It's Very Complicated - Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned for Part II!

Ingrid

Spring Suede, Suspenders, and Stay at Home Daughters

I was on Pinterest (looking at other people’s “pins”…I do not indulge in my own Pinterest), and I looked at the boards of several young women associated with the patriarchy/stay at home daughters movements. To be honest, I was shocked by some of the categories I found in these Pinterests. Categories like “Fashions for guys” or “when guys dress classy” were filled with pictures of chiseled, handsome male models in vintage clothing. Seriously? Endless files of photos of male celebrities? You’ve got to be kidding me. Come on ladies, what’s up with you? Don’t you have guy friends? What do they think of all these photos? Because I have to say that if I were a guy, I’d feel pretty intimidated by your obvious expectations of male beauty/fashion. Or are you so repressed and unable to talk to guys that you have to scour the internet for photos of handsome guys about whom you can dream? Whatever the reason, these guys are cute and I can see that you probably see more in these photos than just “spring suede” or “unbeatable street style.” How are these sorts of photos any different from pornography? Yes, I know the guys are wearing cute, preppy clothes but you’re still having an emotional reaction when you look at them. In fact, you’re objectifying these guys. How is this okay? These guys are all people with hopes, dreams, and probably a girlfriend/wife of their own. And another thing: How would you like it if your guy friends had Pinterests with photos of female models and celebrities? Wouldn’t that make you feel like you can’t live up to their expectations? Finally, do you even understand the example you’re setting for younger girls and/or your followers? Not only are you Christian young ladies, you’re all supposed to be into courtship and everything attached to that movement. These boards don’t seem to fit into the beliefs that you claim to follow. Pinterests are open to the public and I’m sure I’m not the only one that can see all the photos you pin. Finally, you’re falling victim to one of the top ten internet clichés…as detailed in this video. :-D And yes, I actually wrote this article before Messy Mondays made their video...they just reminded me to post my article.

Ingrid

Source material drawn from:

http://pinterestDOTcom/jasminelb/if-i-could-pick-out-the-clothes-in-his-closet/

http://pinterestDOTcom/MissRaquel316/when-guys-dress-classy/

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.