Australia (an extremely well politically connected Assemblies megachurch that (among other things) operates Gloria Jean Coffee as a front for funding and has its own political party called Family First) was held up for over a year because the original publisher was threatened with libel suits by Hillsong in an effort to squelch publication and dropped publication--and this was after the book had been announced for some months.)

          •  I'm not doubting you... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dogemperor

            ... or the accuracy here - just having my mid reel at the thought of yet another secret society I have to learn about.  It makes me wonder if we really actually have an open society, or if we just have a never-ending series of secret societies jockeying for power at all times.

            Makes me feel like I'm watching "Alias" as everyone tries to figure out the secretes of Rambaldi.

    •  Me too (5+ / 0-)

      great work and very informative.

      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

      by resa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:31:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too much to eat in one sitting (6+ / 0-)

    I'm curious, though - if HRC isn't really past level one, why are you worried?  Are you worried about her, or for her?

    That's the only stumper.  As always, very well-sourced.  

    •  Worried in both ways, honestly. (13+ / 0-)

      Well, one reason I'm very worried both for Hillary and (to a lesser extent) about her is because there's evidence that the specific level she's in is where they start putting on a lot of the pressure and indoctrination.  (Pretty much once they've gotten you in the cell and start shepherding you, that's when the coercive stuff really starts.)

      Hillary apparently (and I have read this in other threads and article) has had a previous history in growing up in authoritarian groups--they may well have scoped her out because of this history and perceived friendliness (despite having the "D" by her name in Congress).

      •  Very well. (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dogemperor, Pris from LA, Govinda

        Hillary apparently (and I have read this in other threads and article) has had a previous history in growing up in authoritarian groups--they may well have scoped her out because of this history and perceived friendliness (despite having the "D" by her name in Congress).

        Can you tell us what authoritarian groups she grew up in?

        Be a hope monger.

        by kpardue on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sharlet's written on this (10+ / 0-)

          There's more details undoubtedly in his new book, but a Mother Jones article details that authoritarian figures in Clinton's upbringing would include her high school history teacher (one Paul Carlson, whom Hillary's former pastor (head of a UMC church in Park Ridge, IL) has described as being "to the right of the John Birchers"); she also apparently had quite the interest in right-wing theologians as a youth.

          Another interesting note (from the same article) is the list of people apparently in the "cell church group" that Hillary Clinton joined in 1993:

          When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

          Susan Baker may not be all that familiar a name to modern audiences, but those of us following anti-censorship initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s remember her quite well--Susan Baker and Tipper Gore were the co-founders of the infamous Parent's Music Resource Council, a pro-censorship group that actively tried to get the entire musical libraries of certain artists banned and would actively promote a highly abusive "Bible boot camp" run by "deliverance ministry" promoter Bob Larson (the infamous "Back In Control Training Center", which promised to "de-metal" and "de-rap" kids, was actively promoted in PMRC literature; Larson's facility promoted things like the claim that peace signs were "satanic symbols" and was a major promoter of the "Satanic Panic" which ended up ruining hundreds of people's lives due to false claims of "satanic abuse").  In fact, Susan Baker was effectively the dominionist liason for PMRC in practice.

          Joanne Kemp also tends to lean dominionist (subtly noting that the only people she really considers to be "Christian" are "born-again Christians"--code in neopente circles for fellow dominionists); in fact, she "leans dominionist" so much that she is on the board of directors of one of the major promoters of "faith-based coercion" in our prison system--Chuck Colson's "Prison Fellowship Ministries", recently banned from use in state prisons throughout the state of Iowa due to the extreme promotion of abusive "cell churches", explicit promotion of neopentecostal dominionism (including the concepts of "deliverance ministry" and neopentecostal exorcisms) and favourable privileges given to participants and the unavailability of secular or truly nondenominational services for prisoners.

          Eileen Bakke is not as familiar as a name to most folks--Bakke (and her husband) are best known now for "charter school" initiatives, but both parties are also the heads of a dominionist grant program known as the Mustard Seed Foundation (so named after a bit of scripture often used in "name it and claim it" circles; the claim being that if "one has faith the size of a mustard seed" one can make miracles happen--I have in fact never seen the "mustard seed" analogy used extensively outside of neopentecostal circles).  The funding, especially in North America, is primarily targeted at neopente churches (including a "Messianic Jewish" congregation); there is also apparently a scholarship program in place for students attending dominionist colleges.  The Bakkes also promote dominionist "Christian business" schemes extensively, including at seminars; their fortune has been primarily in the energy market, as Dennis Bakke was a former CEO of major international energy company AES.

          Grace Nelson is probably the only notable cypher as far as dominionist connections go in that list--I expect she, like Hillary, may well be in the process of being "shepherded".  

          •  Thanks for (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dogemperor

            replying.

            It all seems to be rather murky. I think the Bible Study group was not just a group of republicans, but was composed of.....I think Congress people, WH people, and their spouses, both democrats and republicans.

            I may be wrong, but that doesn't sound very sinister. The rest seems to be guilt by association.

            Tipper Gore was standing up for parents who wanted to keep some semblance of control over their children's music choices. I don't find anything wrong with that.

            I grew up in a mainstream Methodist church, and was taught the little verse about the mustard seed as a child. There was (and likely still is) some sort of mustard seed fund going on all the time.

            As for the group itself, I know nothing of that. Therefore, I have nothing to say about it, and appreciate the time and trouble that went into your diary. I found it
            interesting, but I honestly can find nothing in it that says anything detrimental to Hillary at all.

            That being the case, why mention her? I'm puzzled by it.

            Be a hope monger.

            by kpardue on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:41:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wish I could be as optimistic. (4+ / 0-)

              Unfortunately, the more that comes out, the worse it looks, to be honest. :P

              And the reason I mention Hillary?

              a) I am honestly worried about her involvement--just the same as I would be if, for instance, I heard about politicians with links to other potentially harmful groups (this is actually mild, compared to some of the cain I've raised re Mike Huckabee's connections to Bill Gothard! :P)

              b) This is an area I seriously do think Hillary herself needs to give some clarification on (and I do hope she does so).

              •  I wouldn't (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dogemperor, futurebird

                argue this case with you, as I know nothing about it.

                My feeling, generally speaking,  is that when you are dealing with religious groups or individuals, you can run into things that seem strange but are not always strange in the context of a belief system.

                Case in point is Obama's friend, Dr. Wright. I was  raised in a church that was
                pretty sedate. You could fall asleep during the sermons, and some did, but I
                am familiar with old style preaching, and in such churches preachers are
                always damning somebody to Hell, as a matter of course.

                I am not making an analogy, just saying religious stuff is trickly.

                You may be right in this case. I will keep an open mind.

                Be a hope monger.

                by kpardue on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  PMRC (4+ / 0-)

              The PMRC also advocated against supposed subliminal backmasking in records, and accused bands including Styx, Rush, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Kiss, and Queen, of backmasking to promote Satanism and drug use

              That alone caused to wonder what was wrong with them.  That there appeared to be a tie between the PMRC effort and the desire of the recording industry to have a surcharge on blank recording tapes, to "cover revenues lost to illegal recording of copyrighted music", made me even less enthralled with the PMRC.

              They certainly seemed to get their knickers in a knot over suggestive lyrics, while stating that it was a recent problem.  To me it seemed more that they had managed to miss the subtext of much of the earlier rock&roll, and that of music before then

              We started to pet, and that’s when I get
              Her talcum all over my vest.
              After I kind of straighten my tie,
              She has to borrow my comb.
                --- Walkin' My Baby Back Home  1931

              I just got word from a guy who heard
              From the guy next door to me
              The girl he met just loves to pet
              And it fits you to a T
               --- Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree 1942

              Some get a kick from cocaine
              I'm sure that if
              I took even one sniff
              That would bore me terrifically, too
                ---  I Get a Kick out of You 1934

              My baby is not much for sports,
              like running around without shorts
                --- My Baby Just Cares For Me  1928

              That last one should be considered in the context of flappers, many of who were omitting the wearing of undergarments.  I don't know if 'petting' still has the connotations it did back then, at that time having changed to include more intense activities than the common use in Victorian times.

              •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

                much about modern  music, but I know that much of it is far more sexually explicit than the lyrics you cite here.

                I agree that the claims that are made as to Satanic lyrics are just silly.  

                I think Tipper Gore's idea was that we don't want our thirteen years olds to be sexually active and we don't want them to mimic the behavior of these music
                makers.

                Actually, "mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all," and "I get no kick from cocaine" are not offensive to me at all.

                My only point here is to defend Ms. Gore, who is a mother and no mother wants her daughter to start self identifying as a "ho" or a "bitch." Nor does she want her son to aspire to gang membership.

                I'm not a mother but I'm a woman, and women protect their young, when and how they can.

                Censorship is not a good thing, but labelling, ratings, and/or restricting sales to children, are all fine, as far as I'm concerned.

                I remember I wasn't allowed to make a book report on William Faulkner in TENTH grade, and I was outraged.

                So there is the question of who decides what is fit for children and what is not? That's not an easy thing to decide. Kids will pull this way and parents will pull that way.

                I would like my children to be able to make a book report on Faulkner. On the other hand I wouldn't want to raise any  pint sized Britneys.

                We muddle along as best we can.

                Be a hope monger.

                by kpardue on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  while these are not as blunt as modern lyrics (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Dave925, dogemperor

                  we run into the problem that recently coined euphemisms usually have much less emotional impact than the words they are standing in for, even when the meaning is identical, that meanings and impact of words change with time.  Consider the word 'slut', once sluttish was applied to either gender and meant untidy or slovenly, later becoming a drudge or kitchen maid, in Victorian times becoming a euphemism for 'bitch' as applied to female dogs, then picking up the meaning of a "bold or impudent" woman possibly "of loose character", and finally meaning sexually promiscuous.

                  Perhaps I should have included Minnie the Moocher, with its use of cocaine and opium, and as we know she was a red hot hoochie coocher who "wiggled her jelly roll" at the Deacon.  Check out the lyrics of the 1930 They Got It Fixed Right On, or the 1947 Long John Blues

                  He took out his trusted drill
                  And he told me to open wide
                  He said he wouldn’t hurt me
                  But he’d fill my hole inside
                  Long John, Long John, you’ve got that golden touch
                  You thrill me when you drill me, and I need you very much

                  Popular song, sung by Dinah Washington.  There's a Louis Armstrong - Billie Holiday piece with the F-word in it.

                  I'm not arguing that the parents should decide.  What I left off of the previous post is that the PMRC promoted labeling caused several large outlets, Walmark being one, to not carry records so labeled.  For some this meant they had no reasonable access to that music; mail-order or a long trip being the only alternatives.  It's as if not only were you prohibited from making that book report, but the nearest place you could find Falkner's works was 50 miles away.  If labeling did not have that chilling effect, then perhaps I'd find it more acceptable.

                  I think the better way to defend is not to hide, but to discuss.  Solving the problem of children hurting themselves on something hot isn't best done by keeping them from anything above tepid, else the first time they encounter hot they'll likely burn themselves.

                  I suppose it could be argued that parents are just too busy to do the job, or that they are too out of touch with the youth culture to effectively screen lyrics based on their true meaning.  Certainly the "Take Some Tea With Goldie" segment on The Smother Brothers Comedy Hour had the kids ROTFL while their parents were wondering why it was called comedy.

                  My objections to the PMRC are in partially because the content valuation was so subjective - not just a list of words but "this line is really meaning that", part because most members were so hypocritical, and because it was tangled up with the attempted blank tape tax.

          •  Her grandmother Rodham of Scranton,.... (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Dave925, dogemperor, Pris from LA

            ...who played a significant role in shaping Hillary's outlook (as spoken about in her book),  fits an authoritarian model.  She is still remembered in Scranton for being a very hard landlord, throwing many poorer folks out onto the streets.

            Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world. Not McCain

            by kafkananda on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:01:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good to see you..... (9+ / 0-)

    I've been following the whole Family story as it unfolded and from time to time was hoping you'd chime in.  The story needs the level of detail and research you've shown.  Sooo.... thanks.  :D

  •  thank you for your effort (8+ / 0-)

    If this doesn't get rescued (it should be), it will serve as an incredible reference not just for this community but for anyone Googling for information on this outfit.

    Please consider adding "Fellowship Foundation" to your tags.

  •  Those All Male Group Houses Sound Mighty Gay (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    I mean, even if I were having sex with another man at this very moment, I'd say "Damn, now that's gay!" And when you consider how the Young Republicans has become a club for doughy closeted chubby chasers, and the legendary Republican gay male sex rings that have been gossiped about for 30 years, you just have to wonder. Maybe the whole thing just reminds me of Rep Pat McHenry (R-NC) and his Hostel For Strapping Young Lads...

    http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/...

  •  this is weird (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    docangel, dogemperor, Pris from LA

    recently some locals HRC supporters and active in my DEC were talking about the Family/Fellowshipa nd whether they should be watched a bit closer.  Specifically talking about the Thomas of Wendy's fame, family.

    And now to know that HRC herself is a "nonmember" but active participant ... creepy, creepy, creepy.

  •  Thank you for this diary.. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    docangel, dogemperor, Pris from LA

    but now I am going to have nightmares...

    I get this feeling that there is something afoot..something sinister..something that will do great harm to people and it will be attributed to some religious plan..

  •  Is it too much to ask you to (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    biscobosco, wondering if

    define your terms? I find your diary very hard to read. You introduce a major subject/idea in your diary called  "cells" or "cell-church groups." Yet you never define this term for your reader. I have no idea what this means and I read through 3/4 of your diary and still had no idea what the specific meaning was, other than the examples that creep in (deep into your diary) about Amway and Scientology.

    Additionally, your quotes are too long. Could you maybe use selective quotes in a diary? They go on for multiple pages.

    I'm someone who would like to know more about this subject, and it is obvious you worked hard on this diary, but it's not at all a user friendly diary. I've since read through the whole thing and, honestly, I am still baffled by a lot of it.  

    •  My apologies for the confuzzlement (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      AllisonInSeattle, docangel, Clio2

      I've done previous series where I've defined cell-churches before (notably here and here in regards to their use within dominionist churches, and here and here in regards to their use in "steeplejacking" (takeover from within, not unlike a cuckoo pushes out other hatchies from a nest); of these, the second link goes much, much more into defining what a cell-church group is)--and your point is noted in future diaries.

      A really, really concise version (because I'll warn, those are long articles too--again, rather out of necessity, because they're essentially "cell groups 101" primers)--a "cell church" is a group of six to twelve people plus a "shepherd" or "leader" (who is quite frequently in a "cell" of leaders with a "shepherd" over them, and so on and so on till you get to the leader).  It's a setup very much like the "Make Money Fast" schemes or AmWay (and it would not be an exaggeration to term the setup as essentially a religious pyramid scheme); there is also, typically, a lot of "big brotherism" that goes on within cells and among shepherds to their "flock".

      The tactic (based on a history I've done that has now been revised thanks to Sharlet's writings) would appear to have been invented originally so that "cuckoo congregations" could be set up in other churches to essentially target other members for conversion (with the goal of everyone eventually being in a "cell"--just like in non-religious pyramid schemes, people do eventually move up levels if they stay in long enough); very shortly afterwards, it was adapted to infiltrating political groups too.  It's also become very popular in neopentecostal dominionist megachurches (and, disturbingly, also in Southern Baptist churches)--in large part, as a management tool for growing megachurches very quickly and keeping an "iron fist" of control over megachurch memberships that can stretch sometimes into the tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of Yoido Full Gospel in South Korea).

      I also do apologise for the length of the posts and, on occasion, quotes.  Unfortunately, sometimes it's difficult to break this down more concisely (part of why I didn't include extensive writing on what cell-churches are is to avoid this being even longer--plus I've written on it in past).  It's still something I am trying to find a happy medium on.  (There are times, in all seriousness, where I feel in writing on this stuff that I'm basically trying to compress 100 years of history into a 30-second advert, and I am not exactly a marketing person, which makes it even worse...I figure I do good for boiling down slices into half-hour or hour segments :3)

      •  Yeah I tend to agree (4+ / 0-)

        It's probably because you are so "in the thick" of this stuff you dont realize how many terms make no sense to an outsider.  Although I have been reading about this for awhile, I still struggle with your diaries at times, because I need more terms defined.

        you could edit your diary and put this at the beginning as a definition:

        A "cell church" is a group of six to twelve people plus a "shepherd" or "leader" (who is quite frequently in a "cell" of leaders with a "shepherd" over them, and so on and so on till you get to the leader of the entire group).  

        It's a setup like AmWay (essentially a religious pyramid scheme); there is also, typically, a lot of "big brotherism" (define big brotherism here) that goes on within cells and among shepherds to their "flock".

        The tactic (based on a history I've done ) appears to have been invented so that "cuckoo congregations"(define this term here) could be set up in other churches to target other members for conversion - with the goal of everyone eventually being in a "cell".

        The cell church tactic has been adapted to infiltrating political groups.  It's also become very popular in neopentecostal dominionist megachurches, and  in Southern Baptist churches -- as a management tool for growing megachurches very quickly and keeping an "iron fist" of control over  memberships that can stretch into the tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of Yoido Full Gospel in South Korea).

      •  "Cuckoo congregations" (define this term) (4+ / 0-)

        I think maybe you wrote a note to yourself up there?  This is a wonderfully useful term.  I would wish everyone to be aware of it.

        The definition seems obvious: a secretly conducted cell within a mainstream church, whose strategy is to create conflict within the congregation, take the place of existing church leadership, exert total control of the organization, and eject all those who resist.  Just as a cuckoo lays its eggs in the nest of another species, where the cuckoo chick ejects the birds' own eggs or offspring.  

        This has been happening in recent years within a lot of mainstream denominations.  For instance, a right-wing group has taken over within the historic Falls Church (Episcopalian) near Washington, D.C., and has split from the mainstream denomination, citing differences re homosexuality.  The historic and highly valuable building (where George Washington at least once attended church) became a bone of contention in a lawsuit.

        But beyond churches -- would it be too much to wonder if a cuckoo strategy has been planned also within the Democratic party?

        In any case, thanks for this diary.  You've put in a lot of work on an important topic.

  •  Fetching eyebrows off ceiling (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for more detail. Read Sharlet -- at least what's available now.

    Very interesting tidbits and bombshells here. Thanks for your continued work in this arena.

    Be good to each other. It matters.

    by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:41:59 PM PDT

  •  The Coe sons' salaries: any benefits? (0+ / 0-)

    I checked out the Form 990 and saw those $110,000 salary figures for Timothy S. Coe and David Coe, and was wondering if they are getting health insurance benefits or any other benefits.

    If they were, that would probably place them among the top 5 compensated employees, which must be listed in Schedule A, Part I of the 990.

    And...

    On the 2005 Wilberforce Foundation Form 990, David Coe signs the return and prints his title as President; however, in the filing itself, he is listed as Treasurer, and Jerry Jonker of Grand Rapids, Michigan is listed as President.

Permalink | 40 comments