The Role of Ideological Advisors of the Christian Churches using the Example of Cult Expert Dr. Pöhlmann and Go&Change
What role do church ideological advisors play? A critical analysis based on the example of cult expert Dr. Pöhlmann and “Go and Change.”
Some time ago, I criticized the sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations made by Dr. Matthias Pöhlmann, the Ideological Advisor (Weltanschauungsbeauftragter) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria (ELKB), regarding Scientology.
I then asked around a bit and got caught up in Go&Change, whose status we are currently and comprehensively certifying, and who have already had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Pöhlmann and experiencing his work firsthand. The advantage here: their procedures are extensively documented.
Regarding the Biography of Dr. Pöhlmann
He is an Evangelical Lutheran theologian. He has worked at various chairs in the fields of Christian Journalism, Missiology and Religious Studies (Missions- und Religionswissenschaft [sic!]), as well as Ecumenical Theology. Missiology stands out in particular—a field of theology that deals with the systematic study of the history and practice of Christian mission. Whether it makes sense for a mission expert to act as a “cult expert”—meaning someone who, as a “messenger of a mission,” pursues the goal of deliberately bringing people into contact with the Christian faith—is something everyone can judge for themselves. Personally, I consider this wrong.
He completed his doctorate on “Journalistic Apologetics: The Confrontation of the Apologetic Centrale with Religious-Ideological Movements in the Weimar Republic and the ‘Third Reich’.”
Pöhlmann himself defines apologetics as follows:
“Apologetics, the public rendering of account in encounters and confrontations with other worldviews and religious movements, has always belonged to the essence of Christian faith.”
— Pöhlmann, EZW Texte 154
The Digital Dictionary of the German Language (Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache) defines the term somewhat differently:
Apologetics (from Ancient Greek apologia “defense speech”) is the scientific and rational justification and defense of a worldview. Historically, the term comes from the theological discipline that seeks to rationally and argumentatively secure the Christian faith against critical objections and doubts.
Kubsch and Schirrmacher also define it this way:
“Apologetics is the intellectual justification and defense of the Christian faith.”
Here, too, his area of expertise is not the sociology of religion, but the defense of his faith—even if expanded to include other worldviews—but always from a “missionary perspective.”
Pöhlmann’s Professional Self-Image
In the document “ELKB-Weltanschauunge-Selbstbeschreibung-Poehlmann-2014.pdf” — Church Councilor Dr. Matthias Pöhlmann writes regarding his work:
“As the regional church advisor for cult and worldview issues, I observe the development of religious and ideological groups in the context of contemporary culture. As an evangelical theologian, I analyze and interpret these developments from the perspective of a Christian understanding of reality. In my analyses and evaluations, I rely on source material, internal and external literature, specialist publications (including interdisciplinary ones), reports of experiences from those affected, internet research, and my own field research. I make my results available to those affected and interested parties. This takes place through personal consultations, lectures, seminars, or advanced training events. The target groups of my work include multipliers, teachers, educators, and journalists. Furthermore, I publish my assessments in articles and specialist contributions.”
In my opinion, the first error is that he wants to evaluate religious freedom “from the perspective of a Christian understanding of reality.”
He boasts of “field research”:
Field research is an empirical method of collecting cultural and social science data on-site and within its real-world contexts.
However, the methods of Eileen Barker are explicitly not mentioned:
Participant observation: She temporarily lived within the communities.
In-depth interviews: Conducted with both active members and dropouts.
Control groups: She compared members with people of similar age and background who were not “Moonies.”
Furthermore, he does not make his results available to the public, but only to “those affected” and “interested parties”—something that goes against scientific practice, verifiability, and transparency, and above all, stifles discourse.
It is also fascinating that he places “multipliers” and journalists at the center of his work (definition according to Wikipedia):
Multipliers in the field of education are individuals, institutions, publication organs, and media that pass on specialist information, expertise, skills, research results, and teaching opinions to others, thereby contributing to their dissemination.
Thus, he still stands by his basic missionary attitude, which is more important to him than providing neutral, educational assistance to those affected.
The Go&Change Case and Dr. Pöhlmann
In 2018, Go&Change learned through third parties from an “Annual Conference of State Advisors for Ideological Issues” in Erfurt—during conversations involving Dr. Pöhlmann, among others—that “Go&Change was known as a community involving abuse of power” (Source: Call for Dialogue).
At that point, Dr. Pöhlmann (and others) had not yet had any contact with Go&Change, meaning they had neither spoken with members of the worldview community nor verified or falsified statements from third parties (”dropouts”?). It is crucial to emphasize that the first critical press reports originated in 2020, and the tragic incident of a child drowning in a pond occurred in 2019—a time when Go&Change was not yet in the media. Therefore, obviously nothing was “known” back then; he had merely “heard” something.
Go&Change reacted through Felix Krolle with the very transparency that Pöhlmann’s approach lacked: he called Dr. Pöhlmann to “clear up the defamation.”
“Dr. Pöhlmann reacted very irritably to my call, and after I made it clear to him that I was not interested in the names of the people who complained to him about us, but rather in a conversation and clarification, he referred me after some back and forth to his colleague Dr. Jürgen Lohmayer in Würzburg.”
— Felix Krolle, a long-time member and co-founder of Go&Change, who according to official administrative documents has also been defamed as a “guru.”
Thus, after a professional conversation with the Catholic advisor Dr. Lohmayer, a meeting was arranged for March 26, 2019.
The Meeting in Lülsfeld on March 26, 2019
The course of events is described by Go&Change roughly as follows:
Here is a brief summary of how it went:
A group of about 8 ideological advisors came to visit us. Alongside Felix Krolle, about 6 other women and men from our leadership circle participated.
We spoke openly about our lives, our orientation, and our backgrounds.
We provided detailed answers to all questions asked.
The ideological advisors were critical but seemed satisfied with our answers. There was little dialogue from the advisors in terms of a mutual effort toward understanding.
They mostly just listened to what we had to say.
We asked to remain in contact if there were further things to clarify or if any questions arose. We were and always remain interested in dialogue and a mutual striving for a healthy and happy life.
The ideological advisors said goodbye in a friendly manner.
From Go&Change’s perspective, all aspects had been discussed and settled. No follow-up questions were asked, and no conversations took place with “normal” members or neutral individuals (neighbors, the mayor, local clubs) in Lülsfeld.
For over a year, Go&Change was forgotten by Dr. Pöhlmann, until an article appeared in the Main-Post on May 22, 2020: “Psychological Pressure and Sexualized Violence in a Former Monastery?”
The Main-Post Article from May 22, 2020
The Main-Post at least manages to quote the mayor and local residents in its article: “They integrated very well and help wherever they can,” and “I can’t say anything negative; they haven’t done anything wrong.”
Even more clearly:
Former Mayor Anger states he “never noticed any violence” in the monastery. “I can’t imagine it either.” While there is a hierarchy in the monastery, “if you want to bring 40 people under one roof, you need rules to lead such a group,” he says. Furthermore, everyone in the monastery “chose this way of life voluntarily.” His successor, Heinrichs, says: None of those who moved out “came to us to complain about ‘Go&Change’.”
Thus, the press achieved what the “experts” failed to do a year prior: drawing on various scientifically valid sources.
But how did the ideological advisors contribute to the article?
How the Diocese’s Ideological Advisor Assesses the Community
The ideological advisor for the Diocese of Würzburg, Jürgen Lohmayer, categorizes “Go&Change” among the many “social-utopian intentional communities” that have been founded in recent years. Matthias Pöhlmann, Lohmayer’s counterpart in the Evangelical Church and cult advisor for all of Bavaria, warns urgently against the group when asked. Both visited Lülsfeld in March 2019 along with six other Bavarian ideological advisors to form an impression. “Everyone was friendly and polite,” was Lohmayer’s impression. However, one person the visitors did not get to see was K.K., despite Lohmayer and Pöhlmann asking for him multiple times.
According to Lohmayer, methodological tools from the field of psychology, such as “Integral Structural Constellations with Deep Analysis,” are used within the community, though applied here without recognized psychotherapeutic qualifications. For him, “Go&Change” is a “psycho-group with high conflict potential.”
He states:
“Group dynamic processes, leadership and power structures, social control, total commitment, and separation from one’s previous social environment” were recurring themes in the consultations he held with dropouts and relatives. “You have to imagine the group dynamic connection like this,” Lohmayer explains: “The more I know about a person—especially regarding their sexual and relationship life—the more power I gain over them, the more controllable they become, and ultimately, the more vulnerable they become.”
Pöhlmann is only quoted with an unspecific “warning.” The “abuse of power” that he allegedly knew about or passed on as early as 2018 remains unmentioned.
The criticism from his colleague Lohmayer is more extensive. Although Lohmayer fails to mention the phone call with Felix Krolle—which could be a transparency issue—he confirms the residents were friendly, which matches my own impression after several visits, including multi-day stays.
Go&Change’s View on the Newspaper Article
I am reproducing Go&Change’s perspective on the March 2019 meeting and the newspaper article here unaltered. I do not adopt these statements as my own at this point.
1. Quote: “According to Lohmayer, methodological tools from the field of psychology, such as ‘Integral Structural Constellations with Deep Analysis,’ are used within the community, though applied here without recognized psychotherapeutic qualifications.”
Commentary on 1: Felix Krolle holds a Master’s Certificate from the creator of this method, and we have further developed this method ourselves. This method is not “officially recognized,” so there cannot be an “officially recognized qualification” for it. It is widely used in coaching, for which Felix Krolle holds the aforementioned Master’s Certificate. Therefore, a false impression is intentionally created here. Apart from that, we had and still have doctors, educators, and psychologists in our ranks.
2. Quote: “’You have to imagine the group dynamic connection like this,’ Lohmayer explains: ‘The more I know about a person – especially regarding their sexual and relationship life – the more power I gain over them, the more controllable they become, and ultimately, the more vulnerable they become.’”
Commentary on 2: If that were actually true, then Felix Krolle and Kai Krischik (K.K.) would be the most controllable people in the entire community, because no one’s intimate life is as widely known as theirs. They take transparency truly seriously and lead by example.
Fundamentally, we wish to contradict Dr. Lohmayer’s perspective. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that openly exchanging views on sexuality and relationships is not conducive to interpersonal contact and harmonious coexistence. Yet it is precisely the possibility of open, trusting exchange on personal topics that defines the quality of friendship or partnership that most people long for. The same applies in a community context when friendly environments are nurtured in larger groups, where people want to support each other in building and maintaining partnerships and families, and where dynamics surrounding sexuality and relationships should not lead to conflicts and underlying tensions in close living quarters. Looking at society, people are always vulnerable and controllable when taboo topics exist that cannot be spoken about openly, thereby creating vulnerability to blackmail. Until recently, for example, practicing homosexuality was a dangerous weapon in the hands of political opponents. Ultimately, Dr. Lohmayer speaks from a perspective of fundamental mistrust between human beings, presenting it as a natural necessity, and denies the individual the ability to recognize where trust, openness, and transparency are appropriate and where they are not.
3. Quote: “It began a few months ago with a background conversation with Jürgen Lohmayer, the ideological advisor for the Diocese of Würzburg.”
Commentary on 3: What interest does Dr. Lohmayer have in an article appearing about us when he hasn’t even attempted to contact us?
In a detailed email, Felix Krolle therefore contacted Dr. Lohmayer and Dr. Pöhlmann (May 27, 2020):
Dear Mr. Lohmayer, Dear Mr. Pöhlmann,
We are shocked by your statements about us in the Mainpost. Did we not part on good terms during the conversation initiated BY US, with the request that you contact us if there was anything left to clarify?! The article is heavily tendentious, and the accusations leveled against us are absurd. Our first public statement can be found at: https://goandchange.de/aktuelles/
We assume that you did not read the article prior to publication and wonder if you stand behind the publication. If not, we request a corresponding counter-statement from you.
We are transparent in all directions and are in contact with all stakeholders (the Mainpost, the municipality of Lülsfeld, the Sisters of the Redeemer, the Youth Welfare Office, our former residents, as well as Sebastian Stark and Ralf B.) and we inform everyone mentioned about all the steps we have taken and will take:
We are currently gathering all information relevant to clarifying the allegations.
In our statement, we asked for experience reports from our guests. More and more people are responding to this call, and we are receiving touching reports and expressions of support.
We sent an email to all former residents asking them to present their experiences to the Mainpost (with the authors of the Mainpost article in CC). You can find the exact text of the email below. Here, too, more and more of our former residents are writing back with indignant emails about the article and their good experiences with us.
We are having a lawyer review potential legal steps.
We are in contact with other media outlets.
We will provide all stakeholders with our counter-statement, including all reports from our former and current residents, our guests, and friends in due course, along with an invitation to a joint discussion where we can go through everything, talk it over, and work out solutions. We hope to find a constructive path forward for all of us.
Warm regards,
Felix Krolle
At this point, Go&Change made a mistake. Dr. Pöhlmann explicitly writes on his website that he must always release articles for authorization:
Screenshot, Source: https://weltanschauungen.bayern-evangelisch.de/kontakt.php
My View on the Portrayals by the Main-Post and the Quotes from the Cult Advisors
Anyone who demands transparency should also grant it. This includes naming all research results, especially editorial preliminary talks. One should clearly state one’s own missionary mandate, especially since Pöhlmann views this as a cult criterion. Since Pöhlmann “approves” articles, in my view, he must also be held accountable for the statements made by Lohmayer, to whom he had referred Krolle.
This also includes recognizing and disclosing one’s own professional competence (neither is a lawyer, neither is a psychologist!). Regarding the question of whether a psychotherapeutic qualification is necessary:
Integral Structural Constellations with Deep Analysis are a highly effective, systemic method that spatially visualizes complex relationship networks in companies, families, or one’s own psyche. They combine classical constellation work with Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL) and enable individuals to profoundly recognize and resolve unconscious dynamics, conflicts, or blockages.
A psychotherapeutic qualification (i.e., a medical license/approbation) is not required:
The (coaching) training is aimed at advisors, coaches, managers, trainers, educators, therapists, and anyone who wants to learn structurally how to integrate Integral Structural Constellations into their work (also as a supplement for family constellation practitioners). Prior experience in constellation work is useful but not strictly necessary.
Psychotherapy, which Lohmayer references, is defined by law as follows (§1 Abs. 2 PsychThG):
The practice of psychotherapy within the meaning of this Act is any professional or commercial activity undertaken using scientifically verified and recognized psychotherapeutic procedures or methods to identify, cure, or alleviate disorders with pathological value for which psychotherapy is indicated.
Since identification or healing in a medical—not esoteric—sense, or the alleviation of disorders is not intended, the public is deliberately misinformed by Lohmayer. This is even more true given that doctors, psychologists, and educators are active within Go&Change, and Felix Krolle has, according to his own statement, acquired a corresponding qualification (which I have not verified as of today, June 15, 2026, because it is irrelevant in the absence of psychotherapy).
The criticism of Go&Change—that tools of psychology are being used without a psychotherapeutic qualification—is therefore absurd squared. He himself, Lohmayer, but also Pöhlmann, are both theologians and not psychologists. They are also not lawyers equipped to verify the legal prerequisites of §1 PsychThG. It is astonishing how easily people talk away their own lack of qualification.
As a Catholic, Lohmayer also knows that by criticizing “group dynamic contexts,” he is ultimately criticizing the confession of the Catholic Church itself, in which priests learn a great deal about people and their mistakes, which, according to his logic, makes people more vulnerable and controllable.
Furthermore, it is overlooked that in a large residential community, much like in a family, you naturally know and notice a lot about others, whether you want to or not. I sense a certain detachment from reality coming from the ivory tower of the Christian churches.
None of the statements in the newspaper article are described in a verifiable manner.
My own research (”field research,” if one wishes to use Pöhlmann’s terminology) shows visits from family members at the monastery or members visiting family; time spent with their own children outside the monastery; working in normal, socially critical professions; regular visits from friends at the monastery lasting several days; memberships in clubs and integration into village life—which has, however, been impacted by the press coverage.
An example of this: recently, the community learned that someone had spread the absurd rumor that “landmines” might be buried in the garden. During my visits—which in summer also took place in the garden, independently without supervisors or spatial restrictions—I have not triggered any detonations despite my overweight body.
Furthermore, if it is true what Go&Change wrote on June 1, 2020, regarding two years of “secret investigations”—I quote:
“One of our residents completely surprisingly finds out that her mother had been exchanging information about Go&Change with a friendly ideological advisor for two years, and passed on privately shared details from the daughter’s life to the advisor in a distorted manner, who presumably shared these with his colleagues in Würzburg and Munich. During this time, the mother visited the community (with the knowledge of the advisor?!) to check up on us, without disclosing this intention, her contact with the ideological advisor, or the full extent of her criticism of the community to her daughter. The mother knew about the article before it was published and thus, together with the ideological advisor, accepted or even intended the lasting damage to her daughter’s life. It is completely incomprehensible how both the mother and the ideological advisor could leave the daughter in the community for two years if life here posed such a danger to her.”
—then not only data protection but also the highly praised and apparently only one-sidedly demanded transparency would have required an inclusion to verify or clarify allegations.
On June 2, 2020, the ideological advisors sent an email regarding another article in the Main-Post with the following content:
“It belongs to the duty of care required in ideological counseling work to seize opportunities to gather information about groups and communities and to get to know their self-image, their concept, and their worldview through personal exchange. Our on-site visit on March 26, 2019, served this purpose. During the visit, criticisms were voiced and critical questions were raised, among other things, regarding the group structure and the pedagogical concept. We ideological advisors are committed to our clients, meaning we listen to them and provide assistance. Our mandate is not to ‘find mutual solutions’ or to mediate between conflicting interests. We are bound to absolute confidentiality toward the people who turn to us and tell us about their conflicts, e.g., with Go&Change. Their accounts and the frequency of such reports are important indicators of the conflict-prone nature of the respective group.”
I would like to recall Pöhlmann’s self-description mentioned earlier (Pöhlmann’s professional self-image, see above). There was no mention of “clients” and an obligation toward them.
A client (from Latin cliens, “protegée”) is a person who uses an advisory or supportive service, often in highly confidential fields such as legal advice, tax consulting, social work, or psychotherapy.
Leaving aside the formal legal discussion regarding §§ 2 and 5 of the Legal Services Act (RDG): Pöhlmann’s job is to influence “multipliers,” not to advise “dropouts.” In any case, the professional qualification seems to be lacking here—or, as Lohmayer calls it, the psychotherapeutic training.
The Main-Post Article from June 9, 2020: “Go&Change”: Of Oath-Circles, Hierarchies, and Self-Therapy and My Commenting Perspective
Question: Why did you visit the “Go & Change” community?
Matthias Pöhlmann: There were inquiries made to me and also to my Würzburg colleague Jürgen Lohmayer. One came directly from “Go&Change.” The co-founder Felix Krolle contacted me: the community was frequently confronted with the accusation of being a cult.
In the first article, unfortunately, there was no mention of this.
Then, the content of the visit is narrated. Unlike in the email from June 2, 2020, there is obviously no mention of confidentiality here, which makes the statements on this matter appear somewhat hypocritical.
Question: What did you know about “Go&Change”?
Pöhlmann: We initially tried to find out via their homepage what this...
Furthermore, the statement “We tried” contradicts the third-party statement from 2018 that “abuse of power” was known. Either they told the press an untruth, or they told an untruth in 2018. In any case, if I have enough information to connote a community negatively, I don’t need to “Google” first. Here, the unscientific, intransparent, unverifiable, and thus arbitrary approach of these experts unfortunately becomes clear.
Pöhlmann: However, one person was missing: K.K. (name known to the editors), the head of the community. Although we asked several times, he did not come. It was said he was busy. Or that he was working. That irritated me. After all, we had registered our visit. Therefore, they should have made sure that he spoke with us.
No justification is provided. Was the presence of Mr. Kai K. promised or agreed upon? I also find the phrasing “should have” fascinating. Who does Dr. Pöhlmann think he is that people “must” appear before him? He is obviously not the Pope, and even before the Pope, one does not “have” to appear.
Pöhlmann: Not that. But I learned from conversations with dropouts that he takes special privileges for himself. I would have liked him to explain these to me.
Why didn’t he submit a written request or communicate his wish in advance?
Question: Does that contradict the community idea?
Pöhlmann: A certain internal leadership certainly exists everywhere. What was striking to us was this hierarchization through “competences” and not through temporary election. The fact that awareness is seen as a competency criterion is, shall we say, unusual. This implies that the others are not as far along and therefore stand further down. Mostly, groups with a social-utopian approach present themselves as a collaborative project with a rotating planning team.
I find it remarkable that a non-democratically legitimized, “commissioned” “missionary” under the guise of an ideological advisor demands “temporary elections.” The Catholic Church does not know “temporary elections.” And other constructs, e.g., the Austrian expert government (even if only temporary), place competence above party politics (which itself only partially allows democratic elections, keyword “party discipline”). The implication that someone with less competence stands “below” is arbitrary. If people are deployed according to their abilities, that corresponds to the reality that characterizes the German working world. There is nothing striking about this. The “below” or “above” is a criterion that may apply to the Evangelical Church, but not necessarily to Go&Change. Does the person who manages the provisions or the person who cooks and keeps everyone alive stand below or above? And what about the voluntary sign-ups for “clearing up,” which are answered by a show of hands, as I have witnessed multiple times? The “hierarchy” in Go&Change, which is subject to change anyway, is not addressed here, even though it is an essential part of the “evolution” of this “developmental community.” Did he never notice any of this during his “field research”?
Pöhlmann: My impression was: this is a very exhausting affair, a constant tribunal situation. You have to reflect yourself or you are being reflected.
This does not match my experience. People do not sit together “constantly.” “One”—meaning “everyone”—is also not continuously “reflected.” Here, assumptions are presented as facts. Why didn’t he ask if he could participate in shadow work? Was he afraid of a positive answer that might destroy the worldview he had consolidated since 2018?
Pöhlmann: Sure, these are all adults who enter into this situation voluntarily. However, I emphasized in Lülsfeld: it is important that the dignity of the individual is preserved vis-à-vis the community. Who protects the individual from the group? This question was not answered.
Obviously, the Evangelical Church in Bavaria (see above) does not protect the individual. Whether this is even necessary would be the task of his “field research”—but he already seems to have a problem with “polyamory” since he feels the need to highlight it. In any case, I can answer this question with the FOREF whistleblower and reporting system: FOREF protects religious freedom and human dignity.
Pöhlmann: One’s own needs are presented as an ego trip: “That is your shadow.” It is also interesting to see what image of humanity emerges: humans have shadows, so they are always presented as deficient. The concept of shadow work is heavily focused on deficits and places excessive demands on people.
This is also nothing I can confirm. When discussing whether to get a community dog, the answer was “if so, it will be the dog of XY,” meaning the person who asked, because they had negative experiences with “otherwise no one takes care of it.” It is fascinating how quickly general arguments are used, merely reinforcing the cult narrative, instead of speaking concretely about Go&Change.
Go&Change’s Submission on This Article
All answers are taken from the original text and do not represent my view:
1. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “The co-founder Felix Krolle contacted me: the community was frequently confronted with the accusation of being a cult.”
Commentary on 1: That is not entirely correct: we heard from another community that the ideological advisors were talking about us in connection with “abuse of power.” However, the advisors did not inform us of this. Thereupon, Felix Krolle called Dr. Pöhlmann and asked him what it was about. He reacted very irritably and said he could not provide any information. Upon Krolle’s insistence on clearing up these allegations, Dr. Pöhlmann recommended him to Dr. Lohmayer. Krolle then had a pleasant conversation with him, and they set a date for the following year, 2019, as Dr. Lohmayer had no time before then. The allegations did not seem serious. Otherwise, we cannot explain how an entire year without clarification would not have constituted a breach of duty on Dr. Lohmayer’s part.
2. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “However, one person was missing: K.K. (name known to the editors), the head of the community. Although we asked several times, he did not come. It was said he was busy. Or that he was working. That irritated me. After all, we had registered our visit. Therefore, they should have made sure that he spoke with us.”
Commentary on 2: Kai Krischik (K.K.) and Felix Krolle have always been equal founders and at that time equal leaders of the community, with Felix Krolle’s area of responsibility covering external communication. As such, there was no reason why Kai Krischik should have been present. Further down in the article, it even says regarding our competency hierarchy: “At the top right, K.K. and Felix Krolle,” which surely implies equality. Above all, at that time, there were no allegations against Kai Krischik known to us from the ideological advisors, nor any requests for a conversation. Requests for a conversation only surfaced during the meeting.
3. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “But I learned from conversations with dropouts that he takes special privileges for himself.”
Commentary on 3: Anyone who takes on more responsibility has more freedom with us to fulfill that responsibility. A managing director needs more flexible structures and more creative freedom than a simple office clerk. Just because we share all areas of life does not automatically create equality where inequality is very important, e.g., more responsibility = more duties = more rights.
4. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “What caught my eye in the house were two diagrams showing the structure of the community. There is a so-called competency hierarchy characterized by ‘culture bearers’ and an ‘awareness group.’ At the top right, K.K. and Felix Krolle. The second diagram in the form of concentric circles showed a so-called oath-circle as the innermost core.”
Commentary on 4: This did not simply catch Dr. Pöhlmann’s eye. These diagrams are hung up in our central hallway and are explicitly part of our experimentation with leadership, social structures, and hierarchies. We have acquired a very high level of expertise in this area by now. We spoke in detail with the ideological advisors, just as we always do with all other interested guests, about the diagrams, their meaning, and their development over the years. The system is flexible and is constantly revised and adapted depending on requirements. Thus, the results of our daily struggle for a healthy group structure are recorded there. Central questions of any community and society are those of belonging, responsibility, rights, and duties. Many cultures and projects have already found many answers to these questions that work more or less well. We have set out to test these and continuously develop them further. These developmental steps are visibly displayed for all residents and guests so that a continuous discourse is maintained and stimulated. Thus, among other things, we copied an aspect of healthy group belonging from Christian monastic structures and other communities, like the Likatians. The deeper someone commits and takes on responsibility—specifically through action and expression—the more rights that person has.
5. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “A certain internal leadership certainly exists everywhere. What was striking to us was this hierarchization through ‘competences’ and not through temporary election.”
Commentary on 5: If we are correctly informed about the church system, the Pope and the bishops, for example, are chosen or appointed based on competence and for life. As far as we know, ideological advisors are also not elected but hired, and can be dismissed at any time, both without democratic processes. So what is unusual about that?
6. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “The fact that awareness is seen as a competency criterion is, shall we say, unusual. This implies that the others are not as far along and therefore stand further down.”
Commentary on 6: Until not so long ago, emotional intelligence was not perceived as a competence. Scientific studies on different structures of consciousness and their sequence of more mature and less mature expressions can be found, for example, by Harvard Professor Robert Kegan and many others. Apart from that, every IQ test implies that there are cognitively more intelligent—i.e., further developed in this system—and less intelligent—i.e., less developed—people. None of this is to be confused with the dignity of a human being, which they possess by virtue of their existence and which is independent of gender, race, religion, IQ tests, consciousness, or the like.
8. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “During our tour of the house, we also saw a large room. There, we were told, the community meets and discusses the individual problems of its members.”
Commentary on 8: This large room is our living room, or back then probably called the group room, and there we sat for 1–2 hours together with the ideological advisors over coffee and cake on our sofas and talked about everything. The presentation in the article is intended to create a specific image here as well, namely that this “large room” has a disreputable atmosphere. In reality, it is our main common room for us and our guests.
9. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “This is a very exhausting affair, a constant tribunal situation. You have to reflect yourself or you are being reflected. Dropouts I spoke with told me that this often lasts all night. And in Lülsfeld, a woman described to me that she was currently considering living polyamorously with her partner, with whom she has been together for eleven years, meaning with multiple partners.”
Commentary on 9: Here, an arbitrary combination of completely different pieces of information creates a questionable picture that, in reality, is not only not forbidden—as the interviewer herself notes—but is actually not dramatic either. What do one person’s polyamorous aspirations have to do with reflecting people? We are so undogmatic about relationship configurations that from (temporary) celibacy to monogamy and marriage, we also have the freedom to try out other, unconventional models. Our principle here, as everywhere else, is: do not treat yourself or others badly. Make sure everyone involved is doing well. However, if someone does not adhere to this principle and hurts others, then we talk about it. If necessary, all night long, because it is truly important to us that people treat each other well.
10. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “Sure, these are all adults who enter into this situation voluntarily. However, I emphasized in Lülsfeld: it is important that the dignity of the individual is preserved vis-à-vis the community. Who protects the individual from the group? This question was not answered.”
Commentary on 10: We answered all questions in detail.
12. Quote from Dr. Pöhlmann: “One’s own needs are presented as an ego trip: ‘That is your shadow.’ It is also interesting to see what image of humanity emerges: humans have shadows, so they are always presented as deficient. The concept of shadow work is heavily focused on deficits and places excessive demands on people.”
Commentary on 12: Here, we would like to strongly disagree, as the psychological concept of the shadow is not correctly represented in terms of content, and this twists the implications for the image of humanity underlying our work into the exact opposite. We would gladly engage in a factual exchange about this with Dr. Pöhlmann and anyone interested and recommend a deeper engagement with the psychological foundations. A quick Google search on the concept of the shadow yields:
“Shadow, in analytical psychology according to C. G. Jung, refers to those parts, sides, and characteristics of ourselves that are not conscious to us and contradict the ego-ideal; the collective-unconscious dispositions that are incompatible with the conscious way of life and therefore cannot be integrated into the ego. Making the (unconscious) shadow conscious is the task of a Jungian analysis. The integration of the shadow means that we ask ourselves, for example, with every enemy image, whether we are fighting our own unpleasant traits externally—that we perceive these traits, endure them, deal with them responsibly, and do not continue to stubbornly fight them in our enemies.”
— https://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/psychologie/schatten/13403
Thus, working with shadows is anything but deficient; rather, it harbors an incredible amount of unconsciously bound potential and energy. When this is released through shadow work, the person becomes freer, happier, and more self-determined. A fundamentally positive image of humanity is visible above all in the fact that the human being is precisely not confused with or reduced to their shadow sides, but can decide out of free will to work through their destructive mechanisms in social interaction. We see it as proven through experience and science that people can personally develop further throughout their lives and that this contributes to psychological and physical health. Alongside classical psychotherapy and psychosomatics, countless offers and opportunities for further development exist and are being used increasingly by people; this also contradicts the statement of Dr. Pöhlmann, who speaks sweepingly of excessive demands without substantiating this. In essence, it is rather his doubt regarding these possibilities that reveals a deficient image of humanity. Apart from that, a large part of our work consists of making individual strengths and light sides visible and supporting each other in giving them even stronger expression in life. This resolves the apparent contradiction between the “I” and the “We,” as simplified by Dr. Pöhlmann, through a distinction between an actual “ego trip” and powerful self-expression, which can usually be read very easily and visibly for everyone in the result.
Cross-Article and Cross-Statement Evaluation of Dr. Pöhlmann’s Work Regarding Go&Change
As illustrated multiple times above, Go&Change has apparently been in the focus of ideological advisors, including Dr. Pöhlmann, since at least 2018. Despite this, he did not manage to engage in an exchange with the community until Felix Krolle took the initiative. The first contact was very unfriendly, Krolle says. Pöhlmann conceals this contact in the first article he helped influence.
And so it continues. “Field research,” as he describes it in his self-portrayal, seems never to have taken place. He apparently never spoke with members who do not hold leadership responsibilities. In doing so, he does exactly what he criticizes: he does not speak at all with those “down below” and complains that he is not allowed to speak with Kai K. without arranging it beforehand. The answers from Go&Change in the person of Felix Krolle are deliberately concealed.
Generally, that is the main problem alongside the lack of scientifically grounded and transparently described gathering and reproduction of information.
Only Dr. Pöhlmann’s own opinions are described (often in the “we” form), far removed from the facts and far removed from dissenting opinions. An analysis of legal and professional circumstances (medical license reservation, confidentiality) does not take place and is, from my point of view, portrayed incorrectly in order to achieve a specific result instead of educating.
Because, as I wrote at the beginning: he is a “trained missionary theologian” who fancies himself in his role as an influencer for multipliers. It would be more important to me that he fulfills his role as an ideological advisor in an educational manner in every (!) direction. Then, and only then, would it be possible to fill the term “cult” with life or to negate it.
Thus, what remains are opinions and inaccurate or unverified facts, which he cannot categorize into “true” or “untrue” anyway due to a lack of mandate and lack of training. In any case, only Lohmayer reports having spoken with dropouts. An evaluation of such “apostates” based on their personal background does not take place.
Cult counseling is an extensive, if not completely unmanageable, field. The effort required to conduct interviews with dropouts, members, and neutral parties is enormous but cannot be omitted. Evaluating files, letters, and documents is indispensable. All of this remains unclear and unresolved in the present case, which I must identify as systemic based on my work for various new religious movements. Opinions and negative value judgments replace scientific, transparent, and verifiable education. And that is exactly how “cult counseling” and worldview advising must not be.
For in this respect, an obviously non-neutral Uli Hoeneß of the cult scene evaluates the competitor Borussia Dortmund. And that this cannot be fair should be clear to everyone. The opportunity to show neutrality and competence in one’s own work was repeatedly missed, whether consciously or unconsciously, may everyone judge for themselves.
A neutral foundation, as demanded by the Enquete Commission of the Bundestag, would certainly be the right, better step instead of such educational missionaries. But that is precisely what FOREF exists for—neutral and without denominational affiliation.
An inquiry on my part to Dr. Pöhlmann from June 11 remained unfortunately unanswered until today, June 15, 12:12 PM.
Artikel auf Deutsch auf foref.info
Sources
Wikipedia article on Pöhlmann: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_P%C3%B6hlmann
ELKB Self-Description Pöhlmann: https://weltanschauungen.bayern-evangelisch.de/downloads/ELKB-Weltanschauunge-Selbstbeschreibung-Poehlmann-2014.pdf
Pöhlmann in EZW Texte 154: https://www.ezw-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ezw-berlin/PDF/EZW-Texte_PDF_Dateien/EZW-Texte_154.pdf
DWDS on Apologetics: https://www.dwds.de/wb/Apologetik
Kubsch and Schirrmacher, Apologetik: Den christian Glauben denkerisch bezeugen in “Wahrheit und Liebe. Was wir von Francis Schaeffer für die Gegenwart lernen können”: https://bibelbund.de/2021/07/apologetik-den-christlichen-glauben-denkerisch-bezeugen/
Dorsch, Lexikon der Psychologie on the term “Religionssoziologie”: https://dorsch.hogrefe.com/stichwort/religionssoziologie
Frietsch and Rogge (Eds.), Über die Praxis des kulturwissenschaftlichen Arbeitens: https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09kulturgeographie/files/2012/05/Feldforschung_-%C3%9Cber-die-Praxis-des-kulturwissenschaftlichen-Arbeitens.pdf
Wikipedia article Multiplier Education: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplikator_(Bildung)
Call for Dialogue dated July 13, 2020, Kommlassreden.de: https://kommlassreden.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Aufruf-zum-Dialog.pdf, with further references
Stahl and Jeske, “Psychodruck und sexualisierte Gewalt in ehemaligem Kloster?”, Main-Post May 22, 2020: https://www.mainpost.de/regional/schweinfurt/psychodruck-und-sexualisierte-gewalt-in-ehemaligem-kloster-art-10449309
Pöhlmann, Wie erkennt man eine sektiererische Gruppe? Checkliste, ELKB-Weltanschauunge-Selbstbeschreibung-Poehlmann-2014.pdf: https://weltanschauungen.bayern-evangelisch.de/downloads/ELKB-Checkliste-Sektiererische-Gruppe-2014.pdf?ref=foref.info (evaluated by us here with an astonishing result!).
Lutterbeck, IOSA-Komplettausbildung - Practitioner Stufe: https://www.rolflutterbeck.de/iosa.html and https://www.rolflutterbeck.de/aufstellungen.html
Act on the Profession of Psychotherapist (Psychotherapists Act - PsychThG): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/psychthg_2020/BJNR160410019.html#BJNR160410019BJNG000100000
Stark and Jeske, Lülsfeld: Staatsanwaltschaft prüft Vorwürfe gegen “Go&Change” from June 1, 2020 in the Main-Post: https://www.mainpost.de/regional/schweinfurt/luelsfeld-staatsanwaltschaft-prueft-vorwuerfe-gegen-gochange-art-10452728
Email from Ideological Advisors dated June 2, 2020, quoted via “Call for Dialogue”, pages 10 and 11
Wikipedia article on “Klient”: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klient
Jeske, “Go&Change”: Von Schwurmenschen, Hierarchien und Selbsttherapie, Main-Post from June 9, 2020
Filzmaier, Expertenregierung in Österreich: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/expertenregierung-in-oesterreich-es-kann-sich-nur-um-eine-100.html