Introduction

When reflecting back on my time in Shincheonji (SCJ), I’ve realized something ironic: the most effective people in helping me leave weren’t the Christians who tried to debate my theology. It was my atheist roommates. Despite their lack of biblical knowledge, they were the ones who finally reached me. They didn’t focus on arguing; they focused on getting me to “wake up” through questions that forced me to reconcile my reality with the claims of the group.

Since leaving, I have helped many individuals exit not only Shincheonji but various other high-control groups. Through this work, the most critical question I receive from families is always the same: “What type of questions do I ask my loved one?” In this article, we are going to answer that question by moving away from “gotcha” debates and toward a strategy of Socratic engagement.

The Intent: Pondering, Not Proving

Before we dive into specific scripts, we must establish the intent behind your words. If you go into a conversation looking for a “gotcha” moment or a debate to win, you have already lost. High-control groups like Shincheonji train their members to spot “attacks” from miles away. The moment they feel a “trap” being set, their mental shields go up, and the person you love disappears behind a wall of rehearsed doctrine.

Our approach is built on two pillars: The Socratic Method and Greg Koukl’s “Tactics.” We aren’t asking questions to “win”; we are asking them to help the member pause and ponder.

The Socratic Method

The Socratic Method, named after the Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of cooperative dialogue that prioritizes inquiry over assertion. At its core, this approach operates on the principle that the person asking the questions is the one who effectively controls the direction and depth of the conversation. Instead of providing a lecture or a rebuttal, the questioner acts as a guide, prompting the other person to think critically about their own statements.

The primary goal of this method is to help an individual expose their own internal contradictions and hidden assumptions. By consistently asking for clear definitions and objective evidence, you move the conversation away from emotional rhetoric and toward logical analysis. It forces the speaker to look more closely at the “logic map” they have been handed, often revealing gaps or inconsistencies they hadn’t previously noticed.

For those trying to reach someone in a high-control group, the Socratic Method offers a profound strategic benefit: it bypasses the “persecution” phobia. Because you are not making aggressive statements or “attacking” the group’s beliefs, you don’t trigger the defensive shield that cults spend so much time building. Instead, you adopt the posture of someone simply seeking help to understand, which keeps the dialogue open and allows the loved one to remain in a thinking state rather than a defensive one.

The Ambassador Mindset (from Greg Koukl’s Tactics)

In his book Tactics, Greg Koukl introduces a paradigm shift for high-stakes conversations: the “Ambassador” mindset. Koukl emphasizes that when we engage with others-especially those entrenched in a specific worldview-we should behave like diplomatic representatives rather than combatants. While a Soldier enters a conversation with the intent to conquer, defeat, and “win” the argument, an Ambassador seeks to represent the truth in a way that is persuasive, patient, and fundamentally kind. This approach preserves the relationship while still effectively challenging the ideas at hand.

The primary tool of the Ambassador is the Columbo Strategy, named after the famous television detective. By adopting a posture of mild confusion and genuine curiosity, you effectively flip the power dynamic of the conversation. Instead of positioning yourself as an expert who is there to correct them, you allow your loved one to be the “teacher.” As they attempt to explain the nuances of their beliefs to you, they are forced to look closely at the “logic” they’ve been handed—often for the very first time.

This strategy is particularly effective because it shifts the burden of proof. You aren’t the one making the case against the group; you are simply asking them to make the case for it. This low-pressure environment prevents the person from feeling attacked, which keeps their mind open and their critical thinking skills engaged as they navigate their own explanations.

Questions Paired with Active Listening

In the context of helping a loved one navigate their way out of a high-control group, questions are only as effective as the active listening that precedes them. You cannot formulate a truly meaningful or “sticky” question if you haven’t first developed a deep understanding of what the other person is actually saying, and more importantly, why they are saying it. Active listening requires more than just waiting for your turn to speak; it involves mirroring their emotions, paraphrasing their points to ensure clarity, and creating a safe emotional space where they feel heard rather than hunted.

A critical goal of this listening phase is identifying what we call the “Hook.” Every individual who joins a group like Shincheonji does so because the organization is successfully meeting a specific, personal need. To ask a question that truly resonates, you must first identify which hook has snagged their interest. Without this focus, your questions may address a theological point they don’t care about, while leaving the actual emotional or intellectual anchor untouched.

• The Biblical Hook: These individuals are often driven by a hunger for intellectual depth. They may feel that traditional churches offer only “milk” and are drawn to a system that claims to make every verse of the Bible fit together like a mathematical puzzle.
• The Prophetic Hook: This is a call to significance. These members want to be part of a grand, world-changing event that gives their life cosmic meaning. They aren’t just studying a book; they believe they are the protagonists in the final chapter of human history.
• The Moral Hook: This hook catches those who are deeply disillusioned by the corruption, hypocrisy, or perceived “lukewarmness” of mainstream religion. They are seeking a pure, disciplined community that actually lives out the holiness it preaches.

By identifying these hooks through active listening, you can tailor your Socratic questions to the specific area where your loved one is most invested. Instead of a scattershot approach, you are able to place the “stone in the shoe” exactly where it will be most effective, prompting them to reconcile their high ideals with the reality of the group’s practices.

The “Colombo Progression”: The Three Types of Questions

To help them ponder their situation, Koukl suggests three levels of questioning:

Level 1: The Information Gatherer

The first stage of the progression is designed to clarify the language being used. High-control groups often employ “loaded language,” which involves taking common words and giving them secret, redefined meanings that only members understand. By assuming the role of the student and asking for a definition, you pull your loved one out of a “trance” of rehearsed clichés and force them to engage the analytical part of their brain to explain the concept in plain English.

“What do you mean by that?”

Level 2: The Logic Checker

Once the terms are defined, this level focuses on the “why” behind the belief. This is a crucial tactical shift because it moves the burden of proof away from you and onto the claims of the group. Instead of you having to prove that the organization is a cult, you are simply asking your loved one to show the evidence that convinced them. As they attempt to walk you through the “logic map” they were taught, they may begin to notice the gaps or circular reasoning for themselves.

“How did you come to that conclusion?”

Level 3: The “Stone in the Shoe”

This is the most advanced stage of the Socratic method, where you highlight a direct contradiction between the group’s stated values and their actual practices. The goal is not to force an admission of guilt, but to plant a thought, a “stone”, that is so irritatingly logical that they cannot stop thinking about it. You are essentially holding up a mirror to the group’s behavior and asking them to reconcile it with the “truth” they believe they have found.

“I’m curious, how does [Value A] fit with [Action B]?”

Example with Shincheonji

Let’s walk through a Shincheonji example real quick –

Level 1: The Information Gatherer

Question: “What do you mean by that?” Use this whenever they use SCJ terminology (e.g., “The Promised Pastor,” “The New John,” “Babylon”).

• Why: It forces them to stop using “thought-terminating clichés” and actually define what they believe.

Level 2: The Logic Checker

Question: “How did you come to that conclusion?” This shifts the burden of proof. You don’t have to prove they are in a cult; they have to prove their claims are true.

• Why: It makes them walk you through the evidence. Often, they will find that the “evidence” is just another circular claim from the group.

Level 3: The “Stone in the Shoe”

Question: “I’m curious, how does [Value A] fit with [Action B]?” This is where the Socratic method shines. You highlight a contradiction in a way that leaves them thinking about it long after the conversation ends.

• Example: “If this is the ‘Kingdom of Truth,’ why is it necessary to use ‘The Wisdom of Hiding’ (lying) to talk to your family? Does truth usually need a lie to protect it?”

With the above example, we can see the following – we aren’t trying to argue and debate with the cult member, and instead we are trying to get them to pause and reflect about their reasoning and experiences within Shincheonji.

The “Slow Drip” Approach vs. The “Fire Hose”

In cult recovery, we often talk about the “Stone in the Shoe.” As Greg Koukl suggests, your goal isn’t to fix the person’s entire worldview in one sitting. It is simply to leave them with one thought, one tiny “stone”, that bothers them when they walk.

Why the Wait is Necessary

In the process of helping a loved one navigate out of high control indoctrination, patience is your most strategic asset. When you ask a truly effective Socratic question, you are not just seeking an answer. You are asking their brain to resolve a deep seated contradiction.

This cognitive recalibration takes time, which often means days or even weeks of reflection. If you overwhelm them with the “Fire Hose” approach by firing off three or four questions in rapid succession, the recruit’s brain perceives it as a theological ambush. This triggers a fight or flight response, causing them to shut down and retreat into the rehearsed safety of the group’s doctrine.

To be effective, you must adopt the “Slow Drip” strategy. This involves asking one thoughtful and targeted question, listening deeply to the response without interrupting, and then letting the conversation sit. Instead of pushing for an admission of error, you use what we call the Secret Weapon. This is a simple statement like, “I see. I will have to think about that. Thanks for explaining it to me.” By ending the dialogue there, you remove the pressure and allow the question to move from the defensive part of their brain into the reflective part.

Ending the conversation prematurely in this way serves two vital purposes. First, it provides immediate evidence that you are not the “angry Pharisee” or the “persecutor” the group warned them about. You have modeled humility and respect, which undermines the cult’s narrative of outsiders being dangerous. Second, it leaves the question rattling around in their head without the social pressure of having to defend their position to you. When they are alone with their own thoughts, the “stone in the shoe” begins to do its work, forcing them to grapple with the contradiction on their own terms.

The Strategy of Silence

The strategy of “Strategic Silence” is built on the psychological principle that people are more likely to accept a new idea if they believe they discovered it themselves. Most of the time, a follow-up question is significantly more powerful if it is asked two days later rather than two minutes later. This gap allows the person to feel that they are in control of the information and the pace of the conversation. When you wait, you are giving their subconscious mind permission to work on the problem without the social pressure of providing an immediate, “correct” group answer.

Consider a scenario where you begin on Day 1 by asking, “How do we know if a teacher is truly from God or just mimicking the Bible?” Your loved one will likely give a rehearsed answer about the “Promised Pastor.” Instead of debating that point, you simply listen, validate their excitement, and end the talk. On Day 3, you return to it gently. You might say, “I was thinking about what you said the other day about the teacher. It made me wonder, if a teacher ever changed a prophecy after it was supposed to be fulfilled, how would that affect your trust in them?” This approach feels like a natural extension of a thought rather than a calculated interrogation.

During this critical “wait period,” your primary job is to leverage active listening by being the best version of yourself. This is the time to show them through your actions that you still love them unconditionally. By being kind, stable, and present, you demonstrate that you are not the “demon possessed” or hateful outsider the group warned them about. When they see that your relationship is not contingent on them leaving the group, it creates a powerful cognitive dissonance.

Your consistency undermines the group’s claim that the world is a dark and dangerous place. When the recruit feels safe and respected at home, they are much more likely to let their guard down and actually consider the “stones” you have placed in their shoe. This emotional safety is the foundation upon which all successful Socratic questioning is built.

Navigating the Investigation Phase

Once you have established a baseline of trust through active listening, you move into a delicate phase of the recovery process: the Investigation. This is where the factual information you have gathered about Shincheonji’s (SCJ) history and theology meets the Columbo Strategy.

The goal here is not to bludgeon your loved one with “evidence” of their group’s errors. Instead, you are going to use your knowledge as a map to guide your questions. You aren’t teaching them; you are inviting them to reconcile their new beliefs with the very book they claim to honor.

Matching the Question to the “Hook”

If your active listening has revealed that your loved one is “hooked” on the Theology and “logical” consistency of SCJ, you use Socratic questions that create a friction point between their new doctrine and established Scripture.

Here is how you frame those questions using a gentle, investigative approach:

1. The Warning Against Counterfeits

• The Context: SCJ claims their leader comes in the name of Jesus to explain the “secret” truth.
• The Socratic Question: “I was reading Matthew 24, and I noticed Jesus specifically warned that many would come ‘in my name’ and claim to be the ‘Anointed One,’ leading many astray. How do you personally distinguish between someone who is truly sent by Jesus and the ‘many’ Jesus warned would use His name to deceive people?”
• The Goal: To trigger the recruit’s internal “warning system” regarding spiritual authority without attacking the leader directly.

2. The “New Gospel” Filter

• The Context: SCJ teaches that the “Revealed Word” is a special gospel for this era, delivered through a specific messenger.
• The Socratic Question: “I came across Galatians 1:6-8 where Paul says that even if an angel from heaven brings a gospel contrary to the one originally preached, we shouldn’t follow it. In your studies, how do you reconcile this warning with the idea that there is a ‘new’ revealed word that wasn’t known to the early apostles?”
• The Goal: To challenge the idea that “new” equals “true” by using the authority of the Bible they trust.

3. The “Darkness” Dilemma

• The Context: SCJ theology requires the belief that the “True Word” was hidden for 2,000 years until their leader arrived.
• The Socratic Question: “One thing I’m trying to wrap my head around is God’s character. If the only way to be saved is through this specific understanding of Revelation, why would a loving God allow the entire world to live in total darkness for 2,000 years without this key? Does that seem consistent with the God who wants all to be saved?”

The Goal: To move the conversation from “logical codes” to the nature of God’s character and mercy.

The “Gentle Follow-Up” Rule: The Art of the Wait

This is the most critical tactical advice: Do not “hold their feet to the fire.” When you ask a difficult question, your loved one will likely give a rehearsed answer. Our natural instinct is to fire back with a rebuttal. Resist that urge. Most of the time, it is better to wait for another time, perhaps days later, to ask a follow-up question. This is the “Slow Drip” approach.

Instead of immediate confrontation, use what is known as the “Tactical Retreat”:

“That’s an interesting way to look at it. I’ve never heard it explained quite like that before. I’m going to need some time to sit with that and look at my Bible. Thanks for sharing that with me.”

Why Strategic Silence Works

1. It De-escalates: You’ve removed the “debate” environment. They no longer feel the need to defend their group against an “attacker.”
2. It Models Humility: You are showing them what it looks like to be open-minded and thoughtful, behavior the group often discourages in favor of “blind obedience.”
3. It Leaves the “Stone”: Because you didn’t argue, the question remains in their mind as an unresolved puzzle. It becomes a “stone in their shoe” that bothers them every time they go back to their study group.

Navigating the “Fulfillment” Hook: Verification and Comparison

When a loved one is captivated by Shincheonji (SCJ), it is often because the group provides a sense of certainty that the world is lacking. They believe they are witnessing the literal, physical fulfillment of the Book of Revelation. At this stage, your strategy should shift toward external verification and pattern recognition.

If your loved one is “hooked” on the idea of fulfillment or the group’s perceived uniqueness, here are two powerful Socratic avenues to explore.

1. The Challenge of External Verification

SCJ relies heavily on “internal” evidence—using one part of their doctrine to prove another. To break this cycle, you can nudge them toward the concept of objective, historical verification.

• The Context: SCJ teaches that specific events happened in South Korea (at the Tabernacle Temple) to fulfill prophecy.
• The Socratic Question: “It’s fascinating that you believe these biblical events are happening physically right now. I’m curious—have you had a chance to look at any historical records or news archives from Korea during those years to see if the events match the group’s timeline? If this is God’s physical work on earth, shouldn’t the historical facts align perfectly with the teaching?”
• The Goal: To introduce the idea that “truth” must withstand the scrutiny of objective history, not just internal group logic.

2. The “Mirror” Strategy: Studying Other Groups

One of the most effective ways to bypass a recruit’s defenses is to stop talking about Shincheonji altogether and start talking about other high-control groups. Because the “persecution” phobia is specific to SCJ, their brain may remain “online” and critical when looking at a different group like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification Church (Moonies), or even Scientology.

Most cults use the same psychological “playbook” (the BITE model) to recruit and retain members.

“I saw a documentary recently about a group that used secret Bible studies and told members their families were being used by the devil to stop them. It was heartbreaking to see how they were manipulated. Would you be open to watching a testimony or an interview with an ex-member of a group like that with me? I’d love to hear your thoughts on how they were able to trick so many people.”

This strategy is effective because it leverages the power of pattern recognition without triggering personal defensiveness. As your loved one watches a testimony of someone leaving a different high control group, they will inevitably notice the exact same tactics used by their own organization, such as the slow burn of secrets, the forced isolation from family, and the claim of being the only path to salvation. Because they are observing a different group, they can perform a safe analysis. Since they do not feel the need to defend their own truth at that moment, they are free to admit that the other group was manipulative.

This creates a significant stone in the shoe that begins to itch the next time they encounter those same behaviors within their own environment. When their instructor uses a specific pressure tactic, the recruit will recognize it from the testimony they watched, making it much harder to ignore the reality of their own situation.

The Tactical Follow-Up: Don’t Rush the Realization

When you use these nudges, the most important thing is to not finish their sentences for them. If they watch a documentary on another cult and say, “That’s crazy how they controlled them,” resist the urge to shout, “Exactly! Just like Shincheonji!” Instead, stay in the “Columbo” mindset:

“Yeah, it is crazy. What do you think was the most effective thing that group did to keep people from asking questions?”

By letting them identify the manipulation themselves, you are rebuilding their critical thinking skills. You are helping them develop an “immunity” to high-control tactics that they can eventually apply to their own situation.

Summary: Moving Toward the Exit

Whether you are asking about historical fulfillment or exploring the patterns of other groups, your role remains the same: a Thought Partner. You aren’t “deprogramming” them; you are providing the tools and the space for them to deprogram themselves.

By remaining a calm, curious, and loving presence, you prove that the world outside the group isn’t the “darkness” they were promised – it’s a place of honesty, reflection, and unconditional connection.

Conclusion

Ultimately, helping a loved one exit a group like Shincheonji is not a sprint; it is a marathon of strategic patience and unwavering affection. Your goal is to be a “Thought Partner” rather than an adversary. By utilizing the Socratic Method and the Columbo Strategy, you provide your loved one with something the group cannot: the freedom to think, the permission to doubt, and the space to reach their own conclusions.

The most effective “deprogramming” does not happen through a lecture. It happens in the quiet moments of reflection after you have walked away from a conversation. When you plant a “stone in the shoe” and then provide the emotional safety of a non-contingent relationship, you undermine the group’s most powerful weapon, fear. You prove that the world outside is not a place of “darkness” or “persecution,” but a place where truth is not afraid of a question and love does not require a lie.

As you continue this journey, remember that you are not just trying to get them to leave a group; you are trying to help them find themselves again. Keep your questions gentle, your listening active, and your door always open. By remaining a calm, curious, and loving presence, you become the very safe harbor that makes their return home possible.