Of Trolls and Hate Mail

I’ve had this blog for nearly seven years and there have been times when I have been very tempted to stop writing. None of these moments were very recent… in fact, most took place six months to three years ago and that’s why I can talk about them now. To be honest, I’ve received a lot of hate mail from multiple sources (some published, some not) and even several uncomfortable threats because of the things that I’ve challenged on this blog. Honestly, there’s been a few times when I was so scared, I wanted to stop. At times, it’s been really hard to keep blogging. I get the idea that people think I’m some kind of sarcastic nut with a lot of time on my hands (I’m not!)… I’ve had commenter’s question my salvation, I’ve had barrages of 10+ angry comments within an hour, and I’ve been told by complete strangers that I need to repent. It’s crazy! I don’t mind when people ask intelligent questions and politely disagree or want to discuss, heck, I actually like it, but this is wrong on so many levels. It’s not always easy to keep working on this blog. Don’t get me wrong, I like being able to help people and provide resources for those who need them, and I’m not meaning to complain. But I have to be honest and tell you that it’s really hard sometimes. For the record, over the last seven years, I’ve been called: a worker of iniquity, immature, cynical, caustic, angry, deceiving, lying, conniving, “so mean,” lacking in humility and love, bitter in heart, accused of being Jennifer Epstein (that made me laugh actually), and told that I am glorifying satan. I didn’t make any of those up and believe me, there are lots more.

I talk about a lot of upsetting stuff on this blog. Do you honestly think I enjoy this? I used to like Vision Forum and Doug Phillips and Little Bear Wheeler. I read Josh Harris books and thought Emotional Purity was the way to go. But then I learned it was all a lie. And I don’t want anyone else to be deceived. Do you think I like having to write about Kelly Bradrick’s near death experiences or that men in many churches abuse their authority? Because I don’t. It makes me sad. Things aren’t meant to be this way and I can’t believe that the name of Jesus Christ is being used for such evil purposes. I can’t understand how people can act like this in the 21st century. But if I don’t say anything, who will? There’s a lot of sheep out there who can’t seem to think critically about the right things and there are a lot of people, some of them even my friends, who fail to notice important issues and take a stand. Sometimes, I feel like Aragorn in The Fellowship of the Ring when he speaks of his efforts to protect the Northern part of Middle-Earth, “And less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us and countryman give us scornful names. “Strider” I am to one fat man who lives within a day’s march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin if he were not guarded ceaselessly” and sometimes I also feel like Sherlock, “Is it nice not being me? It must be so relaxing.”

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this lately, because I’ve gotten a lot of comments over the years and read a lot of “woe is me posts” written by leaders in the patriarchy movement. Frankly, I think people should be aware that it is hard to keep up an anti-legalism blog and the tactics resorted to by followers of patriarchy and legalism. Not every follower of patriarchy has been like this, but unfortunately, the majority have been.

So, here’s a list of the things that Patriarchy followers tend to do as they comment on my blog:

1. Question my salvation. This. Makes. Me. So. Mad. Who are you to judge my salvation? I may criticize the teachings and actions of people like Peter Bradrick and Doug Phillips but I will never question their salvation. Only God can see a person’s heart and know where they are with Him. I can jolly well evaluate their teachings, words, and actions, but I can’t see anyone else’s heart. You can evaluate my words and decide you don’t agree with me but that doesn’t give you a right to play god and declare that I’m not a Christian or need to repent. It absolutely disgusts me when this happens. Therefore, I expect that those who consider themselves Christians will treat me with the respect that is owed to another believer. So, don’t be like this…just don’t do it. It weakens your credibility. And if you're saying I'm not a Christian just so you can be mean to me... wow. Like, really, wow. That is some perverted theology there. I can only imagine how you treat non-Christians.

2. Claim to be persecuted or spiritually abused while actually dealing out persecution and spiritual abuse. See #3. This is so annoyingly hypocritical. So it’s okay to be horrible to me and say all kinds of nasty things but when someone so much as questions you, you’re all up in arms? Oh and you should know: people questioning your beliefs is not a form of persecution. It’s perfectly okay to have legitimate questions and concerns and if you’re a Christian, you should have an answer for your faith. However, treating me and other bloggers terribly and then being very sensitive about how you’re treated is just nauseating.

3. Threaten me. Threatening to call my pastor(s), bring me before church councils, take me to court, have me kicked out of my church, or thrown to the lions is not okay. In fact, it was horrible. There have been times when commenters have been so vicious and intrusive that I’ve been afraid of physical harm. Lying awake worrying about knife attacks is not something that I should have to deal with… frankly; it reminds me of the persecutions that the early church faced from the Jewish religious authorities. I should probably note that it wasn’t really the government persecuting the early church, it was another religious organization. Come to think of it, a lot of persecution in the past has come from other religious bodies trying to correct or “save” one another. (Jews/Christians, Catholics/Protestants, Puritans/Quakers, etc.) It’s a pretty ugly past. So knock it off and don’t be like them.

4. Love-bombing. Try to act loving and write things about being kind and loving towards you when they are clearly so angry that they cannot see straight. Maybe it would be better to just say, “I’m feeling very angry with this right now!” instead of “I’m lovingly trying to discuss this with you.” You don’t love me, you really don’t, so don’t try to act as if you do. Why don’t you cool off a bit and find some perspective before you write to me.

5. Patronizing and/or accusing me of gossiping. This happens all the time… commenter’s act like I don’t know what I’m talking about or that I cannot possibly be credible so they have to explain things to me in small words. Look people, I have a college degree in research and I’m really good at it. I use lots of credible sources, check it a half-dozen times, and make sure it’s right. If I’m wrong, I admit it and I’ll correct it. Stop telling me I’m making all of it up and gossiping. All of the information I found is well documented, still available in multiple palaces, and/or posted by the people themselves. If they didn’t want it discussed, they shouldn’t have put it out there.

6. Defend people they don’t know/barely know. This boggles my mind. Why would you defend Doug Phillips, the Botkins, or etc. when you don’t even know them! I’ve had people who know me actually take the side of the person whom they’ve never met and probably never will meet. What is it that makes these distant pastors/teachers more important than someone you’ve known for years? Don’t you have any respect for your friends? Any loyalty that drives you to try to understand my concerns? Haven’t I been there for you? This is just so disappointing. And may I say that the sin of partiality is a very real issue in the church today. (See James 2.)

7. Think that just because they are Christians, their motives are pure and right and therefore, it is okay to harass me. Prefacing scathing comments with “it’s for your own good!” and “I’m writing because I want to lovingly correct you!” does not make them okay. On several occasions, I’ve had barrages of angry comments that were really consistent with stalking and harassment but when this was pointed out, those responsible could not believe that their actions were, in fact, criminal. Being a Christian does not make you above the law and certainly does not exempt you from practicing common decency and respect. If an abusive husband is a Christian, he’s still an abuser and he’s still accountable for his actions. No matter how good you think your motives, you’d better consider your actions from several angles before proceeding. As C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

8. Enlist other people to help you when you think you’re losing a discussion/argument. Bringing in other random people to yell at me doesn’t help your case at all. And trying to involve my parents (or significant other when he appears) is just silly. I’m an adult and I can take care of my own problems.

9. Don’t take the time to organize their thoughts and end up word vomiting every incoherent, sleep-deprived thought in their head into a comment. I’ve gotten lots of angry comments that were submitted late at night and, from what my stat counter tells me, immediately after reading a post. If you’re upset about something, it’s a good rule of thumb to wait at least one day before commenting. You’ll be more coherent and rested and maybe I’ll actually learn something from you instead of wondering a: why you’re so impulsive and b: if you were drunk, in pms, high on caffeine, or a professional hit-man.

10. Flounce after leaving a scathing comment or conversely, constantly monitoring my blog so you can leave nasty comments on every new post. My stats reveal a lot and I can tell if you come back or don’t come back. Why bother to leave a comment that requires a response if you’re never going to read my response? You might be wrong you know and maybe you should listen to my side, even if just to be polite. Goodness knows, I read every comment I receive, no matter how awful may be. On the flip side, constantly checking my blog so you can critique me is creepy. You’re turning into a stalker so just stop it.

11. Misquote scripture and/or take it out of context in a desperate attempt to validate your beliefs. This happens all the time, to the point that it would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Sometimes I wonder if patriarchy followers even read their bibles because many of the ones who comment do not understand/apply scripture correctly at all.

12. Think that teachers/leaders cannot possibly be questioned. Ever. But then again only certain leaders who have been deemed worthy (mostly due to celebrity status, wealth, and/or number of books/cds sold). Hate to break it to you but Jesus made it clear that it is perfectly acceptable to question religious leaders and hold them accountable. He even called them snakes, hypocrites, and broods of vipers. (Please don’t decide to call me that! :-) I already know I’m vicious and conniving *rolls eyes*) He told us how to judge the teachings of others. Multiple passages in scripture speak of holding teachers to account for their actions and teachings. (1 John 4, James 3, Luke 12:47-49). I take this very seriously because I think that includes me too. Plus, all Christians are supposed to be wary and act as Bereans so my questioning shouldn’t be this big of a shocker to you.

13. Not catching sarcasm and/or completely lacking a sense of humor. I’ve had commenter’s take my jokes and sarcasm seriously. This is usually followed by a very awkward, condescending lecture by comment on their part and hysterical laughter on mine. Seriously people, learn to laugh at yourselves. Life is hard enough already without taking ourselves and our lives so darn seriously.

14. Claim and cling to a lofty ideal or vague hurt while dishing out a steaming personal attack. Focus on the problem, not me. Calling me names does not make you seem like a victim to anyone, it just makes you a bully. Clinging to your own faith and idealism while attacking me is also very wrong, not to mention disturbing. As a matter of fact, stay away from personal attacks all-together, it’s not fighting fair and will not accomplish anything. If I’ve hurt you personally, talk to me about it calmly in one coherent e-mail, devoid of threats, patronizing, and the like, and I will be willing to listen.

15. Jump to conclusions/extreme thinking. This ties into #1 and it happens all the time. Why is it that when you point out one fault in a leader, patriarchy followers assume that you’re a horrible, vindictive person? Just because I discuss Peter Bradrick or the Botkin sisters and point out their errors, does not mean I viciously hate them, am scandalously trying to tear them down, ruin their testimony, or blah, blah, blah. (They’re doing a pretty good job of ruining things on their own; I’m just making it more visible.) Sorry to disappoint you but I actually just believe that their teachings are wrong and that this should be pointed out. I’m also very concerned for them and wish that I could help them escape from their controlling influences. Please stop acting like a hormonal teenager and realize that there is indeed a middle ground.

16. Trying to sidetrack me with another issue or little, nit-picky details that don’t matter. This isn’t fighting fair, in fact, it’s called kitchen-sinking in communication terms. You say you’re a Christian, so please act like one and focus on the gospel and the issue at hand.

17. Throw out all logic, reason, and common sense in their desperation to justify their leaders. I got this a lot with my post about Kelly Bradrick. Several commenter’s seemed to think it was okay for Kelly to be emotionally and physically abused as long as it was okay with her. NO! It’s NOT okay! Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing! Abuse is wrong, it has been wrong, and will always be wrong. Your desperate attempt to justify Scott Brown and Peter Bradrick is extremely disappointing and pathetic.

18. Tell me to just contact that person or just go meet with them and it will all be okay. *insert cynical laugh here* Yes, because it’s so easy to go out to lunch with Doug Phillips or Kelly Bradrick. Most of these people never respond to e-mails or phone calls that question them, if you can even find an e-mail address or phone number at which to contact them. I wrote to Shelley Noonan nearly two months ago, she isn’t even that high on the ladder, and I still haven’t gotten a response. These people are very insulated and not accessible at all. It’s not that simple. Plus, these teachings are very public and if no one refutes them publicly, how will anyone know they are wrong and/or realize that there are others who do not follow them?

19. An incredible, passionate, furious desire to defend their favorite leader(s) from any and all criticism and questioning. Seriously people, if these leaders were upset with me for calling them out, they would have taken care of it themselves and contacted me directly. It is truly astonishing how sensitive patriarchy followers and even evangelical Christians can be. Quit acting like these people are your “gifted” children and protecting them. They are all adults, with lawyers no doubt, and can take care of themselves. So, save all these defensive instincts for protecting your family and real, close friends. And maybe you should examine why you’re so darn protective and touchy about these people. Perhaps you’re making an idol out of them and that’s what makes you so very sensitive to my criticism of their actions?

Honestly patriarchy followers, you’re a pretty vicious bunch. Who would have known that so much venom lies behind those sweet facades and pretty pictures! I’m not impressed with you. You should be secure and cemented in what you believe, not flying into a mad panic at the slightest bit of questioning. If you’re so secure in your beliefs, why do you lash out like you’re afraid of something? And if someone asks you something that makes you question or makes you mad, why do you flounce? What are you afraid of? Of finding out that the people you admire and/or follow are sinners and maybe even false teachers? Jesus never lets you down… if you’d just focused on Him in the first place, you wouldn’t be so scared, confused, and angry now. Try thinking critically and taking a step back to see things from other people’s perspectives for a change and stop lashing out like a bunch of wounded tigers. A couple years ago, I decided one thing, even if I have been scared sometimes; I’m not going to stop writing. I began this blog to protest the injustices of courtship. That was the main goal. I was personally injured by the courtship movement and I’ve seen the inside of all of it. It’s not the pretty, little picture they try to sell and it doesn’t work all the time. I do have to remind myself to deal with the message and not the messenger. That’s why I’ve edited some posts over the years to remove nitpicky things, though sometimes those lines blur and you have to discuss a few issues that are more personal. There’s a place for standing up for what you believe in but it should still have a sense of decency and respect. And if you don’t like something on my blog, that’s okay. I never expected everyone to agree with me or see things exactly the way I do. My articles are open to discussion but my personal life is not. You can disagree with anything I write but if you’re attacking me personally, save your fingers. I’ll probably post it and I’ll respond if I feel it is worth the fight. If only one thing has come from this, I am more interested in my blog than ever and more determined to keep fighting against rules and formulas and legalism―and arguing for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Honestly, I don’t really mind that I’ve faced name-calling and threats as I’ve pointed out false teachings. It doesn’t worry me anymore and truthfully, I’ve moved on. It’s made me a lot stronger and even more willing to stand up for truth. And be warned, God keeps on giving me the strength to write and thanks to all of you, I have developed a very, very thick skin. So don’t expect me to stop anytime soon.

Ingrid

P.S. Don't think I am the only anti-Patriarchy writer who deals with hate-mail. All of the people I know who have blogs and/or help those caught in Patriarchy movement have endured similar situations. Some have even dealt with lawsuits and far worse attacks than those that I have experienced. We just don't talk about it a lot and we definitely do not mean to complain. 

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

Grace's Story

If you have been following Semper Eadem for any period of time, then you probably know Ingrid’s story. If you haven’t read it, please read it here.

I’m Ingrid’s sister Grace. I’ve contributed from time to time. I work full-time as a registered nurse, so I don’t always have time to contribute. However, I would like to share my story- since I (borrowing a term from Ingrid) was also “burned” by the I Kissed Dating Goodbye Movement. When I was about 15, I remember reading I Kissed Dating Goodbye, its sequel Boy Meets Girl, and other courtship-type books. I also followed Young Ladies Christian Fellowship (YLCF) and their Courtship stories religiously. I was SO in love with those books and the courtship stories and the examples that they included. I distinctly remember reading Emotional Purity and it telling me to think of all the guys I knew as someone else’s husband. Also, from the books and articles, I learned that I shouldn’t: talk to guys too much or give them attention (it might give them the wrong idea!), dress “immodestly”, and that I must save my first kiss for marriage. I was really sucked into this for several years and all the while I became more proud (because I was a “good girl” and I wasn’t like those “other girls”!). I became quieter and scared of talking to guys. The thoughts in my head when I was around any and all guys were “What does he think of me?” “What if he wants to ask me out?” and “What if he is the one?” I was literally obsessed with these thoughts. But through it all, I always thought that Prince Charming would magically come along, talk to me, like me, talk to my dad and then we would court, fall in love, and get married with our first kiss at the alter. Yeah right…. That is a fantasy world.

I remember that I graduated high school and immediately started college classes for my RN degree. That took a whole 2 years, in which time I was more exposed to the real world and all the time I was still really quiet- because what would a guy think if I talked to him?  He might think that I liked him and that I was flirting, which would make him and me loose pieces of our hearts that we could never recover.

Fast forward to recently: I’ve been out of school and a nurse for three years. I’ve been realizing that I really have trouble talking to guys. It’s really difficult and I don’t know why. I never had any problems as a child or young adult. No wait… Now I remember. I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye and all the other trash and it changed how I think about guys. Men went from friends to “there might be something more and if I talk to them they might get the wrong idea.” Oh dear- how on earth do I get over that?  I have to completely change my thinking—namely that guys are humans, they are friends, and that they are not going to assume that I am interested in them just because I talk to them.

So lately, I’ve been talking to my mom, Ingrid, and girlfriends about guys. I’m 23. I’m single. I’ve never had anyone interested in me (that I know of). I’ve finally come to the realization that I Kissed Dating Goodbye and the other garbage really poisoned my thinking where guys are concerned. So, one of the first things that I did was I started praying more—for opportunities to talk to guys and help my communication.  I started teasing and talking to men at work. I joined eHarmony to help improve my communication skills. I didn’t expect to really meet anyone, and I didn’t. But that’s perfectly okay, because it sure did help my communication skills and help me narrow down my priorities. I did communicate with several guys and it helped me realize that not every guy who expresses interest is the right man for you. It also proved that you don’t hurt your heart by communicating with a guy. I’ve also started communicating more with my guy friends. There is one guy who I have liked for many years and I find it so hard to communicate with him, because of the thinking planted in me from I Kissed Dating Goodbye and other titles. I struggle with questions like “Will he think I’m too pushy? Too forward? Too flirty?” My mom says “no” and I think she is right. I struggle with my self-image. I have to continually remind myself that just because I talk to a guy, it doesn’t mean that I’m sinning as I have a fun time talking and laughing with him.

The rest of the story? I decided to communicate more with him and seek him out more when we are out with friends. And it’s working-- we’re getting to be better friends, we’ve had a few good talks in the past few weeks, we text from time to time, and that’s okay for now….  My story isn’t over yet, it’s still in progress. :)

~Grace 

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

The Story

Pride and Prejudice, 2005

I’ve been writing this story since before I started this blog and now I think I can finally post it. It’s been alluded to in many posts, especially my earlier ones. For a long time, I held back in telling this story because of own pain and not knowing for sure what was going to happen. I also wanted to protect my friend Jason’s privacy. Just reading it over again still hurts a little.

“A book by the name of Emotional Purity came out several years back; I purchased and read it, at about the age of fourteen. My ideals were being shaped at that age, for I also bought at the same time, Passion and Purity by Elizabeth Elliott. And, I had in my possession, I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy meets Girl by Joshua Harris, and The Dating Trap by Martha Rupert. At first read, Emotional Purity seemed to have its philosophy straight and I agreed with much of what it said. Then when I was sixteen, I began to reexamine my foolproof system and the books that had influenced my thinking. No book was safe from my sharp critique and I found many flaws in the teaching they presented; in Emotional Purity especially.” – Part 1, Let It Be = Love3

Now, what I didn’t explain in Let it Be = Love3 was the reason why I began rethinking my trust in the formulas prescribed by I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Emotional Purity, and various speakers in the homeschool realm. At the time, it was all still too fresh and too painful. Here’s the story…
When I was fifteen, I began e-mailing a good guy friend of mine who lived in another state. Let’s call him Jason. He and I had many similar interests and ideals, we were both homeschooled, and both of our parents thought that courtship was the way to handle relationships. Jason and I were friends and had been all our lives but there was always a little something special between us and that began to blossom over the next 10 or so months. We e-mailed everyday and we saw each other several times that year during family visits and our friendship grew deeper and deeper. I knew I was in love with him and knew that he likely felt the same way about me―some feelings can be exchanged with looks and words are not necessary. Then, all at once, the day after Christmas, he wrote and told me that he thought we should stop e-mailing. He said it didn’t line up with the Josh Harris books and the Little Bear Wheeler tapes (i.e. Dating is No Game tape set) he’d been listening to and thinking over. We were still technically “friends” and so applying these ideas to a “friendship” didn’t really work or make sense. I was completely confused. I asked him to call me and he did… but only after his mom called my mom and made it clear that the correspondence was over. No discussion, no chance for hope. It was over. Talk about feeling like Mr. Bingley!



Pride and Prejudice, 1995

When I was able to talk to Jason, we stayed on the phone for a really long time and he sounded so sad. He mentioned Emotional Purity and the Little Bear tapes but didn’t really have a coherent argument. Then, it was over. I cried myself to sleep for several nights afterwards and spent the next few months trying to figure out what had gone wrong. At first, I blamed myself. I blamed my parents. But then, I realized who (and what) was to blame. Upon closer examination and from what I know now of Jason and his family, his parents must have decided that I wasn’t right for their son. Or they thought he was “feeling” too much because love is a deadly sin. (*rolls eyes*) So they made him stop e-mailing me…likely by making him confused and guilty about it.

"Do you deny it, Mr. Darcy? That you separated a young couple who loved each other, exposing your friend to the censure of the world for caprice and my sister to its derision for disappointed hopes, and involving them both in misery of the acutest kind?" - Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley), Pride and Prejudice, 2005

As the years went on and Jason and I saw each other again from time to time… he grew more and more distant from me. I don’t even know him now. The person that he has become is not the young man I loved. But that’s another story entirely.

It was after this experience that I realized that the books and formulas weren’t working and didn’t work. In fact, they could even be used as ammunition to ruin friendships or allow parents to manipulate relationships. Even Josh Harris is aware of this possibility and mentioned it in Boy Meets Girl. I wanted to burn my books but ended up putting them in a box in the basement.

“Writers of these type of books need to be blatantly honest...it's okay to "flower-up" a novel but writers shouldn't flower-up real life...and they need to state over and over that this is just one story and that everyone's story will be different. I'm tired of the authors never saying that. Why? Because I'm concerned that young people (or their parents) take these stories and believe that their (or their children's) future will or should look like that...and that belief, I know from experience, can cause a lot of pain. Sometimes, people who are married forget how much singles hang on every word in these books and stories...they need to remember what it felt like to be 14 and impressionable.” - Re: Let it Be = Love3

Something that has bothered me since the whole thing went down is the fact that instead of being concerned that our relationship lined up with the Bible and the words of Jesus, Jason was only concerned about how our relationship related to I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Emotional Purity, and the thoughts of Little Bear Wheeler. When we allow books, speakers, music, or anyone other than Jesus Christ to be our guidance for life, we have strayed from the truth. The next time you want advice, don’t pick up a book or listen to a tape… read the Bible and pray.

The ideals of the courtship movement were indeed to blame for what happened to me and by the summer, I knew I didn’t want anyone else to be as misled as I had been. So I started this blog. Without those ridiculous theories, Jason and I would likely have dated or at least talked about dating instead of dancing around the subject and acting like nothing was happening because it was a “sin” to fall in love at 15. Perhaps he would have broken up with me and then at least I would have known the boundaries and rules I had to follow. As it was, after it broke off, I wasn’t sure if we were still friends or… what? Courtship’s ideals can create a very unnatural strain and lack of openness between young people themselves and in their interaction with their parents. For some reason, in a courtship mindset, parents seem shocked to discover that their teenager actually has romantic feelings for a guy/girl and forget that crushes and young love are common. This stuff is all normal! The shutting off of emotions only causes confusion, guilt, anger, and pain and it’s not right to expect perfection from another human being.

Another thing…don’t be afraid to suffer. I never sought out these trials but I learned to accept them when they came. God will allow you to be tested at some point and He may choose to do it with a relationship. Sure, if I'd followed all the principles of those books I'd be a safe, happy, girl, (well maybe) who has never had her heart broken.

But I wouldn’t have learned anything either.

Now, I'm a strong, content, young woman who had her heart broken and has found that it's been glued back together with no more than a little scar. I'm happy for my sufferings, because God used them to teach me more than any safe times ever could have. I took a risk—got hurt—but ended up with wonderful blessings.

And I'd never trade those wonderful years of friendship with Jason for all the so-called "safety" that emotional purity brings. Love can be painful but it is also fun and beautiful in its time.

Why post this?

I want to help parents not to make the mistake Jason’s parents made and I want to help young people in the same situation. This is my way of saying, you're not alone. God's with you and there are others with similar heartaches or who have had them. You're not the only one.

This word to parents, don't ever take matters of the heart into your hands. Give them to God. Don’t lock your child into a box of perfection. Look for the good in people. Pray and pray some more. This is why I wrote Seeking Perfection. Don't ever put your child or the person of their choice through what Jason and I went through. In most cases, if you've taught your children correctly, they will not disappoint you. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." —Proverbs 22:6. Trust God.

This word to young people, if you love someone…don't be afraid to show it. I'm not talking about infatuation. I'm talking about love and if you're ever in love, you’ll know what I mean. Don't take anything for granted, that's one of the things that God has taught me through this. You've got to live, laugh, and love while you can…because tomorrow everything could be gone forever.

And now, it honestly doesn’t matter. I’ve moved on and I’m interested in another guy. God is bigger than all of these things that have happened to me and He has sustained me through all of them. I’m glad he saw fit to test me and show me that I am to trust in Him alone―not live by self-help books and formulas. It doesn’t matter that Jason and I don’t speak now or that his parents turned him against me. In the light of eternity, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter when people attack me or accuse me of things I didn’t say or do…. Life is too short. I still pray for Jason and his family. I hope that they will find peace and freedom as they walk with Christ.

“I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through Him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:11-13.

Ingrid

The Way of a Man with a Maid

I've been reading this online book, by Robin Phillips.

The Way of a Man with a Maid ~ A Response to the Courtship & Betrothal Movements

http://www.users.waitrose.com/~robinphillips/Way%20of%20a%20Man%20with%20a%20Maid.htm

It's very interesting because I can see parallels in Gothard's teaching with all the Vision Forum stuff and Lindvall's teaching is very similar to that of the Botkin's and also Emotional Purity. Hmmm... I guess this junk has been around for longer than I thought! Maybe Heather Paulson got her ideas and material from several of the authors mentioned in this book? It bears some consideration.

What do you think?

Ingrid

Part Four: Let it Be = Love3

5: Emotional Purity makes a big deal of being absolutely, perfectly, pure for your future mate. While there is nothing wrong with aiming for this, it is absolutely impossible! If you’ve made a mistake somewhere, the book actually makes you feel bad and regretful, even though you’ve moved on. I don’t think that is right. Of all the things that have happened to me, the most painful have been because of contact with others, but I am glad I had them. God uses our fights and frustrations, our disappointments and tears, as a way of getting through to us. Every time I’ve been really hurt, I can look back and see that God wanted to get my attention and sharpen me. As Rosamond goes through the trials of the Wise Woman, so do we go through the trials of the Christian life. The example just given is from George Macdonald’s, little-known story, The Lost Princess; in which the princess is taught by the Wise Woman and undergoes trials to test and sharpen her. The Wise Woman says, before they begin, “‘Rosamond, if you would be a blessed creature instead of a mere wretch, you must submit to be tried’ ‘Is that something terrible?’ asked the princess, turning white. ‘No, my child but it is something very difficult to come well out of. Nobody who has not been tried knows how difficult it is; but whoever has come well out of it—and those who do not overcome never do come out of it—always look back with horror, not on what she has come through, but on the very idea of the possibility of having failed, and being still the same miserable creature as before.’”3 I can truly say that I’m very glad I went through every trial I’ve had—not to have experienced it would have been to stay “the same miserable creature as before.” And the thought of having failed to change is horrifying! Our trials make us stronger, anyone can tell you that. Do you think Scarlett O’Hara regretted any of the things that made her strong? What about Ilsa Lund in Casablanca? Esther? Ruth? Rahab? What about Queen Elizabeth I of England who endured a lonely childhood and rough young-adulthood before ascending to the throne. Obviously, God began molding her at an early age into the wonderful ruler she became. The only way to be physically strong is to train your muscles to work and move as you want them too. Do you think that you will automatically become strong when troubles arise? No, you have to train your mind to work under pressure. You can’t just stand there with quivering lips and faint when problems arise like some of the girls in G.A. Henty books or Miss Elsie Dinsmore. I like several of the Henty books but one should not have a steady diet of the same type of thing. Try some Dickens or Shakespeare for variety. I’m going to digress for a second to bash Elsie Dinsmore: the books are unfit for anyone to read. They are as mushy and sappy as trashy romance novels; Elsie is over-dramatic, brainless, and weak. Why anyone would want her for a role-model is beyond me! I’ve skimmed Elsie’s Girlhood—very sappy and over-dramatic—and two of my girlfriends showed me Elsie’s Kith and Kin; we looked in disgust upon the first page where Elsie and her husband have a kissing session. (At least I think it was Elsie...maybe it was a relative of hers. Anyway, it doesn't matter.) We slapped the book shut, exchanged looks and my friend said, “That’s why we hate the Elsie Dinsmore books.” There are so many works of literature that are better than Elsie Dinsmore; try Betsy-Tacy or The Sarah’s Journey series instead. This brings up a very interesting point; are we trying to make women weak? I don’t want to be a guy, I love being a girl but I’m not just going to be weak and wimpy to make men feel strong. Think of a woman’s mentality during WWII, “I won’t/can’t join the army but I’ll help it along by serving in USO’s or at factories making equipment. If I sit at home nothing will get done and the country will fall apart.” You can maintain your femininity and still be spunky and strong. It’s all in personality and character; there are as many wimpy men as weak women and as many strong women as courageous men. I’ve noticed that several of these Christian instructional books use a very pathetic woman as an example and that is just not right! There was a book written, titled The Heart of the Rose, by Mabel A. McKee, in 1940. (Remember, just because a book is old, does not mean it’s good. It can be written from a biblical world view and still have nothing but fluff printed on the pages.) It has since been reprinted and I purchased this little book at the same time as Emotional Purity and Passion and Purity. On the back cover is a recommendation from Elizabeth Elliott, so I assumed it would be good. The story is a simple one: the brother is heading off to college, he and a pal are saying goodbye to two of their girl friends and then, later, the boy’s older sister instructs him in purity. It is written in the typical “flowery” style of Grace Livingston Hill and other late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century Christian authors. When I first read it, I enjoyed it but something wasn’t right. It took me awhile to figure out what but it is simply this: the girl that the young man likes, “Rose”, is number one, your typical blushing, shrinking, washout, weakling. She can’t seem to make up her mind and allows the young man hold her hand, though she acts like she’d rather not allow him the liberty. Later, the sister talks to her brother, “‘If you had kissed Rose tonight, it would have been easy for you to kiss her again. You haven’t yet, have you?’ He shook his head. ‘I am so glad,’ she continued. ‘It will be so much better for her. If she permits you these familiarities, she will permit others the same ones. She may soon become as reckless as Dorothy, and then we dare not think of the future.’”4 Read that twice please. If this logic is correct, then, I suppose that if you kiss your wife she will allow other men to kiss her as well? What kind of woman is so weak that she can’t keep herself for one man?! The conversation between sister and brother continues on for several pages, this is what the sister says, in response to the boy’s asking why he can’t let Rose know he cares for her. “‘You mean you will crush the petals of your own rose, and then enjoy the heart when it is opened. When you come back you may not even want to see the heart when it is opened; you are just a boy. If you do, there will be times when you will see those crushed petals and be sorry. You may blame yourself, but you will probably blame Rose. You may grow so discontented that you will blame another man. If you know she allowed you these caresses, these little familiarities, you will think she would allow others.’ He spoke with pride, ‘I know Rose.’ ‘We will look at it from her side. After she realizes those petals have been crushed by you she may be afraid of the future. She may be afraid that you have wondered far into the garden and come back to her a worn-out traveler. She may be afraid that you will not appreciate her and that you will not deal rightly with her.’”5 My, my, how far we go in making a point! Rose must be like Elsie Dinsmore—over-sensitive and romantic. In Rilla of Ingleside, Rilla promises her sweetheart Kenneth, that she won’t let anyone else kiss her while he’s gone fighting in World War I. She keeps that promise, though they do not meet again, until four years later, when the war ends. She is never, not once, afraid that Ken won’t appreciate her or not deal rightly with her. The Heart of the Rose’s basic message, once you plough through the melodrama, is to keep yourself pure for one person. That’s a great thing! But I don’t think using the example of an extremely weak girl is very convincing; there are other books that can make a point without resorting to that.

Part three: Let it be = Love3

4: I’ve heard a tape of Heather Paulson speaking at a Homeschool convention; her talk was better than the book. She basically gave practical advice on controlling your thoughts and keeping yourself in check but she made at least one odd statement. That your level of devotion is like a post-it note; if you keep using it, then the “glue” will get worn out and you won’t be as devoted to your mate as you could have been. At first hearing, this seems logical, but think again, and apply it in a life situation. Take a nurse for instance, one that loves her job and wishes to do as well as possible; if she has three patients on her rounds, will they not all receive the same level of care and devotion? How about a mother with six children? Will she not devote herself to all six equally? Or will her level of devotion have gone drastically down by the time the sixth arrives? What about you? Say you have three friends and you like them all equally, but for different reasons. If you go to a hockey game with one, a flower show with the other, and then swimming with the third; will your devotion be gone by the time you get to the third? Sure, I understand that the idea is not to devote yourself romantically to someone that you’re not married too. Why not just say that and leave the brainwashing logic out of it? Brainwashing is basically presenting a load of clap-trap with a few facts and fancy sounding names thrown in; it sounds pretty but won’t hold up in the wash. That’s why I’m very leery about people that write in a flowery, exaggerated way; you must read it over several times to gather any meaning and I always wonder, “What are they trying to hide?” I believe that both young men and women should keep their hearts for their future wife/husband but in a practical sense. You don’t have to agonize over it nor do you have to ignore every member of the opposite sex. A young person should not be made to feel guilty for having a harmless crush on someone else, as long as you don’t act on it and behave yourself, they are perfectly normal between the ages of 9-15. What kind of people read Emotional Purity? There are those like me; that can see what is practical and what is not, but then there are the slightly naïve boys and girls and even adults that take every word as if it were Holy Writ. The young people have no experience in romantic relationships and don’t stop to think before they over-examine their own relationships. This can ruin perfectly normal friendships, between boys and girls, between cousins, and it can strain old ties. “It’s silly, but they live by it. And I lived by it, too, once. ‘Till I saw what a toll it took on the people who I love most.”1 They should not be living by someone else’s personal philosophy! These books are suggestions! The only book to live by is the Bible, no self-help books can ever measure up to God’s word and common sense and instinct. Basically everyone teaching these “rules” has made a mistake somewhere and wants to keep others from making one like theirs. That’s admirable, as long as it makes sense and holds up to biblical standards. Still, be wary and check it out thoroughly before you buy it. If a person can write a book and get someone like Elizabeth Elliott or Doug Phillips to laud it, then they have a sure ticket of making a bunch of money. From people like you and I. That gives you pause doesn’t it? With all the “Christian” self-help/instructional books out there, it makes you wonder how many authors simply write fluff to make money. It’s really not that different from the “Christian” record labels, putting out low-talent young artists just to make a buck. “Just remember the words of P.T. Barnum, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’ ”2 He was and is correct but I’d rather not be the easy target. How about you?

Part Two: Let it be = Love3

2: The book states that when relationships are broken, the people involved tend to build a “wall” around their hearts. What it forgets to mention, is that in any relationship you allow yourself vulnerability and therefore, any relationship can hurt you. From your grandfather dying, to getting in a fight with your girlfriend—there are many things that can wound you or break your heart. The definition of a broken heart is simply this: to cause somebody intense unhappiness or suffering. I have lost friends, been wounded by others, had family members die, and gotten in major fights with those close to me—all of which has caused me intense unhappiness and suffering. I’m not as vulnerable or naïve as I was when I was seven—I’ve naturally become very protective of myself due to the normal up’s and downs of life. Does that mean that my husband will need a “pick-axe”, as the book says, to get close to me?
3: Telling people—women especially—that their supply of “heart glue” (used figuratively in EP as the healing balm for a broken heart) can be used up, is an out and out falsehood! God gives you loads of the stuff and I use it all the time—life isn’t a joy ride you know.

Part One: Let it Be = Love3

Let it Be = Love3
By
Ingrid

Let it Be ~ The Beatles ~ 1970

When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.
(Lennon - McCartney)

(I would put the whole song on but I don't want to infringe on any copyrights; I find that it's best to play it safe. :-) To get the full effect of this song, try to find a Let it Be album and a record player...and listen slowly. )

It’s not a good idea to gather your philosophy from rock music but in this case, the Beatles are right on. Let it Be. Three simple words but they have more meaning than most people have in their lives. One of my closer friends—who also happens to be a huge Beatles fan—once said, “I think people need to let it be a little more often.” This, of course, made both of us laugh but it is true. If people-Christians especially-could let things go, this world would be a wonderful, beautiful place. I’m writing to suggest that we stop fussing about issues that don’t matter in the long run; issues such as courtship, dating, the treatment of women, and emotional purity. I will be presenting some fine points and facts but no one has to “buy” what I say unless they want too. We will also uncover a lot of lies and brainwashing. I will present the facts as best I can but I want to let people make their own decisions; it’s up to them to run their lives.

A book by the name of Emotional Purity came out several years back; I purchased and read it, at about the age of fourteen. My ideals were being shaped at that age, for I also bought at the same time, Passion and Purity by Elizabeth Elliott. And, I had in my possession, I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy meets Girl by Joshua Harris, and The Dating Trap by Martha Rupert. At first read, Emotional Purity seemed to have its philosophy straight and I agreed with much of what it said. Then when I was sixteen, I began to reexamine my foolproof system and the books that had influenced my thinking. No book was safe from my sharp critique and I found many flaws in the teaching they presented; in Emotional Purity especially.
Here is a list of inconsistencies & indoctrination, presented in the book, Emotional Purity by Heather Paulson.
1:The example of the couple at the beginning basically ignores all common sense. The girl meets the boy and she breaks several rules of the female code that all girls are supposed to know.

• Never hug a boy—don’t allow him to touch you at all. Handshakes not hugs are appropriate for someone you’ve just met and are building a friendship with or even someone you’ve known for forever. I have older guy cousins and several very good guy friends, whom I’ve known all my life, and I cannot remember hugging any of them—ever.
• Never let him call you late at night—or any other time—unless you have a real problem, request, or concern. Even then, you keep it short and to the point.
• Never share personal information—keep him guessing. That’s part of the fun of being a girl. Well, if you’re really friends you’ll know what’s okay to share and what’s not—you just have to use the discretion that God gave you.

Part two will show up within a week.