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

Portrait of a Lady

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

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




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

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

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

(Oh, the lengths people will go to impress that wretched man! There’s something completely wrong about making someone a happy birthday video from a place as serious and private as your baby’s hospital room.) Kelly looks emotionally and physically exhausted and her body must be absolutely depleted. I hope she is receiving a lot of help from family and friends because I don’t know how else she could manage difficult pregnancies and five children under the age of five. Just look at the difference in Kelly between her wedding in 2006, a photo taken in 2009, and a recent photo of the Brown family taken in late 2011.





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

Ingrid

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

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

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

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

I Can See the Light... Can They?

Dear Anna Sofia and Elizabeth,

I'm writing in response to your article "Our Response to Rapunzel" (1) which is in italics below and my questions/comments are in normal typeface :)

Dear Rapunzel,

Thank you for your email. We happen to already be familiar with your story as presented in “Tangled,” and even know a little more about your backstory than you do, and so we do have some thoughts for you.

We will be unusually blunt, because we know you are not a real person with feelings; you are the carefully written, cast, voiced, sketched, sculpted, scanned, painted, rigged, animated, rendered, and composited brainchild of John Lasseter, Glen Keane, and the Disney scriptwriting committee. We’re talking to you, polygons.

First off, when are you not blunt and commanding? It seems to me, by looking at your blog, and So Much More (which I have read) that you really love telling people what they can and cannot do as Christians. You seem to be trying to get back at Disney here, because as far as Tangled is concerned, you seem to think that Disney is attacking your lifestyle. Do you really think Disney knows about you/the stay-at-home daughters movement? Obviously, this lengthy article is a way for you to "get back" at Disney and defend your lifestyle.

And not only were you meticulously handcrafted by others: Your entire universe was built around you, detail by detail, by these same imagineers. Your particular situation, down to Flynn’s serendipitous appearance in your window – your moral dilemmas, down to your conflicts with your mother – the characters you ran into, down to the last pub thug – didn’t just happen, but were deliberated over by a bunch of businessmen for approximately ten years. Everything about your world, including the ethical system by which it operates, came out of somebody’s head.

I find it interesting that you have to use such big words to get your point across… really serendipitous isn’t it? Notice the sentence that is bolded above… yes, you ladies wrote it and first it makes me laugh, because you are assaulting a make-believe character, but then, it makes me sad, because I think you need to take your own advice. Anna Sofia and Elizabeth: Everything about your world, including the ethical system by which it operates, came out of somebody’s (Your father’s and his associate’s) head.

But here you are, in the middle of it, and you need advice. Let’s get down to helping you out! We would like to propose the following course of action for you:

Kill your mother with her own dagger (for poetic justice), run away from the tower once and for all, reunite with Flynn Rider (and propose to him – why not?), rally the thugs to your side, storm the castle together, throw out the authorities that were trying to imprison Flynn (doesn’t that make them the villains?), and establish yourselves as the ruling elite, where your word can be law, now not only for you, but for everyone.

No, of course that’s not the right answer. But why not?

Some might say that since your universe is a fantasy universe, God’s ethical system does not apply. But if His moral standard doesn’t have jurisdiction over this film – if, since this film isn’t a “Christian” film, we shouldn’t require it to line up with the Bible – then who could dare say bumping your mother out of the way would be wrong? Who’s to say any other solution would be morally better? Are we admitting that there is some overarching standard after all?

There is no connotation in the movie to Rapunzel or Flynn killing Mother Gothel. Rapunzel confronts her “mother” to try to find out the truth. Her “mother” is the one that reacts violently by chaining up Rapunzel and making her submit to a lifetime of slavery- yes, that is what it is. The definition of slave is: somebody forced to work for another. Rapunzel will be forced to keep her “mother” young. She is chained up and being dragged to another hiding place as Flynn arrives. Can you imagine what would happen if Rapunzel wouldn’t sing the song to her “mother” anymore? I imagine beatings, pain, injuries, and starvation. That’s right: physical abuse, in addition to the other abuse that she has already experienced.

We’ve got good news for you: You, Rapunzel, imaginary creature though you are, are not ultimately under the lordship of Disney Studios, but of Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5 commands all men to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” – which means every imagination, every script page, and every film frame. Christ demands that every man’s mind and the stuff in it bow the knee, and that would include you. And His moral system – His law – is still the standard by which your moral system must be measured. In other words, stabbing your mother would be wrong, not because it’s not the sort of thing a nice girl with a dream would do, not because it would be politically incorrect, not because it would disturb children – but because it breaks one of His commandments (Ex. 20:13). And that’s why, even though you’re a fairy tale creature, we’re going to respond to you as though you were a real person.

You really don’t like Disney, do you? The way you write, it makes me wonder if you are a little jealous of Disney Studios and their ingenuity? After all, your family does make movies and how successful can documentaries be?

I’m not sure where the whole stabbing your mother thing came from, because if you watch the movie, you will see that Mother Gothel actually stabs Flynn to kill him!

It is not Rapunzel trying to stab anyone- least of all her “mother.” Nor does the movie imply that that Rapunzel is thinking of stabbing her “mother,” but ladies, you have thought that up yourselves to fuel your argument. Therefore, the commandment: Thou shall not murder (Exodus 20:13) does apply to the movie, not to Rapunzel as you imply, but to Mother Gothel. Why do you keep acting like Mother Gothel is good?

What makes advising you tricky is that the brains who crafted your universe and situation never presented you with a good option. The film offered you two choices at the beginning: 1. Rot your useless life away in the tower with the world’s most detestable mother; or, 2. Defy your mother and run away from home with a thief. Your only visible choices now are: 1. Rot your useless life away in the tower with the world’s most detestable mother; or, 2. Follow your feelings, denounce your mother as a kidnapping imposter with no evidence, and leave again. Yes, it does occasionally seem that the only options life presents are bad ones, but in reality, doing right is always an option. Film has the power to create dishonest moral scenarios, forcing its characters to play a version of the lifeboat game (Who will you throw overboard, passenger A or passenger B?) and never offering a third option. And by making your option A look unspeakable, while making your option B look irresistible, “Tangled” draws us in so deeply that by the time your first moral dilemma comes around, we’re rooting for you to do (what we would normally call) the wrong thing.

No good option? What about returning to loving parents who both long for their kidnapped daughter to return home? What about forgive the person that helped rescue you, because obviously he doesn’t desire to be a thief any longer? The quote: 2. Follow your feelings, denounce your mother as a kidnapping imposter with no evidence, and leave again is incorrect. Rapunzel has evidence, just not documented and notarized- memories and a really good a gut instinct. And if she is wrong, why does her “mother” react the way she does? A little violent, don’t you think?

So what is the right (biblical) thing for you to do, now? Here are a few (serious) suggestions:

1. Check the facts regarding your identity.

Feelings, hunches, and childhood drawings are a bad guide (and insufficient evidence), especially in such high-stake situations. There are ways to figure out who you are. We, the audience, of course know that your Mother is actually an evil kidnapper and the villain of your story; but you, the protagonist, currently have about as much reason to suspect this as every girl in the audience does her own parents. 

If you were wrong, and she turns out to have been your biological mother all along:

She does check the facts. She confronts her “mother” about it. Her mother doesn’t deny it, but starts schmoozing Rapunzel and then becomes hostile. (I’ve just re-watched the scene to make sure I’m right, since I have the movie on my iPod) :)


2. Apologize sincerely for disobeying, deceiving, and defying her.

Some protest that you were justified in breaking the 5th commandment because she wasn’t really your mother, but let’s be honest: You didn’t leave because you knew that. You didn’t leave because you knew your mother’s command was biblically unlawful. You didn’t leave because you thought it would be wrong to stay and submit to the unbiblical tyranny of a kidnapping sorceress. You left because there was something you really wanted to do, the authority over you forbade it, and you decided to do what you wanted to do it anyway. You actually believed, and said, that it would be wrong for you to go. In your mind, you were as guilty of rebellion as the girl whose parents forbid her to go to a wild party and who sneaks out to go anyway: You left because you didn’t care.

We’re truly sorry that the filmmakers gave you such a loathsome creature as a mother. But if it’s wrong for her to be a law unto herself, you need to hold yourself to the same standard. “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” (1 Sam. 15:23)

Rapunzel was being held against her will, she is almost 18. She is an adult. How long must she have stayed in the tower to “obey her mother?” What’s a good age Anna Sofia and Elizabeth? You ladies are both in your mid-twenties, quite obviously living at home under your father’s protection, so maybe thirty or even forty years of age is more acceptable to be able to leave the few rooms that you have never left (in your memory)? Is doesn’t seem unrealistic to want to leave the tower, especially when you have never touched grass. By the way ladies, I really would like a response to this question!

Actually, FYI Mother Gothel isn’t her “mother”! So I'm not sure why you keep referring to her as such. Her mother is a very sweet, beautiful, yet sad queen who hasn’t seen her daughter since she was an infant. I like how you picked a verse out of the Old Testament that really is out of context here. The verse in 1^st Samuel is when Samuel is confronting Saul with his sin of disobedience to God’s command on how to fight in a war. Now, I’m not saying that we can’t learn from the stories of the Old Testament and that we should rebel, practice witchcraft, etc…. but Scripture passages can’t be bent to help make a point for our own agenda.

3. Biblically examine the legitimacy of her commands.

Even if she is your biological mother, however, that doesn’t mean you have a duty of unconditional submission to her whims. “The requirement of unquestioning obedience by any human authority is a sin and defiles the very intent of God’s Word,” writes R.J. Rushdoony. “The unquestioning obedience which Scripture requires is only to God, never to kings, rulers, employers, husbands, or parents. To render unquestioning obedience is a sin.”

There comes a time when, in the words of our founders, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!” What you need to ask yourself is: Is your mother forcing you to sin, or is she forbidding you to do something God has commanded? In either case, you must disobey. (By the way, God didn’t command you to go see the floating lights.) And if she is physically abusing you or endangering your life, you have a duty to not be an accomplice to her crimes. You need to get out of there. Thankfully, you are fit and resourceful, as well as handy with your lasso hair, and you’ve gotten out of tougher scrapes. We’ll root for you.

You contradict yourselves here. In #2, you say You didn’t leave because you knew your mother’s command was biblically unlawful. You didn’t leave because you thought it would be wrong to stay and submit to the unbiblical tyranny of a kidnapping sorceress. You left because there was something you really wanted to do, the authority over you forbade it, and you decided to do what you wanted to do it anyway. Now you say in #3 that she does need to question her mother’s decision (so that she doesn’t submit with unquestioning obedience!). What if, since all of this has to be Biblical, it is God’s plan for her to leave her “mother” and see the floating lanterns? You can’t deny that it isn’t. Are the floating lanterns perhaps an allegory for the Light of the World—that is Jesus? The lanterns presence saves her from the abusive tower! She says that she feels that they are "meant for me" (and they are!) Hmmm…

4. Appeal to her regarding her sins against you in the spirit of Matthew 18:15:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” If she refuses to be reasonable, the biblical answer is not to simply walk away from her forever. Verse 16 continues, “But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” Use your resourcefulness to bring in some authorities to handle the situation – and, yes, submit yourself to them. Unaccountable autonomy is an alternative Scripture never offers anyone, man, woman, or child.

Okay, so since she does confront her “mother” and her “mother” doesn’t deny it. How would she go about getting some other people to help her confront her “mother,” especially since her “mother” won’t let her leave the tower? Should she rebel and run away again? Oh wait, she can’t… her “mother” chains her up!

However… If she is not your biological mother, but instead a kidnapper:

2. Employ your resourcefulness to go to the authorities.

God condemned kidnapping as seriously as murder (Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7), and she needs to be brought to justice. This is bigger than you and your feelings; she has sinned against God and your parents as well as you, and right must be done.

Again, how is she supposed to leave and get help when her “mother” chains her up?

However, if justice is really your concern, then…

3….You also need to report the most wanted thief in the kingdom, who has also stolen precious items (the tiara) from your parents.

Flynn has also sinned against God and your parents, and again, this is bigger than you and your feelings. Biblically, he wouldn’t be hung or have his hands cut off, but there are consequences for stealing (Ex. 22:1-4, Lev. 6:1-7, Prov. 6:30,31).

This is not, of course, to assume that Flynn couldn’t repent of stealing. If he did, though, he would certainly go further than saying he’s sorry and never doing it again: He would make restitution to everyone he robbed, as many times over as biblically required. It would be nice if repenting meant not having to suffer the consequences, but God is a God of justice Who requires that things be made right. That He is also a God of mercy means that He does give second chances to those who repent, confess, make things right, go their way, and sin no more… and we can too.

First off, don’t you think that Rapunzel’s parents know that Flynn is a wanted thief? They also would end up hearing the entire story of how Rapunzel initially got out of the tower, so that would include the tiara. You might argue that they could leave out the tiara part- but that wouldn’t happen because they would be bringing the tiara back with them. :) So, in the end, he is turned in. He does repent from stealing- he doesn’t steal anymore, he turns into an accepted and respected member of the community, and most importantly: he is forgiven!

4. Don’t embrace thugs just because they’re nice to you.

This film for young girls contained an interesting message: That everything your mother taught you was wrong. One interesting example was your mother’s caution that the world contained dangerous men. No one would dispute this fact in the real world, but it was a point the film pulled some tricky stunts to prove wrong. At the end of the day, the openly brutal and violent thugs were proven to be harmless to pretty blond girls. The ones shown to be the real villains were parents.

As regards both Flynn and the pub thugs – of course they have souls! But it’s no amazing discovery that the more villainous elements of society also have feelings, dreams, even artistic impulses. Hitler was sensitive and introspective, wrote poetry, loved music and art, collected artifacts, had a dream (a big one), and liked pretty blonde girls. A penchant for collecting ceramic unicorns doesn’t make a criminal innocent. It also doesn’t prove that your mother was wrong about the world – even if she was wrong about how people should respond to it (i.e. hiding in a tower). Unfortunately, neither you nor she figured out what it means to be in the world but not of the world, or the right way to be a light in the darkness.

Ladies, you are being pretty stereotypical here. There are plenty of people who are lost in this world or don’t look clean and fresh with a suit coat on to run to the market. You went from one extreme to the other- there is a middle ground. There are bad men in this world, but there are also men who could seem a little scary or different, but are very nice people who happen to be Christians. My uncle could be considered a little scary to you: He has tattoos, ear piercings, and unkempt curly dark hair. But he is a Christian and would never hurt anyone. Don’t judge a book by its cover ladies!

So Rapunzel’s parents are villains? Mother Gothel is not her real mother and she is the villain of the movie, so your statement The ones shown to be the real villains were parents is incorrect. (And some of the thugs aren’t good- the ones who used to be in cahoots with Flynn aren’t good, nor does Rapunzel trust them.)

Doesn't she look like a villain to you? Yikes!

5. If you are found to be the Lost Princess, step up to the role of royal daughter, and all that that involves.

As the daughter of such obviously wonderful parents, you will obviously not have any excuses for running off to attend events they forbid, or becoming romantically entangled with young men they disapprove of. (If you never had an “authority problem” to begin with, this shouldn’t be a problem for you.) As a princess, however, your new responsibilities go even further than this. As soon as you put on that tiara, you have to stop being the main character of your story and let your subjects take that place. Instead of being slave to a tyrannical mother’s whims, you must now be a slave to duty and the needs of your people. Dancing with the peasants and drawing pictures with them on the sidewalks will not be enough. Whatever your feelings may be, you have to set an example of law-upholding conduct to your people. Whatever your (or others’) dreams may be, you have to impartially uphold justice. Whatever your diplomatic power may be, your word cannot be law.

And Rapunzel, we’re afraid this means that you are going to have to become a different kind of girl.

Sorry, but this made me laugh. Why does she need to change? Surely Rapunzel is embracing her new life as a Princess, Daughter, Friend, Leader, and Example to others. Since she spent the better part of 18 years perfecting her homemaking skills, she definitely has time to devote to serving her kingdom. Maybe she will be more willing to take a few risks and sure she’ll make some mistakes, but we all do. No one is above fault. Plus, since her Father is still the King, she won’t have to lead for a few years at least, so she can continue to grow and mold herself into the woman that she is meant to be. No changes needed.

Your example, unfortunately, can no longer be what it has been throughout the whole movie. You may be one of Disney’s most appealing recent characters, and you may have done some admirable things (such as try to sacrifice your life for Flynn). But your character is nonetheless an extremely dangerous one for girls to relate to.

Why? Because although your situation is so different from ours (our parents generally are our biological parents, and they generally aren’t locking us up in towers), and your universe operates so differently from ours (none of us have magic hair), your struggles, feelings, and questions are just the same. “Tangled” tackles the biggest issues in a young woman’s life: relationships with parents, attitudes toward authority, relationships with young men, the outside world, the use of our time, and our bigger purpose in life. It raises the questions every young woman is asking. Then it gives the exact wrong answers.

It only gives the wrong answers from your serve-your-father lifestyle and upbringing. I wonder what would happen if one day either or both of you announced to your parents (since you are well-over 20 and adults) that you were going to move out of their home, get a job, and maybe even take a few college classes. *gasp*How would your parents react? You are grown adult women- so maybe it was time that you did something on your own without your parents guiding your every step and protecting you from evil like they did when you were a child. (If Proverbs 22:6 is correct, then if your parents taught you well, you won't depart from your beliefs just because you don't live with them any longer or serve your father.)

When a girl sits down to watch your movie, she is about to vicariously live your story with you, feelings, attitudes, romance, temptations and all. She is “you” for the next 90 minutes. And what is she learning along with you? That our parents are wrong about everything. That all will turn out well if we just follow our hearts. That no man is so bad he wouldn’t “turn it all around” just for us. Through you, we tangibly feel the temptation to reject our parents’ instruction, keep secrets from them, and defy them – and then, through you, we give in to temptation. Through you, we feel pangs of guilt, shame, and fear of hurting people we love – and then, through you, we learn to stuff those feelings down and ignore them. Through you, we learn: What I want is more important than what I believe is right.

And at the end of your story, everything turns out beautifully to prove that when you chose to follow your heart rather than your conscience, you made the right moral decision.

Some might still point out that, in order for your story to work out, you had to. True, but next time any of us want to “pull a Rapunzel,” and do something we know is wrong to make things right, let’s remember that our stories are not Disney movies; that our world is not populated with Disney characters; that we are not Disney heroines whose universes revolve around us; and that our Creator has rigged things to work differently. We’ve had to watch girl after girl after girl make the same decisions you did, give in to temptation the way you did, sear her conscience the way you did, and run off with scoundrels like the one you did. Unlike you, they discovered that the real world revolves around a God Who isn’t them, and that He has built into His world rewards for sin that don’t generally include “Happily Ever After.”

If you were a little brainwashed into believing that the outside world was a “dangerous place,” you would be a little torn too. If suddenly you decided to leave a sheltered place, where lies were taught to you, you would be confused as to what to do. That’s part of the emotional abuse in the film. Then, when finding out that there is some good in the world after all, you might just have a mini-breakdown. :)

We admit, we don’t typically write emails to CG models representing imaginary people. The reason we’re writing to you is because for many girls, you’re much more than that. Though you’re just a figment of someone’s imagination, a mere idea – ideas are real. And that’s why “Tangled” matters. After all, girls don’t really love “Tangled” because it’s “just a movie.” The reason we love it isn’t because we just can’t, practically or morally, put ourselves in Rapunzel’s shoes. We don’t love it because it’s a totally un-relatable fantasy that has no connection to our lives. If we love it, it’s because it does strike a chord with our lives. We laugh and cry along with Rapunzel’s joys and woes because we can relate to her. And when we passionately, emotionally tell critics to leave it alone because “It’s just a movie!” we are proving that down inside our hearts, it’s much more than that.

Maybe you ladies are feeling a little torn? I feel sorry for you! I personally love this movie- for it’s elements, style, dialogue, and story; but I don’t feel emotionally drawn to it. It doesn’t make me feel like running away or disobeying, I’ve asked my friends too and none of them feel this way. But maybe it makes you feel a little confused? Are you or your friends feeling convicted and that’s why you seem so angry and on-fire about this movie? I’m praying for you both: praying that you can enjoy freedom in Christ. That you can live freely—able to not always focus on the negative, realize that you are the ones persecuting yourselves, that you can become free of the snares that entangle you (see verse below), and most importantly that you can feel the peace of Jesus without the weight of your pressured father-made rules. Hebrews 12:1-2 says “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Galatians 5:1“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”

You don’t have to be weighted down by the constant pressure to submit to your earthly sinful father and his will for you. Instead submit to your perfect Heavenly Father and live a life free from the burden of guilt and pursuing perfection. I recommend that you read Philippians 2—and memorize, think, ponder, pray, and look for God’s will in your life—not your father’s will. You know, Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” So nothing that you do for your personal or for your father’s glory is going to get you into Heaven. Only Jesus Christ’s death for you on the cross for your sins and your belief in Him is going to save you- by His grace and your faith.

You may be just an idea, an imagination, a thought – but thoughts (not people) are exactly what we’re commanded to take captive (2 Cor. 10:5). “Arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” are exactly what we are supposed to destroy (v. 5). Strongholds are exactly what we are supposed to tear down (v. 4).

Rapunzel, Rapunzel, we’re not condemning you.

We’re just trying to take you captive.

Oh dear… that is kind of scary! Thankfully you can’t take Rapunzel captive, Mother Gothel is gone and so are the ties to the abuse that she perpetrated. Anna Sofia and Elizabeth- I am not condemning you. I just want you both to experience the grace and love of Jesus Christ and the freedom that He has waiting for you!

Love,
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth

*hugs*

Love, Grace

~~~~~

1. http://visionarydaughtersDOTcom/2012/04/our-response-to-rapunzel

Note: I did send this letter to the Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin last week. I have yet to receive an answer to my questions.