Monday, June 25, 2012

Portrait of a Lady

Last night, for some reason, I was thinking about Kelly Bradrick. You may not have heard of her but she was a poster girl for Stay at Home Daughters and then for the large Vision Forum “conference wedding” with lengthy, manly monologues and a first kiss at the altar. Kelly is the daughter of Scott Brown, the founder of the NCFIC and she married Peter Bradrick in August of 2006. Who could forget? Doug Phillips featured the wedding in an e-mail newsletter and raved about getting a bird’s eye view of Peter and Kelly’s first kiss. He still talks about it to this day. I don’t really know who Kelly’s mom is… I think her name is Deborah and the only thing I remember about her is that she has a bad habit of wearing white to her children’s weddings. Oh and she looks really sad in videos… but I digress. As I was thinking about Kelly last night, I was also thinking about the inability of the men in her life to respect and protect her. I like her, I honestly do, but I hate the way her Dad and husband treat her.
First, we have her Dad: “In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. Believe me, we were exercising much Christian patience with this man who persisted throughout the entire flight. He did not realize that he was facing deadly force, if he persisted. He actually touched her once and was making bold advances. He even continued the pursuit after the plane landed. I am convinced that, if we had not been with her to protect her, she would have been in serious danger.”1 Sounds to me like she was already in serious danger! It also sounds like she didn’t receive ANY protection from her father or anyone else traveling with her. I mean come on, change seats or have her sit in a window seat and have your entire party surround her. If you must, enlist the flight attendants to help you! Better yet, get right in the guy’s face and tell him you’re going to kill him if he doesn’t leave her alone. That usually works. It honestly sound like all the guys just sat there and did absolutely nothing except mutter under their breaths about their “Christian patience.” Kelly might have been better off traveling by herself because she could have enlisted the flight attendants to help her as well as the passengers sitting around her. In any case, it was really stupid of Scott Brown to include that story in an article about protecting women when he did such a woeful job of protecting his own daughter.
Even during Kelly’s courtship with Peter Bradrick, both her father and Peter did not protect her very well or treat her with respect. According to Peter Bradrick in “Courtship and Marriage”2 Kelly did something that impressed him during their courtship. Then, Peter relates a story about an afternoon when he was at the Brown’s farm, walking with Kelly and Scott Brown. “Scott Brown’s giving me a tour of his farm yard and I see this girl that has always, in my experience, been dressed perfectly a model of feminine virtue and poise, drop down and roll underneath a hot wire fence while Scott Brown and I jumped over the fence, which we could do in our blue jeans, and get right back up and walk like a lady.” Then Peter goes on about noticing Kelly’s “very rare balance between beautiful femininity and sturdy womanhood” and how rare this combination is in his mind. (Actually, I know dozens of young women who can dress to the nines and still love going hiking and camping. Peter just wasn’t looking very hard.) Now, Peter’s comments are strange on a number of levels. For one, Kelly Bradrick was very slender and delicate looking before she was married (just look at the first picture I posted and her wedding photos) and I would never have classified her as “sturdy.” Plus, that’s a pretty strange choice of words for a future wife―it reeks of marrying only so you can have someone to clean your house and do your laundry for you. Further, why didn’t Peter or Scott help Kelly over the fence? It’s kind of strange and sad that she felt like she had to drop to the ground and roll under a fence rather than hike her skirts up or ask for help. It sounds to me like Kelly’s self-esteem/worth was so low that she didn’t even think of asking for help.

Moving forward, Kelly’s husband, Peter Bradrick hasn’t done a much better job of protecting her. Or as he promised in his marriage vows on August 26, 2006: “To lay down my life for you; to wash you with the water of the word; to love you as my own body and to nourish and cherish you even as the Lord the does the church….” You see, on May 15, 2011, Kelly had a baby girl, Geneva Constance; her fourth child in four and a half years. She already had an emergency c-section in January 2010 with her third baby so one would think that Peter would have been very protective and concerned about his wife. Even while Kelly was expecting this fourth child, Peter tromped off with Doug Phillips on an expedition “Into the Amazon” which isn’t exactly awful but isn’t very loving either. But then, it gets worse. On May 26, 2011, Scott and Deborah Brown left for a tour of Europe with Doug Phillips’ “A Final Farewell” event. According to pictures taken in Rome and Normandy, Peter and Kelly Bradrick went along as well. Only 11 days after Kelly gave birth. Now, most doctors will tell you to wait 2 weeks after giving birth normally and 4 weeks after a c-section to travel. Most women who have one c-section will continue to have them unless they specifically find a doctor who is willing to help with a VBAC or Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. (I know this because a friend had a terrible time finding a doctor willing to help her try a VBAC.) So it is highly possible that Kelly had a C-section and should have waited 4 weeks to travel, especially to Europe. As it was, she didn’t even wait two weeks and was highly at risk for hemorrhaging, infection, and thrombosis. It is also recommended to keep a newborn close to home for the first 6 weeks so that their immune system can develop. The Phillips’ posted a video of being delayed on the way to Europe and stuck in the airport sleeping in chairs and on floors. I certainly hope Kelly Bradrick didn’t have to sleep in an airport less than 2 weeks after giving birth! Phillips’ tour was first in Rome and then in Normandy, France from June 4-6, 2011. Here’s a picture of Peter and Kelly in Rome:
On June 11, 2011, Kelly Bradrick had to be life-flighted to a hospital and given a D&C. The doctors did not expect her to make it but thankfully, she did pull through and recover. It is not certain whether she was still in Europe at the time of her medical emergency. However, according to Joshua Phillip’s blog, the Phillips’ family did not return to the U.S. until around June 16, 2011 so it is highly probable that Kelly was in Europe at the time of her emergency. 3
What did Scott Brown, Doug Phillips, and all the other bloggers have to say about Kelly’s near death experience?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Absolutely nothing. The blogs were silent. Not one request for prayer or praise for healing from the men. The only person to thank God for His protection was Kelly Bradrick herself, on Facebook. Screenshots here:




And what’s more, all the pictures proving that Kelly was along on the trip have been taken down.

Here’s a screenshot of Liberty Phillips’ Picasa album:
Notice the comments asking if the baby is Geneva. That’s right, there was a picture of Geneva Bradrick in Scotland but it was removed. Joshua Phillips had an entire album entitled “RomeAndPompeiiEurope2011” but it mysteriously vanished. The silence (of all the men especially) and then the cover-up really disturbs me. We, as Christians especially, should be transparent and no matter who we are, we should admit to our mistakes. This whole issue could even have been a teachable moment for why not to travel after you’ve given birth―or why you should truly love your wife as your own body. Asking your wife to accompany you on an overseas vacation soon after she’s given birth is not laying down your life for her or loving her as your own body. No matter how “sturdy” Peter believes his wife to be, he should have known better than to allow her to go to Europe. It’s not like Peter and Kelly had never been to Europe; they already went in 2008 and 2010, as shown by this photo of their 2010 trip to Scotland.

Just because the door is open doesn’t mean you have to, or even should, step through it. “But,” You say, “God protected her! God will provide!” Yes, God does provide and He did protect Kelly when no one else was doing so but He also provides us with minds and common sense. What the Bradrick’s did was like walking out into the middle of a busy highway without looking both ways or choosing to go without a seat belt and saying, “God will protect me!” That is a very arrogant and dangerous path. As it says in Deuteronomy 6:16, “"You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Jesus quotes this same verse when He is being tempted by the devil: “Then the devil took Him to the holy city and had Him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:5-7.
Now, Kelly Bradrick has given birth to her fifth child, Michael Courage Bradrick, less than a year after her last medical emergency. This time the baby was five weeks early and is currently in the NICU. Frankly, I’m horrified. If Michael was due in June, then that means there was only a four-month gap between Kelly’s pregnancies. I’ve never heard of such a thing…even among my mom’s friends who did not use birth control and had 5+ kids. What is the point of all of this? I know Scott Brown coined the term "Militant Fecundity" but this is ridiculous! Take a look at this video that Peter and Kelly made to wish Doug Phillips Happy Birthday from the NICU:
video
(Oh, the lengths people will go to impress that wretched man! There’s something completely wrong about making someone a happy birthday video from a place as serious and private as your baby’s hospital room.) Kelly looks emotionally and physically exhausted and her body must be absolutely depleted. I hope she is receiving a lot of help from family and friends because I don’t know how else she could manage difficult pregnancies and five children under the age of five. Just look at the difference in Kelly between her wedding in 2006, a photo taken in 2009, and a recent photo of the Brown family taken in late 2011.





I wish I could say I’m disappointed in Kelly for not standing up for herself and her children, but I don’t know how much of a voice she is allowed. I don’t know what her life is like with so many little children and if she has any strength of character after being raised by Scott Brown and then married to Peter Bradrick. Even before her marriage, it seems her self-esteem was very low. I’m really disappointed in the men in Kelly’s life, especially Peter Bradrick. I don’t expect Kelly to try to protect herself since she’s been taught to expect absolute care and protection from men but I do expect Peter Bradrick, Scott Brown, and even Doug Phillips to step up and put her above themselves and their desires and concerns. That is, of course hypothetical and unlikely to happen because their track records for truly valuing and respecting women are low. There’s a lot of talk going on but not very much action. When it comes down to it, these men don’t seem able to live up to their lofty goals. I hate to be negative but I don’t see a lot of sunshine in Kelly’s future. Something tells me that things will only get worse for Kelly before they get better… if they get better at all.

Ingrid

1.http://www.visionforumministriesDOTorg/issues/family/living_in_sodom_a_case_study_p_1.aspx

2. Return of the Daughters, DVD extra, "Courtship and Marriage."

3. “…flying directly to the Denver homeschool conference without even setting foot outside the airport in between jaunts.” http://www.ballantynethebraveDOTcom/blog/home/

Spring 2013 Addendum - There has been a little confusion about this article and I would like to explain a few things. First, I love large families, some of my closest friends come from families of six to ten children, and I think choosing to have many children is a wonderful thing. However, I believe that this is a decision made by both parents and should be driven by their love of children; NOT from a desire to follow any programs or legalistic rules about the family.Also, care should be taken to ensure the health and emotional well being of the mother.  See this post: A Desire to Control Second, I wrote about Kelly Bradrick because Peter Bradrick and Scott Brown not only act abusively toward her but also promoted the very ideas that nearly killed her. The men and women who teach and promote "militant fecundity" are to be held accountable for this unbiblical teaching. Moreover, if the dangers of this movement are "covered-up" and remain unknown to others, then other women could be injured or killed. That's why this article had to be written.  

26 comments:

TruthBtoldtoday said...

Scott Brown didn't start the NCFIC - A man from New Hampshire named John Thompson did with Doug's help.

John was removed from heading up the NCFIC after 2 of his daughters ran away.

thatmom said...

This is a powerful post, Ingrid. The disappearance of patriocentric posts and unwillingness to own up to wrong doing is always troubling and very telling.

I would be interested in seeing any links to the information re: Mr.Thompson, his daughters, etc. Please send to Ingrid and she can forward.

Mara Reid said...

I would also like info on Mr. Thompson and his daughters if it is available.

rach.h.davis said...

It's possible that Kelly is one of those women who continues to ovulate immediately after childbirth, whereas most nursing mothers will not ovulate again until nursing slows down and/or stops. That's why most non-bc-using moms have at least 18-24 month gaps between babes. Unfortunately, if they don't believe in birth control, that means she could continue to have one baby a year until A.) Her health gives out completely or B.) She finally reaches an age where she is not naturally so fertile.

This whole thing makes me feel a little ill.

Red

Ingrid said...

Red,
It is possible she's that fertile but my guess is that Kelly purposely weans in order to become pregnant again or just because it's the norm in Quiverfull circles. There's a lot of blanket training going on in the Quiverfull group. Judging from Kelly's post-baby weight and her babies' lack of chubbiness, I seriously doubt she's nursing very much. And if she were nursing more than one (as is the norm in attachment parenting when one has that many little ones) I seriously doubt she would be fertile again so soon.
Part of me wonders if Peter is so controling that he discourages Kelly from nursing or responding to her babies' cues... and I seriously doubt that they're proponents of the family bed. I've heard several Quiverfull survivor stories where this type of control was in play.
I agree, it makes me feel ill as well.
Ingrid

See my post:http://ingridgraceandaudrey.blogspot.com/2011/07/desire-to-control.html

rach.h.davis said...

I suppose whether her return to immediate fertility is purposeful or not, it still doesn't reflect well on her husband. I'm sorry, but if your wife has had 4 kids in as many years and had medical emergencies with the last 2, if you don't believe in birth control then you'd just better refrain from sleeping with her for a few months to allow her body to catch up. I mean come on, if it means the difference to her safety and health!..... To do anything else is to KNOWINGLY place her in harm's way.

Way to go, Peter.

Erika Martin - Stampin' Mama said...

My family went to John Thompson's church in the early 90s. That was the beginning of the descent into the depths of hell for me. I'm friends with one of his daughters that ran away on FB and she has grown into a strong and beautiful woman with a mind of her own.

My sister and I "ran away" from home, as well.

Amy W. said...

Please do not misinterpret this comment as in support of the Bradrick's or their beliefs, etc. but I did want to say that there are some women whose cycles return soon after birth even though they are nursing- I am one such woman, my children are 12 months, 18 months, and 15 months apart respectively. I have nursed all of them on demand, co-sleep, delayed solids, etc. #2 nursed all the way through my third pregnancy and tandem nursed with #3 for almost one year...during which time #4 was conceived. #4 is one week old and #3 is still nursing right along with him. I certainly agree with you that this is not common, but it can still happen so I wanted to point that out. We really have no idea if this couple is doing something to *purposely* "try" and conceive as often as possible- maybe they are or maybe they aren't.

It is probably obvious that my husband and I do not use birth control, but we don't believe in any of the "militant fecundity" things...we just decided before we were married (without knowledge of the "quiverfull" movement or any related things) that we believed that God is the giver of life and that He would give us the children He wants us to have in His timing- whether that was few or many or even none. And so far this is how things have happened for us. Yes, it is hard and to be completely honest I do find myself questioning our beliefs at times- especially when I read posts like this or others posted for example at thatmom (I found your post through her blog actually!), but then I remind myself that *we are not like these people* (even though some aspects of our life may look similar from the outside), and for that I am thankful.

Thank you for writing about such important issues.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ingrid,


Please don't take this negatively.

I really don't know why you spend all of your time trying to tear down all of these people. Who cares if they act this way, you saying anything isn't going to change them. They believe what they do is scriptural, and tearing people down "which is what you are essentially doing" is really not Christian. I happen to know many of these guys. They are Godly, Christians that desire to serve the Lord with everything they do, and say. There is nothing wrong with that. No one is perfect, but have you actually met any of these people? Kelly Bradrick is an amazing, God fearing Woman, God has put her where she is, and is helping her teach her amazing children about God each and every day. Why must you be so negative of all of these people? What I admire about Katie, or Kelly is that they love Jesus and want to serve him no matter what you or anyone else says. They take the Bible seriously, and desire to radically change womanhood from what it is today. You claim to be a Christian, I know you have said your reasons for doing so, but why must you take your time to just meanly tear these people apart. It's a wast of time, when you could be doing so many other things. One of my best friends in the world is Katie. She always has a smile on her face that makes everyone else around her want to smile too. You can just tell she has the TRUE joy of the Lord in her. Its quite amazing to see . The core of their beliefs is what draws them to the home and their family. When I was younger, a friend told me that, "What you wear, do, and say shows clearly your religion ". They want to set themselves apart from this Godless world. It says in the scriptures to "be in the world but not of the world". I myself am a home-schooled, stay at home daughter, that works for my father, engages in a theatre class, and that plays Ultimate Frisbee or Indoor soccer with Katie's younger sisters weekly. I watch Kelly's little ones a lot too. I see Katie fulfilling her role as a mother and being a wife to her husband, and I admire that in her.

There is so much more I could address, but I think this much portrays my point.


Please Please Please do not be negative of these people’s beliefs. They are doing what God has called them to do, in the places which called them to do it.


Sincerely,

A

Ingrid said...

A,

You may have misunderstood the point of my article. I have very few problems with Kelly Bradrick―she seems like a nice person, though perhaps misguided in some of her beliefs. My main point is her husband (and her father’s) negligent, if not abusive treatment of her. You make no mention/defense of Peter Bradrick. Is there a reason for this?

Also, in this article, I make no mention of anyone named Katie. If you’re referring to Katie (Valenti) Bradrick, I’m glad that she still smiles. However, it is impossible to know what goes on behind closed doors. In any case, my article is about Kelly. Does Kelly smile or seem happy? I’m surprised you make no mention of Kelly’s happiness. It doesn’t surprise me that Kelly seems very driven in her faith―she would need something to keep her going as she tries to live up to a legalistic system and a demanding husband.

I’m glad that you help Kelly with her children because she needs a lot of support. Having five children in five years is not something I would wish on anyone. Her children are beautiful and I hope that she is able to impact them for Jesus.

This article is a collection of facts. If I am negative, that’s because the truth is grim. If I am critical of Peter Bradrick’s beliefs and treatment of Kelly, then let it be so. I do not consider my writing a waste of time; if someone following in the Bradrick’s footsteps reads my article and sees the danger of these teachings, then my work is not in vain. After what has happened to Kelly Bradrick, my article could (literally or figuratively) save another woman’s life. In addition, Peter Bradrick has set himself up as a teacher and is held to a higher standard due to his position. Jesus held the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law to account for their teachings and actions. In the same way, James writes, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (3:1) However, I never have and do not plan to question the salvation of Peter Bradrick or any of his contemporaries. That is between each person and God. I hope that you will afford this same respect to my faith.

Just because someone believes they are doing right, doesn’t make it right. Those in the Patriarchy movement think that their lifestyle is biblical but it does not fit into the spirit of the Gospel. These teachings ruin and/or twist people’s lives and it is important for me to counter evil where I see it and speak truth into dark places.

Ingrid

rach.h.davis said...

Anonymous said:

"They take the Bible seriously, and desire to radically change womanhood from what it is today."

I get what you're saying, anonymous, but the point of Ingrid's post is that the men in Kelly's life are being borderline abusive to her. You can't justify abuse by pointing to how badly someone wants to follow scripture. A desire to follow scripture does not absolve someone from making responsible choices to others around them. And living a lifestyle that is physically and emotionally damaging to your wife is NOT making responsible choices, and further, doesn't fit the attitude that husbands are encouraged to have as per Ephesians 5.

If a set of beliefs or a lifestyle is hurtful, people need to spread the word about how hurtful it is. That's what Ingrid is doing.

Anonymous said...

You assume that the men in Kelly's life are not protecting her. How do you know whether or not she wants to do and supports all these things that you are criticizing?
Have you ever met this young lady? I have, several times, and she seems like a happy woman. If you really have a problem with her or her family, then why don't you go to them privately as Scripture commands? What you have written here is nothing more than a bunch of speculative gossip. You need to repent.

Ingrid said...

Looking at the facts, it is clear that the men in Kelly’s life are not protecting her. For a group that claims to highly value protecting women, it is shocking to see that no one is taking care of Kelly Bradrick. You do raise an interesting point… I don’t know how much of these incidents occurred because Kelly wanted them. Perhaps she did want to go to Europe only a few weeks after giving birth... though that seems unlikely. Still, if that was the case, Peter should have stepped in, suggested that the whole family stay home, and maybe even offered to take care of Kelly as she recovered from pregnancy. Yet, he didn’t and she almost died. Of course, Kelly’s “wanting” to do something can only be extended so far. For example, I highly doubt that she would have wanted to be pursued by a drunken man on a plane and not protected by her father. All in all, her life sounds abusive. Does any woman ever want to be abused?
Unfortunately, I have not met Kelly but I would like to meet her at some point, especially to ask her if there is any way I can help her in her situation. Also, Kelly Bradrick is 27 years old and the mother of five children. She is not a young lady or a girl, she is a woman. As I mentioned to another commenter, there is no way to know what goes on behind closed doors. Even if you have met Kelly Bradrick a few times, it is impossible to know her whole story or what is going on in her life. Most people do seem happy in public, especially at events. Unless you know a person extremely well, it is very unlikely that they will tell you anything that concerns them in their personal life.
Peter and Kelly Bradrick and Scott Brown are public teachers and all of this information is public knowledge and fact. Peter and Scott are misleading people by their hypocrisy and therefore, can be publicly held to account. As I told another commenter, Peter Bradrick has set himself up as a teacher and is held to a higher standard due to his position. Jesus held the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law to public account for their teachings and actions. (In fact, He called them “snakes” and “broods of vipers” multiple times.) In the same way, James writes, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (3:1) Brown and Bradrick’s teachings are public and if I did not call them out publicly, their followers would have no way to know what they have done. It also is my hope that other women can be saved from a fate similar to Kelly’s and need to know the risks of such a lifestyle.
My article is comprised of documented facts that can be verified should you wish to do so. Therefore, it is not gossip.
Whether I need to repent or not is between me and God. It does not involve you. Only God can see our hearts.
Ingrid

Ingrid said...

Okay, so, I thought about this some more and you said, "How do you know whether or not she wants to do and supports all these things that you are criticizing?"
Wow. Like.. really... wow. Are you suggesting that Kelly wants to be abused? Do you really think that all these things that have happened to her are her fault or her choice? I can't believe that anyone would think that a woman would want to be treated this way.
Ingrid

Nicola said...

I find it rather troubling that Kelly thanks Doug Phillips for "instilling a joy for motherhood" in her. That suggests, to me, that in her late teens she didn't want to have children, but thought God wanted her to and so rather than living the life she really wanted she tried to make herself want the life laid out for her, and I don't know how successful she was.

I also thought you raised a good point about how she was in more danger with her father and the other men than if she'd been travelling alone. However, I'm not sure she would have been able to stand up to a man even if she was alone, because movements like the one to which she belongs teach women to submit to men, so she'd be more likely to convince herself that she was wrong for being uncomfortable than believe he was harassing her and take steps to end it.

Anonymous said...

I think you had some good points. However, there are a few things which seemed a little bit odd. Firstly, you don't actually have any proof that Kelly is opposed to the way she is being "abused." On the contrary, Kelly seems to be living a happy life, enjoying her children and husband, as well as her father in law, as seen in the video.
Secondly, you have had to kind of twist your sources to get them to say the things your getting them to say. You are imposing your opinions on them. This is made clear through the use of such phrases as "it sounds to me like" or "it doesn't sound like."
Also, I agree with one of the other commentators who encouraged you to go meet Kelly and ask her if that is actually how she feels. If she actually feels abused, I would be more than willing to accept what you've been saying. I would definitely encourage you to do so.
Olivia Sammons

Ingrid said...

Olivia,

Did you read any of the previous comments? I pretty much answered these questions already... in several different ways. Frankly, I’m baffled by those who believe that Kelly wants to be treated this way and I feel that there’s some misunderstanding of domestic abuse in play here. Would any woman want to be harassed by a man on a plane or urged to go to Europe just after the birth of a child resulting in a medical emergency? Don’t even get me started on the boiling water on the stove issue. So let me get this straight, it’s only abuse if the victim realizes they are being abused? Many women who are abused defend their abuser but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem! Haven’t you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/ I know I’m being firm here but this is getting ridiculous! Even if Kelly doesn’t seem to mind how the men in her life treat her, a true man would never treat his wife or his daughter in such a manner. The men in Kelly’s life are borderline abusive. That is a fact. It doesn’t matter if she minds it or not, the abuse is still there! I hope Kelly realizes that something is wrong―it makes me sick to think that she can endure this kind of treatment without complaint. Kelly Bradrick, and every other human being, deserves to be treated with respect. Why don’t you understand that?

And also, as I wrote before, “are you suggesting that Kelly wants to be abused? Do you really think that all these things that have happened to her are her fault or her choice? I can't believe that anyone would think that a woman would want to be treated this way.” Plus, as I told another commenter, “there is no way to know what goes on behind closed doors. Even if you have met Kelly Bradrick a few times, it is impossible to know her whole story or what is going on in her life. Most people do seem happy in public, especially at events. Unless you know a person extremely well, it is very unlikely that they will tell you anything that concerns them in their personal life.”

As for twisting my sources, I can assure you that what is written here is documented fact. As I mentioned before, it is possible for you to go and look up all of my sources. You can verify this information for yourself. I do make a few conjectures about Kelly’s personal feelings however, this does NOT change the facts about what happened to her. You’re right, I’m guessing about how she feels but take that away and you still have a verifiable record of abuse from both her father and her husband.

I am amused by those who assume that it is a simple task to meet with Kelly Bradrick. I would love to meet with her… I hope to do so… but I doubt that it will be an easy task. From my experiences already, it is a difficult undertaking to meet with any of the heads of this movement (Phillips, Brown, Bradrick, Bauchum, Swanson, Sproul Jr., McDonald, etc ) and even harder to meet with any other members of their families one on one. Frankly, I doubt Peter would let me within 100 feet of Kelly much less let me talk to her one on one. But I’ll keep trying anyway.

Also, you wrote, “as well as her father in law, as seen in the video.” I don’t know who you’re talking about here. I don’t mention Mr. Bradrick at all... just Scott Brown (Kelly’s father) and Peter Bradrick (her husband). If you’re referring to Doug Phillips, he isn’t related to the Bradricks at all—Peter was an intern for him several years ago. He’s not family and that’s what makes the video even more strange.

Ingrid

John DuBlogger said...

Hi Ingrid,
I appreciate your Stockholm Syndrome comment, and I think you have the right idea, but this is probably more subtle. In SS, the victim knows he/she is being abused but is shown some favor by the abuser and becomes conciliatory as an adaptive mechanism.

In the QF/patriarchy movement, women are relentlessly taught that this type of experience you call abuse is not abuse at all but the noblest and highest calling for them. They are submitting and putting family first, etc.

Several commenters are hung up on whether she enjoys or prefers this treatment. Does she enjoy the treatment? Probably not, but lots of people intentionally do things they don't enjoy for some sense of fulfillment. Medical students subject themselves to abuse, and they hate it, but they believe it's all necessary toward some greater end. This isn't dissimilar. LIkewise, the medical instructors can choose to be less abusive to the students out of concern for their welfare, but don't expect the students to complain about the abuse. The students believe it's what they signed up for, and they know that to complain is to be a bad student.

What of QF wives who complain? Is that being a Godly wife? Is that submitting to the patriarch who is God's appointed authority over her?

We could very well ask Kelly if she has any resentment, but whether she does or not, her answer will be 'no'. She's a terrific woman who subjects herself to unnecessary rigors because she thinks it's for the kingdom. Whose responsibility is it then to make sure she is cared for?

John DuBlogger said...

Hi Ingrid,
I appreciate your Stockholm Syndrome comment, and I think you have the right idea, but this is probably more subtle. In SS, the victim knows he/she is being abused but is shown some favor by the abuser and becomes conciliatory as an adaptive mechanism.

In the QF/patriarchy movement, women are relentlessly taught that this type of experience you call abuse is not abuse at all but the noblest and highest calling for them. They are submitting and putting family first, etc.

Several commenters are hung up on whether she enjoys or prefers this treatment. Does she enjoy the treatment? Probably not, but lots of people intentionally do things they don't enjoy for some sense of fulfillment. Medical students subject themselves to abuse, and they hate it, but they believe it's all necessary toward some greater end. This isn't dissimilar. LIkewise, the medical instructors can choose to be less abusive to the students out of concern for their welfare, but don't expect the students to complain about the abuse. The students believe it's what they signed up for, and they know that to complain is to be a bad student.

What of QF wives who complain? Is that being a Godly wife? Is that submitting to the patriarch who is God's appointed authority over her?

We could very well ask Kelly if she has any resentment, but whether she does or not, her answer will be 'no'. She's a terrific woman who subjects herself to unnecessary rigors because she thinks it's for the kingdom. Whose responsibility is it then to make sure she is cared for?

WAHINEOKEAKUA said...

Aloha Ingrid..I appreciate your honest judgment of this situation. Are you a Christ-follower yourself? If so, who would you consider a Christian to be and on what basis..

Anonymous said...

Aloha Ingrid..I appreciate your honest judgment of this situation. Are you a Christ-follower yourself? If so, who would you consider a Christian to be and on what basis..

ayumi said...

wonderful work! the way you discuss the subject i'm very impressed. i'll bookmark this webpage and be back more often to see more updates from you.

ayumi
www.brfe.net

D.L F said...

The video made me so sad. I loved my mom and grandmother but never felt the need to send them a thank you, Happy Birthday video from my hospital room.

I also find it creepy that Doug and her Papa had long talks with Kelly to teach her to love motherhood. Why would that be necessary? My guess is that Kelly was pretty enough to be a selling point for Vision Forum and Doug wanted to point to her as the ideal daughter/wife and mother. What Kelly wanted be damned

Happy Birthday Video said...

One thing I have to admit is that the pictures are great. I like the variety of actress and the topic is nice. Thanks

Jean Marie said...

Great article! Thank you!

M. E. Stephens said...

Thank you for such a well documented and thought out article that is obviously not intended to tear down carelessly. I agree that people in the Lord's church who put themselves into positions of leadership need to be questioned or exposed when they teach things contrary to N.T. church teachings.

In my own research of this subject the thing I see over and over is that these folks get themselves into all kinds of trouble by trying to apply O.T. Hebrew promises to themselves personally or to the church. Also, I am convinced that the idea that it is their job to "bring in the Kingdom for Jesus" is a foundational error that has led to diverse problems. (Perhaps for example, after generations of effort and little results, turning to "militant fecundity" seemed like a good solution - if we can't convert the world, we'll inundate it with "godly seed.")

My heart aches for the women in these situations. I know families that believe these things. Some are not like the men and Kelly as you describe them, but I'm quite sure others are. It hurts my heart to see women treated this way in the name of Jesus Christ - who would never, never treat a woman that way! In fact, we see His consistent compassion and care for women while he was on this earth.

Again, thank you for your critical thinking and answers - they all are reasonable and make sense, though a very sad sense.