By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

*****

In this series: Part One, Introduction | Part Two, Kalyn’s Secret | Part Three, Kalyn’s Secret (Continued) | Part Four, Not Open | Part Five, Unmask the Predators | Part Six, Recommended Resources | Part Seven, Conclusion

*****

Part Four, Not Open

“SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG HERE! THE PAIN AROUND US IS NOT DECREASING!”

~ Lisa Cherry, Not Open, p. 19, capitalization in original

On Tuesday I examined Kalyn’s Secret, written in 2009 by Lisa Cherry and her daughter Kalyn, which tells the story of how then-14-year-old Kalyn was groomed for sexual abuse via phone and online interactions with a 46-year-old male parishioner from their church. That examination was in two parts (here and here). I argued that based on Kalyn’s Secret alone, I would highly discourage people from consulting Lisa Cherry and Frontline Family Ministries for advice on sexual abuse prevention. This is due to multiple factors ranging from their advocacy of unbiblical theology, their perspective on mental health, their obsession with demonology, to their shockingly bad recommendations of people like Bill Gothard and Reb Bradley and organizations like IBLP and Teen Mania.

Today I will be looking at Not Open. This book was written in 2013 by Lisa and her son Lucas. Every chapter is almost entirely Lisa’s voice; however, at the end of each chapter Lucas writes a “Millennial Moment,” where he explains why he as a Millennial agrees with what his mom said in that chapter. The book comes highly recommended by individuals most of you are probably familiar with: WallBuilders’ David Barton, American Family Association’s Don Wildmon, and Teen Mania’s Katie Luce.

Not Open is the one book I am examining that is not specifically about sexual abuse prevention. I believe it is nonetheless important for understanding the Cherry family’s worldview. The book argues that Christians in 2014 face a uniquely apocalyptic moment in history because, as the back cover declares, “Only 1% of the Millennial generation have a biblical world view.” Basically, the American Christian sky is falling. No generation has faced the intensity of spiritual warfare and cultural decay that we do, it is argued, and thus those parenting the current generation face a do-or-die situation. Lisa argues that we must be “Not Open” to the current culture because “Open” is the position of Satan. To be “Not Open” means to take stereotypical American conservative Christian positions: biblical literalism, a return to Platonic absolutism, patriarchy, traditional gender roles, corporal punishment, anti-homosexuality, and so forth. (Note: I say “stereotypical” because I think it’s overgeneralizing and/or unfair to say those positions are necessarily “conservative” or “Christian.”) Christians today need to follow Noah’s example and become a “remnant,” building metaphorical “arks” (homes/families, see p. 221) to withstand the cultural and spiritual storms to come.

Honestly, this is Lisa’s weakest book in terms of analysis. The biblical exegesis is particularly shoddy, the historical and philosophical claims are almost always inaccurate, and the statistics she uses are often misquoted or misunderstood. While I do not agree with most of the book, I have read plenty of books that say these same things but in far more accurate and nuanced ways. (I was homeschooled in a conservative Christian environment until high school graduate, after all. I have heard all this stuff a million times before.) So I almost did not review it. But I do think there are a few observations to be made to help with understanding Frontline Family Ministries.

I should first note that many of the problems seen in Kalyn’s Secret are also evident in Not Open: poor biblical exegesis (126), positively referencing abusive people (e.g., authoritarian John Bevere, accused rapist Jim Bakker, domestic terrorist Rollen Stewart), encouraging fear-based child discipline (115), and an excessive amount of demonology (151-3). However, since I already addressed those previously, I want to focus specifically on the problems unique to Not Open.

a. Misquoting citations

The clearest example of this is when Lisa claims potential persecution for Christians in the workplace because “silence on the issue of homosexuality [could] still be interpreted as disapproval.” She backs up this claim by saying this very sentiment was declared “in a recent Department of Justice memo to employees” (125). I looked up the citation (from a Justice Department brochure entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work”), and it says nothing of the sort. The only item that resembles what Lisa says is a quotation from a department employee expressing a personal opinion, not any part of the department’s official memo. Here, you can look at the brochure yourself.

Lisa does this repeatedly, most egregiously when she says “modern science” now “explains all the history book stories of the rise and fall of nations based on the rise and fall of sexual passions” (162) — citing nothing more than a Charisma News article and a no-longer-existent Psychology Today article, neither of which says a single word about the rise and fall of nations.

This makes me distrustful in general of her ability to verify the factuality of any of her claims.

b. Faulty statistical foundation

The whole premise of Not Open rests on this statement of Lisa’s:

Something is wrong when 83 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians while only 9 percent of adults and less than 1 percent of young people have a true biblical worldview. (6)

This statement is so significant to the book’s premise that Lisa adds a section at the end of the book explaining where she got those claims. If you grew up in a conservative Christian home, you are probably entirely familiar with such doomsday proclamations. You also are probably not surprised to know that these claims come from George Barna and his Christian statistics organization the Barna Group. Barna’s declarations about eminent cultural emergencies drove much of the worldview curriculums and camps that I and many other church-raised Millennials used or attended.

Barna seems to have not backed down over the last decade. The above statistic that Lisa bases her book on comes from Barna’s 2011 book FutureCast, and it’s understandable that Christian parents would be alarmed by a statement like, “Less than 1 percent of young people have a true biblical worldview.” However, one must keep in mind that Barna has been repeatedly and harshly criticized by fellow Christians for propagating “false alarms”, “questionable methods”, and “myths”.

These criticisms are all applicable to the claim that, “Less than 1 percent of young people have a true biblical worldview.” To understand why, consider Lisa says the Barna Group

“has defined as biblical worldview as one that includes the following six points: 1. Absolute moral truth exists. 2. The Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 3. Satan is a real being or force, not merely symbolic. 4. People cannot earn their way into heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works. 5. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth. 6. God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world and still rules the universe today” (242).

I want you to do something. Go pick up a Bible and find me the passage that says the above six points are what pure and genuine religion is.

Go for it. I’ll wait.

Didn’t find the passage?

That’s because it’s not in the Bible.

But you know what is in the Bible? James 1:27:

Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

Now I ask you: if pure and genuine religion according to the Bible is (1) caring for orphans, (2) caring for widows, and (3) refusing to let the world corrupt you, why are none of these points included in the Barna Group’s definition of a biblical worldview?

The answer is simple: the Barna Group’s definition of a biblical worldview is not based on the Bible but on a 20th century, modernist, regressive, and distinctively American Protestant understanding of the Bible. Consider the fact, for example, that none of the early Church fathers would agree with all 6 of Barna’s worldview requirements. Or consider the most ironic fact that Not Open’s role model for following a biblical worldview, Noah, existed before “the Bible” even existed. The fact is, this definition — because it is based on a 20th century, modernist, regressive, and distinctively American Protestant understanding of the Bible — is naturally going to create numbers that do not accurately portray the true religious state of people today. As people move into the 21st century and away from modernism (whether to postmodernism or anti-modernism), this definition’s functionality will cease. That doesn’t mean we are facing a historical moment more apocalyptic than any other moment in history. It means there’s a cultural shift occurring, on par with the shift from Catholicism to Protestantism.

Why does this matter? It matters because of the next point.

c. Alarmism

Most everyone is familiar with the imagery of Henny Penny (or Chicken Little), the chicken who ran around claiming the sky was falling (when in reality an acorn from a tree had dropped on its head). We usually use this imagery to mock people who have doomsday proclamations. However, fewer people are familiar with the fact that the story of Henny Penny is a morality tale. The end of the story is that Foxy Loxy the fox, observing how distraught Henny Penny and the other animals are, promises safety from the “falling sky” in its den. Foxy Loxy then eats all the animals. The moral of the story is thus not simply to avoid believing doomsday proclamations but to be on the lookout for people who take advantage of other people’s fears. Fear, after all, is one of the foremost forces in the creation of high control, totalist environments (aka “cults”).

Now think about fear in the context of what Lisa says based on the Barna Group’s statistics: less than 1 percent of young people have a true biblical worldview. I mean, this is even worse of a number than when I was a kid 20 years ago — back when we thought we were this country’s only hope! Us, the Millennials, were the Joshua Generation. That’s exactly why we went through all these worldview curriculums and camps, that’s why our parents homeschooled us, that’s why all those Quiverfull families had enormously large families — and things got worse? The message being conveyed to families and parents is clear: you are failing, you must try even harder. You must double-down. This could be the end of the world. 

That foists an enormous amount of pressure on this generation’s families to be exceptional — even more than all the pressure foisted upon my parents’ generation, the generation that was tricked into believing formulas could guarantee the perfect home. We know now that those formulas were snake oil peddled by merchants like Bill Gothard and Reb Bradley. My parents’ generation didn’t end up with perfect families (after all, that’s impossible), but people like Gothard and Bradley sure made money from their manipulative promises. And my parents’ generation was left with the job of picking up the broken pieces — the relationships bruised or lost due the effects of fear and control. This was the point of my concluding remarks from my “Facing Our Fears” presentation:

“Despite our best efforts, children still scrape their knees. And we get mad at them for it. We get furious. We feel like our best efforts went unappreciated, or thrown out the window, or stomped on in a tantrum. Our kids get hurt — and then we get mad at them for getting hurt. Which only hurts them more.”

This is why I care about inaccurate statistics like the one Lisa promotes from the Barna Group: it leads to very real hurt and sometimes broken families. When Lisa begins her book with the sentence…

“SOMETHING. IS TERRIBLY. WRONG” (1).

…and then repeats the phrase “something is terribly wrong” four times in just the first chapter, it communicates the necessity of alarmism. When Lisa repeatedly issues warnings in all-capitalized sentences like…

“DO NOT SWIM IN THE “OPEN LAKE!” IT IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE!” (8).

…it communicates the necessity of alarmism.

This alarmism drives families into the foxes’ dens: into people peddling formulas leading to attempts at exceptionalism and perfectionism. And I have seen, year after year, person after person, that a combination of exceptionalism, perfectionism, and alarmism leads to toxic environments. Most ironically, those toxic environments — through placing high demands and pressure on children — often results in forced, age-inappropriate maturation of children (see, for example, Lisa’s daughter’s self-described “rapid maturation”)… the very age-inappropriate maturation that makes such children prime targets for sexual predators.

d. Emotional abuse

During the “Millennial Moment” in Chapter 17 (“I Will Fight the Right Enemy”), Lucas tries to make the point that our real enemies are not people but rather “the devil” (155). While making that point, Lucas relates a disturbing anecdote:

“During the young seasons of our lives we are still trying to figure out who is for us, who is against us… For instance, have you ever yelled at a little kid who opposed you by doing something wrong and then, as they burst into tears, you immediately realized they weren’t a real enemy and yelling probably wasn’t the best solution to the problem? With nine siblings and six of them younger than me, I can assure this has happened to me on many occasions“ (155, emphasis added).

…no…

…no, I have not yelled at little children.

And yes, I have siblings and I have worked in numerous children’s ministries. Yelling at little kids to the point of making them cry is emotional and psychological abuse. It is sibling abuse and it has the same mental health effects as peer aggression. The fact that Lucas would so nonchalantly bring up this example, say that he’s done this to his siblings “on many occasions,” and then pass it off as “not the best solution” is damning. It’s damning to him because he’s admitting emotional abuse and not seeing how problematic it is. But it’s even more damning to his parents, Lisa and Doug, because they created a home environment where siblings frequently yelled at each to the point of tears and don’t see that as a serious problem. 

This is yet another reason I cannot trust the Cherry family to truly understand — and thus teach about — the dynamics of abuse. They don’t see some of the most basic forces that create environments ripe for abuse.

e. Faulty sex education

In Chapter 18, titled “Defeating the God of Sex,” Lisa discusses sexuality and various facts about it. There are numerous problems with this chapter, including the fact that a lot of the facts are wrong. The most glaring example of this is when Lisa describes the benefits of abstinent-until-monogamously-married sex. Those benefits include the following: “No strange diseases” and married individuals can have sex “Any day they want it.” Let’s talk about the former first.

The context for this whole series is of course child sexual abuse — and that’s the most common topic for the Cherry family as well. So let’s talk about the relationship between child sexual abuse and these “strange diseases,” AKA sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

First, how frequent is child abuse? Well, as many as 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused at some point in their childhood.

Next, what are some other facts we know about child abuse? According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, (1) “most sexual abuse in childhood escapes detection,” (2) “multiple episodes of abuse increase the risk of STD infection,” and (3) “the majority of children who are sexually abused will have no physical complaints related either to trauma or STD infection. Most sexually abused children do not indicate that they have genital pain or problems.”

So as many as 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused — and most of that abuse will escape detection. And those who are abused are at risk for these “strange diseases” — yet “most sexually abused children do not indicate that they have genital pain or problems.” Furthermore, consider that — apart from delivery-caused ones — all gonorrhea infections in children under the age of 9 are caused by “molestation by relatives.”

The take-away here is that a person can desire to be pure their entire life but that doesn’t guarantee sexual safety. A chance encounter of abuse (one that a person might even block out of their memory) could infect your partner (married or monogamous or otherwise) with an STD. The conservative Christian ideal of marriage, therefore, is no guarantee — nor should it be presented as such — that your partner will be disease-free. We live in a cruel world where abuse and rape run rampant. Thus accurate and healthy sex education will make zero promises about diseases. This is especially important in conservative Christian homeschool environments where strict notions about courtship and betrothal still hold sway. The average courtship process would never allow for the sort of conversational intimacy where a partner with a history of abuse would have the opportunity to feel comfortable disclosing that abuse to the other partner. But that is absolutely necessary prior to one’s first sexual encounter (even if that encounter is on one’s church-blessed wedding night).

The other “benefit” I want to examine is the promise of partners having sex “Any day they want it.” Yes, people in relationships have the opportunity to have sex whenever they want to provided that the other partner in the relationship is consenting. However, Lisa never mentions consent. For someone presenting herself as an educator on abuse prevention, this silence is extraordinarily disconcerting. And mind you, the silence is deafening —

The concept of consent does not appear a single time in any of Lisa Cherry’s books. 

This is vital because marital rape exists and is a serious problem through society, including many conservative Christian homes. In fact, this problem is particularly pronounced because many conservative Christian leaders have taught that marital rape is a fiction and/or appear to condone marital rape. Furthermore, conservative Christian sex education has been sorely lacking in discussing consent. As homeschool alum Kathryn Brightbill has pointed out,

“I’ve racked my brain trying to remember even a single time that I’ve ever heard consent mentioned in a church-related setting growing up and I can’t remember a single one. By not teaching about consent, you produce girls who don’t know that they can refuse consent for any other reason than ‘it’s a sin,’ and you produce boys who have never been taught that no means no. That’s a recipe for disaster. Is conservative abstinence education turning boys into accidental rapists and girls into easy victims because neither one has been educated about consent being an inviolable element in a sexual encounter?”

Accurate and empowering sex education is an essential tool in fighting abuse. If the sex education you are teaching includes inaccurate information and does not mention consent, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are hurting, not helping, the cause of fighting abuse.

f. Marginalizing LGBT* individuals

I am fully aware that as I examine how Lisa discusses and treats LBGT* individuals (both in this post and tomorrow’s) it’s unfortunately going to be controversial. The community that Lisa teaches to — and the community I hope will learn from what I am writing here — is a conservative Christian one. Having grown up in that community, I have seen firsthand how it tends to be marginalizing towards LGBT* individuals. This is due to deeply held religious beliefs about what the Bible says concerning gender and sexuality. In light of that fact, I am going to put into brackets (for the sake of this post) any conversation about the morality of various sexualities. That’s an absolutely important conversation (and I certainly have my opinions) but I want to continue to focus on the efficacy of prevention techniques related to child abuse and mental health.

Where I want to start is by laying out a few facts:

• First, and most importantly, children who will later identify as LGBT* are at a higher risk for sexual abuse: “Children who grow up later to identify as LGBT are more at risk of sexual abuse as children… LGBT adults report that their behavior and interaction with others was often atypical in childhood when compared to their peers. Being or feeling ‘different’ can result in social isolation / exclusion, which in turn can lead to a child being more vulnerable to the instigation and continuation of abuse.”

• Second, feelings of social isolation and rejection are statistically linked with experiences of abuse. In fact, abusers specifically use isolation as a tool of abuse and target people vulnerable to isolation.

• Third, LGBT* youth are far more likely to be rejected by their families: “Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population. The Center for American Progress has reported that there are between 320,000 and 400,000 homeless LGBT youths in the United States.”

• Fourth,  numerous studies indicate that LGBT* individuals “are likely to be at higher risk for depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. One study found that GLB groups are about two-and-one-half times more likely than heterosexual men and women to have had a mental health disorder.”

• Fifth, supporting LGBT* individuals reduces the risk of mental illness. According to the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, “Specific parental behaviors, such as advocating for their children when they are mistreated due to their LGBT identity and supporting their teen’s gender expression, were linked to a lower likelihood of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts.”

The above five facts form the framework in which I will be discussing LGBT* individuals and child abuse for the rest of this series. It is my belief that, without even touching the issues of morality and sexuality, we can drastically reconsider how we as the Church (and religious homeschooling communities) approach LGBT* children and youth. Because when we realize that (1) LGBT* kids are more vulnerable to abuse, (2) isolation and rejection also make kids more vulnerable to abuse, (3) LGBT* kids are more likely to be isolated and rejected, (4) LGBT* kids are more vulnerable to mental illness, and (5) isolation and rejection increases vulnerability to mental illness, we need to wake up.

How LGBT* kids have been treated by conservative Christian homes is itself grooming for child abuse.

This is frightening and should be a bucket of cold water on everyone’s heads. We are putting LGBT* kids at risk for child abuse by the messages we are sending.

In light of that, consider the following passages from Not Open that mention LGBT* individuals:

• Lucas saying “I am horrified” when a Christian friend of his revealed she was bisexual (10).
• Lisa including “Homosexual” in a list of “bad people” that includes “Sex offender” and “Murderer” (26).
• Lisa claiming the existence of LGBT* people “threatens to destroy our kids’ relationships with and faith in God” (59).
• Lisa calling a gay person a “sexual offender” (62).
• Lisa’s daughter complaining about how she “has” to treat a gay colleague with kindness: “What do I do? I have to have a working relationship. I need to treat him kindly. It is messing with my head.” To this, Lisa responds, “What can I say? I AM NOT SURPRISED” (65).
• Lisa encouraging her aforementioned daughter to “pull that man aside” and declare to him, “Homosexuality is not an appropriate lifestyle” (103); Lisa then exclaiming, “Someone is going to have to shut the open doors!” (104).
• Lisa declaring that LGBT* people are “no longer identifying with Christ” and are thus “out of heaven” (162).
• Lisa describing the mob in Sodom at Lot’s door (wanting to gang-rape his visitors) not as rapists but as “the homosexual men” (207).

Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT* individual. Would any of the above statements make you feel welcomed or loved? No. All these passages would make LGBT* individuals feel isolated or rejected. It’s not even because of a declaration of morality; it’s because this language is hurtful.

I should point out that Lisa says, in Chapter 3, that she knows the church has unfairly hurt LGBT* individuals:

“When anyone walked into one of our Christian churches with their lesbian partner on their arm or with their tongue-ringed gothic son in tow and were turned away without receiving the love of our Lord from us, then we were clearly and unequivocally wrong. If anyone has ever been the recipient of an icy stare or has been hidden in the back seat of a balcony by one of our ushers, we have clearly violated Jesus’s example” (23-4).

Unfortunately, this observation immediately gets lost as Lisa then proceeds to (as I pointed out above) unfairly hurt LGBT* individuals. If anyone is giving LGBT* people an “icy stare,” it’s Lisa in Not Open (and especially in Unmask the Predators, as we shall see tomorrow). In fact, she is actively encouraging people to give them icy stares. When you call a group of people “sexual offenders,” that doesn’t exactly encourage warmness.

Clearly, therefore, life isn’t as simple as being “Open” to people but “Not Open” to ideas. Sometimes people and ideas are inherently intertwined and knowing how to love someone you disagree with isn’t reducible to bumper sticker-like mantras.

Tomorrow I will examine Unmask the Predators, which is Lisa’s updated version of Kalyn’s Secret and the book she is promoting the most now through Frontline Family Ministries. It is also the book that most concerns me.

By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

*****

In this series: Part One, Introduction | Part Two, Kalyn’s Secret | Part Three, Kalyn’s Secret (Continued) | Part Four, Not Open | Part Five, Unmask the Predators | Part Six, Recommended Resources | Part Seven, Conclusion

*****

Part Three, Kalyn’s Secret (Continued)

In the first half of today’s analysis of Kalyn’s Secret, I gave some context for understanding the Cherry family and then looked at where the book took steps in the right direction.

3. The Bad

Unfortunately, the book also takes many, many steps in wrong directions. In fact, I could dedicate an entire five-day-long series to just this book and its ideas. However, that would be a tedious read and could sidetrack us into debates over theology and ideology. So I am going to focus this section less on the actual ideas and more on the consequences of those ideas when it comes to abuse prevention and mental health advocacy. I grew up hearing the mantra, “Ideas have consequences,” and I still find that mantra to hold true. So as I examine the ideas contained within Kalyn’s Secret, I will be filtering them through the lens of the following question: Does this help or harm abuse survivors and individuals with mental illness?

The ideas I will be examining are:

a. Poor biblical exegesis

b. Damaging theology

c. Perspective on mental health

d. Demonology

e. Authoritarianism and Patriarchy

f. Suggesting physical abuse and first-time obedience

g. Bad advice regarding counseling and abuse reporting

h. Recommended resources

a. Poor biblical exegesis

One of the root problems in Kalyn’s Secret is Lisa Cherry’s poor grasp of biblical exegesis. This might seem strange considering that she is a pastor at Victory Christian Center (a church she and her husband founded), but Lisa’s higher education consists only of a BS in Nursing.

I know some of you reading might not be Christians, so discussing biblical exegesis might seem meaningless. However, basic reading comprehension is a skill everyone can benefit from. And a poor grasp of biblical exegesis — whether or not you believe the Bible is true in the first place — can lead people to believe some awfully damaging ideas. So whether or not you believe the Bible is true, it behooves all of us to encourage those who do to read the Bible accurately and in a way that promotes healing (and not harmful) ideas.

There are numerous ways that Lisa engages in flawed biblical exegesis in Kalyn’s Secret: pulling verses out of context, playing fast and loose with definitions, inserting her own words into passages, switching one Bible translation for another mid-passage to justify an idea she’s trying to proof-text, etc. But I want to focus on one specific exegetical problem in particular: personalizing passages that aren’t meant to be personal. Time and time again, Lisa strips verses out of their historical and literary contexts and argues that they magically transcend those contexts and are direct messages from God to us in 2014. I know a lot of people do that. But that’s just not how reading and writing works. That’s a failure in Exegesis 101.

The most important example of Lisa doing this is her treatment of Luke 10:19: “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.” Lisa uses this verse on two separate occasions: (1) to claim that “when we saw strange demonic activity happening in our home, we had to remind ourselves of the truth that we have been given ‘authority to tread on [snakes] and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure [us]” (133); and (2) to claim that “speaking God’s promises” “out loud” “allows God’s Word to defeat the powers of darkness,” proof-texted with Luke 10:19 (189).

The problem is, Luke 10:19 proves nothing of the sort. Here’s the context: Jesus appointed 70 people and “sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.” The 70 people then “returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.’” Jesus responds to those 70 people and says, “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.” This passage is directed to 70 people specifically appointed by Jesus to do a particular task during a precise moment in history, not any and every Christian living in 2014. In fact, you’ll notice that when Lisa quotes it in the first example, she actually changes the verse, replacing the word “you” with “[us].” She’s literally rewriting the Bible to make it say something it doesn’t.

This point about exegesis is significant because Lisa’s exegetical failures directly lead to the next problem: damaging theology.

b. Damaging theology

As I said earlier, Lisa and her husband are self-described “Holy Rollers” (57). The Cherry family falls squarely into the Charismatic, Word of Faith, Holiness, and Prosperity Gospel movements. Lisa talks about the necessity of true believers having “an encounter with the third person of the Trinity named the Holy Spirit” (56) — and that not having that special encounter jeopardizes one’s relationship with God.

One can see this in the strong charismatic language used by Lisa in statements like, “We must learn to avoid spirit failure and employ Spirit power” (93), “Spirit failure was causing me to be pulled into the pit with Kalyn, and I desperately needed an emergency supply of God’s supernatural power!” (96), and “Through Jesus our ‘power hook up’ was restored” (113). In fact, Chapter 7 of the book is tellingly called, “Hooked Up to the Power.”

Lisa describes two of these so-called “power hook-ups” as (1) exousia and (2) dunamis. Exousia, she says, “refers to force, superhuman mastery, and delegated influence, which reflects authority. This Greek word…holds the answer for every problem anyone is facing now or in the future…Jesus gave His authority back to His children… Jesus had the exousia, and He transferred the exousia to His true followers” (115-6). This power promises success and victory: “Because of our exousia we can stand up and proclaim, “In Jesus’ name, I command every force of darkness to leave my home” (117).

Dunamis means “a mighty working miracle power,” Lisa says. It refers to the power to heal the sick and cast out demons, and Christians have this power, too: “Jesus Himself operated in this Holy Spirit power anointing when He healed the sick, walked on water, and cast out unclean spirits…That same dunamis is available to all believers by being filled with the Spirit” (119).

Lisa takes these “power hook-ups” seriously. In fact, she states with all seriousness that the 1904 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles was a true working of the Holy Spirit (118). For those unfamiliar with this revival, suffice it to say that it was the beginning point of the Pentecostal and Holiness movements in the U.S. and has been directly linked to child abuse and deaths due to its emphasis on faith healing.

While I desire to respect people’s diverse theological belief systems, I do think that each and every system of human belief has weaknesses — and those weakness are particularly amplified in certain circumstances. For example, while we could argue about the validity of Calvinism’s tenet of predestination, I hope we all can agree that raising the tenet of predestination at a loved one’s funeral is counter-productive and damaging. That’s not the time and place. Similarly, raising the charismatic tenets of the Cherry family’s theological system — whether you think they are valid or not — within the context of abuse prevention is counter-productive and damaging. Here’s why:

First, it offers false hope.

The “victorious Christian living” message from these movements offers false hope to families facing the devastations of child abuse. It promises supernatural power when it should be offering accurate, concrete, and professional assistance for abuse recovery and mental illness. Examples of the promises Lisa makes include:

• “To those who understand His ways, who respond to His incredible offer of a covenant relationship, who obey His principles, and who can believe His incredible mercies, He will make His supernatural power available” (123).
• “God is ready to give us the fullness of His power—He’s promised to in His Word. We just need to plug in!” (125).
• “As parents we can say no! Our prayers and our authority have power in the spirit realm” (164).
• “When you are prepared for the day of battle, your victory is sure!” (175).

Second, it emphasizes prayer over real recovery assistance.

This is the problem with any worldview that advocates faith healing. These worldviews declare that simply saying words out loud can transform circumstances. This is mysticism, not accurate science or even biblical Christianity. Examples of Lisa’s Word-of-Faith ideology includes:

• “Pray the prayer below for whichever spiritual condition you may be in right now, and expect God to rescue you and help you to find your own path out!” (106).
• “By some counts it is estimated that there are over 6,000 statements of promise contained in the Word that are available to the child of God… Speaking God’s promises is how we declare our place of authority over our own lives… It allows…the release of the power of faith [and] God’s Word to defeat the power of darkness… This scriptural declaration not only transforms my mind and heals my emotions, it also transforms circumstances” (188-90).
• “Just keep speaking those promises aloud until faith supernaturally begins to rise up in your spirit” (192).

Third, it heaps guilt upon survivors of abuse and their families.

There’s no way around the fact that recovering from child abuse and/or mental illness is a complicated and grueling process. In fact, an entire lifetime might very well be required. There will be relapses, dark moments, and times when people will just want to give up. It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or an atheist or a Buddhist — this is just how recovery works.

To suggest to survivors of abuse and their families that there are easy answers or that they just need to tap into a supernatural source of power is devastating. Because ultimately, the realities of recovery will surface no matter what. The feelings of failure are difficult enough, but the worldview of the Cherry family only adds guilt on top of guilt. Because now survivors not only feel like failures in terms of recovery, but also failures in terms of their relationships with God. Wasn’t faith supposed to supernaturally rise up? It didn’t. So does that mean I am not a Christian? Does God hate me? Must I pray harder? What is wrong with me?

This is an insidious form of religious abuse and has no place in legitimate education about abuse prevention or recovery.

c. Perspective on mental health

Both Lisa and Kalyn Cherry (though primarily Lisa) minimize, spiritualize, and stigmatize mental health health issues through Kalyn’s Secret. They minimize by discussing mental illnesses as if they are stereotypical teenage “issues” (like smoking cigarettes) that can be easily avoided or vanquished. They spiritualize by repeatedly classifying mental illness as a tool of Satan and demons, rather than an actual illness. And they stigmatize mental illness by speaking of it as something wrong on a moral and/or spiritual level.

These problems begin at the very beginning of the book when Lisa tells a morality tale about a Parent and Child traveling on a Boat (representing life). The Parent is obsessed (and in Lisa’s mind, rightly so) with avoiding various “Islands” (the aforementioned, stereotypical teenage “issues”) and has to help the Child stay safe. In Lisa’s mind, the Parent can successfully navigate the Child’s boat and not run aground on any of the islands. And one of these Islands — amongst things like Drugs and Violence — is “Depression”: “Parent had studied the names of the other ‘islands’ their boat needed to avoid—Depression, Drugs, Sexual Abuse, Rebellion, Violence, Teen Pregnancy—and he certainly didn’t intend to get their boat caught up on any of them!” (24)

Mental illness is not something that can be “avoided” necessarily any more than any physical illness. So not only does classifying it alongside things like drugs obfuscate its roots, it also makes it appear like it’s something easily avoided or fixed. This minimizing continues throughout the book. Lisa makes it sound like God won’t let “real” Christian remain mentally ill, saying, “When God would remind us that He sent forth His Word and healed all our diseases (Ps. 107:20), we had to remind ourselves that depression would not be able to stay in Kalyn’s body. When we saw strange demonic activity happening in our home, we had to remind ourselves of the truth that we have been given ‘authority to tread on [snakes] and scorpions” (132-3). She also insinuates that parents can solve mental illness simply by praying: “When attacks come against your home, take a stand by faith and pray like this: ‘No devil…I disallow tormentors such as depression, oppression, anxiety, and stress…’ As parents, we can say no! Our prayers and our authority have power in the spirit realm” (132-3).

This, of course, is not surprising in light of the fact that the Cherry family adheres to and promotes various religious movements noted for faith hearings.

As you can see from the last quotation, Lisa also spiritualizes mental illness. She describes depression as a “tormentor” from the “devil.” Other spiritualizing language that the book uses to describe mental illness includes “weapons at the devil’s disposal” (92) and “dark forces” and “ugly monsters” (226-7). This is not a coincidence. As we will discuss in the next section, demonology is a significant factor in the Cherry family’s worldview.

The last point necessary to make about Kalyn’s Secret and mental health is that the book stigmatizes mental illness by describing it — and those who suffer from it — in intensely negative terms. Kalyn describes mental illness as a “weakness” (227) and a sign of “our perverted, godless society” (239). Lisa describes it as part of a “pit” belonging to Satan. She compares mental illness to alcohol, saying that depressed individuals use their mental illness as a “coping mechanism” that “allows the mind to shut down and temporarily give up the task of reasoning.” She also says that it’s “politically correct” to describe mental illness as an “involuntary response,” when in fact it’s “the enemy’s ultimate strategy against all God built and created” (81).

All of this is not ok. It is completely irresponsible for people claiming to be sexual abuse prevention educators to minimize, spiritualize, and stigmatize the mentally ill. Mental illness is real, it is not the result of personal failure or satanic influence, and it deserves to be treated carefully, scientifically, and compassionately. Especially considering that child abuse primes the brain for mental illness, the mental health language used in Kalyn’s Secret — a book directed towards people with child abuse experiences — is 100% inappropriate.

d. Demonology

The fact that the Cherry family repeatedly discuss mental illness in spiritual terms is not a coincidence. Demonology is a significant factor in their worldview — and it’s probably one of the most disturbing and damaging aspects of it. In their worldview, there is an intense, Frank Peretti-like world of spiritual warfare occurring underneath the surface of the physical realm: “The spiritual realm is a very real world charged with the activity of both God and His angelic ministering forces and the devil and his demonic tormenting forces” (85). Lisa makes multiple, exclamatory references to warfare, such as “This life is not like a war, it is a war!” and “This is not a symbolic war, this is a real war!” (90).

While one could make arguments for or against the concept of spiritual warfare, I want to stay focused on — as I said previously — the issues of abuse and mental health. In reference to her own family’s struggle with child abuse, Lisa employs language that is a mixture of Bill Gothard and Frank Peretti: “I underestimated the strategic cunning of the spiritual forces of darkness to develop fortresses in our homes” (13-4). Lisa also insinuates, when Kalyn was lashing out at her and her husband due to feelings of abandonment and betrayal, that her daughter was possessed: “I looked at this shell of my daughter sitting before me and was convinced it was not really her speaking to us anymore. The daughter I knew would never say such horrible things” (104).

This emphasis on “the spiritual forces of darkness” carries over into how Kalyn discusses her own abuse. Kalyn ends up seeing her relationship with her abuser as a spiritual one: “My desire to please him, impress him, and be loyal to him dominated my life. I know that this devastating connection must been constructed on a spiritual level because the tie was so strange and strong it could not have simply occurred in the natural realm” (39-40). Kalyn comes to believe this “devastating connection,” or the “so strange and strong tie,” is the result of demonic forces: “Was it only a man controlling me? No, the force that held me no man could establish or break in his own strength. I had opened the door for principalities and powers of darkness [see Eph. 6:12], and I would pay dearly” (44).

While Kalyn’s Secret references this “connection” or “tie” between Kalyn and her abuser, it does not specifically reference the concept of “soul ties,” whereby abuse victims supposedly become demonically “mind-melded” with their abusers. However, in Unmask the Predators, Lisa does specifically reference soul ties (and we’ll look at that in Part Five of this series).

There are many problems with this use of demonology in the context of abuse. The foremost one I want to mention is that that it only amplifies a victim or survivor’s feelings of terror and guilt over abuse. To suggest to a victim or survivor that their intense emotions – their feelings of anger, pain, betrayal, abandonment, and so forth — is not physically real (but rather the result of a demonic possession) is psychologically damaging. It makes them distant and distrustful of their emotions. This is damaging because (1) emotions are important indicators about reality and (2) acknowledging one’s emotions is a crucial part of healing and recovery.

Another reason why demonology is problematic in this context is that it shifts the responsibility for criminal actions away from the actual abusers and towards supernatural forces.

When discussing “our family’s crisis,” Lisa Cherry does this: “The enemies in this battle are really not the people involved in the dark acts, but the forces of evil which have taken them captive to do their will for this season” (67-8). While this could remain an abstract spiritual point, she later applies it naively and dangerously to the man who abused her own daughter. Lisa says, “I do not believe this man intentionally set out to hurt our daughter’ (137). She then blames the spiritual forces of darkness instead. While there is a time and place for empathy and forgiveness for abusers, language that in any way excuses or minimizes the actions of abusers is inappropriate here. This is especially important considering that the evangelical church today is facing an abuse crisis. We desperately need to focus on accountability, justice, and transparency, not excuses and minimizing. The latter has gone on long enough.

e. Authoritarianism and Patriarchy

Instituting a firm system of authority is a key aspect of the Cherry family’s abuse prevention strategy. In fact, I honestly can’t help but admire the perceptiveness of Kalyn even in the midst of her abuse, for she seems to have recognized the “oppressive parenting” (143) her parents were using. (It is shame this perception was silenced and cast aside as somehow demonic in origin.)

While the authority system Lisa advocates for is spoken of vaguely, one can deduce from resources she recommends (most notably, Bill Gothard and his Institute for Basic Life Principles) and the language she uses (Gothard-like language) that she envisions a top-down authoritarianism. While Lisa does not specifically reference Gothard’s notion of the “umbrella of protection” (where obedience to authority structures is necessary to be protected by God), she does use similar-sounding language, describing her family’s failure to protect Kalyn as “drop[ping] our shield of moral protection over our own children” (150). Lisa also describes the cascading effect of being out from under that protective umbrella/shield: “The point is that ultimately the enemy’s attack over Kalyn’s life became an attack over her parents, which became an attack over her whole family, which became an attack against anyone and everyone who God had preordained for her family to reach with the good news of Jesus Christ” (83). To counter this, she insists that learn to submit to all authority figures is essential to Christian families: “Obedience is God’s way, so this lifelong obedience-to-authority training course begins by learning to obey our parents and eventually obeying other authority figures” (155).

There are 3 problems with the umbrella/shield of protection concept I want to highlight:

First, this concept can be confusing or harmful to an abuse victim or survivor. As Recovering Grace has explained, “Central to the concept is the fact that under the umbrella, ‘nothing can happen to us that God did not design for his glory and our ultimate good,’ while out from under the umbrella, ‘we expose ourselves to the realm and power of Satan’s control.’ So, is a child or young person to interpret sexual abuse from an authority figure as designed by God for glory, or the result of having strayed into the realm of Satan’s control?”

Second, it exacerbates anxiety and/or panic for children, young adults, abuse survivors, and the mentally ill.

And third, authoritarian systems protect abusers, not the abused: “The umbrella of protection…ends up protecting abusers better than it protects those vulnerable to abuse…The chain-of-command dictates a worldview in which leadership is not earned, but given by divine right. This means if the leadership errs, you are not to correct him or her, or get yourself to safety, but to continue to submit.”

Patriarchy

It must also be mentioned that Lisa Cherry advocates for a specific type of authoritarianism within Christian families: patriarchy.

She explains that she used to believe in equality between husband and wife, but that was part of a “liberal mindset” (53) that blocked God’s blessings in her family’s lives. (She even insinuates that a factor leading to Kalyn’s abuse could be her family’s original lack of patriarchy, because Kalyn was not properly controlled and disciplined.) Lisa says, “My modern philosophies about many things including my marriage and my parenting were directly impacting my children” (152), and she’ll clarify in Unmask the Predators that “modern philosophies” means “feministic and humanistic philosophies.” After a true commitment to Jesus, Lisa explains she gave all that up: “I no longer fought for my equal rights. I just wanted to give my rights away” (58). So she gave up her “feminist driven point of view” and embraced male “headship” and “submission” (153). She then challenges other wives to similarly submit to patriarchy, asking “If you are a wife, are you submitted to your husband’s leadership?” (157) She implies that if the answer is, “No,” your children could be at risk.

This advocacy of patriarchy is troubling considering that patriarchy creates environments conducive to abuse, especially sexual abuse. In The Cry of Tamar: Violence Against Women and the Church’s Response, Pamela Cooper-White explains that, “Patriarchy sets the stage in general for more abuse of girls and women of every kind at the hands of men, and conditions men to view women as objects for their gratification rather than fellow human beings worthy of empathy and care.”

This is seen clearly in conservative Christian subcultures. Homeschooling mom Julie Anne Smith has observed how patriarchy is “setting up…young ladies for abuse”. And homeschool alum Sarah Jones concurs, explaining that, “The Christian patriarchy movement grooms young women for abuse, consciously or not, by brainwashing them into compliance and encouraging them to forgo developing skills necessary for independent lives.” Even conservative Christian homeschool leader Michael Farris recently admitted that “families, children, women, and even fathers…have been harmed” by patriarchy.

f. Suggesting physical abuse and first-time obedience

In addition to promoting Gothard-like authoritarian parenting as one prevention strategy against sexual abuse threats, Lisa also recommends certain types of discipline. These recommendations are made in passing comments, so I should be upfront that the following observations are based more on extrapolation than direct statements by Lisa. But the hints Lisa drops regarding her discipline recommendations are enough to concern me.

The first observation is that Lisa criticizes “gentle mothering” (151). For those unfamiliar with this buzzword, “gentle” parenting eschews corporal punishment and first-time obedience. Lisa slams gentle parenting for being one of several “modern philosophies” that are “blocking God’s blessing” in families’ lives (152).

The second observation is that Lisa sets forth first-time obedience as a litmus test for whether you are being faithful to “God’s School of Obedience.” Lisa asks, “If you have younger children, can you give them a direction the first time without complaining or delaying?” (157) For those unfamiliar with the term, “first-time obedience” is a staple of Christian discipline books advocating the physical abuse of children, such as Gary and Anne Marie Ezzos’ Growing Kids God’s Way and Michael and Debi Pearl’s To Train Up A Child.

It has been criticized by many Christian parents because it “neglects the child’s basic well being”, cripples “the development of critical thinking”, and is based on “works-based salvation” and a “gross lack of grace.”

While advocating corporal punishment and first-time obedience may not necessarily imply to you that Lisa promotes physical abuse of children, it is important to note what resources she does recommend for child training: Reb Bradley and James Dobson. Lisa encourages people to buy Dobson’s “helpful resources” (167), even though Dobson’s book on discipline, The Strong-Willed Child, compares child training with cruelly beating a dog. And in the “recommended resources” section at the end of the book, she specifically recommends using Reb Bradley’s book Child Training Tips, a book noted for its excessive emphasis on harsh corporal punishment and authoritarian parenting.

Even more troubling — considering the context of sexual abuse prevention that we’re discussing — is the fact that Bradley’s methods actively discourage abuse prevention: “Reb Bradley also takes away the child’s only remaining defense against predators: parents who are open for communication.  ‘Unless it is an emergency,’ he says, ‘children should never be permitted to criticize those over them in authority’ (p. 124).”

All of these pieces, added together with Lisa’s statement in Not Open (the book we’ll discuss in the next part of this series) that it’s “healthy” for children to experience “fear and dread” of their fathers, seem to suggest that Lisa is encouraging parents to “discipline” their children according to books that advocate physically abusing children. While this would be bad enough, it’s even more inappropriate considering she masks it as somehow preventing another type of abuse. Which, as pointed out, it actually doesn’t. Creating a authoritarian home filled with “fear and dread” actually makes it harder for children to speak out about abuse — whether that abuse is physical or sexual.

This is counter-productive and damaging advice.

g. Bad advice regarding counseling and abuse reporting

The whole process the Cherry family went through regarding counseling for Kalyn — as well as the conclusions and recommendations they came to afterwards — are troubling. I commend their willingness to try different methods to find something that helped them, but I cannot commend their destination point.

Regarding counseling, Lisa declares it must be Christian-only. She does not specify what that means to her, but considering their use of Focus on the Family’s counselors as well as their book’s recommended resources, I assume she means nouthetic or “biblical” counseling. This is a troubling method, well-documented to cause significant problems and also not particularly biblical. Lisa also argues not just for “Christian-only” counseling, but that counseling for sexual abuse isn’t always important. She says, “Counseling has to be from a Christian perspective and should only be used as it lines up with God’s specific battle strategy for your particular battle” (218). This “should only be used” line is a dangerous suggestion considering how reticent many Christian churches already feel about addressing mental health issues. Lisa is only throwing fuel on the fire of mental health stigma by saying this. Stigma like that will not help abuse victims and survivors and will only make their lives worse.

Regarding abuse reporting, it isn’t what Lisa says that’s the problem. Rather, it’s what she doesn’t say. Here is the passage from Kalyn’s Secret that mentions reporting:

Doug had spent many hours praying about whether a police report was really necessary for us to do. Would we just needlessly increase our family’s pain if we reported the abuse? Shouldn’t we just practice “kindness” and all try to “forgive and forget” what had happened? But what about our responsibility to other families and churches who could be affected by this man’s unethical behavior? As Doug listened for the Lord’s direction in this matter, he became convinced it was necessary for us to make that report to our authorities. (141-2)

Lisa and her husband did make the right call in reporting the abuse. Matthew 18, the biblical passage often used to claim abuse should be handled “in-house” by churches, does not apply to criminal actions. GRACE’s Boz Tchividjian points out that, “Child sexual abuse is not a private matter but rather a public and civic one, rightly under the sword of the civil authority.”

The problem is that at no point does Lisa encourage families to report abuse. Rather, she leaves it open-ended about whether or not they should do so because she focuses on her husband praying about it. What if “the Lord’s direction” had been otherwise? Furthermore, as I will discuss later in this week when we look at Unmask the Predators, Lisa actually discourages families from reporting abuse in certain circumstances.

This is neither sufficient nor appropriate abuse prevention advice.

h. Recommended resources

I will discuss FFM’s list of recommended resources from Kalyn’s Secret at length during Part 6 of this series when I examine their online resources. This is because (1) the book’s recommendations are the same as the online ones and (2) the recommendations deserve a thorough analysis in themselves. Today’s analysis is long enough as it is.

However, I want to at least list for you what the most troubling recommended resources are (and in Part 7 I will explain why they are troubling):

• Bill Gothard
• Eric and Leslie Ludy
• Institute in Basic Life Principles
• James Dobson
• John Bevere
• Lou Priolo
• Reb Bradley
• Ron Luce
• Teen Mania
• Shannon Etheridge
• S.M. Davis
• Watchman Nee

4. Final Thoughts

Based on Kalyn’s Secret alone, I would highly discourage people from consulting Lisa Cherry and Frontline Family Ministries for advice on sexual abuse prevention. From their advocacy of unbiblical theology to their perspective on mental health, from their obsession with demonology to their shockingly bad recommendations of people like Bill Gothard and Reb Bradley and organizations like IBLP and Teen Mania, they are pointing abuse victims, survivors, and their families in all the wrong directions. Those directions have proven time and time again to lead to immense pain for the abused.

Unfortunately, this is just the first book. We have only begun to scratch the surface of Lisa Cherry and FFM’s troubling worldview. Tomorrow I will discuss their second book, Not Open, where we learn about the culture war underpinnings driving the Cherry family and FFM.

By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

*****

In this series: Part One, Introduction | Part Two, Kalyn’s Secret | Part Three, Kalyn’s Secret (Continued) | Part Four, Not Open | Part Five, Unmask the Predators | Part Six, Recommended Resources | Part Seven, Conclusion

*****

Part Two, Kalyn’s Secret

I need to begin this with a warning: today’s analysis of Kalyn’s Secret is awfully long. I apologize for this, but understanding Kalyn’s Secret is foundational to understanding the rest of FFM’s materials. So the length is necessary. I will be splitting today’s analysis in two posts: this first post will explain the background, context, and positive elements of Kalyn’s Secret and the second post will examine the negative elements. (So if you’re just interested in my critiques, skip to the second half.)

I promise the rest of the week’s posts will be much less tedious. But for today, grab a cup of coffee or tea and let’s get started…

Written in 2009 by Lisa Cherry and her daughter Kalyn, Kalyn’s Secret tells the story of how then-14-year-old Kalyn was groomed for sexual abuse via phone and online interactions with a 46-year-old male parishioner from their church. The book alternates between Lisa and Kalyn’s voices (with a concluding chapter written by Lisa’s husband Doug), though the majority of the book is written by Lisa.

I want to be clear at the outset that my heart goes out to not only Kalyn for the abuse she experienced, but also to Lisa, Doug, and the entire Cherry family for the trauma that the abuse brought upon everyone. While I am going to be expressing intense disagreement with the theological, ideological, and strategic views contained in this book (and others), that in no way lessens my compassion and empathy for this family. What they — especially Kalyn — experienced was and is heartbreaking. I wish the family continued hope and healing in their personal lives and interpersonal relationships.

I also want to be clear about something else: while I was expecting to find some disagreements as I read Kalyn’s Secret (the first of the FFM books I read), I was not expecting to be fundamentally disturbed by the ideas contained within it. I was honestly hoping to be able to find much good within its pages.

Before analyzing the book, I should give some background on what happened to the Cherry family. Beginning when she was 14, Kalyn — a homeschooled and pastor’s kid — sought the friendship and approval of a family in their church. She had a crush on the family’s 21-year-old son. That son eventually moved away to college and his parents separated. The 46-year-old father of the family was “a well-regarded, seasoned employee of a local Christian organization” (36). After the father separated from his wife, he began to groom Kalyn for abuse: through compliments and flirting at first, and later, through sexually explicit phone and online conversations. Due to her upbringing and all the responsibility placed upon Kalyn since a young age, she felt she was “maturing rapidly in all areas of my life” (34), and became an easy target for the older man.

Kalyn’s parents discovered this abusive relationship when Kalyn’s conversations with the man racked up an $800 phone bill — which fortunately happened before he was able to abuse her in any physical way. The Cherry family eventually decided to file a police report and press charges against him. A jury found him “guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault—specifically, indecent solicitation of a minor” (237)—though later the case was re-opened and the charges unfortunately dropped.

Again, my heart goes out to Kalyn and her family. This was a tragic situation and easy answers are difficult.

1. About the Cherry Family

The first step I want to take in analyzing Kalyn’s Secret is to distill who and what the Cherry family is. This means I will be throwing out labels and adjectives as descriptors. I want to clear up front about three things when I do this: (1) I am not using these descriptors to stereotype, insult, or attack the Cherry family. Rather, I just want to help you as readers to understand the worldview from which they are approaching these issues. (2) Some of these descriptors could be positive or negative depending on the context. And (3) even if I believed all these descriptors were negative, that would not mean I would necessarily condemn the abuse prevention week simply because of its messenger. So again, I provide these descriptors simply for context.

To that contextual end, the Cherry family is/are:

• Quiverfull

Lisa uses classic Quiverfull language to describe her and her husband’s procreative philosophy. She says that, “God began to talk to us about having another child. It really wasn’t a discussion with Him about that but about who would be Lord over all of our womb decisions” (59, emphasis added). Lisa and her husband have 10 children.

• A pastor’s family

Lisa and her husband founded a church and became known as a stereotypical Quiverfull, homeschooling family: “The whole Cherry tribe was known around town as that pastor’s family in the white 15-passenger van with lots of kids” (27).

• “Holy Rollers”

“Holy Rollers” is traditionally considered a derogatory term used to refer to Christians who adhere to the Pentecostal and/or Holiness movements. These movements are marked by charismatic theology, perfectionism, word-of-faith teachings, and faith healings. Lisa self-describes her husband as a “Holy Roller” (57) and proudly explains how she became one, too.

• Patriarchal

I will discuss this at length later. But for the time being you should know that Lisa vehemently disagrees with any semblance of egalitarianism or feminism. She believes such ideas actively block God’s blessing in families’ lives. She advocates for traditional male headship and authority.

• Into spiritual warfare

This goes hand and hand with the fact that the Cherry family are self-described “Holy Rollers.” They believe demons are active everywhere and one must continually pray them out of house and heart. Evil spirits are responsible for everything from depression to sexual abuse.

• Paranoid

I think this descriptor might be the most negative-sounding at face value. But obviously there are circumstances in life that necessitate paranoia. The question is under what circumstances it is healthy versus unhealthy. What I want to highlight here is that the spiritual warfare ideas of the Cherry family translate (in the book) into regular states of paranoia for Lisa. For example, when talking about Kalyn during her “rebellious” stages, Lisa says, “Every time the phone would ring for her, or I saw her talking to others, I would fight of panic that she would be sucked into a world of evil” (77). Lisa felt she had to be in a constant state of alertness and activation: “Inwardly my spiritual weapons were always in my hands, and my mind was always alert for trouble” (143). When some rebellious-looking teens pulled up into the Cherry family’s driveway one day, Lisa engaged in exorcism-sounding routines: “I commanded the forces of darkness off my property. I prayed for the protection of the blood of Jesus to descend upon my daughter and my home” (144).

• Demanding

As a large pastor family constantly engaged in ministry, Lisa and Doug’s children were constantly helping out and in the spotlight. Lisa states that, “Each of our children began to rise up at young ages and share in the work of the ministry,” and she admits that, “It was not an easy lifestyle” (61). At one point Lisa says Kalyn described the parents’ home as involving “oppressive parenting” (143), but Lisa states that this was Kalyn’s demonic rebellion speaking and not her true heart.

• Controlling

Throughout Kalyn’s Secret, Lisa describes numerous moments where she and her husband controlled Kalyn’s actions and behaviors. Some of these seem justified, others seem excessive. One particular moment stood out to me: Months after the abuse was discovered, Lisa started going to a fitness center. Kalyn wanted to join her mother — which should have been considered an amazing opportunity and development for Lisa and her family. However, Lisa only allows Kalyn to go under certain conditions such as, “You’ll have to drive” and “You’ll have to sit in complete silence” (190).

• Under pressure

Due to the Cherry family’s national ministry demands, the family was constantly under pressure to put on a good face and perform. This led to many situations where Lisa and her husband chose to not prioritize their daughter over their own careers. For example, mere days after the abuse was discovered, Lisa says “we were in Tulsa at the Leadership Conference trying to hold our family together in front of hundreds of observing eyes.” During the conference, Kalyn privately told her parents that they had “ruined her life by the way we had raised her,” that she was “never coming back,” and they were “destined to lose our other kids as well due to our parenting flaws” (104). Rather than cancel the conference and deal with the situation with their daughter, Lisa and her husband chose to double-down on their ministry commitments (105).

How Lisa and Doug responded to Kalyn

All of the above labels and adjectives are important for contextualizing the process by which Lisa and her husband Doug responded when they discovered Kalyn’s abuse. Namely, they responded horribly. (And I should note in advance that Lisa herself admits she later realized they did respond horribly, which I commend her for recognizing and being honest about.) They first responded (according to Unmask the Predators) with blaming Kalyn for ruining their family’s reputation. They then thought the the root of the problem was rebellion and not abuse: “We had became so distracted and consumed by the tyranny of her urgent problems of rebellion and depression that we were being distracted from understanding her root causes—the abuse” (198). They also expressed their love in triggering ways: “[Doug] would reach out and hug her defiantly stiff body. He wouldn’t let her go” (209).

It wasn’t until months after the discovery of the abuse that Lisa realized how horribly they were responding: “I was jolted to realize I had begun to view my precious, bleeding daughter like I might a common juvenile delinquent as I had been filled with disgust, scorn, disapproval, and anger towards her” (200). Lisa then realized that Kalyn had felt unloved by her: “She [Kalyn] had a weak immune system. Her love tank is low from Mom and Dad. She feels a root of rejection from Mom” (203).

This unfortunately did not translate over into the best responses. The Cherry family “made visits to three different professional counselors” “before the Lord led us to be Kalyn’s counselors” (214). (Neither Lisa nor her husband are professional counselors.) Prior to committing to this, they called Focus on the Family’s counseling services (205). The Focus on the Family counselor asked Lisa, “Have you considered that perhaps, for right now, you and your husband could be her best counselors?” (206). This greatly encouraged Lisa, because she was not wanting Kalyn to go to outside counseling. Kalyn, however, was upset by this: “When we told Kalyn about our decision, she responded by getting angry and running away.” (206). Lisa, however, was undeterred: “We…had to reject the pieces offered that were not a part of our solution” (215).

Kalyn’s mental health

These labels and adjectives are also important to contextualize how Kalyn reacted to her parent’s response to the abuse. Kalyn reacted intensely. She lashed out, had major mood swings, experienced depression, and found solace in rebellious and/or sexualized behaviors as well as eating disorders and self-injury. Some of these reactions reached alarming levels. Her self-injury, for example, was significant: “I got mad, threw a golf ball through my window, and used the glass to cut my arms and legs.” Kalyn says this is but one of several ““erratic, bizarre behaviors” (231). She fantasized about suicide, even creating a notebook titled “When Kalyn Dies” (215).

At the end of her recovery process, this is where Kalyn ended up: “God showed me that I was the rebel the Scripture talks about, and I was the harlot the Scripture warns about” (233). As I said before, my heart goes out to Kalyn due to the trauma she experienced. But that she would feel that she was either a rebel or a harlot for experiencing perfectly legitimate emotions, pain, and struggle in response to that trauma (and then an unsupportive home environment) breaks my heart in two.

2. The Good

When I coached high school speech and debate, I always instructed my students to first say what they liked about a fellow student’s performance before they gave suggestions for improvement. So I would be a hypocrite if I did not follow my own advice. So before I offer critiques of Kalyn’s Secret, I’d like to first point out the parts of the book that I believe are helpful. I will cover the positives below, and then will I cover the negatives in a separate post.

a. Some of the “Tools” sections (Tool 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)

At the end of the book, after the Conclusion, Epilogue, and Postscript, there is a series of sections called “Tools.” The Tools sections are outside source materials selected by Lisa that address specific issues: sexual abuse, adolescent depression, suicide, teenage rebellion, eating disorders, drug abuse, online safety, and cutting. In general (though not always), the information in these sections is grounded in accurate understandings of psychology and science as well as guided by the experience of professional counselors and practitioners.

There’s a catch, though: most of these “Tools” were apparently copied and pasted by Lisa from publicly accessible websites. So you don’t need to buy the book to get them. Here are the source links:

• Source of Tool 2, “Understanding Sexual Abuse: Grooming Behaviors”
• Source of Tool 3, “Recognizing Adolescent Depression”
• Source of Tool 4, “Suicide Alertness”
• Source of Tool 6, “Warning Signs and Symptoms of Eating Disorders”
• Source of Tool 7, “Warning Signs of Teenage Drug Abuse”

b. Calling Christian communities to help those in crisis

One of the action steps in Lisa’s “Victory Battle Plan” is to “Get Proper Support.” This step is important and something all communities — Christian, homeschool, and otherwise — should do when it comes to issues like abuse and mental health. Communities should create support systems to help individuals and families dealing with these issues in the same way that they would help individuals and families dealing with any other traumatic situation (take cancer, for example). “In the body of Christ,” Lisa urges, “we are to bear one another’s burdens as an expression of our love.” Lisa points out practical ways her church helped her family: “Some of our closest family and friends offered practical help—casseroles, babysitting, notes of encouragement. Others offered spiritual help by praying for us and offering us words of insight and counsel” (213). This is something we can learn from.

c. Understanding abusers are usually people you trust, p. 173-4

In Chapter 11, “An Ounce of Prevention…”, Lisa points out the difficulty of teaching children to come forward about abuse experiences when children are groomed by “a trusted friend or relative.” She highlights the fact that, “Over 95 percent of child molesters are not strangers. They are trusted adults with insider status in the child’s or teen’s world” (174). This is absolutely crucial to recognize, because the “stranger danger” myth can lead us to misdirect our attention away from those who pose the greatest threats to children.

Now, I wouldn’t normally commend anyone for acknowledging basic facts about child abuse. But the homeschool narrative about child abuse has been shaped for decades by books like Mary Pride’s The Child Abuse Industry, featuring such horrific lines as, “The major problem is that the public has been convinced that child abuse is a major problem” and “Isn’t it possible to organize a bridge party without staring at an abused woman across the table?”

So Lisa Cherry’s book — by simply being a book written by a homeschool leader who acknowledges basic child abuse facts — is a huge step in the right direction.

Read the second half of my analysis of Kalyn’s Secret here.