Original Korean piece here.
In 1980, Japan was shaken by an incident involving a religious group called the “Ark of Jesus.” The incident raised fundamental questions about freedom of religion, women’s autonomy, and media ethics. More precisely, it was not so much the religion itself, but the way the media reported on it that turned it into a social issue.
At the time, Japanese news first reported it as a “mass disappearance of women.” This naturally sparked nationwide attention, followed by extensive police investigations and aggressive media coverage. At the center of the story was the fact that young women had joined a Christian-based new religious community founded by Takeyoshi Sengoku and were living together. Nearly 20 women from across Japan were reported missing, and society interpreted this as kidnapping or brainwashing.
Instead of respecting the women’s choice, the media and public labeled the incident with sensational terms such as “brainwashed fanatics,” “mass disappearance,” and “cult religion.” The Sunday Mainichi, which reported from a more neutral perspective, was even criticized by other outlets as being a propaganda tool for the Ark of Jesus.
However, police investigations revealed that the women had not been kidnapped or brainwashed, but had voluntarily left their families to join the community. They wanted to free themselves from family or social oppression and chose religious faith and communal life as the means to live their own lives. Takeyoshi Sengoku was also cleared of all charges.
The reckless reporting practices of the media were criticized for focusing excessively on condemnation and personal attacks. Cultural anthropologist Masio Yamaguchi analyzed the media coverage as following the “holy monster myth,” in which unfamiliar groups are demonized and targeted for elimination to satisfy public fear and expectation. After the incident, some media outlets began to reflect on their reporting methods and made efforts to improve them.
[* Daiki Sai, the director of a 2024 TBS documentary on the Ark of Jesus, later admitted that the media at the time had failed to adequately portray the lives and perspectives of the female believers, acknowledging the error of focusing on fragmented images.]
This case became a representative example of how dangerous it is when the media goes beyond conveying facts and instead reports based on prejudice and emotion.
The 2023 Netflix documentary In the Name of God also created a huge social impact. From the perspective of believers, especially those within Providence, it must be pointed out that the program leaned more toward commercial sensationalism and bias than toward presenting truth.
We should therefore examine the similarities between the media coverage during the Ark of Jesus incident and the reporting style in In the Name of God, and reflect on how the media handles truth and the attitude we should maintain.
- Approaching the Incident
The Ark of Jesus was a faith community where many women voluntarily participated and lived together. The media, however, described them as victims of a “mass disappearance,” “brainwashing,” and “fanaticism,” portraying them as if they had been kidnapped and needed to be rescued. Their personal choice and the background of their faith were ignored, and they were treated as a social problem.
Similarly, In the Name of God focused on JMS and the teacher, highlighting certain incidents while ignoring the real nature of religious faith or the reality of the Providence community, and instead magnifying only extreme cases. Testimonies of those claiming to be victims may be considered important evidence to the producers, but they do not represent the whole truth and must be considered within broader contexts.
- The Media: Guardian of Truth or Tool of Commerce
In the Ark of Jesus case, Japanese media pushed the story in a sensational direction. They showed no interest in the fact that the women had voluntarily joined the community. Instead, they portrayed them as abnormal, stoking public anxiety to boost ratings and sales. This kind of reporting naturally focused more on emotion and prejudice than on fact.
In the Name of God is a modern example of the same approach. Strictly speaking, it is difficult to call it a documentary. A documentary is supposed to capture real-life events or natural phenomena as they are, without using actors, sets, or dramatic devices. Yet In the Name of God relied heavily on reenactments, montage techniques, and music to provoke emotional reactions from viewers. It was so sensational that some called it “docu-porn.” By portraying JMS entirely as a criminal organization without examining the structure of the religion or the positive functions of faith, it offered a simplistic view.
- The Other Side of Victim-Centered Narratives
Even if we try to view it objectively, if In the Name of God had truly been a documentary, the voices of those claiming to be victims should be respected, and their protection should be considered. The problem is that the program used these so-called victims as tools for its storytelling. It created a fictionalized narrative by combining unverified claims, edited footage, sensational scenes, and staged reenactments. Most Providence members live healthy, law-abiding lives, but the program led the public to believe they were part of an organized crime group. This, too, is a form of violence and a way of socially burying an entire faith community.
Just as the Ark of Jesus women were trapped in the single frame of “brainwashed victims,” preventing people from seeing their real lives, the same mistake is now being repeated with In the Name of God. The next production, I Am a Survivor, seems set to do the same.
This time, unlike before, they plan to link Providence with incidents that have nothing to do with religion, such as serial murders and major disasters—comparisons that are absurd. The goal is obvious: believing that the religious angle of the first program will no longer sell, they are trying to depict Providence as a criminal group committing horrific acts with either the collusion or neglect of authorities. Korean broadcasters are also using the reach of global platforms to spread negative portrayals of Korea under the guise of justice, which only harms Korea’s positive image abroad.
[On July 3, 1980, female believers from the Ark of Jesus held a press conference to clarify that the media reports were false. Their statements were later confirmed as true. Even then, reporters focused on provocative sexual questions.]
- The Line Between Religious Hatred and Overgeneralization
Any religion can provide comfort, hope, and meaning to its followers. However, commercial broadcasts that label an entire faith group as a cult, heresy, or criminal organization are deeply problematic. As in the Ark of Jesus case, unconditional distrust and stigma can destroy a religious community. Today, this kind of religious hatred is simply being expressed in more sophisticated ways.
Even if, due to negative public opinion and unfair trials, the teacher were to be unjustly judged, destroying the Providence community and denying the existence of its members will not solve anything. It will only create more social conflict. A proper documentary should attempt to understand structure and respect religious diversity. In the Name of God does not do this; instead, it focuses on shock value.
- How the World Treats Truth
The common thread between the Ark of Jesus incident and In the Name of God is that truth, though complex and layered, was oversimplified and consumed commercially. Victims, believers, and communities all exist within complex life paths, yet the media tries to judge them through black-and-white thinking.
Providence is a community where many find direction in life through faith and strive to contribute positively to society. In the Name of God made no effort to explore that truth. By ignoring it, the program created another form of social violence. We must ask whether this is truly the justice society wants.
- What Is Justice?
The questions raised by the Ark of Jesus incident in Japan remain relevant: How deeply do we understand the faith, choices, and communities of others? Is the media fulfilling its duty? Are they prepared to see the truth?
In the Name of God stirred public reaction, and those who profited from it now want to repeat the formula. But we know whether that reaction came from a pursuit of truth or from mere sensationalism.
Scammers weave lies with bits of truth to make them believable. That is how people are deceived. Changing someone’s perspective depends on explanation. We must clearly explain how society is being misled. Even if some know the truth, they remain silent because of those who reject God and do evil. Nevertheless, each of us must rise above our current level, be renewed, and give abundant testimony that clearly explains the Providence work.
—From the Sunday sermon on August 10, 2025: 1. Break Free. Be Renewed. 2. Explain Well.
We should remember that after the Ark of Jesus incident, some Japanese media expressed regret for their sensational and flawed coverage, showing repentance in follow-up reports. The media may ignore and distort the truth, but in time there comes a day when they must bow to it.
I believe that the producers of In the Name of God and the platforms that distributed it will one day have to admit and take responsibility for the sensational and provocative reporting they engaged in. When that day comes, the truth will become even clearer.
Even if a sequel like I Am a Survivor airs, we as Providence members will not forget the essence of the teacher and the value of Providence. We will take it as an opportunity to deepen the roots of our faith. Our mission is to remain centered and walk the path of faith, even amid distortion and sensational stories.
Truth will outlast time, and faith will eventually reveal its worth. Holding onto our faith is, in itself, a candle that illuminates the truth.
