It's Very Complicated - Part I

Apparently, girls are too dumb to understand math… *facepalm* Such subtlety!

Preface: So it’s been awhile, actually more than awhile. It’s kind of pathetic actually. But I have really good excuses. For starters, I graduated college this year and went to Europe for a grand backpacking adventure. It was amazing and I highly recommend it to everyone. I came home with $30 in my bank account so obviously, I had to get a job and hence, I’ve been pretty busy. The whole Doug Phillips thing is also throwing me because I thought it would happen but of course, I was still surprised when it did happen. A lot of the articles on which I was working will have to be retooled (no pun intended) to fit the current changing status of Vision Forum. However, I do have a few other pieces to post soon, including this one. I will try my best to get the next part up promptly, though I must say, this book is so terrible that it’s hard to find the motivation to keep ploughing through it. :-D Still, I’ve been working on this review for over a year so it's time I finished it.

Finally, I procured a copy of It’s (Not That) Complicated by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin. I never read So Much Less More, as Grace took over that responsibility, so this is the first of their books that I’ve read. As most of you can probably guess and I cannot dissemble, my expectations were very low. Still, I tried to keep an open mind and notice the good and the bad in their effort. An entire package of sticky notes and two pencils later, I have an annotated version of the book and will describe my findings chapter by chapter. Hopefully, this review will make sense to everyone as I tried to summarize well. If it’s hazy, feel free to ask me questions… and seriously, don't read the book!

General Remarks: First, their grammar needs some help as there are consistent glaring errors throughout the book. The entire time I was reading this book, I was distracted by the constant end-of-sentence prepositions. It’s one of my pet peeves and the Botkins were guilty of misplaced prepositions on nearly every page. Sentence structure was okay, except for the fact that many of their sentences began with “But,” “And,” and “Because.” While I know they were trying to write conversationally, most people avoid constantly beginning sentences with these words. Also, in places their wordings were clunky and/or choppy. To be honest, I’m not sure that writing comes naturally to them―they’re okay writers but seem to struggle a little. Plus, their writing style is rather colloquial. They didn’t even fix the grammar errors in interviews (more end-of-sentence preps) or the readability of questions that must have been submitted via text message. In several places, I felt that they were overtly trying to sound hip or cool by using lots of slang. I’m out and about, in college, and have friends in many different places and stations of life and I’ve noticed that most people only use a little slang. Yet, in places, the Botkins use it as if it’s going out of style. This did not make them sound cool… it just made them sound awkward. Then, mid-slang paragraphs, their style will change and suddenly they’re writing high-brow, analytical sentences with big words and lots of jargon. Thus, in general, it was a difficult book for a B.A. owning, self-styled grammar-dragon to read.

Acknowledgements: The Botkin sisters begin by thanking their family for all the support that was given to them during the writing of this book. I’ll give their flowery language a pass here because it is good to thank those who help you. However, I have to say, they need to teach their brothers to make their own cookies. There’s no reason that 16 and 18 year olds would need to pull their sisters away from writing to make cookies for them! Also, in light of recent events, it is ironically hilarious and sad to see that Doug Phillips is one of the men who helped them “understand the purpose and value of our relationships with young men…” and set a “righteous example” for them (ii). Yeah. Wow. Finally, the last paragraph grates on the mind, as they write, “we could not have written this book on boys without hearing the perspective of… well… boys” (ii). Boys? Seriously? You’re in your mid to late twenties, they’re MEN!! My guy friends over 18 are really offended if anyone accidentally refers to them as “boys.” And, if you’re over 18, you’re a WOMAN, not a girl! This terminology is consistent throughout the book and I think it shows a profound ignorance on the Botkin’s part. Plus, it is just plain annoying. Anyway, rant over.

Introduction: Basically, the AS & E discuss the questions that inspired them to write this book. They also explain how/why they are qualified to write about “boys” and educate the reader on how to read the book. First, by starting at the beginning and reading to the end; second, by including your parents; third, by examining their work for correctness; and lastly, by reading “with a tender heart” (4). I tried to follow their rules, believe me I tried, but it was rather difficult.

Chapter 1: The Relationship Minefield 
Here, the Botkins explain why relationships are so complicated and give several examples of “it’s complicated” relationships. Though I find this section easily relatable and I didn’t have many red-flag moments, a few things stood out to me. First, the Botkins assume that young people aren’t one-anothering each other and/or that all young women view men as objects. Thus, they instruct young women to realise that guys are people too. I know some girls have to be reminded―sadly―but the majority of us with guy friends and brothers already have one-anothering and treating boys as brothers down to an almost science. It’s not as dire as they make it seem.

Chapter 2: Why We’re Interested in Boys – And Why that’s a Good Thing
This is the chapter where the rubber hits the road and I started writing on the margins of every page. If the Botkins were relatable to me in the first chapter, the distance between us grew immensely in this one. They talk about how it’s natural for women to be attracted to men and about the biblical basis for this attraction. In beginning the chapter, they talk about how old a little girl should be before her parents begin to instruct her about boys. Here, the Botkins assert that they were “savvy” about boys “as toddlers” and were sure that “grown-up life was all about boys” (15-16). In making such statements as these and saying, “Girls almost seem to come out of the womb with an awareness of boys, marriage, and romance,” they make all women, even the youngest, seem like boy-crazy nuts (16). They also speak of having, “serious highchair conversations” about boys with their parents and the “wisdom” that their parents imparted to them at this age (16). At best, this section was baffling and I honestly found it a little crazy, especially as I pictured parents instructing toddlers in highchairs to “be sensible about boys” (16). Of course, your little girls are obsessed with boys if you constantly talk about them!! Plus, there’s no mention of girls who just aren’t preoccupied with boys or the “cootie phase” that most girls encounter between the ages of 3-12. (I certainly spent more time thinking boys had cooties as a child than wanting to marry them!) Apparently, the Botkin girls never went through the “cootie-phase” and perhaps this is due to their parents constantly bringing the subject of boys into their minds.

Moving to the biblical reasons for interest in guys, the Botkins discuss how woman was created for man and assert, “From the beginning, men were our business,” which is kind of a weird way of putting it (17). Also discussed is the biblical definition of “helpmeet” and the Hebrew word ezer, which means “help” and has a connotation of strength and rescuing or saving. They do not go so far as to say it is an equal position, just a necessary one, and they stress that the “helper” found in Genesis is essential to man’s ability to succeed. However, the Botkins fail to mention that several times, in the Old Testament, the same word (ezer) translated “helpmeet” or “helper” is also used to refer to God Himself. This gives an entirely different flavor to the word helpmeet. As self-proclaimed Bible scholars, the Botkins should be aware of the dual use of this word and thus, it is strange and a little disconcerting that they chose to leave out this important information. Nonetheless, they are not the first patriarchy influenced teachers to fail to explain the full meaning and context of God as our “helpmeet.” *rolls eyes* The Botkins also assert that “every woman’s life is built around men and their leadership” and though true in most cases, the same could be said of men’s lives being built around women (19). After all, even unmarried men have mothers, and possibly grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins. Unless we’re living on a desert island, we’re going to be in relationships with multiple people and some of them will be of the opposite gender. Using this concept to prove a point that women must be helpers to men is circular and almost laughable. According to the Botkins, even single women must learn to relate to men “according to our created purpose as helpers” (20). Then they state that marriage is where women’s helping purpose is “fully realized” and then they contradict themselves by saying, “women’s general purpose as helper is not confined solely to the marriage relationship” (20). So which is it? How is a fourteen year old going to understand this section when I can’t even understand what they’re saying?

Matters only grow worse as the Botkins examine women in scripture and state that men always led and women were always “following, responding, supporting, and enabling” (21). In saying that women “stepped into generally supportive roles towards the men around them” the Botkins manage to marginalize almost all of the Biblical heroines. Some of the Biblical women do fit into their mold, especially Rebekah, the widow woman of Zarephath, the “great woman” of Shunem, Mary and Martha and some of the women around Paul. However, the inclusion of Deborah, Miriam, and Rahab in this list is astonishing. In fact, the Botkins avow that “Deborah never actually took the reins of authority but rather gave them to Barak, and stood supportively behind him” (21). I don’t know what Bible they’re reading but in mine, it states “Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided” (Jgs 4:4-5). Clearly, Deborah is leading Israel and has authority over many men. In fact, Barak is the supporting player in Deborah’s story as he begs her to join him on his mission! Similarly, Miriam was the one who followed baby Moses’ basket and ensured that he knew his Hebrew mother; she’s a major player in the Exodus story. In the same way, Rahab hides the spies in her home and protects them. Although the spies are important characters in this story, Rahab is the only one named and the gets into the most action. At the end of their list, the Botkins write, “The most acclaimed leading ladies in scripture ― Miriam, Rahab, and Deborah, as well as Mary, Esther, Sarah, and the rest―held supporting roles to the men around them” (22). WHAT?! What about Ruth? She’s not even mentioned here! She has her own book of the Bible and she’s certainly the heroine of it. And what of Esther? She isn’t even discussed here, just tagged along with the rest at the end of the section. She also has her own book―about how she risked death to save the Nation of Israel and there’s even a Jewish Holiday named Purim which celebrates their survival. How is that a supporting role?? What about Mary? She was Jesus’ mother and quite the heroine of her story. How can they say that Ruth, Esther, Mary, and the heroines of the Bible are only supporting characters? What Bible are they reading? Continuing in this line of Bible characters, Abigail and Bathsheba and their influences on King David are compared and analyzed. While this is okay, the Botkins take the usual tactic of portraying Bathsheba as a horrible person who tried to cause David to sin. Later in the chapter, they say, “Bathsheba by giving David exactly what he wanted, was ultimately an accomplice to him in one of the biggest sins of his life (87).” Now, the Bible doesn’t actually state any of Bathsheba’s feelings in the affair and it’s very possible that she wasn’t interested in David at all. Yet, if the King (who has power of life or death over you) insists on having you, then you don’t have much of a choice. God actually punished David―not Bathsheba―and even allowed her to be the mother of Solomon, the next king of Israel and she’s mentioned in the lineage of Jesus in Matthew 1. Thus, I sense that there’s a little more to her than the Bible actually states and I find it aggravating when people insist that Bathsheba was the epitome of sin.

To close this section, the Botkins state that men need “us to help them toward their ultimate goal―their own duty to love God…” (25). So we’re responsible if they don’t love God? Is that what they’re saying? Honestly, I’m not sure what they mean here and many times, the Botkin’s lack of clarity leaves such statements open to interpretation. I think that they mean we’re supposed to encourage men to love God (which is very noble) but it could be taken as a responsibility and/or a necessity… and this is where it gets very complicated. :-) All of this is stated to prove that “it appears God means for us to have a healthy fascination with men…” and urge young women to channel their interest into being a helper to the men in their lives (25). While it is nice that they encourage young women to treat men with respect, shouldn’t we just treat all people with respect? Why stop with young men? Why can’t we just love everyone as a person and child of God? In ending the chapter, the Botkins stress making Christ the most important relationship in your life (yay!) and instruct women to focus on Christ, as discussed 1 Cor. 7:34: “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” Then, the Botkins state, “There is a third type of female not mentioned in this verse ― the unmarried girl who is obsessed with worldly things, and how to please fifteen boys” (29). If this were important, it would be in the Bible―but it’s not. Therefore, Botkins, do NOT add to scripture! “Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar” (Prov 30:5-6).

Chapter 3: Boys are People Too – Learning to See Men as God Sees Them
This chapter begins with what should be an obvious statement to most of us―we should be totally aware that men are also human beings with feelings. Yet, I do agree with the Botkins that all too often women fail to see men as human beings and only see them as “a head of hair, a sense of humor, a fancy car, a handsome face, a strong arm…” (33). The Botkins stress that men are not “God’s gift to women” and that we must stop viewing them as objects (33). Then, they bring dominionist theology into the mix and quote R.C. Sproul Jr. talking about how men and women should have “a shared vision” to make “visible the invisible reign of Christ” (34). Yes, we are supposed to focus on Christ and not ourselves but God is responsible for revealing to us what He wants us to do. In addition, throwing words around like “dominion” “subjection” and “warfare” is just asking for trouble (34). In fact, it scares me a little that these people are encouraging others to seek power and authority. You don’t have to read very much history to see that a quest for power has never ended well for anyone. In this section, one of the interviewed guys make a big point of explaining that guys “aren’t looking for a storybook wedding. They don’t even think of marriage as entailing the big romantic wedding and the to-do of a romantic life…. Men, good men, love working hard, and will admire women who love a life of hard work as well” (35). Hmmm. Tell that to my guy friends who like to plan their engagement settings and think about their weddings. Believe me, even if they don’t care about all the details, most guys do care about their engagement, wedding, and romance. Plus, while that all sounds very nice and focused on God, it’s equally self-serving to crave adventure and “spiritual significance” (35). Don’t condemn the young women for longing for romance if you want adventure just as much―just because you cover it in Christian speech doesn’t make your desires holy or better than anyone else’s. Romance is equally biblical… hasn’t anyone read Song of Solomon? Finally, talking about “a life of hard work” can be a recipe for disaster. It almost sounds like Peter Bradrick insisting that he wants a “sturdy” wife and then nearly letting her die. A healthy marriage is a mix of romance and adventure―both things can be a great asset for Christ.

Moving on, the Botkins discuss “Make-Believe Men” such as Mr. Darcy, Edward Cullen, and Prince Henry (yes, he has a name) from Ever After and how young women expect too much from the men around them. According to the Botkins, many girls find out that guys aren’t like Mr. Darcy and protest, “Hey! They’re all like Mr. Collins!” (Probably because most fundie guys are like Mr. Collins! :-D Sorry, couldn’t resist.) Then, they go on to slam “female fiction writers” and refer to Jane Austen as a “19th century spinster” (36-37). (So maddening!) Seriously, though, why is there a whole paragraph about Mr. Darcy and how women swoon over him? Yes, I know it can be a problem but their audience is mostly single, patriarchy influenced young women who aren’t allowed to have crushes on anyone! Plus, no one I’ve talked to thinks that Mr. Darcy is perfect or wants to marry him. In fact, while I like Pride and Prejudice, I think Mr. Darcy is kind of proud, grumpy, and standoffish―I certainly wouldn’t want to marry him. (I prefer Mr. Knightley from Emma… though since he’s a fictional character I’m not planning on marrying him. :-D) In addition, the Botkins discuss “romance novels” and the effect of Twilight and Edward Cullen. Yet, they class Pride and Prejudice as a “romance novel” (37). Excuse me? Pride and Prejudice (and all of Jane Austen’s works) fall into the category “classic literature” and are NOT romance novels. Pride and Prejudice and all of Austen are about far more than just love stories and romance and if the Botkins can’t see this, I think they need to study the meaning of literature again. They also pick on Janette Oke, which bugs me because 1: Her works aren’t that mushy and 2: they are a wonderful way to introduce new believers to Christian fiction. All in all, the Botkins are very hard on romance―I get the feeling that neither of them are very romantic and don’t understand that some people might just be more sensitive, romantic, and i.e. like Anne Shirley.

I’ll admit it… I can’t stand Twilight or the Edward Cullen character so I don’t mind that the Botkins pick on these things. However, I don’t know why their audience would be reading Twilight―again, their main audience is a very sheltered group who would not be allowed to read these books. In addition, they single out Edward Cullen’s sensitivity and insist that manly men aren’t sensitive. Excuse me? While I do believe it’s wrong for women to expect guys to be perfect princes, there needs to be a happy medium. They go to great lengths to differentiate between pink and blue traits and explain that most girls are upset because men aren’t more like women. While I agree that Edward Cullen is a bit too broodish and almost girly, I don’t agree that sensitivity and domestic ability aren’t manly. From my experience, the guys that are sensitive to others and like to cook are far more interesting and better all-around people than those who eschew these things and claim to be “manly.” I was recently on a missions retreat with other young adults and really noticed the difference between the sensitive guys and the “macho” guys. The former were the ones in the kitchen helping make meals for 15 and washing dishes and the latter were outside talking to one another and wouldn’t even dream of picking up a kitchen towel. What’s more, when I observe my guy friends, the ones that are the most caring, helpful, and kind are also the most protective, strong, and well... masculine. In fact, most of the caring guys are the ones I’d like to have with me if I were ever in a crisis situation. The guys I know that are self-proclaimed “manly men” are too full of themselves to be helpful and I wouldn’t want them around in a crisis situation. It seems that the more masculine a guy claims to be, the more conceited he becomes and it’s the humble caring guys with servants’ hearts who are actually the strongest. And you know what? If the Botkins want women to realize that men are people too, insisting that men aren’t sensitive and have no feelings is a pretty weird way of doing it. According to the Botkins, “Interest in technology, war, current affairs, and anything else is quintessentially manly, according to the biblical standard” (40). Actually, there’s no biblical standard or rule book that defines masculine and feminine interests. Plus, I and many women I know are interested in technology and current affairs and would never classify these things as “manly.” The Botkins also think that we have a “particularly weak generation of men” and I’m not sure this is true. Maybe the definition of masculinity has changed and the Botkins are trying so hard to stick to Victorian standards that they missed the change.

Now, the Botkins begin to address the problem of “weak” men and not surprisingly, they blame feminism. (Big shocker there!) At times, I’m surprised to find that the Botkins can be snarky… they call a Christian psychologist that they shared a convention with a “scion of Sigmund Freud” and kind of make fun of him. Apparently, in the Botkin’s view of history, feminism was a vicious socialist effort, planned by Karl Marx and many others, over a period of 100 or so years, to supplant men as leaders and use “a most effective weapon… women” (45). In this gag-inducing section, I feel that the Botkins are just throwing out words like “Marx” and “Socialism” in connection with feminism to fan the ire of impressionable stay at home daughters. None of their history make sense and the facts are carefully crafted to present a completely one-sided view of the feminist movement. They take random quotes by Marx and Lenin and feminist leaders and make them sound like the entire feminist movement was inspired by and still is a part of socialism. Now, there were socialists in the feminist movement, mostly because socialism was popular in the early 1900’s. It was trendy, hip, and progressive to call oneself a socialist in this era. There were even large groups of Christian socialists who did very nice things and helped a lot of people. However, this doesn’t make feminists communists nor does it mean that all feminism is wrong. In fact, (and please don’t freak out) a lot of the early church descriptions sound like a kind of socialism, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need” (Acts 2:44-45). I don’t include this as a defense of socialism, or to say that we should be communists, but to point out that the Botkins seem to want a strong reaction from their audience and they don’t provide any background for this Marxist view or any alternate viewpoints. I also believe they use words like “socialism” and “Marxism” to try to elicit an emotional response in their readers (think McCarthyism). As self-proclaimed history experts, the Botkins certainly have a narrow view of history and often, they are completely inaccurate. Next, the Botkins paint a very bleak portrait of our culture and its portrayal of men. One of their interviewed guys says, “Men in media are often portrayed as either sex-crazed teenagers or the Dopey Dad stereotype of every sitcom, with only a tiny sliver of androgynous romantic lead in between” (47). While these stereotypes are present in the media, what about men in films like Lord of the Rings, Men in Black, James Bond, Indiana Jones, superhero and action films, and TV shows like Downton Abbey, Sherlock, and The Middle? Why not talk about them? Is it because they only use examples that prove their point? And why do the examples presented by the Botkins need to be so dire, extreme, and full of angst? I think most of us would agree that it’s wrong to pick on men and put them down just as it’s wrong to do the same to women. There are a lot of problems with our culture but honestly, no one thing/gender/etc. is responsible for them. (Except sin.) So stop blaming feminism for every issue.

Also, a side note, the term “Dominion” and the phrase “taking dominion” is thrown around way too often in this book and most of the time, I get the feeling that the usage leans towards “Ruling Control: power, authority, or control” rather than “Sphere of influence: Somebody’s area of influence or control.” Quite frankly, when I think of some of these patriarchy influenced guys having any kind of power, authority, or control, it scares me. The little power they already have has shown itself to be quite dangerous and nearly unchecked by legitimate (i.e. God’s) authority. None of us needs any more power; we need to be servants and love one another unconditionally. “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil 2:5-7).

Chapter 4: Relationship Boot Camp – Back to Square One: How to Be a Sister to Your Real Brothers 
This chapter is pretty self-explanatory… you know what it’s about from the title. However, the Botkins manage to throw in a few eye-brow raising statements all the same. Strangely enough, I sensed that they assume all brothers will be younger. First, they talk about how their little brothers were “time-intensive” and kept them from studying/working (53). Now, I think it’s great to have a large family and help out with/play with your younger siblings. Yet, I think that the parents need to be able to handle their children without expecting others, especially older daughters/sons, to be assistant parents. Also, they use examples that don’t always make sense. It is nice to help your siblings and even cook for them sometimes but it’s not necessary “to make your brother breakfast” (54). Better yet, teach him to make his own breakfast! They say that we shouldn’t divide our lives into “pink and blue worlds” and yet, that’s exactly what they do with the strict gender roles they portray! Also, they speak of foregoing their own interests for some time to help Isaac work on his Egypt project. While it’s sweet that they did this, I couldn’t help but wonder why Isaac didn’t do most of it himself. Apparently, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth wrote “content for the book, on everything from biblical chronology to French mysticism…” (64). This is good but it was Isaac’s project―shouldn’t he have done most of the work since it’s his passion? There’s also a lot in this chapter about trying to perfect oneself and while I think self-improvement is a good thing, it’s not a good idea to try to be so perfect all the time and fall into a “works” based salvation mindset. Plus, we really shouldn’t encourage the idea that familial love is conditional and only comes when we perform all our sisterly duties to perfection. Perhaps the Botkins don’t mean for their words to be taken this way but I believe that some young readers could easily become confused.

Chapter 5: Wounding Friend or Kissing Enemy? Reforming Our Philosophy of Relationships
The Botkins begin this chapter by being particularly critical of guy-girl interactions that seem flirty. They describe a scene in a church or school where two girls are giggling, texting, and teasing their guy friend and still say that they’re “just friends.” (And by the way, the Botkins shouldn’t include “posing” as flirty behaviour because they pose all the time. Practically every publicized picture of them includes pouting and posing.) While I agree that flirty girls can be a problem, I’m still confused as to why this is included in this book. I’m also surprised by the paragraphs that describe very modern situations and then the next paragraph contains a reminder to obey parents if they discourage all contact with the opposite sex. Again, the Botkins seem confused as to their audience. As stated before, their audience is made up of homeschooled, fundamentalist young women who often cannot date, flirt, or even stand too close to the opposite sex. I highly doubt that the situation they describe could happen at a family-integrated church. (And if it does, it seems highly hypocritical.) So why include it? Maybe it’s to make stay-at-home daughters feel better or more holy than their counterparts who can date and go to college. Hmmm… Going on, the Botkins describe friendship and pull out a definition from the 1828 Webster Dictionary (you knew that was coming!). It includes this snicker inducing sentence: “False friendships may subsist between bad men, as between thieves and pirates…” (74). I don’t know exactly why but the catch-all term “bad men” made me laugh really hard. Ultimately, the Botkins state that the Bible is our true guide to friendship. I do agree with this, especially when one looks at the friends of Jesus, the relationships between members of the early church, and Jonathan and David. However, some of the examples provided are a little strange and kind of… dumb. I think they try to be funny but really, I just found myself rolling my eyes in some places. Also, I found myself thinking, “Shouldn’t Bible-believing Christians already know a lot of this information?” Then, they urge young women to “stay in the lines” and remember the difference between “your male friends and your female friends” (77). Actually, this depends on the people involved and honestly, the Botkins are wrong when they say, “young men are not our buddies, bosom friends, or confidantes, and we are not ‘one of the guys’” (78). Yes, there is a “level of restraint” but actually, it is possible to be very close to a guy and not be interested in him. I have two or three guy friends to whom I am almost a sister and we know we’ll never be interested in one another―we’ve actually talked about it. At times, we discuss very personal stuff like who we are interested in and our dreams and hopes for the future. Sometimes, I am “one of the guys” because I happen to be the only girl at dinner after church events and on occasion my guy friends will ask me questions about girl-stuff or I’ll ask them questions about guy-stuff and our conversations are very enlightening. However, we don’t call one another for personal counseling or long one-on-one chats… that would be weird. So I guess all of this goes to say that there are a few lines but they really depend on the people involved and shouldn’t be so rigid. The Botkins mention a relationship that could be going somewhere but stress continuing to love “the other in a selfless and disinterested way” (79). While I agree we shouldn’t lose all reason and hold our breath waiting for him to say something, passages such as these may encourage young women to “shut down” and turn off all emotion. This is a huge danger of so-called emotional purity and it is important to remember that the Botkins are advocates of this teaching. So, while it is good to focus on the Lord, even when attracted to someone, it’s okay to experience hope and emotion. Lapsing into more fundamentalist type rhetoric, the Botkins write, “One thing we don’t see in the Bible is an individual guy recreationally pairing off with an individual girl…” (81). True, perhaps, but then again most modern men and women don’t go off “on special one-on-one bonding outings to make Just Friends Forever [sic] bracelets to remember each other by” (81). *rolls eyes* Again, some of their examples are just plain dumb. I think they’re trying so hard to find a “biblical” basis for their beliefs that they end up making very weak connections and using examples that don’t make sense. Anyway, to quote them again, “in our own case, the young men we’re proud to call our friends aren’t our personal friends, but our family friends. Friends are something all of us share in common” (81). Don’t get me wrong, it’s wonderful to have family friends but there’s nothing wrong or unbiblical about having friends of one’s own. The concept of having “family friends only” finds root in teachings of Jonathan Lindvall and other early patriarchy/courtship-type teachers―not in the Bible. David and Jonathan were one on one friends as was Jesus with the disciples and Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. It’s perfectly okay, normal, and right to have your own friends―of both genders.

Next, the Botkins talk about things that one wouldn’t do with one’s brother, namely flirting and shunning. While I agree that shunning is silly as well as rude, I do not agree with their definition of flirting: “Flirting. Right, right, none of us were actually flirting. We meant bantering, coquetting, teasing, joshing, bantering, being over-friendly, acting giddy and giggly…” and etc (82). There’s a big difference between flirting and teasing/bantering―the context of the situation is drastically important. I tease my brother, my guy cousins, my guy friends, and pretty much everyone else regardless of gender. My friends and I banter a lot―it’s our preferred mode of communication and merriment. Perhaps if the Botkins were watching me, they might think I was flirting… but context is everything. If you watch interaction between guys and girls and don’t know them, it’s possible to assume all kinds of ignorant things. Plus, it’s really easy to misjudge outgoing girls (and guys) and think of them as flirts when they are NOT. I have several extremely outgoing, witty girlfriends and if you don’t know them, you’d probably find them flirtatious―but they’re not. They treat everyone the same way and tease them equally. Thus, I cannot say it enough, context is vital. The Botkins discuss a time when they were “shy and extremely uncomfortable around boys” and watched an outgoing girl named “Sheila” from across the room (82). Though they were “too shy” to talk to Sheila, they were jealous of her ability to make all of the boys like her. Perhaps Sheila was a flirt but then again, maybe she was just an outgoing girl that the Botkin’s perceived to be a flirt. It’s hard to know since they never really knew her. Still, at the end of this story, they acknowledge that they were envious and point out that their resolve to ignore guys was just as bad as Sheila’s flirting. “Neither of us had the young men’s best interests at heart, and none of us were thinking of us as brothers (83).” Yet, I think there’s more of a chance that Sheila could have teased and joked with everyone―including her own brothers―and thus, was treating all of the guys as she treated her own family. It’s hard to know. One of the quotes from a young man (“Paul”) in this section is troubling, as he says, “When shyness comes from nervousness, which I think it usually does, it shows a lack of Christian love. A girl’s complete confidence is grounded entirely on her relationship with God…. If God has made her His daughter, then she should not fear me. In fact, she should love me…. (83)” So, if a girl is shy, this young man questions her salvation and faith? Ouch! I’m reserved with people I don’t know, especially men, does that mean that they’re judging my faith? That’s pretty harsh!

They go on to talk about how they realized that flirting is annoying as their brothers have gotten older and women tried to flirt with them. I mostly agree, it’s annoying when girls try to flirt with my brother too… but I don’t focus on it all the time. Then, the Botkins suggest that if girls are not ready to have God-honoring relationships with guys, they should just “sit out for a little while” and focus on their “own growth (88).” So, we’re not supposed to shun guys (that’s sinning) but if we don’t feel ready to be friends, we should step out for awhile? I’m confused. How would anyone else know my mindset if I decided to step away from being friends with guys? Logistically, it would be hard to not be friends with guys… unless you went to an all girl’s school or did shun them. And then again, after the quote from the last guy, if you’re not being friends with guys so you can grow closer to God, how will a guy know? Will he be like “Paul” and question your salvation when you don’t talk to him? This is a very confusing and contradictory passage.

Apparently, the Botkins went through a time of avoiding guys, which they now repent of doing, and discuss their road to being friends with everyone. Around the time they came back to the U.S. they “were determined (with Dad and the boys’ encouragement) to get out of our shy, timid comfort zones (89).” They continue, “We’re really indebted to our father for giving us the vision for what these relationships could look like” (89).” Talking about their opportunity to minister, they say that their father, “encouraged us to be natural, friendly, sisterly, and gracious, and to let go of our silly hang ups about greetings and handshakes (89).” Unfortunately, my thought here is, obviously he needed them to be at the forefront of his money-making schemes *cough* ministry and talked them out of their hang-ups for his own benefit. Now of course, they’re grateful for his guidance and for the discussions they’ve had with young men about “history, politics, theology, the philosophy of music and film and art, literature, military history, biblical law, and more. Talking to men is iron-sharpening in different ways than talking to women (90).” Is that because these subjects are seen as “manly” and women don’t know how to discuss them? I talk to men and women about all these things but maybe in the Botkin’s world, one has to find a man to have a conversation about history or politics because women don’t know anything about these topics. I could be wrong… but that’s how they make it sound.

Stay tuned for Part II!

Ingrid

Learning to Fly

As I type, my sister’s boyfriend has just texted me that he’s picking up her engagement ring at the jewelry store. He’s going to propose in two days and I get to help set up the scene for the proposal. It’s been pretty obvious to everyone for the past few months that they’re serious and perfect for one another. Our group of friends is pretty happy for them―though some more than others. Early in their relationship, one of my girl friends asked me, “And how are you doing?” To be honest, I was caught a little off-guard… and yet, I knew what she was asking. “I’m absolutely fine… I’ve been praying for them to get together for a long time.” I smiled and said, “I’m so happy for her.”

Now, four days later, they are engaged and busily planning their wedding. At church this past weekend, more young women came up and congratulated me and asked things like, “So how does it feel to have your sister engaged?” “How are you feeling?” and “What do you think?” and on and on. I smiled and said I’m happy to finally have an older brother and talked excitedly about my getting to be maid of honor. And the whole time, in the back of my mind, I was wondering: why should my sister’s relationship have any effect on me? I mean, really, why should I care or “feel” anything beyond happiness?

Yet, I know what and why they’re asking. There’s a disease that lurks in church groups and conservative family circles, you’ve probably seen or heard something connected to it. Usually, it affects young women and sometimes even their mothers. It also affects married couples, particularly grandparents, aunts, and uncles, but in a different way. It’s the belief that singleness, especially for young women, is almost a sin or at least, not the proper state of being. Young women must be married, or engaged, as soon as possible or else they are defective, bound an old maid, and/or doing something wrong.

Addressing young women first, I see a huge problem with jealousy and covetousness when it comes to marriage. For many young women, marriage is so important that when someone else gets engaged, they can hardly see straight. They wonder things like: “What’s wrong with me?” “Why am I not married?” “She’s younger than me!” “I deserve it more than she does!” “Doesn’t God love me?” “Why won’t God answer my prayers for a husband?” and “What does she have that I don’t have?”I have friends that are very open about their desire to get married (a very good thing!) but when someone else starts dating or gets engaged, they turn green. People don’t usually believe me when I say this but I love weddings. I love throwing bridal showers, helping with details, being a bridesmaid, and just going to weddings. Unfortunately, I think I’m in a minority. Some girls I know actually avoid weddings because of their inability to face their jealousy. Books such as Boy Meets Girl don’t really help in this because they make this jealousy seem normal. I remember reading about young women who couldn’t stand going to weddings or cried through them because they were so jealous of the bride. “Anger is cruel and fury overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy?” (Proverbs 27:4) This is incredibly sad and we as a church and as young women should be ashamed that we’ve let marriage become an idol. I think it’s shocking that people think I would or should be sad or jealous because my sister is engaged. And then can’t comprehend that I’m not. People probably thought it was weird when I made a point of watching everyone’s reactions to the happy news and probably enjoyed them as much as my sister and her fiancé. And they might even think that my joy is an act. How have we reached this point? How can it be normal to ask the sister of the bride how she “feels” about it all? Should we not assume that the bride’s family and friends would be thrilled? And seriously people, shouldn’t I be overjoyed to have a room to myself at this time next year? :-D I have my own life! I don’t need to covet my sister’s!


Also, I think I should point out that guys are not objects. One of my friends is very petite, I think she’s around 5’ tall, and she’s married to a guy that is about 6’2”. When she got engaged, other (taller) young women kept saying to her, “Why didn’t you leave the tall guy for us?!” This lack of tact astounded her and she just kept replying, “Because I fell in love with him!” Now, some of the women could have been joking but my friend knew that a few of them really were irritated and jealous because she “got” a tall guy. This is a perfect example of young women viewing guys as objects.  I’ve had several friends marry in the last year and a few of them were younger than me. Yet, I was totally happy for them. One of the reasons for this was that I don’t want to marry their guy. It sounds kind of strange to say it like that but it’s true. I don’t see their fiancés or husbands as objects—they’re also my friends—and so I don’t envy their marrying someone else. If you’re jealous because your friend is getting married, ask yourself this: “Do I want to marry him?” Probably not. (But if you have a crush on that guy, you should deal with it accordingly.) If you’re jealous for no reason other than “She’s getting married and I’m not” you may very well be viewing guys as objects or means to an end. As Kevin says in 27 Dresses, “I think you want a wedding―not a marriage―a wedding.”

Addressing young women… do you see a husband as a way out? Is marriage saving you from something? Do you see marriage as an escape from problems or from things that God has called you to do? Your problems don’t go away just because you get married and God’s call on your life doesn’t change either. Only Jesus Christ can save you and so you should never expect perfection from a fallible human being. A mortal man will never be able to save you, nor should you feel the need for him to do so. And seriously, never ever, settle for a guy just because you want to be married. That’s a very foolish thing to do.

Oh, and I’ve finally pondered this out as well: there’s no rhyme or reason as to why some young women seem to lead charmed lives and get married right out of high school or college. I believe that this happens because it is God’s plan for them and obviously, He knows that they’ll grow more by being in a relationship than being out of one. Of my friends that are married or engaged, none of them are more godly, special, or perfect than me and my single friends. Marriage isn’t some special gift that God only gives to his chosen, extraordinary children. That just isn’t how He works. “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.” (Jer. 29:11) So stop comparing yourself to married women and thinking, “What does she have that I don’t?”

Lastly, at some point, most unmarried young women start whining, “Where are all the good guys?” and “Why is no one getting married?” I hate to break this to you but there are good guys and people are getting married but it’s just not your turn. Don’t worry, it probably will be sometime but not until God decides the time is right. So chill and stop whining.

Now, I’m focusing on a more mainstream position as I and my girlfriends are all college educated and able to support ourselves. However, this is a tricky situation for Stay at Home Daughters and those involved in the Patriarchy movement. What do you do if you’re thirty, have no education, and are still at home with your parents? Beyond breaking free and seeking education, I honestly don’t know. Ultimately, I think jealousy over engagements and marriages is magnified two times over within the Patriarchy movement. If all of these young women have been brought up to think that their only role is that of wife and mother and then find that they aren’t getting married, there is definitely going to be some depression and hopelessness abounding. In this situation, young women tend to blame themselves (See the Botkin’s article and my response) or other people and then start finding other things on which to focus. Usually, photography, gourmet cooking, blogging, babysitting, costuming, or a home business; none of these things are wrong—they’re all very good things. Yet, I wish SAHDs would start questioning the system and their ideology instead of running around trying to fill up their hearts with accomplishments.

And as for the upcoming Kevin Swanson fundamentalist documentary… there are no words. Mostly because it makes me laugh too hard to say anything about it. :-D I did find it amusing that the site contains this gem of a quote “Many are still at home, living a life of prolonged adolescence, with no hopes of marriage in sight.” Umm… can anyone else say SAHDs? The irony! You wanted the girls to stay at home with almost no education, few marriage prospects, and now you want them to leave? Don’t you see that you’re creating the problem? Especially by selling them things to inspire and glorify this lifestyle. *rolls eyes* And now, you’re selling them things to fix the problem? How coincidental! And don't forget: "the answers can be found in God's word." (Yes, duh. If the filmmakers really believed that, they wouldn't be trying to make or sell this film at all.)
This unwillingness to accept singleness not only affects young women, it also affects members of their families. My extended family drives me nuts because they’ve been asking me since I was 16 when I am going to get married. Incredibly annoying and completely stupid because I’m not the one making the first move. What’s wrong with society? Why are we pressuring young women so much? Traditionally, it’s the guy that makes the first move and honestly, things haven’t changed very much. Relationships, I know this to be true, go better when the guy is the one doing the work and asking you out. So stop bothering me about it.

Of course, does my family ask my brother? No. Not once. On the whole, young men do not face this pressure as early or as intensely as young women. I see this in my own family where my sister and I were subjected to constant interrogation and pronouncements about our love lives as soon as we were in high school and yet, my brother and my guy cousins have yet to be asked even once about their love lives. Start asking guys why they aren’t being more proactive about getting married if you’re so concerned! However, I think most guys are being intentional and just aren’t talking about it. Never mind, just give them a break; we’re all in the same boat.

Plus, why are we in such a hurry for young women (and men) to get married? I’m to the point now where I’m ready to say, “Dude! Are you kidding? I’m in my early twenties! I’m still figuring out who I am, let alone trying to figure out someone else!” Don’t get me wrong, Marriage is a great thing! I want to get married and I am lonely sometimes, but I am truly, honestly, content in being single until God brings someone into my life. I’ve finally reached that point where I’m okay with being single and furthermore, I know that my God is big enough to bring the right guy at the right time and I don’t need to freak out about it.

2

Musician Rebecca St. James didn’t get married until the age of 34 last year (see photo above) and for many years, she was an example of a vibrant single life. I very much appreciate her honesty as she said in a 2011 interview, “I just struggled with loneliness and even feeling a bit embarrassed, you know, being in my 30s and not married. I think our culture caters to people who are married. It's just much more socially accepted to be married in your 30s." Especially in evangelical circles and in the Church? "Yes, exactly. Now, I've honestly found it easier living in LA because there are so many career people, especially women, in their thirties - single women who are focusing on careers. I think it's harder in the South and in middle America to be single. I didn't feel as much pressure in LA and I think that was God providing for me in a way. I have a lot of single friends, and it's not like they've all gotten married and I'm not. I thank God for that!” 1

It seems to me that the evangelical circles and churches haven’t been reading their Bibles. As I’ve written before, Jesus was single and so was Paul and probably many members of the early church. If marriage is the ultimate goal of life and most important role for all, why didn’t Paul tell everyone to get married as soon as possible? In fact, he said the opposite, “I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8) Yes, marriage is used as an illustration of Christ and the church but that doesn’t make marriage any more holy or right than any other state of being. Consider the use of sowing and reaping as an examples of the discipleship process. Does this use render farming more spiritual than other forms of employment? Of course not! Jesus uses multiple actions and parts of life to illustrate his points but that doesn’t make these actions spiritual in themselves. It is the concept being expressed that is spiritual.

Finally, think on this, Jesus said to the disciples, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matt. 19:12) And He said, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matt. 22:30) If marriage were the most important part of life, I think Jesus would have made it clear. Yet, He said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)

We as a church have failed single people. We’ve asked prying, hurtful questions, we’ve treated them like half a person, we act like we don’t want their input, we treat them like they’re defective, outside of God’s will, or doing something wrong. We’ve made marriage and family an idol. In loving and promoting a good thing, we’ve ignored the greater thing. Jesus said that we must deny ourselves and follow Him but do we really believe that? Sometimes following Him does require a time (or even a lifetime) of singleness. Singleness should not surprise us. It is a normal, healthy lifestyle, and completely biblical (by the correct definition of the word). Unfortunately, the truths of surrender and taking up your cross don’t sell books, documentaries, and guest speakers as well as fear, blame, and formulas for success are able to do. And so the cycle of useless advice continues.

I know it’s really hard sometimes. I know what it’s like to be the one single girl when everyone else is getting married. There are times when I’d really like to be married or even dating but there comes a point when you have to die to yourself and your dreams. The point where you realize that God is in control and that you have to trust Him. Where you can finally say, “Okay God. You know I want to get married but I know that it’s up to you. Nothing I do can change your plans for me. If I am to marry, I know that you know already know who my husband/wife will be. But if not, I will be happy anyway. If I am to be single, I know that you have big plans for me and I will follow you no matter what happens to me.” It’s hard. It’s really hard to pray that and mean it but it is worth it. You have to know that you can’t do anything apart from Him and if you try to run things, you’ll only end up stressing yourself out and making yourself miserable. Since I have come to accept my singleness, I have been so peaceful and content. I have bad days now and then, but for the most part, I just keep busy and focus on God. I still have my dreams but I’m open to God changing them and changing me in the process. I know I don’t need to stress out and try to control things or envy other women because my time will come if it is meant to be. Rebecca St. James said, “…I have struggled with loneliness. I've questioned, 'God, do you have somebody for me? Have I written the song about nobody - in my case, anyway? Maybe it was just a song for other people to sing?' I've wondered, Is it even God's plan? Deep down I believed he did have someone for me, but in my weak moments, I questioned that. A few years ago I felt like God called me to take my hands off that dream to get married and to entrust that dream entirely to God to the point of saying, 'If it's your will for me to be single, then I trust that you have a very good reason.' That was a grieving time. That was hard and I had to come back to that place quite often - to find the balance between still hoping that there is somebody, to where you kind of die emotionally, going, 'Woe is me'. That's where the balance comes in, and it's very challenging."1

Finally, just because you’ve accepted your singleness, doesn’t mean you’re suddenly going to meet someone and get married. That happens sometimes, but then again, it doesn’t. Though people try to act like it is another magic way to find someone, acceptance isn’t a magical way to show God you’re ready and then He will provide someone. I know young women who never accepted their singleness and still got married just as I’ve seen women accept it and still be without a guy. I like to think of it this way: Singleness is like having two people on a plane; one is afraid of flying and the other is not. Both will get to their destination at the same time but one of them will have spent the entire flight sweating, worrying, making themselves ill, clinging to the seat, and refusing to look out of the window. The other will have loved take-off, watched a movie, helped a tired mother with a crying child, taken pictures of the sunset, chatted with the person next to them, taken a nap, and planned for their destination. Which person do you want to be?

Ingrid



1.  http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Rebecca_St_James_The_wait_is_over_marriage_and_album_release_change_things/43362/p1/
2. http://www.magnoliapair(DOT)com/2011/05/rebecca-jacob-san-diego-california

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:

(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.  

Just Kiss Her Already

"Why don’t you kiss her instead of talking her to death?" — Nosy neighbor to George Bailey, It’s A Wonderful Life.

Recently, I was watching re-runs of the show 19 Kids and Counting which features the large Duggar family. What struck me the most were the episodes about their oldest son Joshua and his fiancée/then wife Anna. They tell their story and why they are saving their first kiss, but then they are allowed to hold hands.... Actually, I mean caress each other's hands. If anyone else saw this they know what I mean. When they were together, Josh and Anna's hands hardly ever parted-- they stroked each other's fingers and wrapped their hands around each other's hands. It was disgusting. It was like they were putting all of their sexual tension into their handholding. I just wanted to push their heads together and make them kiss just so they could stop their horrible caressing.

Several years ago, I was a member of "The Rebelution" forums (which I could devote several posts to in itself). I remember a thread titled "Virgin Lips," in which 200 + girls were all saving their first kiss for their wedding day. Talk about peer pressure! The girls were adamant that it was wrong to kiss before you were married (Hmm… I wonder who they heard that from? Maybe Josh Harris?) and they were all discussing how "romantic it is to save your first kiss" and "it is so pure." I think that many people (Vision Forum and Botkinites included) over-think the issue of kissing! In fact, at the most recent Botkin wedding, after the “conference” was over the bride and groom got to **gasp** share their first… EMBRACE! How horrible is that!?! They seem to assume that if one kisses than they will have more impure thoughts and feelings, and that you shouldn't have any feelings whatsoever until you are married-- and if then. I recently talked to a professional counselor who talks to couples and also single women before they marry and do you know what she said? She said that many Christian couples have issues with intimacy when they first get married, because they are scared or feel guilty about having sex. In fact, many don't really know what to do or what they should feel. For some, it takes many counseling sessions to get the couples to the point that they feel comfortable with intimacy. Hmm... I wonder why!? It seems that there is too much peer pressure on not kissing and so much of a focus on "staying pure" that some couples can't enjoy intimacy. On a different note: I often wonder why there are so many books published for Christians regarding intimacy? It seems kind of strange, like we need a how-to guide.... You sure don't see as many books in non-Christian circles for this subject! I just wish that Christians were not so legalistic about stuff that is not in the Bible... nowhere in the Bible is there any verse saying that you can't kiss before you are married. Not one. I'm tired of Christians making up rules for things that should just come naturally-- like kissing. If a couple really wants to wait for their wedding day to kiss, it should be their own decision, not made for them by family, friends, and books that bully and guilt them into waiting. It's almost like there is an unspoken rule: If you kiss before you are married, you have sinned and you are not really a virgin.

I am not saving my first kiss for my wedding day. I want my first kiss to be in private-- away from relatives and cameras. I do not need it recorded on film for future generations either. (Oh... and engagement should be private too! Not in front of the whole family.) And, for the record, just because a couple kisses does not mean they are going to go sleep together afterwards. As my sister Ingrid pointed out, "Having never been kissed, I cannot draw from personal experience but I can say that kissing seems to be highly over-rated. So over-rated that Christians are encouraging each other to wait until the wedding day to share their first kiss in front of 10-500 people. It must be wonderful if it requires such an audience!..." Oh, and for the record George Bailey kisses Mary before they get married!! :)

~~Grace

Falling off Again

“The world is like a drunken peasant. If you lift him into the saddle on one side, he will fall off again on the other side. One can't help him, no matter how one tries. He wants to be the devil's.” - Martin Luther.1

“I’m choosing to stay at home and joyfully serve my father as God as called me to do. The world tells me that I can go to college and have it all: a career and a family but I know this is a lie. The world hates us for being keepers at home but I know that I am glorifying God.”
“Courtship is the best road to marriage. Through courtship, one does not experience the grief of giving one’s heart away through many casual dating relationships. I’m glad that I will avoid the pitfalls and immorality of the world...”
I read a lot of blogs written by proponents of the patriarchy and stay at home daughters movements. Most of them are written by young women and they’re all the same… or at least, it often feels that way. I actually wrote the two entries above; they refer to a couple of the most discussed topics on these blogs. Do you see the common theme in the entries above? That’s right; they go from one extreme to another.
In the first, the writer assumes that college for women equals balancing career and family. So in one sentence, we’ve moved from simple studying in college to being a career woman putting her children in daycare in order to be in the workforce. Believe it or not, many women actually go to college, marry, and then chose to stay home with their children. That’s what my mother did and that’s what I plan to do if God blesses me with marriage and children. Patriarchy people seem to think that college equals going far from home, partying, and becoming a feminist and a career woman. It doesn’t have to be any of those things. I, as well as many of my friends, live at home and commute to school; we don’t party and our faith is strong. In the same vein, I often see the idea that “the world hates us for being keepers at home” and I always wonder, “Does it really?” From what I see, homemaking is in vogue right now. I meet women everywhere who stay at home with their kids. Many women love babies and cooking and aprons and interior design… they just don’t obsess about these things. I honestly don’t understand where proponents of patriarchy are getting the idea that the world hates homemakers. Still, such comments are a good marketing scheme for selling more copies of Passionate Housewives and So Much More to “encourage” stay at home daughters and housewives in their desperate battle against the world. *rolls eyes*
As for the courtship paragraph, this recurrent jumping from a discussion of courtship to casual dating drives me nuts! So many patriarchy people decide that since the culture casually dates and hooks up, we should all practice courtship and betrothal. In courtship proponent’s minds, there is no middle ground! The examples of dating that they give are always about casual dating. Casual dating is NOT what my parents and many of my friend’s parents did! They had lots of friends, dated very few people, met the right person, dated them (as in going out to eat, hanging out with family, etc.), and then got married young. That’s what most of the young adults in my church do as well. I like to call it purposeful dating. It doesn’t have the pressure of courtship (i.e. on the first “meeting” you’re talking about getting married!) and it allows young people to be friends and then pair off if something develops.
Extremes don’t just belong to proponents of patriarchy… I also see extreme behaviour in people who have left the patriarchy movement. It is easy for them to declare that they don’t want kids or that they will send their kids to public school, or even believe that the government has a right to oversee homeschooling and/or parenting. They see abuse in everything because they have been abused and thus, jump to an extreme. It’s really sad. Unfortunately, it only encourages proponents of patriarchy to continue in their extreme behavior and convinces them that all who are outside of the movement are against them/hate them/etc. I find myself jumping to extremes sometimes too…. I read blog entries about how controlling the men in this movement are and it scares me to the point of praying, “I’m never getting married! What if I end up with some control freak who only cares about himself and beats our kids!!” Then after a moment, that still small voice says, “But, Ingrid, don’t you trust me? There are many kind, caring young men who would be just as offended by these men as you are.” And then I remember how many nice young men I know and I realize that I’m going to an extreme. It’s that pervasive. I always go back to that quote of Luther’s, “The world is like a drunken peasant. If you lift him into the saddle on one side, he will fall off again on the other side. One can't help him, no matter how one tries. He wants to be the devil's.” Just because we have escaped from falling into patriarchy doesn’t mean we should fall off the other side of the proverbial horse. It’s actually letting the patriarchy people win because we’re reacting to the point of being exactly what they thought we’d be if we “rebelled.” So be on your guard and try to be balanced.
Living your life by bounding from one extreme to another isn’t what we were created to do. For the most part, people jump to extremes because they are afraid. Afraid of pain, afraid of losing their faith or God’s (or their family’s) favor, or even afraid of being trapped within a legalistic lifestyle. We’re not to live our lives in fear or as a reaction to someone else’s bad behaviour. We need to trust God and realise that He is in control and He gave us “a spirit of power and love and self-control.”2

“Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.”
– Ecclesiastes 7: 16-18.

Ingrid

1. Table Talk #630 (probably recorded around 1533), which can be found in volume 54, page 111 of the Luther-Werke, Luther's works. http://ask.metafilter.com/118341/Help-me-track-down-a-quote-from-Martin-Luther
2. 2 Timothy 1:7.