Kids of Knutby: Living in and Leaving the Swedish Filadelfia Congregation (Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities) 3031369807, 9783031369803

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN NEW RELIGIONS AND ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITIES

Kids of Knutby Living in and Leaving the Swedish Filadelfia Congregation

Sanja Nilsson

Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities Series Editors

James R. Lewis School of Philosophy Wuhan University Wuhan, China Henrik Bogdan University of Gothenburg Gothenburg, Sweden

Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities is an interdisciplinary monograph and edited collection series sponsored by the International Society for the Study of New Religions. The series is devoted to research on New Religious Movements. In addition to the usual groups studied under the New Religions label, the series publishes books on such phenomena as the New Age, communal & utopian groups, Spiritualism, New Thought, Holistic Medicine, Western esotericism, Contemporary Paganism, astrology, UFO groups, and new movements within traditional religions. The Society considers submissions from researchers in any discipline. Editorial Board Bernard Doherty (Charles Sturt University, Australia) Fan Lizhu (Fudan University, China) J. Gordon Melton (Baylor University, USA) Erin Prophet (University of Florida, USA) James T. Richardson (University of Nevada, USA) Donald Westbrook (San Jose State University, USA) Manon Hedenborg White (Södertörn University, Sweden)

Sanja Nilsson

Kids of Knutby Living in and Leaving the Swedish Filadelfia Congregation

Sanja Nilsson School of Culture and Society Dalarna University Falun, Sweden

Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities ISBN 978-3-031-36980-3    ISBN 978-3-031-36981-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Sean Gladwell/Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

All the world’s a stage And all the men and women merely Players They have their exits and their entrances And one man in his time plays many parts (As You Like It, William Shakespeare)

Prologue: Coming to Knutby

As a graduate student of sociology and religious studies, I attended a one-­ day seminar on children growing up in New Religious Movements (NRM), hosted by INFORM at the London School of Economics in 2007. My then Professor, Liselotte Frisk (eventually my supervisor for this study), who could not attend, sent the invitation to me. I was not there to present a paper, and given the fact that I was a newly admitted graduate student, I probably would not have dared to, even given the chance. I was there because it was an opportunity for me to listen to some of the international scholars—authors of books used in the classes I was taking, and, even more thrilling, to the stories of members and ex-members of the most notorious groups discussed in my classes. Some of the presenters at the seminar had maintained their membership and claimed a happy, joyous existence in their group. They had little or no understanding of the criticism directed at their groups and regarded most of it as vicious slander produced by media and former disgruntled members. Others were defectors, predominantly young people who had left the groups they had been brought up in. They were angry, some even furious, hurt and deeply disappointed in the upbringing that the membership of their parents had resulted in. I remember clearly how the tension between the opposite views filled the room. One young member, a curly-haired, smartly dressed third-generation Scientologist showed us a short film about Scientology and explained how lucky she was growing up within the faith of her family. As soon as she had finished, an older woman in the audience began questioning the young Scientologist’s credibility, verbally attacking her, vii

viii 

PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY

claiming that she falsely idealised the group, and then related her own story. The woman claimed that the leaders of the Church of Scientology forbade her adult son from seeing her. Soon after, a calm yet peremptory young second-generation member of the Family International (also known as the Children of God) presented the advantages that he saw of being raised in the group, when a former member from the same group’s second generation stood up in the audience and loudly questioned him. The fierce emotions on both sides were not lost on anyone. Moreover, they both displayed frustration with not being able to convince their counterpart of the inaccuracy of their own story and the inaccuracy of the others. This was the first time that I realised the extent of the fact that not only could there be two diametrically different perspectives on the same story of socialisation within the groups, but that the consequences of this tension posed a very real problem to these young people. It seems fair to say that that experience sparked my interest in the dynamics of the field of children growing up in new religions. I pursued my studies in sociology and religion when, four years after the seminar in London, in 2011, Liselotte, and Canadian scholar of new religions, Susan J.  Palmer were planning a trip to visit the Christian congregation Knutby Filadelfia, which resided outside Uppsala in Sweden. Liselotte and Susan were writing an article about the former pastor, Helge Fossmo, who had been given a life sentence for enticement to murder, having convinced a member of the congregation to kill his wife. Liselotte and Susan wanted to know more about other members’ perspectives on the tragic event which took place in 2004. I was thrilled when I was asked to be involved. As far as I knew, no academics had bothered (or been given the opportunity) to write anything about the group, which I found odd as it seemed to me such a clear-cut case of a high-demand NRM which had been in the media’s spotlight for several years. Heading from the town of Uppsala towards the small village of Knutby, I sat quietly in the backseat while Liselotte and Susan chatted in the front. I tried to recapture the contents of the books I had read about the group, which had been just as fascinating to me as to everyone else, and given my interest in crime, I had read what I could find about the group. In 2008, the Swedish reporter Charlotte Essén published the book Sektbarn, which was based on interviews with young adults growing up in (and subsequently leaving) new religions in Sweden. The book included a chapter on the congregation in Knutby, the only chapter that did not feature interviews with someone who had actually grown up in the group. Instead, it featured

  PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY 

ix

the story of Lisa, who had left the group because she could not accept the strict way in which she was ordered by the leaders to raise her child. According to Lisa, small children were being systematically abused and the hierarchical structure of the group suggested that parents were acting as middle managers between the children and the authoritarian leadership. As we drove through the beautiful landscape, I vaguely remembered a TV programme from 2009 where the subject was debated. The charismatic female leader Åsa Waldau and Pastor Peter Gembäck locked horns with Professor of Sociology Eva Lundgren and her companion, Psychotherapist Rigmor Robèrt, while members in the audience from the congregation clearly supported their leaders, non-members did not. Any criticism against the group was met with Pastor Gembäck’s persistent claim that neither Lundgren nor Robèrt had ever visited the congregation and therefore could have no valid information on anything about what had been going on there. My overall impression of the congregation had been that they were, like most similar groups, intensely eager to defend themselves against criticism. As the car neared our destination, I wondered whether any of our questions would be perceived as criticism. I planned to keep quiet and let the professors do their job, and hopefully learn a thing or two. To our dismay, we were not granted a visit with the top leader, Åsa Waldau. She was said to be occupied praying, and I later understood that our mere presence (or the presence of any impure outsiders) might interfere with her spiritual tasks. However, we were invited into the home of one of the families in the congregation, that of Max and Ella. Accompanied by Pastor Gembäck and a few additional congregational members the couple anxiously gave their view of the tragedy in 2004 and recounted their experience with the media after the murder. The conversation was initially rather slow, not least because none of the members seemed confident in their use of English, and it was clear that they were not entirely comfortable with having us there. However, when Susan, not only an excellent researcher but also a musical genius, asked to play a tune on their piano, she hit a spot which seemed close to the heart of those who had gathered. After spellbinding us all with her musical skills, she proceeded to lie down on the couch, as comfortable as if she had been in her own living room and took a nap due to her jetlag. The atmosphere became less tense when we could switch to Swedish, and we had an interesting conversation that lasted for hours. Of course, I had questions. Some were answered, and I found that at the time

x 

PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY

of leaving, my questions had doubled, if not tripled. I concluded that I had to come back to learn more. This, however, turned out to be a bit harder than I had hoped. Two years later, in 2013, Liselotte co-arranged an international conference, held at Dalarna University. In accordance with CESNUR’s (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, an academic organisation based in Italy) open policy, representatives from the congregation in Knutby were invited to speak at one of the sessions. The four representatives present from the group held a short presentation in broken English. Liselotte started by showing a short clip from a documentary to sum up the events of 2004 for the international guests. Pictures of the houses, perpetrators and the congregation played while the speaker recaptured the story in a typical sexcult-murder-scandal-way. Suddenly, a man in one of the front rows started laughing. It was more than awkward, his laugh seemed to me degrading, indicating that he thought that the story was crazy. I was stunned, embarrassed, and even more so when I understood that the man was a renowned scholar within my field. The representatives looked offended, but not surprised. By 2013, the congregation had been scrutinised, challenged, criticised, discredited, scorned publicly by the media and public, and were now being ridiculed by a representative from academia. They were simply the perfect illustration of a stigmatised religious group. One year prior to that, in 2012, I had been accepted as a doctoral student in a project, Kids in Cults: Religious Upbringing in Minority Religions, which was financed by the Swedish Research Council. The project’s aim was to investigate childhood within contemporary NRMs in Sweden. It was headed by Liselotte and included both me and Historian of Religions Peter Åkerbäck of Stockholm University. Liselotte and Peter would interview adult second-generation members and I would focus on the children. We had selected six groups for the project but were keen on adding the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. In November 2013, I approached the group through Pastor Gembäck, who after some consideration declined our request to interview children and teenagers within the congregation. I was disappointed, but felt that, after the experience at the conference, I could sympathise with their wish to be left alone. Still, it was hard to be rejected as the congregation appeared decidedly interesting. Only a few months later, in January 2014, on the day ten years after the murder of Alexandra Fossmo, an article that included an interview with one of the pastors and some of the youth of the congregation appeared in a Swedish newspaper. There, a young member of the group announced

  PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY 

xi

that he disapproved of the statements that had been made about the group in the media, which he perceived to be false and unfounded. He expressed disappointment and stated that anyone who was interested in the group should visit and talk to them in person. In a discussion about the article, Liselotte and I concluded that the statement reminded us both of Pastor Gembäck’s claim on TV in 2009 that people who had not been to visit could have no idea of what it was like within the group. We decided to again approach the group and asked them to reconsider their involvement in our study, which they again politely declined. I continued interviewing children and youth from the other groups in our project, when, in the spring of 2014, I was informed that the congregation had unexpectedly changed their minds. Liselotte was planning to write an article about the congregation from a historical perspective and was granted an interview with Waldau, who would give her view and experience of the Swedish Pentecostal Church. We were going to stay over in two of the spa rooms, which the congregation operated. We had again discussed the possibility of interviewing children and youth and were promised that we could have a short information meeting with parents of some of the children to present our project. I was hoping to conduct some interviews, but in the light of my previous bad luck in pursuing that goal, I frankly did not expect them to say yes to interviews of children. I was not expecting to sit in on the interview with Waldau either, but when the time for the interview came, I found myself tagging along. The visit was successful beyond what I had hoped. Before the 2 days were over, we had conducted 11 interviews with children and youth aged 7–22, and an extensive interview with Waldau, which lasted for more than 7 hours. We were invited to participate in the Sunday service and were acquainted with some of the members of the congregation, listening to stories of conversion. The sudden openness on the part of the congregation resulted in me revisiting it several times for participant observations and interviews in 2014–2017. During my visits, I was invited to live with different families, and partook in some of their everyday life activities. I helped dust Waldau’s artistic photos that hung all over the walls of the spa, accompanied parents to school to get their children, attended prayer nights and, on a rare occasion, a meeting about the kids summer training camp. I sat in on family dinners, attended the congregation’s performance of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical Jesus Christ Superstar, which they performed on Ascension Day several years in a row, and I attended the training school

xii 

PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY

held during the summer. Slowly, my thesis went from being about children in contemporary new religions in Sweden to focusing solely on children in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. The reasons for this were multiple. One was that some of the other groups that I had been working with either had too few children left in the group or were very difficult to get to interview. Another was that the more time I spent with the Filadelfia congregation in Knutby, the more intrigued I became by what I labelled “The Youth Group”. There seemed to be a group of approximately 20 young members who constantly hung out together. From the interviews and observations, they appeared to be a large group of fun-loving friends who frequently stayed over at each other’s houses (sometimes all of them at once). They allegedly never argued, either with each other or with their siblings, parents or other adults. They all had dreams of staying within the village of Knutby, pursuing careers nearby, working either within construction or care of the elderly, and moreover, they were determined to stay within the congregation. They were painfully aware of the social stigma of belonging to the most notorious “cult” (as the media labelled them) in Sweden, some having experienced degrading treatment by teachers and peers outside the group. The fact that people outside of the congregation felt sorry for them and wanted to rescue them was the source of much indignation, not least since they felt that they enjoyed an upbringing superior to that of their peers. I collected data, recorded stories, questioned bits and pieces when I got contradictory information, but The Youth Group were quite clear in their answers: they were having the time of their lives. Occasionally, fragments of interviews with the younger children presented information that stood out, did not add up, or did not fit the rest of the information collected, but when I asked other members to explain, they categorically wrote these bits of information off as misunderstandings on the part of the interviewed child. The world that the younger children described revealed clues that together pointed towards a religious communal system within which the charismatic leaders were seen as authoritarian idols, worthy of worship but not easily approachable. The Youth Group and the adults, on the other hand, consistently downplayed the authoritarian components, and seemed to have a much closer relationship to the leadership than the younger children, and many of the adults as well. By the summer of 2016, I had accepted that I would be left with unanswered questions, threads in my material which I would not be able to follow until the end, trails of information leading out into some place which I would not be able to see

  PROLOGUE: COMING TO KNUTBY 

xiii

just yet, and that my thesis would serve primarily as a springboard for further research into a group which had, despite its unique position, not previously been researched academically. I highly regretted not being able to spend more time on the field, contemplating on several occasions that the missing pieces of the puzzle would perhaps have been possible to find and fit in had I been able to live with the congregation for a month or two. For personal reasons, this was not possible at the time. I had set the deadline for my data collecting to September 2016, but in October that same year, the field dramatically changed. In November, newspapers announced that both Pastor Urban Fält and Åsa Waldau had been forced to leave the congregation, members were discontinuing their membership and leaving Knutby, and the congregation seemed on the verge of breaking up. Pastor Gembäck went public and denounced the former leaders, stating that Fält had “abused his office” and that he— Fält—had left the congregation in September. He stated further, on behalf of the congregation, that “we felt that what was revealed was so grave that he had to leave his position”. Waldau left approximately two months after Fält, the reason given at the time was that there had been “an unhealthy culture” around her; she had been given too much power. The congregation had now left the long denied, but obviously active, belief in Waldau as the Bride of Christ, and additionally stated that Fält had posed as a “standin Jesus”. The first interview in the Christian newspaper Dagen (which subsequently resulted in a series of articles, including interviews) wrote that the congregation was now trying to come to terms with their problems. I contacted one of my previous interviewees, a woman whom I had been staying with during one of my field trips. Dialling her number, I scribbled some notes in my notebook—questions which I thought would help shed light on what had happened. I ended up not asking any of them. I had called her to get a clearer picture of what was going on, but with no intention of collecting further data. I figured that I needed to be informed but that the material that I had collected up to that point was sufficient in terms of giving an updated account about the congregation, perhaps with the recent changes in a footnote. We talked for almost two hours; she talked, and I was mostly silent as not to disturb her narration. When we hung up, I realised that if so much as a third of what she had related was true, then I had been presented with a way to find additional pieces of the puzzle after all, and felt obliged to do so. The result is this study.

Praise for Kids of Knutby “Kids of Knutby is a fascinating exploration of children’s experiences in Sweden’s most controversial new religion.  Sanja Nilsson somehow succeeded in gaining research access to Sweden’s most sectarian Pentacostal sect, and even negotiated interviews with its children. This highly original study addresses new topics like “spiritual shunning,” and teen power dynamics inside Knutby’s youth group, the “Horse”. The book also analyzes the charismatic persona of Knutby’s controversial leader, Asa Waldau, the “Bride of Christ,” from the unusual perspective of the Knutby children. Nilsson’s sociological method shows transparency and rigour. Her application of Erving Goffman’s theory is compelling and written in language accessible to “everyday people.” Kids of Knutby is an exciting and useful contribution to the emerging field of the social scientific study of children in new religions.” —Susan J. Palmer, Affiliate Professor, Concordia University, also Principal Investigator of the Children in Sectarian Religions Project at McGill University. “The story Sanja Nilsson unravels in The Kids of Knutby is far more fascinating than that following the 2004 headlines proclaiming Sex and Murder in Swedish Cult. Focussing largely on the consequences for the children., Nilsson offers us a nuanced and convincing account of changes in the construction of Grand Narratives which provided guidance and a succession of plausible rationalisations for the fluctuating theological and social status quo before and after the murder, the withdrawal of the charismatic ‘Bride of Christ’ from the daily functioning of the congregation, her eventual ‘Fall’, and, finally, the disbanding of the community. This is a story well worth the telling, and Nilsson tells it well – very well.” —Eileen Barker, Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics and founder of INFORM.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Knutby Filadelfia 23 3 The Charismatic Leader 55 4 Parents 89 5 The Youth Group127 6 Outsiders173 7 Conclusions197 8 Reflections on Studying Children in New Religions223 References229 Index237

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Theoretical Points of Departure I have chosen to let sociologist Erving Goffman’s (1922–1982) work regarding social interaction serve as the theoretical platform for this study due to its combination of focus on presentations of the self, social stigma, and total institutions: all three concepts that are relevant for this study. Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to social science borrows its key concepts from the world of theatre, a world that I am familiar with as well as fond of. Additionally, it is a world which most people can relate to, at least as far as the concepts of scenery, actors positioned on or off stage, and audience observing the interactions taking place on stage are concerned. At the core of this study are social interaction and relationships. Challenging a solipsistic ontology, the theoretical perspective here is that human ontology exists in the meaningful relationships we form with each other. Consequently, investigating social interaction in sets of social relationships reveals patterns, hierarchies, and social norms that may otherwise not be obvious to an observer. While focus is put on the presentation of childhood and the significant relationships connected to it in the congregation, a mere description of the situation, although interesting, begs the question as to why it is presented in a certain way at a certain time and in another way at another point in time. In order to assess and analyse the discrepancy © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_1

1

2 

S. NILSSON

between seemingly contradictory narrations, the meaning-making process of organising experiences will additionally be highlighted using Goffman’s metaphoric theory of frame analysis. The data collected for this study consists of semi-structured interviews, participant observations, informal conversations, and text produced by the congregation. The 25 interviews with young people aged 7–25 is divided into a first cohort of children (aged 7–15) and a second cohort of young adults (aged 16–25). The reason for separating the two cohorts will become evident in the empirical Chap. 5, where the development of the so-called Youth Group will be explored. The data also encompasses two group interviews with The Youth Group: one in 2015 and one in 2016, prior to the dissolution of the congregation and as a result, of the Youth Group. Some of the informants were interviewed prior to the dissolution of the congregation, while some complied to be additionally interviewed after. There were also those who were not interviewed individually in 2014 but who partook in The Youth Group interviews and agreed to be interviewed after the dissolution. The early interviews, prior to 2016, were conducted face-to-face and were recorded. The later interviews, from 2016–2018, consist largely of telephone interviews and to some extent written correspondence via an instant messaging service. These were generally not recorded, but I made extensive notes during these interviews. After The Fall, as I have chosen to name the beginning of the events that took place in the autumn of 2016 which subsequently led to defections and the breakup of the commune, I had to change my research design. Prior to The Fall, the informants had been picked by the leaders of the congregation. Liselotte and I conducted the interviews, and I have specified the use of her interviews, to which she agreed. After The Fall, I contacted all the informants from The Youth Group, including one of the children who had by that time turned 15. I deliberately chose not to contact the interviewees from the children’s cohort for ethical reasons. They did not cope well with the radical changes in the group; however, I was in contact with some of the parents of these children. As such, a few interviews with parents are therefore also included in the material. A total of 24 days of participant observations were also conducted, the majority taking place prior to The Fall. Additionally, written material about the congregation has been included, encompassing academic material, defectors’ stories, and material produced by the congregation.

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

Previous Research and Key Concepts The following research overview aims to present some relevant research on children in New Religious Movements (NRMs), and on the Knutby Filadelfia congregation and their children specifically. In addition to these two areas of research, this overview addresses the so-called cult wars within the field of religious studies that studies new religions. In this study, I have chosen to adopt the view of the congregation Knutby Filadelfia as belonging to the field of new religions studies rather than Pentecostal studies, although this can be further discussed. Although the congregation was for most of its existence an ordinary Pentecostal congregation, the unorthodox theological understandings of faith, the isolation from other congregations together with the unique position of one charismatic leader ultimately point to a detachment from the Pentecostal context and direction towards a new religion.

Questions of Terminology: The Scholarly Divide Frisk (2018) connects the media’s portrayal of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation to a stereotypical anti-cult1 representation of a New Religious Movement (Frisk 2018, p.  152). The concept of cult carries a clear pejorative connotation, at least in the mind of the public, and it has been widely used to portray the congregation. In studies of similar groups, the skewed use of the concept of cults resulted in the term New Religious Movement being introduced and adopted by some scholars of religion,2 while others use terms such as alternative religious movements or emergent movements (Olson 2006). In order to explain the categorisation of the congregation as a new religious movement and motivate the choices of key concepts in this study, the history of the concept New Religious Movement is captured below. Cults or New Religious Movements The concept of cult has, in the wake of the so-called cult wars of the decades prior to the millennium, come to equate with bad, false, and/or 1  The origins of the so-called anti-cult movements will be further detailed in this chapter. In this context, Frisk argued that the media used a negative stereotypical view on NRMs as deviant and dangerous, and applied it to the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. 2  https://www.cesnur.org/2001/mi_june03.htm.

4 

S. NILSSON

dangerous religion (Gallagher 2016). The original concept of sect in the work of sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) and religious philosopher Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923) presumed a Protestant Church, from which the sects separated and against which they protested. Their theories were built on studies of Baptists and Quakers. The cult in Troetsch’s theory referred to non-traditional religious groups who claim that the divine exists in the individual believers. These groups were generally more loosely formed than the sects were. But the use of the concept of cult in the sociological tradition differs from the public’s use of it in everyday language. The second half of the twentieth century saw new types of groups, many of which evolved as a result of the counterculture. What is now known as the counterculture originated in a youth revolt against the Vietnam War and against the politicisation of universities, and resulted in a subculture signified by sexual liberation, political disenchantment, and liberal views on drug use and favouring of communal living style. The counterculture produced youth who found themselves adhering to new movements that radically re-interpreted established religion, built on migrated religions from other parts of the world (predominantly Asian), and/or mixed old ideas with new ones. Others such as The Family International (formerly known as the Children of God) rose out of the socalled Jesus Movement and attracted hippies and drop-outs. Others, such as The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON, better known as Hare Krishna), were based on old Eastern traditions but with cultural novelties imported into Western countries by their charismatic leaders. Still others, such as the Church of Scientology, were partly influenced by psychology and innovative ideas incorporated with ancient ones. Many were known to the public due to unusual practices, such as the mass wedding ceremonies of the Unification Church. Throughout the Western world, members could be seen distributing pamphlets and merchandise, witnessing by singing, dancing, and offering stress tests and free meals. Members often adopted a new lifestyle and broke away from their old habits, dedicating a large part of their time and assets to the movement of their choice. Some of the new faiths required a change in diet, in clothing and even in name (Chancellor 2000, p. 37). Not surprisingly, the conversions to unknown faiths soon led to controversy. Parents of the young adults who had so radically “dropped out” to join a group of unknown faith and, to their consternation, strange habits, started to organise and, out of concern, raise their voices. In 1972, the first so-called anti-cult movement (ACM) was formed as a reaction from

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

parents of young members of the Children of God (Melton & Bromley 2002, p.  268). Subsequently, several anti-cult movements were formed, some on a secular and some on a religious (mainly Christian) basis (Bromley and Cutchin 1999, pp.  197–198). Sociologists of religion David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe point to the importance of the media in the formative state of the ACM (Bromley and Shupe 1987, p. 222). Many of the NRMs made sensationalistic headlines and established a tense relationship with society, and soon the authorities in the countries where the groups were active started their own investigations into their activities. The parents claimed that their (mostly adult) children were being brainwashed, a term originally used by the CIA to explain why Korean War prisoners converted to communism (Anthony and Robbins 2004, p. 129). The assumption was that charismatic leaders were manipulating them to hand over their money and provide free labour, and that they had lost their ability to think for themselves and were being held captive. The parents demanded that their children go back to their schools and ordinary lives. The young members, in turn, were outraged and sometimes horrified by their parents’ allegations and stories of violent abductions; so-called deprogramming schemes were soon flourishing among members. The presumption of parents and other antagonists was that the young adult had been brainwashed into the group and would or could not leave voluntarily. Therefore, they were sometimes lured or forcibly removed from the group and put in isolation where alternative (critical) information about the group was given by a deprogrammer, often detailing the charismatic leaders’ claims, and deconstructing the group’s faith. The young person was generally held captive until the deprogramming was deemed successful and he or she decided to leave the group. Deprogramming has been criticised by the majority within the academic community. Sociologist James T. Richardson dismisses the brainwashing paradigm based on the lack of significant data showing the effects of participation in NRMs, the ignorance of alternative explanations to conversion and ideological biases of brainwashing theorists (Richardson 1996, p. 224). Similar critique has been voiced by other sociologists of religion, such as Eileen Barker (Barker 1984), James A. Beckford (Beckford 1985) and Susan Palmer (Palmer 2011). The practice of deprogramming

6 

S. NILSSON

and the pressure that leaders of many groups felt from investigating authorities led some of the group to practice frequent relocation.3 The controversies started to attract the attention of scholars of religion in the 1970s and soon two perspectives on the cult controversies, as they were called, emerged (Beckford 1985, p. 94). Some scholars of psychology and therapists who encountered defectors of various movements adopted the view that members were indeed brainwashed (Singer and Lalich 1995), (Hassan 1988). Scholars of religion, on the other hand, took the stand that these were grown-up people making radical, but still informed, choices about their lives (Barker 1984). I have, in this study, chosen not to use the concept of brainwashing because of its disputable usefulness. In her article “The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!” (2003), Professor Eileen Barker categorises the secondary constructions of reality from the perspective of six different agents presenting perspectives on NRMs, namely scholars of sociology of religion, the new religious groups themselves, the anti-cult movement, representatives from the media, the law, and therapists and exit counsellors. Each set of agents has its own agenda. The religious groups tend to promote the good behaviour of the group, and include supernatural claims in their presentation of themselves and their history. Similarly, they tend to omit any skeletons in the closet and any esoteric gnosis is kept secret (Barker 2003, pp. 12–13)— or, in Goffman’s words, kept backstage. As for the ACM, Barker claims that the agenda revolves around warning, exposing, destroying, and controlling the NRMs, and claim that former disillusioned members as well as anxious parents of current members arm the media with biased information of the groups and portray membership as an all-encompassing negative experience (Barker 2003, p. 16). Where the religions themselves use good behaviour and supernatural claims, the anti-cult movement’s methods of choice are primarily negative summary events. The concept of negative summary events was presented by James Becford (1985, p. 235). Barker uses another concept, atrocity tales, a concept also used by David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe. Opposing the implication of fiction in the term tale, I will use Beckford’s less suggestive term here. A significant consequence of the cult wars was that sociologists of religion began employing the term New Religious Movements as a means of conceptualising the groups without risking the value-free objective of 3  Deprogramming was abandoned in the 1980s and replaced by the less violent form called exit counselling.

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

sociology. However, the concept is not free from complications. The term begs the question as to when a religion is considered new. Some of the groups that usually fall under the term, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Church of the Latter-Day Saints, were founded in the nineteenth century; still, some scholars include only groups that emerged after the 1950s (Barker 1989). Scholar of religion George Chryssides suggests that the time limit should be set to the time when the organisation rose as an institution. In this way, groups appearing prior to the 1950s can be included (Chryssides 1999, p.  12). The Knutby Filadelfia congregation was originally a traditional Pentecostal congregation, and it was only in the last 30 years out of its almost 100 year old existence that the congregation moved towards an institutionalisation of it as a NRM. An Integrated Concept: High-Demand New Religious Communes In this study, I use the term High-Demand New Religious Commune to categorise the Knutby Filadelfia congregation in order to avoid the pejorative concept of cult. I have integrated the concept High-Demand Group, as defined by Stein and Stein (2017), with the broader term New Religious Movements, as defined by Beckford and Levasseur (1986), into the concept of High-Demand New Religious Commune (HDNRC). A High-Demand Group signifies a community governed by strict rules of conduct, often involving a scheduled existence in which most of one’s spare time is devoted to communal commitments. These groups often set dietary, sexual, relational, and economic rules (Stein and Stein 2017, pp. 267–269). An NRM is defined by Beckford and Levasseur as organised attempts to mobilise human and material resources for the purpose of spreading new ideas and sensibilities of a religious nature. They are therefore intentional, collective, and historically specific (Beckford and Levasseur 1986, p. 29). Not all high-demand groups are NRMs, and not all NRMs are high-demand. However, in this study on Knutby Filadelfia, the combined concept serves to signify the broader context within which the congregation as the theologically innovative split-off group is found but adds the dimension of high-demand primarily to the inner circles of the congregation to signify the degree of strictness required from its members. The divide within the congregation into levels of engagement will be explored in section “Child-­ Rearing Issue in Totalist Groups (2001)”.

8 

S. NILSSON

Additionally, the concept community needs to be addressed. Sociologist Ted Conover (1978) differentiates between the commune, the intentional community, and the collective. According to Conover’s definition, the commune at one end of the scale of a highly organised group of people share most things such as living, economy, labour and meals, while a loosely organised group of people who might not have anything more in common than shared residency and living expenses, makes up the community. Moreover, the commune is signified by an ideologically and/ or religiously oriented lifestyle, while the members of the community do not necessarily share an ideology or beliefs at all (Conover 1978, pp. 5–17). The intentional community is situated between these two extremes. Professor of Religious Studies Timothy Miller exemplifies in his article “Religious Communes in America. An Overview” (2013) how some NRMs organise themselves into intentional communities, which encompasses the lifestyle based on “deep commitment and complete immersion in the group” (Miller 2013, p.  191) and encompasses geographical proximity, economic sharing and a common vision. It is beyond the scope of this study to delve deep into the definition of intentional communities; however, following Conover’s definition, the assumption here is that the congregation is positioned somewhere between commune and intentional community. A complicating factor in defining the congregation as a whole is the gliding scale of engagement, or high-­demand, on which the individual members were positioned. As will be presented in the next chapter, these positions changed over time, given that the inner circles of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation, whose members are the primary objects of this study, can be said to have been organised in a high-demand religious commune, while the members on the periphery, who had little direct contact with the leadership, were inhabitants of a religious intentional community.

Sociological Studies on Children in New Religious Movements/Cults Perfect Children (2015) Although research into the lives of children in NRMs is scarce, a recent sociological account is given in Van Eck Duymaer van Twist’s book Perfect Children. Growing Up on the Religious Fringe (2015). Attention is here

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

given to the young adult’s ways of coping by either staying in or leaving the group. The book successfully portrays the narrations of childhood within several interesting movements through the eyes of those who experienced it, and the material includes research produced by both sides of the scholarly divide.4 Additionally, Van Eck Duymaer van Twist’s article “Children in New Religions: Contested Duties of Care” (2013) explores the social changes forced by the event of a second generation. Disputes over the juridical responsibility for children’s welfare may become a problem when the appreciation of what constitutes “the child’s best interest” varies. A certain group may wish to withdraw the children from society in order to save them from a society that they perceive to be harmful. Social institutions such as social services or school authorities, in turn, may argue that the seclusion is harmful to the children. A variable that influences the outcome of similar disputes is how the group is inserted into society. Depending on the group’s objectives and goals, it will reject (certain parts of) society to a greater or lesser degree. Despite choosing seclusion and dismissing society’s norms, no group can withdraw itself entirely from society. Another important variable is the way that society responds to the group. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist argues the fact that society can either “alienate or enable minority groups” (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2010, p. 186). Van Eck Duymaer van Twist further explores the areas of care, health and education, which she highlights as being the most prone to intervention by the state. She gives examples of how intervention can vary between nations, depending, for instance, on the nation’s relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2010, p. 190), and of how the parents’ right to socialise their children in accordance with their own convictions (Article 2) and the child’s right to freely seek information (Article 13) may conflict in some educational settings. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist’s book encompasses a rare mix of perspectives on children in NRMs, including the perspectives of some scholars generally understood as belonging to the anti-cult section of the field. Perfect Children has served as a great source of inspiration for this study’s attempt at understanding the childhoods of children in NRMs by not limiting the sources of data to those belonging to one or the other side of the scholarly divide.

4

 Van Eck Duymaer van Twist has a PhD in Sociology.

10 

S. NILSSON

Children in New Religions (1999) The anthology Children in New Religions (1999), edited by Palmer and Hardman, provides one of few ethnographical academic anthologies dedicated exclusively to the topic of childhood in several of the new religions from a sociological perspective. It explores how children change movements, how movements socialise children, and how society responds to the ways movements have of socialising their young. Including chapters about a variety of groups, such as ISKCON, The Family/Children of God, Fourth Wall/Sullivan Institute, and The Twelve Tribes, it presents different developments within different groups as a consequence of a second generation being born into them. The articles discuss the second generation’s curiosity in terms of the outside world, as well as sometimes their unfamiliarity with it and how this may create tensions between the old and new generations, but also within the groups. The last section of the book includes two interesting articles on the relation between sociological and legal perspectives—particularly James T.  Richardson’s claim that the former accusations of brainwashing have turned into an increase in accusations of sexual abuse of children within the groups. Richardson attributes this partly to the disapproval of brainwashing theories by scholars such as himself and argues that child abuse is no more common within these groups than in society. Michael Homer’s article “The Precarious Balance Between Freedom of Religion and the Best Interests of the Child” pinpoints a very important issue, and problematizes the concept of child abuse. The anthology has served in this study as inspiration for fieldwork, particularly observations of children. Although dealing with issues of child abuse and how to understand it, most of the articles are less critical of the new religions than, for instance, the following two pieces of work, which puts Palmer and Hardman’s compiled work at one end of a spectrum of what Siskind (the following author) would call a defensive set of preconceptions. Contrary to the following article by Siskind Children in New Religions seemingly aims at pointing out the positive aspects of childhoods in NRMs rather than the negative ones. Nonetheless, the anthology is one of very few compiled works by sociologists that focus on children in NRMs.

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

Child-Rearing Issue in Totalist Groups (2001) A for this study very interesting take on children in new religions is Amy Siskind’s article “Child-Rearing Issue in Totalist Groups” in the anthology by Zablocki et. al entitled Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field (2001), which points to structural similarities in the socialisation of children in what she terms ‘totalistic’ groups. Drawing on examples from five charismatic communal groups the Fourth Wall, the Oneida Perfectionists, The Children of God (later The Family International), The Bruderhof and Hare Krishna (ISKCON), Siskind argues that when parents are required to work for the organisation, this may lead to less time being spent with the children, which may result in a sense of loss on the part of the child (Siskind 2001, p. 420). While pointing out the fact that the groups differ in terms of history, child-rearing practices, and theology, Siskind concludes that the common thread in all instances is that there is a structural lack of “external and internal checks and balances” which makes the children growing up in totalistic environments more vulnerable to abuse than children in mainstream society (Siskind 2001, p.  443). According to Siskind, limited contact with representatives of mainstream society, such as medical professionals, schoolteachers and peers outside the group, may foster an isolated environment which makes the discovery and report of abuse less likely to take place. Siskind further highlights the scholarly divide in perspectives by accounting for the use of terminology to describe the groups (which was discussed in 1.4.1) and adds that conclusions regarding the prevalence of child abuse may differ between scholars who have different perspectives. She further states that: Many social scientists have largely ignored the presence of children in new religious movements, treating these groups as simple voluntary aggregations of consenting adults. Others have recognised the presence of children in these groups but have argued that groups that oppose or retreat from mainstream society are often unfairly persecuted merely because they deviate from the unwritten norms of child rearing in our society. (Siskind 2001, p. 434)

As stated in the beginning of this section, Siskind argues that although there are varieties in the practices of the groups, there are some structural similarities. Drawing on the terminology of Goffman, and his definition of total institutions, Siskind describes socialisation in totalistic groups as

12 

S. NILSSON

characteristic in the sense that parents have turned over their parental authority to the leader(s) of the group (Siskind 2001, p. 420). They also resemble each other in their “institutional totalism and their communitarian withdrawal from society” (Siskind 2001, p. 416). Hence, the ideological differences or similarities between groups are varied, while the structures of the organisations are the same. In this study, I have used Siskind’s article as a stepping stone in my discussions of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation as a total institution. While this study accounts, in a micro-sociological manner, for one specific group and does not compare it with other similar groups, there are some structural similarities at some levels of engagement in the congregation that are similar to the features of the groups that Siskind refers to, such as the separation of children and parents and, more specifically, the handing over of parental responsibility to the leaders of the group. However, Siskind’s article is especially focused on the potential harm that comes with raising children within totalistic groups, which is not the focus of this study. Although several of the PostNarratives of the breakup of the congregation do account for the experience of harm, this was never the primary focus of the study. This study’s explorative design opened up for everything that could be observed in relation to the understanding of childhood and child-rearing practices, including positive as well as harmful aspects. Siskind challenges scholars to examine totalistic groups without adhering to either “antagonistic nor (a) defensive set of preconceptions”, a tricky task but an important point of departure in this study. Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over (2018) A recently published book dealing with childhoods in NRMs is Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over (2018) by sociologists Janja Lalich and Karen McLaren. Differing somewhat in focus from the previously presented books and articles, the definition of a cult in this book is wider. A cult does not have to be religious, and cultic behaviour can occur in personal relations as well, presented in the definition of a cult as: […] a group or a relationship that stifles individuality and critical thinking, requires intense commitment and obedience to a person and/or an ideology,

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

and restricts or eliminates personal autonomy in favour of the cult’s worldview and the leader’s wants or needs. (Lalich and McLaren 2018, p. 5)

I object to the use of the word cult or any of its substitutes such as NRMs, High-Demand Groups, when speaking about individual relationships such as within a family. Lalich and McLaren clearly equate the experiences of an individual that result from certain group dynamics to the experiences of being in a dependent and/or destructive relationship. The study builds on 65 interviews with former members of a variety of groups, from new religions to martial arts groups, and this is the strength of the book. The multitude of empirical material is very interesting, yet one-sided, as it only recounts the interviewees’ understanding of their groups after defection. Unfortunately, the premise of the book is that cults are “bad”, whatever form they may appear in. The phrasing escape signifies an involuntary presence from which one should break free. I would argue, in contrast to Lalich and McLaren, that it is simplistic to equate a religious setting with a non-religious one: for instance, the presence of a punishing god or the threat of not only being excluded from a relationship or a family but also sentenced to burn in Hell for all eternity should one go against the group—presents a major difference from a profane setting. Lalich and McLaren, like Siskind, take their starting point partly in Goffman’s concept of total institutions. Comparing the social structures in these groups with total institutions, Lalich and McLaren claim that cults can create total obedience in members that is comparable to the total obedience of incarcerated individuals through systems of control (Lalich and McLaren 2018, p. 63). Not taking the Goffman-specific concept of total institutions any further, but identifying mechanisms of control, the authors identify four control tactics in a cultic group: indoctrination, family life, social and cultural life, and daily rules (Lalich and McLaren 2018, p. 64). Apart from indoctrination in its strictest sense, these areas of control have been researched in my study as well. Lalich and McLaren additionally speak about systems of influence and identify what they claim to be unique features of influence found in cultic settings. These include the lack of a sense of “true self” in children in these groups. The authors point to the fact that manipulation in the sense of persuasion is active everywhere, in all kinds of relationships, which they base on social psychologist Robert Cialdini’s book Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things (1985) and his definition of six categories of influence. Lalich and McLaren claim that while such influence may have positive effects on

14 

S. NILSSON

relations in society, they conclusively have negative effects on members in cults. As stated above, this book offers interesting and rare defector narratives. While I do not agree that all activities of influence in similar groups are negative (indeed, the active member may perceive them to be positive while the defector may perceive them to be negative), I do feel that Lalich and McLaren’s study of childhood in cultic groups cannot be ignored. In this study, I have mainly used their development of Goffman’s theory on total institutions as an antidote to how I want to use them. Instead of broadening the terms systems of control and influence to include all kinds of relations or using Goffman’s work as a backdrop to a wholly negative reflection on the topic, I aimed to return to the original theory of total institutions and try to understand them in a wider Goffmanesque context. Combining the theories of performances as activities taking place on a metaphorical theatre stage as well as with the particular tribal social stigma which comes with membership in similar groups, the concept total institutions, in its original, and simplest form, emerges in a less value-laden perspective. I have here accounted for the current major research on childhoods in different new religions/cults which have been of significant value in this study. As previously stated, children’s situations are, when investigated at all within the field of NRMs, very general. Examples of this are Hardman’s synoptic article “Children in New Religions” in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (2003) or parts of monographs of certain NRMs such as Bainbridge’s chapter on children in his book on The Family International (2002) or Rochford’s inclusion of the cases of child abuse in ISKCON (2007a). As with these groups, research on children growing up in Knutby Filadelfia congregation has only amounted to a very small sample of data and it has never been presented within the sociological frame. Since academic data on the congregation has been extremely scarce, I will in the following section not only account for academic productions but also include and discuss some of the overall material published about the congregation in order to paint a general portrait of the group, from inside as well as outside the boundaries of academia.

1 INTRODUCTION 

15

Summary of Academic Research on the Knutby Filadelfia Congregation Knutby Filadelfia was an autonomous congregation within the Swedish Pentecostal Church from its inception in 1921 until its expulsion in 2004. It functioned as a part of the Pentecostal Movement in Sweden, but gradually changed during the 1980s and 1990s, largely due to the influences of the leadership of The Word of Life in Uppsala, Sweden, a part of the Faith Movement.5 A definite theological turn, which decisively pushed the group towards an organisational structure more in accordance with the definition of a new religious movement was the doctrine of the Bride of Christ, which appeared in the year 2000. The history of the organisational and theological development of the group will be detailed in Chap. 3. In this study, I will be referring to Knutby Filadelfia as a High Demand New Religious Commune (HDNRC) in a theoretical context, but as the congregation, commune or, simply, group in the text to with reference to its Pentecostal roots. The Knutby Code (2008) The book by Professor of Sociology Eva Lundgren, Knutbykoden [The Knutby Code] (2008), aims to unravel the “truth” about the crimes in 2004 and the secret doctrines of the congregation. The title mirrors that of the fictive detective novel The DaVinci Code (2003) written by Dan Brown. The objective of the book is to decipher the “Knutby code”, rendering the events of 2004 the aura of an enigma, a crime mystery unsolved. Lundgren’s method of choice is to use the former pastor Helge Fossmo as the primary source. Lundgren spent over 150 hours in conversation with Fossmo, interviewing him in prison, recording his story. Lundgren secondary source is the Swedish online community forum Flashback, with its more than one million members. Flashback is known as a community dedicated to freedom of speech, but also as a drug liberal platform with sub-groups such as racists, Nazis, and anarchists. A feature that has made the forum infamous is the layman 5

 See, for instance, Coleman (2000).

16 

S. NILSSON

journalistic style dedicated members have of picking up crimes presented in the media, attempting to solve the cases by collecting evidence, reading preliminary enquirer reports (PERs), and speculating. In the case of the Knutby murder, a topic was set up on the forum within days of the event, consisting of approximately 34,000 comments within the first year, and has since given rise to several related threads, some of which are still active today. Parts of the discussions are valuable in research because they contain transcriptions of sermons conducted prior to 2004, which are otherwise inaccessible to people outside of the group. These too, of course, need to be read critically since it is difficult to confirm the validity of these statements. I have only used data which has been identified by former members as authentic among such documents is The Tirsa Prophecy, a contested document allegedly written by Waldau, which will be explained in Chap. 2. Sermons portraying a congregation professing the end of times and discussing controversial subjects such as corporal punishment and women’s subordination can also be found among these links and documents. At the same time, Lundgren’s use of the forum as a source of information validating the authenticity in Fossmo’s narrative is questionable. Murder in Knutby: Charisma, Eroticism, and Violence in a Swedish Pentecostal Community (2011) Most of the overall existing material focuses on the murder of Alexandra Fossmo and relates the events to the congregation’s deviant theology. In his article “Murder in Knutby: Charisma, Eroticism, and Violence in a Swedish Pentecostal Community” (2011), historian Jonathan Peste presents a summary of the events in 2004 and applies theories connected to violence in NRMs to the events. Peste concludes that since there was no pressure on the group, either from the Pentecostal Church or from society, the events can best be explained as a result of a power structure within, in which Helge Fossmo was free to act according to his own will and to form a “traumatic binding” relation between himself and the former member and shooter, Sara Svensson.

1 INTRODUCTION 

17

Knutby Filadelfia: An Independent Religious Community with Roots in the Swedish Pentecostal Movement (2015) Apart from Peste’s and Lundgren’s writings, two more recent scholarly articles connected to the congregation have been written by Professor of Religious Studies Liselotte Frisk. The first article, “Knutby Filadelfia: An Independent Religious Community with Roots in the Swedish Pentecostal Movement” (2015), utilises a historical perspective, placing the development of the congregation within the history of Swedish Pentecostalism. The second article, “The Life Story of Helge Fossmo, Former Pastor of Knutby Filadelfia, as Told in Prison: A Narrative Analysis Approach” (2015), was co-written with NRM scholar Susan Palmer. The article presents the insider perspective of Helge Fossmo, narrated in interview, and analysed using a narrative analysis method. The authors argue that Helge Fossmo reproduces the “evil cult narrative” and the views of his therapist, Rigmor Robèrt, whose perspective resembles Helge Fossmo’s narrative. Relating this to the much noted case of the Swedish (self-proclaimed) serial killer Thomas Quick, whose false recollections rendered him eight convictions for murders he did not commit, and whose confessions were in fact the result of Quick’s therapist’s construction, Palmer and Frisk hint at a possibly similar case of projection in Helge Fossmo’s relation to his therapist. The Charismatic Leader in Knutby Filadelfia: The Children’s Perspective (2017) Apart from the publications mentioned above, my own article “The Charismatic Leader in Knutby Filadelfia: The Children’s Perspective” (2018) went to press during the leadership crisis within the congregation. The article thus builds solely on the understanding of the charismatic leader Waldau as presented by the interviewees prior to the autumn of 2016. The same article was published in English in 2018 in the volume Children in Minority Religions. Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups (2018). Additional Academic Papers In hindsight, it may seem hard to understand how a piece of interesting contemporary religious history such as the congregation in Knutby

18 

S. NILSSON

constituted was given so little scholarly attention. One aspect would have been the congregation’s unwillingness to participate in research. Another may have been the focus on the murder, which had been illustrated in several non-academic publications, perhaps overshadowing the congregation itself to the point where Knutby Filadelfia became less interesting as a congregation and more cemented as a case for disciplines such as criminology and media history. There are a few excellent studies at the undergraduate level, among them Johansson and Stahl’s “The Media Characters of the Knutby Case” (2015), which analyses the media’s contribution to the portrayal of Helge Fossmo as perpetrator and Sara Svensson as victim. Minor studies including a small number of interviews have been presented by Meakin (2014),6 whose interviews with two former members point to the division of the congregation into what I will call the different levels of engagements, a division which was obviously present prior to 2004.

Additional Non-Scholarly Material on the Knutby Filadelfia Congregation Due to the lack of academic research on the group, I have additionally read non-scholarly narrations on the congregation, and aim to present them here to make visible the discrepancy in academic data in terms of the congregation and data coming from other sources. The preliminary enquirer report from the investigation of the murder and attempted murder in 2004, which will be detailed in Chap. 2, constitutes an interesting source of data. Although the events took place 14 years ago (at the time of writing, 2018), the extensive interviews with above all the accused Sara Svensson but also with other members of the congregation highlight the tight-knit nature of the group and its history of reverting to shunning practices. The preliminary enquirer report makes up a total of over 1000 pages. It has been used in this study as background material as well as functioning as a way of confirming data. A particularly interesting feature of the interviews in the preliminary enquirer report is the joint turn of perspective on the part of the congregational members from at first insisting on Helge Fossmo’s innocence only to simultaneously turning on him in a joint action where several members visited the police station in Uppsala to change their testimonies.7 This turn of events points 6 7

 http://esh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:785026/FULLTEXT01.pdf.  PER Part 3.

1 INTRODUCTION 

19

to strong communal bonds, or—as Goffman would term it—well-scripted team performances. An early journalistic recount of the events was presented by Terese Christiansson, a crime reporter from one of Sweden’s largest tabloids Expressen in 2004. Christiansson’s book Himmel och helvete: Mord i Knutby [Heaven and Hell: Murder in Knutby] presents an interesting non-­ scholarly document, building on judicial records as well as interviews with members. Christiansson partook in a three-week Bible training school to learn more about the congregation. That same year, reporter Jan Nordgren published his book Knutby: Sanningen och nåden [Knutby: Truth and Mercy] (2004), where he discusses the milieu where the murder occurred and argues that this case should be analysed in the context of the religious lifeworld rather than as a separate crime committed by a madman. A book written more in the form of a novel, yet based on the actual events and preliminary enquirer report, focuses on the perspective of the police investigators involved in solving the crime. Pastorerna i Knutby: En autentisk kriminalroman [The Pastors of Knutby: An Authentic Crime Novel] (2005) was written by author Mårten Nilsson and makes for a novel on the border of reality. Another non-scholarly, deliberative portrait of the congregation is given in the book Inte bara Knutby: Drömmen om det fullkomliga [Not only Knutby: The Dream of the Absolute] (2010) by Church of Sweden Minister Göran Bergstrand. Bergstrand is an educated psychotherapist. His book challenges the media representation of the congregation as exceptional and deviant. Bergstrand’s book is a reflection on the fact that ‘Knutby’ could happen anywhere under the right circumstances, which are not further specified. Knutby here refers to the murder within an isolated religious group. Additionally, another perspective is presented in journalist Thomas Sjögren’s book on the events of 2004. In Barnflickan i Knutby [The Nanny of Knutby] (2005), Sjögren depicts the events from the assumed perspective of Sara Svensson. Sjögren’s data builds on juridical records, tape-recordings from the congregation’s sermons, and interviews with key persons. The book has the character of a reality-based novel. Sjögren’s second book, Knutbypastorns fall [The Fall of the Pastor of Knutby] (2014), focuses primarily on Pastor Helge Fossmo and discusses what made him take the actions which led to his involvement in the murder. An interesting contribution from inside the congregation came in 2007, when Åsa Waldau published her autobiography Kristi Brud: Vem kan man lita på? [The Bride of Christ: Who Can be Trusted?]. In the

20 

S. NILSSON

book, Waldau gives her version of the events of 2004, commenting on the police investigation and the following media frenzy. She criticises the involvement of the Swedish Pentecostal Church, and comments on the trauma that the media caused the children of the group. Throughout the text, she consistently puts the sole responsibility on Helge Fossmo and Sara Svensson. The book is a reply of sorts to the portrayal of the congregation and herself by the mass media. The only non-academic source of data dealing specifically with the situation of the children is reporter Charlotte Essén’s aforementioned book entitled Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset [Cult Children: A Report on the Ones Chosen for Paradise] (2008). The book has attracted attention in Sweden, and has been used as background material in political propositions (Åkerbäck 2018, p. 29), probably rendering it the status of the most noted book on children in new religions in Sweden. I have used Essén’s accounts with caution and only with the aim of illustrating information validated by empirical data.

References Åkerbäck, P. (2018), ‘The Politicization of Children in Minority Religions: The Swedish and the European Contexts’. In L. Frisk, S. Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck, Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox, pp. 17–39. Anthony, D. and T.  Robbins (2004), ‘Conversion and “Brainwashing” in New Religious Movements’. In J. R. Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 243–297. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002), The Endtime Family: Children of God. New York: State University of New York Press. Barker, E. (1984), The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Barker, E. (1989), New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Barker, E. (2003), ‘The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!’. In L. L. Beckford, J.  A. (1985), Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements. London: Tavistock. Beckford, J. A. and M. Levasseur (1986), ‘New Religious Movements in Western Europe’. In J. A. Beckford (ed.), New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage, pp. 29–54. Bergstrand, G. (2010), Inte bara Knutby: Drömmen om det fullkomliga. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.

1 INTRODUCTION 

21

Bromley, D. G. and D. G. Cutchin (1999), The Social Construction of Subversive Evil: The Contemporary Anti-Cult and Anti-Satanism Movements. In J. Freeman & V. Johnson (eds), Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 195–220. Bromley, D.  G. and A.  D. Shupe, Jr. (1987), ‘The Future of the Anticult Movement’. In D. G. Bromley and P. E. Hammond (eds), The Future of New Religions. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, pp. 221–234. Brown, D. (2003), The DaVinci Code. London: Bantam. Chancellor, J. (2000), Life in the Family: An Oral History of the Children of God. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Chryssides, G. D. (1999), Exploring New Religions, New York: Continuum. Coleman, S. (2000), Globalisation of Charismatic Christianity: Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conover, P. (1978), Communes and Intentional Communities. In Volume 7, Issue 3–4. Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Frisk, L. (2018), ‘Knutby Filadelfia: A Schismatic New Religious Movement within the Pentecostal Context’. In Moberg & Skjoldi (eds.) Charismatic Christianity in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Case Studies in Historical and Contemporary Development. Palgrave McMillian. Frisk, L. and S. J. Palmer (2015), ‘The Life Story of Helge Fossmo, Former Pastor of Knutby Filadelfia, as Told in Prison: A Narrative Analysis Approach’, International Journal for the Study of New Religions 6, pp. 27–49. Gallagher, E. (Ed.) (2016), Visioning New and Minority Religions: Projecting the Future (1st ed.). Routledge. Hassan, S. (1988), Combatting Cult Mind Control: Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults. Wellingborough: Aquarian. Los Angeles: Sage. Lalich, J. and K.  McLaren (2018), Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over. New York: Routledge. Lundgren, E. (2008), Knutbykoden. Stockholm: Modernista. Meakin, E. (2014), ‘Anhörigas reaktioner på att en nära familjemedlem är med i ett religiöst sekteristiskt sammanhang’. MA thesis from Ersta Sköndal University College, http://esh.diva-­portal.org/smash/get/diva2:785026/ FULL TEXT01.pdf, accessed 2019-01-20. Melton, J. G. and Bromley, D. G. (2002), Cults, Religion, and Violence. Cambridge University Press. Miller, T. (Ed.). (2013), Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World (1st ed.). Routledge. Nilsson, M. (2005), Pastorerna i Knutby: En autentisk kriminalroman. Uppsala: Succéförlaget abc.

22 

S. NILSSON

Nilsson, S. (2018), ‘The Charismatic Leader in Knutby Filadelfia: The Children’s Perspective’. In L.  Frisk, S.  Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck, Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox, pp. 257–279. Nordling, J. (2019), Sanningen och nåden. Saga Egmont Förlag. Olson, P.  J. (2006), ‘The Public Perception of Cults and New Religious Movements’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45, pp. 97–106. Palmer, S.  J. (2011), The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ‘War on Sects’. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peste, J. (2011), ‘Murder in Knutby: Charisma, Eroticism, and Violence in a Swedish Pentecostal Community’. In J.  R. Lewis (ed.), Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–229. Richardson, J. T. (1996), ‘“Brainwashing” Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena’, Brigham Young University Law Review 1996, pp. 873–904. Rochford, E. B. (2007a), ‘Social Building Blocks of New Religious Movements: Organization and Leadership’. In D. G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–185. Sanner, I. (2008), ‘Försåtlig metod skapar partsinlaga’, Svenska Dagbladet, 25 February, http://www.svd.se/forsatlig-metod-skapar-partsinlaga/, accessed 2019-01-18. Singer, M. T. and J. Lalich (1995), Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Siskind, Amy. (2001), “ChildRearing Issues in Totalistic Groups.” In Thomas Robbins and Benjamin D. Zablocki, eds. Misunderstanding Cults. Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sjögren, T. (2005), Barnflickan i Knutby. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Sjögren, T. (2014), Knutbypastorns fall: Ett porträtt av den livstidsdömde Helge Fossmo, mannen bakom det mest uppmärksammade rättsfallet sedan Palmemordet. Stockholm: Telegram. Stein, R. and P.  Stein (2017), The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2010), ‘Children in New Religions: Contested Duties of Care’, International Journal for the Study of New Religions, Vol. 1 No. 2.

CHAPTER 2

Knutby Filadelfia

In the following chapter, I will detail the history of the congregation, tracing its roots back to early Pentecostalism, through the development of Swedish Pentecostalism. While relating the unique events within the group, from its early Pentecostal history to the murder and subsequent expulsion of the congregation in 2004, this chapter will in addition outline the congregation’s theological foundation and semi-communal living arrangements.

Pentecostalism A Brief Historical Background The origins of the first Pentecostal congregation in the West are usually set to the beginning of the twentieth century in Los Angeles, USA. However, modern church history assesses the existence of several similar groups, founded independently of each other, around the same time (Dayton, 1987, p. 174). The following two sections will summarise the development of Pentecostalism in North America and Europe, and focus particularly on its development in Sweden.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_2

23

24 

S. NILSSON

The ministry in North America began in April 1906. Evangelist Charles Fox Parham (1873–1929) preached and operated a Bible school in Houston, Texas. Parham had a background in the Methodist Church and had been preaching and healing from the age of 15. His sermons were influenced by the Holiness Movement.1 Parham also made use of the practice of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and baptism in the Holy Spirit to his students. A lady named Lucy Farrow (1851–1911), who had been healed by Parham, expressed a calling to go to Los Angeles to evangelise. She was sent there by Parham together with traveling evangelist William J. Seymour (1870–1922). Seymour had been expelled from the Holiness Church on charges of speaking in tongues. Together with Lucy Farrow, who was his mentor, he formed a small prayer group, located at Azusa Street in Los Angeles. Seymour, together with Swedish evangelist Andrew Johnson (1878–1965) (formerly Anders Gustaf Johanson) and Lucy Farrow, guided the group through an intense fast, which resulted in the healing of a man named Edward Lee. Members were “filled with the holy spirit” and started speaking in tongues, stating that anyone who believed had access to religious experience (Daniels III, 2014). As depicted above, the theological foundation of the Pentecostal movement emphasised personal religious experience. Although sprung out of discontent with the surrounding society and opposing theological views such as the beliefs and practices in the (white) Wesleyan Holiness Movement, the African-American Holiness Movement, Restorationists, the Keswick Movement and the Sabbatarian Movement,2 the North American Pentecostal revival of Azusa Street rose in the context of this variety of protestant movements and was unquestionably influenced by them (Daniels III, 2014, p. 75). For example, the notion of the baptism of the spirit was built on founder of Methodism John Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification, which suggests how Christians could develop some degree of perfection in this life (Grass, 2008, p. 96). Within the Pentecostal movement, focus was on the biblical passages describing the experiences of the apostles on the first day of the Pentecost:

1  The Holiness Movement that emerged within nineteenth century Methodism is rooted in the teachings of John Wesley, whose theology centred on “the second work of grace”. See Jones (1974). 2  For an extensive definition of these different movements, see Daniels III (2014).

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

25

Ten days from the day of the ascent of Jesus, the apostles were all gathered in a house. Suddenly, they heard a sound coming from heaven. Tongues of fire appeared and filled each and every one of the present with the Holy Spirit. They then started speaking in different languages, unbeknownst to them (Acts 2:1–12).

This passage constitutes the basis for the practice of glossolalia, introduced by Parham, who had originally been influenced by the practice of xenolalia (the ability to speak a language one has never studied) at the end of the nineteenth century, and subsequently discovered glossolalia (the ability to speak in unknown languages). Parham interpreted this to be the sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues came to be a signifier of the Pentecostal movement (Espinosa, 2006, pp. 34–35). The first Pentecostal movement was socially unusual for its time. The uncompromising striving towards racial and gender equality between members, which represented a breach both from other religious groups at the time and from the current societal values shaping the beginning of the twentieth century, was a significant trait of the early Pentecostalists.3 The group grew rapidly and expanded beyond North America within the first years of its existence, and continued to spread around the world, to Europe, Africa, and South America (Grass, 2008, p. 309). While the onset is often attributed to the Azusa Street Revival, some historians of religion point out the concurrent rise of Pentecostal movements globally. Professor of Modern Christianity Michael J.  McClymond details the differences within concurrent revivals: in 1904–1905  in Wales, 1905  in India and 1907 in Korea, all of which included some common revivalist characteristics while lacking others. The Indian revival included speaking in tongues and centred on repentance, while the Korean revival also focused on repentance but excluded tongue-speaking from their practice. In Chile, visionary experiences were common. McClymond argues that there can be no clear distinction between Pentecostal and evangelical types of revivals, as they manifested differently in different places. For example, the revivals in England and Europe differed from the ones in North America in the point that the first category is made up by renewals of historical churches. Proponents scarcely left their churches of origin. McClymond further 3  Parham was critical of Seymour’s racial integration. The initial racial diversity was a contributing factor in the schism, which arose between Parham and Seymour in 1906 and ultimately led Parham to start his own Apostolic Faith Mission (Rufus and Sanders, 2003, pp. 109–110).

26 

S. NILSSON

exemplifies how the growing movements influenced different religious scenes geographically: in Chile, the influence resulted in the Pentecostal Methodist Church, since Methodism was strong there. In Brazil, the groups influenced by Pentecostalism were known as renewed Presbyterians and renewed Baptists because the new ideas merged with the old ones (McClymond, 2014, pp. 33–34). The Swedish Pentecostal Movement The origin of the Pentecostal movement in Sweden dates back to the inception of the international Pentecostal movement at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, detailed above. Among the enthusiastic proponents of the new interpretations of the Christian message gathering on Azusa Street was the aforementioned Swede Andrew G.  Johnson, who was sent to Sweden as a missionary. Johnson brought the movement first to Skövde, his hometown, which was to become a centre for the movement. He there established a network of influential well-wishers including the Norse Methodist T.B. Barratt and a well-known pastor of the Baptist Church by the name of John Ongman. By the end of 1907, Johnson had managed to spread the message and had converted believers in several cities in Sweden. The most influential person to convert to the Pentecostal faith was Lewi Pethrus, originally a preacher within the Baptist Church. Since coming in contact with the new ideas of the Pentecostal movement, Pethrus began practising what he termed “open communion”, admitting believers and individuals baptised outside of the Baptist Church to partake in the communion. Due to this unconventional custom, Pethrus was dismissed from the Baptist Church in 1913. The exclusion of Pethrus divided the Baptists. Some, who discarded the dismissal of Pethrus, followed him to form a new congregation, named Filadelfia Stockholm (Anderson, 2004, p. 85). The following years, the movement continued to grow to become the largest church network active outside of the Swedish Lutheran State Church. It attracted a variety of preachers and rank and file members, as well as influential public advocators, such as the author Sven Lidman and vicar G.E. Söderholm. With the increasing number of members (by the middle of the 1920s the membership sat at approximately 5000 individuals) came public criticism and outright persecution of the group in Stockholm.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

27

Newspapers slandered Pethrus and his followers, and declared the new congregation deviant. However, the group grew under the pressure and by the end of the decade the membership count had risen to around 30 000 members. During the decades to come, the Swedish Pentecostal Movement experienced both prosperity and setbacks. The movement reacted to the impediments by increasing its activity, which led to the establishment of a newspaper, and an elementary school during the 1940s. Alvarsson differentiates between three directions of revival within the movement at this time: the healing revival, the Latter Rain revival, and the renewal revival. All three affected the overall movement. As time went by, the persecution of the movement decreased. In 1952, the movement was granted the legal right to issue marriage certificates, which can be interpreted as an indication of acceptance of the movement by the wider society. Alvarsson describes the 1950s as a decade influenced by the renewal revival, marked by aims at reconciliation and public confessions. Successor Willis Säfve4 (1907–1978) took over when Pethrus resigned in 1958. Commencing in the late 1960s, with the political upheaval and youth engagement of the time, the Pentecostal movement altered its regime in order to attract and keep members. Influenced by the Jesus Movement coming from the United States, young members listened to popular music and were heavily inspired by American influences and preachers. The movement went through a modernisation process during which old practices, such as congregational disciplining, were dismissed in most congregations. Influences from predominantly the American preachers sparked an intense interest in healing and the interpretation of signs. Then came the 1970s, which saw the death of Pethrus but also a charismatic revival, and the Pentecostal movement increased its membership to over 100 000 members in Sweden, its largest number ever. The charismatic influences resulted in independent groups such as the Oasis Movement.5 Congregational initiatives aimed at establishing an official educational institution for future pastors were initiated. The education in its original form encompassed a two-year course in 1981, and was  Willis Säfve was the maternal grandfather of Knutby Filadelfia’s charismatic leader Åsa Waldau. 5  See, for instance, Svalfors (2012). 4

28 

S. NILSSON

thereafter replaced by the Theological Seminar in 1999. Another landmark in the history of the Swedish Pentecostal movement was the installation of a female pastor in 1980. Female leaders had successively decreased from the 1940s but were now again encouraged to step forward (Alvarsson, 2011, p. 34). An important organisational part of the congregational work was the foundation of Bible study weeks which started in 1969 (Alvarsson, 2011, p. 33). Bible study weeks have been a continuous annual event, gathering the different national congregations and functioning as a unifying social structure. Alvarsson asserts that Bible study weeks were until 2002 the forum for most important national decisions within the movement. In 2002, an official congregational cooperation, Pingst – fria församlingar i samverkan [The Pentecostal Alliance of Independent Churches], was established. Pingst FFS operates as an umbrella organisation for the local congregations and has a national spokesperson. This position was initially held by Pastor Sten-Gunnar Hedin, and was assumed by Per Hörnmark in 2008. Daniel Alm is currently (2018) the national spokesperson. There are currently fewer than 100 000 Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals in Sweden (Alvarsson, p. 38). The historical emphasis on the autonomy of each individual congregation is important to highlight, as it is key to understanding how the theological development of the congregation in Knutby Filadelfia was able to continue until 2004 when the congregation was excluded from Pingst FFS.

The History of the Pentecostal Filadelfia Congregation in Knutby 1921–1984 The rural village of Knutby is situated 4 km outside the town of Uppsala. It is quite a small village, which has had fluctuating numbers of inhabitants but which has retained its small town image. The number of inhabitants has varied between approximately 600 and 1500. The Pentecostal congregation Knutby Filadelfia was founded in 1921, 15 years after the revival at Azusa Street. Its history is described in a pamphlet about the formation of the congregation given to me by a former leader. According to this information, it all started with an old lady who came to be known simply as “Grandma”, and her blind and lame daughter Amalia. The two

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

29

lived together in a small cottage near Ekeby Gård close to Knutby. Grandma and Amalia were both devout Christians, and when they learned of the new Pentecostal awakening, they wanted to know more about it. A young preacher within the Missionary congregation had in 1919 held a series of sermons focusing on sin and mercy, and, according to the narrative, many came to believe in Jesus as a result. Grandma and Amalia wrote a letter to the “Pentecostals of Lagga” and asked them to send someone to preach the new faith to them. Granting them their wish, the Pentecostals of Lagga sent two young preachers, Simon Cederbladh and Fritiof Hagström, to their cottage. The sermons drew others who were interested in the new faith and on 22 May 1921, Grandma, together with three other believers, was the first to be baptised into the new faith. The congregation was formally founded on 9 October 1921 under the guidance of Pastor T.  J. Segerlund from Uppsala. Leader of the congregation was a man named A. P. Andersson who had previously been the leader of the Baptist congregation in the nearby village of Almunge. The congregation in Knutby originally had only 15 members, who were at first met with scepticism. They were prohibited from holding meetings at nearby Ekeby Gård,6 but in 1922, the congregation built a house in Gränsta, which served as a congregational hall up until 1999, by which time the congregation had outgrown it. The story of how the house came to be built resembles an old narrative handed down through the generations of congregational members. It is said that a builder by the name of Oscar Larsson, currently working on a building project in the capital of Stockholm, had been convinced that God had suddenly spoken to him and demanded that he leave Stockholm because he was needed to build a congregational house in Knutby. In the wake of the Pentecostal revival, the congregation expanded swiftly. By 1934, it had reached a peak in its membership, having 106 active members. Considering the membership to be too high to manage by one congregation, it split into two fractions. The split resulted in Knutby Filadelfia and Edsbro Filadelfia. Between 1934 and 1984, the congregation functioned as a standard Swedish Pentecostal congregation: autonomous but with exchange with other Pentecostal congregations. The members of the Knutby Filadelfia

6  The text does not specify who prohibited these activities nor why, but a reasonable guess would be that the inhabitants of Ekeby Gård were not convinced by the new faith.

30 

S. NILSSON

congregation were located in the villages of Knutby and Rimbo7. A few of the high-ranking members had houses in nearby Gränsta, where the congregational hall and spa came to be located.8 1985–1991 In 1985, the congregation consisted of 27 members, essentially made up of elderly people. At that time, a young devout Christian man by the name of Kim Wincent came to the congregation and started to work as a pastor. Wincent had been active within the Pentecostal movement for approximately a decade, and was inspired by the teachings of the charismatic leader Ulf Ekman, whose congregation, The Word of Life, founded in 1983, was just about to become known as one of the most debated charismatic congregations in Sweden. Wincent had attended Bible school managed by the Word of Life, and was, inspired by the experience, determined to popularise the congregation in Knutby. At this time, Ekman’s preaching espoused a significant focus on evil spirits and the spiritual battle that the believers must pursue, aspects of faith which were later to play a significant role in the history of the congregation Knutby Filadelfia. Wincent’s strong focus on prophecies as a direct communication from God was a partly new element within the congregation in Knutby. Prophecies are part of Pentecostal theology, yet the practice resembled more that of charismatic groups such as the Word of Life and the early Pentecostal congregations in the sense that prophecies were used to foretell events and were not subject to questions from the rest of the membership but were largely interpreted and dictated by the leadership. Contemporary Swedish Pentecostal congregations relate to prophecies as a possibility, while the charismatic groups organised their lives according to what has been heard from God in prophecy. Glossolalia 7  Rimbo is a town of approximately 4,500 residents situated in Norrtälje Municipality, a 30-minute drive from Knutby and Gränsta. The members of the congregation residing in Rimbo were known as the “Rimbo-gang” and had a lower status in the congregation than those located in Knutby or Gränsta and more preferably Gränsta Hill. Gränsta Hill is located in close proximity to the community centre in Knutby, which the congregation rented after outgrowing their original premises. A few additional apartments were constructed by the community centre. See Appendix D. 8  The early history of the congregation was written down and presented to me by former pastor Kim Wincent.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

31

and healing had also been downplayed within most Pentecostal congregations, whereas the Word of Life reinstituted public glossolalia and healing in sermons. The Pentecostal congregations had distanced themselves from the attempts at foretelling the second coming of Christ, as was common in the early history of the movement. In the early theology in the Word of Life, however, Ekman prophesised that God was gathering his people in Sweden and elsewhere to enlighten them about the future of the nation, faith, and people (Coleman, 2011, p. 207). Exploring the theological developments within the Faith movement, while undertaking to continue the expansion of the congregation, Wincent initiated several projects. In an effort to draw the congregation closer to the local community, a youth café and children’s activities were set up. Wincent himself joined the fire department, a practice since popular among male members of the congregation. The result of the efforts was positive. By 1991, the congregation had increased its membership to a total of 40 (Peste, 2011, pp. 218–220). 1992–1997 In 1992, Waldau came to the congregation in Knutby. Contrary to popular claims, Waldau’s arrival was scarcely the sole variable for the instilling of change within the congregation since many of the changes were originally initiated by Wincent but were picked up by Waldau when she arrived. Wincent himself points to Waldau’s work as the factor that led to the increase in the number of members in the congregation (predominantly as a result of the Bible training schools that she established). The influence of the World of Life on Wincent’s preaching and his efforts to attract younger members to the congregation paved the way for further development, as did his understanding of prophecies. Waldau came to Knutby as a friend of Patrik Waldau, whose father Per-Arne Waldau served as an elder in the congregation. The young Patrik Waldau had met Waldau when she worked as a youth pastor in the Pentecostal congregation in Uppsala. Her position as a youth pastor was terminated abruptly in connection to her divorce. Concurrently, she was accused of forming relationships that were considered too close with the young members in the congregation. Waldau herself gives another version of the cause of events, stating that her acquittal was connected to her divorce, which was a result of her husband’s infidelity, and that the alleged closeness between her and the young

32 

S. NILSSON

members of the congregation was used as a means to get rid of her (Waldau, 2007). In Knutby, she was cordially welcomed into the Waldau family. When Patrik Waldau turned 18, the couple married. Right from the start, it was obvious that (Åsa) Waldau was a charismatic individual who could enthral an audience. Her ability to attract the attention of young potential members was soon apparent in the increasing number of younger members in the congregation. Prior to Wincent’s engagement in the congregation, there had been 27 members in 1984. Wincent managed to increase that number to 40 in 1991, prior to Waldau’s move to Knutby, to 45  in 1997 and by the time the media turned its attention to the commune in 2004, membership was three times greater (Frisk, 2018). Waldau claimed to have direct contact with God, a specific feature which added to her charismatic preaching and attracted the interest of Pentecostals from all over Sweden. Several young members from influential Pentecostal families were drawn to, and in some cases actively recruited to, the congregation in Knutby. Waldau’s claim to have direct contact with God was unusual, but in accordance with the discourse previously expounded by Wincent. As in the case of Wincent, Waldau’s sermons resembled the charismatic teachings of the Word of Life, in which focus was given to the apostolic succession. In the congregation in Knutby, Waldau was considered to have a special relationship with God which exceeded that of the average member. The end of times was understood to be rapidly drawing nearer. This theological divergence together with the focus on elevation of the pastors and increasing isolation caused the congregation to eventually branch off from the ordinary Pentecostal doctrine and practice. Some of the older members of the congregation left in dismay over the new teachings (PER pp. 514–515). Peste (2011) states that members became more and more isolated from non-members in the nearby village of Knutby. He describes non-members being “love bombed” by members, and states that animosity between the local community and the congregation seems to have increased at this time. The congregation’s organisational change increasingly required the members to spend most of their time together through the establishment of a variety of working groups encompassing collective prayer, joint childcare, choir practice, and Bible classes. Like Wincent, Waldau was enthusiastic and instituted a number of projects. A two or three weeks Bible training school started in 1997, and was initially active several times a year (PER, p. 515). Curious would-be members attended the seminars

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

33

in order to study the Bible and listen to lectures given by the pastors. In 1998, inspired by Waldau, a second-hand shop was set up in Rimbo where some of the members of the congregation lived. Additionally, the congregation supported an orphanage in India which engaged many members (Wincent, 2018). 1997–2004 Helge Fossmo came to Knutby with his wife Helene in 1997, and was made leader of the congregation in 2002. Although the leadership during 2000–2004 encompassed six pastors, unusually many in proportion to the number of members, Waldau was a given leader. The leadership structure in the congregation at this time was described as a plough (see Illustration 1).9 However, the position as leader is said by members to have been covertly contested by Helge Fossmo. Members also testified that Helge Fossmo was considered the first leader, and that his status was god-like (PER, p. 462). Waldau was perceived to be charismatic and chosen to be a leader, while Helge Fossmo, who held the position as pastor, was well-­ versed in the Bible and had inspirational dreams which seemed to foretell the future. The congregation’s tight-knit fellowship, based on the decree that no one should have to sit alone and be depressed, enforced the belief that they should all take care of each other, and have close relationships with fellow believers throughout the week. This was in stark contrast to the experiences of members coming from other congregations, where they felt that a sense of closeness and fellowship was present only at Sunday services, once a week. The congregation wanted to live their faith, and preferably to do so in close proximity to each other. Expressions of love, gratefulness, and brotherly union were to pervade the loneliness they saw in society. The intensity of the frequent declarations of love between members was questioned by outsiders. By 2004, the influence of Waldau and Fossmo on the group was being criticised by defectors, family of members, and representatives of the Pentecostal movement (Frisk, 2017, p. 142).

9  A plough usually faces down, but in this case, its peak points upwards, and I have kept the original picture. The data is taken from Fossmo’s explanation to Lundgren (2008) but has been verified in my informal conversations with leading members.

34 

S. NILSSON

2004 On the night of 10 January, 2004, a 27-year-old female member of the congregation, Sara Svensson, shot and killed another female member, Alexandra Fossmo, while the latter was asleep in her bed. Sara Svensson then proceeded to shoot another member of the congregation—31-year-­ old Daniel Linde residing in a neighbouring house, who was wounded but survived a shot to his head. Sara Svensson had been a member of the congregation since 1998. The woman she shot was the younger sister of Åsa Waldau, and was at the time married to Pastor Helge Fossmo. Sara Svensson was arrested the next day and confessed to the crimes (PER, p.  38; 673). Despite the fact that she initially took sole blame for the shootings, the police arrested the murdered woman’s husband, Pastor Helge Fossmo, on 28 January. At first, the congregation supported Helge Fossmo’s claims of innocence. However, two weeks after his arrest, the congregation turned to the police with new information, claiming that Helge Fossmo had been under the influence of the Devil (PER, p. 242; 298; 373). As the story unfolded through hours and hours of investigation and the hearing of several witnesses, it became clear that Sara Svensson had not been the sole perpetrator. Sara Svensson had been very close to Helge Fossmo, helping him fight “spiritual battles” through prayer. The perception of the present age as an arena for spiritual battle between believers and evil spirits, and the anticipation of the imminent return of Jesus fast drawing nearer dominated the congregation at this time. It was believed that both Åsa Waldau and Helge Fossmo (as well as members of the congregation) were under attack by demons, and Sara Svensson was assigned the task of pleading through prayer in order to deliver Fossmo from these assaults, due to her (at the time) perceived purity (PER, p. 262). Fossmo claimed to be in frequent battles with the Devil, which could manifest themselves in physical symptoms. On these occasions, Sara Svensson stayed by his side, as Fossmo had explained that she functioned as a shield for him in these battles (PER, p.  798). According to Sara Svensson, the two engaged in a sexual relationship because Fossmo claimed that having sex with her increased his powers to fight against the Devil (PER, p. 798). At some point during 2002, the relationship between Sara Svensson and Helge Fossmo changed. They had admitted to the leaders to having a sexual relationship and were planning to get married. The other leaders, especially Waldau, strongly opposed this, which seemingly caused Fossmo

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

35

to turn against Svensson and accuse her of tempting him. As mentioned above, Sara Svensson had prior to this held a rather strong position within the congregation and was seen as having a special relationship with God. After the affair between her and Fossmo was revealed, she found herself increasingly ostracised from the congregation. She had critically discussed Waldau with a few other members, and when this came to Waldau’s knowledge, she was told by the leadership and congregational members that God would leave her if she did not regret her words and actions (PER, p. 797). Under the supervision of Fossmo, who claimed he was the only one who could solve her spiritual difficulties, she grew increasingly troubled. While Fossmo emotionally distanced himself from Svensson, he initiated a sexual relationship with another female member of the congregation, the wife of elder Daniel Linde. Sara Svensson had attempted to kill Helge Fossmo’s wife Alexandra with a blow to the head with a hammer in November 2003. Alexandra Fossmo survived the attack, but Svensson was ordered by the leadership to leave Knutby immediately and went to live with her father in another part of Sweden. It was at this point not known to the congregation that the instructions originated from Helge Fossmo. Sara Svensson was likewise unaware of this: she believed that the messages she was receiving on her mobile phone with instructions on how and when to kill Alexandra Fossmo, which eventually included the shooting of Daniel Linde, were messages from God. Svensson initially denied the shootings, only to confess within days of her arrest. Stating initially that she was the sole perpetrator, she soon opened up and admitted to her affair with Fossmo and talked about the text messages he had forwarded to her. The records of her interrogation include excerpts from her diary, as well as spoken statements on how her life within the congregation went from one of happiness to one of misery. During the trial, Svensson was examined by psychiatrists and was found to be suffering from a dependent personality disorder. The conclusion was drawn that she, at the time of the murder and murder attempt, had been suffering from an “unspecified mental disorder with religiously-coloured convictions of psychotic value”.10 She was convicted of murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to psychiatric care with special discharge probation. Fossmo was convicted of 10  The diagnosis corresponds with code 300.9  in DSM-IV: unspecified mental disorder (non-psychotic). However, the diagnosis given Sara Svensson added the streak of religiously coloured convictions of psychotic value.

36 

S. NILSSON

enticement to murder and attempt to enticement to murder, and he received a lifetime sentence which is the most severe penalty possible in Sweden. Both were ordered to compensate Fossmo’s three children financially. They were also requested to compensate Daniel Linde, and Alexandra Fossmo’s family (PER, p. 9). Insisting on his innocence during the length of the trial, Fossmo subsequently admitted publicly in 2006 to having influenced Sara Svensson.11 Still, his conviction was not altered. In 2014, Helge Fossmo tried to get a time set penalty.12 The District Court set the penalty to a total of 24 years. However, the judicial decision was revoked by the Court of Appeal. In September 2016, Helge Fossmo appealed again. The appeal was denied, and he remains in prison (2018). Sara Svensson was acquitted from the psychiatric ward in 2011, and is said to have “work, a place to stay and good Christian friends”, according to the Swedish Pentecostal journal Dagen in 2014, ten years after the murder.13 2005–2014 At the time of the murder of Alexandra Fossmo, representatives of the Swedish Pentecostal movement claimed that they had been worried about the hierarchical leadership of the congregation in Knutby since Waldau had taken on the role of leader. Rumours claimed that Waldau decided on and arranged marriages, something that had prompted the head of the Pentecostal church at the time, Sten-Gunnar Hedin, to book a meeting with the leaders of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation in January 2004. The murder got in the way, and when later given the option of participating in a meeting to discuss the temporarily withdrawn right to conduct marriages,14 the leaders of Knutby Filadelfia rejected a meeting and eventually lost the right altogether. They were excluded from the Swedish  https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/p6PJAW/helge-fossmo-jag-erkanner  The life sentence in Sweden never equals a lifetime in the strict sense. Rather, it constitutes a long-term sentence which can at some point be fixed so that the convict can know when he will be freed. The fixing of the time is dependent on a variety of factors such as the risk of relapse into criminal behaviour and the convict’s behaviour in prison. 13  http://www.dagen.se/sa-mar-barnflickan-sara-svensson-tio-ar-efter-mordet-iknutby-1.95982 14  At the time, only Fossmo had the right, which was given individually, to conduct marriages. 11 12

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

37

Pentecostal Alliance of Independent Churches in April 2004 based on the argument that the teachings of the congregation were unorthodox. Frisk describes the withdrawal of the wedding licence as a significant part in the expulsion of the congregation (Frisk, 2018, pp.  147–148) and cites an article by Salomonssen (2005) in which additional explanations were given. Among them were the unwillingness of the congregation to interact with other congregations, which led to isolation, the unorthodox interpretation of the doctrine of the Bride of Christ, the lack of a democratic structure, as well as alleged promiscuity and alcohol consumption. The Knutby Drama, as the tragedy was dubbed by the press, shocked the nation, and made headline news in a few other countries as well (O’Callaghan, 2004). Encompassing all the important ingredients of a scandal – religion, sex, and violence – the incident is among the most well-­ covered in contemporary Swedish crime history. Additional stories about the congregation figured in the media, depicting it as a secret sex-murder-­ cult. Adding to that, there was the mysterious death of Helge Fossmo’s first wife Helen in 1999, which had been deemed an accident at the time but which, in the light of the events in 2004, was called into question.15 The detail of Sara Svensson receiving text messages from God on her mobile phone was ridiculed, as was the story about the “real” leader in Knutby Filadelfia, the Bride of Christ. Initially, the media focused on Sara Svensson (dubbed “the nanny”) and Helge Fossmo (“the pastor”), but it soon expanded to include Åsa Waldau, who was implicitly the top leader in a hierarchical structure of the congregation, now exclusively referred to as a cult. It came to the knowledge of the media that the congregation had tried out a somewhat unorthodox interpretation of the doctrine of The Bride of Christ. In accordance with the group’s belief in prophecies, the interpretation of dreams, and the anticipation that truths will be revealed to a chosen few, the congregation experimented with the idea that The Bride of Christ might be human, and that Åsa Waldau was the actual bride. This was, however, regarded as esoteric knowledge of which one could only gain insight by turning to God. Not all members found the answer, but the higher the status in the congregation, the more likely it would be that one knew.

15  Fossmo was subsequently tried but acquitted of the murder charges in the case of his first wife (FUP X).

38 

S. NILSSON

Levels of Engagement in Knutby Filadelfia 2014–2016 The congregation had different levels of possible engagement. Essén’s interviewee describes how Waldau “stands in the middle of the congregation” and the congregational members position themselves around her so as to form a wall to shield her from bad influences. If there is anything impure in any of the members of the wall, they constitute a risk to her safety and have to make up for their sin (Essén, 2008, p. 29). This has, after the breakup in 2016, been confirmed by members, and explained to be the background to the expression “stand right”, but the expression could also be used in relations. To stand right was used in relation to other leaders and among members. Standing right indicated that there was no problem, doubt, or conflict in a relation between two parts. This and similar accounts may provoke an image of a single person with a ring of others around her; however, this is a too simplistic picture to describe the dynamics and complexity of membership in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. To illustrate this, illustration 2 shows several levels of engagement. The levels of engagement in the model in Appendix A are based on the criteria knowledge about Waldau’s position as The Bride of Christ. The categorisation gives four levels of engagement: (The Charismatic Leader) 1. The Table16 2. The Initiated 3. The Youth Group 4. The Congregation Waldau is placed in the middle, but the shielding wall around her is made up of the 12 members around The Table. The numeric significance hints at the 12 apostles in the Bible, and these positions were taken up by 16  The Table refers to the members gathering around the table at Waldau’s house in the evening, which will be further detailed throughout this study. Here, it suffices to say that the 12 members around The Table were especially blessed because they had access to Waldau. The members included in The Table group are not to be confused with the members of the board. I have chosen here not to include the board as a category as I have understood it to be of administrative importance rather than an indication of one’s status or engagement in the congregation.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

39

members who were entrusted with the esoteric knowledge that Waldau was the coming Bride of Christ, a doctrine which I will describe in more detail below. The second level of engagement is made up of members who also held the belief that Waldau was to be wed to Jesus, but who were not so close as to gather with Waldau around her dinner table each night. I have chosen to call this level The Initiated, as they were initiated to the secret teachings of the group. The third level is made up of the remaining congregational members, and is generally characterised by their lack of knowledge of the Bride of Christ doctrine. The last category may have included members who had not officially been given the esoteric knowledge but who still privately believed in the doctrine. This categorisation serves the purpose of illustrating that although it was a small congregation, not everyone was entrusted with the same amount of knowledge, and that it is a fact that some of the members were not aware of the active belief in the Bride of Christ doctrine. The Youth Group, known within the congregation as The Horse, is placed within the first and second levels, as most of its members were aware of the doctrine; however, a few were not and the category therefore stretches to encompass also the third level. It further stretches into The Table, as a few of the members of The Youth Group held positions that were high, and almost higher than some of the members of The Table. The children of the first cohort, aged 0–14, are not included here because they were not counted as members. The illustration reflects to some extent the power structure of the group, but the boundaries are floating, which meant that a place by The Table did not necessarily equal a high position within The Table. The practice of shunning sometimes caused individual members to lose status within one of the categories without necessarily being degraded to a lower position in the congregation as a whole.

Theology The Bride of Christ The controversial doctrine of The Bride of Christ is the most well-known example of the group’s experimental approach to Christian traditions and dogma, exemplifying its distinctness (Frisk, 2017, p. 137). The characteristics of the group to continuously and intensely seek out answers and interpretations from the Bible led at the end of the 1990s to the question of whether the Bride of Christ might refer to an actual human. Contrary

40 

S. NILSSON

to common Christian belief,17 in which the Bride of Christ is a metaphor for the Church or congregation, the bridal theology of Knutby Filadelfia placed Waldau in the role as the coming wife of Christ. Waldau herself states that the idea that she was chosen to fill that position was presented to her and the core leadership by Helge Fossmo (Waldau, 2007, pp.  237–244). Fossmo, on the other hand, claims that it was Waldau’s idea, and that an actual wedding had been held on 29 March 1999 (Lundgren, 2008, p. 81). Fossmo states in Knutbykoden that there was a sexual relationship between himself and Waldau, with him filling the position of Jesus. This has never been confirmed by Waldau. The Tirsa Prophecy Pentecostal belief traditionally encompasses prophecy, and the norm is to try the validity of prophecy within the congregation. However, some prophecies in Knutby Filadelfia were kept hidden from the general members of the congregation, and only shared among a few core members. The practice of apostolic leadership contributed to a culture where some prophecies were to be discussed and interpreted by the leadership only. One very important prophecy was called The Tirsa Prophecy. The name Tirsa is taken from the Song of Solomon 6:4 which reads Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners (Song of Solomon 6:4, King James Bible).

The Tirsa Prophecy is a document encompassing 14 pages, written between March and April 2000. The text has the form of very personal letters written to Queen Tirsa (Waldau) from Dodjadid (Jesus, in his role as her husband), where he encourages her to prepare to be united with him, and states that he will reveal the truth to her. The controversy surrounding the document came to focus on two aspects. A substantial proportion of the content depicts an erotic streak in the relationship between the two, a feature not very common within Pentecostalism. Dodjadid is preparing Tirsa for the exceptional role that she is to play in

17  There are, of course, exceptions. Catholic nuns are understood in the consecration as Brides of Christ in the sense that they choose to embrace celibacy and become betrothed to Jesus and live in the cloister. See, for instance, Prou and Hayes (2005).

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

41

events to come: she will be his bride, the queen of the heavens, and he expresses sexual lust directed towards her, and a sense of urgency: I long to touch you and get to satisfy your desire, it’s my satisfaction to see your pleasure. I want to make love to you and give you all the love you deserve. I want to caress you tenderly inside and out, as only I can! I take delight in looking at you, everything about you gives me desire and pleasure. You will experience a much higher level of satisfaction and enjoyment, it is in truth an outpouring of glory […]. When the time comes, my power will move hastily over the Earth and you are certainly right in the centre of my plan for the final stage of the world […]. Be calm, everything will come to you, hastily, for there is much to be done before our wedding (The Tirsa Prophecy, 2000).

Dodjadid was preparing Tirsa for her role in the events preceding the end of the world, which is repeatedly emphasised in the text. The sense of urgency and a call to keep calm are further expressed. The text is prosaic, and the directness and intimacy between the two are apparent in paragraphs where Dodjadid explains that he loves Tirsa’s humour and laughs at her jokes. The origin of the document has been disputed. Up until 2016, the leaders of the congregation continuously and publicly opposed the allegations in the media, denying the authenticity of the document and claiming it to be the evil invention of Helge Fossmo. In 2016, however, some members of the inner circle around Waldau confessed that they had known about the prophecy, and Pastor Peter Gembäck officially confirmed this in the newspaper Dagen. Professor of Sociology Eva Lundgren claimed in 2008 to have been entrusted the document by Helge Fossmo while she was interviewing him in prison (Lundgren, 2008, p.  120). Lundgren reproduces the whole document in Knutbykoden (2008), where she writes that she had the document analysed linguistically and concluded that the document was in fact written by Waldau, claiming to have found a linguistic congruence between Waldau’s way of speaking at sermons and the written text (Lundgren, 2008, pp. 243–244). The document was additionally analysed by psychiatrist Rigmor Ròbert in an article in the leading news magazine for Swedish healthcare, Dagens Medicin, in November 2005. Robèrt claims to reveal the underlying truth about the tragedy in 2004, insisting that the murder was the natural outcome of a sectarian environment

42 

S. NILSSON

controlled by a narcissistic leader, and that the congregation by the time of the murder was waiting for Waldau to be taken home to be reunited with Jesus. Eschatology The congregation held a pretribulation premillenarian view of the end of times, believing that the death of Waldau (expressed by the congregation as Waldau being “taken home”) would precede the rapture of the congregation, commencing with the wedding between Waldau and Jesus in Heaven. During the wedding, which was to last seven years, the tribulation would give the Devil free reign on Earth, culminating in the second coming of Christ in which the congregation would accompany him back to Earth (more specifically Jerusalem), where he would bind the Devil and usher in the millennium.18 Subsequently, the Devil would be unleashed one last time in order to try the faith of the people, and conclusively be thrown into Hell along with his fellow demons. While it is a common characteristic of congregations within the Swedish Pentecostal movement to believe that the end of times are drawing nearer, the notion of living at the actual end of times has been given less emphasis in recent decades. What was significant with Knutby Filadelfia was that they believed that they were in fact living in the end of times, interpreting world catastrophes as signs that the end was drawing nearer. This worldview had a great impact on the everyday lives of the members of the congregation. Around 2004, several of the sermons dealt with the topic of being taken home (Waldau, 2007). A supposed example of the immediacy of the belief is found in a letter from Patrik Waldau to Helge Fossmo in December 2002. Patrik Waldau implies that Tirsa (Waldau) “needs to go home” because she needs to find peace (Lundgren, 2008, p. 345). Being taken home has repeatedly been linked by outsiders to relate to the death of the physical body, and has been used as evidence in relation to the death of Helge Fossmo’s wives Helene and Alexandra. The preliminary enquirer report from 2004 contains several testimonies, which confirms that the notion of being taken home equalled the death of the physical body (PER, p. 708). 18  While the eschatology as described here does not mention Jesus coming to get his bride in the physical site of Knutby, some of the interviewees suggest that this was possible and was linked to the building projects in Waldau’s house.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

43

Spiritual Battles The understanding of prophecies, demons, omens, and spiritual battles within the congregation were, according to Frisk (2015), typically Pentecostal. However, Frisk states that the belief in prophecies and omen was more common while Helge Fossmo served as a pastor in the congregation. Some dreams were interpreted as addresses coming from God. The belief in the gift of prophecy was still present in 2016. The belief in demons and the significance of spiritual battle were repeatedly downplayed in all conversations I had with members and pastors prior to 2016. The material in this study points to the presence of demonology, which will be reflected in the empirical chapters. Nordling wrote in his book Knutby and the Mercy (2019) that Helge Fossmo and Åsa Waldau had been caught in the act of driving out evil spirits in a young person while they were travelling pastors visiting another congregation. According to members, the practice seems to have been one reason as to why they were not asked to revisit. As was mentioned in the section on the murder of Alexandra Fossmo, spiritual battles played a significant part, at least in the everyday lives of the members closest to Waldau and Helge Fossmo in 2004 (FUP, p. 798). The Trinity The congregation only began discussing whether Christ might be human in 2008. In line with the speculations of the Bride of Christ being human, the question of the humanity of Christ has been tried, discussed, and pondered over. Questioning the Trinity is controversial in Pentecostal milieus, where belief in the Trinity is self-evident. Nevertheless, the congregation has contemplated the question: if Christ was God, how could God die on the cross? Christ was considered human, but carrying God inside. Pastor Gembäck explained in a sermon that the oneness related in the statement “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) does not mean that human beings and God are the same person. Trinity was not conceived of as a requirement for salvation (Gembäck, 2016). Healing The belief in healing is an important aspect of Pentecostal belief, but one that has transformed and toned down since the early days of the Pentecostal

44 

S. NILSSON

movement. Charismatic groups, however, have tended to keep the more intense practice of healing, where promises of healing and medical miracles are sometimes performed on stage in front of a crowd. This has been the practice of charismatic groups in Sweden, especially in the Word of Life Church within which the casting out of evil spirits was also done in groups, with evilness being thrown into plastic buckets (Kornhall, 2010). The Knutby Filadelfia congregation understood healing as something that could take place, yet something not to be preferred over medical consultation in the case of illness. Healing through laying hands on each other did occur; however, spiritual healing was considered a private matter and has, as far as it is known, not been performed in religious services. In his article on the group, Peste writes that sickness and disease were seen as cooperation with the Devil during the time of the murder (Peste, 2011). It seems plausible to say that the congregation downplayed the role of evil spirits and spiritual battle after the events of 2004, but it is uncertain exactly at what point they regained an important place.

Lifestyle Semi-Communal Living In 2014, the members of the congregation resided predominantly in the villages of Knutby and Rimbo. Of the approximately 100 members, around 20 lived on the so-called (Gränsta) Hill,19 with an additional 10–15 living in close proximity to the congregational hall, which was situated a stone’s throw away from The Hill. The remaining members resided in the villages of Knutby and Rimbo, with the exception of one member who lived in Taiwan. While each family had their own house or apartment, the semi-­ communal lifestyle still encouraged many members to share houses or live very close to each other. The idea that no one should ever find themselves alone extended to private life beyond the meetings in the congregational hall. The custom was to do the inviting or be the invited for dinner at each other’s houses. It was also not uncommon to have a single adult member as a lodger until that person was ready to form a family of his/her own. This practice goes back to the time prior to the murder in 2004 (PER, 19  In accordance with the practice of the congregation, I will refer to the houses on the hill as only The Hill.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

45

p. 229; 306; 358; 540). Children would typically live with their parents in nuclear families (although there were some special arrangements). Young people normally resided with their parents, sometimes in a wing of their house so as to give them a sense of independence. The totality of the members was made up by clusters of families; when one person joined the congregation, the wife, sister, children, and grandmother or cousins could join shortly after. This, however, did not automatically mean that all members of a family cluster were positioned at the same levels of engagement. Between 2012 and 2016, the congregation was highly organised. Many of the families shared houses and some families accepted single lodgers, who were generally young adults or unmarried members. Moreover, the fact that the individual families were requested to share the expenses of the group, including the building of a congregational hall, a spa, and other common buildings, as well as cover the wages for all pastors and their food and travel, and the material possessions of the charismatic leader, does hint at a semi-shared economy. Work for the congregation was required by a few members on a daily basis, and by the whole congregation each Saturday. Additionally, there was the expectation that one should both prefer the company of other members to socialising with non-members, as well as prefer to be in Knutby (especially The Hill if there was access to it) rather than being elsewhere. Being nice, polite, helpful, and tidy were virtues that were held in high regard. I would argue that despite the fact that families lived in different locations, at least the first two levels (The Table and The Horse) resembled more of a commune, according to Conover’s definition, than an intentional community or collective. Work Pastor Gembäck’s construction business Knutby Bygg was a place of employment for some of the members and the preference for construction work is apparent in the choice of profession for several (predominantly male) members: electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, and others like them. Several members have been working at the public school. Work with the elderly in a nearby care facility, with different services at the airport close to Uppsala, and with pre-schoolers and other caregiving positions, was significant. While not accounting for all the members, these workplaces seem to have been favoured by many. Higher education was generally not encouraged.

46 

S. NILSSON

Gender Roles The theological foundations for a patriarchy based ideology in the congregation reflect the traditional Christian male-dominated structure, but it was enhanced in Knutby Filadelfia, especially in a sermon from 2002 entitled Vad är kvinnligt och vad är manligt? About what is male and what is female. In the sermon, which has the form of a written document, Waldau lists positive and negative characteristics regarding masculinity and femininity. The teaching argues that a man is meant to resemble Jesus and is born a leader. A man has rights and responsibilities, and should not back down from making decisions. There is emphasis on the strength of the man: he should be strong, take command, be a good listener, and refrain from being feminine, weak, soft, and flirtatious. A woman, on the other hand, should be mild in nature, a solver of problems, humble, social, and motherly. A woman should refrain from being a feminist (this is emphasised). She should hold no will to make decisions, and should not attempt to compete with men or challenge other women. An additional checklist regarding men’s and women’s characteristics in marriage includes guidelines for both their sexual and social life. The man should be loving, should partake in social events in the home, such as having guests over for dinner rather than watching TV, and should unburden his wife; if she needed help in the home, he could clean, cook, and tend to the children. The woman should let herself be loved. She should not be ashamed when having sex, she should not regard herself as unloved, and she should not stop making herself beautiful for her husband (Lundgren, 2008, pp. 349–354).

Norms Concerning Children and Child-Rearing Incidents of Abuse at the Knutby School in 2004 Little is known about the children in the congregation prior to 2004, but the public focus on the well-being (or rather, the supposed lack thereof) of the children in Knutby Filadelfia started soon after the tragedy of the shootings. On 12 March 2004, the Swedish evening paper Expressen published an article with a headline that read, “Degrading treatment at the Knutby School”. The allegations in the paper of corporal punishment and mental abuse were based on a report issued by the Swedish School Inspectorate. The investigation of the school was the result of a notification

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

47

of grievances handed in to the Swedish School Inspectorate on 12 January 2004, two days after the murder of Alexandra Fossmo. The informer was a former teacher at the school. The Inspectorate carried out an unannounced visit on 23 January of the same year. The investigators interviewed children and teachers, had informal discussions, and made observations in the classrooms. The investigation was followed up by an interview with the principal. The claims of abuse concerned employees at Knutby primary school belonging to the congregation, and focused on two specific incidents. The first concerned an incident when two employees, a teacher and an assistant, were accused of having lifted a child with special needs by the ear, locked the boy inside the school toilet, and sat on him. One of the teachers placed a firm grip around the child’s chin and demanded obedience. There was also an incident where a child had gotten his face smeared with snow by a teaching assistant after the child had thrown a ball at the assistant. The assistant had grabbed the child by the neck. The two employees argued in court that their action had been preventive, as the children had constituted a threat to the staff, other children, and themselves. Some of the non-­ congregational employees stated that they had either protested or tried to make the principal aware of the situations but felt they were not taken seriously (Lundgren, 2008, pp. 69–70). According to Lundgren, the incidents were condemned by the heads of the school and attributed to the group of teachers and teaching assistants who were members of the congregation. According to the school head, the congregational members had a hidden agenda, which embraced a value system that diverged from those of the work teams. They appeared to foster an authoritarian view on child-rearing with focus on obedience, a view not compatible with the value system of the Swedish state school. Measures to deal with the problems had been taken by the school heads, who organised several seminars and group discussions on normative views on children and value systems. The head of the municipal district in Uppsala was contacted in 2001 by the school head, who sought to discuss the “tension surrounding the Pentecostals”. She claims that she received no specific help and expressed regret that no help was given. Another measure was taken in 2003, when an outside consultant was called in to help solve the conflicts within the work team. The criminal investigation concerning the case with the boy in the toilet concluded that the incidents were to be considered degrading, as the intent of the employees was to force the child into obedience and not to prevent the child from harming

48 

S. NILSSON

himself or others. The court order further stated that since the school head had been aware of the situation since 2001 and had failed to inform parents and the leaders of the community, the municipality was held responsible for not intervening right away and was therefore severely criticised. The charges led one employee to be immediately transferred to another position, while one held a temporary position which was not extended, and the remaining six were granted sick leave. The transfer of one of the employees was understood by the Court of Labour to have been incorrect as it was based on her membership in the congregation. She applied for and was awarded damages in 2006. The teacher and teaching assistant both received conditional sentences in the District Court. They appealed to the Supreme Court. The court of appeal tried it and this time both were convicted of minor assault and battery. The teacher was, along with another teacher, relocated to another school after the incident. Because of the transfer, she sued the municipality, and received compensation for damages from the Court of Labour. Authoritarian Parenting Styles The abuse at the Knutby School inevitably put focus on the assumed authoritarian parenting styles supposedly preached in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. A key figure who has publicly condemned the suspected child abuse in Knutby is physician Rigmor Robèrt. Robèrt published newspaper articles warning against the harsh discipline of children in Knutby Filadelfia (Robèrt, 2005). She claimed that the religious norms of the parents in the congregation forced them to act against their own will and to give their consent to let their children be physically disciplined by other members, and she concluded that the situation was alarming. Robèrt claimed that Patrik Waldau was responsible for demanding the members to hand out harsh discipline on their children. In May 2012, Robèrt wrote an article highlighting the polemical positions of researchers within the field of religious studies and the so-called anti-cult movement. Positioning herself outside the debate, she implied that neither the researchers of religious studies nor members of the anti-cult movement are equipped to help defectors from the group; that is the task of physicians and psychiatrists. Robèrt highlighted a concept within the congregation used to denote children’s crying as being a worldly action: “crying in the flesh”. This concept refers to children crying, which was to be ignored according to the norms on child-rearing in the group, as this was not a spiritual practice.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

49

Robèrt, who was Sara Svensson’s psychiatrist, has, together with Professor Eva Lundgren, been the strongest advocate of the theory that Waldau is a manipulative leader whom the congregation follows blindly. A similar account of child-rearing within the congregation is put forth by Essén. According to the interviewee Lisa (pseudonym). Lisa had originally come to the congregation to attend the training school. She claims to have been the only one at the training school to question Waldau. According to Lisa, this enraged Waldau, who retaliated by saying that Lisa was possessed by demons. Although Lisa obviously had objections towards certain ideas in the group, she stayed and married. The marriage failed, due to her disagreement with her husband’s child-rearing practices, which eventually prompted Lisa to finally leave the congregation. Lisa claimed that her husband had been accepting of the authoritarian child-rearing practices preached in the congregation at the time, which included a positive attitude towards corporal punishment (Essén, 2008, pp. 24–26). Lisa further said that while she was working in the congregation’s day-care centre with Helge Fossmo’s wife, Helene, she witnessed very harsh disciplining of the children in the group. The other members working in the day-care centre found it necessary to shout at the children, she says, in order to get them to obey, as obeying was of utmost importance. Lisa described that she witnessed how children during service were taken into a nearby room to be physically disciplined. She herself had, however, never witnessed or been part of such disciplining, and did not explain how she knew what had taken place. She additionally recounted that Waldau’s husband (who served as an elder in the congregation) was perceived to be an expert on child-rearing, and implied that the harsh discipline was his idea (Essén, 2008, pp. 29–31). A now famous passage from a sermon by Waldau, on 10 January 2001, is cited in Essén’s book to underline the prevailing norms about children in the congregation at the time. In this sermon, Waldau talks about disciplining children and states that rebellion is a sin against God. She goes on to say, “My children are sinning against me when they don’t do as I say” (Essén, 2008, p. 34). It has been stated by defectors and critics of the congregation that rebellion in all forms was rebuked in Knutby Filadelfia. To rebuke rebellion, according to Lisa, children were made to stare into the eyes of the adult. The idea was that when the child looks into the eyes of the adult, he/she admits to being inferior to the adult, which is interpreted as the sign of obedience (Essén, 2008, pp. 34–35). According to Lisa, this view on children was emphasised by Waldau. Lisa says that her husband instructed her to either hit the child

50 

S. NILSSON

on the bottom or twist the child’s nose when he was screaming because he had problems falling sleep. Lisa’s story is clearly a case of systematic child abuse and shares some characteristics of the accusations against the employees at the school, stating that the practice of forcing children to stare into the eyes of the adults was a tactic used by members of the congregation. Leaders as well as members of the congregation have given me different answers to my questions about child abuse within the congregation. The youths interviewed all denied being physically abused or punished physically, both prior to and after the dissolution of the congregation. However, it remains unclear to me at this point what constitutes abuse or punishment, as we may have had a slightly contrasting understanding of the definition of the terms. One youth answered that she had once been slapped across the face by one of her parents when she had crossed a street and the parent had, as the youth stated, pulled her back so she would not be hit by a passing car. She did not consider this physical disciplining or abuse, although according to Swedish law it is. When I pointed this out, the youth immediately wished to withdraw her statement. Since the youth at the time was legally an adult, I did not report this event, although I would have done, had it concerned a person under the age of 18. I have chosen here, for ethical reasons, not to point out the youth in question. One of the pastors mentioned in an informal conversation that the congregational members did not discipline their children physically as that is against Swedish law. When asked further, the pastor referred to the teachings of the Bible on the subject and said that if the congregation had been active in a country where physical disciplining of children was not forbidden by law, the members of the congregation most probably would have employed this strategy. It is not clear from this conversation whether the pastor was referring to the individual members of the congregation or if he was speaking about this as a norm within the leadership. While still contending that child abuse had not taken place within the congregation, several informants have remarked that there was no such norm or teaching, but that they were not aware of every individual parent’s actions. Helge Fossmo is reported to have been in favour of physical discipline and preached this in sermons, but the members I talked to said that this was only his personal interpretation of the text and as such did not constitute a teaching. Consequently, I was not been able to draw any general conclusions on the subject, which remains open for research.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

51

The Fall The congregation seemed to thrive until the autumn of 2016. On 28 October came the news that Waldau was to divorce her husband of 22 years. There appeared to be no conflict behind the divorce; still, it seemed odd, as the view on divorce within the congregation had been that it is to be avoided. Only a month later came the next news: Åsa Waldau and Pastor Urban Fält had left the congregation.20 Initially, this appeared to be a unanimous decision, but it soon became apparent that it had been the will of the congregation that had caused both to defect and relocate. The Swedish Pentecostal newspaper Dagen published a series of articles in which Pastor Peter Gembäck stated that Urban Fält had left the congregation because he had abused his position as a pastor, adding that he had assumed a role as a “Stand-in Jesus” in relation to some of the members. Around both Urban Fält and Åsa Waldau, stated Gembäck, an unhealthy culture of worship had emerged, and the congregation now wanted to start over without them. Urban Fält joined the Salvation Army but he was banned after a short time as a consequence of the media questioning the appropriateness of him taking an active part in the congregation while being the object of a criminal investigation. In November 2016, the congregation stated that they had officially abandoned the doctrine of the Bride of Christ. Within half a year, all former pastors had stepped down from their positions. Criminal charges against Åsa Waldau, Urban Fält, and Peter Gembäck were filed in November 2017. Waldau was accused of two instances of battery and Fält with one instance of battery and one of sexual misconduct with a person in a position of dependence, while Gembäck turned himself in to the police, admitting one instance of battery. Members began to defect and relocate, and by the end of 2017, there were only 15 members left of 100. In February 2018, a TV documentary was released in which former members spoke of a sectarian milieu in which they had been more or less controlled by the charismatic leadership, referred to instances of physical abuse and psychological maltreatment, and described their time in the congregation as hell. Several former members came forward in different news reports testifying to having given great sums of money, time, and devotion to Åsa Waldau, while the estranged families of former members 20  The article was published approximately 3–4 weeks after Åsa Waldau had left. Urban Fält had left some two months prior to that.

52 

S. NILSSON

publicly talked of reuniting with their adult children. On 21 May 2018, the decision that the congregation had finally broken up was reported in the news. The exposition above shows a Pentecostal congregation whose core membership transformed into a HDNRC over the course of 25–30 years. The charismatic influences, the murder in 2004, and the massive media coverage together with the subsequent break from the Swedish Pentecostal Movement in 2004 resulted in a fully autonomous organisation who had leaders whose increasing power over the members came to manifest in a hierarchical structure with little to no transparency. The congregation formed a culture of its own in which Waldau (and Fält to some extent) served as spiritual guides in all aspects of the members’ lives: from the decorating of houses to career choices. The impact of this culture on the lives of the children and youths in the congregation is the focus of this study. The following four chapters will relate the empirical material collected 2014–2018. The chapters are arranged to each focus on a set of relationships that the children and youth had to the charismatic leader Åsa Waldau, their parents and other caregivers within the community, each other in The Youth Group (The Horse), and outsiders.

References Alvarsson, J. Å. (2011), ‘The Development of Pentecostalism in Scandinavian Countries’. In W. Kaye and A. Dyer (eds), European Pentecostalism. Lei- den: Brill, pp. 19–40. Anderson, A. (2004), An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, S. (2011), ‘Voices: Presence and Prophecy in Charismatic Ritual’. In M.  Lind- hart (ed.), Practicing the Faith: The Ritual Life of Pentecostal-­ Charismatic Christians. New York: Berghahn, pp. 198–219. Daniels III, D. D. (2014), ‘North American Pentecostalism’. In C. M. Robeck, Jr. and A.  Yong (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–91. Dayton, D. (1987), The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Espinosa, G. (2006), ‘Ordinary Prophet: William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival’. In H.  D. Hunter and C.  M. Robeck, Jr. (eds), The Azusa Street Revival and its Legacy. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, pp. 29–59.

2  KNUTBY FILADELFIA 

53

Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Frisk, L. (2017), ‘“Min pappa går med gud”: Religiösa uppväxter i minoritetsgrupper’. In J.  Björkman and A.  Jarrick (eds), Religionen tur och retur. Gothenburg: Makadam, pp. 125–146. Frisk, L. (2018), ‘Knutby Filadelfia: A Schismatic New Religious Movement within the Pentecostal Context’. In J. Moberg and J. Skjoldli (eds), Charismatic Christianity in Finland, Norway, and Sweden: Case Studies in Historical and Contemporary Developments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–158. Grass, T. (2008), Modern Church History. London: SCM. Jones, C. E. (1974), A Guide to the Study of the Holiness Movement. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Lundgren, E. (2008), Knutbykoden. Stockholm: Modernista. McClymond, M. J. (2014), ‘Charismatic Renewal and Neo-Pentecostalism: From North American Origins to Global Permutations’. In C. M. Ro- beck, Jr. and A.  Yong (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–50. O’Callaghan, C. (2004), ‘The Minister, His Wife, Their Nanny and a Double Murder’, The Irish Times, 22 May, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-­ minister-his-wife-their-nanny-and-a-double-murder-1.1141520, accessed 2019-01-17 Peste, J. (2011), ‘Murder in Knutby: Charisma, Eroticism, and Violence in a Swedish Pentecostal Community’. In J.  R. Lewis (ed.), Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–229. Prou, J. and D.  Hayes (2005), Walled About with God: The History and Spirituality of Enclosure for Cloistered Nuns. Herefordshire: Gracewing. Sanders, R.  G. W. (2003), William Joseph Seymour: Black Father of the 20th Century Pentecostal /Charismatic Movement. Sandusky, OH: Alexandria. Svalfors, U. (2012), ‘Charismatic Movements within Church of Sweden’. In A.  L. Eriksson, G.  Gunner, and N.  Blåder (eds), Exploring a Heritage: Evangelical Lutheran Churches in the North. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, pp. 156–177. Waldau, Å. M. (2007), Kristi Brud: Vem kan man lita på? Skara: Heja Sverige.

CHAPTER 3

The Charismatic Leader

Charismatic Authority As accounted for in the previous chapter, Waldau was positioned at the top of the hierarchical power structure of the congregation, successively gaining prominence since her arrival in Knutby in 1992 until her discrowning in October 2016. During that time, a culture built on Pentecostal beliefs but explicitly specific to the congregation in Knutby Filadelfia, revolving around her as a spiritual leader, emerged. Waldau withdrew from the congregation in 2008, which left some members with less personal access to her, while others enjoyed the same access as before, and still others gained access for the first time. These relationships were by no means static; rather, a member could gain or lose access, and this chapter will illustrate how, with regards to the children and youths in the congregation. This study was initially designed on the preconception that Waldau was the leader of the group, with a few additional pastors serving under her. While this is accurate, it only became clear after some time that Pastor Urban Fält also held a special position, and consequently had a profound impact on the lives of the children and youths in the congregation, not least as a role model. Often performing at the congregation’s Friday-night music cafés with his band, dressed in skin-tight leather pants, and sporting © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_3

55

56 

S. NILSSON

a rock-star image, he was a bit of an idol for the younger children. He was given the role of Jesus in the congregation’s recurring musical performance of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Jesus Christ Superstar, which added to his superstar status within the congregation. With The Fall and the narrations that emerged after both Fält and Waldau had left the congregation, it became increasingly clear that I had underestimated Fält’s role in the congregation. Several defectors testified to Fält’s independent theological claims, varying from suggestions that he was a manifestation of Elijah, to the teachings about the prison guard who had put himself in the position of being responsible for taking care of various (perceived) debts that some of the members owed to Waldau. The interpretation was that members of the congregation had wronged Waldau, who was now handing them over to Fält. The understanding of debt will be explored in Chap. 4, but it suffices to say here that several members of the congregation were perceived to be indebted to Waldau because she felt that they had not supported her or because they had acted in a way which she found suitable. Former members explain Fält’s theological claims that a spiritual battle was taking place outside Waldau’s house, which served as a legitimising factor in his sexual encounters with female members of the congregation, encounters that were concealed from Waldau. Fält’s position has not been given what I would, in retrospect, consider the proper amount of attention in this study, but the bits and pieces presented here may constitute a basis for further research. In the autumn of 2016, I was alerted by former members to the alleged sexual abuse of a minor by Fält. The age of consent to sex in Sweden is 15. However, up until the age of 18, one is considered a minor. In the case of Fält, the minor was considered to be in a dependent relation to Fält, which further accentuates the abuse of power. The charges are currently under criminal investigation (2018). I have chosen not to focus on the topic of sexual abuse of minors because the anonymity of the person involved may be compromised, as at this point it amounts to one individual. According to members, Fält had his own ideas and ways of preaching. A pamphlet handed to me by a former member in 2017 shows a model for members who were experiencing a problem or who had questions. The pamphlet shows a system where individual conclusions drawn by members’ understanding of God’s guidance had to be accepted by other members for it to cease to be a problem.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

57

Pastor Gembäck’s position has also been described (not least by himself) in retrospect as that of a charismatic leader; however, his position seems to have been to educate the congregation in theology rather than prophesize. Gembäck recounted in 2016 for an episode where he himself physically abused another member, an incident he has since reported to the police, and this too is under criminal investigation. Gembäck publicly announced his actions in 2018  in the TV documentary Uppdrag Granskning. Despite the fact that both Fält and Gembäck held prominent positions as pastors, this chapter focuses exclusively on the relation between children/youths and Waldau and explores the charismatic relationships from the theoretical assumption that children are active agents rather than passive recipients of socialisation (Handel 2006, p.  29). It further illustrates how access to the charismatic leader was understood and negotiated by the children and youth in the congregation. The understanding of growing up in a HDNRC is further explicated by way of illustrative examples of the practical impact of the presence of a charismatic leader in the everyday lives of the children and youths regarding lifestyle and career choices. A Colourful Front Artefacts produced by Waldau are highly visible within the congregation. Her characteristic paintings of clouds and landscapes in sombre colours, her naturalistic photographs depicting flowers and animals, two CDs, produced by the congregation, with the music she wrote and performed, and three books—namely her autobiography, a photo book, and a children’s book, are present in practically every house and apartment that I visit, as well as in a glass showcase in the Congregational Hall. The position of these props, prominently on display in private as well as in public places, makes up the front, the setting of the scene of congregational life. On one of my visits to the congregation, I am invited to stay in a one-­ room sort of garden shed-made-house, where a young man named Fredrik usually stays. He rents the place, which is in the garden of a house shared by two families from the congregation. To come from the main house to the shed, one must balance on a narrow plank, which I end up doing several times a day since the shed has no kitchen or bathroom. The first

58 

S. NILSSON

time I enter it, I am too exhausted to notice anything special about the room. I have been travelling for almost eight hours, and I have just recovered from a lengthy cold, so I fall asleep almost before my head touches the soft pillow that has been placed neatly on top of crisp sheets. When I woke up a few hours later, I took a better look at the room. It is painted in bright, contrasting colours, ornamented with candleholders matching the sheets. The bookcase is practically devoid of books, apart from a Bible and several copies of Waldau’s books. She has only published three books, but Fredrik keeps a stash of copies in his room. A copy of the children’s book is spread open like a folding fan, standing up as if on display in a bookstore, or on a stage, for an audience. The setting is one particular to a charismatic community in terms of being bound to the specific geographical place where members live and worship. The leader’s artefacts—pictures, portraits, paintings, CDs and books—thus make up expressive equipment in the homes of the members, functioning as identification markers. This expressive equipment is bound to the geographical place. Taken outside the boundaries of the congregation, their meaning transforms. Hence the setting here is conducive to a performance in which we take on our roles: they as devoted worshippers and I as curious (and potentially intrusive) researcher. I am invited into this scene. Interestingly, the small shed is presented to me as the private residence of Fredrik, but the props placed in the shed suggest that it is in fact a staged front region. The absence of personal belongings and the presentation of the primary props signal display rather than privacy. I soon become aware that the admiration for Waldau’s expressions of creativity is present in all settings that I am invited into, as interior design within public spaces and private households. The houses that I visit all bear her trademark decor: patterned feature walls surrounded by walls painted in glaring contrasting colours. I am told that the members of the congregation help each other out whenever another member of the congregation wants to renovate their house or apartment, something they seem to do quite frequently, continuously throughout my visits. Initially it appears to be an admirable communal tradition, and I am amazed at how many creative alterations are possible. However, after contemplating an orange-coloured kitchen with all the cupboards painted in harsh purple, and a teenager’s bedroom completely covered (including the furniture down to the picture frames) in flowered wallpaper, I begin to question the individual voluntariness of embracing this particular style. The members

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

59

that I ask unanimously to refer to being inspired by Waldau’s style of design, and persuasively insist that it has no religious implications at all. In 2017 I am told by former members that one reason that the interior designs generally lacked white surfaces was because Waldau taught that white was in fact the colour of sin, and that people try to cover up their sin by using white paint because they don’t understand this. Yet, the particularity of the interior design, and perhaps more so the seemingly uncritical adoption of it, suggests otherwise, that the material environment is characterised by Waldau’s charismatic claims. After The Fall in 2016, when Waldau has been forced away from the congregation and relocated away from Knutby, I am told another story by several members. Some explain how everything, including interior design, was inspired by Waldau’s direct contact with God. Opposition to her directives would have equalled a form of theological doubt and dramaturgical disloyalty. Furthermore, the constant refurbishing of her own residence was framed by some members to be directly connected to the belief in her role in the imminent return of Jesus. Fredrik, who was involved in the renovations, states Her house has been completely renovated, everything has been refurbished, the entire kitchen and bathroom three times in the last ten years. The last time when she travelled, they raised the roof and rebuilt the roof trusses, an extensive job. In addition, four large gardens were built. There’s a bathtub inside of the house and one outdoors. The whole house has been repainted twice over the past ten years on the outside. It feels strange now, but I was convinced to believe, bit by bit, that Waldau was the Bride of Christ. She was one of the two rulers in the next life, so we built to prepare for that. And the construction came to mean something else. (Fredrik, 25, 2017)

Fredrik’s account is not simply an account of his life as a congregational member and the work it entailed. He illustrates the significance of the construction work and the process of reframing it. Initially, he is doubtful, and disputes the belief that Waldau is the coming Bride of Christ. He reacts to and questions the constant refurbishing of her residence, which he interprets in hindsight as “strange” (Fredrik, 25, 2017). The extensive construction work is successively reframed and thus becomes meaningful in the religious context, in essence up-keying the work he is doing from having mundane to divine purposes.

60 

S. NILSSON

The extravagance that the house signalled to all who had permission to enter it would have been that someone very special resided there, a fact enhanced by the fact that not all members were permitted entry. The house became a collective representation of and a realisation, the scenery of a celebrated leader, the setting of an important person, in a mishmash of glitzy colours. The House on The Hill It is evening, May 2014. Liselotte and I are escorted to the Waldau residence by Gembäck, who will sit in on the interview. This is a first. Waldau has declined to see us for three years, but now suddenly something has changed, and Liselotte is given permission to interview her about her experiences with the Swedish Pentecostal movement. As if by accident, I come along. The house is located on a small height close to the Congregation Hall, popularly called Gränstakullen or just kullen (Gränsta Hill or The Hill). There are only a few houses; none of the rank-and-file members lives here. The Hill is separated both geographically and socially from the rest of the congregation. It is an odd situation. The performance is staged in detail. In interview after interview, the leadership of the congregation has refuted the claims that Waldau is a charismatic leader, additionally downplaying her role publicly since 2008 when she left her post as a pastor. The official position is that she serves merely as an inspiration for the elders of the congregation and that she has no mandate to make decisions. The doctrine of the Bride of Christ is dismissed as a theological discussion, which was tried but rejected long ago. Everyone that I talk to describes Waldau as loving, inspirational—a very spiritual person who cares about others almost to the point of self-extinction. She was the one who consolidated and strengthened the congregation after 2004, several adult members point out to me. They describe her as a friend, a person of inspiration rather than of authority. On the other hand, former members and parents of adult members have continuously portrayed her as a manipulative, authoritarian leader with ultimate power over the members of the congregation—two rather discrepant role descriptions. A female member of the congregation opens the door and lets us into the house. Waldau herself and another woman wait for us to take our coats off. Waldau greets us with hugs and welcomes us inside. She seems a bit nervous, but friendly. We are shown to a table placed on a veranda and we

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

61

take our seats. Two black-dressed women line up, pressing against the wall with nervous, stale smiles on their lips but otherwise remaining quiet. They act like servants of royalty. Maybe it is their matching clothes combined with the way they take our coats and show us in that has this effect—I am not sure, but it is interesting and a bit unsettling. The presumption, and give expression, to use Goffman’s terminology, that has been conveyed to me as well as to other outsiders, is—as stated above— that Waldau is special but by no means holds the highest position in the congregation. Still, the following performance on the part of the actors gives off information completely contrary to that. The coherence between setting, appearance, and manner is striking. The house is special, initially overwhelming with all its details, which I inspect and try to remember, hoping that they might provide a clue to this woman, to her position as the great leader, or alternatively, as indicated, as an inspiration to so many. The colours are vivid, wallpapers hung next to each other that do not match but look expensive. I contemplate that the distinctive characteristic within the congregation is the tremendous amount of creative effort put into building and rebuilding, and painting and decorating the interior of the houses and flats that I visit. Waldau’s house is, as I mentioned earlier, no exception, only exceedingly elaborately decorated. The ceiling is made of tiny mirrors, the woodwork on the staircase is carved out in fine detail, and the room that we are invited to sit in has a veranda made entirely of old windows in different shapes and sizes. Sitting down at the dinner table, Waldau places herself at the short end, and Liselotte and I sit right next to her but at the long end. The two female members posing as servants stand motionless at the other end of the room, waiting like proper waiters in a fancy restaurant. This is a team performance that does not follow the earlier script, and Waldau’s persona has shifted from creative, high-ranking former pastor to the front staging of royalty, appearance, and manner confirming the role. After a while, Waldau turns to the female members and says gracefully, “You may serve the food now”, which they do. There is a significant, on my part unexpected, role discrepancy at play. The serving women have previously been described as Waldau’s friends, both by her (publicly), by themselves, and by other members of the congregation. In this performance, however, they appear to be in the role of servants, in a routine, which seems as well-rehearsed as can only be, if it has been carried out earlier. The allocation of power is over-explicit. As I understand it, these women have prominent positions in the congregation.

62 

S. NILSSON

Perhaps their positions have granted them the opportunity to serve. To fill the position of (female) friend of Waldau might include the right to be near, but the duty to serve remains intact, as has been recounted by defectors. Either way, this demonstration of power confuses me. They perform in a way that they persistently have denied doing. The most interesting aspect is that in this setting, the power structure, which is usually denied, is performed almost as a parody of itself. This has continued to intrigue me throughout the fieldwork, as I encountered no other situations that remotely displayed in such a clear manner the power structures within the congregation. I am still unsure as to why we were given this piece of potentially, in Goffman’s words, destructive information, but can only guess that the performance had two separate audiences, us and them, and that the importance of keeping their definition of the situation intact (that Waldau was the Bride of Christ) was more important than maintaining the definition of them as friends. We are served delicate food. I have previously understood that by being vegetarians, we pose a bit of a challenge every time we are invited to members for dinner. None of the members of the congregation is vegetarian. As they interpret the Bible, it would not be in accordance with God’s words in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the food is truly delicious, and just keeps coming. Or rather, the servants run back and forth from the table to the kitchen, ensuring that our plates are never empty. Someone has gone to great lengths to prepare this, and I am fairly sure it is not Waldau. The agreement and prerequisite for the interview are that Liselotte ask her about the Pentecostal Church from a historical perspective and omit any questions regarding the events in 2004. However, it does not take long until Waldau herself brings up the subject. It seems inevitable to talk about the history of Knutby Filadelfia and not mention the murder in 2004. At this point, in May 2014, I am convinced that it will be possible for me to conduct a study on the children and youth in the congregation and leave 2004 out of it to not direct the focus away from the main topic. What I did not realise in May 2014 was the efforts of adults, primarily leaders, to hold onto 2004, which had become a narrative unto itself. The interview goes on for seven and a half hours, and it is exhausting to say the least. I mostly listen and feel the atmosphere, register the interplay between Waldau and the women who are serving us, the dynamic of the power relation, between her and Gembäck by the table, whose confirmation she seeks throughout the interview. Is it she or he directing

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

63

this performance? I follow Weber, claiming that charisma is the product of social interaction, not solely based on personal traits. If no followers attribute charisma to the leader, she will be in possession of none. After seven hours, however, I am no longer so sure. This woman is more than charismatic; she brims with energy. Every word carries a weight that implies an urgent importance; every sentence is accompanied by vivid gestures and rhetorical questions when she goes from whispering to raising her voice, back to lowering it again. Now and then, she looks to Gembäck for support, and he continues to confirm or gently correct her regarding minor details such as what year a certain event took place. This must be a clear case of a person who believes in her role, I reflect. All along, quiet, smiling women serve us more food, sweets, cookies, tea. I find it a bit eerie with them standing there like statues, but as time passes, I forget about them. Waldau seems to relax, transitioning from the role of hostess to narrator, and tells us her story. It is a tale of severe persecution, which centres on how she has been the victim of prejudice and slander within the Pentecostal Church, and on how this escalated with the events in 2004. Then, of course, she is the victim of a horrible crime, in which she lost her little sister. From that perspective, there is no mistaking it: she is a victim of injustice. It is very hard not to be caught up in her pain as she speaks. She has such an emotional expression, seems so thin-skinned, at times almost fragile—on the verge of breaking down:— emotions in every breath, constant gestures to enhance the importance of what is being said. Tilting her head, she poses questions and illustrates perfectly what I imagine is the winning 100% attention that members that I interview praise. She appears genuinely interested. While I ponder how people are intimidated by this woman who comes across as the victim of persecution, slander and abuse, the conversation goes on, and the impression management appears successful, as anticipated. My understanding is that she is unable to attend services because she does not want to have to explain herself to new members or to those who do not know her, who are not her friends (as opposed to the serving women). She does not even go down to the local shop for milk or to the shops in the town of Uppsala because she claims that people cannot refrain from shouting and spitting at her. It all reminds me of an old folk tale with the princess trapped in her beautiful golden castle, surrounded by servants, but lonely, so lonely. Had it not been for an evil spell cast upon her which forces her to stay in the castle, she would have been free to see her people. I feel sorry for her, yet reflect on a high-ranking member’s previous caution

64 

S. NILSSON

against making the mistake of seeing Waldau as a helpless victim. While contemplating this, I must have lost focus because suddenly, she grabs my upper arm, stares me straight in the eye, and chastises me harshly, for what I cannot even remember. This feeling, the instant adrenaline rush, this is where I begin to think that as wonderful as people say it is to be seen and praised by this woman, just as terrifying it must be to find oneself in the centre of her wrath. The performance disruption, this unmeant gesture, caught me off guard, and at once, the positions of both members and ex-members seemed crystal clear. Charisma is neither positive nor negative. It is an expression of power. The moment lasted only seconds and was part of an illustration that had nothing to do with me personally, but it challenged my temporary one-dimensional understanding of her as a frail, abused person. Another persona flashed closely. She is a leader. She gives me an excusing smile and pats my shoulder. The visit to Waldau’s house and the long interview with her confirmed the significance of her special status, which has been brought up in the non-academic literature, and speculated on in online forums, as discussed in Chap. 1. It is obvious that she is a charismatic leader exerting charismatic authority in Weber’s definition of the term. Her leadership, according to her, the pastors, and the members of the congregation, rests on her ability to hear God more clearly than anyone else, and this constitutes the miracle that proceeds charismatic authority. The serving women, their manner (hands behind backs) and their attentive wait for instructions make visible their roles in this performance. Gembäck has the function of what Weber calls an “agent” (Weber 1978, p. 293)—someone who has been provided charismatic authority by Waldau, but he is clearly placed below her in the hierarchy. Had he been on the same level, it seems improbable that she would be seated alone at the short end of the table, directing the conversation. Using frame analysis to understand the performance, I conclude that while what I see is a set of power relations in which servants serve their leader with all the humility expected of a loyal follower, their definition of the situation most probably contains a divine aspect that is not visible to us outsiders. My definition of the situation is that they are in good standing within the congregation as they are given the chance to serve, while their definition may be that they are executing the will of God in the hope of being granted an invitation to the coming divine wedding. The narrative of persecution is Waldau’s more than it is the congregations, because her social role is unparalleled, singled-out and highlighted. This is a fact of which I did not fully understand the scope prior to that

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

65

dinner. I had interpreted the group’s social stigmatisation as a ‘deviant cult’ in terms of the collective stigmatisation due to the events in 2004. During the interview, however, I am given the impression that the stigma of the group emanates from the personal experiences of Waldau. There is a narrative there, with her at centre, encompassing the time before and after 2004. During my visits to the congregation, the adult members kept pointing out how mistreated she had been. I started wondering about the nature of the young members’ appreciation of her Did it entail this focus on stigma and personal persecution, or were there other aspects in their relations with her that they would highlight as important?

A Grand Narrative of Persecution After 2004, the view of Waldau within the congregation as the victim of the Knutby Drama emerged. According to her own interpretation of the events, her sister was murdered, but the horror of the murder itself faded away and all focus was on her (Waldau 2007, p.  75). This view stuck within the congregation, and was repeatedly emphasised in public by Waldau herself. At the time when she was withdrawing from her service as a pastor in 2008, she claimed in an article in the newspaper Dagen that she could not forgive the fact that the Pentecostal Church had turned their backs on the congregation when they were in need. Interestingly, she further emphasised her own position: No one understands what I have been through. There is no historical person on whom there has been so much written as me. I do not really understand how I’ve survived […] it will be nice to let go of the responsibility of the spiritual well-being of others. Everything that I have had to do, to save a whole congregation.

Her relation to the congregation is from then based on the notion that she saved them from a potential break-up after the incidents in 2004. She refuted all rumours of herself as a charismatic leader, but stressed the fact that she was targeted as if she were: I am an ordinary person, what was it that was different? That I was a believer? […] There were absurd accusations about my life, that I was some kind of supernatural Christian queen who sat on a throne. I have never managed this congregation with an iron hand […] I’ve never been someone who calls

66 

S. NILSSON

herself the Bride of Christ. What in the world happened? […] Helge was not unique, there are many like him, what was unique was the treatment of me. (Åsa Waldau 2014)

As much as the colourful decors and paintings serve as material fronts of the congregation, so does Waldau’s story on how she was subjected to a hate campaign, slandered in the media, and falsely accused as a manipulative leader, which serves as a founding story of sorts for the group. Similar narratives can be found throughout the history of NRMs.1 Opposition towards aspects of mainstream society and towards parts of Pentecostalism were already present in the group before 2004, partly because of Waldau’s negative experiences with the Pentecostal Church in Uppsala, and partly because many members felt that the lifestyles of their Pentecostal groups were not as all-encompassing in everyday life as they had wished they were. The murder of Waldau’s sister and the subsequent witch-hunt on her in the media has greatly enhanced the narrative of her as a martyr, which resulted in the increased loyalty within the group, and towards Waldau specifically. She was understood by members of all ages to be the true victim of the Knutby Drama since she suffered both loss and personal persecution because of the tragedy. The persecution or threat from outside had no need to be exaggerated by the leaders at that time, since it was real and felt by the members, as well as by some of the children in the congregation who were at the time turning into young adults. However, with time, the narrative took on the form of a primary social framework, attributing meaning to the stigmatisation of the group, and possibly served as a way of retaining members. The projection of Waldau’s persecution as a social frame serving partly as an identity marker is recurrent in most of my interviews with the members of The Youth Group and is referred to as an ongoing process in the same manner as she herself treats it. One of my first youth interviewees is 17-year-old Sara. Sara is a smiling, polite teenager with white teeth and a lively gaze. She seems thoughtful as she pauses and considers her answer to my questions. Sara was practically born into the core group (The Table) close to the leadership, since her parents assumed social roles close to Waldau from the start. Their positions have rendered them some negative publicity in the media and by former members, and Sara elaborates on how unfairly she feels that her parents 1

 See, for instance, Rebecca Moore (2011) on The People’s Temple.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

67

and the congregation were treated in the wake of 2004. She seems genuinely upset. Her parents were especially targeted. Sara says that she could not wish for better parents, and that they always had time for her. At the end of the interview, I ask if there is anything that she would like to add. She hesitates for a second, and then says: Åsa has been very mistreated, I think. I would describe her as a great person, someone whom you can really trust and who has earned respect. Others may see her as having some kind of power [laughs]. That is so strangely described. But I would say that because of what she is like, very loving—and she sees if you don’t feel well, she has earned … I mean there was a … it’s very unfair that she lost her sister, and still she was the one who took the hits for it.2 But she has been strong and she has pulled through. (Sara 17, 2014)

I interpret Sara’s statement as information she found important for me to have, as she spontaneously brought it up. There are multiple themes in what she says. She repeats how Waldau has earned respect. Much like Waldau’s own narrative on the persecution she felt that she endured, Sara makes meaning of the persecution by highlighting the strength that it took to overcome the situation. She describes Waldau as innocent, yet strong, while at the same time vaguely denying her power by focusing on her ability to express love and concern for others. The emphasis is not on who she is, but what she does. The perceived unfair treatment of Waldau reappears throughout my observations and interviews. When Ville, a youth who was also brought up close to the leadership, is asked the question whether he can see any negative aspects of growing up in the group, he hesitates then states: I can’t see that I would have wanted anything else in my life. But concerning Knutby Filadelfia … we have taken a lot of crap from other churches […] a great deal was directed towards Åsa. From the whole of Sweden, that she was bad. (Ville, 22, 2014)

Ville, like Sara, spontaneously connects the negative aspects of growing up within the commune to the critique from outsiders. While he initially

2  Translation is difficult here. In Swedish Sara says: “det var hon som fick ta alla smällar för det.” Her statement implies that Waldau’s sister was murdered, but that Waldau was blamed for the whole drama.

68 

S. NILSSON

addresses the critique against the congregation as a whole, he highlights specifically the critique of Waldau. The recollection of Waldau’s persecution pre- and post-2004 can be said to serve as a grand narrative for the congregation, or at least for the youth and adult population. Recounting it is part of a collective routine. As will become clear further on in this chapter, the children did not refer to persecution when they elaborated on Waldau’s position and their relationships to her. A grand narrative, as originally defined by Lyotard, serves the purpose of explaining a historical event or social experience (Lyotard 1993, p. 16), in this case the claim that Waldau is a manipulative charismatic leader of a dangerous, isolated ‘cult’. Grand narratives explain events by connecting seemingly different occurrences to each other to present a universal truth. The impact of Waldau’s persecution on theological grounds was seen as part of the cosmogony of the congregation, but only by the group of members who were aware of her role as the future wife of Jesus. One part of the congregation has never been aware of the fact that Waldau claimed to be the Bride of Christ; however, they did understand her to be a special person with a deeper connection with and ability to hear God than the rest of the congregation had. The persecution of Waldau extended to the congregation, giving all the members the opportunity to identify as a persecuted group, whether they were individually aware of the Bride of Christ doctrine or whether they believed that they were persecuted for being Christians in a secular society. The narrative is a strip of activity, a recurrent meaning making. It is a form of self-expression and encompasses the act of impression management. A grand narrative excludes, by its very existence, other narratives. Therefore, experiences contradicting or questioning the victimisation of the group’s leader or less favourable traits are not given place. Lyotard points to the fact that grand narratives can, because of this mechanism, be oppressive. In fact, grand narratives are described as the oppressive force of authoritarianism (Lyotard 1993). In addition, the grand narrative delineates the social boundary between the group and society, in particular those parts of society that do not wholeheartedly subscribe to Waldau’s recollection of the events. To take one example: even if the majority of the interviews were conducted individually, they can be seen as part of the team performance in which each member is responsible for the maintenance of the routine (Goffman 1981, p. 75). This is not to say that the understanding of the charismatic leader as especially targeted by outsiders is a conscious construction.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

69

Rather, it is an integral collective memory. Collective memories as grand narratives do not, by definition, necessarily reflect the reality of the situation, but function as a uniting force for identification with the group.

Negotiating Access to the Charismatic Leader In the interviews with the children, the understanding of Waldau’s role differed from the youths. Instead of depicting Waldau as a wrongfully accused respectable leader, their emphasis was on her role as leader and decision-maker. Klara Klara is one of the youngest of the interviewees, just about to turn eight. She is petite and smiles shyly while looking around the room. The interview takes place in one of the pastors’ homes. We have been given access to his office and it feels awkward from the beginning. The room is decorated in dark colours, housing bookshelves full of books on Christianity in general, and Pentecostalism in particular. To the left is a dark, ostensive chaise longue that I imagine Freud would have envied, and at its top end stands a huge writing desk, complete with posh pens and an office chair with a high backrest. Klara’s dad is with her. Each child got to choose whether they wanted their parents to sit in on the interview or not. Klara was the only child who chose to have a parent with her. Her dad gives an equally or even more nervous impression than she does. I uneasily seat myself in the office chair, and Klara slouches in the chaise longue. She and her dad appear nervous, which renders me nervous, and I regret not checking the room out before accepting it. This feels staged for a therapy session rather than an interview with a small child. Klara talks in a low voice, I have to struggle to hear what she is saying, and the desk between us seems as wide as an ocean. I ask about her family, school, friends, and she answers properly but in monosyllables only. Sensing that she is not comfortable, I go on to ask her about the charismatic leader in a very general, open question: “What do you think of Åsa?” Obviously, this is a mistake on my part. Methodologically open questions let the child lead the conversation (Ridgely 2011, p. 89); however, in this case it proved insensitive. She does not want to lead at all. She takes a long time to think. Perhaps this is because she has not been confronted with having to express an opinion on the leader before. Perhaps she is not even aware that she can form one of

70 

S. NILSSON

her own, or perhaps she just thinks it is a stupid question. When she lingers on the answer to this rather clumsily posed question, I try rescuing the situation by asking, “Who is Åsa?” Still, there was no answer. She glances insecurely at her dad, but he says nothing. “What does she do?” This is a last desperate attempt to find some flow in the conversation, and the 7-year-old girl answers without a doubt: “She’s in charge!” (Klara, 7, 2014). The dialogue goes: Sanja: What do you think about Åsa? So how … who is she, what does she do in the congregation? Klara: She’s in charge. Sanja: In charge of what, for example? Klara: Mm … eh … she talks to the pastors … Sanja: Ok … But do you meet her sometimes? Klara: No, I met her once when I was at her birthday party and several times when I was younger. Sanja: Would you like to meet her more? Klara: Ehmm. (Klara, 7, 2014) She seems content with her own answers, and relaxes a little, tries to do a somersault in the chaise longue. I ask about the work that the congregation organises on Saturdays, when everybody, including children, clean houses, wash cars, and help with chores in the neighbours’ houses. The system is dictated by the current needs of different members of the congregation; however, certain houses seem to get cleaned more often than others do, according to the owner’s status in the group. Klara assumes that Waldau dictates the order of conduct for Saturday communal work, suggesting that Waldau’s position as a decision-maker in the congregation is uncontested in the eyes of this young informant, regardless of the fact that she does not hold a position as a pastor. Even if Klara does not talk very much during the interview, bits of information that are not intended for outsiders are submitted. As related above, adult members consistently uphold Waldau’s magnificent influence on the congregation, but just as determinedly, they unanimously deny that she has had any decision-­ making position since 2008. This piece of information is possibly perceived of as destructive information, to use Goffman’s term, by the adult members of the group as well as by Sara who is 17 at the time of the interview, but not by the young children. I hear variations on the same theme from other children but never from youths or adults.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

71

Maria An aspect of charismatic leadership, which I found conflicting perspectives on, was the members’ access to the leader. Several of the children conveyed how they did not get to see Waldau very often, and not as often as they would have liked. However, the youth as well as the adult members strongly opposed this notion. I was intrigued by this incongruence in performance and the emphasis put into refuting what my young interviewees stated in the interviews. From my observations, it seemed plausible that there was a distinct space between Waldau and the children. This space between the charismatic leader and the children was likewise observed between her and the majority of the congregation, except for the members of the higher levels of membership. Even within the higher levels, there was a level of secrecy surrounding the charismatic leader. Children whose parents belonged to the upper levels were in this case only entitled to information available to the outer group and did not automatically share their parents’ privilege. The belief that Waldau was the Bride of Christ was withheld from the congregation by way of the process that Goffman terms mystification, which highlights socially sanctioned characteristics. Contrary to the everyday performance where the actor enhances certain characteristics while withholding others, the mystification has an element of intentional space kept intact between actor and audience motivated more by the distance in which the actor controls the transmission of information by keeping the interaction running smoothly. It is a process in which the audience deliberately refrains from questioning or exposing flaws in the idealised actor, and is commonly seen in religious contexts (Goffman 1959, p. 90). This is illustrated here by the example of Maria, 12 years old. Rather than legitimising the social role that Waldau occupies in the group according to her status as the coming wife of Jesus, Maria makes meaning of Waldau’s status by pointing to personal traits such as being exceptionally loving and unselfish as legitimising aspects of Waldau’s person, and in the wider perspective of the group’s longing to be close to her. This does not mean that Maria is unaware of Waldau’s position in the congregation’s eschatology. Maria is the daughter of a parent belonging to The Table. Initially, she seems a bit nervous about being interviewed. She repeatedly adds, “I think?” at the end of most sentences as if she is unsure whether or not she

72 

S. NILSSON

has answered the question correctly. However, she seems to relax a bit when I ask her some perceptive questions about her everyday life, and she starts telling me about things she likes to do. Maria was born into the congregation and throughout the interview, she comes across as a person who values receiving credit for what she does. She says that she would like to become a florist and explains that she likes to pick and arrange flowers for others, and that she especially enjoys her mother’s gratitude when she does so. We talk a bit about relationships, and she tells me about her best friend who is not a member of the congregation, and who sometimes swears, a practice not condoned in Maria’s world. She says that this small flaw is no big deal, as she knows that her friend, although not a believer to the same extent as Maria, believes in something and that is good enough. Maria will prove to be the only one of the children and youth that I interview who appears to have been able to hold on to a long-lasting friendship outside of the congregation. When I go on to ask Maria about her relationship with Waldau, she tells me eagerly that she has been saving some money to buy one of the small paintings that Waldau painted especially for the children, for prices they could afford. I ask her who Waldau is and how she understands her relationship with Waldau. Maria: Well … I love her with all my heart [this she says in a theatrical voice, and then she laughs]! No, but she is the kindest person I know. She’s like, she never cares about herself, she only cares about others all the time and like when you get to, when you get to meet her, then you feel happiness in your heart. Because me, I don’t meet her all the time so when you, when you meet her then [you feel like] Oh, I missed you! I missed you so much! So, well … you get so … you will be so happy when you meet her! She is, like all of her is just … well, I don’t know what to say … all of her is … just joy. Yes. Sanja: But how often do you see her? Maria: Eh … I usually, or I have met her twice, I think that was when her son celebrated his birthday, and then I got to meet her one or two, I think it is two or three Christmases now and then her birthday last year, then I also got to meet her. So, there are times when I do get to meet her. (Maria, 12, 2014)

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

73

There is an unexpected disruption here, which leads me to side-track, but which is important to highlight. This is the scene: her (the insider) conveying a picture of childhood within this group to me (the outsider). This interaction is part of a routine performance that serves the purpose of projecting a perspective of “normality” as in nice children with a non-­ deviant and non-cult-like upbringing. When Maria exclaims that she loves Waldau with all her heart, she steps out of this frame, not by uttering the words, but by the way she does it. Again, the give off expression overrides the give expression. Her outburst is quickly followed by a laugh and the subsequent “no, but …”, which implies that this is a phrase that she has heard and/or repeated previously rather than constructed for this performance. The diminutive “no, but …” is an attempt from her side to restore the frame, transforming what would, in another setting with an audience comprised of insiders, be a serious exclamation in congregation-­ lingo, perhaps carrying information of loyalty, into a theatrical joke, a parody in the current setting with an outside audience. This informs me that she is aware of the purpose of this interaction and what role not to take on: that of the weird ‘cult-kid’. Whether consciously or not, her dramatization of the insider jargon provides a glimpse of the social role that belongs entirely to another performance. The dramaturgical discipline with which she attempts to remove the importance of the utterings by laughingly adding “no, but…” is significant. She is aware of the disruption and rescues the situation accordingly. Maria illustrates that the distance between herself and Waldau is filled with longing from her side. She gets to meet her. She is longing to see her, and then sometimes, her wish is fulfilled. It is not simply that she meets with her; she is granted permission to see her. Although Maria’s parent has a prominent social role within the congregation, Maria only has access to interaction taking place in the front region at what Goffman calls celebrative social occasions, such as birthday or Christmas parties. Kevin and Oscar All the children stated that they had met Waldau a couple of times, but not very often and, like Maria, not as often as they would like. When I interview 9-year-old Kevin, a charming but somewhat shy boy with blonde hair and a whisper for a voice, he reflects on how he works outside Waldau’s house on Saturdays but rarely gets to see her since she sleeps during the day.

74 

S. NILSSON

Kevin: Mm. We are working on a big house, a house like this, what is it called? A summerhouse right by Åsa’s house. Her summer cottage is what we are working on. But we never get to meet Åsa so… Sanja: Okay? Kevin: It’s only when I’m there working. She sleeps during the days, on Saturdays … when we work. Sanja: Okay. But how … If she sleeps on Saturdays … is she awake at night then? Kevin: No, she is awake in the evenings. That’s when we3 have a nice dinner. But I get, I never get to meet Åsa because she’s like, with the adults. Peter gets to meet Åsa […] Sanja: How does that feel? Would you like to meet her? Kevin: Yes. She is the one who made the whole congregation. Sanja: Mm. But can you tell someone like: I would like to meet her? Is it possible then? Kevin: No but, that’s not something that we decide, it’s God who tells Åsa if we should come over. (Kevin, 9, 2014) According to Kevin, meeting her is beyond the control of the child; God (through Waldau) decides if one should meet her. Coming over refers to visiting her house. 7-year-old Oscar (of whom I will write more in Chap. 4) conveys to me that he too would like to meet Waldau, but that he rarely gets to do so, even if his parents spend considerable time with her. Yet he is careful to tell me that I am not to let Waldau know that he would like to see her more often, adding “but don’t tell her that!” after stating that he would like to see her more often. I interpret the immediacy in his exclamation and the given context as a confirmation that he is aware of the norm that one should wait to be called (Oscar, 7, 2014). The distance between the leader and the members creates a space in which a longing for a charismatic moment of sorts, which was described explicitly by Maria, can take place. The children’s understanding of how access is granted implies that they have little to no say in the matter. The individual member is unable to decrease that space, and life’s events are in the hands of God, as expressed by Waldau. I find, however, that this passive 3  “We” refers to himself, a few other children, and an adult member of the congregation who organised the Saturday dinners for the children of high-ranking members.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

75

acceptance of the divine order does not apply to the older cohort. I am told that access is negotiable in the sense that when a member expresses a longing for her, not to be seen by her, but solely as a desire to see her, it constitutes a pure expression of love. Correctly executed, it can render one the desired access.

Purity Purity has a prominent place within most religious worlds. The dichotomous view of the world, which is significant for sectarian and fundamentalist worldviews, divides the world into negative and positive realms. This dichotomy is prevalent in groups where strict social boundaries are employed. The word purity itself is value free: it merely denotes something which is free from contact with that which weakens, impairs, or pollutes; it contains no foreign or vitiating material. Mary Douglas’s (1966) theory of purity and impurity in different cultural settings suggests that what constitutes purity in one context might be regarded as impure in another. It is vital here to realise that there are several layers in a framing of a situation or behaviour as impure. First, there is the impurity that affects the individual. The individual impurity, be it framed as an attack by demons or as a personal weakness, impairs the individual’s capacity to reach the higher goal—for instance, the aspiration for eternal life. Second, individual impurity may affect others by, for instance, weakening their spiritual powers or causing diseases. The practice of spiritual shunning in the congregation was intimately connected to this aspect of impurity. A complicating fact was that what it is that pollutes was not always entirely defined within the congregation. In this study, I adhere to Mary Douglas understanding of purity. Religious systems have rules, which separate the pure from the impure in the sense that certain actions lead to certain desirable goals, while others do not, and some lead to profane or supernatural punishment. This dichotomous separation of pure and impure has a wide variety of applications in various levels of religious experience. The call for purity can encompass, for instance, dietary rules but can also encompass inner personal forms of purity, such as self-­ renunciation or moral perfection according to the moral compass of the specific religious system (Douglas 1966).

76 

S. NILSSON

Benjamin Right after the exhausting interview with Waldau detailed at the beginning of this chapter, I am given the chance to interview a 14-year-old boy, Benjamin. Benjamin is full of energy; the man bun in his neck pops up and down as he speaks, and his intensity keeps me awake, although it is way past my usual bedtime, almost midnight. Benjamin is eager to get everything he says right. He is extremely energetic, charming, smiley, and he seems genuinely interested in giving his views on growing up within the congregation and his relationship with Waldau and the other leaders. He pauses several times to ask me if I have understood and to make sure I have got his points right. He explains to me about longing, and the proper way to express love towards the leader: If you really want to see her, then you must show her that you care. For instance, sending her flowers, a lot of people here do that. (Benjamin, 14, 2014)

Benjamin says that he had no personal relation to Waldau until he found a position for himself among the older youth in The Youth Group close to Waldau. Prior to that, he had not been very interested in congregational life. Benjamin discusses the specific traits of longing, and how one goes about expressing it: “For a person to want her to see me, now that would be selfish,” he explains. It is important to Benjamin, just as it is to the other members of The Youth Group, to show that he is on her side, which suggests his awareness for the opposition that exists towards the congregation and, in particular, towards Waldau. Benjamin explains further that if you love her, then you can hear God in your heart, which will lead you the right way and bless different situations for you. Through the inspiration of Waldau, one will hear God’s voice and benefit from this, and this will direct the individual on the desired path. Benjamin: God can say, like, today you go to town and go to the shop and find this one [gift] just because this will be good for this person, or I want to give you this … if you understand what I mean? Today, today we are going to town. Okay, do you feel prepared? And Åsa is an example. I haven’t been to town with her, but I have heard that she [can say] like: “No, we

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

77

won’t go in here. This is not the place to go. We should go here.” Restaurants and everywhere … she sees the path, do you understand? Sanja: No … not really? Benjamin: If you love someone a lot, you can feel in your heart … you don’t have to say anything. Then you can choose to say “No, I’m not here” or “I’m listening, I think that’s right and you’re right”. Sanja: But do you mean that she says it to you, and you mean that you feel that? Benjamin: Well, no, it’s not Åsa who says it (laughter). Sanja: No, okay Benjamin: But if you say God tells me … […]. (Benjamin, 14, 2014) Benjamin’s overall account indicates, through his repeated use of the pronoun you instead of I, not only his individual circumstances, but also a system of stratification, social mobility within that system, and strategies for ascending and keeping from descending from one’s position within the system. Purity here equals the relinquishing selfish desires. The highest strata, besides the leadership, are made up of the members of The Table. However, equally high-up (if not higher still) is (some of) The Youth Group. Because social mobility within the system is based partly on unpredictable rules, figuring out the proper conduct has been described as complicated. The struggle to keep from moving downwards, more specifically within The Youth Group, will be discussed in detail in Chap. 5. While Benjamin talked about having situations blessed, other youths gave more practical examples of this practice. Several of the adults and youths interviewed related to Waldau as a person who could give advice. Ville related how their career choices were discussed with Waldau, who suggested a possible path, which the youth accepted. They thus let her advice direct their future career choices. The unmistakable manifestation of total trust in Waldau is interesting: no one that I spoke to question her advice, and when asked whether they could have done so, they said that it had not crossed their minds. Ville for instance states: I had asked God about it and then I asked her. At first, I wanted to be a car mechanic or a carpenter. But none of those jobs felt … I’m something of an eager person, a bit of a theorist too. So that was an aspect too. I probably shouldn’t say, it might be totally wrong, but…a job that was a little too

78 

S. NILSSON

simple. You stand there and screw and hammer. I felt I wanted some of that but a little more theory as well. And then I talked to Åsa about it. And she asked questions. I got the feeling that I would like to do something that is practical, yet a bit theoretical. And then she asked, “What do you think about electrician?” And then it was like it clicked. Yes, that’s what I want to do! Because then you have both parts. And she didn’t say: “You should do this” or “I think you should do this”, but “What do you think about it?” And with me it clicked, yes, I want to do that. I went with it, and I’ve never been happier. That’s how it is. (Ville, 22, 2014)

Susanna, whose narration of her experiences growing up in the congregation will be detailed further, has a similar experience. Asked if she asks Waldau for advice, or if she is just her friend’s mum, she replied: No, I have a relationship with her too. If I don’t know what to do about something, I can always ask and get advice. She usually asks what I want myself. It is difficult. Sometimes you don’t know what you want. It’s nicer to just get an answer. Often, she helps you contemplate things. For example, with my choice of upper-secondary school, I didn’t know, but then she suggested different things. (Susanna, 19, 2014)

Obviously, not everyone had the opportunity to get career advice directly from Waldau. Another youth, Jimmie, who spent most of his childhood living with a parent outside the congregation but who himself joined when he was in his late teens, states in 2017 that one had to get approval from the elders when major decisions such as jobs were in question (Jimmie, 22, 2017). In fact, being singled out and given approval to approach the charismatic leader, and in this case get her advice, had the function of acknowledging the individual member’s position in the higher strata, one which Jimmie never really reached. More than one of the youths stated in hindsight, when interviewed in 2017, that they were not given the opportunity to apply to the upper-­ secondary school programme of their choice but had to accept another for the sake of being close to and supporting the leader’s children so that they would not be left without congregational members in their classes. In at least one case, this continued beyond school and into working life. Furthermore, each step had to be coordinated with the leaders of The Youth Group, who mostly consisted of children of leaders. The leader’s children were supposed to guide (which in reality meant decide for) the others, according to gender female members of The Youth Group had a

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

79

female leader; male members had a male leader (Lukas 2017; Susanna 2017; Fredrik 2017; Jimmie 2017; Jonas 2017). The structure of power within The Youth Group will be separately analysed in Chap. 6.

Reflections on Charismatic Authority There are certain strategies that maintain charismatic leadership. One aspect is maintaining distance from members. This increases the mystification of the leader, which is illustrated in this chapter. The construction of a separate residence is a strategy employed by many charismatic leaders to demonstrate this distance. From the point of withdrawal, access to the leader is typically limited and takes place mainly in ritualised encounters (Bromley 2014, p. 112). The charismatic basis for authority is always that the leader has some sort of extraordinary ability. In the case of Knutby Filadelfia, the creative expressions of the leader through art, music, and literature contributed to legitimising the charismatic claims that Waldau was spiritually superior. These artefacts were treated with the respect reserved for sacred objects. The younger children saw the legitimisation of power as an axiomatic truth, while for the youth, the legitimisation of power was instead expressed as closely connected to a grand narrative of persecution. Authority on Display This chapter started with a description of the observations from Waldau’s house at the time of an interview conducted in 2014. The detailed descriptions of the interior and atmosphere were given in an effort to place in the reader’s mind a picture of the physical surroundings since they play a specific part in the construction and maintenance of the spot to which Jesus was believed by some of the members to return. As mentioned above, what we were witnessing is a highly staged environment, a front region—first in the setting of the room that I am given to sleep in, where props and decor are, if not produced by, at least inspired by Waldau. It demonstrates the pervasive influence of the charismatic leader, down to the choice of wallpaper or art in the homes of the members. In NRMs, self-determination is often challenged, sometimes down to choices in personal style. The use of special settings and particular personal fronts are common within NRMs. Some members of movements adopt a certain way of dress,

80 

S. NILSSON

sometimes because of a theological decree, and sometimes as a way of distinguishing themselves from those outside of the group. Consider, for instance, the saffron-coloured robes of the Hare Krishna monks, or the smart navy-blue suits of the members of the Church of Scientology. In the first case, the dress code signifies a high standard within the group: that of a monk. It also connects to Indian roots. In the second case, the colour of the clothing connects the members to the high-ranking Sea Org within Scientology. Whether the individual member does or does not belong to this part of the Sea Org, the dress style within the group emphasises the connection to the marines, an organisation on which the Sea Org was modelled (Reitman 2011, p. 316). Lundgren describes an event in which Waldau (prior to 1999) retells how she sorted out the wardrobe of another female member. In Lundgren’s account, Waldau helps the member to break with an old identity and thus, by throwing out her clothes, imparts spiritual change (Lundgren 2008, p. 87). Therefore, while there were no equally apparent unanimous dress codes to distinguish membership in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation (other than favouring a vague concept of “proper dress”, which is common in Pentecostal milieus), the physical interiors of the homes of the members could easily identify them as such. The expressive equipment served as a collective representation of membership, and in the case of the “servants” at the dinner, they were coherently dressed in black.4 The most interesting part of the observation in the house is the routine involving the servants, where they collectively stage a setting which plays out the exact hierarchical distribution of power which has been given by outsiders and former members but outwardly denied by leaders and members. The characteristic submission in relation to the leader is inherent in any leader-disciple relationship, and the fact that members attribute a superordinate status to the leader contributes as much to the construction and maintenance of charismatic authority as does the behaviour of the leader. Sometimes, the leader will take on a charismatic persona, and the members establish their social identities according to the structure of the superordinate-subordinate relationship (Bromley 2014, p.  105). At the same time, the stigmatisation of the group by the public may lead the leader and members to publicly downplay the nature of that relationship, 4  On other occasions—for example, when I visited the congregation’s SPA—the serving members at the dinner would be dressed in black with a red detail. This coherent dress code signified that they were acting as staff.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

81

as was the case in Knutby Filadelfia. The definition of the situation did not cohere with the previous definition conveyed by the same members: that they were friends of Waldau’s who were merely inspired by her spiritual sensitivity. But why was this routine played out in front of a non-member audience? Goffman uses the term decorum to describe a group of standards which are required for performing a routine in a certain front region (Goffman 1959, p.  110). I would again argue that the place itself is of significance. Whereas previous conversations downplayed Waldau’s elevated role, the house on The Hill itself can be considered a sacred space, in which certain (serving) behaviour was expected from the members of the congregation in relation to the charismatic leader. Persecution Narratives Persecution as an identifying characteristic of a NRM is common; in fact, the very definition of it signifies tension with society: New religious movements thrive on persecution, real or putative. It is a sociological axiom that one of the optimal conditions under which new movements grow and prosper is persecution. Public antagonism against a group consolidates it. It makes martyrs of those who endure insults, animosity, and attacks because of their beliefs. Paradoxically, the anti-cult movement has strengthened the new religions by providing their members with an ideal opportunity to suffer together for what they perceive to be a noble and divine cause. (Saliba 2016, p. 228)

Saliba’s definition of the effects of persecution can easily be applied to the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. I would argue that the exclusion from the Pentecostal fellowship and the subsequent animosity exclaimed by prominent leaders within the Pentecostal milieu played the part of anti-­ cult agents that Saliba refers to. Additionally, the media attention and negative reports on the group brought the congregation closer together, albeit still with each member in a certain position within different fractions of the group. There were several levels of engagement in the commune, and likewise several fractions of initiated members. Goffman states that alienation due to a stigma sometimes leads to a defensive position, which in turn is often taken as a confirmation of the deviance and used as a way to legitimise the treatment of stigmatised persons. Sometimes the stigmatised person becomes “insulated by his alienation, protected by

82 

S. NILSSON

identity beliefs of his own, he feels that he is a full-fledged normal human being, and that we are the ones who are not quite human” (Goffman 1963b, p. 17). A stigmatised HDNRC shares the stigma as a collective identity, as we can see in the case of Waldau, a tendency to form a persecution narrative with herself in the centre. She is the centre of attention, articles have been written about her, and she has had to shield the congregation so that the stigma is on her. She does refer occasionally to the tribal stigma but still the personal stigma is often more visible, such as in her autobiography, which in turn can be seen as an attempt at a hagiography that features the narrative of persecution. In the interviews, the perceived persecution of the congregation is mentioned by the children and youths; however, the interviews share the common characteristic of placing Waldau’s personal stigma above the stigma of the congregation. For instance, interviewee Sara (not to be confused with Sara Svensson) states how it is unfair that Waldau’s sister was murdered and that Waldau was blamed for it.5 A similar interpretation is offered by Ville: Waldau has been unfairly treated but has pulled through. Sara says that Waldau has earned (respect?), but while she does not finish this sentence, she goes on to describe her positive attributes, and ridicules the notion of Waldau as having some kind of “strange” power over the members. Sociologist Wolfgang Lipp theorises that stigma is the opposite pole of charisma, arguing that a stigmatised person can “reverse the stigma and convert it into positively valued charismatic properties (Lipp 1985, p.  76). This form of alteration is, however, only possible under certain circumstances (in this case within the boundaries of the congregation). Waldau’s auto-stigmatisation resulted in a redefinition of the stigma as charisma; the shortcomings were strengths, and this informed the relationships that the children and youths formed with her. Accessing the Divine Charisma is dynamic, constituted by a personal attribute (which may or may not be present) and a social construction, both of which I have attempted to illustrate in this chapter. Recent studies have generally put more emphasis on the construction, focusing on the members’ attribution 5  Again, a literal translation would be as follows: she had to take all the hits for it, implying that she was blamed for the death of her sister.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

83

in terms of their religious commitment and strong belief and trust in their leader (Rochford 2007, p.  165). I have attempted to make vivid the personal charismatic traits that were on display in my first interaction with Waldau. Following Gardner and Avolio (1998), I adapt the position that charisma is constructed within the relationship between the leader and follower. The quotes in this chapter are representative for the rest of the interviews in that we can see a distinction in how Waldau is described by children and youths. Sara, Ville, and Anna represent the older cohort (youths), while Maria, Klara, Kevin, and Oscar represent the younger cohort (children). Benjamin is, at the time of the interview, just in the process of being taken in by The Youth Group. In The Youth Group, the grand narrative of persecution was very present. Spanning in age from 17–22 (in 2014), the interviewees were aged 7–12 at the time of the events in 2004. They had all closely experienced the media’s siege literally on their doorsteps and the sometimes unsophisticated (and to some of them frightening) attempts by journalists to photograph anyone in the group, resulting in a two-week period where they stayed home from school until things had calmed down. Of the younger cohort, Maria was 2 years old, and Klara, Kevin, and Oscar were not even born in 2004. Naturally, they have no personal experiences and have only been subjected to secondary constructs of the events. In this regard, the youths have a view more like that of the adults, which is closely connected to Waldau as a person, than to that of the children. For several members of the older cohort, Waldau held the additional function of adviser, for instance, in career choices, in the same vein as she did for adults. Puttick has pointed out how the relationships between master and disciples in NRMs often take on the character of a parent–child relationship (Puttick 1997). While Puttick refers this to male leaders, the same tendency can be seen here. The youth (as members of the adult commune, which will be described in the following chapters) turned to Waldau for advice, trusted in her opinion and acted accordingly. The children framed the relationship in terms of admiration and longing, while the dominant themes among the youth were admiration and persecution. Leaders in NRMs may claim to have access to a spiritual source of authority, which constitutes the grounds for the legitimisation of power (Wessinger 2003, p. 93). The forthcoming wedding between Waldau and Jesus constituted esoteric knowledge within the higher ranks of the congregation, while some of the members were unaware of this and instead legitimised her position on the grounds of her ability to “hear

84 

S. NILSSON

God” because of her superior spiritual experience and development. Again, the framing differs between the children on the one side and the youths and adults on the other side. At the time of the interviews in 2014–2016, none of the members of any age directly addressed the other side of purity: impurity. However, other sources did. Lundgren highlights how the sanctification within the congregation was closely connected to purity, claiming that Waldau’s teachings as early as 1999 focused on the importance of cleansing oneself, as an impure person cannot get close to God (Lundgren 2008, p. 88). The importance of purity among the members has also been reflected upon in connection to the members as shields against evil influences. Impurity may evoke what I call spiritual shunning, the temporary psychological and physical exclusion of a member due to a perceived lack in his or her spirituality. It is temporary, as there is usually always the possibility of repenting and re-entering the commune. Regarding the congregation in Knutby, we saw that it had been claimed by defectors and family members that the practice of shunning, which is similarly known from groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Exclusive Plymouth Brethren, and the Amish among others, occurred in the group. The first claim came from Sara Svensson, but later also from former members during the years leading up to The Fall. I will expound further upon the practice of spiritual shunning and its implications in the lives of the children and youth in Chap. 5, but it should be noticed here that the definition of purity, what constitutes pure versus impure behaviour, seems largely to have been interpreted by Waldau, and that purity was a prerequisite for coming close to her. Consider now the ways in which some children tried to approach Waldau. Maria saved her money to buy one of her paintings, an extremely small canvas which would serve as a prop illustrating her belonging to the congregation when put on a wall in her room, but which may also be seen as a token of appreciation, or even a way of connecting to the divine. Benjamin bought Waldau flowers, and most children and youth, along with the adults, worked (at some point) Saturdays in or outside Waldau’s house. Benjamin explains the way in which one should approach the leader. He is the only interviewee who mentions the concept purity: this he does when he talks about a pure aim connected to the wish to access the leader. His explanation of how to gain access is refuted by the youths and adults that I ask prior to The Fall, who shrugged it off as something an imaginative child comes up with. However, I do believe that at the time

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

85

of the interview in 2014, Benjamin was not yet fully socialised into The Youth Group and lacked the proper script for the routine team performance of youths and adults, and I would argue that this played a significant role in why he was able to submit information which others omitted or bluntly denied. However, the importance of purity in gaining access to the leader has subsequently been revised, not least in the spiritual shunning of adult members. Several of the adult couples from the first and second levels of membership testify to having been prohibited to engage sexually with a spouse, since s/he had been considered wrong and were shunned. In terms of access to the charismatic leader, another tendency regarding the charismatic relationship emerged. Members of the older cohort all had regular contact with Waldau, while the younger contended that they did not. The longing to see her was expressed by some of the children and was absent among the youths. I initially held the belief that only some of the children got to meet her, and that they were the children of the members of The Table. It seemed logical as the boundaries between core and non-­ core members were conspicuous from the start. Similar divisions, where children of core members were given full insight, can be seen, for instance, in the history of The Family International (Chancellor 2000) and The Twelve Tribes of Israel (Palmer 1999), and within some Wiccan societies (Berger 1999). However, that assumption proved wrong as the variable age was tentatively superordinate to the current status of the family. In still other cases, an individual young member’s access to The Youth Group could result in access to the leader, regardless of the current shunning of a parent. Working for Waldau Both Klara and Kevin relate in their interviews to the work performed by the congregation on Saturdays. As has been reported in the background chapter, all members of the congregation would gather on Saturdays and be divided into work teams which would carry out different tasks from ten o’clock in the morning until six in the evening. The work tasks varied: Klara and Kevin spoke about washing trucks (these would predominantly be Patrik Waldau’s timber trucks), cleaning, and construction work. As far as I have been able to find out, none of the children or youth was allowed into Waldau’s house to clean. A former adult member, however, states that those working in Waldau’s house were to be there early in the morning, before she woke up, to clean the house (Erika 2016). In the following

86 

S. NILSSON

chapter, we will hear Maria again, this time in an interview from after The Fall, where she talks about working in another adult member’s (Elisabeth’s) house on Saturdays, together with other children and youth. It was important that that house was always spotless, since Waldau had instructed Elisabeth that her house should always be open to guests. NRMs are sometimes accused of engaging its children in child labour, but a definition of what constitutes child labour needs to be put in place here. According to the International Labour Organization, child labour constitutes work that • is mentally, physically, socially, or morally dangerous and harmful to children; and • interferes with their schooling by: • depriving them of the opportunity to attend school • obliging them to leave school prematurely; or • requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work.6 While the work executed on Saturdays certainly was not always appreciated by all the children and youth, the observations, which included digging for stones in a garden one Saturday together with adults, children and youth, suggest that some seemed to take pride and find fulfilment in participating. It could of course be argued that a negative approach would immediately have been supressed, but I would like to highlight here the possibility that an individual can find work to be both fulfilling and boring at the same time, within the limits of one workday. Or, at least, that was my own experience. Either way, since the work took place on Saturdays, it did not deprive anyone from attending school, but it has been stated after The Fall that the cumulative amount of work throughout and attendance in various activities—such as choir practice, tending to the second-hand shop in Rimbo, planning and carrying out various congregational projects—did leave little time and energy for schoolwork. As a comparison, we can turn to the experiences of children and youth in other HDNRC. Consider, for instance, The Family International’s Victor Camps which were active during the 1980s. Youth were sent to the Victor Camps as a disciplinary act for those who did not show enough interest and enthusiasm in the group’s teachings and way of living. This included 6

 http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

3  THE CHARISMATIC LEADER 

87

hard physical labour (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, pp. 50–52). The work carried out by children and youth in Knutby Filadelfia did not entail hard physical labour, and even if there was an important social value in teaching the young to partake in the management of important spaces within the commune, it lacked the punishing aspect of the discipline which prevailed in the Victor Camps. For some of the adult members of the congregation, however, the weekly workload amounted to attending a regular job outside the commune but putting all their spare time into working on different projects, mainly cleaning and refurbishing. Former members talk about working to the point of exhaustion: long hours for several years, with no holiday time or salary, with little to no time to spend with their children. This chapter focused on the relationship between the charismatic leader and the children and youth in the congregation. The following chapter takes up the effect of the presence of the charismatic authority on the parent–child relationships and the norms about parenthood present in the congregation.

References Berger, H.  A. (1999), ‘Witches: The Next Generation’. In S.  J. Palmer and C. E. Hardman (eds), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 11–28. Bromley, D.  G. (2014), ‘Charisma and Leadership’. In G.  D. Chryssides and B. Zeller (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 103–117. Chancellor, J. (2000), Life in the Family: An Oral History of the Children of God. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Douglas, M. (1966), Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge. Gardner, W.  L. and B.  J. Avolio (1998), ‘The Charismatic Relationship: A Dra- m Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1963b), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Handel, G. (2006), Childhood Socialization. 2nd ed. New York: Adeline de Gruyer. Lipp, W. (1985), Stigma und Charisma: Über Soziales Grenzverhalten. Berlin: Reimer.

88 

S. NILSSON

Lundgren, E. (2008), Knutbykoden. Stockholm: Modernista. Lyotard, J. F. (1993), The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Moore, R. (2011), ‘Narratives of Persecution, Suffering, and Martyrdom: Violence in People’s Temple and Jonestown’. In J. R. Lewis (ed.), Violence and New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–111. Nilsson, S. (2018), ‘The Charismatic Leader in Knutby Filadelfia: The Children’s Perspective’. In L.  Frisk, S.  Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck, Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox, pp. 257–279. Palmer, S. J. (1999), ‘Frontiers and Families: The Children of Island Pond’. In S.  J. Palmer and C.  E. Hardman (eds), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 153–171. Puttick, E. (1997), Women in New Religions: Gender, Power, and Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reitman, J. (2011), Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ridgely, S.  B. (2011), Studying Children in Religions: A Methods Handbook. New York: New York University Press. Rochford, E.  B. (2007), ‘Social Building Blocks of New Religious Movements: Organization and Leadership’. In D. G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–185. Saliba, J.  A. (2016), Perspectives on New Religious Movements. London: Blooms- bury. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2015), Perfect Children: Growing Up on the Religious Fringe. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Waldau, Å (2014), Personal Interview. Waldau, Å. M. (2007), Kristi Brud: Vem kan man lita på? Skara: Heja Sverige. Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wessinger, C. (2003), ‘New Religious Movements and Conflicts with Law Enforcements’. In D.  H. Davis and B.  Hankins (eds), New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, pp. 89–105.

CHAPTER 4

Parents

Parent–Child Relationships The basic conditions for second-generation children and first-generation parents in NRMs have, besides the inherent power balance discrepancies that arise out of age and experience, one important difference. While parents actively choose to join a commune, children have little say in the matter until they themselves reach adulthood (Palmer & Hardman, 1999). Because parents make an autonomous decision to join the commune, they additionally possess an identity built partly on their previous experiences outside the commune. Children have no such references, but rather frame their identities with the parents’ religious identities as a role model for adult life. In the case of Knutby Filadelfia, the religious identities of the parents were presented as desirable role models, while in others they would be presented as clear examples of how not to behave.1 Both models encompassed the consequences of the parents’ behaviour in relation to the leadership. This conjointly took place at the group level. Mainly through the schools, the children encountered, and perhaps to some degree 1  According to Essén’s ‘Lisa’, Patrik Waldau was seen as the ultimate parental role model. While the book was written a decade ago, Patrik Waldau (together with a few others) seemed to hold that status throughout my observations 2014–2016.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_4

89

90 

S. NILSSON

incorporated, perspectives coming from outside their communal context. Still, their primary frames were moulded and consisted of the communal life and the truths and idealised role models socialised into them in the communal context. The process is common in similar communities.2 In this chapter, I propose three analytical categories of presentations of parenthood within the congregation, which have emerged in the collected data: The Perfect Parent, The Shunned Parent, and The Stand-in Parental Caregiver. The Perfect Parent refers to a parent who is glorified, admired and virtually impeccable, serving as a guide and positive influence and corrector in the child’s life (and to some extent in the lives of other children as well). The Shunned Parent is The Perfect Parent’s antipode. The practice of shunning within the commune first came to public knowledge when investigators interrogated Sara Svensson in 2004. As described in Chap. 1, Sara Svensson had gone from being one of the commune’s highest spiritually ranked members to being almost totally ostracised due to her challenging of Waldau and her alleged seduction of Helge Fossmo in 2002. She became a persona non grata. Commune members did not talk to her, she had no say in matters that she previously had been asked about for an opinion, and only Fossmo spoke to her, as she still had the role of being his intercessor. The prosecutor in the trial, and Svensson’s psychiatrist Rigmor Ròbert, suggested that the social rejection was one of the triggering facts of the crime (Christiansson, 2004). I have used the concept of shunning here to denote a variety of forms of social rejection within the research field of new religions. I will use it in this context to cover social rejection spanning from being banned from Waldau’s house but otherwise allowed to participate in activities within the commune to signify social isolation in the sense that fellow members would not acknowledge the shunned person’s presence. Conclusively, Stand-in Parental Caregivers pertains to appointed (female) members of the commune who were to take care of other members’ children more or less frequently, sometimes as a consequence of being shunned themselves. In the Knutby Filadelfia congregation, most children appeared to be living with their biological parents in nuclear family settings; however, that did not necessarily mean that they spent most of their time being taken care of by their parents. This chapter will explore the significance of social strata, how norms 2

 See, for instance, Moss Kanter (1972).

4 PARENTS 

91

directing parenthood were mediated from the leadership, the presented types of parenthood and how they affected relationships between children/youths and parents in everyday life.

Perfect Parents Lukas My first visit to the training school in Knutby Filadelfia takes place in the summer of 2016. It is unusually hot outside, but the classes are given inside the (air-conditioned) congregational hall. There are several different lecturers. Some are pastors, others elders or members, and still some non-­ members who discuss certain topics. A well-off entrepreneur gives advice on how to have a successful career. On this day, one of the members of The Table, Konrad, speaks about child-rearing. He begins by saying that “It is the duty of the parents to, from an early age, show the child the right path to God”. There is an assenting hum from the listeners, but then a woman in the audience poses the question: “What do I have to do to win over my four-year-old?” she asks demandingly. Konrad pauses, looks at her and asks, “What do I have to do to win over you?”, then smiles, letting his gaze sweep over the rest of us to make sure we all got the point. We did. Another confirming murmur emanates from the audience, but the woman persists with her question, causing a few raised eyebrows in silent anticipation. She has problems with her young child who will not do what she says, and she continues to demand answers that are more concrete. From where I sit, I feel an awkwardness settling in the audience, and I think that Konrad looks a bit disturbed. It is the first time that I witness anyone not settling for the answer given by the speaker in the congregation hall. The other lectures have generally been full of jokes and quite light-hearted, but this breaks that pattern. I am one of a few outsiders here today, and I have been visiting regularly with the sole purpose of writing about child-rearing in the commune, posing repeated questions about corporal punishment, authoritarian parenting styles, and other typically private spheres of their lives. Consequently, I am as eager as the questioner is to hear the answer to this question not least because Konrad is one of a few members of the congregation who have been accused in the media of having dealt harsh punishment to his children.

92 

S. NILSSON

After a short silence, another member points at Konrad’s son Lukas and says “What about when you had trouble with Lukas swearing? You gave it back, you de-dramatized it. Tell us about that!” Lukas sits in one of the front rows and smiles. Konrad takes a deep breath and says, “It is about undressing it.” Silence. “So, you take the child to the nearest locker room …” he smiles and shakes his head, and the audience bursts out in relieved collective laughter. When everyone calms down, he recounts how he had begun to swear himself, which had made Lukas feel awkward and automatically caused him to stop swearing. Konrad addresses the initial question saying that it is not about winning over your child; it is about not letting the obstinacy define the situation. He has never had to physically chastise his children, he says, looking over to Lukas who nods, agreeing to the statement—the moral of the story being that an aggressive parenting style is not recommended. I meet Lukas for the first time in 2014, when he is just about to turn 16. He is polite, has a contagious smile, and sports a man bun similar to the ones I have seen on Ville, Erik, Benjamin, and Fredrik. He trains the football team in the congregation, and I am told that many of the younger children look up to him. Lukas seems to be a young, confident, and open boy, who is eager to convey his own view of being brought up in the congregation. Like his father, he enjoys joking, but becomes serious when the criticism against his parents for choosing to raise him in the commune comes up. In 2014, Liselotte, who asked him about his relationship with his parents and his upbringing in general, interviewed him. Lukas:

I have a tremendously good relationship with my parents. It’s more like … it’s not that bugging thing with parents, but I feel so safe with them. I have always been able to talk to them. And they have always been there for me. And it is related to a security that is just there. I’m very safe when I’m at home. I never have to feel that I must perform well. They are happy with how I am. There are of course things I need to change, but that’s just life for everybody. But what is special in the relationship I have with my parents is that there is so much love. Many hugs and a lot of pranks. I don’t see that every family has that. As I’ve noticed with my classmates in any case. I actually thought about it, why I think I have the best

4 PARENTS 

93

situation. I was thinking today that I can’t imagine any other life. I wouldn’t like it. It’s so far away from my mind to live a ‘normal life’. Liselotte: How do you imagine ‘normal life’? Lukas: Like having dinner with the family only. Sleeping at home at all times. I don’t have much experience of such a life and not everybody lives like that, of course. But it’s so free [here]. I can easily go over to my neighbours and sleep over there as well, anytime. You don’t need to … you can be yourself and be always safe. I don’t think it’s like that everywhere (Lukas, 16, 2014). Lukas goes on to explain that he has very good relations with adults in the congregation, some of them are like his ‘extra mums and extra dads’ he says laughingly. His parents are members of The Table and have figured in the media. Lukas has a special position in The Youth Group, and, I would say, in relation to the adults in the commune. In a group interview from 2016, Lukas revisits the relationship with his parents, when we talk about the negative understanding of the congregation that was the result of the media coverage in 2004. He ponders how protected he and his friends were by their families, a fact several of them had just begin to realise. Lukas says: They protected us […] What I remember is not the bad stuff, it’s the trip to Paris or being out with the boat. It’s just now that I understand how they shielded us, how they struggled (Lukas, 19, 2017).

In 2017, I contact Lukas who agrees to talk to me on the phone. Throughout my contacts with Lukas over the years, he has always been very careful to point out that he doubts that anyone could have had a better childhood than he had, and that his parents have always treated him well, he has never been mistreated or neglected by his parents. Lukas sees his parents as role models, his future self. And it is an opinion he holds on to after The Fall in the autumn of 2016. He adds that since then, he is the only one from his own family who still resides in Knutby, and that he misses them. He still has good contact with each family member but is trying to make an independent life for himself as an adult.

94 

S. NILSSON

Ville Ville is 22 years old in 2014. His wide smile is contagious, and he gives the impression of being both serious and prone to practical jokes. He is one of the oldest among the youth but states several times that he appreciates having friends of all ages, children, youth, and adults. His parents are also members of the higher levels, and Ville displays a deep respect for them, a subject he returns to several times in informal conversations that I have with him and other youth. He too, like Lukas, points especially to the importance of the relationship with his dad, how he sees him as a role model, and stresses how fortunate he considers himself to have had such a good childhood. When we visit the commune in 2014, Liselotte interviews him and asks him specifically about his relationship with his parents: Ville:

We have been at home and fixed stuff a lot together. We have rebuilt together with other people; we’ve done it together. I’ve always come along. My childhood has been perfect […] My childhood has been the absolute best. You hear classmates say, “what did you do yesterday?”, “sat in front of the TV and played a computer game and then we ate food and then I went to bed”. And my life has been I got to be with Dad and repair the house and then we fixed the car, then we ate and then we fixed some more. It’s rich3 for me. It’s rich to be with someone who knows things and someone you love, your father. To be with him and to learn. It’s rich for me. I am very fortunate […] Liselotte: There are some things I’m thinking about. You said that you have respect for your parents. I don’t think I would hear that [expression] if I were to talk generally to children in our society. Can you explain a bit more, what does it really mean? Ville: Absolutely. First, it’s about … Respect is something you earn, it’s not something you can take. Respect comes when you act in a manner that instils respect. I know that the biggest reason for it is … My dad walks with God, and I want to do that too. He has known God longer than I have. This means that he knows more than I know. That means that I want to follow him, to get to where he is at. That way, the respect is great, 3

 The word rich in this context expresses Ville’s sense of perceived privilege.

4 PARENTS 

95

because if he says something, I know that he knows God. [If he says] “You have to clean the room,” he doesn’t say that to harass me into cleaning the room, but there is something deeper here. And once you understand that it will be much easier to follow. So, I would probably say that it depends very much on the fact that I know that he knows God, and therefore, the respect for him becomes greater. If you’re going to see it purely from a worldly perspective, if you take God away: Here’s a person who has lived so much longer than me. It’ll be strange in my world if, as a small4 human being, I’m going to tell a big human being, “you’re wrong here”. It may be that we think differently. But it is nevertheless that the one who is the bigger person has more experience and more knowledge of situations. It would be a bit presumptuous if I was to correct you who has lived so much longer. You know a lot more. It’s a bit like that too (Ville, 22, 2014). Ville goes on to explain the respect he has for his mum as well, and states that regardless of gender, he is closer to his dad and therefore talks more about him, although he respects his mum too; they both walk with God, he says. Like most of the interviewees, he states that he rarely ever argues with his parents or with his younger brother. Anna and Sara Anna is 19 years old and still living with her parents within the congregation when Liselotte interviews her in 2014. Contrary to Lukas, Ville, and Sara, Anna at first comes across as a rather shy young person. She tends to display an inward sort of smile and seems less comfortable talking to us than most of the other youth, but nevertheless agrees to do so. Anna’s bashful image is particularly interesting, as it will become obvious that Anna is one of the leading members of The Youth Group. Anna and Sara have experiences similar to those of Lukas and Ville, and additionally state their inability to understand disrespectful behaviour towards parents. They hardly seem to argue with them. When Anna is asked whether she has ever been subjected to corporal punishment, she says no and continues: 4  Small is translated from the Swedish word liten. He is hence not referring solely to age but to the spiritual grandeur of his father compared to himself.

96 

S. NILSSON

I look up to my parents. And then you hear the others: “Mum is so stupid”, “Dad just pisses me off all the time”, “I hate my parents”. I could never say that about my parents, they mean so much to me. If it hadn’t been for my parents, I wouldn’t be alive. They have been my lifesavers. There’s also a big difference. They [other kids] say, “Why are you listening to your dad?” To me it’s natural to listen and to have respect for my parents. I live under their roof, and they pay for everything. Small things like that are important to me (Anna, 19, 2014).

Anna’s parents are two of the most high-ranking members in the congregation. Defectors have claimed in the media that parents, due to their high-demand positions, spent little time with their children. Liselotte goes on to ask if she has ever felt that her parents spent too little time with her, to which she answers: No. Never. I know they love me. They make that clear every day. Continuously. And that’s what makes me so … that’s what makes me the sad and upset, that people think that my parents are mean. They show so much love and they are there … I don’t know anyone else who is like that. I sometimes meet, like, others’ parents and you see that they are not very close to their children. At first it was difficult for me to understand, because I didn’t understand how they could not talk to each other. Because I always talk with my parents. Then when you see other parents screaming at their children. I have never been through that. I was quite afraid at first of other parents. [On such occasions] I have phoned my mum or dad (Anna, 19, 2014).

Sara too rejects the idea of arguing with her parents: I can’t remember when I’ve argued with my parents. You often hear that at school and see how everyone is really in trouble with their parents and I can’t even imagine, like, if I was to argue with Dad for a whole day and not make up … So, even if he says what’s right and wrong, or, like, helps me, it usually always ends with, like, a hug or something, so you can say that they are both … they are strict in seeing what’s right and wrong or what they think. At the same time, they are probably the most loving compared to others in society, so I think they are much more loving. I don’t think so many others have a relationship [like that]. I would say that I have a very good situation. I can talk to Mum and Dad about everything (Sara, 17, 2014).

4 PARENTS 

97

Themes derived from these statements are that their parents are always there when you need them willing to listen, role models, misunderstood or falsely portrayed, worthy of respect, and that the youth have problems relating to and understanding the conflicts between parents and children that they witness in peers outside of the commune, sometimes to the point of scaring them. Throughout my contact with these youths, they portray the relations to their parents in solely positive terms. It is a subject revisited several times. Lukas, Ville, Anna, and Sara have illustrated here their experiences of having The Perfect Parents, the best parents in the world, parents that are understood to be role models in the commune for the younger members. In a non-confessional frame, it is perhaps a bit confusing with all its absence of conflict: these descriptions portray a culture in which an idealisation of parents is possible as well as promoted by the youth themselves. The interviewees after The Fall include only Lukas and Anna, who at the time stood by their previous description of their relationships with their parents. The following section will explore the radically different experience of having parents who are positioned on the other side, parents who are shunned by the commune. To expand and complete the perspective of the youth and children, I have included data from interviews, conversations, and observations of adults when possible and relevant. In particular, the shunning of parents is presented from the perspective of adults as well as that of the children and youths.

Shunned Parents Maria and Her Mum I have previously described a part of my interview with 12-year-old Maria in 2014. In 2014 she was a joyful, young girl, who expressed a deep-­ rooted love and longing for Waldau, which at the time alerted me to the children’s appreciation of the leader, and the circumstances that the children and youth got to meet her (or not). Remembering the fervour with which Maria had spoken about her wonderful life, I wanted to ask her to give me her view on things now that the structure of the commune had changed. In May 2017, I contact her to ask for a follow-up interview. She is hesitant and says that she is unsure because there is “a lot which is hard to talk

98 

S. NILSSON

and think about”. I suggest that she takes the summer to contemplate my suggestion, and she does. At the end of August, she is ready to talk to me. Only seconds into our conversation, which takes place over the phone, I recognise the familiar fervour and intensity in her voice. Only now, the sunshine-drenched narrative of her childhood that she conveyed in 2014 has turned into a cyclone of rage. She is furious. The words pour out as the floodgates open, and I will have reason to get back to her differing narratives again in this chapter, but at this point, the social rejection of her mother will be the focus. Maria narrates: Åsa was jealous of Mum because she was beautiful and was a good singer. Throughout my life, I have been told that Mum is “wrong”. When I was 3 years old, I lived with the neighbours because Mum was wrong. My parents divorced, and that was good. They weren’t allowed to show in the congregation that they had a relationship, so they barely had one, because Mum was wrong. I’ve never had a good relationship with Mum, we never talked. She was always by herself on Saturdays. She had to be with the others in Rimbo. I saw her crying several times, but I didn’t really know why. Mum was with Åsa in the beginning, but later she contradicted her and then she was wrong. She has never been happy (Maria, 15, 2017).

Maria claims that the reason why her mother was shunned was because Waldau was jealous of her because she was beautiful and had a good singing voice. This is something I hear about Maria’s mum from several people after the autumn of 2016. By the time the commune broke down, Maria’s mum had been shunned for at least 13 years. Even if Maria says that she never felt that she could talk to her mother, she and her brother still spent time together with her, for instance, when visiting relatives: We met our relatives, the three of us, but not Dad. He hasn’t been able to leave Knutby. Now we have a better relationship with them [the relatives]. Grandma helped us out very much at home in the beginning [after the breakdown in 2016]. Dad never came along when I and my little brother and Mum went somewhere; Åsa said he didn’t have permission to (Maria, 15, 2017).

Considering the patriarchal structure that was favoured and preached about in the congregation, where a husband was to rule over his wife, it may be the case that Maria’s father was additionally accused of not getting his wife to repent even if Maria does not comment on this. Because of

4 PARENTS 

99

Maria’s father’s position in the commune, and most probably because of her mother being shunned, Maria feels that she did not have close contact with him either: My relationship with Dad. We didn’t talk. He was like a guest in the house. Elisabeth [another adult member] made me talk to him more, so some things she did actually helped. He always worked or was in Knutby. When I was wrong, they made me afraid of Dad. Once Elisabeth drove me to a parking place. We went to Dad’s truck so he could reprimand me. I was so scared. I was always so scared that someone would berate me. So, I was afraid as soon as someone said “Maria, can you come here … ?” (Maria, 15, 2017).

Maria spent considerable time with Elisabeth, a woman in the commune. Here Maria describes her relationship with her father and discloses her own experience of being classified as “wrong”: I couldn’t speak freely […] I didn’t think there was anything to talk about because I was the one who was wrong. I had no one to talk to […] Different young people said I was wrong. Adults, including Dad. He didn’t want to, but he was forced to do so (Maria, 15, 2017).

When I interviewed Maria in 2014, she had not yet been deemed wrong. She says that it was not until the point when she was first labelled wrong that she saw another side of the leaders’ personalities. She recalls the summer training camp in 2016, when one of the leading adults replied to her thanking him for a good lecture by saying: “Yes, you’ve been so bad”. This answer by the adult appears to be out of context, but this is how Maria narrated it. From the context, I understood that she had been startled and saddened by the answer focusing on her negative behaviour when she gave him a compliment. It is included here to highlight how the notion of being wrong could be brought up in various situations. The reason she gives as to why she was considered bad at this time was that she had been wearing a top which showed off a part of her abdomen. This was interpreted by one of the youths as a sign of pride (in her body) which was not desirable. Maria’s illustration of how she got so used to viewing herself as wrong or bad, that she could not see any point in discussing it with anybody, came to an abrupt halt after the meeting in 2016 when the members were informed of Waldau’s and Fält’s transgressions and rejections from the commune. Suddenly, she was not wrong anymore:

100 

S. NILSSON

I talked to Dad. He said, “You haven’t done anything wrong.” “What are you talking about?!” I said. “I’m wrong!” It took a week until I began to understand everything […] but the biggest thing was when others told me “You’re not wrong, you haven’t done anything. You’re beautiful.” We always used to say: “You’re so beautiful” before, but it meant nothing (Maria, 15, 2017).

Helge Fossmo talks about the fact that Maria’s parents were separated but remained married while she was still a small child in the preliminary enquirer report from 2004. Her parents were not the only couple forbidden from engaging intimately with each other. Carina and Joel Carina and her husband Joel have lived in the commune for close to 20 years. They have two children. During my visits to the congregation, I never see a sign of the fact that Carina is shunned, which she has been since around 2011, which coincides with the first time I met their family. Joel does seem to work quite a bit, but I take his absence in the family as another sign of a patriarchal structure in which the children are the responsibility of their mothers, at least until they become teenagers. When I visit Carina and Joel in 2017, I am told that Joel was on a detox of sorts, prohibited to live with Carina and instead he resided in a small cabin during my visit the previous summer, something well-hidden from my eyes. Like Maria’s parents, they were expected not to have an intimate relationship. They were prohibited from engaging with each other sexually, and if they did, they would be scolded when admitting to the transgression. I never would have guessed. The front stage performance of this couple has been fully successful, as have all the performances connected to the two: a script that revolves around an image of a stable marriage between two adults in top positions. The story unfolding now is perhaps the most startling, as I have been in close contact and stayed with this family. Joel says that he has been working so much with the building projects instituted by Waldau over the last 10 years that he has hardly spent any time with his children, which he now regrets, and wants to make up for. Carina states that she is not as marked by Waldau’s rejection of her as, for instance, Maria’s mother, since she has still been able to socialise freely with other members. This points to the practice of shunning as ambiguous. She even thinks, in retrospect,

4 PARENTS 

101

that she was secretly relieved that she was acquitted from her position at The Table as this gave her a wider range of freedom when she did not have to spend time at Waldau’s house. Carina’s conclusion seems to have been drawn only by herself in her backstage mode while still a member in the congregation; she never shared these thoughts with anyone, least of all her husband. Carina even hints at the possibility of this relief being unconscious, as she states that she thinks so. She did not share her conclusions with her husband. In all situations where I have observed her, she has displayed a mastery of the appropriate courtesy norms when dealing with outsiders; she has portrayed her life as ideal, the best she could ever ask for. From her description, some form of the routine of the happy family was performed even when one would have expected the spouses to retreat to a shared backstage region after the researchers left. This may be explained by the fact that the spouses in relation to each other were both actors and audience, with a team loyalty that was stronger connected to the leaders than to their own marriage. Carina says that she has forgiven members who have chastised her due to her being shunned, and thinks that they have a harder time forgiving themselves for how they treated her than she has forgiving them. Carina and Joel think that their children have come through the crisis of 2016 with little to no trauma because of the changes, perhaps because of their relatively young age, which excluded them from certain information—for instance, information given at the meetings where it was decided that Fält and Waldau must leave the commune. Carina reasons that she was less shocked at the turn of events in 2016 because of her distance to The Table and the leaders. Others that I talk to also suggest that the further away from the centre of power a member was, the easier it has been for them to accept the changes. However, I also talk to adults who state that they were subjected to painful social rejection, and that they tried to pay off a debt in order to be accepted back into the inner circle. One of them is Sofia, the mother of Erik and Benjamin. Erik and Benjamin Sofia ended up in debt around 2011. The concept of being in debt seems to have had quite individual reasons. The possibilities and ways of becoming debt free also varied among the members. Generally, members have been uncomfortable speaking about the amount of monetary gifts

102 

S. NILSSON

they have put into their relationship with Waldau (and to some extent the rest of the top leadership) over the years, but mention sums up to 500 000 SEK (in the TV documentary Uppdrag Granskning from 2018, Peter Gembäck mentions a total estimation of 4.8 million SEK). Being banned from Waldau’s house and being in debt did not always go together, but in Sofia’s case it did, and lasted for 5 years. Erik and Benjamin have both, since their defection from the group in early 2017, expressed disappointment and anger over the way that they have been brought up. Says Erik: Mum was in debt to Åsa. I didn’t get it. At first, I was told that Mum would not be at Åsa’s anymore, but later that she was in debt to Åsa. My peers talked about it: that my parents resisted […] I have never seen my parents be corrected. Dad had a time when he was in good standing, he was elevated. Dad was at Åsa’s a lot then, while Mum was in debt. That suited Åsa at the time […] I was told afterwards that Mum had been hit by Åsa (Erik, 19, 2017).

Erik highlights the confusion and points to how others (from The Youth Group) would talk about his parents as consciously resisting, meaning that they would not subordinate themselves. His mother’s discredited position was hence reflected upon by the other youth. While he was at The Hill where his mother was not welcome, he himself, although still a child, was seen as having a status superior to that of his parents. A short time prior to the events in 2016, his mother was finally granted mercy. Erik’s brother Benjamin elaborates a bit more on the cause of the shunning of their mother and how he experienced the consequences of being the child of a parent in bad standing: The worst thing Åsa did to me was that she took my parents away from me. They [the leaders] said “they are useless” but at the end “now we have won them back”. [Once] Mum worked in Åsa’s garden. Christel [a high-ranking adult member] picked her up and said she had to hurry. Mum said: “I’ll just say goodbye to Åsa” but Christel said: “You don’t have time to do that!” That was her downfall.5 After several years of penal servitude and anxiety, she [Åsa] said, “Now you’re good again.” That’s so sick. Me and my siblings listened to the people on The Hill [who said]: “On Sundays, you should eat dinner with them to honour them [the parents], as it says so in the Bible”. 5  Referring to Waldau reacting negatively to the fact that Sophia had not taken the time to say goodbye to her.

4 PARENTS 

103

During the summer vacation, I slept at Lukas’s house for 6 days, and at home for 1 day every week. “You’re wrong if you do that, you should be on The Hill,” they said if I wanted to stay at home. If you stay at home, there’s something wrong with you. That’s how it has been since I was 13 years old. It was like that for my siblings as well. I just feel happy now that I can actually love my parents again when they were “taken back” (Benjamin, 17, 2017).

Benjamin puts the blame on Waldau, but then refers to “them” which, from the rest of the interview, seems to point to the adult leaders as well as to the members of The Youth Group, perhaps especially the leaders within The Youth Group. He understood that the fact that his mother once failed to say goodbye put her in the position where she was in bad standing, and when occupying that position, she seems to have lost her parental authority. Benjamin states that he and his siblings would adhere to what the leaders said, but this is also what his parents advised him to do. The complexity in the religious culture is visible here. According to Benjamin, Sofia had failed to honour the person closest to Jesus and paid a high price for having done so. She was deemed a sinner, not worthy of entry to the house where her leader lived. Her children spent more time on The Hill than at home, and there is the clear inequity between her house and the houses on The Hill from a spiritual perspective. Simultaneously, she was worthy of the honour that the fifth commandment of the Bible attributes the parents (5 Mos 5:16). Another layer is added to the framed status: that the leaders describe that they won her back. This appears to put the emphasis on their agency, that they had been active in the restoration of the situation. Sofia When I talk to Sofia in 2017, it has been a while since both she and her husband left the congregation. We have spoken a couple of times on the phone, and with each phone call, details about her family’s experiences unfold. We speak about the restoration of their house; they are changing it back to how it originally looked when they bought it before they let Waldau decide what colours and furniture were appropriate (or not) inside it. I recall that I visited their house shortly after their defection from the commune. Whereas every previous visit had been predominantly all smiles

104 

S. NILSSON

and sunshine, the hosts of the house now seemed to each have a small, grey cloud hovering above their heads, casting a constant shadow on each of them. Both they and their house appeared to be in shock. The house, which had usually been filled with guests, temporary tenants, and children’s laughter, was now eerily quiet. Invited into the living room, I passed the parts of a wall, stripped of its previous wallpaper, its interior visible as if it had been subjected to a minor assault. It was supposed to have been taken down, I am told. The never-ending renovation and refurbishing of houses and apartments had come to an abrupt halt with the disappearance of its director. Frozen in time, the wall appeared to beg the same question as the habitants of the house: now what? A couple of months have passed since then, and things seem to be moving on, at least as far as painting and renovating are concerned. I ask Sofia about her debt: how did she incur it, and why was she indebted? And how did she manage to finally pay it off? The concept of being indebted has been explained only vaguely to me, primarily by members who have offered monetary sacrifices or free labour, but most seem too embarrassed to dwell on the subject. Sofia tells me this: We were all supposed to seek out whether we were indebted to anyone, based on a teaching on Matthew 5:23–26 which says: Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you; leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the path, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:23–26) (Sofia, 2017).

Sofia illustrates the situation, according to her personal experiences of this teaching, but emphasises that the individual situations for members differed: We were all supposed to identify our wrongdoings and who our adversary was, and who was our officer and our judge. For a period, one of the pastors would set up a reception in a room after the Sunday service, and we would go in one by one to confess our sins. At first, I thought that I didn’t have an

4 PARENTS 

105

adversary; I prayed but got no clues. I was scolded for that, of course. The threat was there, that you would miss your chance. The time was running out, only a few weeks left, I was told, if I was not to be lost and end up in Hell. “You’ll be singing God’s praise while you march into Hell!” the pastor said, smirking. I was terrified; I had to figure it out. It took me a whole year. One year of agony and anxiety. And the whole time I was told that if I had really cared, I would have known what I had done. But I just couldn’t figure out who it was, who was my officer? At one point, the pastor said: “Look at it like this: you have a debt of several millions, but you have only pennies to pay with.” I realised it would take a long time to get debt free, but that I might be able to work it off, so I tried to do that. I took up all sorts of chores, weary to not let on that I was expecting to be rewarded by being declared debt free, because that was considered selfish. When a year had passed, and I still hadn’t understood who the officer was, the pastor said: it’s me! And the adversary was Åsa. My fault was that I flinched in her presence. I was never secure enough to take the scolding, always started to cry when you were supposed to take it all with a smile on your lips. I had shown that I was afraid of her, and in that way betrayed her. So, I worked as hard as I could. And I let my children be taken away, thinking that I will lie down in the mud to create a bridge for them to pass, and by that save them from eternal damnation. Me myself, I was beyond rescue. But then small changes occurred: I was given permission to buy Åsa presents. I was overwhelmed with gratefulness. So many times, I saw the beautiful bouquets of flowers that I had bought, lying thrown outside the house, as if to say: “who do you think you are to bring her flowers?” Then suddenly one day they said, “We have won you back!” I had paid off my debt (Sofia, 2017).

As described at the beginning of this section, the implement, and consequences of social rejection within the group varied. Sofia and Carina were allowed to talk to others but were banned from Waldau’s house. Both Maria’s father and Joel still had access to The Table but were restricted because of their wives’ social status. As suggested by Maria’s case, the consequences of this system of classifying members as standing “wrong” or “right” with the leadership directly relate to the experiences of childhood for some of the children and youth in the commune. For example, the degradation of certain female members’ motherhood leading to parental responsibility being appropriated by other female members of the commune created roles as parental stand-in caregivers.

106 

S. NILSSON

Stand-In Parental Caregivers Throughout my visits, I observe that sleepovers among the children and youth within the congregation are common. However, I perceive of it initially to concern logistic solutions connected to the fact that the members of the congregation live in various places in the villages of Knutby and Rimbo. This is also the explanation that adults and youth offer me. I observe several cases where children ask their parents for permission to sleep over at their friend’s houses, and never hear a negative answer to the request. On occasion, a child falls asleep while the adults have a late meeting and is carried out to the car by his/her parents when the meeting is over. My observations confirmed that there was a great deal of late-night meetings; prayer nights and work groups. This, however, did not seem to fit Lundgren’s description that the children were systematically taken care of by adults other than their parents. There were no indications in 2014–2016 of sleepovers being enforced or involuntary. I did, however, come across special arrangements, as in the cases of Oscar, Maria, and Emily. Oscar In 2014, I interview 7-year-old Oscar. We are seated alone on a sofa in one of the rooms of the congregational building. In the main hall, rehearsals for the congregation’s yearly performance of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar are taking place. Pastor Fält, occupying the role of Jesus, is repeating a part of his solo song. Oscar hushes me, listening intently: “It’s so cool when Urban hits that tone!” he exclaims. The recurring “ooooo” when he tries to hit the particular tone makes up the background of this scene. Oscar is charming, energetic, curious, and talkative. He initially bounces up and down in the sofa and then devotes considerable time to inspecting my recording devices, turning the voice recorder around several times before turning to my iPhone (I double-record just in case), sceptically asking what model it is. I have no idea, and probably come across as the old lady with zero understanding of technology that I am. Luckily, Oscar is guessing that it is probably an iPhone five. We drop the subject. A member of the congregation has served us tea and juice in small cartons. Delighted, Oscar drinks his juice quickly, and then keeps his eyes on

4 PARENTS 

107

mine until I cannot resist his charming smile and ask him if he wants it. He does and sips it up before I even get around to starting the recorder. When asked about his family, he says that he lives with his mother and father and then starts counting his siblings. He calls some of them “extra6 brother/ sister”; he loses count but when he passes eight siblings and loses count once again, I begin to suspect that he has a concept of family that goes beyond the biological nuclear family that I had in mind. He explains that the extra siblings help him out; he considers them real family. All of them are children and youth within the congregation. Sanja: So, what makes a person an extra sister or brother? Oscar: They help me a great deal, they are my friends. You could say that they are my real family, one of them I meet every day. So, you could say that we are siblings. Asked about how he would describe himself, in passing, he refers to his “extra mother”. Later, I pick him up on the subject: Sanja: Oscar: Sanja: Oscar:

Elisabeth, your extra mother … what is an extra mother? She’s with me every day, except on Tuesdays. Ok. How does that work? We cook food, on Fridays we buy snacks and cuddle, she’s not like … bad, she’s just kind! She helps me if I make a mistake … Sanja: Ok. But where’s your mum and dad … ? Oscar: They are mostly up at Åsa’s, who you have interviewed. So that’s why I got Elisabeth as an extra mother […] Sanja: Ok, but Elisabeth being your extra mother then … are there other children who also have extra mothers? Oscar: No. It’s just me, Alex, it’s just, she is … she is like our real mother. Sanja: So, she is an extra mother to Alex too, then? Oscar: Oh, yes! [Here Oscar makes a face as if that was the dumbest question he ever heard.] She’s not just for me! That would be rather strange, then Alex would have had an unfair life.

6  In Swedish, the word Oscar uses are “låtsas” which is commonly used when speaking about step sisters and step brothers; however, the word itself translates to “pretend”, which makes it initially hard to discern whether he was talking about them as step siblings or indicating that he wished that they had been his siblings, as children may do in play.

108 

S. NILSSON

Alex is Oscar’s younger biological brother. Oscar signals quite clearly when he does not want to continue a topic: he bounces up and down and changes the subject skilfully. However, a bit later, we return to his relationship with his parents and with Waldau. Sanja: Oscar: Sanja: Oscar: Sanja: Oscar: Sanja: Oscar:

But your mum, your dad, does he work with Åsa as well … ? No? My dad works there but Mum just is there. Mum just is there? He’s also in there. But do you get to go there sometimes … ? No, I don’t get to do that often! I meet Åsa quite … not so often. What do you think about it then, is it … ? Mum and Dad tell her how I am. So, I don’t know anything about what they say about me! Sanja: (laughs) Ok … what do you think they say then? Oscar: That I’m good. And talented. It was she who said that I should be interviewed. Sanja: Ok? Was it Åsa who said so? Oscar: Yes, and then Mum told me. Sanja: But if you had not wanted to, could you say: no, I don’t want to? Oscar: No, like … I said, I wanted to (Oscar, 7, 2014). Oscar hesitates a bit in his explanation about his home conditions. He describes that his mother “is” at Waldau’s and that his dad works at Waldau’s, while a female member of the congregation, Elisabeth, cares for him and his brother. I do not know what his mother’s exact chores are at the time, and sensing that Oscar is not very comfortable talking about it, I do not push the question further in the interview. However, I am aware that his mother is one of the female members who care for Waldau, which defectors claim implies cleaning, massaging, dressing, cooking, and generally caring for her. His father works within construction, and the construction and reconstruction of Waldau’s house is frequent, which is probably why Oscar understands him to work there. Interestingly, each person, adults as well as youths, that I ask about Oscar and Alex having an “extra mother” disagree and explain that Elizabeth sometimes cares for several of the children as she is very kind and good with children, but not on any regular basis. However, when I bring the question up again in 2017, it is confirmed that Elizabeth was assigned to take care of Oscar and his brother as she was deemed better fit in the maternal role than their biological mother Erica was.

4 PARENTS 

109

Erica and Pontus I meet Oscar’s parents, Erica and Pontus, in early 2017 for the first time since Waldau and Fält left the congregation. I have met them several times before, and on occasion asked them about their relations with their children and about Oscar’s relationship to Elisabeth. At the time, they downplayed the significance of what Oscar had said, but when asked again in 2017, they related to the question differently. Liselotte and I are invited to a dinner at Carina and Joel’s house and the conversation is informal, for information purposes only. There are seven people present. Erica and Pontus have agreed to talk to us and tell us the story of their life in the congregation as they view it now, post-2016. Carina and Joel have already told us a bit about themselves during the day. Their story included explanations which were not given pre-2016, so I hope that perhaps Erica and Pontus will be able and willing to elaborate a bit more on Oscar’s relationship with Elisabeth. The families have brought their children along. They are served pizza in another part of the house, seated in front of a movie, hopefully preventing any eavesdropping into our conversation. We are served dinner, a delicious smelling soup. We praise the food for a while and then there is an awkward silence. “So, what do you want to know?” Pontus asks finally. The impression I get is that both he and Erica are nervous, and when we ask them to just tell us about their life in the congregation, Erica draws in a deep breath and her eyes well up with tears before she has uttered the first sentence. This was not a formal interview; therefore, I made no recording, and only scribbled down notes afterwards. The following referral is a compilation of my notes from that conversation and a follow-up conversation that I had with Erica a couple of months later. When I moved here, some 15 years ago, I did so because I wanted to express my belief in everyday life. The Pentecostal congregation to which I belonged failed to fulfil my visions of what living a Christian life amount to. I wanted to live according to the Bible, and when I came here, I felt that it was a warm and welcoming commune where people cared about each other genuinely. And it was really like that. We had Oscar some seven or eight years after we came here. At the time, it was still okay to have kids. Alex was born not too long after, but then, around 2008, having kids was seen as a selfish act. Åsa stated that we put the kids before God, and that was egoistic. In a way, I could relate to that. What I had seen in my Pentecostal congregation was that when people started having kids, they disappeared, were less engaged in congregational work, and were caught

110 

S. NILSSON

up in the “family bubble”, from which they re-emerged only when the kids had grown up. I didn’t want that, I wanted to go on being a social person despite having kids. After 2008, the members around The Table were not supposed to have any family life at all. We were not to show intimate feelings with our spouses, and we were told that if she couldn’t have Jesus by her side, how could we have intimate relations? Once, we broke that rule and were scolded. She referred to me and Pontus as brothers and sisters, comparing our transgression to an incestuous relation. We were to live together, but the only thing that we shared was the house and the kids. And barely that. We worked constantly the last couple of years. Pontus would wake up around six or seven to go to his workplace. When he finished, he came home to grab something to eat and perhaps have a shower, then he was off to work in one of the building projects that Åsa headed. I have no idea how he managed. He would finish at one or two at night, come home to sleep and then start all over again. The kids were at school and then mostly at Elizabeth’s house. I spent little time with them. I woke them in the morning, got them ready for school. Then in the afternoon, I would be there when they came home, but I was rarely [mentally] present. I was stressed out. I was often found to be “wrong”. Each day I had to go report to Urban, and this process generally got me crying. Standing in his garage, I tried to be “right”. He would scold me and tell me that I was smart enough to not make such blunt mistakes. The thing was that to be in good standing with Åsa, you had to be right with Urban. After that, I would go home and start preparing the food for the evening dinner gatherings on The Hill. So even if the kids were there, I had no time with them. It hurts so much now, to think that Elisabeth was the one who got to do all the fun stuff with them: go to amusement parks, watch movies, and things like that. Even doing their homework with them. I never did a single piece of homework with them. They had to be somewhere when I was at Åsa’s and when Pontus was working. Towards the end I would even stay up all night at Åsa’s, then come down in the morning, pretending that I had been sleeping at home all night. A strange circumstance was that when I was wrong, the kids couldn’t be at Elisabeth’s, because I was not supposed to “take advantage” of her services.7 In a way Elisabeth was a blessing, they were secure and happy there (Erica, 2017). 7  Erica does not say whether this meant that she got to spend more time with her children when she was wrong or if they were cared for by other members.

4 PARENTS 

111

It is not unusual in HDNRC for children to be seen as the responsibility of the congregation. Similar understandings and set-ups with selected members caring for the children to free the parents so that they can work for the group have been observed in the early days of The Family International (Bainbridge, 2002), and the Hare Krishna movement (Rochford, 2008), as well as in older movements such as the Oneida Perfectionists (Kanter, 1972). In the case of Knutby Filadelfia, I find this set-up only in the cases of children of members of The Table. Once they reached adolescence, they would be incorporated into The Horse (The Youth Group), and live close to each other, which I will discuss in Chap. 6. The remaining group of children appear to not have been given to a specific person to care for, but rather responsibility was shared among members to a higher or lesser degree in clusters and according to the status of the family. At some point, a programme concerning good parenthood dictated that each child should be assigned an adult to whom the child could turn in cases where talking to one’s parents was not an option. Either way, it seems plausible to say that the closer a family was to the leadership, the higher the probability that the children would be taken care of more by other members. This applied to a few cases for families where the parents worked for Waldau, even if they were not members of the 12 at The Table. It was also common for members of The Youth Group to babysit younger children. Maria As it turns out, Oscar and Alex were not the only children who were being taken care of by Elisabeth. In terms of Maria’s experiences, she mentions not only of a shunned mother but also of a Stand-in Parental Caregiver. In 2014, Maria in passing mentioned her relationship with Elisabeth in connection to the work that she and the other members of the congregation carried out on Saturdays, saying: Maria: On Saturdays, I am usually at Elizabeth’s, the one who is here and eh … another woman, Stina. Then it’s me and Susanna, who was interviewed by Liselotte, and one named Daniella. The two of them and I usually first clean Stina’s house and then Elizabeth’s toilets on Saturdays. Sanja: Ok. How is it done, who decides what is to be cleaned?

112 

S. NILSSON

Maria: I don’t know, I think maybe Åsa makes suggestions, and it turns out great because then everyone has something to do … yes […] Sanja: But how does this work with Elisabeth? I understood that she takes care of the children, or … ? Maria: Yes, she usually cares for the children … eh, on Saturdays, she usually organises a coffee break for everyone who works … and then, she usually takes care of all the children and makes sure they work all the time, because they work too, so that they don’t say that they can’t manage work, because it’s not a hard job to do, but it’s just fun to help out. And then … Elisabeth is the best Elisabeth in the world! (Laughs) No, but all of her is just … joy! (laughter). Yes (slouches) (Maria, 12, 2014). When Maria talked about Waldau in the previous chapter, I mentioned that she changed her voice when she exclaimed, “I love her with all my heart!” That same theatrical, melodramatic voice reappeared when she was talking about Elisabeth being the “best Elisabeth in the world” and when she says, “She is all joy”. Then, after she delivered these lines, she slouched a bit, said “yes” with a sigh as if to put an end to a performance. These exclamations stood, as mentioned previously, out from the rest of the interview.8 Was there a team performance guiding her, a routine she expressed only a small fragment of? The way that Maria describes these two characters is identical: all of her is just joy. This does not mean that she attributes them the same status or social roles, but rather that there is a story, a narrative also in the case of Elisabeth, and her exceptional position in the lives of the children of parents in the higher levels of membership. As mentioned previously, most people that I ask about Oscar’s claim that Elisabeth is his extra mother point out how good Elisabeth is with the children. They love coming to her house, she does fun things with them and arranges Saturday night dinner for some of the children, I am told. This tradition seems to go way back, according to the PER, at least to 2004. 8  One other interview contained a similar break from the flow of the interview. When I asked Karl what he found most positive about living in Knutby, he replied that it was to be part of the congregation. I continued to ask if there was anything negative about it and he replied, with a monotone expression and voice, ‘Nooo. Everything is fine. Very positive’ (Karl, 9, 2014). I marked the answer in my notes as it so clearly stood out from the rest of the interview, not the content, but the way he delivered it, which reminded me of the way that Maria expressed herself.

4 PARENTS 

113

In 2017, Maria’s appreciation of her relationship with Elisabeth is nowhere near as joyous as it was in 2014. In 2014, she was smiling, was full of praise, and was happy to help. In 2017, she is furious, sad, and scared. Her voice on the phone breaks throughout the hour-long conversation. As stated previously, Maria’s mother had been condemned by Waldau. Maria says that she has always known and been angry with her mother because she was “wrong”. She never felt very close to her mother. Elisabeth, on the other hand, was far from wrong, and being in her house on The Hill was something to be grateful for. Maria explains: Elisabeth was like an extra mother to me in a way, because I didn’t have a mum. There were always children at Elisabeth’s house on Saturday nights, different groups of children. If the parents got to meet Åsa, then the children were at Elisabeth’s. Only children of parents in Knutby […] the other children9 were less worthy, those who did not live in Knutby, or whose parents were not with Åsa. I had to call and ask every Friday if I could stay over [at Elisabeth’s] even if I didn’t want to stay over there […] I had to write to her every day on WhatsApp (Maria, 15, 2017).

Maria says that she spent most of her weekends at Elisabeth’s house, and for two years, she spent her entire summer holidays there. During our conversation, she returns repeatedly to how much time she spent cleaning, and how scared she was of making mistakes and being scolded by the others: I cleaned every day. I always got a text message saying, “Could you …?” […] They made me feel insecure. If I washed the dishes and there was a drop of water left on the sink, I felt terrible. I became so insecure. After every sentence I added, “I think” because I was so insecure. I always cleaned as carefully as I could, but then I was scolded for being too slow […] when cleaning … though I was mad at Mum because she was wrong, it was a relief to go to her because I didn’t want to clean. A liberation to get away from there. Otherwise, I woke at 10 am, cleaned from 11 am. Helped with the coffee break in the middle of the day and then cleaned until 6 pm. Sometimes by myself, and sometimes with the help of other children. There was always something to do. It was a relief when you sat down for dinner on Saturday night, although it was not fun, just because you didn’t have to clean […] my little brother was also with Elisabeth. He didn’t like it. Didn’t think it was fun. He washed the trucks. One time he was ill so then he had to be inside 9

 She refers here to the part of the congregation who resided in the nearby village of Rimbo.

114 

S. NILSSON

and clean […] I’ve only questioned the way I lived in my own company. For example, when I felt, I shouldn’t have to clean, that it’s wrong. Then I thought: no, sorry for having such thoughts! I had a bad conscience, prayed to God (Maria, 15, 2017).

She further talks about how she had to ask Elisabeth’s permission if she wanted to do something else on a Saturday, and she rarely did. She sometimes visited her mother and although their relationship was brittle, she preferred being there, because she did not have to work as much. When she talks about “them” making her feel insecure, she refers to Elisabeth but also to the older girls who worked inside the house with her. Boys worked outside, washing trucks and cars, as previously mentioned. Every Saturday followed the same routine, rounded off with a dinner at Elisabeth’s. Maria says that when she herself was wrong, she was not allowed to attend the dinners. She was relieved but ambivalent. She describes Elisabeth as a stern person, yet with good qualities, which Maria appreciated. She says that she was seldom sure whether she was being praised or scolded. Was it genuine, did it come from her, or had someone else told her what to say? She gives no further explanation as to why she would feel that way. Being scolded is another thing that she brings up frequently, as, for instance, when she said that she became nervous as soon as someone asked to talk to her. Oscar’s parents were occupied with work for Waldau or at Waldau’s house, as was Maria’s dad. Her mum was shunned, and as such was not a good influence on her child, so Maria was thought to be better off spending more time at Elisabeth’s house. A few additional children seem to have spent some time at Elisabeth’s with some regularity while their parents were busy with other work for the congregation. On one occasion though, I come across another arrangement. It is the case of Emily and Daniel, a pair of siblings living with their parents in another family’s house. Emily In the summer of 2016, I am invited for lunch at Sofia and Jörgen’s place. It is a sunny day and some children from the congregation are bathing in a pool in the garden. Their laughter and the splash of the water paint the background to my conversation with the couple. I have no clue to the fact that Sofia has only recently been given mercy and is no longer shunned by the leadership. Every now and then, a soaking wet child shows up to drink

4 PARENTS 

115

some lemonade and then heads off to continue playing in the water. Sofia and Jörgen’s own children are teenagers and still appear to be living at home, but another family with younger children is temporarily living with them. The children, Emily and Daniel, who are 10 and 12 at the time, bring their friends and, as I understand it, a pool always draws some extra visitors on a hot summer day like this. We sit down, and Sofia and Jörgen tell me their story. Coming from another Pentecostal congregation, they came to the congregation when the children were small, leaving behind established careers and a secure social situation because, as they say, they both felt that Knutby Filadelfia was where they were meant to be. Looking out over the vast woods, Sofia explains her views on child-rearing. She says that feels that it is important that children, not just her own, learn respect for life. Some of the families in the congregation have animals, mostly dogs, but Sofia and Jörgen have rabbits. The rabbits are popular among the children of the congregation, says Sofia, but they also serve perfectly as a way of training humility and respect. The new-born rabbits especially try the patience of the children, as they would so much love to pick them up and cuddle them as soon as they are born. Anyone who has seen a newly born rabbit would know what she is taking about. The small creature with its soft fur could understandably be hard to resist. But here, says Sofia, the children must wait until the mother rabbit is ready to let anyone come near her young. It takes a while until she signals that they can manage by themselves, and during that time, the children (or Sofia and Jörgen for that matter) must leave them alone, out of respect. “How can you begin to respect humans if you can’t respect an animal?” Sofia asks rhetorically. Jörgen goes on to tell me that they are considering getting small goats too, also because the children benefit from being close to and taking care of animals. We talk a bit about the goats, which are supposed to be of the kind that jump up and sit in the trees, and I imagine this place as a small haven for children and wonder if it is. The house is huge, the garden beautiful with a small playground and lots of space to run around. After lunch, we go out to feed the rabbits, and one of the girls who were swimming accompanies us. I recognise her as one of Tove’s children who is living with Sofia and Jörgen and remember that her name is Emily. She is wearing a summer dress, and her skin is golden brown from hours in the pool. She approaches us but pays me absolutely no attention. Instead, she looks attentively at Sofia, as though for approval. She obviously

116 

S. NILSSON

wants to pet the rabbits but says nothing, just keeps looking at Sofia until she is given a small nod and is let in. Her weary eyes bring to mind other situations I have witnessed, the same child, and the same look. Eyes that seem to ask for permission, but that are not directed towards her mother or father but at Sofia. “Can I have another cookie, another serving of soda, a cake?” And Sofia granting or denying permission, calmly explaining why it is not a good idea, that intake of food and especially sweets should be moderate as it is not healthy to eat too much sugar. I find these scenes to be interesting. Tove is backing Sofia up, but Sofia is leading the socialisation in these situations, Tove merely lingering in the background with an affirmative smile on her lips. I wonder whether this is the result of an agreed arrangement and how Tove might feel if it is not. Is she content with the situation; did she initiate it or is it a silent agreement never questioned? My questions will not be answered until Tove and her family have long since moved out of the house. Once inside the rabbit’s cage, Emily seems more confident. She sits down, crosses her legs, and feeds the rabbits dandelion leaves as she strokes their soft fur. Sofia shoots me a glance and raises her eyebrows as if to say, “See what I mean?”, and I nod conformingly. I do see the point of teaching children how to take care of animals. But I am more interested in why Sofia, and not Tove, seems to be the one responsible for the socialisation of Emily and Daniel. My, perhaps not probing enough, questions about the situation are left unanswered, and the subject is recurrently directed to the building of the house for Tove and her family on Jörgen and Sofia’s land. In 2017, the reason for Emily’s and her brother’s presence in Jörgen and Sofia’s house is given another frame. Sofia affirms that she and Jörgen were appointed as kind of Stand-In Parental Caregivers, because Tove was not deemed to be doing a good enough job. Sofia demonstrates that she is reluctant to talk about the situation further and mentions in passing that she feels overwhelmed by guilt because of how she treated Tove.

Reflections on Social Stigma The idea that the group is superior to the nuclear family is often prevalent among HDNRCs and was especially the case in the 1960s and 1970s, throughout the 1980s and to some extent the 1990s, and was also the case in earlier new religious communes (Kanter, 1972). Children were reared together, often in groups and by teachers or other caregivers rather than their biological parents. Historically, older HDNRCs have regulated the

4 PARENTS 

117

relationship between children and parents in an effort to strengthen the individual’s personal faith as well as communal bonds. The founder of the Oneida Perfectionists (1848–1881), John Humphrey Noyes (1811–1886), prohibited “special love” within the commune, both in the relationship between spouses and in the parent–child relationship (Kanter, 1972, p. 14). The Oneida Perfectionists built a “children’s house” into which the commune children were transferred after weaning where they were taken care of by the mothers on a rolling schedule. Exclusive love for one’s own child only was seen as selfish; however, parent–children’s relationships between unrelated members did exist (Kanter, 1972, pp. 13–14). Similar and more current examples where the parent–child relationship has been interpreted to be of threat to the group can be seen in the history of The Family International (also known as The Children of God), which instituted communal living from its inception in1968 until 2010 when the group broke up. Founder David Berg viewed the commune as the wife and contended that “God is in the business of breaking up little, selfish, private, worldly families to make of their yielded broken pieces a larger unit-one family!” (MO 1972). Despite the different social contexts of these communities, their challenging of the common family structure attracted members as well as negative publicity. As mentioned earlier in the study, negative publicity sometimes serves as a stigmatising factor, and in the case of the congregation in Knutby, the stigma triggered a defence mechanism in the form of a narrative about a constructed superior parenthood. Team Performances The concurrence of very similar framings of perfect parenthood in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation illustrated in this chapter can perhaps best be understood by taking a starting point in the concept of team performances. Goffman defines the performance team as a group of individuals who cooperate to maintain a certain routine (Goffman, 1959, p.  75). The directors of The Youth Group in this case give this team performance. Unbeknownst to me in 2014, The Youth Group operated as a specific unit, with a set of directors of higher social strata guiding the acts of the rest of the group. Goffman defines a routine as “a pre-established pattern of action which is unfolded during a performance and which may be presented or played out on other occasions” (Goffman, 1959). There is a clearly distinguishable

118 

S. NILSSON

routine being performed in the first interviews, which recurs throughout my observations and the subsequent group interviews that I conduct with The Youth Group in 2015 and 2016. The performance team’s definition of the situation is that there is an outsider scrutinising the ways that their parents are socialising them. That is the frame for the interviews. Most probably, the simple analysis of this particular performance can be traced back to the collective memory of 2004 when their parents were questioned and even subjected to investigations by social services, which some of the youth referred to in hindsight as being as though their parents had been on the verge of losing custody of them (Youth Group interview, 2015). The routine serves the purpose of guarding the group from similar experiences and it is acted out within a primary social framework built around the group’s stigmatisation. Even if the performances serve a certain purpose, they are sincere: both the actors and the audience perceive them to be a representation of reality; these are the experiences of these youth at this time and place in history. In the initial episode described in this chapter, another manifestation of team performance occurs, only this one I understand to be more of a dramatic realisation, which has several layers of frames. The interaction is anchored in a religious minority commune branded by major parts of society as a deviant sectarian congregation. Both insiders and outsiders are present. There is the awareness of the rumours of authoritarian and even illegal child-rearing practices surrounding the commune. The team performance aims at challenging that perception of the group’s norms concerning child-rearing. The phrasing of the woman who asks the question about winning over her child lays bare an association between child-rearing and control, obedience, power structures generally problematized in the current discourse on child-rearing. There are vast amounts of teachings from within the commune about the importance of obedience. Still, the reaction of the performer and the audience does not conform to such a view; their reactions signal that the woman is giving the performance away (Goffman, 1959, p. 89). From a meta level perspective of the situation at hand, one may regard the up keying and annoyance at the hands of the performer and the audience at the woman’s refusal to settle for the answer (which is a counter-question) as an act of disobedience. Rather than opening for a discussion, consensus seemingly reigns over the inappropriateness of the question, and it is fended off, replaced by a face-­ rescue from another loyal team member, which effectively restores the joking jargon and omits the more complex discussion. Wrapping up, the

4 PARENTS 

119

speaker states without entering into why, that winning over a child is not a desirable aim and adds that he himself has never had to chastise his children. This idealisation of his own parenthood has the trademarks of a routine, a socialisation process to which the audience is subjected (Goffman, 1959, p. 44). A further analysis of the segments from the interviews with Lukas, Ville, Anna, and Sara reveals another vague but still visible pattern. They all express respect for their parents, and position both them and their childhoods as in contrast to “normal” families (as Lukas puts it). According to them, normal families have less contact, they argue more, and the children are disrespectful of their parents, who in turn yell to the point of even scaring their temporary visitor. Stigma plays a key part here. Growing up as children of stigmatised parents, the youth shoulder responsibility for the presentation of the parents in the eyes of outsiders in a way which exceeds the other informants’ approaches to the subject. Their primary social framework encompasses the parents as misunderstood, slandered, and criticised, that there is an ever-present they which poses as the counterpart to the way that they themselves are raised. The negative idealisation or over-communication of the stigma (Goffman, 1959, p. 49) enhances the gap between them and other parents in a dichotomous way. From an interactionist perspective, all interaction possesses some amount of negotiation of the situation; otherwise, we would not be able to understand each other. This is an ongoing process, which is seldom visible at a first glance. Lukas, for instance, takes a very active part in the negotiation of the definition of the situation. Corsaro states that while children may frame their social world in accordance with the frames given by adults, they are creative agents who often alter these frames, and create a social world of their own rather than simply duplicating that of the adults (Corsaro, 1985, pp. 100–120). With that, I want to argue that the youth have their own routine performance when it comes to discussing their parents with outsiders which is most probably performed within the frame of The Youth Group itself (prior to 2016). It is possible to view these performances as an extension of the narrative of persecution in Chap. 4, only now it encompasses not only Waldau, but several other high-ranking members as well. An interesting point to be considered here is that this dichotomous view on parents is not present in the interviews with the children. This could be attributed to the fact that the interviewees from the younger cohort were not yet born in 2004, and as such have no memories by which to form a frame of media

120 

S. NILSSON

frenzy. Another aspect to be considered is that all the four youth quoted in the first section have parents in the top leadership. Yet another possibility is that the difference in exclusion in the case of The Youth Group does not easily translate to the situation for the younger cohort, a subject that will be revisited later. Spiritual Shunning As initially referred to at the beginning of this chapter, the accounts of an institutionalisation of social rejection, which I here label spiritual shunning, were present prior to the incidents in 2004. Since then, defectors as well as family and friends from outside the commune have contended that the practice of shunning still operated within the group up until The Fall in 2016. The shunning post-2004 involved the aspect of evil spirits, potentially dangerous not only to the possessed but also to those in his/her vicinity, an implication very similar to that of pollution, which will be considered further on but first, let us revisit Goffman’s thoughts on social strata. Goffman states that: In most societies there seems to be a major or general system of stratification, and in most stratified societies, there is an idealization of the higher strata and some aspiration on the part of those in low places to move to the higher ones (Goffman, 1959, p. 45).

Being in good or bad standing expresses an idealisation of higher strata, as in the examples given in Sect. 5.2, and additionally implies a hierarchical structure in which the individual is positioned in relation to others. Goffman further remarks that: Commonly we find that upward mobility involves the proper performances and that efforts to move upward and efforts to keep from moving downward are expressed in terms of sacrifices made for the maintenance of front (Goffman, 1959, p. 45).

Goffman goes on to talk about the importance of sign-equipment in realising the desired social move upward; however, in the application of his theory on the dynamics of the commune, there are some problems. A move upward or downward is possible, and in some cases, such as in that

4 PARENTS 

121

of Maria’s mother, there appears to be a consensus as to the identifiable reasons for the move down: her looks and voice, and the fact that she had contradicted Waldau. Additionally, there were concrete consequences of the shunning: Maria was not allowed to be taken care of solely by her own parents, because her mother was labelled “bad”. Maria does not dwell on whether her mother made any efforts to move back up, or what she in that case may have done. Where the “why?” seemed quite clear to Maria in retrospect, she stated that she did not understand the reason for her mother’s sadness when she was younger. As I mentioned earlier, the narrative of Maria’s mother’s particular situation has been circulating in forums and among defectors for over a decade. The same narrative is given jealousy and questioning the leader. In a congregation in which music has a significant role, musicality is closely connected to social status. However, as in the case with the performance of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar, my observations conclude that musicality is sometimes highly subjective and constructed. Purity in High-Demand New Religious Communes In the congregation, members testify to not always being explained their transgressions. Reprehensible behaviour that should be avoided could include a variety of actions, apparently shifting at the whims of the leaders. Therefore, the shunning became an ambiguous practice, leading to a great deal of insecurity among the members of the congregation. I would here like to refer to the notion of being “wrong” or “bad” as a manifestation of perceived impurity in Douglas’s term, accounted for previously. Being “bad” always implied being bad in relation to someone else, in relation to Waldau. Maria’s personal experience of shunning (which will be further explicated) is the only example that I found which was not directly related to Waldau; however, her “badness” did prohibit her from spending time in Elisabeth’s house. The shunning was institutionalised to protect Waldau (and in the case of Maria, Elisabeth) from the impurity of other members; hence, they were banned from her presence. Pollution seems to have been the threat most feared within the congregation. The idea that children could suffer because of their parents’ impurity inhibited the relationship between parents and children. Erik and Benjamin both express regrets over their mother’s status as shunned. They were told, by adult members and by their peers, that their parents were bad, even useless, and that they would not do what it takes to repent. I will

122 

S. NILSSON

elaborate in Chap. 6 on some of the youth’s positions as having higher strata than even adult pastors, and the responsibility that comes with that. So too were Erik and Benjamin given a higher social position than their parents, especially their mother. Benjamin illustrates how his longing for his parents caused him guilt because he felt that he was supposed to consider himself lucky to be able to reside on The Hill. From the sanctions their mother endured, they concluded that one was not supposed to love or want to be with one*s parents if they are wrong. Benjamin further illustrates the opaqueness regarding pure and impure behaviours and Sofia’s different understandings of what lead her to be shunned by Waldau. In retrospect, Benjamin explained that he interpreted the triggering factor to his mother’s five-year long ostracism as being that she failed to say goodbye to Waldau, while Sofia claims to never really have known why she had been degraded or how she could repent and regain her former position. She guessed that the “blemishes in her individual character”, as Goffman would describe it, had to do with her inability hide her feelings when under pressure; however, she was never given a direct explanation. Hence, the desired sign equipment, which would have been a clue in another situation as to how to move up or down the social stratum was not identifiable. No more could she identify what had changed when she was suddenly “won back”. Note that the upward move concerning her social status in the stratum is attributed to others than herself. They won her back. As is evident from the viewpoint of her sons, the sole blame for her degradation was put on her, while the credit for her move upwards was attributed to the leaders. She still to this day is not sure what she did wrong or right. Regardless of the reasons, the consequence was that her children were moved to The Hill. Since she was wrong, her house was not a good place to be. She was a bad influence and a negative role model, and her children would be better off residing close to people who stood “right”, a consequence similar to Maria being placed temporarily with another family in her early childhood. When Mum is Not Good Enough Section 5.4 illustrated three examples of how parent–child relationships were disrupted by the directions of the leaders in cases where the parents were not considered good enough to take proper care of their children and train them in the faith.

4 PARENTS 

123

In her account from 2008, Lundgren described how some of the women in Knutby Filadelfia cared for the younger children in the congregation collectively, and that children often slept at other families’ houses to free up the time of some of the women so that they could engage in teamwork (Lundgren, 2008, p. 60). Letting other members care for the children is common in NRMs, and especially so in communal settings (see Kanter, 1972; Palmer, 1999; Rochford 2007). Lundgren described how Åsa and Patrik Waldau had others take care of their children so that especially Åsa could use her time to prepare for the arrival of Jesus (Lundgren, 2008, p. 127). In the Tirsa Prophecy, Dojadid assures Tirsa that she need not worry for her children, that they would be taken care of. According to former members, Waldau taught that it was important for the small children to sleep away from their parents from time to time because they would develop a sense of security, and this would prevent the child from being too firmly attached to its mother, something which was viewed as negative (Essén, 2008, p. 35). Essén’s interviewee Lisa claimed that she had been scolded by her husband for not being stern enough with her children and refers to an incident when another female member was assigned the task of teaching her how to take control of her baby by holding him down and getting him to succumb to the will of the adult (Essén, 2008, p.). Lisa’s experiences are confirmed by members after The Fall. Early on in my observations, I came across the case of Oscar described above. Oscar is the one who (unintentionally, I presume) alerts me to the arrangement with Stand-in Parental Caregivers, but my assumption that the arrangement was solely constructed to free his mother from responsibility so that she could devote more time to take care of Waldau proved simplistic. The interview with Oscar was very special. The set-up of the interview was clearly a staged performance, a scene in which he and I both in the end had had little to do with in terms of the planning. I suspected this and he spontaneously confirmed it: he was chosen for the interview. Oscar displayed a high level of integrity throughout our conversation. He took on the role of both actor and director and steered the conversation in different directions at the speed of light. However refuted his claims were later on by other members, what Oscar gave and what he gave off, that is what he said verbally and what he disclosed by way of the impression he gave, seemed to me to be perfectly congruent. The fact that he voluntarily mentioned the arrangement with Elisabeth signalled that he did not fully understand this information to be destructive. To him, it was probably not a secret that should be kept within the group.

124 

S. NILSSON

When destructive information comes to the knowledge of the audience, it has the potential of overthrowing the intended impression. In this interaction, my role is both as an actor, but also as part of an audience. Oscar’s life, as he sees it, is the topic of the scene, and I participate actively by asking questions. Impression management is always at work in any social interaction. In this performance, the actor’s give expression included what Goffman would term a dark secret of the group. At the same time, the account of the interview shows how Oscar manages performance disruptions by steering the conversation on to another topic when he senses that I am probing into something too much.10 As referred to earlier, rumours that biological parents did not always raise their children have been refuted by members of the congregation, both in public and during my observations. Still, Oscar does not match any of Goffman’s examples of a transmitter of a group secret, since he appears to be not even aware of the topic constituting a secret. His performance seems so genuine to me, and this is one of the reasons that I keep searching for others to verify what he said, but everyone that I ask keeps firmly to the pre-established script. Studying the stigma of the parents concerned in the examples is complex. From a frame-perspective, the following laminations apply: a stigmatised person (by the group) within a stigmatised group (by society) partaking in a team performance, temporarily taking on the role of a non-stigmatised person in a stigmatised group (by society). In focus is the individual stigma, which has its ground in what Goffman called “blemishes in individual character” (Goffman, 1963, p.  4) as opposed to physical or tribal stigma. The performances prior to 2016 hinted at an obvious hierarchical structure within the congregation but gave little clues as to any shunning practices. In two of the cases, I have included the perspective of the parents after 2016. Erica’s account represents a schoolbook example of a devoted disciple exercising her duties in a HDNRC. In retrospect Erica says that she regrets some of her choices; she wishes that she had spent more time with her children and that she had not accepted that another member care for them because she herself was at Waldau’s place, and later was considered not fit to be a mother. To abide to Weber’s value free sociology, we need 10  This is my interpretation of the situation, which is based on body language and tone in the specific situation together with my additional experiences of talking to this child. One could of course argue that children sometimes behave irrationally, but I would like to highlight that this form of evasion only takes place in the particular situation.

4 PARENTS 

125

to bracket here any explanations concluding that the arrangement was necessarily all-bad. Rather, what is going on here is a presentation of two different roles: the believer and the non-believer. The previous religious frame of Erica’s existence included the idea of Waldau as the forthcoming Bride of Christ. From that perspective, it seems a much more important duty to take care of and prepare her than spending time with the children’s schoolwork. After all, they would benefit more if their parents earned a place as witnesses at the wedding than they would from having algebra and English grammar explained to them by their parents. The cost is understood as a worthwhile investment and can clearly be seen as an example of a rational choice as formulated by Stark and Bainbridge (1987). However, when that frame shatters and is replaced by one (religious or not) without Waldau at the centre, the cost suddenly feels not only unreasonable, but also unbearable. A clear case of a charismatic leader who ceased to deliver. Does any of this mean that Oscar and his brother had a problematic childhood? Not necessarily. As the interview with Erica and additionally Maria highlights, there were some good traits and some helpful action taken by the temporary caregiver. The relationships between children and parents in the congregation can thus be regarded as varying according to the expected tasks and current social strata of the parents. While the majority of members helped each other out by babysitting and sharing meals more generally, the members of The Table and their children lived by different norms resembling more the communal lifestyle favoured and practiced by HDNRCs. As time passed and the children of The Table grew up, the highly guarded environment resulted in the formation of a special unit of teenagers exercising increasing influence over each other. They were referred to as The Horse.

References Bainbridge, W. S. (2002), The Endtime Family: Children of God. New York: State University of New York Press. Christiansson, T. (2004), Himmel och helvete: Mord i Knutby. Stockholm: Forum. Corsaro, W.  A. (1985), Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. New York: Praeger. Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin.

126 

S. NILSSON

Kanter, R. Moss (1972), Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lundgren, E. (2008), Knutbykoden. Stockholm: Modernista. Palmer, S. J. (1999), ‘Frontiers and Families: The Children of Island Pond’. In S.  J. Palmer and C.  E. Hardman (eds), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 153–171. Palmer, S. J. and C. E. Hardman (eds) (1999), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Stark, R. and W. S. Bainbridge (1987), A Theory of Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

CHAPTER 5

The Youth Group

Peer-to-Peer Relations in The Youth Group The previous two chapters discussed the children’s and youth’s relations to the charismatic leadership, and to their parents and other caregivers. Although both sets of relationships are of great importance, the socialising aspect of peer-to-peer relationships cannot be underestimated. While the nuclear family constitutes the primary socialising frame, scholars of childhood studies agree on the significance of the impact of peers that usually increases when the child enters school age (Handel 2006, p. 17). The experiences of growing up in the congregation, the relationships between children and youth and their fellow peers inside the group are most interesting. In the Knutby Filadelfia congregation, the younger children seemed a more fragmentised group, consisting of clusters of friendships closely related to geographical setting: living in Knutby or Rimbo and socialising mostly with peers of the same household or next-­door neighbours. However, some of the older youth, a group of around 20, seemed to form a coherent group whose members spent most of their free time together. This chapter will discuss the observations of The Youth Group, its formation, function, and subsequent breakup through the experiences of its own (former) members.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_5

127

128 

S. NILSSON

The Youth Group was known to its participants and members of the congregation under the name The Horse. The epithet The Horse was given by the leaders and referred to the youth as the ones who would succeed their parents, the young who would ultimately gallop past the first generation, hinting at the theological significance of the group. At the time of the focus interviews in 2015 and 2016, I was not aware of the name or the exact aim of the group. Rather, it intrigued me that such a relatively large group of youth seemed to spend so much time together. The observations backed up by the interviews indicated that they spent most of their spare time, outside of school, and work hours, together. Stigma as an important aspect of collective identification seemed an integral aspect among the adult members, and I wanted to probe this subject together with the members of The Youth Group so as to explore their experiences and understandings of the impact of their parents’ memberships in the congregation. Included in this chapter are, as well as an exploration of social stigma and the power structure of the group, a few themes relating to the group which are of importance to an understanding of the quotations about the spirit world, relationships and marriage, and the socialising aspects of transmitting religious norms to the younger children. Additionally, the chapter reflects some features of a total institution.

The Directors of The Youth Group As previously stated, I was given the chance to conduct individual interviews with children and youth for the first time in May 2014. I also wanted to gain access to The Youth Group as a group. There was something very interesting with them as a group, which I initially had a hard time pinpointing. Trying to wrap my head around who was included in the group that seemingly hung out together as a large entity, I guessed at around 20 people: Ville, Jonas, Susanna, Benjamin, Lukas, Anna, Sara, Petra, Daniella, Jimmie, Danne, Fredrik, Erik, and Bosse. I was not certain whether Cecilia, Otto, Angelika, and Ingrid1 were really part of the group: they were often missing from the gatherings and gave the impression of temporarily making a guest performance now and then. Due to their high status as children of members of The Table, but young age, Maria and Thomas were just entering the group. 1  These members are not further accounted for. After 2016, it was stated that they had been subjected to social exclusion from the Youth Group, but the details remain unclear.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

129

Initially I figured that I could just hang out with the youth for a day or two and explore their realities, but that request was not granted as my gatekeeper stated that he thought that the youths would find this awkward since they did not know me all that well yet. Moreover, given their experiences with media, they were suspicious of outsiders, he explained. Not willing to give up on speaking to them as a group, I brought the question up repeatedly, with some interval. He was still hesitant, protective of them, but one day he said that what he could promise me was that he would talk to Lukas about it to get his opinion. This response surprised me. Lukas was, in 2015, merely 16 and one of the youngest members of The Youth Group and was far from being the only child of a leader. Still, he seemed to my gatekeeper the obvious choice when a consultation like this needed was take place, and perhaps it was only because of him that I ended up interviewing The Youth Group. However, Lukas granted my request, and I was finally invited to sit in on a meeting where The Youth Group and a few adults would be discussing the organisation of that year’s training camp for children.2 I was promised to be given some time alone with the youth after the meeting. The following section depicts the first meeting with The Youth Group. Ville and Benjamin pick me up outside the congregational hall and accompany me to Jörgen and Sofia’s place, where the meeting is being held. Since the house is located on the other side of the village from The Hill, we take the car. When we arrive at the beautiful mansion that houses Jörgen and Sofia, their children and Tove’s family (described in the previous chapter), two small but happily barking dogs greet us. Everybody is already there, so we take our places around a huge white table and we are served coffee and tea. There are 11 youths present: Anna, Sara, Benjamin, Lukas, Susanna, Bosse, Erik, Danne, Jimmie, Daniella and Ville, and 6 adults (1 pastor, Olof, Ella, Max, Benny, and Birgitta), and me, pretending very hard to be a fly on the wall. The scene that unfolds is an interesting drama where several of the adults take on roles in relation to the youth that I have not witnessed prior to this occasion. Anna, who is the author of the Japanese-inspired fairy tale which will serve as a foundation for the children’s training camp, sits at one short end of the long table. The pastor is seated at the other end. Lukas is positioned somewhere in the middle, right across the table from me. First generation 2  The training camp is the equivalent of the Bible training camp, only organised more around outdoors activities in adventure form than actual reading of the Bible.

130 

S. NILSSON

members Ella and Birgitta are positioned beside or a bit behind the pastor, both prepared with pen and paper, resembling two attentive secretaries. Their placement is awkward: they are sitting by the pastor’s side, but a bit further back so that it appears that they lurk behind him, trying to take up as little space as possible. The conversation around the table revolves around finances, but I pay little attention to the topic as the invisible thread appearing before my eyes mesmerises me. It runs in a triangular form from the pastor, to Anna, to Lukas and back again to the pastor. Interestingly, it seems much better attached to Lukas and Anna than to the pastor, despite his age and position within the congregation. He acts as an adviser to clients, letting their ideas and comments flow while only posing additional questions or conformingly nodding his head. His eyes narrow as he listens attentively. Although Ella and Birgitta are active in the conversation, posing questions and taking notes, the power balance does not really allow them or anyone else into the triangle. This is the moment when I begin to really discern the weight put on the shoulders of Lukas, 16 years old, who is carrying the responsibility that comes with a status so high it sometimes exceeds that of the adults. Because his parents hold leading positions, he must shoulder the responsibility. Anna, 19 at the time, also has high-ranking parents, and as a result, the training camp rests on her foundational story. When the meeting is over, we are served some food. Hotdogs are on the menu this evening and I cannot help but raise my eyebrows a tiny bit and try not to burst out with laughter when I am served a thin, lonely cucumber stick in a hotdog bun. As I have mentioned earlier, vegetarianism is not God’s way in Knutby. My dietary choices obviously pose a challenge, I reflect, and hope that no one is paying attention to my deviance. I am prepared to do many things in the name of participant observations, but devouring meat is unfortunately not one of them. We start eating and there is a strange, tense silence until Ville asks me very politely if I like the food. Simultaneously, they all burst out laughing at his clever joke. I am served a nicely decorated sandwich stuffed with vegetables instead. The joke is an icebreaker and constitutes only a small fraction of a discourse within the congregation where jokes and pranks are often used as communication.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

131

Residing at The Hill As stated previously, the high-ranking adult members in the congregation who were allowed to stay close to the leaders encompassed only a fraction of the congregational members. Some adults were members of The Table, and as such were given a place at the dinner table at Waldau’s house and were therefore to be considered high-ranking. The Table seated 12 individuals, modelled on the 12 apostles of Jesus in the Bible, but the group around Waldau fluctuated in number. Two female members held constant positions, always keeping close to her. Erica, for instance, periodically slept on Waldau’s floor at night only to go home in the morning and pretend as though she had spent the night in her own bed. Similar stories were given in the 2018 documentary. Each Saturday, an exclusive meal would be prepared and served in Waldau’s house, and the members in good standing (typically the 12 around The Table) would be called in to share it with her. At times, individual members could be prohibited from enjoying the Saturday evening there, had they in any way acted against the will of the highest-ranking leaders or in other way acted inappropriately. Interestingly, the members of The Youth Group were required to copy the structure, throwing regular Saturday night dinner parties for themselves after the workday had ended. In this chapter, accounts of different aspects of the existence on The Hill will be explored through additional themes including friendship, health, and the spirit world. In Chap. 4, I gave an account of my first meeting with Waldau. I tried specially to emphasise the special atmosphere of her home in order to convey to the reader the significance of the place, the setting, and the props placed there. After another one of the rare visits there, Liselotte and I are shown a small building (a larger form of garden shed) close to the house. A member explains that since there are juridical restrictions which define if a building is to be considered a garden shed or a place of residence (a building permit is needed for the latter), the foundation of the house is small, with angled walls, widening it upwards, and making it spacious. The house has two floors; the top floor hosts several young adults sprawled out in a built-in sofa, which can be extended for sleepovers, a wide-screen TV, and video games scattered on a small coffee table. The lower floor has a small toilet and an impressive built-in wine storage space, the latter

132 

S. NILSSON

apparently predominantly used by the adults.3 When we peer into the top room, the young members temporarily stop their ongoing debate on what movie to watch this evening, and tell us how lucky they are to have a house of their own, a place where they can watch movies, play video games and hang out, out of the earshot of the adults. The group appears here to be a team, and we are invited as actors into their routine, in which their performance strives present a group of friends having fun, and us acting along while wondering if this is a slice of their everyday life or a special performance, or both. The Youth Group, consisting of children of high-ranking members, has been encouraged to spend time at The Hill where several of the leaders reside with their families. Some have been formally set up as lodgers, while others have spent their nights there on a sofa or mattress. The fine line between having a friend stay over frequently and the prohibition to sleep in one’s own house is not easily discernible, but there were cases of involuntary residing outside the home of one’s parents. Susanna is one example. Susanna Susanna was interviewed in 2014, at the age of 19. In the interview, conducted by Liselotte, Susanna stated that she had been baptised at the age of seven. This was before the age limit was set to 13, which she believed to be more correct.4 In the interview, she stated that she was very happy with the friends that she had in the congregation, that there was no bullying and next to no problems within the group of friends of which she was an active part. She claimed to have friends outside the group as well, although she preferred the company of those belonging to the congregation. She spent much of her time at The Hill: Before we came here,5 I was quite lonely. It has been lots of fun here. The adults have seen to it that no one is alone, that no one is bullied. We have had minor “girl quarrels”, but we have been given help to figure them out […] I also think that we young people have formed very strong relationships. We went to lower and middle school when everything happened [she refers 3  Conventionally, Pentecostals do not drink wine. However, in the explorative spirit of the congregation, they had tried the question and found evidence in the Bible stating that drinking wine as a Christian was fine. 4  It is unclear exactly at what time this age limit was set. 5  Her family moved to Knutby when Susanna was 5 years old.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

133

to the incidents in 2004] and we were drawn to each other because you didn’t want to be alone. We have a very strong friendship … We have a lot of fun today and enjoy each other […] I’m fine. Those who think that we are not free to choose for ourselves, they don’t know … I’m here of my own choice. No one is forcing me at all. I feel comfortable. (Susanna, 19, 2014)

When asked if she spent much time with her parents while she was growing up, she said: Yes, I did. Mum was homemaker for a very long time. I didn’t see Dad that much when we were very young, he worked weekends in [another town]. But Mum was mostly at home, she did office jobs at home. We have been on vacation almost every summer. But I meet them pretty much now too. I live at home. Recently, when I have realised that I am starting to grow up, I have begun to make use of time, prioritising my parents more. I’ve got a much better relationship with them, the older I’ve become. Now Mum is more like a friend than a mother who is raising me. So I have a very good relationship [with them]. (Susanna, 19, 2014)

In 2014, Susanna, together with the other members of The Youth Group, seems to spend a lot of her free time at The Hill. Susanna comes across as being content with life. She presents herself as a happy young person, living with her parents and enjoying the best of worlds. Due to Susanna’s seemingly uncontested place in The Youth Group, I wrongfully understood her parents to hold a high status in the congregation, which proved to be quite far from the truth. At this time, Susanna’s mother was desperately trying to figure out how to repay her debt to Waldau and she was not allowed near the leadership. This was not known to me at the time, as all practice of shunning or exclusion of members was considered destructive information. Then in March 2017, the following message dropped into my Messenger inbox: Hi Sanja. I do not know if you are still working with the textbook, but if you are, I would like to take back all that I said. I can’t stand by what I said anymore. Unfortunately. Hope all is good with you otherwise. Hugs!

Receiving the message, I contemplated what to do. The interview was not retractable—the words were there, and I would be left with nothing to present if more interviewees started taking back their previous

134 

S. NILSSON

presentations. The deadline for gathering data for the study had long since passed but presenting solely the narratives collected prior to 2016 seemed inadequate, especially considering the rumours leaking from the former members, and given the fact that the congregation was rapidly spiralling its way towards what appeared to be a final breakup. I waited a couple of days and then asked Susanna to speak to me on the phone. Perhaps rather than retract her previous account, she could add to it with her present view of the past? She agreed and sometime later, we talk on the phone. She starts by saying that she has been living involuntarily at The Hill since she finished grade school. She explains that she has been taught from an early age that the children of the leaders are desirable playmates; those who got to spend time with or near them should count themselves lucky. She says that she was socialised into this view by the adults in the congregation, and when she, early on, told her parents that she did not want to play with the leaders’ children, they ignored her statement and emphasised how lucky she was to be able to spend time so near the leadership, a position her parents did not continuously enjoy. Her parents had no influence, she says, and had to do as the leadership dictated. “After a while, it became pointless to try to explain,” she adds, and describes how she just tried to make the most of the situation. As her parents did not live on The Hill, she saw less and less of them: I would see them maybe once a week. If I happened to tell anyone that I missed my family, I was scolded for being ungrateful and not appreciating my situation. Why would I want to be with them when I could be with the leaders’ children?

The same applied to the annual trips abroad. In analysing the interview from 2014, I assumed that her statement about going on a yearly vacation referred to her own family, since it was mentioned in such a context. However, she now explains that she did go on vacation with her family up until the age of 14. At 19, she accompanied Waldau and other members to Australia. Susanna claims that only Waldau and those she selected travelled away for vacations. If any of the youth were selected to come along, handpicked by one of the leader’s children as desired playmates, they were unable to refuse:

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

135

You had to pay with your own money, regardless of if you had any or not. You could borrow money, otherwise get into debt. Some families have huge financial liabilities. When Åsa was traveling, the others would work on her house. One of the leader’s children decided the times I came along to Australia. I had no choice but to come along. (Susanna, 22, 2017)

Susanna claims that she lived more or less on The Hill since she was 16, until her defection from the group five years later. She slept on a mattress most of the time. Interestingly, Susanna portrays her existence on The Hill as involuntary but inevitable. According to her understanding, directions were not disputable, or rather, she would not take the risk to question her presence there, as she felt that she would be criticised. Jonas Jonas was interviewed in 2014, when he was 19 years old. He was born in another part of Sweden, and his parents divorced when he was young. His mother joined the congregation while his father stayed with the children and brought them up. Throughout his childhood and youth, Jonas and his siblings had visited their mother in Knutby, and Jonas especially was drawn to the kindness and frankness that he felt characterised the relationships in the congregation. When he finished upper-secondary school, he took up residence in a university town and started his studies, but felt all the while that he longed to go back to Knutby: But I went up that summer when I finished school, at the Bible school here. And I’ve never really been religious or how should I say this … that I believed in God. I’ve always thought it’s a little strange. But the people are nice; I know they love me and all that. But I had never felt God that way. But when I was there and attending Bible school, I experienced something completely different. I realised that I felt God there, I came closer to God. And that was something that overwhelmed me altogether. So, I just knew I had to be here. It was such a strong feeling. Unlike anything I’ve known before. Then I felt that no, I can’t move away from here, I can’t be anywhere else. After that, in the meantime while still at the Bible school, I began to examine if it was possible to take the same university programme in Uppsala [which is closer to Knutby] instead. But I didn’t get a real answer from them [he refers to the university administration]. So, I went down to Lund and studied a month there. I didn’t feel good at all, it didn’t feel right at all. So, I called and checked, what should I do, should I go on studying a year or

136 

S. NILSSON

should I come up right away, what should I do with my studies? I felt very insecure. So, I rang and checked with several people in the congregation. I trust them, I’ve known them for a long time, and they love me so much so they wouldn’t say what I want to hear but what they think is best for me. I called my mum, among others. And she said that if you don’t think it’s right where you are now, move up then. And if it is not, if you come here and feel that it isn’t good, then Lund is still there. (Jonas, 21, 2014)

Jonas highlighted the closeness, friendship, and presence of God in the congregation in 2014 when he narrated the story of his life. From his account, it appears that he was drawn to the sense of fellowship and that the religious experiences only manifested late into his teens, in connection to the Bible School. In 2017, Jonas is still a member of the congregation, but has a slightly different take on the fellowship, especially in The Youth Group. A point of conflict, which he brings up, was the frequent sleepovers at The Hill, which Jonas was not comfortable with. Most of the youth liked the sleepover nights, he states, but Jonas had a hard time sleeping and usually went home to sleep. One of the residents at The Hill would say, ‘But I have asked you if you are going to sleep over?’, implying that he should. But he said no. Lukas could, for instance, tell him, but appeared to Jonas to not want to make demands, which made him suspect that the directives came from Waldau. His refusal to partake in the sleepovers resulted in discussions with a pastor who asked how Jonas’s relationship with Lukas was. It is good, he would reply. ‘Is it really?’ he would respond ‘Make sure to have a good relationship with him,’ he could say. It created uncertainty [in me]. But I went back to him and said that it was good. I sounded so sure; I think he let it go. It was usually those who were uncertain who went back and asked more, who got into the worst kind of trouble, unfortunately. (Jonas, 21, 2017)

Jonas’s approach to the voluntariness in staying over or not marks a significant difference from Susanna’s. Where Susanna saw no choice but to comply, Jonas found that being assertive in his relationship with the leader enabled him to get his way. What Jonas describes is the belief in the role, which according to Goffman plays a significant role in social interaction. There appears to lack the cynicism, which Susanna expresses in her conclusion that she had to make the most of the situation. In terms of

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

137

adoption alignments, the way one responds to inclusion in a total institution according to Goffman, Jonas chose to rebel while Susanna initially rebelled but gave up and retreated to the state of colonialization.

Best Friends The requirement to have good relationships with the leaders’ children, which Jonas recalls, reflects the decree among the adults, where members were fighting to “stand right” with Fält and Waldau. Filtering down to The Youth Group, this directive imposed an uneven distribution of power, and created hierarchies and temporary alliances within The Youth Group, to which the leaders’ children as well as the others had to relate. The Boys The heavy responsibility resting on the leaders of The Youth Group is reflected in several of the accounts collected after 2016. Jonas explains: Lukas was supposed to help and support Anna. He would take much of the heavy responsibility, keep up and make sure people came on time, etc., while Anna would inspire more and have ideas. Anna would lead the girls and Lukas the boys, but it was a little strange having a leader who was so much younger. Lukas was wise and did well, more than anyone, despite his age. We are different; we don’t hang out now, but I don’t mind. Lukas wanted to do everything in the best way, but because he himself was raised according to skewed standards, it wasn’t good. The norm came from The Hill. He wanted to do good. (Jonas, 24, 2017)

Lukas’s role as a leader is a feature in several of the interviews collected after 2016. As far as the other boys in the group are concerned, Jonas believes that there was a lot of viciousness and resilience when one of them was assigned to help Lukas lead the group. They just said what he wanted to hear and were not honest, he believes. Jonas portrays himself as a bit of an outsider, so I ask if he tried to join the group more. “Sometimes, but it has not been an active wish as with some of the others who really worked for it,” he says (Jonas, 24, 2017). Jonas’s definition of the situation is that it is possible to refrain from too much involvement. Benjamin mentioned in 2014 that he was given a place in The Youth Group because of Lukas, who had started asking to spend time with him.

138 

S. NILSSON

In 2017, Fredrik, who is older than both Benjamin and Lukas, recalls a similar course of events: Lukas looked up to me and thought I was a bit different, I skated and was that odd guy who was also older, I had taken a different path than many others in the years before I joined the congregation. I had dreadlocks and a general street look, had fun, and started joining the congregation. Because Lukas contacted me and we started spending a lot of time [together] I got a ‘free ticket’ to Åsa’s circle. That I was with [one of the pastors] also helped, but it was not as effective as being with Lukas. (Fredrik, 25, 2017)

Fredrik’s parents, particularly his mother, were members of the congregation (but not of the higher levels), yet Fredrik and his brother had declined membership. Fredrik’s brother never joined, but Fredrik started visiting the congregation, and formed a close relationship with a pastor, who was significantly older than he was. He had thus grown up close to the congregation but not close to The Table. Fredrik’s statement reveals a wish to belong, aware that the “free ticket” he managed to lay his hands on was not available to everyone. To him, the friendship was a bonus. In 2017, I contact Erik, a young lanky teen with a timid smile and shy manners, a member of the Youth Group whom I had talked with during my observations but never previously interviewed. In the Youth Group interviews, he had been one of the quiet participants who sat in but rarely spoke. Now, over the phone, he speaks at length about his years in the congregation, and his relations to the others in the Youth Group. In 2017 Erik, describes his friendship with Lukas as a shackle. Erik’s parents fluctuating in and out of the group closest to Waldau, sometimes holding important positions, sometimes being shunned and banned from The Hill. Erik himself sometimes resided on The Hill. He now laments his relations to the leaders’ children, and interprets those relations in retrospect as being imposed against his will: I have thought about it many times ever since the third grade. I was told to hang out with Lukas, but I didn’t want to, we had different interests. I was angry and sad because I had to be with him. Until the sixth grade, you could get away with being with other [friends], but with consequences. In junior high, the other contacts were severed. The consequences were that I was told that Lukas was my way to God; I had to keep close to him to keep close to Jesus. When I didn’t, I had to book time with an adult who’d say ‘You

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

139

will be lost if you don’t stay close to Lukas’. Mum, Åsa, Kristin, for example, said that. (Erik, 19, 2017)

What Erik describes here can be addressed as a version of Goffman’s concept looping as a part of a mortification of the self, where the subject is unable to put distance between himself and his attacker. Erik expresses how his own interests did not coincide with Lukas’s, but that he still felt the pressure that he had to be with Lukas, his own interests were neglected. Additionally, the friendship was defined by prominent adults in terms of faith, so that his unwillingness was interpreted as having a dimension beyond that of mundane friendships. Did he not succumb, he would be lost, and being lost equated to not being saved at the day of doom. The stakes were thus much higher for him than the possibility of upsetting the adults. Lukas says of his role as a leader of the boys in The Youth Group: I have been assigned the role of leader a lot. But at the same time, I have agreed to do it so I’m not going to blame that on others. There have been times that I wanted to back out, but I think everyone wants to sometimes. Now I absolutely don’t want to be a leader. Knowing that you’ve hurt people … it’s painful. Sometimes you want to go back in time and slap yourself. I got off the hook easily. (Lukas, 19, 2017)

While taking responsibility for his actions as a leader, including the perceived hurt inflicted on others, Lukas also expresses disappointment with some of his former friends: Lukas: I see almost no one from The Youth Group. Some, we just hang out just because … some have felt forced to be with me and they’re angry with me for it. Sanja: How do you feel about that? Lukas: When I was told, it hurt, but to say that he tried to avoid me [he is referring to one specific member] … we were friends since we were 2 years old. You get sad. That he never wanted to be with me. Personally, I don’t recognise most people. They want to pour out everything they feel now. It has been hard, but what we did […] they [the now criticizing members] have done just the same. (Lukas, 19, 2017)

140 

S. NILSSON

Lukas seemed at the time to have had little or no insight into the adults’ parts in constructing his former friendships, or he did not confirm that this was the actual case. He displayed a hint of doubt at the interpretations given after The Fall. Lukas was set to be the role model for the male population of The Youth Group and stated how he believed in and embraced the role and performed in accordance with it. Anna, who was assigned the corresponding role among the girls, came across as an involuntary leader, discontent with the responsibility that came with it. The Girls When we first met with the young members in 2014, Anna appeared to be a shy, somewhat withdrawn person. In her interview with Liselotte in 2014, Anna recalled her difficulties in elementary school. She was hesitant; her face blushed whenever she had to stand in front of the class, and she claimed that she never dared to speak up. Anna related spending much time on her own, playing video games, during her secondary school years. At that time, she said that she did not have a very good relationship with the other girls in the congregation, and that she was alone. She pondered whether she wanted to be a part of the congregation at all, but made friends in the congregation during a trip abroad: We went on a trip. Either we went to Australia or … yes, that was it. And my cousin Petra. She’s one year older than me. We didn’t have good contact when we were younger […] then … after this trip we had a lot better contact. She was on the trip. After that we had such good contact, we started spending more time with Susanna and the others. And after that, I discovered that I have the best friends you can have. Here. (Anna, 19, 2014)

Sara was interviewed in 2014 but declined a follow-up interview in 2017. In 2014, she was part of The Youth Group, and spontaneously mentioned her friends when I asked who decides important things in her life: So, I feel what’s important … so my friends are important to me and they are the first that I hang out when I get home from school. We live so close, so it’s very natural too to go home to Anna after school and just join in, so they are very important to me. (Sara, 17, 2014)

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

141

It is possible that her answer to the question was based on her interpreting it to be about what was important to her. Either way, her friends were clearly important to her. As recounted above, Susanna too presented her relationships with her friends, apart from minor “girl quarrels” when they were very young, as strong, with no bullying and as a lot of fun. The overall impression presented at that point by most of the interviewees was that they were content with their friendships. In her account from 2017, Susanna paints a different portrait of her relations with the other youth. She states that she met others at school sometimes but did not go home to peers outside the congregation after school. She spoke to her parents about it when she was younger, but she felt that her mother and father only listened to the youth leaders and the adults from The Table; her parents had no parental influence, they did as they were told. She was told to hang out with Anna, to stay by her side, which she felt could be annoying at school. For example, Anna did not want to eat lunch at school, Susanna did not want to eat anywhere else, she wanted to spend her money on other things, but felt that she had to “stand with” Anna and agree to eat out. Susanna states that the adults said that what Anna felt was from God. Susanna became anxious and thought that perhaps God was angry with her. Referring to the “girl quarrels”, Susanna now says that the conflict between her and Anna arose because Susanna wanted to be with other peers at school. The topic was brought up for discussion in a team gathering (in the congregation), where she understood that she had to be with Anna in school in order not to make her jealous. When they got older, she says that she had to ask Anna’s permission to go to work. She felt that everything she did was dictated by Anna’s wishes, but that she had to hide that fact when they were in the company of others. In 2017, Susanna states that the performance put on in the group interview situations aimed to distract me as an outsider from the hierarchical power structure, hinting here at the dramaturgical loyalty to her team and the routine. She says that although it was never spoken out loud, the group as a team tried to convey a picture of itself as equal, while at the same time balancing the inner boundaries, careful to let on that everyone had an equal voice but simultaneously treading carefully not to step outside the role each one occupied within the group’s hierarchy. Susanna refers repeatedly to that routine in 2017: how she outwardly, on the front stage, occupied the role of best friend while in the back regions of the theatre was required to be submissive and was constantly made aware of

142 

S. NILSSON

her position as less worthy in her relationship with the leaders’ children (Susanna, 22, 2017). Interestingly, in relation to this routine, the backstage included only herself and Anna. Any activity with the other members was performed on the front stage. Following or standing with another young person who is “closer to God” seems to have been a common practice. In my conversations with adult members after The Fall, several mention that they were told to keep close to another member who at that point in time had a better relation to God. I have previously recounted Maria’s experiences. Maria was on the verge of joining The Youth Group when The Fall occurred. She had a brief period in the group around that same time but was criticised by the other youth for being proud. Simultaneously, she functioned as a role model for another girl in the congregation, Malin, who was the only other girl her age but who was never part of The Youth Group, and whose parents belonged to the group of Initiated: We were friends but later I was not allowed to be with her. She talked to her parents so Dad had to explain it [that they could not socialise when Maria was ‘bad’]. She was always told to ‘be Like Maria’. She would have me as a role model. [After The Fall] I apologised to her; they made her feel bad because they held me up to her like a role model. Like, when I visited her house, the focus was on me: ‘What do you want to do?’ Not ‘What do you [two] want to do?’ She was quieter then, she noticed that I got all the attention from parents and others. (Maria, 15, 2017)

Maria’s narration outlines the complexity in the shifting roles of role model and shunned person in relation to the same person. It seems from Maria’s recount that the other girl was not aware of Maria being labelled as wrong, probably because she and her family were in lower standing in the congregation. Being held up as a role model by the adults is something that Anna too regrets today. She says that she was not aware of how the adults portrayed her to the other youth. “They could act as if we children of the leaders had special roles, but when our parents were not there, they were not always so nice to us”, she says. She points out that her role as one of the leaders of The Youth Group was created by the adults; she herself never sought the position:

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

143

I haven’t enjoyed my role at all and because of that, I have been rude. But I have never told anyone to do anything for me and haven’t known how other adults talked to them [the other youths] about me […] Because I grew up there, I had no choice. Then when I got older and wanted to leave, I wasn’t allowed. And I was afraid to lose my family, so I stayed because of that […] the grown-ups are the ones who have forced me to be responsible for things I frankly refused to do. There were extremely high demands on me. I had to be perfect. And it was hard because I know I am really not perfect […]. I’ve never felt well liked in the congregation, only by very few people. I’ve felt like a big fat lump that people really hate. That’s why I started with self-­ harm from about the age of 14 to 18. I haven’t received much support from anyone, also because school has been tough. Just from my family and now I’ll be specific [mentions another family from The Table]. (Anna, 22, 2017)

Pondering her role in The Youth Group further, from a theological perspective as well, she reflects on her position and the consequences of The Fall, which affected several of the marriages within the congregation: My role? I thought my role was completely useless. I couldn’t in any way understand why I should exist. My worst nightmare was always that my parents would divorce, and they have now. And it’s because of this stupid faith. I was told that my role was just to love my mum. And I always questioned it and wondered what meaning it had, the rest of my life. I mean I love my mum, but to live just for that? I really couldn’t understand that. I have been very bad at faith in fact. Not at all interested. I have thought of it more as a fantasy world, like Eragon, Narnia, Lord of the Rings … etc.6 I couldn’t relate to it in another way. (Anna, 22, 2017)

Anna points out that the friendships were not always voluntary from her side either, but like Lukas, she is disappointed in some of her old friends’ recollections of her: I can only say that I am very sorry about how my old friends changed their minds about our friendship, which had lasted since we were young. It seems very unfair how they blame me when they really should know that I didn’t decide anything. I have had no choice but to join in (even though I didn’t want to and many of my so-called friends are aware of that) […] I can say I miss many of them and the times when we could act as a “normal teenager”, we had fun […] I look at it differently now because they changed so much. 6

 Fantasy books by Paolini (2002), Lewis (1950), and Tolkien (1954).

144 

S. NILSSON

One moment you stand there and say that you love each other, etc, etc. The next, you are hated. For example, an old friend who always said that it was nice to be with me because I never lie. Now, afterwards, that friend says that I’m a compulsive liar, that I was manipulative, etc. I didn’t ask them to do things, but it’s still me they blame, although it was other people who asked them to do things. I’ve been very much against it, and everyone knows that (because I was so abrasive, I was officially scolded). Right after [The Fall] I apologised, everything was good and we could talk about things, but after a few months, they rejected the excuses. (Anna, 22, 2017)

Anna does not give any explanation as to what she thinks was the reason for the subsequent rejections of her excuses. I would, however, argue that the disruption in dramaturgical discipline did not happen overnight, but that the subsequent breakup of the team loyalties within The Youth Group led to a revaluation of the situation on the part of some of the youth. Whereas friendships had previously been presented as a set of relations which spontaneously clustered together and formed The Youth Group, the voluntarism of these friendships was called into question.7

Saturday Night Dinner Parties When I interviewed the Youth Group in 2015, they appeared to be a close circle of friends who shared most of their leisure time. The implication of the positions of the leaders’ children as high-ranking as portrayed in Sect 6.4 was evident but the detailed patterns not discernible. They stated that they never argued, and I found no implications of misconduct or alarming conflict. Conflict was not a common concept within any of the narratives given prior to 2016, nor in their accounts of their relationships with parents or peers. Still, I inquired as to how they solve potential conflicts, should they arise, frankly finding it a bit odd that this relatively large group of individuals who were on the threshold of adulthood, at a period in their lives when hormones are usually raging and identities developing, could refrain from any sorts of arguments. Sanja: Do you argue among yourselves within the group? Lukas: No. 7  Almost a year after this interview, in 2018, I understand, from informal contact with some of the youth, that friendships and animosity between the former members of the youth group are still, to some extent, negotiated.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

145

Susanna: No, but when we were younger, we could pick fights. Sara: But it’s not like that, we can have contrasting opinions sometimes, but then we talk about it. Susanna: It is a very superficial relationship if you become enemies. It’s not that everyone just automatically thinks the same.8 Sara: Because we have such a strong relationship, the result is that we work together […] until we arrive at what to do. Anna: Not everyone likes red, and not everyone dislikes blue. We do not feel the same […] Lukas: If you see someone do something in a certain way, you might ask: Why do you do it like that? We talk a lot with each other, to sort things out. Since we have quite different opinions. But it doesn’t lead to conflicts. (Youth Group Interview 2015) What I wanted to get at was the way in which they resolved disagreements. They explained that they talked it out with each other. I failed to ask under what conditions these talks took place, assuming that it was in private between the parties concerned. Unfortunately, I disregarded the possibility that in a group as tightly knit as The Youth Group, as with The Table, several people were involved in solving the disagreements. As initially mentioned in this chapter, the youth were required to have regular dinner parties on Saturday nights, in accordance with the adult tradition. Following the biblical sentiment, the work week ended at 6 pm on Saturday. Saturdays were used to do work, and the members utilised as a congregational work force. Several of the children and youth, in the previous chapter, recounted their experiences of working on Saturdays, and Maria explained that Elisabeth would have a dinner for the younger children while the youth would have one of their own. The dinner would be prepared by the youth themselves and seems to have been a way of finishing a week of work and school more than connoting the Sabbath, but it was also a forum for ventilating discontent, and straightening out disagreements. There was always one or more people missing—those who at that point in time were considered ‘wrong’ (Susanna, 22, 2017). Previously, I have expounded upon the consequences for adults who were found to be wrong. However, marking someone as wrong was not solely

8  Susanna means that it is a sign of a superficial relationship if you become enemies over every aspect that you disagree upon.

146 

S. NILSSON

the common practice among the adults at The Table, but was frequently implemented by the youth in The Youth Group as well. There were Saturday gatherings for the youth, for those who Anna thought it was ok to be with. If someone didn’t join, it was because they were wrong, you knew that. Or there were the conversations at the gatherings. Sometimes individually, often in front of the whole group […] Anna and Lukas said that the person who was wrong needs to become right. Daniel participated more and more in those conversations, being active and pushy [he sounds upset] […] he definitely passed limits. It is ridiculous that a whole group reprimands one person. And more and more people who did so. (Jonas, 24, 2017)

Jonas says that he was certain that he would become wrong himself if he was to criticise the leaders’ children. His brother, Jimmie, who I interview in 2017, highlights the same theme. Note that the word conversation here does not connote any form of talk between people; a conversation in the congregation equalled a questioning of a person or group by others. Usually, the outcome was that the criticised person gave in and apologised to whatever he or she had done wrong. In relation to the Youth Group, these conversations could sometimes include a pastor or other high-ranking adults. Jimmie, who, like his brother grew up outside of the congregation, relates his experiences of the consequences of not participating enough in the groups’ activities: It was relevant to how close to [the leaders’ children] you kept. If you didn’t keep close, and didn’t participate much, there could be a conversation in which the question why you were not there more could be asked. You had to keep to yourself until you showed that you’re in, that is, until Åsa said you were in again. (Jimmie, 22, 2017)

It happened to Jimmie once: they gathered, and he was not welcome. It felt terrible but it was not that serious, it only lasted a week. Others have had it a lot worse. There was someone who was somehow wrong, someone higher up decided so. Those who were at The Hill knew about it, the adults, they could help people get right. For example, through telephone calls […] If other adults were wrong, it could be declared outright, or you just understood it because that person was not present. I hope that the smaller children have not understood too much of this, they can have a normal upbringing. There were children who were a little more [worthy] even

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

147

among those who lived on The Hill, they behaved like the adults, mimicking them. (Jimmie, 22, 2017)

Note Jimmie’s reference to a normal upbringing, which suggests that he felt that the members of the Youth Group did not get to have that. He is distancing himself here, as he only came to the congregation as an adult. It is worthy to highlight here that although Jimmie says that his week of exclusion was horrible, he points out that it was a short period of time compared to others in the group. The consequences of the exclusion of some members from the Saturday night dinners were interpreted quite differently within the Youth Group. When I interview Lukas in 2017, I ask him about his recollection of these instances, and he answers that: Saturdays were routine, we ate food. Sometimes some people didn’t get to join for dinner. We made a big mistake there. I acknowledge, as you say, that all were not able to join, but you shouldn’t make too much out of it. (Lukas, 19, 2017)

Lukas regrets the exclusion but feels that the topic has been brought out of proportion since The Fall. Nevertheless, to some, the Saturday night dinners were critical to their well-being. When asked about the Saturday night dinners, Erik says: Sometimes I didn’t get to go to Saturday dinner, because [I was told that] my brother and I shouldn’t stick together as twins. Ville, Bosse, Petra, Anna and Lukas were always included. Anna and Petra would never say anything directly, but Lukas took it upon himself to do so […] There could be a dead silence in the group. Something had gone wrong. “Well then …” Lukas would say. “Now you’re making a mess of it again.” I’m reminded now of the lump in my stomach, the cramp in my heart. So many times, I was scolded. I’ve been going around for days, years [being told that] ‘If you don’t listen, then you’ll end up in Hell’. You never relax; it’s like running on glowing coal. It’s like a panic attack, even now, that feeling. (Erik, 17, 2017)

Interestingly, Jimmie refers to Waldau as being the decision-maker, deciding when a certain person was right again. Lukas, on the other hand, refers to it as a joint decision but does not clarify who the “we” that he mentions refers to. Jonas understands the presence at the Saturday dinners (or lack of presence) because of Anna’s choice. It is, therefore, unclear

148 

S. NILSSON

who had the final say about the Saturday dinners. A possible interpretation is that it fluctuated between the leaders of The Youth Group and the leaders of the congregation. Maria too, in her interview from 2017, relates to the social exclusion from the Saturday dinners. While she was not a member of The Youth Group for any great period, she did get to experience exclusion, as she understands it, on orders from both adults and other youth: They said I was wrong—only then did I notice how they [the leaders] could be. I was told that it was bad for me to lose weight, though I knew I didn’t lose too much, but they said, ‘You’re getting too thin, you don’t have to lose any’. It was Åsa who said this or Anna. Anna was jealous of me. I was told by Elisabeth, whom I stayed a lot with. Sara got word from Åsa to tell me. But I didn’t listen at first. Then I wasn’t allowed to be with the youth. I had to be with Elisabeth on Saturdays, and Elisabeth was angry with me. Anna made it look like she said it because she cared for me, but she had my dad speak to me about it. So, I gained weight because of that. (Maria, 15, 2017)

What Maria describes is a clear case of her stepping outside the boundaries for her role. She concludes that her initial failing to adhere to the demand to stop losing weight caused her exclusion. As is evident from the quotations above, the presence of attendants at the Saturday night dinner could serve as information about who was currently not welcome. Disagreements seem to have come to the knowledge of the leadership, who posed a double threat of being scolded, both by The Youth Group and by the adults in The Table. In some cases, the wrongful acts were said to be caused by demons.

The Spirit World The presence of the spirit world was not always positive. As mentioned in Chap. 3, Helge Fossmo had claimed to be possessed by evil spirits in 2004 that ultimately only Sara Svensson would be able to help him get rid of. During my observations in Knutby prior to The Fall, my attempts to discuss the potential presence of demons were met with scepticism. Yes, demons are part of the spirit world, but it is not something that we generally discuss or that form part of our daily language, was the answer. However, several adult members state in 2017 that the world of evil spirits was in fact intensely present, particularly in The Table. In 2017 I am, in relation to

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

149

spirits, told of attempts by young members to run away.9 Each time the story concerns two (different) young women who take off from home to stay with friends or boyfriends outside the congregation. On each occasion, the young girls are brought back by adults and chastised, and the incidents are explained to be caused by evil spirits possessing them temporarily. Erik confirms in 2017 the existence of evil spirits in the worldview, relating to both stories of youth running away, and adds that members had commented on how the fact the runaway girls were possessed [by evil spirits] was visible on their faces. While some of the narrations portray the power executed by the highest-ranking members of The Youth Group as arbitrary, The Youth Group leaders were not exempt from judgement. Anna mentions in passing that adult members in the congregation have called her demonic. She specifically refers to a leader spreading the rumour that she was demonic after she had mentioned his infidelity towards his wife to another member of the congregation. She acknowledges the story of the escapes mentioned above, and when I ask more about the understanding of evil spirits within the congregation, she discloses the following: In recent years there was a lot of talk about evil spirits, demons, etc. How scared you were when someone said someone else had an evil spirit, you became really frightened and thought you would get one too! So, the talk was that you should get rid of the evil spirits so that the person in question would be as they had been again. I actually don’t know what it took for someone to be considered to have evil spirits, but that’s how it turned out anyway. Only in the last few years. One of my friends then told me several times that she was haunted by a specific demon quite often. It was very scary to listen to and I think we scared each other […]. (Anna, 23, 2018)

In the reviews, we can discern two different areas of application concerning the presence of evil spirits. The undesired behaviour of the girls who ran away and of Anna when she came with information that was presumably secret was explained as demonic behaviour. Making use of one’s faith and in this case of the spirit world in order to explain and give meaning to events can be seen as a way of framing negative behaviour. The underlying meaning is that no further explanations were necessary, but whether this meant that they were totally disregarded is unknown to me. 9  In the TV programme Uppdrag Granskning, a former member, Julia, recounts how she would often run off but was brought back and publicly shamed for her attempt at leaving.

150 

S. NILSSON

Anna’s recollection of the youth scaring each other by discussing evil spirits suggests that even though she was held up as a next to perfect role model, she was not exempt from the forces of the divine. Another part of the theological worldview of the congregation in which the divine and demonic forces played a special part was in the presence of illness.

Sickness and Health One area in which the divine presents itself in the lives of the youth is in the presence of danger or illnesses. In 2016, I speak with the group about healing. I have previously been told by an adult member how she was healed of a headache, and I now wanted to hear the youths’ take on sickness and health. I had been told that they were taken to doctors when ill, and I asked if they take prescribed medications, which they confirm. They connected health to divine guardianship: Benjamin: In my case, I would say that I have been very much protected. Not like ‘we pray for protection!’ (Gestures dramatically) and stuff or rituals for protection (everybody laughs) because it can easily be the case that people think so […] I can tell you what happened. A couple of years ago, me and Timmy and Erik, we were going to dispose of some rubbish. We had a trailer, which was not so good, one part was broken, anyway … so we were going to unload some stuff and it tripped and fell over, the trailer or … Anna: The roof? Benjamin: The roof, then it fell on me. On my back. Sara: It was quite big. Benjamin: Yes, it was big, it fell on my back … oh, and I felt really good afterwards! Sanja: Mm? Benjamin: I felt like I had had a beating, that feeling like… Sanja: You said you’ve never been beaten!10 (Everyone laughs) Benjamin: (laughs) No, but it feels like something heavy had hit me […] Something protected me, I could have been seriously injured, I might not have been able to walk today but it [the faith] protected me so I felt really good afterwards.  I am referring to my questions about corporal punishment.

10

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

151

Daniella: It happened, the same thing to me once last Christmas when I went skiing, I flew into a tree […] Erik was there too. The [divine] protection was good because if I hadn’t been protected, I would probably have broken my hip, but I could go skiing later. I got a pretty big bruise after that and then I dislocated my neck but that was just … had it been another classmate, one who might not have been protected, that person would have broken their hip straightaway, I can promise you that the knock was solid, it was just like …protection … Sanja: But if the protection wasn’t there, does it mean your belief wasn’t strong enough then? Lukas: No, evil things happen anyway. But we are not looking for signs. If there is a package of Alvedon,11 you use it, you don’t go and lay your hands on someone and pray. Indeed, God has made the Alvedon as well. One should not challenge God by asking for signs. (Youth Group interview 2016) They are certain that healing does take place. Anna relates a story told to her by a classmate, about a man who was in a wheelchair and could walk again. Therefore, it does happen, she says (Anna, 21, 2016). I witness no incidents relating to illness and reflect only over the fact that most people in the group seem healthy, and I never encounter or hear of anyone being ill prior to The Fall. When I interview Jonas in 2017, he spontaneously asks if I am aware of their unofficial view on illness. I am not. I have contemplated whether the decree to be happy and thankful also filtered down to the common view among some HDNRCs that health is connected to individual belief, but they have never been verified. Jonas says that You weren’t supposed to be ill. If you were cold or had a fever, you overcame it and just continued without rest. Those who have done so for a long time have less strength now, after all these years. They go to work, come home and have no energy for anything more at all. My mum had a conversation with one of the pastors and described to him that she had physical problems. He said, ‘Pray, don’t go to a doctor’. It didn’t work. She went to another pastor who said, ‘Try some vitamins and see if they help’ and they did […] I myself am not the type who likes to sleep and dislikes being sick,  Alvedon is a non-prescription painkiller containing paracetamol.

11

152 

S. NILSSON

but if I had a fever and felt really bad, I stayed at home and rested. Twice it took me 4–5 days to recover. I got into a lot of trouble; they said, ‘You don’t get sick, you must push through it’. Several people scolded me at different times about it [mentions the name of five adults]. (Jonas, 24, 2017)

This unofficial view is confirmed by several adults after The Fall but was claimed to exist by defectors prior to that (Essén 2008, p. 36). Being ill was generally not seen as an excuse not to partake in work and social activities, but something one had to overcome through the strength of one’s faith. This was true for the members of The Table and The Initiated, not for the congregation as a whole, they point out. The presence of divine protection, which is initially mentioned in this section, highlights the separation from society incorporated in the minds of the youth at this time. Daniella reflects on herself as being under divine protection, while her classmates who are not part of the congregation are not. In a now famous sermon by Waldau, she tells the congregation of a woman who had sinned, whom she had asked whether “God had to put her in a wheelchair in order for her to understand life’s worth”. The woman was supposedly in a car accident two weeks later and was permanently paralysed. In a whispering voice, Waldau goes on to say that God does not put anyone in a wheelchair but that he can authorise punishment. Presumably the story illustrates the consequences of being situated outside of the area of protection and is reflected in Benjamin’s and Daniella’s interpretations of their accidents.

Love and Marriages As described briefly in the background chapter, there had been some rumours suggesting that the members of the congregation were not free to have romantic relationships12 as they saw fit, but that instead Waldau decided who was to marry whom. Robèrt (2012a) expressed the concern that this would affect the young adults of the second generation as well. I brought this up with them in the group interview in 2015. They firmly denied that anyone was dictating whom one should marry, and further reflected on the necessity of marriage at a young age:

12  Referring here to relationships between boys and girls in the community. After The Fall, sex before marriage, as well as homosexuality, was still not condoned.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

153

Sara:

I think if you’re getting married … what are you expecting to get out of it? If you have everything you need … to marry … there must be something you don’t have [if you want] to marry, a security to have someone to be with or so. But we have very good lives now so to marry, it feels like … unnecessary. Anna: I am 19 years old and went to secondary school a year ago and don’t want to be tied down. Who am I? What do I want with my life? In the last year of school, everyone just [said], ‘Help, I have to get married and move away from home!’ They don’t even have jobs. Then you almost panic [and it feels like] you have to do it. Sara: Many pretend to want a family, they want to be together, but we’re already together, we’re hanging out all the time. (Youth Group 2015) There was, however, one sanctioned relationship between two members of The Youth Group in 2014. Liselotte interviews Ville and asks if he has a girlfriend in the congregation: Ville:

Yes, Petra. We have been together since 2010. We have always been best friends, so for us it was no big deal, it was very natural. We have known each other our whole lives. And she has been in the same class as my brother all his life. It has been very natural everything. Liselotte: Are you planning to get married? Ville: Yes. Liselotte: Will you be marrying pretty young? Ville: No, I can’t say there is such a plan. It feels very straightforward to think so. Based on how we live, we always have each other close, and getting married would just be getting it on paper. Neither she nor I feel that we need it right now. We will take it as it comes. She has just finished school. There is a lot that needs to be done first. The plan is to marry, but I don’t know when. Liselotte: But is it not correct that you cannot live together before you get married? You do not live together? Ville: No, it is not […] God’s word says that you should not be with someone before getting married. It is a matter of order as well. If I would feel a need to live with her and she would feel so too, it would probably not be a problem. But partly

154 

S. NILSSON

Liselotte: Ville:

because we live so close to each other, and it is stated in the Bible that you shouldn’t do so, it goes without saying that we don’t. So we have no need for it. We have each other so close anyway. So that’s something you naturally follow? Yes. And it is not a big deal either. It is just how it is. Naturally. (Ville, 22, 2014)

Ville and Petra’s relationship seems, however, to have been an exception. As depicted above, most of the members of The Youth Group appear to have considered relationships as something unnecessary in their current situation; they reasoned that had all the company they needed. There was the additional seriousness connected with having such a relationship, that one was supposed to marry the person in the future. A prerequisite for that relationship appears also to have been that they stayed in The Youth Group and did not isolate themselves, as was believed that people tended to do during the honeymoon phase (Sara, 17, 2014). During the years 2012–2016, I never came across or heard anything about any of the youth, besides Ville and Petra, who were in a relationship. Then in the autumn of 2016, prior to The Fall, I started seeing posts on Facebook saying that several of them were in relationships. As at least three relationships were formed within a period of only weeks, it caught my attention, and I contemplated this sudden change. In 2017, Erik explains: I don’t know how Ville and Petra could have a relationship when no one else was allowed. I think it was 6 years ago. Then we started in The Horse to talk about lust, how we should deal with it. Around November 2016, there were several couples. It was so close to everything that happened. We were free; there were no expectations on us. Anna, Lukas, Susanna, and I. To reject this kind of relationship would have been like rejecting Jesus. (Erik, 19, 2017)

Erik here explains that he interpreted the power and exclusive position of the former youth leaders as still strong enough not to reject their wishes for relationships. Equating it to the rejection of Jesus signifies the dimension of the spiritual consequences which he concluded would follow from his choice of partner. Unlike Lukas, Erik describes his position from the vantage point of a victim. As such, personal choices were experienced very differently among the members of The Youth Group.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

155

The sudden lifting of a prohibition is described here. As with similar major changes within other new religions, for example The Reboot in The Family International in 2010, the change from being under strict rules of a group to increased freedom of the individual can result in the rapid forming of relationships (Nilsson 2011). The prohibition was lifted in connection to The Fall, which may suggest that the leaders found it inappropriate to demand celibacy from the youth when it became apparent that some of them had transgressed the boundaries of marriage. Erik describes how he felt when he, around this time, understood that there had been adults in the congregation who had had extramarital relationships. One such relationship among the adults, which was discovered to have been active for at least a decade, felt especially hard for him to accept: I didn’t think Konrad and Stina were in a relationship. I always had to work with my sexual impulses, the Internet, go to Konrad, and he talked about how terrible lust was. I am angry and sad because they pressured us into behaving in a certain way, which they themselves couldn’t keep up with. Disappointed with the adults … how they just went along with everything. I know it was manipulative, but how could they have let it go so far? How could they let us grow up in this milieu? Like my parents, they had a higher goal, they wanted to live a better life. (Erik, 19, 2017)

Perhaps Erik answers his own question here; many of the parents had a higher goal, which was why they decided to bring their children up within the group. They believed that it was for a greater good. The problem with lust and the emphasis on not succumbing to masturbation is seconded by Benjamin, who is also upset about the double standards of the adults (Benjamin Interview 2017). Although there had been rumours since Fossmo’s relations in 2004, it had obviously been taking place in a backstage region to which the youth (and most adults) had no access. Jonas speaks in 2017 of how he reacted to these role discrepancies, once they were revealed: There were underlying standards and requirements that I didn’t understand. For example, that we shouldn’t have relationships. There were two couples13 who were together, then suddenly, they weren’t, they avoided each other and only said hi to each other, at most. I realised that it was not ok with 13  According to Jonas, there were two couples, but he does not disclose who the other couple was, and none of the other youth mention it.

156 

S. NILSSON

relationships […] My brother and I were taken in for a conversation after we had allegedly talked too intimately with some of the girls. I didn’t make too much of it though. (Jonas, 24, 2017)

Whether the exception regarded one or two pairs, the common notion was that the youth should not have any (potentially) sexual relationships. Then came The Fall, and when I spoke to members of The Youth Group in the follow-up interviews, they had quite different interpretations of what had prompted the sudden changes, but their narrations agreed upon the fact that they had been told not to have romantic relations up until that point. The relationship between Lukas and Susanna, for instance, can be understood from different perspectives. Susanna states that it was an unwritten rule that the members of The Youth Group were not to be in a relationship. She understood the couples were decided (by someone else, presumably the leadership) beforehand. Anna decided, for example, that “she (Anna) and Erik would be together”, Susanna says. She thinks two of the couples were ‘genuine’ because they were in love for real. She herself was in love with Daniel, but he rejected her. When Lukas explained that he was in love with her, he said, ‘I think God thinks we should be in a relationship’. She thought that maybe he was destined for her, if that was how he felt (Susanna Interview 2017). Lukas’s take on their relationship is that he was with Susanna because they both wanted it. Romantic relationships, it didn’t come from anyone else […] you thought that you had to be with someone who was there; Susanna and I were together for four months. It was in connection to the break-up [of the congregation]. The grown-ups said that it was ok to have relationships. (Lukas, 19, 2017)

Jimmie too formed a relationship at this time: We weren’t supposed to have romantic relationships. But a few weeks before everything happened, it became ok to have relationships. For example, Anna and Erik, it was not because someone else decided. Then … all relationships did not last. We didn’t see so many others, so it was supposed to be within the group. Sara and I have tried our relationship through God and found that it was right, we chose for ourselves. It was natural; we think we should be together. (Jimmie, 22, 2017)

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

157

Anna adds the dimension of purity as the reason for why the members of The Youth Group were not supposed to have relationships; they were supposed to be a group of friends only, as sexual relationships were seen as unclean (Anna, 23, 2018). NRMs often regulate the sexuality of the members though sanctions, rules and regulations, and the integral tendency that similar groups share towards rapid change is reflected here and will be further discussed in the concluding section of this chapter. Prior to that, the socialisation of the younger children by the youth will be presented through the example of the yearly Bible training school for kids.

Handing It Down In the congregation, the youth were often given the responsibility of taking care of the younger children. They would engage in Sunday school, and work together with, and train the children during Saturday work, and they often performed skits for them in the congregation hall. The most obvious arena for the youth to independently socialise the younger children into the faith and practices of the congregation was at the yearly summer training camp. The Bible schools for adults have been detailed in Chap. 3, where it was also highlighted that the organisation of Bible training schools was the most successful recruiting area of the congregation. I would suggest that the summer training camp for children was the most successful area for the youth to hand down their knowledge of proper conduct and Christian virtues to the children. Summer Training Camp Returning now to the summer of 2016, I managed to squeeze in a week’s visit to the congregation’s Bible training school for adults. Each summer, a Bible training school is organised, usually spanning three weeks. The set-up is simple: lectures in the morning, lunch break, and lectures again until five or six PM. Taken in and given a room with one of the families, I start out by hurrying off to listen to a teaching delivered by 14-year-old Thomas, who is giving a rather nervous but seemingly well-planned speech. There are around 40 people in the congregational hall, of whom the majority are adults. Thomas resembles a small pastor, as he stands in front of us, carefully glancing up from his paper now and then to meet the eyes of the

158 

S. NILSSON

audience. He is dressed in a smart suit, speaks with a clear voice, but the paper that he holds in his hands is trembling slightly. His parents are members of The Table, and he is just about to pass from the category of child to youth, from one group to another, and his lesson today might present an important step on the way. The adults listen and hum in agreement while he speaks. At lunchtime, I pick up my special vegetarian meal and take it with me outside to eat with the other participants. Glancing over the crowd, trying to figure out where to place myself, I see Sara waving at me. She is sitting at a table where there seems to be no space left, but as I approach, the others squeeze in to make room for me. As I pick up my fork and knife to start what appears to be a delicious piece of pie, two small girls walk past our table and giggle. “Hello Moon Paw!” they say to Sara. She answers smilingly and turns to me to explain. Unfortunately, I have missed an obviously very well-received event: the children’s training school (to which I will refer simply as the camp) the week before. It is a part of the children’s training school programme, and they spend four days outside, camping on the grounds of Jörgen and Sofia’s house. I have heard of it from several of the children who are still partly involved in the role-play of the previous week. They use the names and paraphernalia that they were designated at the camp and seem to want to hold on to the play for just a bit longer. Some of the younger girls tell me the special names that they received, and proudly show off some pearls, which they were given by the youth as a sign of their accomplishments. Sara says proudly that the camp was a success. As accounted for previously, I attended one of the meetings in 2015 in which the youth were preparing for that year’s camp, so I have a vague idea of the set-up. She refreshes my memory with the story of how Anna came up with the idea of a story revolving around twelve Indian tribes. All the children were divided into groups, symbolising the different tribes, and were given a special tribal name. The young adults organising the camp were also given tribal names. She goes on to tell me that the youth had prepared the camp by building windbreaks and that they had carved out an old earth cellar and turned it into a small shop where the children could get sweets and sodas. Each tribe was given a special shopping card, which they were to dispose of so that the sweets would last the whole four days of the camp. Each tribe was given a box of food to prepare, simple meals but they required cooperation, says Sara, pointing out that cooperation is a key concept in the context. Besides the windbreaks, the youth had also built

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

159

two outhouses and a small playground. All of this they had managed in only two weeks, and I am frankly impressed. As the camp days took place in the grounds of the family I was staying with, I had the opportunity to inspect it closely, and concluded that they must have put in a substantial amount of work to manage that in only two weeks. As we continue our lunch, Sara shows me pictures on her mobile phone, displaying youth and children engaged in different tasks: preparing food, playing and eating sweets in the sun. I have asked for a follow-up interview with The Youth Group during the week of the training school, and I am given the information that they will be able to meet with me in the afternoon. Later, when we are seated in one of the smaller rooms in the congregational hall, with ten of the members of The Youth Group present, I ask them to explain the motive and structure of the camp. They tell me that their parents had arranged similar camps for them when they were younger, and they had appreciated it. Only now, they say laughing, they know what it is like to rise early so the kids get to sleep a bit longer in the morning than they did. They are trying to make a more luxurious version, they say. The point, they tell me, is to teach the children moral values from a Christian perspective, to convey to them how to walk with God. The setting is a sci-fi inspired story of Native Americans, and Anna says that she got the inspiration partly from Japanese series and partly from the book Wolf Brothers, the first in a series of popular fantasy books written by Michelle Paver. Anna:

I don’t remember completely, but there are a lot of [stories like that] that … Lukas: That turn towards God. Anna: My imagination is most often … how can I explain this? That it’s … have you seen Narnia? That story is written in the perspective of the Bible. That’s an easy example for me to give, that’s how I reason. It’s the same with the Lord of the Rings, but that’s a bit more serious perhaps … I relate a lot of the series and fantasy books to what it could be, what reality is like. If we say … Heaven. (Anna, 21, 2016) The story which the camp is based has direct socialising components, conveying a Christian belief through the implementation of practices connected to faith and religious values. Using this narrative to create a fictional setting, socialisation through play takes place. The youth direct a

160 

S. NILSSON

performance, which is meant to advance into a routine, a behaviour among the children, which is favoured in the congregation. The frame is the camp, which encompasses rules that constrain social action and has the function of organising social experience. The youth had planned various activities for the children in which they were expected to collectively collect stones symbolising moral values such as love and humility. The importance of taking care of all, and especially younger members of a group, sticking to the group, and teamwork, were all lessons to be learned from the tasks given the children. Lukas: We played many games; they were to get a hold of this thing, in-group. Then it’s us [the leaders] who pose as evil, or good, and then it becomes like a picture of life in reality. Like stick together, don’t walk alone because then … we would chase them and wrestle them to the ground (laughs), so it’s like, keep together instead, then you’re stronger together! If you stick together and are humble and small when you ask for clues, then you’re going to get answers. And that’s how the camp is composed. Or really, it is a picture, but I don’t think they understood it from the beginning, of what it is like to walk with God. Walking with God represents following the right path. The decree to stick together can be seen as an expression of the saying “together we are stronger.” It can also be viewed in the light of a stigmatised minority group whose survival depends on the loyalty of the team members. The practice of forming a social group identity, a united front, is the goal. In the camp setting, the youth become actors, directors, and audience as they interact and observe the behaviour of the children. The individual children learn how to fill their social roles as humble Christians targeted from outside, as discreditables, although not put in those words. Their performance is judged, corrected, and ultimately rewarded by the youth leaders. Anna explains how she understands individual praise and says that there are always some children who stand out for being especially well-­ versed in moral skills, and that she feels this should be rewarded. Some have special qualities, she says, and the others agree to this. Each day the children would collect different stones by behaving in accordance with different virtues.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

Lukas:

Anna:

Susanna: Anna: Fredrik:

Sanja: Sara:

161

But then, Anna, what you also did was to, as a part of this was to, you had different stones for each day. That represented different things, for instance, humility, love … all of this. And they got them every day, Anna and Hans decided which ones … distinguished… It wasn’t that we distinguished them; it was how they were, some children really show that they distinguish themselves … I think that is worth giving attention to; otherwise, they will never understand that what they did then was very good. That it means something. And … if everyone were to get [the stones], then the other children might not mind how they act and know that they will get a stone anyway. Then they will never … grow. Just an interjection. Today I met Alex, one of the children from the camp. What does he take out to show me, what is he wearing? His necklace. It is the most important thing he has […] What about the children that don’t manage to stand out as “goodies”? We have 40 children and 20 leaders, so there is one leader for every two children. They all experience appreciation and love, and the ones who need it more get a greater share.

Anna says that they have been experimenting with different set-ups: Anna:

Last year, at the camp, we made sure that everyone got a diploma for something. But if we had continued like that this year, they would have … they would have stopped caring about how they act. It’s much better that they have something to look forward to and [think] “I also want to be like that!”. Then they work for it instead.

Lukas draws a parallel to the school system, which he criticises: There, everyone is to be the same, all the time. I think that is wrong. Because, while growing up, I was told that my sister, when she did something, she did the right thing. Then maybe I didn’t do the right thing in that [same action]. But I was told so and I learnt that ok, I shouldn’t do as I did. And it is not like (makes a gesture and a sound)

162 

S. NILSSON

Sanja: Curling? Lukas: Exactly. You understand, ok I did wrong there. And she got praise here. I can find that frustrating, but she deserves the praise, why should I get praise for something that I haven’t done [right]? Sanja: Do the rest of you recognise this from your upbringing, that you have got something when it has been your turn? Susanna: I recognise it most from your mother [points at another youth], and the training school. She could raise it in class, like “You are so good at arranging flowers”, that it was given attention. Then you feel so happy. Or like “You always make good coffee”. Giving attention instead of … then you get motivated, either “Yes, I want to make more nice flowers” or “I also want to do that”. That you don’t feel bad. It’s not something oppressive, only uplifting. That’s very motivating. Fredrik: It’s not like in school, where you would bully the one who doesn’t get anything. Sanja: Mm, that’s my spontaneous reaction when you talked about this. How do the others feel? Fredrik: It doesn’t quite work that way. Even if a person doesn’t get a necklace from the camp, we see to it that there is love for that person anyway; it’s not as if that person is left with nothing. It’s more like I mean, not everyone gets presents when it is one person’s birthday. Then we help each other out so that everyone gets attention, like “You, you are good at sewing curtains” (laughs), I can’t think of an example but … you must be able to encourage others

Anna illustrates Fredrik’s line of thinking and explains through the example of two older girls who were in a tent with two younger ones, and only one of the older girls ended up tending to the younger girls, while the other older girl complained about the task. Anna: It would be strange if they both received the same amount of praise, wouldn’t it? That is not what life is like in reality. Sara: Yes, you get a kick out of the praise, it is not destructive. And they all got something in the end. But it is also about learning to be happy for other people when they succeed. (Youth Group 2016)

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

163

The others hum in agreement. The way they use rewards is worth commenting on. The way that they relate to being rewarded for good behaviour and comradery resembles how the adults have conveyed their appreciation of Waldau: that she sees and points out individual traits in people, making them feel seen and appreciated. One can see it as a socialisation pattern, but as the youth are active agents, they have not simply copied the pattern of the adults but developed it and made their own version of it. However, the youth agree that their way of reasoning is inspired by Waldau’s example. By contemplating this further, I see that this points to some other important norms within the congregation: for instance, being happy for other people when they succeed. Lukas’s example of how Anna would get praise for something that he would not receive praise for is particularly interesting. This points to the ambivalence and the individual character of praise and punishment. As was discussed previously, the spiritual shunning seemed sometimes ambiguous, with vague clues as to what transgression had been made. The same is illustrated by Lukas; an action could be wrong for one person and right for another. Weber points to this ambiguity in charismatic groups as revolutionary, there are no set rules and regulations resting on old traditions; as such, it is not always possible to foresee the outcome of one’s actions (Weber 1978, p. 227).

Reflections on Power Structures Within The Youth Group According to Van Eck Duymaer van Twist (2015), parents and leaders in NRMs tend to create a situation in which they can control the socialisation of the young in an effort to keep them from what they consider to be negative peer influences (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p.  31). Handel (2006) points out the significance of the socialising aspects of peer groups, highlighting the child’s active role in the institution of rules in the peer group. While socialisation can be seen to be made up, at least partly, of the transmission of set rules and regulations guarding behaviour in school or in the family, the rules of the peer group are negotiated among the members of the group through social interaction. Generally, a peer group offers an alternative to adult standards. In the case of The Youth Group in Knutby Filadelfia, we can see that the autonomy of The Youth Group is sometimes challenged by the adults’ interference in its

164 

S. NILSSON

construction and practice—for instance, in the cases of Erik and Susanna, where they felt forced against their will to socialise with the leaders’ children. At other times, they are free to construct their own social world, as with the camp. Inside the System Goffman states that when a person enters a total institution, the amount of their autonomy decreases. The consequences for the children and youth of the parents’ reactions to the process, which Goffman refers to as adaptation alignments, vary. Susanna conveys how she felt trapped. Her parents’ authority had decreased, and their mode of adaptation can be described as the conversion mode. Whether due to the experience of being marked as wrong or other contributing variables, Susanna’s recollection of her parents’ strategies in the group add up to a striving for perfection, trying to control and modify their behaviour to fit in with the demands given by the leadership. Susanna found herself in a position where her status was higher than that of her parents and in which the parents’ situation as wrong was enforced in The Youth Group. Still, she did not disobey their encouragement to stay on The Hill, although she states that she did initially contradict the decree that she should keep herself to the other youth of the congregation when in school. Susanna’s recollection of her years at The Hill bear much resemblance to what Bromley et al. (1979) called atrocity tales and to what Beckford (1985) referred to as negative summary events. After her defection from the congregation, she could not point to anything positive at all when accounting for her time in the congregation. Even being singled out to go on a vacation, something not granted to everyone, is portrayed from the negative aspect of the experience: the perceived involuntariness. She feels that she succumbed when she received no support from her parents. Similar accounts can be found other groups (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015). Feeling trapped in a system with no support from parents or other adults, Susanna states that she assimilated and resigned. Jonas, as opposed to Susanna, found that assuming a role in which he was self-confident and not ready to back down under pressure resulted in him not having to spend the night away from home. There are at least two significant variables that differ in Susanna’s and Jonas’s situations which may explain their different approaches to the same problem. While Susanna had been

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

165

a resident in Knutby from the time she was still in playschool, Jonas had only moved to Knutby as a young adult. Therefore, Susanna’s social identity had been moulded by years of experiences of charismatic authority, which even, to some extent, exceeded her parents’ authority. She was also fairly young when she moved up to The Hill, about 16. Had she wanted to contradict the will of her parents, she could have done so, but it would most probably have taken the effort of turning to adults outside of the group for help. And while her statements in the interview from 2014 might seem in retrospect to contradict her later understanding of the situation, she does state how she tried to come to terms with the situation. She tried to adjust. Jonas, on the other hand, had had the experience of a life outside the commune and was used to making his own decisions. He had, for a short period, experienced living away from home and fending for himself. The Perfect Kids The empirical data presented in this chapter has pointed to a view on the leaders’ children as being especially singled out by the other youth as leaders, whose positions in The Youth Group have provided them with power over their peers. Interestingly, they describe these positions as equally entrapping. Anna, who seemed to possess a high rank in the group, in retrospect expresses a feeling of being trapped inside a system she did not fully comprehend. Goffman would describe Anna’s position as role strain. She mentions struggling with self-harm for some years, and generally expresses an ambivalent situation in which she felt that she was simultaneously lifted up as a role model while at the same time being repressed by some of The Table adults, and teachers and peers at school. The lack of belief in the role assigned to her points to a cynical approach, which Goffman described as follows: When the individual has no belief in his own act and no ultimate concern with the belief of his audience, we call him cynical, reserving the term sincere for individuals who believe in the impression fostered by their own performance. It should be understood that the cynic, with all his professional disengagement, might obtain unprofessional pleasures from his masquerade, experiencing a kind of gleeful spiritual aggression from the fact that he can toy at will with something that his audience must take seriously. (Goffman 1959, p. 28)

166 

S. NILSSON

Whether unprofessional pleasures as described here by Goffman were obtained is not deductible from the empirical data, but I would suggest that the rude behaviour that Anna attributes to the fact that she was given a role with which she was not comfortable, applies here. The lack of belief in the role as a leader obviously posed a problem for her, especially since the way that she was able to make sense of the situation did not theologically add up for her, something that she handled by re-framing her primary framework in a fantasy-inspired understanding of the demands and situations she found herself in. Interestingly, the fantasy-world, which offered a comprehensive frame for Anna, was reused in the socialisation process at the training camps for the younger generations as a means of explaining moral values. Lukas, on the other hand, expressed a more sincere approach to his role as a leader. He believed in the role and acted according to what he understood was required from a person in his position. In retrospect he reflects on the results but does not express any role strain similar to Anna’s. As with Anna’s recollection of herself as being presented as a role model for the other youth, while at the same time being scolded by adults for being demonic, Maria’s account of herself acting both as a role model in a positive sense and as an example of a failed member of The Youth Group points to the complexity and dynamics in role positions for the young in the inner circle of the congregation. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist makes a distinction between goodies, rebels, and baddies within the second generations in NRMs. The goodies are young members who are seen as faithful to the group—pure and driven, described as “children and rebels; young members who adapt to their surrounding culture and learn to operate within it” (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p. 108). The rebels are defined as members who, to the extent possible within a certain group, transgress moral codes and break rules. They question the theology and practice of the group, and often challenge the older generation, which sometimes ultimately leads to changes within the group. The term baddies is reserved for the young members who are critical but who fail to come to terms with their rebellion and end up leaving the group, either voluntarily or by exclusion. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist highlights how different groups have different levels of acceptance of rebellion; in some, rebellion is understood as temporary and sanctions can be made and adjustments made to come to terms with

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

167

the behaviour, while in other groups, rebellion is simply not acceptable (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p. 111). The categories thus convey the attitude of the individual member, but categorisations made on grounds of, for instance, bloodline can also play a part in the roles given to a certain young member. For example, in the Unification Church, where the distinction between being a blessed child and an unblessed child significantly affected the perceived spirituality of the child. Children who had been born to parents whose marriage had been blessed by the leader of the group, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, were seen to have a purified bloodline, while children born outside the group, whose parents had joined only after their birth, were understood to be less worthy (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p.  111). Unblessed children were excluded from certain religious activities, and this left some of them feeling inferior and inadequate (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p. 143). While there was no exact similar theological understanding, a more vague interpretation of the children of the leaders as special, or especially blessed if you will, was in place in the higher levels of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. Within the Unification Church, a distinction between hard-­ core blessed children and ordinary blessed children was made based on the attitude and activities: The hard-core blessed children are activists for the movement; they strive for purity according to UC standards, apply peer pressure to their contemporaries to conform, and are leaders within the UC youth movement. (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p. 109)

As mentioned, Van Eck Duymaer van Twist suggests that the definition of goodies differs within different movements. The categorisation is not transferrable to The Youth Group, as none of them left the congregation prior to 2016, but we might discuss their positions using Van Eck Duymaer van Twist’s terminology in a slightly different matter. Although some of the leaders’ children could be suppressed by adult members, they apparently could not occupy the baddie position in relation to their peers. The remaining group members were constantly subjected to being labelled rebels whenever they failed to act according to the current standard expected from them. As none of them did leave, the baddie category can only be applied as an understanding of the temporary sanction executed in

168 

S. NILSSON

the form of exclusion when a rebel failed to adapt quickly enough.14 The shunning, temporarily or more extensively, of baddies within other similar groups shows that this expression of power not only aims to force a member to act in a certain way, but it also serves as a warning example to the rest of the group. The Youth and The Adults In this chapter, I have aimed to put together the bits and pieces of the intricate web of relations within The Youth Group from the perspectives given before and after The Fall in 2016. In 2018, adult former members of the congregation spoke out in a documentary, detailing their previous existence mainly in the core group closest to the leadership, criticising Waldau and Fält for implementing harsh (sometimes physical) discipline and rigid rules for the members. While I heard only one rumour of a physical attack among the members of The Youth Group, the structure regarding rules of conduct and expected behaviour for the members according to their current positions within the group shares some resemblance with the adult core group. For instance, living on The Hill appears to have been desirable. Ville, Bosse, Anna, Lukas, Sara, Thomas, Petra, and Daniella were permanent residents. Ville and Bosse, who were slightly older than the rest of the youth, had both refurnished parts of their parents’ house and had made them into independent flats so that they could have their own living space without having to leave The Hill. The sleepovers mentioned by the youth were framed in such a way that they resembled temporary get-togethers by some. Both Susanna and Jonas refer to the sleepovers as a request rather than the result of a common desire, similar to the accounts given by female members of The Table that they would be ordered to sleep at a certain place other than at home. The threat of not being saved for failing to keep close to the leaders’ children is a direct reflection of the consequences of the adults who were 14  The absence of “baddies” in this material is connected to the selection process. A young person described in the TV documentary in 2018 how she had broken rules by associating with peers outside the congregation. She was in the shunned position for years, and only rarely allowed to be part of the activities of the youth group. With The Fall, several of my interviewees conveyed her story, because she had attempted suicide while still in the congregation, something which she confirmed in the documentary. Three of my informants 2017–2018 mentioned how they had themselves struggled with suicidal thoughts.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

169

wrong, in depth or who otherwise failed to keep close to Waldau. The idealisation of the leaders spilled over to the members’ children, in effect positioning them as leaders regardless of their own wishes to fulfil such positions. The adults frequently referred to Waldau as their friend, as someone who had inspired them, and tried to downplay her theological significance as a charismatic leader, but failed to convey the notion of her as an inspiration with next to no real power, especially in situations as described in Chap. 4 regarding the serving women at the dinner interview. The Youth Group was more successful in exhibiting a routine within which the concealment of the distribution of power within that group was harder to detect. This might have been connected to the of idealisation and lack of mystification connected to the leaders’ children. They were seen as role models, and were spiritually thought to stand closer to God, but they lacked the amount of distance to the remaining levels of members which had characterised at least Waldau’s relations since 2008. In retrospect, many of the members of The Youth Group reframed their friendships as being constructed by the leaders, implying that the adults (leaders and to some extent parents) had encouraged their friendships and signalled that the privilege of being close to the leaders’ children was not possible turned down. One important difference here is that while it seems that most adults in the congregation wished to be close to the leaders and exclusively understood each chance at such a position as desirable, some of the younger members initially protested the construction, or at least exclusiveness, of their demanded friendships. Erik, for instance, was given the same incitements: that Lukas was his only way to God; still, he initially questioned this statement. The construction of The Youth Group and the friendships is in retrospect partly portrayed as following the initiatives of some of its members, such as Lukas’s interest in Benjamin and Fredrik, but also as being dictated by the adults. The constant involvement of the adults in the relationships between the youth is worth noticing. It may suffice to say that the dramaturgical discipline within The Youth Group emerged partly out of an understanding of this as the only possible way rather than as the predominant result of a dehumanising view on outsiders, as Goffman puts it. Most parents have some opinion of their teenagers’ friends, and dread the thought of their offspring hanging out with “bad company”. Bad company in the circle around Waldau meant outsiders. For the youth, bad company was their peers in school (and temporarily the shunned), but this was an image not easily accepted by all of them. They were ordered to keep in each other’s

170 

S. NILSSON

company, especially in the cases where two or more of them were in the same class. When the youth ventured too far from the circle—for example, in what Susanna termed girl quarrels—they were seated with the adults who would help them solve the problem. The solution to the problem was to stick together. It is interesting to notice how Susanna in 2014 states how they got help from the leaders to deal with the conflicts, while she in 2017 interprets the involvement of the adults as oppression. The shift is the result of a change in loyalties. The former team had broken up. But the loyalty does not simply imply loyalty to fellow members, but to the routine, the performance, and the narrative. I will discuss this in more depth in Chap. 8. When it comes to the practice of shunning, The Youth Group followed in the footsteps of The Table. The routine that is described by Susanna when she refers to the group interviews hints at the complexity of the social interaction. Due to the web of relations, which was constantly up for negotiation, the actors performed a routine where pages of their manuscript were missing. They were all aware of their positions in relation to the audience but as their in-group positions were constantly subjected to the risk of going from being goodies to rebels, with the threat of temporary exclusion (or eternal damnation for that matter) if they did not manage to conform, the anguish of uncertainty is a recurrent theme in narratives on The Youth Group after The Fall. The formation of a common group identity took place at different levels within the congregation prior to The Fall. The group identity of The Youth Group was partly influenced directly and through idealising performances of the adults at The Table. Similarly, the next step in conveying the moral values of the congregation was to impart it on the broader population of children through socialisation. Because these children were predominantly children of members of the third and fourth levels in the congregation, the theologically esoteric doctrine of the Bride of Christ and Jesus’s imminent appearance in Knutby was not conveyed. The training camp for the younger children functioned instead as a socialisation platform, where common traditional Christian virtues were taught. As the concept of walking with God was frequently used, walking with the group, not straying on one’s own, served as an extension of the portrayal of the right path. The formation of a collective social identity requires, of course, insight into what qualifications are requested, as well as what behaviour or traits do not allow a person to qualify as a part of the group.

5  THE YOUTH GROUP 

171

References Beckford, J.  A. (1985), Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements. London: Tavistock. Bromley, D. G., A. D. Shupe, Jr., and J. C. Ventimiglia (1979), ‘Atrocity Tales, the Unification Church, and the Social Construction of Evil’, Journal of Communication 29:3, pp. 42–53. Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Handel, G. (2006), Childhood Socialization. 2nd ed. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Nilsson, S. (2011), Rebooting the Family: Organizational Change in the Family International. International Journal for the Study of New Religions 2, pp. 157–178. Robèrt, R. (2012a), ‘Olika synsätt på Knytbyhaveriet’, Magasinet Paragraf, 7 June, https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/nyheter/kronikor/42805-olika-syns-ttpaknut-byhaveriet/, accessed 2019-01-17. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2015), Perfect Children: Growing Up on the Religious Fringe. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

CHAPTER 6

Outsiders

Relating to Outsiders A characterising feature of NRMs is that they tend to engage in a dichotomous worldview where members are separated from non-members. Family members and friends who criticise a loved one’s membership may find themselves cut off and sometimes publicly slandered. Some try to avoid this by abstaining from voicing their criticism and some family and friends are just genuinely positive to their loved one’s conversion. In the case of Knutby Filadelfia, one parent has been particularly outspoken in her criticism against the congregation that two of her children decided to join. She stated publicly in a debate article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter in 2007 that Waldau had such authority that family members on the outside had only two options: keep your criticism to yourself or lose contact with your children and grandchildren. An enraged Waldau dismissed these accusations in a morning show, and the two siblings countered their mother’s claims with an article of their own, stating that “Åsa is our friend and she does not control our lives”. The formulation of the article makes me recall the two servants at Waldau’s house, who similarly presented themselves as friends but acted as disciples or servants. This particular case

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_6

173

174 

S. NILSSON

subsequently involved a custody battle which is described by Essén (2008).1 After The Fall, the two siblings defected, relocated, and reunited with their mother. Westman states in TV interviews from 2017 that she had been advised not to criticise Waldau, and that keeping the contact with her children should be the priority. However, she did criticise Waldau as she argued that keeping contact was only a matter of superficial connection, stating that her children were like empty shells and that she could not get through to them. Westman’s case illustrates the strained relationship between the congregation and society, which includes everyone outside the congregation. Goffman states that the severing of contact with critical outsiders constitutes one part of what he calls the mortification of the self, a process in which the member joining a group transit from the role of outsider to that of the insider. Goffman’s examples are taken from prisons and mental asylums, where the process of mortification is easily discerned. The inmate is stripped of clothes and given others; his fingerprints are taken; he must hand over all his private possessions. None of these practical rituals applies for the conversion to the congregation, but I would argue that the requirement of transformation of one’s social identity upon joining represents a form of mortification, a killing of (at least parts of) the former self. Goffman states that in the process of mortification, the autonomy of the individual decreases and communication with the outside world is limited, and in some cases altogether prohibited (Goffman 1963), which does apply to the example above. The goal of the process of mortification in Goffman’s examples is to strip the individual of his identity, his civil self, is to standardise the individual into an administrative unit, which by this can be effectively controlled. The mortification process within the congregation has a similar goal, and the unit (convert) it only possible to administrate and control if ties to critical persons are severed. A substantial difference is that the decision to join the congregation was voluntary. After The Fall, some of the adult members took up contact with estranged family members whom they had avoided for years and reconciled, as in the example  Essén writes that one of the children was found to suffer from a condition termed failure to thrive (Essén 2008, p. 49). After a complaint of child abuse from the Save the Children’s fund in Uppsala in 2006, which was preceded by the member’s refusal to return the children to their mother, the court ruled that the evidence was not enough to convict the father of child abuse (Essén 2008, p. 52). 1

6 OUTSIDERS 

175

given at the beginning of this chapter. Others found that family members who had been ostracised were now enraged by the members’ defections as they felt that they had been right the whole time, and that the members should have listened to their families in the first place and not joined the congregation. When I visited the congregation prior to The Fall, several of the adult members spoke of the nature of their current relationships with family members outside the group, and many were problematic, but there were also relations conversion was accepted. While the adult converts dealt with the tensions in a variety of ways—from not discussing the topic at all when meeting with family members, to cutting all contact with family and friends outside the congregation—the children and youth in the congregation had their own experiences and ways of dealing with the identification of themselves as insiders, a position they had not actively chosen. This chapter covers the presentations of relations with outsiders prior to The Fall and explores the views on so-called defectors, former members who decided to leave the congregation. Lastly, the understanding of a shared tribal stigma due to religious affinity as placed on the group by the public after 2004 is highlighted.

Family Members on the Outside First Generation One day during training school in the summer of 2016, I happen to sit by some men from the high-ranking levels in the congregation whom I have not really had the chance to talk to before. We sit outside in the sun, and I am a bit uncomfortable as I know only one of them and I have had the distinct feeling that the others have tried to keep their distance from me throughout my observations. It is lunch break after a class which I have not fully understood the point of. One of the pastors told a story about how Waldau had sent him greeting cards without signing them over the course of about two weeks. The texts on the cards read something like “this is the first, this is the second”. The pastor had been wondering who was trying to make fun of him, even expressing a bit of anxiousness, but when he realised that it was Waldau, he stated how he was relieved. “That’s the way Åsa is” was his conclusion. Though trying as hard as I could, it was impossible for

176 

S. NILSSON

me to get the point of the story. As I was still under the impression that she was more or less locked inside her house due to the world’s harassment of her as soon as she went out, I found it more tragic than funny or moralising. Was a person sitting at home, sending her neighbours anonymous greeting cards with cryptic messages for weeks before revealing who had sent them? Still pondering what I was missing, I took a big bite of my salad only to realise that one of the men had turned towards me and asked me something. Desperately chewing so that I could ask him to repeat the question, I felt a bit stupid. I knew this person was not just any member but was in fact a member of The Table, and now that he had decided to give me of his time, I seized the opportunity. Anders has dark hair and blue eyes, a boyish gaze of uncertainty despite his position in the group. I find it challenging to think that this person could intimidate anyone; still, that is exactly what has been said about him by defectors and critics. I answer his question about my project and try as best I can to explain why I have an interest in the young members of the group. Realising very soon that everyone else at the table has stopped talking and is listening to our conversation, I change focus and ask him what led him to the congregation. He tells a story of an ordinary person with a mundane job, faith in God and a longing for a deeper truth, a more authentic way to live. Anders gives an extremely sensitive impression, reminding me of how I reflected on Waldau’s vulnerability at the time of the sevenhour interview described in Chap. 2. When he speaks of helping others find God, his eyes fill with tears and his voice trembles. He tells me that his father-in-law recently, after years of personal criticism of his daughter’s choice of husband and their lifestyle within the congregation, had asked for forgiveness, saying that he could see for himself that they were really happy, and that his grandchildren were as well. Then, another first-generation member, Björn, recounts how his parents-in-law were disappointed when he and his wife decided to marry in the village of Knutby in 2004. The parents-in-law wanted them to marry at another place, as they felt that because of the media coverage, they did not want to come to the village of Knutby. But Björn and his wife insisted that the wedding be held in Knutby, and so her parents chose not to attend the wedding. Jörgen, whom I have gotten to know a bit by now, joins the conversation and recounts how he and his wife were disappointed that some of their former friends would not visit after 2004. They feared that the food might be poisoned, he says. His mother supported their move to Knutby, while

6 OUTSIDERS 

177

his wife’s parents and siblings initially reacted with anger and tears, only to later put the lid on the conflict and never mention it again. These anecdotes all illustrate the three approaches to outsiders suggested in 7.1 and revolve around how others have reacted to the adults’ conversion. Regarding the children and youth, most did not convert (except Jonas and Jimmie) but were brought up in the congregation and socialised into the reality of belonging to a stigmatised religious group from an early age. Jonas and Jimmie Jonas and Jimmie are brothers, the only two members of The Youth Group who have not grown up in Knutby. I gather bits and pieces of their history by talking to them, talking to their mother, listening to others referring to their history, and reading and re-reading the interview conducted with Jonas in 2014 (no interview was conducted with Jimmie in 2014). Jonas speaks about his parents’ divorce, when he and his brother were still very young. After the divorce, their father was granted custody of them. Mum has always been very eager in her search for God. She went to meetings and was involved in various congregations […], but she never quite found anything [he is referring to her spiritual search]. But then Katarina and Knut were also in the [mentions the name of the city] Pentecostal Church. They had seen advertisements for Knutby Filadelfia Bible School. I think it was both in the summer and autumn. It lasted longer than [the Bible School]. And they found it to be so good that they recommended it to Mum […]. They didn’t know each other that much but were members of the same church. Anyway, she went there to try it out […] she came back every year, and so she asked God, she felt that there was something special about this place. She asked if she should move here, and since then she has been living here and we have since travelled between our father and her. (Jonas, 21, 2014)

Jonas describes their childhood: living with their father on weekdays and commuting one hour each weekend to be with their mother. They had accompanied their mother on visits to Knutby for several years before she finally decided to relocate to live with the congregation. Jonas also felt that there was something special about Knutby; he liked the place. Their father, however, was not as thrilled. In the summer following the murder in 2004, he did not want his sons to visit the congregation, and consequently, they

178 

S. NILSSON

did not. However, one year later, their mother decided to move to Knutby and wanted them to come visit, which they did. Jonas says that their father has been sceptical towards the congregation up until recently. He ponders their father’s ambivalent approach to the fact that his sons decided to follow their mother’s example, joining the congregation: I think it’s funny, because among the first things that my father said when he met me after I moved here was, ‘Wow, I notice how much happier and healthier you are, I can see that you are alive and well’. ‘Do you want to come visit here?’ [Jonas asked]. ‘No’. (Jonas, 21, 2014)

While Jonas’s father could appreciate the positive effect of his decision to move into and join the congregation, he still did not wish to visit, which suggests that the response was one of mixed emotions. Sara Sara, whose maternal grandparents did visit occasionally, pointed out that the concept of family could be extended to the congregation. She related how she had only scarce contact with her paternal grandparents due to differences in opinion between them and her father. Sara: So on Dad’s side … we don’t have much contact and they live in [name of the town] I think now … I haven’t actually met them for several years, but they … well, after 2004. The relationship between Dad and them was not so good because we had some different opinions … or they did. So we have not had much contact with them and they have not wanted to come here […]. (Sara, 17, 2014) Sara says that she did meet her maternal grandparents, who were due to visit shortly. Still, she said, she did not feel that she was missing anything as she had several people in the convgregation who acted as role models and who felt like true family to her. I still feel that we are living here in the congregation, and I have so many [adults] that I can look up to and many people who feel like relatives, so I don’t have a need to talk to Grandmother and Grandpa. But I still have some contact with them on SMS […] But I’m not missing out on anything. I have what I need. It’s sad that they don’t have the same opinions, but it is as it is

6 OUTSIDERS 

179

(laughter) […] But I have contact with my cousins. On my mother’s side, I also have many cousins, so we have contact with the family and so on. So that’s nice. (Sara, 17, 2014)

Sara highlights the difference in opinion, putting emphasis on the first quote of the grandparents as being the ones who deviate in opinion and in the second quote stating that it is sad, but she seems to shrug it off as a fact of life. Essén’s interviewee Lisa refers to a system of adult sponsors who helped foster the children (Essén 2008, p. 37)—a system some of my interviewees reflected on as being positive although they did not explicitly describe this in detail but seemed to mean that each youth had an adult outside of the family to whom he or she could go to seek advice and talk. However, the system of adult sponsors appears closely connected to Sara’s encompassing of adults outside her biological family into the concept of family. Anna During the time of the study, I seldom heard about defectors: the congregation had a high rate of retained members. However, there were a few cases brought to my attention. When Liselotte interviewed Anna in 2014, her grandparents had just then left the congregation and moved to another city, although they had long been members of the congregation. The rumour outside of the congregation at the time was that they were discontent with the position Waldau had been given in the group. This was never clearly confirmed until after The Fall. Liselotte: I heard your grandparents left. What do you think of that? Anna: I have respect for them. What they want to do. I miss them. But … I have not been very involved in it. I wish they had stayed. I grew up with them. But I think they believe in the Trinity. That’s how I found out [about the Trinity]. But I respect that they have moved on. Liselotte: Wouldn’t it be possible for you to go see them? Anna: Yes. I could do that. Liselotte: But you don’t? Anna: I have no driver’s licence.

180 

S. NILSSON

Liselotte: But just take a train? Anna: I’ll probably do that. Anna goes on to explain that school is currently taking up a lot of her time, hinting that she might not be able to pass her courses and that she is waiting for the results. Liselotte: But you see no obstacle in going to see them? Anna: No, not at all. I could do so anytime. It’s only a matter of a lack of time. They live quite far away. It’s just that. But I never go see my maternal grandmother in [name of the town] either. I go there maybe a few times a year. It’s not because I don’t want to meet her, I do. It’s only the question of time. It’s the distance. Liselotte: You don’t feel that they have left God now, so you shouldn’t spend time with them? Anna: No, my maternal grandmother is not very Christian. My aunt and grandmother have nothing to do with it [referring to the faith]. No, I have no problem at all with people who don’t believe in God. You might not think so, if you consider it to be a cult here. Really, I’d almost prefer hanging out with non-­ religious people. Liselotte: Why? Anna: I don’t know … it is so one-sided otherwise. I don’t like one-­ sidedness. And I would never want to force someone to believe in God either. They do as they want and I do as I want and you don’t have to interfere in someone else’s life. And that’s what I’m most frustrated about in school: why can’t they accept me if I accept them? Because you talk about equality and everything, and that everyone is allowed to think and feel as they please. For me, it doesn’t feel like you can. Not when you get to school. Being Christian is wrong according to other people. (Anna, 19, 2014) Anna’s accounts of the defection of her grandparents presents the divide between member and defector, and how she, although not getting involved or taking sides in the issue, was still affected. She missed her grandparents. When contemplating the presentation of relations to family members so far, we need to keep in mind in what way the conflicts differ from other

6 OUTSIDERS 

181

conflicts within families. The severing of bonds between family members do affect children and youth in society, and not being able to meet with one’s family due to conflicts is not that uncommon. Here, however, there is a difference which none of the interviewee’s mentions: that the severing of bonds does not only concern the relations in this life, but in the afterlife as well. They would not be let in heaven.

Defectors Not only relationships with family members outside the group were affected by the sharp boundaries between members and non-members. It appeared that contact with former members who had defected was potentially similarly altered. While you were free to leave at any time, you could not count on the former friendships lasting. Lukas and Ville We asked the youth in the interviews to reflect on what happens if one decides to leave. As there had been proportionately few defectors, the question was posed hypothetically to explore an attitude rather than an actual event. Both Lukas and Ville were interviewed by Liselotte in 2014. Lukas makes an interesting distinction between the congregation and the leaders, suggesting that defection may be understood not only as a collective but also as a personal offence against the leaders of the congregation. Liselotte: But suppose you would like to leave Knutby Filadelfia as a member and don’t want to live here. Do you mean it would necessarily be to go against God? Lukas: Yes. Not against Knutby Filadelfia but against the leaders (Lukas, 16, 2014). The personal aspect of defection recurs in Ville’s reflection on his brother Bosse’s hypothetical defection from the congregation: Liselotte:

If your brother leaves Knutby Filadelfia, and you have talked to him, but he wants to leave, would you continue to see him? Ville: Yes. Liselotte: Beyond sending Christmas cards?

182 

Ville:

S. NILSSON

It would very painful. He would say that he chose to leave me. It would be difficult to meet with him. But because I love him so terribly much, I would have difficulties not to. But I would not be able to sit down and have dinner with him as if everything was fine. Because he said he didn’t want to be with me. I choose to go my way. Based on that, it would be very hard. But it’s the same if you’re very engaged in a football club. It has nothing to do with God. But that he turns his back on me. I would find that very difficult. Not because he is not in the congregation but because he is turning his back on me. That he chooses to betray what we stood for. (Ville, 22, 2014)

Lukas reasons that defection from the group would affect his relations with the leaders, but not with the congregation. The division between leaders and congregation can be understood to mean the leaders either as in the pastors, or as in The Table. There has been an understanding in the group around The Table that the congregation (as level of engagement) was in part responsible for letting Waldau down. Waldau confirms this perspective in the interview from 2014. She states that she was questioned by the members of the congregation after 2004 because she had been close to Helge Fossmo. She said that she would love to sing and preach but that she cannot because the congregational members have not understood and valued all the work that she did to keep the congregation intact after 2004 (Åsa Waldau Interview 2014). The persecution narrative detailed in Chap. 4 is recurrent in relation to defectors. The Youth Group The divide between The Table and The Youth Group on the one side, and The Initiated and The Congregation on the other is confirmed in my interview with The Youth Group in 2015. Both Lukas and Ville disconnect God from the problem with defection and downplay the importance of the congregation. In Ville’s case, the emphasis on betrayal of a common faith is interesting. The hypothetical defection from the faith equalled a personal betrayal for him. The theme of betrayal and deceit re-emerges in the group interviews as well. Regarding defectors, and their relations with them, The Youth Group reasons in 2015 as follows:

6 OUTSIDERS 

183

Sanja:

[…] you can decide that you don’t want to live here, but you can still come visit …? But if you are more critical or rude …? Lukas: Many who have left are people who have hurt us in many ways. If you don’t want a relationship with us, why should we have a relationship with you? You have after all chosen not to have a relationship with us. It is not logical. Fredrik: It has nothing to do with this place; it is like that in all relationships. If someone is angry with you and does something that you disagree with … those who have left wanted to leave, they left by their own will, it’s not that we have … Daniella: These defectors, they actually prove that you can’t be held here [against your will]. If this was a cult, they would not have been able to leave […]. Sanja: But if you don’t agree, and you are not rude, what is it like then? Lukas: There’s so much focus on this, everyone can do and think what they want. But if you are in a congregation, then you should share the same belief. It’s strange if you don’t feel the same way. Then go elsewhere, it’s up to you. Anna: You may feel hurt that this person doesn’t want contact anymore. Not because they don’t believe. (Youth Group Interview 2015) The emphasis is on the broken relation, but the take on it varies among the youth. Daniella interprets the criticism of the congregation by outsiders to literally mean that people are not free to leave. Fredrik points to the anger coming from the disgruntled former members. Lukas is sharper in his judgement, emphasising the collective hurt which the defectors are guilty of causing. The reasoning echoes the narrative of stigma presented in connection to the charismatic leaders in Chap. 2—the blame for the break in the relationship is put on the defector. Benjamin The comparison that Ville makes to the defection from a football team recurs in the interview with Benjamin in 2014, who explains that although there are some members who have left the congregation, he believes that it is hard to give up on faith once you have come to know God. Asked if he can still retain a relationship with someone who has left, he states:

184 

S. NILSSON

No … you’re still nice to them, and I can’t say ‘You’re so bad, why did you leave?’ Or I can say ‘Come back, this is life’. You must make sure they listen, but if they don’t want to listen, what can you do? Then they can live [elsewhere] I can be nice, but we can’t hang out, we can’t hang out unless we want to go in the same direction […] If you just get to know someone, you can be friends with them, but if you have something that you believe in, a common faith like we believe in this, I believe this and he does too, and then he backs from that … it’s like […] we run together but then he starts running backwards and I need to get to the goal […] We are like a football team and if the team doesn’t want the same thing, then we can’t play […] If the other one wants to kick the ball to the side or even scores an own goal, then we can’t be in the team, it doesn’t work. (Benjamin Interview 2014)

Benjamin first says that he is a bit cautious about talking about whether he has any deeper relations outside the congregation, but then says that he does not. He refers to it as a matter of realisation; to have a close relationship you must share realisations, as well as goals, he says. He appears to distinguish between some form of ordinary friendships, which he mentions initially, and deeper friendships, such as where there must be a common ground (be it faith or football) and a common goal to work towards. When a player loses sight of the goal, he cannot be kept on the team, he says. This attitude I find illustrates and reflects the general view among the youth. The Children Among the children, it seemed to be more common to assume that no one ever left the congregation. I asked Klara if anyone ever says that they want to leave or move away from the congregation, and she responded that she did not think so (Klara, 7, 2014). Oscar and Kevin shared her impression (Oscar, 7, 2014; Kevin, 9, 2014). Karl on the other hand reflected on defectors and said that he thinks it is strange that they would choose to leave and emphasises that it is the defectors who chose to leave, that it is their fault, as he puts it (Karl, 9, 2014). Echoing the understandings of the youth, Karl goes on to say that even if it is sad that people choose to leave, you get over it and move on. In his understanding, defectors relocate and do not come back for visits (Karl, 9, 2014). The demarcation between current member and former member is presented as a betrayal on behalf of the defector. The negative perspective on defection from the congregation is mirrored in the negative perspective on

6 OUTSIDERS 

185

membership in the congregation held by society. From the member’s view, a defector is a stigmatised person, someone who has fallen and ventured away from the correct way of life and belief. In a similar but opposite vein, this stigma is placed on the members by representatives of society, primarily perhaps in the form of media presentation but also in face-to-face interaction between members and non-members, such as in school or at work.

The Impact of Stigma Adults I am visiting the congregation in 2015 for a spa weekend packed with activities. Arriving as an ordinary visitor creates some confusion for the members of the congregation. I am asked whether I am there for work or for leisure, or because I am interested in the faith. The only straight answer to the question is all three. I join in the spa programme in which other outsiders also partake, but it is impossible to shake the researcher role, and I really don’t I intend to. This is a way to visit, to encounter the members in a setting which is staged, though not for individual interviews: perhaps it will bring about another form of observation. The schedule includes one night at the congregation’s Friday café, where Fält’s band (The U-Band) performs. The Saturday commences with Bible study, discussing theological questions chosen by the participants, and ends with a spa evening. Sunday is for Sunday service. Somewhere between the activities, I manage to sneak in a brisk walk with one of the adult members of the congregation. We walk straight out into the countryside, but when we return, she shows me a sign that we must have passed but that I failed to notice. It is broken in half and reads Murder path. The sign is posted too high up to reach, but the youth tell me later that they have taken it down several times, but it reappears. The members of The Youth Group attribute the branding of their environment to their neighbour, who they claim, puts up the sign again (Youth Group 2015). Goffman suggests that individuals joining a total institution often adopt a stigma, connected to their new identity. In the case of The Youth Group, it was rather that their parents’ choices resulted in their inclusion in a collective identity as a stigmatised group. As suggested earlier, the events in 2004, especially the media frenzy that followed the murder, have become an integral part of the commune, and have affected its members in different ways.

186 

S. NILSSON

Youth The recurrent theme of the congregation as the victims of stigmatisation is the focal point in the group interviews. Recalling the attention brought to Waldau’s persecution narrative in the individual interviews, I wanted to in depth explore the personal level of stigma in the experiences of the youth and to understand what impact it had (or had not) had on their lives. How did they present their experiences in a group setting and what meaning had they attributed their situation. Having already spoken about some of it in the interview in 2015, I bring it up again in 2016 and find that the answers follow the same line of reasoning as in the previous interview. Sanja: Anna:

Have you met people who are suspicious? You’ve heard from old classmates: ‘You lock yourselves in and pull down the blinds and pray in the dark’. What? They also say, ‘We’ve understood that it’s really not like that’. Especially in school, there have been kids who have bullied you.2 The day before it happened [events in 2004], you were friends with everyone at school; after that, they kind of didn’t want to look at you because you were a member here. I don’t know why; all they have said was ‘Bride of Christ!’ Well, I’m eight years old; I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Anna is referring here to the experience of returning to school after the murder of Alexandra Fossmo in 2004. Notice how she recounts opposite perspectives: the prejudice and the withdrawal of such views. Although Anna indicates no time frame for what was said, other members of The Youth Group indicate a continuous stigma. Jonas: I’ve heard people at work sometimes [say]: ‘Isn’t it dangerous there?’ As if what happened 11 years ago is dangerous today! There was a man who did things a long time ago. Why would that be dangerous now? Daniella: They say: ‘Everybody shoots each other’. 2  Anna’s way of expressing herself here might seem confusing, but I have chosen not to change her use of the pronoun you to me, which would have improved readability. This is to highlight how she initially seems to talk not only about her own experiences, but in the following refers to her personal experience. This implies that she understood the Bride of Christ-expressions to be especially aimed at her.

6 OUTSIDERS 

Fredrik: Anna:

187

There is an attitude that it is a little dangerous, instead of realising that it isn’t at all […]. When I worked at the ICA in Uppsala and said that I lived in Knutby, they [colleagues] would say, ‘That cult, you will die! Be careful so they don’t take you’. […] Once we had a teacher who sat talking to us and said: ‘Have you heard about Knutby? There was someone who was murdered there. Be sure not to go there.’ But do you even know what you’re talking about?

The conversation takes a sudden turn. Daniella: Lukas: Sara: Anna:

But, as far as I am concerned, it feels like I’m over it. Yes, I almost like to say where I am from, because then I can say how it really is here. I can say, ‘I have lived there for 15 years, tell me what you think, and I’ll tell you what it is like’. The worst thing is when they talk about what the kids are like. When they tell us what we’re like, but they’ve never met us. No, she never met us.3 (Youth Group Interview 2016)

All the youth that I talked to had experiences of one or more instances where their parents’ membership in the congregation had caused them to feel targeted, criticised, or ostracised by people outside the group. At the same time, some of them signal pride of being a part of the congregation. Lukas very clearly describes the process of what Goffman calls breaking through. He says that he almost welcomes the stigma being brought up, as he is then given an opportunity to reach a personal level in the interaction with outsiders (Goffman would say ‘normals’) in the hope of normalising the stigma to some extent. I ask them more specifically about how they experienced school. Were their classmates, for example, aware of them belonging to the congregation? If yes, was this ever questioned, and if not, why do you think that it was not? This question was put to the children as well. Klara said that she did thinks that her teachers know about her parents’ belonging to the congregation but not her classmates, and she did not wish for her classmates to 3  They are referring here to psychiatrist Rigmor Robèrt, whose articles about alleged child abuse within the group are recounted in the introductory chapter.

188 

S. NILSSON

know (but gave no explanation as to why) (Klara, 7, 2014). Karl stated that the other children in his class knew but did not ask anything about it, nor did they bully him (Karl, 9, 2014). Generally, the younger children seemed to have less experience of stigma connected to their parents’ membership in the congregation compared to the experiences of the members of The Youth Group, whose peers could question and sometimes bully them. But not only peers had opinions about the congregation. Benjamin recalled a substitute teacher who asked if he was from Knutby, saying, “It will soon be a 10-year anniversary” (Benjamin 2014). Benjamin says that he was shocked by the phrasing, as if it was a celebration, but at the same time said that he could see it from the perspective of the teacher. He himself, Benjamin, expressed that he had to forgive the teacher for not having enough information, and letting his tongue slip like that. While the members of The Youth Group clearly upheld the stigma as a vivid part of life, they simultaneously downplayed its significance and pointed to the opportunity that the prejudices provided for them to give their own view on their realities.

Theoretical Reflections on Boundaries Between the Congregation and Society The negative stereotyping of certain faith groups as cults adds to the social stigma of belonging to one. As was discussed previously, the terminology plays a significant part in what connotations the concepts of cults or NRMs bring about. In this chapter, we have seen this process from two perspectives; the stigma of leaving the group, the sense of betrayal when a member chose to leave the group. The underlying tone in the interviews is that the decision to leave is a break in a social contract rather than just a question of faith: it is the deconstruction of personal relationships. The ideology supporting a theory of inferiority and danger can be seen, for instance, in the narratives about the girls who attempted to. The way that stigma is placed on the group by outsiders similarly encompasses an element of danger, a dehumanisation of the members through identifying them collectively with the actions performed by Helge Fossmo and Sara Svensson in 2004.

6 OUTSIDERS 

189

Insiders and Outsiders A view of outsiders (and defectors) as evil, bad, and demonic has in some HDNRCs been given specific epithets to describe them. In ISKCON, outsiders were called Karmis, as they did not live according to the principles of the faith, and hence evoked bad karma. In The Children of God, society outside the group was referred to as The System, while outsiders (particularly defectors) would be called Vandaris, signifying a form of evil spirit possession, potentially harmful to the members. In The Church of Scientology, critics on the outside are labelled suppressive, and critical family members could be seen as PTS (potential trouble source) (Van Eck Duymaer van Twist 2015, p. 111). In the Knutby Filadelfia congregation, I found no equivalent epithets, but the general idea of pollution and possible danger in mixed relations was the same as in the other groups. Goffman argues that in order to preserve the loyalty to a group, sympathetic attachments to outsiders should be avoided (Goffman 1959, p. 208). Some children and youth mention sympathetic attachments to family members on the outside, presenting the preservation of relationships beyond defection as unproblematic (Anna), while others downplayed the importance of these relationships and found them interchangeable with relations inside the group (Sara). Still others connect the problematic relationships with the stigma placed on the group after 2004 (Jimmie and Jonas). None of the informants related to either outsiders or defectors as evil or bad. Rather, the negative focus was on the experience of betrayal, when family members had an understanding which did not match with that of the group. Hence, the recurring theme is the fact that leaving the congregation (for real or as in the interview with Lukas and Ville, hypothetically) is understood in terms of personal betrayal. Lukas equates defection to opposing the leaders, but none of the other interviewees hint at such a connection. The hypothetical discussion with Ville about the defection of his brother is especially interesting as it, besides indicating the complexity of maintaining a close relationship when one party defects from the faith, also informs us about a somewhat different view on how belonging to other forms of groups works. The comparison to a sports team is one which was repeated by other members in the congregation, adults, as well as youth. However, the assumption that a defection from a very engaged football team would equal a betrayal and a statement that is, in my opinion, dubious. However

190 

S. NILSSON

engaged one may be in football, I very seldom affects exactly every aspect of life. It is difficult to conclude whether such a comparison is the result of an attempt to downplay the significance of the religious setting, or if Ville (and the others) really understand membership in sports clubs as equally encompassing in terms of being in or out, and informing the other spheres of life as well. By envoking Goffman’s understanding of the totalistic features of total institutions, I would argue that life in the community encompassed next to all spheres of life: some amount of congregational work, most of one’s leisure time, and much time spent in school or at work because these were often shared with other congregational members. The emphasis on betrayal is further pointed out when Fredrik equates the defection with a conflict, saying that there is no difference between the dynamics of leaving the congregation and when someone is angry with you and has acted in a way that you do not approve of. If you cease to believe, you should leave, he says. And leaving means betraying the group. But it does also, as previously mentioned, leaving behind the chance of salvation. The tight-knit nature of the congregation, and especially that of The Youth Group, is closely related to the stigma of 2004. By the time of the murder of Alexandra Fossmo, some critique had been voiced in the village where the once very popular congregation was now increasingly questioned, especially in relation to their presence in the Knutby School. As was discussed in Chap. 3, the methods of Waldau and Fossmo had also aroused some critique from members of the Pentecostal milieu. To the rest of the country, however, the congregation was hardly known. Overnight this changed, and the Knutby Filadelfia congregation became known as a ‘sexmurder cult’. The social stigma placed on the group became a social stigma placed on its children. Making Sense of Stigma In Chap. 2, I accounted for Goffman’s categorisation of insider and outsiders as the own, normals, and wise. Goffman distinguishes between the stigmatised (the own), and the non-stigmatised (normals), where the latter are made up of everyone who does not share the stigma. Additionally, he adds a group which he labels the wise: people who belong to the group of normal, but who are sympathetic to the stigmatised and therefore are (to some extent) accepted by the stigmatised. Although Goffman’s terms normal and wise may feel a bit outdated, I would like here to identify the

6 OUTSIDERS 

191

researcher’s position as the wise, a subject which I will revisit in the next chapter. The wise are identified as people who are either related to the stigmatised or who work with stigmatised people. Some relatives are not sympathetic to the stigmatised and can become angry because they feel that the stigma spills over onto them (Goffman 1963b). The distinction that determines the nature of the personal relations with family discussed previously is dependent of whether the family member is considered as belonging to the normals or the wise. Goffman identifies four patterns of moral careers, the concept that he uses to describe the socialisation process. Not all of the youth were born into the congregation, but they all (except Jimmie and Jonas) arrived at an early age. Prior to 2004, the environment for the children would fall into the pattern which Goffman describes as a protective capsule within which the young are oblivious to the stigma. The entering of public school often serves as a divider between this encapsulated milieu and a socialisation pattern in which the child becomes aware of his stigma, while incorporating the standards of the normals. Anna describes that she was just 8 years old in 2004 and had only just entered school the previous year. The adult members of the congregation fall into the third of Goffman’s categories of socialisation which pertains to people who acquire a stigma late in life. The fourth category is made up of people who are raised in an alien community and who must be resocialised at a later point in life (Goffman 1963, p. 49). Goffman also points out the ambivalence towards the stigmatised group, which the stigmatised experiences, and identifies adolescence to be a time of decline in identification with the stigmatised group and increased identification with the normals (Goffman 1963, p. 52). The data collected prior to 2016 does not point to such an ambivalence; rather, some members of The Youth Group stated that they could socialise with non-­congregational members but preferred their peers in the congregation. The almost total lack of rebellion against the older generation was significant in the early data. Anna’s claim that she preferred the company of non-members to that of members in the private interview from 2014 suggests a tendency towards a shift in identification; however, the material is not conclusive on this point. Her position in The Youth Group implies that she was able to enjoy friendships with outsiders in a way which other youth have stated that they did not. Moreover, Anna is the only interviewee who directly recalls theological doubts and questions whether she wants to belong to the congregation at all. Her identification with outsiders can be seen along the lines of her

192 

S. NILSSON

unwillingness to conform to her role as leader, the interpretation of the faith in a fantasy worldview, and her experiences of stigma through bullying. Another example of rebellion is the story of the girls who tried to run away. Since the story is narrated by others, I can only speculate as to what the goal of their actions was, but it seems plausible from the Post-narratives to suggest that a rebellion towards their identification with the congregation may have played a part. This chapter has presented the attitudes among the young towards people outside the congregation and explored the encounters with social stigma coming from outside the group as well as stigma placed on former members who chose to leave the congregation. Previous chapters have incorporated discussions on stigma within the congregation in the form of spiritual shunning. In the following chapter, I will discuss the results in relation to the research questions with focus on the concepts of authority, social stigma and presentation, and summarise the results of the study.

Leaving Knutby Summary Timeline 2016–2022  016 2 As described in the introduction, the congregation seemed outwardly to thrive until the autumn of 2016. I had formally ended my data collection two months prior when, on 28 October Swedish newspapers wrote that Åsa Waldau was divorcing her husband of 22 years, Patrik Waldau. According to the article, there appeared to be no conflict behind the divorce. It was unexpected as the view on divorce within the congregation had always been in line with Pentecostal beliefs; that it should be avoided. However, suggestions that Patrik Waldau had had a longstanding relationship with another female member of the congregation had been voiced among defectors and critics since 2004. Apparently, for reasons I was not aware of at the time, that relationship had finally been given public status. This coincided with the instance when one of the youths that I had interviewed, reached out to me to ask me to remove her statements, as she now considered them “not representing the truth”. She agreed to a complimentary interview rather than omitting her whole participation, in order for me to be able to present the insider and outsider perspective of the same person at different points in time, and during that interview she told me of

6 OUTSIDERS 

193

serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse within the congregation that had just come to light. Therefore, I had an idea that things were rapidly changing in the congregation. Within a month of the news of the divorce between the Waldaus, came the next news: Åsa Waldau and Pastor Urban Fält had left the congregation. It had, according to Pastor Peter Gembäck been the will of the congregation that had caused both Åsa Waldau and Urban Fäldt to rapidly be excommunicated and relocated, Urban Fält first and shortly after, Åsa Waldau. The Swedish newspaper Dagen published a series of articles in which Pastor Peter Gembäck stated that Urban Fält had left the congregation because he had “abused his position as a pastor”, adding that he had assumed a role as a ‘Stand-in Jesus’ in relation to some of the members. Around both Urban Fält and Åsa Waldau, stated Gembäck, an unhealthy culture of worship had emerged, and the congregation now wanted to start over without them (Zetterman and Ringqvist 2016). In November 2016, the congregation stated that they had officially abandoned the doctrine of the Bride of Christ. Within half a year, all former pastors had stepped down from their positions. Exactly what this meant in detail was not publicly apparent at the time, but Peter Gembäck agreed to meet up with Liselotte and me unofficially and explain in more detail; and he stated that he considered contacting the police to have the congregations’ abusive practice scrutinised. Through Peter Gembäck, we were also invited to meet and formally interview some core members of the adult group who wanted to “set the record straight” and talk about the negative aspects of the congregations’ life that involved several cases of physical abuse among members and allegations of sexual abuse towards one minor that they had omitted in the previous interviews.  017 2 Peter Gembäck officially resigned from his position as Pastor in March 2017. Representatives from the evangelical Baptist church Korskyrkan in Uppsala were invited into the congregation during the summer to assist in rebuilding the congregation in what is perceived of as a “healthier faith”. The congregation was now down to around 20 members who worshipped together; however, all other former activities such as choir practice and maintaining the thrift store and SPA were halted. Peter Gembäck turned himself in to the police at Uppsala municipality, claiming to want to be investigated for one instance of assault towards another congregational member. This led more members of the

194 

S. NILSSON

congregation to accuse the former leaders. The police started an exhaustive inquiry into what had actually been taking place in terms of legal offences in the congregation, interviewing members and former members along with other key figures.  018 2 Urban Fält joined the Salvation Army but stepped down from his position there after a short time because of the media questioning the appropriateness of him taking an active part in the congregation in a public manner while at the same time being the object of a criminal investigation. In February 2018, a popular Swedish TV documentary released an episode dedicated to the congregation in which the now former members spoke of a sectarian milieu in which they had experienced being controlled by the charismatic leadership. They referred to the instances of physical abuse and psychological maltreatment that some of them had spoken of during our interviews and described their time in the congregation as hell. Several former members came forward in different news reports testifying to having given great sums of money, time, and devotion to Åsa Waldau, while the estranged families of former members publicly talked of reuniting with their adult children. Åsa Waldau gives a short statement in the documentary confirming that the congregation had become unhealthy, saying that she did what she believed to be best at the time. On 21 May 2018, the decision that the congregation had finally broken up was reported in the news.  019 2 Criminal charges were finally raised against Åsa Waldau, Urban Fält, and Peter Gembäck in 2019, ending with a formal trial in January 2020. Åsa Waldau was charged with assault on 15 counts against a total of 6 former congregational members. According to the indictment, she allegedly bit a member in the face, stomped and jumped on a member who was lying down, hit several members in the face, and stabbed a member with a fork.  020 2 Åsa Waldau was sentenced to a suspended sentence and community service for eight counts of assault and acquitted of six counts. The district court considered that the punishment amounted to four months’ imprisonment, but because a long time had passed since the crimes were committed and she was considered suitable for community service, Waldau was spared

6 OUTSIDERS 

195

prison. Urban Fält was sentenced to a suspended sentence and community service along with fines for sexual exploitation of a person in a dependent position. During the trial, he stated that the deed regarding the exploitation of the minor was carried out within the framework of a spiritual battle and was sanctioned by God. Peter Gembäck was sentenced to a suspended sentence and fines for assault and illegal coercion. Helge Fossmo, who has applied several times to have his life sentence suspended has his life sentence converted to prison for 27 years by the Court of Appeal in March 2020. In January 2022, he is let out after serving 18 years in prison. Several books, podcasts, theatre plays and documentaries are dedicated to the story of the congregation both prior to and after The Fall in 2016. The earlier ones have been detailed in Chap. 1. In 2019, prior to the trial in 2020 and seemingly untimely, Swedish author Jonas Bonnier published a book simply entitled Knutby. It is a fictionalisation of the story of the Fossmo family and the murder of Alexandra Fossmo in 2004. The story is the same well-known (and well-published) one, with the only difference is that the characters have been given different names. In 2020, Peter Gembäck releases the autobiographical book Knutby Inifrån Så förvandlades pingstförsamlingen till en sekt (Knutby from Within. How the Pentecostal Congregation Transformed into a Cult) where he accounts for his version of the congregations’ history. Later the same year, Linnea Kuling who grew up in the congregation, publishes her autobiography Knutbyflickan (The Knutby Girl) which details her childhood and youth within the inner circles of the congregation. In 2021, former congregational member Josefine Frankner who met Åsa Waldau at the age of 15 and lived her whole adult life close to her accounts for her time in the congregation in Kristi bruds slav. Mitt liv i sektens hjärta (Slave of the Bride of Christ. My Life in the Heart of the Cult). Later that same year, Swedish television reporter Anna Lindman, released the partly autobiographical book Sekten. Ett reportage om Knutby Filadelfia (The Cult. A report on Knutby Filadelfia) in which she details the history of the congregation interwoven with personal accounts of abusive relations. Former Pastor and wife of Peter Gembäck, Emma Gembäck, starts a podcast simply called Sektpodden (The Cult Pod) in 2019. By her side is well-known Knutby critic Rigmor Robèrt, psychotherapist with personal experiences as a Jungian psychoanalyst in a tight-knitted environment not unlike the Knutby congregation. The fact that Robert teams up with the

196 

S. NILSSON

Gembäcks, and that the podcast invites several former Knutby members is interesting as Robert was something of the congregations number one enemy for several of their active years, to the extent that Pastor Urban Fält would dress up as a woman and put up a skit in which he mockingly mimics her.

References Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2015), Perfect Children: Growing Up on the Religious Fringe. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Zetterman, J. and R.  Ringqvist (2016), ‘Knutby i dag, del 1: Åsa Waldau och Urban Fält lämnar Knutby’, Dagen, 24 November, http://www.dagen.se/ knutby-i-dag-del-1-asa-waldau-och-urban-falt-lamnar-knutby-1.809143, accessed 2019-01-18.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to provide research on childhood experiences in the stigmatised Knutby Filadelfia Congregation as presented by the children and youth themselves, at different times in the organisation’s development. As accounted for in Chap. 1, the concept of total institutions is used by Lalich and McLaren (2018), who argue that these groups can create total obedience in members, comparable to the total obedience of incarcerated individuals in other systems of control such as prisons or asylums. This understanding is predominantly held by scholars connected to anti-cult organisations, which often informs the portrayal of similar groups in the mass media. I wanted to use the data collected in this study to try to position the Knutby Filadelfia congregation in relation to Goffman’s original use of the concept of total institutions. I have suggested the term High-Demand New Religious Commune (HDNRC) to describe the development of the original congregation rooted in Pentecostalism, into an autonomous commune with a new interpretation of Christianity. By including aspects of social control (generating high demands) within the total institutions concept, I have conducted a deeper analysis of the details of the changes that took place within the group.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_7

197

198 

S. NILSSON

The presentation of data in this study has revealed a division between Pre- and Post-Fall Narratives, a concept I find useful for studies that include empirical data including the period spent inside and outside the group. Concerning childhoods, the data collected prior to The Fall in 2016 upholds the view of a childhood based on privilege, closeness, friendship, gratefulness, and joy. The stigmatisation of the congregation by society, especially in the media, was mentioned in the youth interviews. The Post-Fall Narrations (to varying degrees) convey a different account. Childhood here is represented by high demands for perfection, social in-group stigmatisation in the form of shunning, requests for involuntary relationships and authoritarian power structures. My presumption is that there are (at least) two sets of stories that should be treated with an equal amount of respect, interest, and critique. Focus will be given why these sets of stories differ in the way that they do, and whether the differences can be attributed the regional performances (depending on the audience) on the front and back stages of the congregation’s performances.

Applicable Aspects of the Concept of Total Institutions In this study, I have referred to the congregation as an HDNRC and highlighted the fact that a significant feature of a such a group is the importance of authority. The authority structures are hierarchical, with one or a few leaders in charge and members at different levels of power beneath them. The power structure was described by leaders as a plough with Waldau at the top, a few pastors and elders on the next level, the remaining elders and team leaders on the following level, and at the bottom the remaining congregation. In this study, the levels of engagement in terms of esoteric gnosis,1 the members’ access and proximity to the charismatic leader, and the amount of power that the different positions encompassed were divided into four primary categories: The Table, The Initiated, The Youth Group, and The Congregation. In an attempt to deconstruct the authoritarian social milieu explored in this study, I will discuss the experiences of the members in relation to Goffman’s concept total institutions. As has been pointed out throughout 1  The term esoteric is used here in its broadest sense: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knowledge or interest.

7 CONCLUSIONS 

199

the study, the empirical material is based predominantly on interviews and observations of members constituting group three (including younger children whose parents belong to groups one or two), and to some extent also adult members of groups one and two. Group four has been observed but not interviewed due to the selection process which was adopted mainly (but not solely) by the leadership. Considering the different levels of engagement, the application of Goffman’s concept may therefore apply differently to the different categories of members. Total Tendencies From Goffman’s classification of total institutions, the structure and aim of the congregation can be understood as an integration of the fourth and fifth categories: • Institutions that focus on education or training of some sort. This type of institution is concerned with improving the life of its members, by way of either education or good employment conditions. Examples of these institutions are boarding schools, military training camps, and factory complexes. • Institutions that serve as retreats from society. These could be based on religious grounds. Goffman exemplifies by using monasteries, convents, and temples. (Goffman 1961a, p. 16) For all members, theological education was present in some form or another. While some of the children and members of The Youth Group seemed less versed in the specific theology of the congregation, observations of the adult members portrayed the importance of scripture, and of reading and discussing The Bible, not least in the team groups and at the Bible Training School. The training of the children and youth in proper conduct according to the faith of the group is described. Included in the training were, similarly, the activities of the congregation, which sometimes involved outsiders, such as participation in the Friday Music Cafés or the performance of a musical, and the Sunday services. Additionally, the building and refurbishing projects, as well as the cleaning, were understood by some of the young members as especially part of the Saturday congregational work, and as a way of communal life which involved them as much as the adults. The overall presentation prior to The Fall was that this training in the form of physical work for the congregation helped the

200 

S. NILSSON

children and youth (and perhaps also the adults) become responsible members of the commune. Goffman’s fifth category argues that a religious institution can serve as a retreat from society. The monasteries that Goffman built this category on were more all-encompassing in view of the fact that monks and nuns do not typically hold positions of employment outside the commune,2 while the members of the congregation did. Goffman explains that: The central feature of total institutions can be described as the breakdown of barriers ordinarily separating these three spheres of life [sleep, play, and work]. First, all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority. Second, each phase of the member’s daily activity is carried on in the immediate company of a large batch of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing together. Third, all phases of the day’s activities are tightly scheduled, with one activity leading at a prearranged time into the next, the whole sequence of activities being imposed from above by a system of explicit formal rulings and a body of officials. Finally, the various enforced activities are brought together into a single rational plan purportedly designed to fulfil the official aims of the institution. (Goffman 1961, p. 17)

According to Goffman, every institution has what he calls encompassing or total tendencies, which are sometimes physical in nature: for example, walls and locked doors. While there were no such built-in boundaries, the physical separation of The Hill from the Congregational Hall and the other areas where members of the congregation met and resided (Knutby and Rimbo) contributed to setting the families who resided on The Hill and the youth who spent considerable time there apart from the rest of the congregation. The Hill functioned as (a) a place of residence (b) was physically isolated from the village of Knutby and Rimbo as well as from the residence of the remaining members (c) and had a formal, authoritarian administration that guided the lives of the members which included major parts of their physical whereabouts and work schedule. Those affected by it were the members of The Table, The Youth Group, and a few spouses of members of The Table.3 The level of isolation of The Table and The Youth Group on The  There are, of course, some exceptions—such as nuns teaching in Catholic schools.  Spouses of members of The Table appear to have been equally denied information shared at The Table. 2 3

7 CONCLUSIONS 

201

Hill refers not only to surrounding society but also to the members of The Initiated and The Congregation. While their lives also appear to have been similarly administrated by the leaders, the empirical material in this study is collected predominantly within The Table and The Youth Group, making it easier to determine validity on this point. The frequent sleepovers and changes in residency within the congregation do imply that The Table and The Youth Group blurred the general boundaries of families, where one sleeps at home and occasionally sleeps over at the house of somebody else; however, this might not have been as frequent or as extensive in the Initiated and Congregation categories. It is therefore challenging to apply the blurred boundaries of sleep, or residency to the whole of the congregation. Regarding play or leisure time, it is clear from the empirical material that the many activities of the congregation did occupy most of the members’ lives. They did associate mostly with each other, and especially in The Youth Group, the leisure time was structured around their common activities. Sara states in 2014 that it is natural for her to spend time at Anna’s after school. Susanna similarly praises her friendships within the congregation in 2014, but in 2017, Susanna (and Erik who was not interviewed in 2014) states that she was discouraged from forming friendships in school. This is also the case with the two youth presented in the documentary from 2018. Since they had workdays on Saturdays, and Sundays were for services, much of the play time was occupied by the congregation. On the other hand, Maria stated that she had her best friend in school. After 2016, she still had that friend to lean on when she defected from the congregation. But apart from Maria, in 2014, all informants stated that they had other friendships but valued the friendships in the congregation more. I would say that in the lives of the children, and especially in the lives of the youth in The Youth Group, one aspect of high demands in their lives was the fact that their leisure time was so tightly scheduled, and that they were required, by the adults, to hang out with each other. According to Pre- and Post-Narratives, holidays and visits to relatives and friends outside the congregation were sporadic.4 As for applying the blurred boundaries between the previous two spheres, the area of work fell beyond Goffman’s definition of it. Members

4  In two unofficial conversations after The Fall, I was told that when someone visited relatives, they were almost always accompanied by members from the congregation.

202 

S. NILSSON

carried out work outside the congregation, most often at a local workplace which employed other members as well. Goffman pointed out that the authority of the workplace in the ordinary world stops with the worker’s receipt of a money payment, what the worker does with the money is considered his private affair (Goffman 1963b, p. 20). Work within the congregation (caring for one’s own and common property) was shared in accordance with the tightly scheduled environment where the authority dictated what work was to be done, and private affairs in the sense that Goffman suggests were generally frowned upon. In relation to private finances, most members seem not to have had sole influence on the use of the money that they earned outside the congregation. Besides the official tithing to the congregation, the practice of buying presents for higher ranking members (especially Waldau) as well as the constant renovations and improvements to the members’ homes according to a special design together with the amount of unpaid work that was done implies that individual members had little influence on their own financial states. In the Pre-Narratives, the common work tasks were presented as voluntary based on a sense of community and inspiration; it was fortunate to have Waldau’s artistic streak permeate the physical surroundings of the commune, and the members were happy to work. The common work done on Saturdays was praised as a communal child-rearing method in so far as the children and youth developed an interest in working for the congregation. Adults emphasised that the unpaid work they did was nothing compared to the fortune they had being a member of the commune. In the Post-Narratives, however, both youth and adults describe the work as exhausting, unpaid, and demanding in an exclusively negative sense. There seems to have been a development from a few common projects that were enjoyed by the members during the 1990s and early 2000s to an increasing workload that members claim wore them down, beginning around the time when Waldau withdrew from the congregation in 2009. In the spring of 2016, it is claimed that no fewer than 22 rebuilding projects were active, all of them ordered by Waldau. In the Post-Narratives, some of the youth indicated that their lives were so tightly scheduled that they found it impossible to have time to visit relatives.5 The fact that large 5  However, there may have been other contributing factors to the lack of visits, such as tensions arising from relatives’ criticism of the congregation.

7 CONCLUSIONS 

203

parts of the activities performed were understood as imposed by the leaders and executed together with a group of people in the same position further points to an institutionalisation of life, albeit perhaps not as physically isolated as the prison or mental institution that Goffman modelled the theory on. Curtailment and Mortification of the Self As pointed out throughout this study, Goffman’s starting point is that of adult individuals who enter a completely closed facility. He rarely, if at all, involved children or youth in his fieldwork. In this study, in predominant focus are children and youth who grew up in and who were socialised into the higher ranks of the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. In contrast to the experiences of the adults, there was no possibility of role dispossession, as the roles of the young were continuously constructed within the group; they had no previous social identities completely separated from the group. Even in the case of Jonas, who entered the congregation as a young adult, there was a partial identity consolidated in the group, as his mother had been a member for a long time and he had spent time within the group from an early age. Most of the children and youth thus did not undergo a mortification process (the stripping of personal individuality) in the same way as the adults did (at least as described in their post-Fall narratives) through an admission procedure, giving up their former identities for new ones. Nor does the mortification process described by adults (see, for instance, Erica’s account) translate fully to Goffman’s frames of references. As previously referred to, Goffman based a major part of his conclusions on his observations at a mental asylum. The greatest difference between the study of an asylum and a HDNRC is that the latter is physically possible to leave. However, some of the post-Fall narratives reveal the experience of a slow but ongoing version of a mortification process in terms of violation of the self through contaminative exposure, as well as through rationales for assaults on the self. This seems to typically begin in puberty. The concept contaminative exposure denotes a process by which a person is in a milieu where he cannot maintain boundaries between himself and the environment, which poses a threat of contamination. In Goffman’s work with asylums, the contamination is described in terms of physical contamination: a patient cannot keep his belongings to himself or he is forced to spend time naked in a well-lit room where guards can always see him (Goffman 1961, p. 23). This was not the case in the congregation,

204 

S. NILSSON

although the construction of The Youth Group as presented in the Post-­ Narratives can be understood in terms of involuntary association. Contamination concerns the problem of maintaining mental barriers. This takes place in the confessions of group therapy and is described to some extent in the accounts of the Saturday Night Dinners of The Youth Group. Goffman emphasises the importance of institutionally arranged confessions including the denouncement of significant others, as a type of contaminative exposure, as the relationship is contaminated by the presence of others (Goffman 1961, p. 38). As was discussed in Chap. 5, the shunning practice sometimes resulted in a public degrading of shunned parents in the setting of the Saturday night dinner. The mortification process encompasses the disruption of self-­ determination in the eyes of the subject as well as in the eyes of others, and the rationales for assaults on the self. However, Goffman pointed to the complexity of understanding the processes of curtailment and mortification of the self from the current viewpoint of the subject (Goffman 1961, pp. 50–51) and stated that the barrier that total institutions place between the institution’s world and the wider world marks the first curtailment of the self (Goffman 1961, p. 24). In all accounts from informants post-2016, the narrations include the element of a highly scheduled life which, that, if it does not cut off the outside world, leaves little time to engage in it. Simultaneously, there is the requirement of engagement in the commune, a manifestation of the high demands of membership. While the loss of self-determination is clearly in retrospect understood by several members of The Youth Group, as well as by the adults, as being a mortifying aspect causing psychological stress, the description of the curtailment of the self (e.g. as given by The Youth Group) prior to The Fall has a positive connotation. Consider, for instance, Susanna’s mention of the adult help they received to resolve the so-called girl quarrels, and the fact that she remained in the group of her own choice. In 2016, the help previously given in conflicts was reinterpreted and presented as orders, and her presence in the group as involuntary and a result of loss of self-determination. Discussing the rationales for assaults of the self, Goffman differentiates between three forms of total institutions and their residents: the religious institution, concentration camps, and prisons (Goffman 1961, p. 49). In the religious total institution, the residents (as well as the staff) sincerely seek out some of the curtailments of the self, as they are believed to be righteous. In this way, the mortification is

7 CONCLUSIONS 

205

accompanied by self-mortification.6 Consider, for instance, Maria, whose take on her cleaning of Elizabeth’s house in 2014 differs remarkably from her interpretation of it in 2017. In 2014, she describes the cleaning as great because it was easy and everyone has something to do, while in 2017, her recollection of the cleaning is of the psychological stress it caused her, as she was terrified of doing it wrong; she also stated that she did not wish to clean. Goffman exemplified this differentiation in perspective by pointing out that the shaving of a person’s head in an asylum can be understood as degrading, while it has the opposite connotation for a monk; and he stated that members, particularly in religious environments, may “begin with and sustain a wilful desire to be stripped and cleansed of personal will” (Goffman 1961, p. 50). I would argue that that holds true for many adults, but when considering children born into the congregation, the same can be understood as an alignment adaption rather than a personal wish. The pre-and post-Fall narratives differ in relation to the current identification of the interviewee: the curtailment of the self is in retrospect reinterpreted as a mortification process only when the member has ceased to identify as a member and started to identify as a victim of manipulative authority. Additionally, the processes of mortification for the children and youth in the congregation were relative to their own and their parents’ status as well as to the development of the congregation as a whole, and thus did not manifest as a rite of passage. The application of the concept of total institutions regarding Knutby Filadelfia highlights that the total tendencies are loaded with positive and negative value respectively in the Pre- and Post-Narratives. Breaking the concept down into its criteria as formulated by Goffman demonstrates the importance of considering in the analysis of similar groups the structure of the different levels of engagement, as the groups may in fact display only total tendencies in relation to one or a few fractions of the whole group.

In-Group and Out-Group Stigma Social stigma is defined as the “situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance” (Goffman 1963, p. 154). Stigma is classified into three categories: physical stigma, individual stigma of the 6  This is only true if the members believe in the faith shared by the group. However, except from Anna, the empirical material indicates that most interviewees did.

206 

S. NILSSON

character (for instance, being a prison inmate), and tribal stigma. In this study, the two latter forms of stigma have been explored. The tribal stigma is defined as the stigma of a group of people, in this case based on religious belief. The tribal stigma is placed upon the group of people sharing the same stigma (the own) by the category that Goffman termed the “normals”, that is, in this case, members of society at large. The concealment of high demands on its members, which the congregation did not exhibit publicly, were probably treated as secrets because of the group existing in a highly secularised country. Religion is largely identified in Sweden as a private matter (although this may be changing with the increase in religious diversity), something which is believed to take place after working hours and in designated places. Individuality has a tradition in the Western World, where favouring the collective to the individual is sometimes seen as a lack of self-determination and submissiveness in a non-desired form. Proclaiming a traditional form of religiosity, where self-determination is traded for the greater good of the congregation, is not always understood by outsiders as being the result of free will. Systems of Reward and Punishment The tribal (or out-group) stigma relates to the congregation’s relation to mainstream society, while the in-group stigma within the system of punishment and rewards was possible to deconstruct on a deeper level once the dissolution had begun. Goffman stated that, “punishments and privileges are themselves modes of organisations peculiar to total institutions” (Goffman 1961, p. 51). The most conspicuous social control mechanism within the higher levels of engagement in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation seems to be that of temporary social exclusion, or what I, in this thesis, have termed spiritual shunning. Spiritual shunning equals social in-group stigma, explained as the individual stigmas of character. The exclusion was attributed a possession of evil spirits, the individual was given the responsibility of having let them in, by not standing right, or in other word, being weak in faith. As discussed in Chap. 1, the practice of shunning exists in several HDNRCs. The exclusion as a sanction used to set boundaries for correct behaviour and suppress criticism against the leaders proved to have a positive effect (from an organisational perspective) on the congregation, as most members strived to not be excluded and hence obeyed the rules. A system which excludes those who do not follow the rules often entails a

7 CONCLUSIONS 

207

mechanism for spreading information about transgressors so that that information comes to the knowledge of the leaders. A similar, although not similarly institutionalised, practice can be seen in some of the examples in this study. Maria was sent away to stay with another family in the initial phase of her mother’s shunning, and Susanna was thought to be better off, and was increasingly urged to stay on The Hill rather than spend time at home with her mother who was also shunned. An important aspect of shunning is that it may constitute a way of strengthening and maintaining the charismatic authority. By employing strategies to constantly changing conditions and increasing demands for commitment, the leader tries to secure the role as leader. The changing conditions in relation to shunning are conveyed in the material; shunning could be a reaction to pride (which was loosely defined as putting oneself before others), failing to comply (for instance, refusing to work), and so on. This creates a dynamic yet unstable environment in which it is impossible for the individual member to foresee the consequences of his or her choices. In The Youth Group, the practice of shunning took place in the back regions of the group’s performance in relation to me as the audience, and the congregational members on lower levels of engagement. A typical hierarchical structure was observable, but the practice of shunning was not confirmed prior to 2016. The impact of the adults around The Table, including the charismatic leader, pastors, and other high-ranking members, is significant to the development of the structure in The Youth Group. The practice of social exclusion due to stigma was active on three levels for the members of the Youth Group: (a) directed at themselves (b) directed at their parents and (c) coming from society. Firstly, the fact that each member (aside from a very few of the leaders’ children) could at any time be subjected to the exclusion process effected the relations within The Youth Group. Several of the members point out the ambiguous element of the shunning; your flawed behaviour could be brought up on a Saturday Night Dinner in front of everyone else, or you could just be given the information that you were not welcome to join, with no explanation. This is an example of how anyone can be a discreditable person, when the stigma is not immediately visible (Goffman 1963, p. 57). This in turn informed the members present which members were not in good standing. The excluded person was considered temporarily impure, and the exclusion of him or her served both as a punishment and as a warning to others. In this fashion, the shunning served as a control mechanism. But the members of The Youth Group were not solely

208 

S. NILSSON

subjected to the practice of shunning by their personal exclusion or that of their peers within the group. They were also affected by the potential shunning of their own parents as well as those of others. Three Categories of Parenthood From the data, I have identified three analytical categories of presentations of parenthood. Presented in Chap. 4 are as follows: The Perfect Parent, The Shunned Parent, and The Stand-in Parental Caregiver. All are presentations of parenthood, not objectively verified categories. The Perfect Parent refers to a parent who is glorified and admired, with seemingly no flaws. This parent serves as a role model, imparts valuable knowledge, and generally guides the child through life based on being older, and therefore more experienced and wiser. The presentation of this parent emerges in the pre-Fall material, especially in the experiences of the youth with parents who are members of The Table. Interestingly, the younger children seem less inclined to emphasise the grandeur of their parents, possibly because they did not experience the stigmatisation of the group in 2004 or the years that followed closely after. The Shunned Parent is The Perfect Parent’s antipode. The shunned parent is considered impure, sometimes to the point where their children are placed in the care of others, or they are prohibited sexual relations with their spouses. The presentation of The Perfect Parent manifests the positive image of parenthood projected in the commune. The presentation of The Shunned Parent projects a negative image, and while the Perfect Parent was presented to me prior to 2016, the existence of the Shunned Parent was considered a dark secret until after The Fall. Dark secrets in Goffman’s vocabulary refer to the misrepresentation of a team, in this case the parents. It can also be understood as a strategic secret because a less than perfect portrayal of the parents could, due to the tribal stigma, lead to criticism from society and in the worst-case scenario result in trouble with the social services, which would thwart the theological plan: to become pure in preparation for the return of Jesus. The practice of having a Stand-in Parental Caregiver take care of the children when either one or both parents were shunned was another way to exercise social control. Prior to The Fall, this was also considered a secret. From the empirical material, we can see that the younger children did not wholeheartedly present and keep to the same routine as the youth and adults did.

7 CONCLUSIONS 

209

The most obvious example is Oscar, who speaks freely about his extra mum Elisabeth and seems almost surprised by my questions, probably viewing his situation as a self-evident part of the natural order. As accounted for in Chap. 5, I was genuinely surprised when I asked adults and youth in the community about it, as they totally denied this to be a recurring practice, saying that Elisabeth sometimes babysits Oscar, but absolutely nothing more. But then so did other children: the youth stated that they all baby sit for each other within the commune. In a close-knit commune where every day is filled with dedicated work, it was not immediately understandable to me why they treated this case, this piece of information, as a secret. When the narratives about spiritual shunning were given after The Fall, there appeared to have been mainly two reasons for children to have a recurrent Stand-in Parental Caregiver. The first is recognised from other HDNRCs; the parent is needed in some special position, in the case of Knutby Filadelfia most often to work in one form or another for the congregation. The other occasion was that sometimes when a mother was wrong, consequently shunned, she could be considered a bad role model with whom the child (sometimes also the father) should have as little contact as possible to be saved from becoming contaminated by impurity, at least until she repents. Adaptation Alignments As was discussed in the previous section, social stigma can come from within or from outside a certain group, class, or category of people. Goffman identified four patterns of socialisation connected to stigma: 1. Those who are born with or incorporate the stigma at a young age while at the same time being socialised into understanding the standards which he cannot reach, because of his stigma. 2. Those who are shielded from the stigma by the family or local community or neighbours. This pattern lets the child see himself as a “normal”. 3. Those who become stigmatised later in life. 4. Those who are socialised in an alien community and have to learn a second way of being which is considered the standard for normals. (Goffman 1963, pp. 45–49)

210 

S. NILSSON

The empirical findings in this thesis point towards the fourth category as most relevant with regards to children and youth who grew up in the Knutby Filadelfia Congregation, but category one and two may to some extent apply. Through their attendance at school, it could be argued that the young would be socialised into the standards which they could not, due to the stigma, reach. However, in Goffman’s theory, the first category rests on the assumption that the standards which are not reachable are desirable, which may not have been the case in the congregation, even for children of a young age. Consider, for instance, Anna’s recollection of not feeling accepted in school due to her being a Christian. While she states that she prefers to spend time with non-Christians, she nevertheless regrets the stigmatisation of her own faith, not from an underdog position but from the perspective of tolerance and equality. Furthermore, the interviews with The Youth Group hint at the early tendency of the adults to protect the children from the stigma by the local community in 2004. Lukas, for instance, interprets in retrospect the efforts of their parents to shield them from the ongoing turbulence and subsequent stigma, something that became apparent to him only in adolescence. While the adults who converted can be said to fit the category of those who were stigmatised later in life, most of the young informants in this study either grew up in or found themselves a part of a stigmatised congregation from an early age. Consider Anna’s recollection of going from having a friendship to being bullied: she was eight years old at the time. Finally, the last category in Goffman’s model is especially interesting in relation to the empirical material collected after The Fall. The empirical material points to the children’s and youth’s familiarity with the second way of being that is felt by those around them to be the real and valid one, but in the case of The Fall, that familiarity has transformed into a necessity as they find themselves alienated from their alienated community. The pattern thus indicates a process which only started after the breakup of the congregation and the defection of its members. The empirical material stemming from before The Fall as well as the collected data told in retrospect offers some interesting aspects of the adaptation alignments experienced by the children and youth prior to the breakup of the group. Goffman writes about responses to the resocialisation process. As was pointed out in the previous section, it is difficult to identify a resocialisation process in the narrations from the children and youth, due to the fact they were being brought up mostly within the congregation. However, the development of the congregation, specifically of the higher-ranking levels

7 CONCLUSIONS 

211

of members, over recent years (this period varies in the different accounts; however, there is some consensus that the harshness of rule imposition has escalated in the years since 2008–2009 when Waldau stepped down from her position as pastor) indicates that the resocialisation process increased the isolation of the group. In this sense, the development should be seen as taking place in a continuum of socialisation where age, or rather entrance into The Youth Group, and thereby proximity to the charismatic authority was closely connected and constituted a form of resocialisation from the lower levels of engagement into The Youth Group, with its increasing demands on its members. There are four responses to a resocialisation process: withdrawal, rebellion, colonialization, and conversion (Goffman 1961, pp.  61–64). Withdrawal occurs in a turn inwards, where the individual cares solely for his or her immediate surrounding. Rebellion refers to a response in which the individual struggles to accept the situation and tries to change it. Colonialization equals the more often used term institutionalisation, where the individual gradually comes to prefer life in the institution and to fear life outside it. Conversion refers in to the individual who tries very hard to fit into the institution’s framework of rules and regulations and works hard to perfect his or her behaviour according to what is demanded by the institution. In the empirical material, we find examples of several patterns of adaptation among the youth. For most of the adults, the conversion pattern seems to have been significant, but the youth do give examples of how they have tried to rebel by questioning, for example, why they had to spend time with the leaders’ children or by stating that they did not wish to assume responsibility for, for instance, the Friday Music Café’s. Rebellion as adaption was similarly described by former youth members in the TV documentary from 2018: it ranged from running away from home to attempting suicide. In 2018, Anna, for instance, reflects on how she wanted to leave but how she was afraid that she would lose her family, a risk she was not prepared to take. Therefore, she did not, at least in retrospect, seem to have adapted as a result of colonializations or conversion; rather, she described her position as the unwilling leader who would rather associate with non-members when she could. Maria’s and Susanna’s accounts, though encompassing temporary rebellion, more closely resemble colonialization or conversion, similar to that of several of the other interviewees. Interesting to note here is that what appeared to be colonialization before The Fall is interpreted in terms of conversion in

212 

S. NILSSON

the post-Fall narratives. Several of the pre-Fall narratives recount an adaptation into an isolated congregation but they are presented as the preferred place to be by the children and youth. In the Post-Narratives, there is an aim for perfection of the identity as a full member of the congregation, accompanied or driven by a wish to prove oneself before God, and earn a place in the community, as well as keep from getting ostracised, present.

Presentations of Childhood In this study, we have been presented with contrasting presentations of childhood within the congregation. The efforts towards attaining congruence in each performance omit certain aspects of its counterpart. Where the skeletons in the closet previously constituted the negative experiences within the group, which were to be hidden from the audience and which resulted in a perfected presentation of childhood, there is an interesting switch in the Post-Narratives, and the previous positive experiences are now securely stored as props belonging to the Pre-­ Narrative performance, while the negative Post-Narratives take place on stage. In interactions with an HDNRC, it is fairly easy to gain access to the selective reflections on primary constructions of the group, which I here call the Pre-Narratives, as the groups willingly provide information which portrays them in a favourable way. In some cases, such as in this study, initial access took a great deal of effort to attain and was not given easily. However, once access is granted, the problem of regional behaviour, to use Goffman’s terms, soon presents itself. For new research, it is vital to accumulate a foundation of demographical data on a group which has not been previously studied. This study had, out of necessity, an explorative approach, and the research design was influenced by the inductive approach of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis encompassing methods triangulation in order to cover as many aspects of the congregation as possible. As has been pointed out throughout this study, the discrepancy between the initial research design and anticipated outcome and final product was heavily influenced by the events of 2016, which I have referred to as The Fall. I have contemplated on several occasions what the study would have

7 CONCLUSIONS 

213

amounted to had I followed the initial schedule and put a stop to data collection after the summer of 2016. My conclusion is that while the data collected prior to The Fall is of utmost importance, the data collected after The Fall presented new information but most importantly shifted the focus of the study to the discrepancies between the two narratives, and thus enhanced its complexity. At first glance, it seemed as if the Post-­ Narratives represented backstage stories, as some informants revealed in retrospect information which had not been included in the initial narratives. In the introductory chapter, I discussed the polarisation of the field of studies concerning NRMs, especially with regards to the situation for the children. Sociologists of religion have been criticised for not taking the accounts of defectors seriously, questioning the reliability of their stories, while psychologists have been criticised for deeming current members untrustworthy (Balch and Langdon 1998, p. 201). Zablocki (1996) has compared the accounts of current and former members of religious communities with a control group and found that the reliability levels were generally the same, and this is the assumption in this study as well. However, both sides caution the researcher in terms of what Lalich calls trained behaviour on the part of the group. Equating this with front stage activity, Lalich directs attention to the fact that we as researchers must try to, by way of creativity and critical thinking, seek out the backstage regions and map the behaviour and attitudes taking place there. In my opinion, Lalich is right: we do need to seek out the back stages of each group that we study. However, Lalich fails to recognise that post-defection narratives tend to similarly amount to trained behaviour, as do pre-defection narratives. Perhaps they lack a visible director, but applying Goffman’s perspective on the self, we see that it is still a form of performance as well. The loyalty shifts from the group and the leader (s) to the post-Narrative itself, which is held up by society in the common view on similar groups as deviant and dangerous. Using Goffman’s theory, we apply a perspective where truth is not objective but rather something which is continuously negotiated in interaction. I would argue that there is a misconception as to what constitutes the backstage in the research of HDNRC, and the uncritical assumption of post-defection narratives as backstage stories skews the conclusions about a certain group as it fails to recognise the complexity of the narratives. One aspect which obscures the conclusion is the understanding of different types of in-group secrets. According to Goffman, there are several types of secrets.

214 

S. NILSSON

Secrets and Loyalties Goffman divides the secrets of a team into dark, strategic, and insider secrets (Goffman 1959, pp.  141–143). The application of the intended secrecy of gnosis, as put forward by Barker (2003) in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation, pertains to the esoteric doctrine of The Bride of Christ and can be categorised as an insider secret as the knowledge of the secret marks each individual in possession of it as a member of the group, and thus contributes to a feeling of separation from others (Goffman 1959, p. 142). The existence of the doctrine was publicly denied by members, adults and youth alike, and while accepting that they did not want to submit this information, I never doubted that there was in fact such a doctrine.7 However, the point of the study was never to lay bare any theological secrets in a sensationalist fashion; as such, I did not pursue the question but put more emphasis on the way that the informants related to the charismatic leader who was said to be The Bride of Christ. As I never observed any of the children or youth informants with the leader, the analysis of their relationships was based solely on their spoken accounts of it. However, the few observations of the charismatic leader did include some of the adult members, and their behaviour suggested that Waldau’s position was exceptional beyond being inspirational. The decorum behaviour on the part of the members serving in Waldau’s house indicated an underlying moral requirement regarding respect of a sacred place, although the sight was not presented as such to outsiders. Goffman states that It may also be noted that while decorous behaviour may take the form of showing respect for the region and setting one finds oneself in, this show of respect may, of course, be motivated by a desire to impress the audience favourably, or avoid sanctions, and so on. (Goffman 1959, p. 111)

As for the children and youth, the analysis of the empirical data demonstrates that the youth tended to copy the adult strategies of downplaying the position of power held by Waldau, even questioning the portrayal of her status by outsiders, while the children expressed an unmasked and distanced reverence towards her. This practice connotes the term negative 7  After The Fall, leading pastors in the congregation explained to me that the understanding within the congregation had been an official dismissal of the doctrine, but that each member was free to decide whether s/he believed in the doctrine of The Bride of Christ or not.

7 CONCLUSIONS 

215

idealisation, an instance where some amount of modesty is necessary in order to display less power than one has. The youths’ accounts of their relationships with Waldau were more oriented towards a parent–child relationship, where they asked her for advice. This is a common structure of the relations between leaders and disciples according to Puttick (1997). The children had less access to her and described their relationships with her more in the line of being fans and followers; they longed to see her and admired her from a distance. In relation to the children (and to adults outside the core group), Waldau maintained a state of mystification through social distance, which prevented familiar contact and thus opened up for idealisation. The mystification is the result of front region control, which, a form of audience segregation by leaders to create a space within which they can retreat to some level of back region behaviour without inducing familiarity with the members of the congregation’s outer circles. The awe and distance felt towards the leader are as much produced by the impression management by the leader as it is co-constructed by the followers’ respectful keeping of the distance (Goffman 1959, pp.  75–76). Consider, for instance, Kevin’s plea that I do not tell Waldau that he had stated his wish to see her. Kevin here, despite his explicit wish to see her, contributes actively to the enforcement of boundaries between himself and the leader. Kevin aimed to conceal his wish to see the leader as this kind of wish was understood to be selfish and therefore inappropriate. Concealment of inconsistent action during a performance aims to present the expressed ideal standard as a routine (Goffman 1959, p. 50). The best-guarded insider secret prior to The Fall was therefore that Waldau was considered to be the coming Bride of Christ. As pointed out above, the esoteric knowledge served as a boundary between members of the congregation and outsiders, but also to some extent as a separation between members of different ranks within the congregation. However, there appears to have been another form of secret, more closely connected to Barker’s skeletons in the closet, which Goffman would term a dark secrets, within the top levels and youth group. These relate to the distribution of power within the congregation and its subgroups, especially within The Youth Group, which was observed but not confirmed prior to The Fall. The fact that there was a hierarchical distribution of power within The Youth Group, seemingly to a large extent constructed and orchestrated by the adult leaders and reinforced by the youth, constituted a dark secret in as much as its disclosure to an outsider would threaten the definition of the situation and the performance, and

216 

S. NILSSON

would discredit the impression fostered by the performance. The routine which was played out for different sets of audiences, both within and outside the congregation, was that The Youth Group was a group built on spontaneous friendships with voluntary participants whose appreciation of each other’s company to a large extent encompassed their leisure time to the point of their preferring friendships within the group to any outside it. Several of the interviews—both individual as well as group focus interviews collected prior to The Fall—demonstrate such a view. The youth routinely pointed out, in the front stage performances that constituted the interviews and observations, their privileged position, highlighted the special closeness in their friendships, downplayed any mention of conflicts, and generally omitted any negative reference to their relationships at all. This dramaturgical discipline directing the performance of members of The Youth Group prior to The Fall may appear to have been broken up by the events in 2016, as the former members then spoke more freely about their experiences in the group, or rather, they included information that had been previously classified as insider and/or dark secrets in their narrations. But if we shift perspective and bracket for the time being the assumption that there has been a disbanding of teams, and instead take a closer look at the similarities in the Post-Narratives, it becomes clear that rather than ceasing to exist, the team has regrouped, and loyalties have shifted. All the narrations, post-2016, have in common the fact that they are critical of their former membership within the congregation. Although the team is physically split up (some members of The Youth Group still socialise to some extent but in smaller groups), the routine has, as described previously in this chapter, switched from one performance to another. The privileged environment previously presented as freer and safer than that of other youth is now presented as controlled and limiting. Friendships are interpreted as shallow, forced, constructed, and based on false premises. At first glance, it may appear as if the Post-Narratives present the backstage stories that were never revealed during the front stage performances of the team’s routines prior to The Fall, and it is a correct analysis. When these narratives are told post-2016, they are similarly presented as front stage narratives, only with a shift in loyalty from the team of members to the team of defectors, and thereby also to a more generally negative view of the group. I would argue that rather than interpreting the previous loyalty to be directed more generally to the congregation, and the various formations of teams connected to it, the most interesting loyalty is to the presentation of parents. In this study, I have highlighted

7 CONCLUSIONS 

217

the loyalty to the persecution narrative while the interviewees were still in the group. In the case of Knutby Filadelfia, and in studies of similar groups, the supposed loyalty to the team in the form of the charismatic leader and the congregation tends to affect the relations between children and their parents at the individual level. The Nature of the Backstage According to Goffman, even the back stage region behaviour is sometimes limited due to the performer’s tendency to want his teammates to consider him a trustworthy member of the team who will play his part when in front of an audience and to not give away the secrets of the team. Another limitation concerns the team with major social divisions in which “some discretionary limits will prevail on freedom of back stage activity” (Goffman 1959, p.  131). In the case of The Youth Group, these two aspects contributed in the Pre-Narratives to the description of concealments. The limitation of back stage behaviour due to the constant questioning of loyalty and the clear hierarchical distribution of power resulted in what several informants described as a tendency to keep up front stage behaviour within the group not only when under the scrutiny of audiences (whether in the form of researchers, adult members, or school) but also when in the company of each other. Goffman states Since the vital secrets of the show are visible backstage and since performers behave out of character while there, it is natural to expect that the passage from the front region to the back region will be kept closed to members of the audience or that the entire back region will be kept hidden from them. This is a widely practiced technique of impression management […]. (Goffman 1959, p. 116)

While I did not to any considerable extent manage to access the back regions of the congregation, the performances were not always impeccable. In the interviews with the children especially, fragments of backstage information sometimes disrupted the performance. These disruptions were observable when an informant temporarily gave off an expression inconsistent with the give expression, as in the case of Maria, whose deliverance of routine speech was sometimes breached by a pause in which she seemed to retreat momentarily from the performance. Goffman describes such instances as particularly interesting:

218 

S. NILSSON

One of the most interesting times to observe impression management is the moment when a performer leaves the back region and enters the place where the audience is to be found, or when he returns therefrom, for at these moments one can detect a wonderful putting on and taking off of character. (Goffman 1959, p. 123)

Maria’s interview thus had a tone of formality significant with front region behaviour, but her intermediate pauses suggested back region behaviour. Any region can be transformed from front stage region into backstage region (Goffman 1959, p. 130). When we consider the two sets of narratives given about life in The Youth Group, we can easily be tempted to interpret the accounts of action signifying familiarity expressed through inconsiderateness and harsh jokes as tokens of backstage behaviour. Goffman describes such familiarity as potentially interpreted as disrespectful by the audience and therefore commonly confined to the backstage regions (Goffman 1959, p. 129) and further details: In saying that performers act in a relatively informal, familiar, relaxed way while back stage and are on their guard when giving a performance, it should not be assumed that the pleasant interpersonal things in life— courtesy, warmth, generosity, and pleasure in the company of others—are always reserved for those back stage and that suspiciousness, snobbishness, and a show of authority are reserved for front region activity. Often it seems that whatever enthusiasm and lively interest we have at our disposal we reserve for those before whom we are putting on a show and that the surest sign of back stage solidarity is to feel that it is safe to lapse into an associable mood of sullen, silent irritability. (Goffman 1959, pp. 132–133)

In the congregation, however, the sullen, silent irritability which Goffman states signifies back stage behaviour was most often questioned and criticised, and measures were rapidly enforced in order to alter such an attitude. Only in the top-most levels of engagement was such behaviour sometimes tolerated, as Anna’s description of her own behaviour suggests. The higher up in the hierarchy a person is, the smaller is the circle of individuals within which he can retreat to back stage behaviour. Time spent in the back stage regions is also more limited (Goffman 1959, p. 133). Consider, for instance, the distribution of time available in back stage regions for royalty. The royal person will have more obligations and

7 CONCLUSIONS 

219

contacts of a formal character in which he is expected to behave in a formal way. He will generally have less leisure time and will be more cautious not to step out of his formal character until he is certain that he is in the company of trusted family or friends. The reason for this is to be found in the risks and consequences following potential exposure of inappropriate behaviour. A similar pattern can be found in the HDNRC. The leader will have only a very small gathering of people who will be granted company in back stage regions. However, the very nature of the high-demand group implies high demands, high stakes and, therefore, considerable costs (in the form of expulsion or shunning). Consequently, life in an HDNRC consists to a great extent of front stage regions. The members are aware of their front stage performances in relation to outsiders, and while they are in the group, they may rationalise such performances on theological grounds. In the group, concealing certain truths seems worthwhile and consistent with the efforts and goals of the team. However, once the member has left the group and the team loyalty no longer exists, the rationalistion of the front stage performances is up for critique and interpreted as fabrications played out as part of an involuntary routine imposed upon the members by the leadership. This routine tends to encompass even close relationships. In the case of the congregation in Knutby, and especially within the divisions researched in this study (the core group and The Youth Group), the amount of time spent in the front regions seems to have exceeded what members in retrospect feel comfortable with. However, this does not mean that the recollections post-2016 of the events exclusively recount back stage behaviour. The retrospective reminiscence of such interactions is in itself part of a front stage behaviour. Using Barker’s typology, we see that the secondary constructions of life in a HDNRC by former members is as secondary as the constructions presented by the current members. Each group has a preferred presentation motivated by current goals and loyalties. The current member has his loyalties to the group, omitting secrets which should be guarded so as not to expose information which can be understood as theologically deviant or socially unacceptable. The theological secrets have the additional aspect of being kept within a small group to keep up the mystification. The current member in a stigmatised group is in a state of discreditability. Should his membership be known, it renders a categorisation as discreditable, a

220 

S. NILSSON

position which is met by either concealment (Goffman 1963, p. 50) or acceptance and subsequent loyalty to the stigmatised team. The former member also has the option of concealing his former membership, but should he choose not to (or should he be unable to due to public information), the stigma of membership follows him even after defection. He previously had to defend his position in the group and provide explanations as to why he chose this way of life that is understood as deviant by so many outsiders, and he now finds himself in the position where he still has to defend and explain his previous choices. Accessing the Back Stage of the Young David G. Bromley discusses how many groups tend to seek out contact with scholars in order for them to give a favourable account and legitimise the group. The leaders of the group can try to limit the scholar’s access only to members who are trusted to be completely loyal to the group. They may also try to limit certain topics during interviews and invite the scholar to events which show the group in a positive light (Bromley 2007, p. 76). I have initially accounted for the process of coming in contact with, and subsequently being granted the interviews with children and youth. But as Bromley exemplifies, the selection of interviewees was most probably done according to the interviewee’s loyalty to the congregation, and its routines. We requested interviews with two of the youth that we happened to meet, and in the other cases, stated the ages we were interested in. At least one of the children was certain that Waldau had chosen him, and several of the youth claimed, post-2016, that they were selected rather than asked. As it turns out, most of the interviewees belonged to the inner circles, or (for the children) had parents that did. This fact most probably skewed the results, as there would have been some difference in how a child or youth from the fourth level of engagement and a member of The Youth Group would experience growing up in the group. Goffman highlights that if a member of the team becomes sympathetically attached to the audience, this may result in the disclosure of information that would be otherwise unavailable. The in-group loyalty which protects the secrets of the team is held in place partly by a dehumanising of the audience (Goffman 1959, p.  209). The more time spent in the group, where observations are just as important as interviews, the greater the chance of thwart the view of the other through dehumanisation. In

7 CONCLUSIONS 

221

this space, there is greater possibility for back stage narratives to emerge, and it is here that we may find the opportunity to pick bits and pieces of information. The groups differ, as do the time and place where we interact with them, their current status as stigmatised, as well as individual circumstances on the part of both the individual member and the individual researcher.

References Balch, R.  W. and S.  Langdon (1998), ‘How the Problem of Malfeasance Gets Overlooked in Studies of New Religions: An Examination of the AWA- RE Study of the Church Universal and Triumphant’. In A.  D. Shupe, Jr. (ed.), Wolves within the Fold: Religious Leadership and Abuses of Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 191–211. Barker, E. (2003), ‘The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!’. In L. L. Bromley, D.  G. (2007), ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of New Religious Movements’. In D.  G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–89. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1963a), Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press. Goffman, E. (1963b), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lalich, J. and K.  McLaren (2018), Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over. New York: Routledge. Puttick, E. (1997), Women in New Religions: Gender, Power, and Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Zablocki, B. (1996), ‘The Reliability and Validity of Apostate Accounts in the Study of New Religious Movements’. Paper presented at the annual mee- ting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, New York.

CHAPTER 8

Reflections on Studying Children in New Religions

When I first visited the Knutby Filadelfia commune in May 2011, I could not imagine that the former Pentecostal congregation would break up only three years after its 100th anniversary. Despite the few final turbulent decades, the history of the congregation hinted at a never-ending story, whose development served only to increase the interest from the point of view of a sociologist of religion. I was convinced that the visit with Liselotte and Susan would be but one of many and that perhaps, if we played our cards right, we might have some good information about what growing up in the congregation was really like in about 20 years or so. Considering how hesitant the group was to talk to us, and the uneasy conversation which signaled good will but suspicion as a consequence of the intense media coverage of the congregation, I concluded that gaining access to the field would take some time. By the time of the writing this book there is no longer a congregation; no children or youth are growing up within the social boundaries of the religious commune that once personified the most notorious new religion in contemporary Swedish history; and the former clusters of families and friends previously threading a common path of faith have scattered. Loyalties have regrouped and shifted, some have joined other churches, others have rejected faith altogether. Some marriages have broken up,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0_8

223

224 

S. NILSSON

others have persisted, but all the former young members of the congregation now find themselves in a social position which they had clearly not imagined would be the future in store for them. All former members including Åsa Waldau have, as far as I have been able to tell, denounced the idea of The Bride of Christ residing in Knutby, waiting for Jesus to appear. Coming to Knutby, I was aware that the congregation would resemble most new religions in some ways. I anticipated that the members would try to present a perfectly positive view on their life in the congregation, generally omitting less positive aspects of life and faith, as is the normal way when we present our lives to others. We all strive to give the perfect impression: that is not exclusive to members of new religions. I similarly anticipated that former members would have a contrasting story, and that their presentations would be perfect in so far as they were focused on the negative aspects of life and faith in the group. I never foresaw that the two stories would be told by the same young interviewees but at different times within the relatively short period that it took to conduct the research. The experiences of the children and youth in this study are unique in capturing two separate performances which have generally the same aim, that being to tell a story, but where the shift in loyalties affects the contents of the narrations immensely. Both accounts, pre- and post-Fall as I have called them, relate to childhoods in an HDNRC, only from different viewpoints in time. As expected, the individual positions and circumstances of the interviewees at the time of the interviews also play an important part, but the interpretation of childhood is, in retrospect, to a large part dependent on dramaturgical loyalties. Goffman’s concept of Total Institution, as used, for instance, by Lalich and McLaren (2018), does not easily fit the experiences of the children and youth in the Knutby Filadelfia congregation. While the psychological sense of confinement was significantly prevalent in several of the Post-­ Narratives, there were interesting differences, such as the gradual experience of mortification in puberty as opposed to the direct experience that the original theory suggests, and which is applicable to adult members in an HDNRC. We must similarly consider the absence of interpretations of mortification in the Pre-Narratives. These narratives indicate that the presented totalistic features were interpreted as necessary and even positive sacrifices. Additionally, the results show that there were several categories of membership and that the severity of the totalistic features differentiated according to status within the congregation. This suggests that studies on

8  REFLECTIONS ON STUDYING CHILDREN IN NEW RELIGIONS 

225

similar groups should be more discriminative and pay more attention to the presence of different memberships, and thereby they should refrain from drawing conclusions from data based on solely one category of member. Sensitivity to both levels of engagement and the occurrence of Pre- and Post-Narratives must be considered. The presence of stigma of membership by society was one of the starting points in the study, much discussed in the Pre-Narratives. However, Post-Narratives paid more attention to in-group stigma in the form of spiritual shunning. The conclusion of this study is that the shift in focus is attributed to the change in dramaturgical loyalty when the group started to break up. We need to assess new ways of researching children and youth in an HDNRC.  Research on adult members still revolves around conversion and defection, organisational structures and changes, charismatic leadership, and questions of faith. In studies on children and youth, the potential harm is often the focus in studies emanating from the discourse of anti-cult perspectives. And while these studies do have value, they are most often conducted on defectors, while current membership is understood as involuntary. Generally, I would propose that studies of children and youth take more time and are done as longitudinal studies. This, of course, is a question of research funds, but also a question of approach in the mind of the researcher. In this study, I concluded that the congregation did not fit all of Goffman’s definitions of a total institution. However, in its organisational form as an HDNRC, there are some similarities, not least when it comes to being granted access. Accessing the most vulnerable group, the children, is especially difficult. Just as the access of interviewees in a mental institution, prison, or a monastery, the time aspect regarding the building up of trust and possibility to understand long-term development for children in HDNRC is crucial. Note here that I am referring to high-demand communes, not to New Religious Movements or New Religions as generally presented. High-demand groups tend to be in a stigmatised position when it comes to society, and from this point, they naturally feel that they must protect their groups. A researcher enters a group in the role of a representative of mainstream society and must expect that it will take a long time to be accepted (although this does not mean being allowed in backstage). In order to interview and observe children, one needs to be accepted not only by the leaders of the group and the parents, but also by the children. The project of which this thesis is a part, Kids in Cults was initially meant to study only adult second-generation members from NRMs,

226 

S. NILSSON

people who had the experience of growing up in new NRMs in Sweden and who would relate their life stories from an adult perspective. During the course of designing the study, however, I felt that my own study should include children who were current members, because the research about children in NRMs includes predominantly interviews with adult second generation members and because Sweden had conducted virtually no such studies. Studying children under the age of 15 requires permission from the ethic’s council in Sweden. This was applied for and granted in 2012. Hansen Orwehag (2013) highlights the importance of perspective when interviews are conducted with children. She distinguishes three possible perspectives: an adult perspective, a child’s perspective or children’s perspective. The difference between the child’s perspective and the children’s perspective lies in the perception of the child that the research addresses with the particular perspective choice. The child’s perspective requires the recognition of the child’s individuality. The aim is that the results will be of benefit to the child. This perspective is commonly perceived of as loaded with positive value—it is moving in a positive direction. The child is thus the beneficiary of the adults’ benevolence. The children’s perspective, on the other hand, assumes that the child is participating in the research process. The child has been involved and it is thereby guaranteed that it is the children’s perspective and not a more general perspective in which adults ascribe the child a certain perspective. The distinction is extremely valuable. The aim in this study has been to let the children’s perspective guide the research process. Associate Professor of Religious Studies Susan B.  Ridgely argues strongly for the child’s participation in the research process and points emphatically to the importance of spending a great deal of time with them in order to form a common ground from which to work. The questions asked must be relevant to the child, which is another reason why a good deal of time should be spent in the field. She outlines the setup of the interview, including details such as place. For example, the child should get to choose where it will be conducted as this increases the sense of security and empowerment of the child. Questions should be open so that the child can take a leading role as much as possible. (Ridgely, 2011, p. 90). However, following the recommendations above proved complicated. First, the children in the congregation singled out for interviews were appointed to me, and even if it took a while, I eventually understood that most of them had parents in, or closely linked to, the first two levels of membership, The Table and The Initiated. Each child was given the

8  REFLECTIONS ON STUDYING CHILDREN IN NEW RELIGIONS 

227

option of having a parent sit in on the interview, an option all but one (Klara) declined. They were free to choose the location where the interview would take place, although I suspect that the result was that it took place where the adults decided it would. Still, getting the children to participate in the research process was more complicated than I had imagined. I initially asked if I could give each child a camera so that they could photograph their everyday lives, but this request was rejected by the gatekeeper, who instead insisted that I let the youth provide me with their own pictures. The reason given for this was that a camera and a request for pictures might feel like an intrusion into their privacy, which had already been invaded throughout the years due to the stigmatisation of the congregation. This creative way of involving children in the research project is described by Latz & Mulvihill (2017). I have used this technique with children and youth in other groups, with mixed results. However, my appreciation of the situation was that the Knutby Filadelfia children and youth seemed more uncomfortable in the research process than most of the others I had interviewed, a fact that I can only speculate is correlated to the higher level of stigmatisation in that group. Unfortunately, I never received any such pictures. By the time I was planning to collect them, the congregation was falling apart, and it felt inappropriate to ask for such personal exposures of what many of them by then considered to be a traumatic crisis which they were struggling to come to terms with. In retrospect, I wish that I could have had at least two years of regular observations in the group before I interviewed the children. Approaching a stigmatised HDNRC is difficult, but to approach such a group with no previous research was very difficult. I felt that we spent time asking standard questions when we could instead have asked more specialised questions had I only been able to get to know the group, and especially its children first. Had I initially spent more time on participant observations, I would also have understood congregation jargon and posed some questions in a way that would have resembled the way of talking about faith in the congregation and that the children were used to. I am not in any way diminishing the results of this study: they are unique and interesting, and I was fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct this research. What I do take with me, however, is that when it comes to child studies in an HDNRC, where being granted access to children is so difficult, interviews should not be conducted until satisfactory participant observations can ensure that all questions are relevant.

228 

S. NILSSON

The simultaneous defection of members within only one year produced some interesting insights as well. One that I brought up is the focus on stigma, which changed (or the presentation of it changed) once the group started to break up. Before The Fall, society at large and especially some of its representatives were considered the enemy. After defection, the former leaders of the congregation were placed in the new role of enemy (in the eyes of the former members as well as in the eyes of the public), and the previously denigrated society seemed to offer help as well as represent the desirable way of life. This turn is easy to see in the defection narratives, but more research on the former children and youth will be able to tell us whether that pendulum starts swinging back. I am not referring to the new building of a similar congregation but to the clusters of friendships and loyalties which may change over the years. The conflicting presentations of childhood pre- and post-Fall might have been different had the interviews been preceded by long-term observations and had there been follow-up interviews after a decade. The presentations in this study, I suspect, are extreme portrayals which would soften and be given the chance to be more nuanced, had the research design been different. It was conducted during a time in the congregation that peaked in high demands and then fell like a house of cards. Complementary insights into the long-term experiences of children and youth from the congregation, gathered through longitudinal research, could reveal interesting data regarding the adaptation to adult life outside the congregation. Through such a study, the presence (or lack) of effects of various types of societal support offered to second generation defectors could generate insight into the ways in which society can help young people make the transition from insider to outsider in a situation where they did not solely actively decide to leave, but where a whole group breaks up.

References Lalich, J. and K.  McLaren (2018), Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over. New York: Routledge. Ridgely, S.  B. (2011), Studying Children in Religions: A Methods Handbook. New York: New York University Press.

References

Åkerbäck, P. (2018), ‘The Politicization of Children in Minority Religions: The Swedish and the European Contexts’. In L. Frisk, S. Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck, Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox, pp. 17–39. Alvarsson, J. Å. (2011), ‘The Development of Pentecostalism in Scandinavian Countries’. In W. Kaye and A. Dyer (eds), European Pentecostalism. Lei- den: Brill, pp. 19–40. Anderson, A. (2004), An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony, D. and T.  Robbins (2004), ‘Conversion and “Brainwashing” in New Religious Movements’. In J. R. Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 243–297. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002), The Endtime Family: Children of God. New York: State University of New York Press. Balch, R.  W. and S.  Langdon (1998), ‘How the Problem of Malfeasance Gets Overlooked in Studies of New Religions: An Examination of the AWA- RE Study of the Church Universal and Triumphant’. In A.  D. Shupe, Jr. (ed.), Wolves within the Fold: Religious Leadership and Abuses of Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 191–211. Barker, E. (1984), The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0

229

230 

REFERENCES

Barker, E. (1989), New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Barker, E. (2003), ‘The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!’. In L. L. Beckford, J.  A. (1985), Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements. London: Tavistock. Beckford, J. A. and M. Levasseur (1986), ‘New Religious Movements in Western Europe’. In J. A. Beckford (ed.), New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage, pp. 29–54. Berg, D. (1976), The Basic Mo Letters. Geneva: Children of God. Berger, H.  A. (1999), ‘Witches: The Next Generation’. In S.  J. Palmer and C. E. Hardman (eds), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 11–28. Bergstrand, G. (2010), Inte bara Knutby: Drömmen om det fullkomliga. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Bromley, D.  G. (2007), ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of New Religious Movements’. In D.  G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–89. Bromley, D.  G. (2014), ‘Charisma and Leadership’. In G.  D. Chryssides and B. Zeller (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 103–117. Bromley, D. G. and D. G. Cutchin (1999), The Social Construction of Subversive Evil: The Contemporary Anti-Cult and Anti-Satanism Movements. In J. Freeman & V. Johnson (eds), Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 195–220. Bromley, D.  G. and A.  D. Shupe, Jr. (1987), ‘The Future of the Anticult Movement’. In D. G. Bromley and P. E. Hammond (eds), The Future of New Religions. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, pp. 221–234. Bromley, D. G., A. D. Shupe, Jr., J. C. Ventimiglia (1979), ‘Atrocity Tales, the Unification Church, and the Social Construction of Evil’, Journal of Communication 29:3, pp. 42–53. Brown, D. (2003), The DaVinci Code. London: Bantam. Chancellor, J. (2000), Life in the Family: An Oral History of the Children of God. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Christiansson, T. (2004), Himmel och helvete: Mord i Knutby. Stockholm: Forum. Chryssides, G. D. (1999), Exploring New Religions, New York: Continuum. Cialdini, R.  B. (1985), Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things. New York: William Morrow. Coleman, S. (2000), Globalisation of Charismatic Christianity: Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, S. (2011), ‘Voices: Presence and Prophecy in Charismatic Ritual’. In M.  Lind- hart (ed.), Practicing the Faith: The Ritual Life of Pentecostal-­ Charismatic Christians. New York: Berghahn, pp. 198–219.

 REFERENCES 

231

Corsaro, W.  A. (1985), Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. New York: Praeger. Daniels III, D. D. (2014), ‘North American Pentecostalism’. In C. M. Robeck, Jr. and A.  Yong (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–91. Dayton, D. (1987), The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Douglas, M. (2003), Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge. Espinosa, G. (2006), ‘Ordinary Prophet: William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival’. In H.  D. Hunter and C.  M. Robeck, Jr. (eds), The Azusa Street Revival and its Legacy. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, pp. 29–59. Essén, C. (2008), Sektbarn: Ett reportage om de utvalda för paradiset. Stockholm: Bonniers. Frisk, L. (2017), ‘“Min pappa går med gud”: Religiösa uppväxter i minoritetsgrupper’. In J.  Björkman and A.  Jarrick (eds), Religionen tur och retur. Gothenburg: Makadam, pp. 125–146. Frisk, L. (2018), ‘Knutby Filadelfia: A Schismatic New Religious Movement within the Pentecostal Context’. In J. Moberg and J. Skjoldli (eds), Charismatic Christianity in Finland, Norway, and Sweden: Case Studies in Historical and Contemporary Developments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–158. Frisk, L. and S. J. Palmer (2015), ‘The Life Story of Helge Fossmo, Former Pastor of Knutby Filadelfia, as Told in Prison: A Narrative Analysis Approach’, International Journal for the Study of New Religions 6, pp. 27–49. Frisk, L., S. Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck (2017), Guds nya barnbarn: Att växa upp i kontroversiella religiösa grupper. Stockholm: Dialogos. Frisk, L., S.  Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck (2018), Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox. Gardner, W.  L. and B.  J. Avolio (1998), ‘The Charismatic Relationship: A Dra- m Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1961a), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1961b), Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Oxford: Bobbs-Merrill. Goffman, E. (1963a), Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press. Goffman, E. (1963b), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Anchor.

232 

REFERENCES

Goffman, E. (1969), Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman, E. (1971), Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goffman, E. (1979), Gender Advertisements. London: Macmillan. Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman, E. (1983), ‘The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address’, American Sociological Review 48, pp. 1–17. Goffman, E. (1989), ‘On Fieldwork’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18, pp. 123–132. Grass, T. (2008), Modern Church History. London: SCM. Hardman, C. E. (2003), ‘Children in New Religious Movements’. In J. R. Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 386–416. Hassan, S. (1988), Combatting Cult Mind Control: Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults. Wellingborough: Aquarian. Los Angeles: Sage. Jones, C. E. (1974), A Guide to the Study of the Holiness Movement. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Kanter, R. Moss (1972), Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lalich, J. and K.  McLaren (2018), Escaping Utopia: Growing Up in a Cult, Getting Out, and Starting Over. New York: Routledge. Lundgren, E. (2008), Knutbykoden. Stockholm: Modernista. McClymond, M. J. (2014), ‘Charismatic Renewal and Neo-Pentecostalism: From North American Origins to Global Permutations’. In C. M. Ro- beck, Jr. and A.  Yong (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–50. Meakin, E. (2014), ‘Anhörigas reaktioner på att en nära familjemedlem är med i ett religiöst sekteristiskt sammanhang’. MA thesis from Ersta Sköndal University College, http://esh.diva-­portal.org/smash/get/diva2:785026/ FULLTEXT01.pdf, accessed 2019-01-20. Melton, J. G. (1999), ‘Anti-Cultists in the United States: A Historical Perspective’. In B. Wilson and J. Creswell (eds), New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. London: Routledge, pp. 213–233. Miller, T. (2013), ‘Religious Communes in America: An Overview’. In T. Miller (ed.), Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 191–207.

 REFERENCES 

233

Moore, R. (2011), ‘Narratives of Persecution, Suffering, and Martyrdom: Violence in People’s Temple and Jonestown’. In J. R. Lewis (ed.), Violence and New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–111. Nilsson, M. (2005), Pastorerna i Knutby: En autentisk kriminalroman. Uppsala: Succéförlaget abc. Nilsson, S. (2018), ‘The Charismatic Leader in Knutby Filadelfia: The Children’s Perspective’. In L.  Frisk, S.  Nilsson, and P. Åkerbäck, Children in Minority Religions: Growing Up in Controversial Religious Groups. Bristol: Equinox, pp. 257–279. Nordling, J. (2004), Knutby: Sanningen och nåden. Stockholm: Hallgren & Fallgren. O’Callaghan, C. (2004), ‘The Minister, His Wife, Their Nanny and a Double Murder’, The Irish Times, 22 May, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-­ minister-his-wife-their-nanny-and-a-double-murder-1.1141520, accessed 2019-01-17 Olson, P.  J. (2006), ‘The Public Perception of Cults and New Religious Movements’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45, pp. 97–106. Palmer, S. J. (1999), ‘Frontiers and Families: The Children of Island Pond’. In S.  J. Palmer and C.  E. Hardman (eds), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 153–171. Palmer, S.  J. (2011), The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ‘War on Sects’. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmer, S. J. and C. E. Hardman (eds) (1999), Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Paver, M. (2004), Wolf Brother: Chronicles of Ancient Darkness. London: Orion. PER [Preliminary enquirer report] (2004), Förundersökningsprotokoll ‘Knutbyärendet’. Uppsala. Peste, J. (2011), ‘Murder in Knutby: Charisma, Eroticism, and Violence in a Swedish Pentecostal Community’. In J.  R. Lewis (ed.), Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–229. Prou, J. and D.  Hayes (2005), Walled About with God: The History and Spirituality of Enclosure for Cloistered Nuns. Herefordshire: Gracewing. Puttick, E. (1997), Women in New Religions: Gender, Power, and Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, J. T. (1996), ‘“Brainwashing” Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena’, Brigham Young University Law Review 1996, pp. 873–904. Richardson, J. T. (1999), ‘Social Control of New Religions: From “Brainwashing” Claims to Child Sex Abuse Accusations’. In S. J. Palmer and C. E. Hardman (eds) Children in New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 172–186.

234 

REFERENCES

Ridgely, S.  B. (2011), Studying Children in Religions: A Methods Handbook. New York: New York University Press. Ringqvist, R. (2009), ‘Åsa Waldau: Det går inte att förlåta pingströrelsen’, Dagen, 13 October, https://www.dagen.se/asa-waldau-det-gar-inte-att-for-lata-­ pingstrorelsen-1.165936, accessed 2019-01-22. Robèrt, R. (2005a), ‘Barnmisshandel i Knutby församling’, Expressen, 18 October, http://www.expressen.se/debatt/barnmisshandel-­i -­k nutby-­f orsamling/, accessed 2019-01-17. Robèrt, R. (2005b), ‘“Kristi bruds hemliga profetia ger förklaringar till mordet i Knutby”’, Dagens Medicin, 23 November, https://www.dagensmedi-cin.se/ artiklar/2005/11/23/kristi-bruds-hemliga-profetia-ger-forklaringar-till-­ mordet-i-knutby-/, accessed 2019-01-20. Robèrt, R. (2012a), ‘Olika synsätt på Knytbyhaveriet’, Magasinet Paragraf, 7 June, https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/nyheter/kronikor/42805-olika-syns-ttpa-­knut-byhaveriet/, accessed 2019-01-17. Robèrt, R. (2012b), ‘Barnen i Knutby’, Magasinet Paragraf, 9 September, https:// www.magasinetparagraf.se/nyheter/kronikor/43420-barnen-i-knutby/, accessed 2019-01-17. Rochford, E. B. (1985), Hare Krishna in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rochford, E. B. (2007a), ‘Social Building Blocks of New Religious Movements: Organization and Leadership’. In D. G. Bromley (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–185. Rochford, E.  B. (2007b), Hare Krishna Transformed. New  York: New  York University Press. Saliba, J.  A. (2016), Perspectives on New Religious Movements. London: Blooms- bury. Sanders, R.  G. W. (2003), William Joseph Seymour: Black Father of the 20th Century Pentecostal /Charismatic Movement. Sandusky, OH: Alexandria. Sanner, I. (2008), ‘Försåtlig metod skapar partsinlaga’, Svenska Dagbladet, 25 February, http://www.svd.se/forsatlig-metod-skapar-partsinlaga/, accessed 2019-01-18. Singer, M. T. and J. Lalich (1995), Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sjögren, T. (2005), Barnflickan i Knutby. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Sjögren, T. (2014), Knutbypastorns fall: Ett porträtt av den livstidsdömde Helge Fossmo, mannen bakom det mest uppmärksammade rättsfallet sedan Palmemordet. Stockholm: Telegram. Stark, R. and W. S. Bainbridge (1987), A Theory of Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

 REFERENCES 

235

Stein, R. and P.  Stein (2017), The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Svalfors, U. (2012), ‘Charismatic Movements within Church of Sweden’. In A.  L. Eriksson, G.  Gunner, and N.  Blåder (eds), Exploring a Heritage: Evangelical Lutheran Churches in the North. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, pp. 156–177. Uppdrag granskning (2018), Knutby  – från paradis till helvete [TV show], 14 February. Sveriges television, SVT 1. Uppsala tingsrätt (2004), Dom, mål nr B 73-04. Uppsala. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2010), ‘Children in New Religions: Contested Duties of Care’, International Journal for the Study of New Religions 1, pp. 183–206. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A. (2015), Perfect Children: Growing Up on the Religious Fringe. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Waldau, Å. M. (2007), Kristi Brud: Vem kan man lita på? Skara: Heja Sverige. Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wessinger, C. (2003), ‘New Religious Movements and Conflicts with Law Enforcements’. In D.  H. Davis and B.  Hankins (eds), New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, pp. 89–105. Westman, E. (2007), ‘Vi Knutbyföräldrar skräms till tystnad av Åsa Waldau’, Dagens Nyheter, 22 December, https://www.dn.se/debatt/vi-knutbyforal-­ drar-skrams-till-tystnad-av-asa-waldau/, accessed 2019-02-03. Westman, A. and K. Westman (2008), ‘Åsa Waldau är vår vän och hon styr inte våra liv’, Dagens Nyheter, 8 January, https://www.dn.se/debatt/asa-waldau-­ ar-var-van-och-hon-styr-inte-vart-liv/, accessed 2019-01-22. Zablocki, B. (1996), ‘The Reliability and Validity of Apostate Accounts in the Study of New Religious Movements’. Paper presented at the annual mee- ting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, New York. Zetterman, J. and R.  Ringqvist (2016a), ‘Knutby i dag, del 1: Åsa Waldau och Urban Fält lämnar Knutby’, Dagen, 24 November, http://www.dagen.se/ knutby-i-dag-del-1-asa-waldau-och-urban-falt-lamnar-knutby-1.809143, accessed 2019-01-18. Zetterman, J. and R. Ringqvist (2016b), ‘Knutbydramat, del 4: Församlingen ska lämna läran om Kristi brud’, Dagen, 24 November, https://www.dagen.se/ knutbydramat-del-4-forsam-lingen-ska-lamna-laran-om-kristi-brud-1.809147, accessed 2019-01-22.

Index1

A Authoritarian, ix, xii, 47–50, 60, 91, 118, 198, 200 B Back stage, 198, 213, 217–221 Bride of Christ, xiii, 15, 37–40, 43, 51, 59, 60, 62, 66, 68, 71, 125, 170, 186, 186n2, 193, 195, 214, 214n7, 215, 224 C Charismatic leader, xii, 3–5, 17, 27n4, 30, 38, 45, 52, 55–87, 169, 183, 198, 207, 214, 217

Childhood, x, 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 73, 78, 93, 94, 98, 105, 119, 122, 125, 127, 135, 177, 195, 197, 198, 212–221, 224, 228 Cult, x, xii, 3–14, 37, 65, 68, 180, 183, 187, 188, 190, 195 G Generation, 10, 29, 166, 191 H High-Demand New Religious Commune (HDNRC), 7–8, 15, 52, 57, 82, 86, 111, 116, 121–122, 124, 125, 151, 197, 198, 203, 206, 209, 212, 213, 219

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Nilsson, Kids of Knutby, Palgrave Studies in New Religions and Alternative Spiritualities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36981-0

237

238 

INDEX

K Knutby Filadelfia, viii, x, xii, 3, 3n1, 7, 8, 12, 14–20, 23–52, 55, 62, 67, 79–81, 87, 89–91, 111, 115, 117, 123, 127, 163, 167, 173, 177, 189, 190, 195, 197, 203, 205, 206, 209, 210, 214, 217, 223, 224, 227 N New Religious Movements (NRM), vii, viii, x, 3–17, 3n1, 66, 79, 81, 83, 86, 89, 123, 157, 163, 166, 225 O Outsiders, ix, 33, 42, 52, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70, 73, 80, 91, 101, 118, 119, 129, 137, 141, 169, 173–196, 199, 206, 214, 215, 219, 220, 228 P Parents, vii, ix, xi, xii, 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 12, 45, 48, 50, 52, 60, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 83, 85, 87, 89–125, 127, 128, 130, 132–135, 138, 141–144, 155, 158, 159, 163–165, 167–169, 173, 176, 177, 185, 187, 188, 199, 204, 205, 207–210, 215–217, 220, 225–227

Performance, xi, 14, 19, 56, 58, 60–64, 68, 71, 73, 85, 100, 106, 112, 117–121, 123, 124, 128, 132, 141, 160, 165, 170, 198, 199, 207, 212, 213, 215–219, 224 Pre- and Post-Narratives, 12, 192, 198, 201, 202, 204, 205, 212, 213, 216, 217, 224, 225 Presentation, x, 1, 6, 58, 90, 119, 125, 134, 175, 180, 185, 192, 198, 199, 208, 212–221, 224, 228 S Social stigma, xii, 1, 14, 116–125, 128, 188, 190, 192, 205, 209 Spiritual shunning, 75, 84, 85, 120–121, 163, 192, 206, 209, 225 T Theology, 11, 16, 24n1, 30, 31, 39–44, 57, 166, 199 The Tirsa Prophecy, 16, 40–42, 123 Y Youth Group, xii, 2, 38, 39, 52, 66, 76–79, 83, 85, 93, 95, 102, 103, 111, 117–120, 127–170, 177, 182–183, 185–188, 190, 191, 198–201, 204, 207, 210, 211, 215–220