The Three Weavers

My copy of The Three Weavers, complete with lots of post-its flagging the many troublesome spots. 

This is a letter I sent to Shelley Noonan, the author of The Three Weavers Plus Companion Guide which contains the short story "The Three Weavers" plus a study guide. This story has always bothered me and I think it's about time someone pointed out the issues within it. In addition, I'll send this critique to any author/company who republishes this abysmal story in the future. If you haven't read it, I believe that it is available online as it was published in one of The Little Colonial books in 1903. The original story was written by Annie Fellows Johnston but it has been republished by many Christian authors because of it's perceived merit. Anyway, here's the letter: 

Mrs. Noonan,

Allow me to introduce myself, I grew up in a happy Christian home, was homeschooled, and am now a young, college-graduate. I’m pretty familiar with many of the books popular in the homeschooling/courtship movement in the last decade and the ideologies that drive their authors. Recently, your edition of “The Three Weavers” came to my attention.

As a child, I received the story of “The Three Weavers” in a collection of “Christian” fairy tales. While I liked the story, something about it always bothered me, and as I’ve gotten older, I finally realize why I was disturbed. This story runs counter to scripture and presents false truth―based on works and not on grace. In order to be certain that the story presented was the same as mine, I purchased one of your editions. To my dismay, the text is even worse than the one I read as a child. In both editions, “The Three Weavers” teaches that God doesn’t keep His promises, that love is conditional, that it’s always your fault―even if someone else causes your pain, that grace and forgiveness are not possible, and that good things only come when you do everything right. Additionally, the study guide provided in your edition renders the text even more disturbing, especially because there is no attempt to counter the warped ideas of the text. The study questions even further some of the repellent ideas presented in the story. I know this letter is long but it contains the issues that I found within the “Three Weavers.” I’ve gone through the whole book, making notes and carefully studying the ideas and concepts presented. I tried to divide my analysis into two sections and so I’m looking at the story first and then the study guide. Please take your time and really consider what I've written.

Before beginning, I must define the word “biblical.” For my purposes, “biblical” means scriptural truth, rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the character of God. All too often, Christians believe that if something is in the Bible it is “biblical” and thus, right and worthy of emulation. This is completely erroneous―if this definition is followed, it means that slavery, bigamy, incest, and genocide are also “biblical.” Thus, my use of the word “biblical” refers to scriptural truth.

One of the first problems with “The Three Weavers” is that it was written during the later-Victorian period and contains ideals popular at that time. Though some books from this time period are wonderful, many written for children exhibit empty moralism rather than truth. Some books from this time, such as the Elsie Dinsmore series, even include racism and/or neo-colonial ideas. It is wrong to believe that any story from this era (or any other time) is “Christian” or biblical simply because it mentions God and/or employs “Christianese.” Many book published at this time used Christian language and sentiment because it was popular to do so and thus, they must be held to a high standard and carefully examined for their merit. Scare tactics are also common in stories from this period―which is highly unbiblical as we are told not to fear (2 Tim 1:7). Unfortunately, this story contains features typical of a sentimental Victorian story that isn’t actually based in truth: fear is used as a motivator, grace is gone, the perfect girl is rewarded, and those who fall short are doomed forever.

Looking at the text, one of the biggest issues with the story is this: if God promised that each girl would marry a prince, why didn’t it happen? This allegory portrays completely counter biblical themes as it declares that God will only keep His promises if people do everything right, keep all the rules, and work as hard as they can. This is wrong and not in line with God’s character. God promised Abraham that he would be the father of Israel and that the Messiah would come through his line. Abraham messed a lot of things up, he lied, slept with his maidservant, and his descendents weren’t much better but God still fulfilled His promise. Why publish a story that makes God seem indifferent and untrustworthy?

Turning to the characters, there are multiple issues in their moral compasses. Dexter is clearly an abusive, authoritarian father; he blows up and yells at Dinah when she asks a simple question and refuses to treat her with respect. Yet, the study questions do not address this: “Dinah went to speak to her father about the loom ‘with eyes downcast and cheeks flaming.’ What does this tell you about Dinah’s personality?” (74). What should those studying the text write here? It is clear to me that she is abused―she presents the classic signs of being afraid of her father. “Do you think she approached him in the correct way? Why or why not?” (74). What exactly are the questions driving at here? How exactly should one approach a bully? Especially when the bully is a parent and you are a child. What could Dinah have done? Is it Dinah’s fault that she’s abused? Acting as if abuse is okay is very wrong―the study guide should address Dexter’s sin far before it addresses Dinah’s fear. Also, the text is very vague about Dinah’s situation: if she didn’t disobey her father, her cloak would never have been ready for her prince and when she did, she doesn’t get the prince. This presents a completely lose/lose situation. Her father was clearly wrong to forbid her from weaving and yet, the study guide says that even though her father is a “tyrant” her “error came when she chose to weave in secret after he told her not to weave at all… Dinah’s life would have been easier and less disappointing if she had just obeyed her father. Severe as he was, God placed him over her to guard her heart and protect her from harm” (59). This presents an extremely sticky situation. Can’t we admit that we live in a fallen world and there are some fathers that are not worthy of obedience? What if a father asks a daughter to do something morally wrong? Or tries to completely thwart her chances at happiness, as Dexter did to Dinah? In this area, the study guide excuses the abusive behavior of the father and pins all of the blame on the daughter. How is this okay?

Elton’s behaviour was disgusting―if Esmee really needed to stay perfectly pure in order to marry a prince, then it is half his fault that she didn’t. Yes, she chose to give away multiple cloaks but he encouraged her in this, teasing her and saying, “‘Is that your prince?’ or ‘Is it for this one you weave?’” Esmee is a child and then a young girl; she needs guidance and takes her cues from her father. He certainly has a large part in her not taking her work seriously and even tempts her to sin. Jesus said in Matthew 18, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” (v.6-7). Elton’s sin is very serious and unfortunately, is not addressed by the study guide. For a book that encourages parental guidance, I would think that this area should be emphasized so that father’s (and mother’s) understand how important it is to keep from tempting their children to sin. Again, the father is the one primarily at fault but it is the daughter who suffers the total and complete consequences. I find this very disturbing and off the mark.

Each girls’ relationship with her father seems to be the product of chance… it seems that none of them actually could do anything to change their situations. Dexter was abusive and controlling, Elton was careless and uncaring, and Griffin was the model father. This presents a rather strange determinism; the idea that the daughter’s fate is out of her hands, being steered by her father and his actions, and cannot be remedied. Doesn’t it seem wrong that Dinah and Esmee are doomed to their fate by the poor choices of their fathers? At the end of the book, the study guide confirms this idea in saying, “From the day of the daughters’ births, the fathers set into motion the conclusion of the story by their words and deeds (or lack of them!)…. What the fathers sowed, the daughters reaped” (122). What does this tell girls with fathers who fall short? That they have no hope of a future? Plus, this takes scripture out of context! The study guide claims, “we will examine more closely the law of sowing and reaping (122).” What law? Galatians 6:7-10 is clearly speaking of an individual and their personal choices affecting their personal life…not the lives of their children. For according to God’s law, “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16).” Deuteronomy 24 is referenced several more times in the Bible, such as in 2 Kings 14:6: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.” Thus, the claimed “law of sowing and reaping” is not a law and the phrasing of the study guide seems like an attempt to add to God’s word.

By the way, where are all the mothers? I know that the original story does not say anything about the girls’ mothers, but it is odd that they aren’t in the picture. Did the girls just spontaneously generate? Didn’t this ever bother you? Honestly, I find it a little creepy and weird that mothers don’t seem important in this tale and for the most part, are even left out of the study guide. I agree that most fathers need to work harder in building relationships with daughters but at times, the book’s ideas seem over the top. Purity is a subject that a daughter needs to discuss with both of her parents, not just her father. It is wrong to focus more on one parent or gender than another.

Later in the story, Griffin tells Gabriella that the man she has noticed is not for her and says, “This is not the one that has been promised by God for you” (95). Are we supposed to assume that Griffin was a prophet or priest? This passage seems to indicate that he has become a priest who has complete control over all of Gabriella’s decisions. What if Gabriella was destined to marry a page or knight who was a prince at heart? How did Griffin know any of these people were right or wrong just from looking at their outward appearance? “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). I understand that this is a fairy tale… but why would we encourage people to act this way in real life? To be honest, I really don’t appreciate the story’s vilification of normal, common people such as shepherds, pages, and knights. It seems to be written from a 19th century upper-class perspective and it seems strange to me that we would try to encourage this line of thought in the 21st century. Plus, it doesn’t follow Christian history as King David was a shepherd, some of the first people to receive the news of Christ’s birth were shepherds, and Jesus himself was a carpenter, born into a poor family.

In addition, the examples of the “princes” interested in marrying the Dinah, Esmee, and Gabriella are disappointing at best. In each case, instead of looking at the girl’s inner and outer beauty and accomplishments, the prince is only interested in the gift each girl can present to him. When this gift is below his standard, he doesn’t provide a second chance or any alternative to the young woman. He simply walks away and leaves forever with “one look of distain” or a sorrowful gaze (111). What does this tell young girls? That we are to judge others for one aspect of their life? That we must set expectations so high that we cannot forgive or show any grace? That their purity is the only thing that gives them value? Or, that if they make even one mistake, that a godly young man will be unable to forgive them? This is so off the mark. Look at Tamar and Judah, Samson, Jonah, and even David! All of these people made mistakes, and some even committed sexual sins, but God still used them for his glory. How blessed are we that God is the giver of second chances! Finally, who would want to marry these so-called princes? None of them seem very admirable or worthy, just full of themselves and their own importance.

Furthermore, why doesn’t the text offer a second chance to Dinah and Esmee? All we are told is that “Dinah’s heart was as broken and shattered as the mirror of the lady of Shalott” and that Esmee’s “heart broke like the shattered mirror of the Lady of Shalott” (112-113). That’s it? Do their broken hearts ever find healing? Do they recover? Find a new life somewhere away from their horrible fathers? Is this supposed to make us feel good? Are we supposed to think we’re better than them? And then the girl’s studying the text are asked to “complete” their stories? What a sad exercise. These women live in a world without grace, just what sorts of things would be open to them?

In looking at the study guide, I think I should note that statements such as “obedience is the second trait to cultivate in your daughter’s character. This is necessary for her to have in order for you to guard her heart,” are completely off base (59). No one can build character in another person! Only God can change someone’s heart. “There will be times when you make a decision that she will see you as a tyrant. Learning to be obedient, even when she doesn’t understand your reasons, could save her from untold heartbreak” (59). This is also troublesome, as I have rarely thought my parents to be tyrants. The few times I recall thinking that they were oppressive or tyrannical usually ended in an apology from their end. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton). Parents who expect absolute obedience and believe that their children must have specific character qualities are emotionally abusive. Nowhere in scripture does it state that fathers (or mothers) are to guard their children’s hearts nor are they to claim absolute obedience from them. And then, there’s that whole issue of adult children and their independence. Expecting absolute obedience only protects small children who cannot understand; for older children and teenagers, this only produces outward conformity and inner resentment. Eventually, these children and teenagers grow up and more often than not, end up experiencing more heartbreak as they try to free themselves from controlling parents. The best parents are those who take the time to explain and reason and earn the respect of their children. All too often, parents do not relinquish control and cause their adult children untold irritation and pain because they cannot let go. Finally, the language used in the study guide is worrying with lines such as “Find out what scripture says about obedience and techniques you can use to train your daughter to develop this rare quality” (60). Honestly, it makes daughters sound like pets in need of obedience training rather than human beings. Also, some of the verses on obedience (60-61) are taken out of context; the misuse of scripture passages is a persistent problem throughout the study guide.

Before I go into the next section, I must address the concept of “guarding your heart.” This phrase is only found a few times in scripture (3 in the NIV) and is often misinterpreted. “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Pvbs 4:23).” Currently, “guarding your heart” is often used in reference to romantic relationships―i.e. keeping yourself unentangled and pure. However, that is not really what scripture means here. Guarding your heart has more to do with discernment and keeping filth from polluting your mind and then coming out of your mouth. It does not mean that you are to try to keep yourself perfectly pure and sinless―that’s impossible. As scripture says “Who can say, ‘I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?’” (Pvbs 20:9). God promises to give us a new clean heart washed in the blood of Jesus and He himself guards our hearts. “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:7).” And this popular verse: “My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways” is often taken out of context and really means something along the lines of “pay attention to me as I warn you about dangers you may encounter in your life” (Pvbs 23:26). Thus, the concept of guarding your heart or giving your heart to your parents is a completely modern sentiment and actually, can be quite destructive. Unfortunately, Proverbs 4:23 is often taken out of context and used to crush dreams, feelings, or ideas involving romance; encouraging a state of detachment, even in a romantic relationship, that promises to keep one’s heart “pure” and the owner without any pain. This is selfishness and certainly not biblical and can end up causing a lack of openness and an unwillingness to be vulnerable. As C.S. Lewis writes, “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket- safe, dark, motionless, airless--it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.”

While I agree that mutual trust does build a relationship, the discussion of trust found in the study guide is rather alarming and seems to place the father in a position that only God can fill. “Trust on her part means having a faith, reliance, expectation, and belief that you indeed have her best interest at heart. Inversely, trust can be defined for you as caring, keeping, protecting, and guarding her and desiring her best” (63). I italicized the last sentence for emphasis―this is not trust on the father’s part. Trust is defined as confidence and faith in a person or thing―a true definition of a father’s trust in a daughter looks something like this: “Having a faith, reliance, expectation, and belief that she will make the right decisions and act according to God’s word even when her parents are not around.” As for the explanation of the daughter’s trust, I love my father and I trust him but I never thought of it in such flowery terms. “Ultimately, your trust relationship with her will form her view of her heavenly Father. You have a weighty responsibility” (63). Jesus is the only person who is our example of God in human form. It is true that sometimes people view God in terms of their earthly father. Yet, this is not found, nor encouraged in scripture. We are all models of Christ, both men and women, but we are fallible human beings. We should want our children to look to Jesus and not to ourselves. Instead of encouraging fathers and daughters to trust in man, I believe it is crucial to encourage trust in God and His plans. The salvation section contains these words, “Father, make sure your daughter has entrusted her life to you” (104). WHAT? This is crazy! “She should not only place herself under her heavenly Father’s protection, but she must also trust you enough to allow you to protect her here on earth. Is she willing to place her heart in your hands? Is she willing to give you the key to her heart for safekeeping?” This is not based in scripture! Yes, it is a good idea to protect your daughter along with the rest of your children but this is just wrong. There’s nothing in the Bible about trusting your life or your heart to your parents―only to Jesus Christ. Why would any parent want to claim their child’s total devotion? No parent is perfect. Plus, when the child becomes an adult, there is no need for the father (or mother) to continue micromanaging their child’s life.

In the silver yardstick letter, the study guide states, “Your points need to be based on scripture so you can fortify your position with biblical truth” and yet, the example letter contains points that are not found in scripture (64). Number 3, “He must be able to support a family” is found nowhere in scripture and is simply based on the gender roles of our culture. There is nothing in the Bible about the man being the sole or primary provider for his family―this is a cultural assumption. Number 4, “Both of you must have similar life goals” is a nice idea and I find it an obvious goal but again, it is not found in scripture. Finally, Number 5, “He must meet with my approval” does not have any scriptural basis. As much as many people wish that there were guidelines in the Bible for dating and marriage, there really aren’t any and the God does not give parents final say in their child’s future. It is a good idea for the parents involved to approve of their child’s future spouse but sometimes, they are unreasonable or foolish. Ultimately, the choice lies with the (presumably) adult daughter to make her decision and live with the results.

Going further, this question: “What kind of (spiritual) profit would you like to see in your daughter’s life?” really bothers me (91). A father’s (or parent’s) concept of spiritual profit for their child might be vastly different from God’s plan. The accompanying Proverbs seem to be taken out of context as they cover a broad spectrum of “plans” and there are just as many Proverbs and Psalms that hold this thought: “Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails” (Pvbs 19:21). It seems that only scriptures that suit this theory have been included and ones contradicting it have been left out―resulting in a narrow concept of God’s will. It is not biblical to plan out someone else’s life and the following passage holds multiple problems, “Picture the rolling of your plans like a big ball into God’s capable hands and through Him; they are established… it is a done deal!” This makes God sound like a vending machine or Santa Claus―a benevolent figure who takes the plans of men and makes them happen exactly as we desire. This is completely contrary to scripture! God makes His plans and we carry them out. We do not tell God what to do! God can do whatever He wants with us―just look at Job―because He’s God. Yet, He’s loving and has plans to prosper us and not to harm us (Jer 29:11). Yes, prayer and free will do have an impact but ultimately, our plans must be submitted to His will.

In the activity on page 107, these two lines gave me pause, “You will protect her from men that are not qualified” and “You always have her best interests at heart.” First, who is the judge of the qualifications? The father? Both parents? What if their criteria is not biblical? This is an extremely sticky area because there are many, many stories of parents ruining the relationships of their adult children, especially in conservative evangelical circles. Controlling your teenage or adult child’s love life is not biblical or right. Second, many evil things have been done with the words, “I have your best interest at heart!” We should be teaching parents to give their children to God and let them go as Hannah entrusted Samuel to the Lord.

The text of the study guide places a lot of emphasis on crushes being evil and wrong and a girl could start to think that she’s lost her purity, or part of it, by having a crush. Crushes are normal. Every young girl has them and they are a part of growing up. With a bit of common sense, they aren’t a big deal. Demonizing crushes only leads to guilt and anxiety as girls are afraid to admit that they have feelings and believe that they are sinning in having natural attraction to a young man. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that attraction to the opposite sex is wrong, in fact, Song of Solomon almost encourages a healthy appreciation of attraction. As long as they do not turn into willful sin, crushes are a completely normal, natural part of being young. Attraction happens and making it into a sin is only setting up young women (and men) for failure and guilt. In addition, there have been multiple reports (and I know from personal experience) that teachings like these can cause serious emotional problems. If a young girl turns off her emotions or views good things as dirty or evil, she will have a long and hard time recovering when she does marry.

The concept of a mistake is poorly defined within this text and could be confusing to girls. Is it simply having a crush? Or is it actually a physical action? Again, does the text really mean that a woman’s value is only found in her purity? If so, what about victims of rape or incest? Or those who make one mistake or come from a troubled background? Are they now devoid of value and unable to receive forgiveness? I believe that virginity is important and purity is beautiful but neither purity nor virginity are commodities that can be “lost forever.” For those who repent from a life of sin, choosing purity can be a reality. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).

Overall, this book places a high emphasis on getting married with the discussions of hope chest, purity ring/ceremony, and wrapped gift/letters to be opened before the daughter’s wedding. While I think these items are well meant, they may not be the best thing for daughters. These things can easily become idols and encourage frustration with singleness―which is also considered a gift on par with marriage in God’s word. What if it is God’s plan that the daughter never marries? What if she is single for a prolonged period? Marriage is a beautiful, God-given institution and gift but it is not the ultimate end of any person. Our purpose is to love God and glorify Him forever. In fact, Jesus was not married, nor were many of the prophets or the Apostle Paul. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes that it is better to be single and that “it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do” (v.7). Our Christian culture has made marriage into an idol, caused untold suffering, and put unneeded pressure on those who have been called to temporary or even permanent singleness. There should be some portion of this book that acknowledges the gift of singleness and does not make marriage into an idol.

I know this has been long and probably hard to hear, but someone needs to say it. It is my hope that you complied and published this work in ignorance of its errors, both scriptural and moral. Obviously, you are not the first Christian publisher to wrongly believe that this story is worthy of study. Still, I beg you to consider the product that you are selling. It needs to be seriously re-written or taken off the shelves all-together. I will be posting this review on my blog because unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Multiple copies of “The Three Weavers” from many different publishers are floating around, wrecking havoc on the lives of otherwise normal people. I want this critique to be available to anyone who searches for this book and thinks that it might be a helpful resource.

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

A Day in the Life of a College Student

The View from my Desk

As it happens to be on my mind, I have noticed that those in the patriarchy movement have a tendency to misunderstand or devalue college and the academic experience. According to Jennie Chancey, Doug Phillips, Voddie Bauchum, and other leaders in the movement, college is a terrible experience that will strip one (or one’s child) of all values, morals, and intelligence. In their minds, if you go to college, you will lose your soul. (Even though all of those named attended college.) Many Stay at Home Daughters fervently believe this rhetoric and some even write fervently about the evils of college without even setting foot inside of one. When I was influenced by the patriarchy movement and still in Jr. High, I didn’t understand college either. I thought it was this vague place that your parents make you attend and you have to travel long distances to get there so that you can study some kind of very difficult subject. This is a pretty fragmented and immature view of the college experience; it sounds bleak and it doesn’t reflect reality. In all honesty, I think Stay at Home Daughters probably have the same vague ideas about college that I did when I was younger and, they have been kept in the dark about college into their adult years. They don’t understand it and thus, think of it as a dark, scary place. Well, I am going to dismiss these ideas by presenting a picture of my life as a Senior in college. While I don’t think everyone needs to go to college or to spend a lot of money doing so, I chose to attend college to gain expertise in my field, prepare for graduate school, and to learn about life and other people. Plus, if I want to homeschool my own children someday, I think it’s a good idea to have a degree. (Disclaimer: I do go to a small, affordable, more conservative school—they do exist! I’m also careful about which professors I take classes from and try to know what I’m getting into—even if they are more left leaning or difficult, it’s not that bad if you know ahead of time.)


Early Morning: I get up, get ready, stop to talk to my younger brother (who is still lying in bed at 8:30 in the morning), glance at the headlines in the newspaper, and hug my mom. I am out the door before 9am and commute to my school. It’s a historic school full of tradition and the liberal arts. If you don’t understand liberal arts, think of it as a solid core of subjects that every student should know: art, literature, science, history, mathematics, philosophy, and language. There is a strong focus on reading, understanding, and interpretation; in other words, critical thinking (not endless memorization) is the most important thing.

Mid-Morning: I arrive at school and hike upstairs to my office on the top floor of an 1800’s building. Depending on the day of the week and differing Mon/Weds/Fri and Tues/Thurs schedules, I will either work for several hours or I will stick my lunch in the fridge and go to my first class. If it is a morning classes day, I walk to my classroom and chat lightly with my classmates about events on campus, current events, and homework until the professor arrives. Almost all of the professors at my school have Ph. D’s (meaning they spent 8+ years learning about their chosen field) and they know their information and love their jobs. On this sort of day, a rousing lecture in U.S. History is the first order of business. Though I have already taken enough History classes to meet requirements, I still take at least one class per semester with this professor because he’s so much fun and his lectures are so interesting. After this, I head to a literature class where I study anything from British poets to Native American literature. My professor for this class is a woman and she loves her work and her students. Though we look at very different ideological viewpoints, she is very good at helping us to understand them without losing our own. After morning classes, I go back to my office and start working. Unlike the dire situation of a woman working under a man presented by those in the patriarchy movement, my boss is one of the female professors and she is so easy to work under. My job consists of answering the phone, taking care of the 10 professors in my department, working on secretarial projects, taking care of mailings, and doing homework in the absence of other work. The professors are so nice and the atmosphere is very professional and lively—I absolutely love my job.

Afternoon: On alternate days, I either go to a History class with my favorite professor or to a Political Science class with another professor. If I go to the former, I get to listen to a young, dynamic, female professor who has shaped my writing immensely and is somewhat of a role model for me. We may not see eye to eye on everything but she has had an immense impact on my academic career. If the latter, I get to go to class and hear about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and how my professor read all of them over the weekend or we talk about how to fix the federal debt problem. It’s pretty fun actually, especially since my professor is politically conservative and I agree with him most of the time. :-) After this, I will work for an hour or so and am usually the last person in the office. My last school experience of the day is watching one of the Philosophy professors and one of the English professors walk out of the building hand in hand. They’ve been married for 30+ years and have offices down the hall from one another.

Late Afternoon: I’m done with classes and work and I head home. When I arrive, my mom and I have tea and watch something BBC/Jane Austen/Art Film/Costume Drama related and then I do homework. Some nights, I go hang out with my friends, work on service projects, or to see my grandparents or cousins.

So that’s what my life and the college experience is like—my parents didn’t force me to go, I’m not far from home, and I love gaining knowledge from experts. While I loved being homeschooled in high school, I don’t think college at home can replicate this experience. At some point in life, you have to put yourself in social situations with people of different views. Even though my school is conservative, I do have liberal professors with viewpoints that differ greatly from mine. However, they are very secure people that do not feel the need to impose their beliefs on others and are willing to entertain lively discussions. I have chosen to live at home and I am happy with this choice because I get the best of both worlds. And I still love Jesus. Oddly enough, the different pressures I have encountered in the world have only strengthened my faith. If only Patriarchy followers and Stay at Home Daughters realized that the stories they have heard about college are dramatized and almost completely untrue. They have absolutely no idea what they’re missing.

Ingrid

Locked in a Tower

So, a stay at home daughter picked on Tangled. I’m not surprised. It is, however, a little disappointing. The review by Amanda Reins is aptly titled Mangled because that’s exactly what it does to a beautiful film. I highly doubt that Disney knew that they were giving Rapunzel some of the traits of a stay at home daughter. Believe it or not ladies, the real world does not revolve around Vision Forum, the Botkins, or Ladies Against Feminism. To again take a quote from It’s a Wonderful Life, “You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the...in the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider.” You might want to read "Mangled" before reading this...otherwise, my response might not make sense. :-)

First, the beginning of the film showing Rapunzel’s skills is a pretty accurate depiction of homemaking and I found it very sweet. She seems to enjoy what she does with her time but realizes that there’s way more to life than baking, ballet, and chess all alone. Is there something wrong with that?
One of the worst parts of this review is where it brushes aside the facts that Rapunzel is kidnapped, locked in a tower, and emotionally abused! “Of course, we could overlook this because, after all, Mother Gothel is really just a wicked captor bent on using Rapunzel for her own ends. But, the fact is that Rapunzel’s actions are carried out in the understanding that this is her mother and it’s really not until the last few minutes of the film that she finds out otherwise. Theirs is the relationship which is modeled throughout the film as mother/daughter.” (For some reason, whenever I read that I feeling like yelling, “Mother Gothel locked Rapunzel in a freaking tower!!!!” Anyone else feel that way? :-D) What was Rapunzel supposed to do? Never seek help? Stay for fear of disobeying her mother figure? There is no one in the tower to mediate for her! Mother Gothel is emotionally and verbally abusive! In fact, it’s clear that Gothel only sees Rapunzel for her hair. She objectifies Rapunzel’s hair and ignores the fact that Rapunzel is a living human being with hopes and dreams of her own. In a line from “Mother Knows Best” Gothel sings, “to keep you safe and sound dear” while cradling Rapunzel’s hair. Creepy, yes? The advice often given in abusive relationships is “get out and get help” and that is exactly what Rapunzel does. “If we’re prepared to say that Mother Gothel’s sins are inexcusable, we must be prepared to say the same of Rapunzel’s.” What “sin” has Rapunzel supposedly committed? Rebellion due to leaving home? I guess this “sin” is too great to be excused for any reason in the eyes of a stay-at-home daughter.
I think the paragraph about the tiara symbolizing purity is reading too deeply into the scenes. It’s a tiara; Flynn stole it, and wants it back. It could be valid that a girl watching could parrot Rapunzel’s response to Flynn about something different but I doubt that this would be the movie anyone would think of regarding ways to lose purity. Sometimes, stay at home daughters react to things that normal people would never notice and this makes me think that they are focusing on their own perfection and purity just a little too much. Be it in life, a film, or a novel, it almost seems like they’re waiting for someone else to make a mistake so they can pick on it. They are so sensitive to any idea of impurity that they are far more imaginative and dark than I would ever think of being.

Of Flynn and Rapunzel’s relationship, Reins writes, “Their relationship is one of mutual, self-serving interest.” Yes it is... at first. Then it becomes something much more special―full of mutual respect and sacrifice. “He’s a helpless, sensitive, emotional male- an accessory to the capable, brilliant, amazing Rapunzel.” Apparently, sensitivity and emotion in men are considered qualities of helplessness by Miss Reins. (That’s pretty sad. I hope, if I'm so blessed, that my husband is sensitive and emotional when he needs to be someday.) I honestly don’t see Flynn as an accessory to Rapunzel. To me, he’s an important character; without whom, Rapunzel would never have been able to succeed in her adventure or even start at all. In a way, each saves the other. Flynn saves Rapunzel from mother Gothel, twice in fact, and even sacrifices himself for her freedom while Rapunzel saves Flynn's life and also inspires him to leave his life of crime and think about what really matters. Throughout the film, Rapunzel accepts Flynn for who he is and helps him to overcome his past. Of course a stay-at-home daughter would not like him because he’s not the perfect prince type. They like to forget that people are flawed and that everyone carries emotional baggage. “Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”?” Proverbs 20:9. See: Seeking Perfection.
The saddest part of this review is the end: “In the end, Rapunzel is finally reunited with the king and queen and as the film closes, we discover some final lessons- that good governments reward sin and indulgent parents are real parents. Flynn is embraced, his thievery ignored, and welcomed, as Rapunzel’s new husband, a prince in their kingdom.” Heaven forbid we forgive anyone! Forgiveness and mercy are traits which must not be acceptable or familiar to Miss Reins. Jesus ate and talked with sinners because He had mercy and He always makes it clear that they leave their life of sin behind when they believe in His name. Rapunzel’s parents accept Flynn by showing him mercy and obviously, Flynn leaves his life of sin behind. This is a beautiful story of redemption because it shows the power and healing effect of Christ’s love and mercy.
Again, I am not surprised that a stay at home daughter did not like this film. I knew it was coming. Why? Because Tangled is too close to their own lives. It comes too close and it scares them. And because they can’t like it or don’t understand it, they decide to pick it apart. Badly done, Miss Reins, badly done.

Ingrid

A Psychological Paradox

As I was writing my last post, I noticed a very striking paradox within the Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity movement. It is so strange to me that these movements promote “independence training” such as blanket training, early weaning, and detachment of the mother/baby relationship while promoting “dependence training” in almost every other area of a child’s life. Confused? Here’s a quick definition of both kinds of training:
Independence Training is, "Child-rearing practices that foster independence, self-reliance, and personal achievement."
This is most practiced in western societies which contain a focus on individuality.
Dependence Training is, "Child-rearing practices that foster compliance in the performance of assigned tasks and dependence on the domestic group, rather than reliance on oneself."
This is common in Eastern societies and more traditional societies which focus on the group rather than the individual.
Think about that for a minute. For most proponents of the Patriocentricity movement, Quiverfull and Militant Fecundity are considered wonderful pro-family practices. Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity families are seemingly close and promote a focus on the family rather than the individual. Daughters are encouraged (if not required) to remain at home until marriage and to serve their father. Likewise, sons are expected to take over the family business and honor their father. In some cases, it is expected that the children will continue to carry out their father’s 200-year “vision” and not pursue their own goals at all. It is not uncommon for Patriocentric families to have 25-30 year old dependant daughters still living at home. Again, it is family over individual. I think we can agree that the children of this movement are trained to be dependent on their parents for almost everything including courtship and life work. However, as I discussed in my last post, Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity parents are surprisingly detached from their babies. Blanket training, early weaning, separate beds/rooms, etc. are all ways in which these parents train their little ones to be self-sufficient and independent. This form of “baby-training” actually follows American culture and isn’t Biblical but they still do it. I would think that they would want to create loving, secure environments for their children from day one. If you’re going to teach your child to be dependant, prove to them when they are little that they can trust you. When you purposely wean your baby early in order to conceive again and pass them off to a sibling, you’re showing that you care more about your fertility than the child you currently have. It’s not loving, it’s selfish. You’re putting your wants above the needs of your child. And later in life, your children are supposed to trust you with the choice of their mate? Psychologically, you’re sending very mixed signals to your children if you flip-flop from independence to dependence training. At least most secular parents who promote independence training for babies stick with the same focus on independence as their children grow into adulthood. In my mind, this insincere flip-flopping is one of the things that make Militant Fecundity and Quiverfull so toxic and dangerous. And I’m just going to say it: this is very hypocritical. It is clear to me that the primary goal of most of these parents is control. Control no matter the cost. And that’s what makes it abusive.

Ingrid

The myth of having to learn to run a household

Recently, while on the blog of a young couple lately married, I was reading the post telling of the couple’s first few months together and all those fun little things like meals and house hunting. But, I found one comment on this post highly amusing. Basically, the young woman commenting said that when she married she was surprised to find how little time it took to cook, clean, and do laundry for only two people. Yeah, only two…. You see, it’s what I’ve been saying for a long time about all this “preparing for marriage hoopla” that is constantly being pressed upon young ladies in the homeschooling community. There’s this strange amnesia that comes over these “daughters at home” speakers and they seem to forget that when you first marry…there are only two of you. That’s right. Two. And then, there may be three…. Just how much laundry do you think you’ll do when you first get married? It seems to me that those touting the “daughters at home” ritual have either brain injuries…or no imagination… or they want young women to be prepared to have triplets. Apparently, multiple births must be normal in such cases since it’s important for the daughters to know in advance how to do laundry for twelve people. :-D Only eventually, over a period of years, there may be more children―in which case, both the amounts laundry and food preparation gradually increase. Kids come in one or twos (and maybe threes but not often)…not fives and sixes and tens! They train you! Which means, and hang on to your hat now, a woman can learn as she goes (and her new husband can too… don’t these guys know how to wash dishes?). *gasp* Could it be? You don’t have to know how to cook for 10 before you’re married!!?? No! Alas! It is true! Even you can learn how to be a homemaker and parent by being one after you’re married!!
Look, there’s nothing wrong with being accomplished…. I know how to cook and sew and do laundry…and I’m not married yet. My guy likes that I’m accomplished, he says it challenges him to learn be accomplished himself… accomplishment is a good thing. But it’s not my chief end and goal in life. I don’t find my fulfillment in making the perfect turtle cheesecake. Being accomplished is not the only thing that matters. The thing that matters most in anyone is his or her faith in God and having a personal relationship with Jesus. People, of any age, should also be working on their character and growing in maturity and knowledge. Knowing how to run a household and take care of children is just one little tiny part of what anyone should know before they marry. It is totally wrong and unbiblical for anyone to make an idol out of a young lady’s ability to cook, clean, and do laundry. It’s not who they are...a young lady’s worth is not measured by how well she can cook for ten. Shame on anyone who thinks that cooking and cleaning is all a girl can do with her life and that it’s the only thing that matters.

Ingrid