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.

Titanic Week

I don't usually write informal, observational posts... but in this case, I think I will.

If you've been following Doug's blog in the last week to two weeks, there's been a lot of Titanic posts. (In fact, I think that's the only thing he's posted about for awhile.)

Yet, can anyone think of what else happened last week?

I'll give you a hint... what happened on Sunday?

That's right, last week was Holy Week and Sunday was Easter.

Usually, in Christian circles, especially reformed conservative circles, there is a certain reverence for Holy Week and the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. We go to church on Good Friday and remember what Jesus did for us and then on Easter Sunday we celebrate Jesus' resurrection. It's one of my most favorite times of the year.

Now, what did Doug Phillips post about on Easter Sunday?

The Titanic and how much food was loaded onto a ship back in 1912... and nothing else.

And Good Friday?

Well, it was important to Phillips to post a New York Times article about how obsessed our culture is with the Titanic.... and zip, nill, non.

In fact, in all of Holy Week and Easter season, Jesus is completely missing from Doug Phillips' blog. Instead, we're treated to a slew of posts about the Titanic.

Seriously, couldn't Phillips have thrown a random "Happy Easter!" onto his Sunday post? And couldn't Jesus get a even passing reference during Holy Week? Though He deserves much more than a passing reference! It's the special week of the year where it's supposed to be all about Jesus Christ. If I blogged everyday (and I don't), I can tell you I'd be posting verses about Holy Week and Easter Sunday. When the Titanic (or anything else) eclipses Easter, you've got a serious problem. Does Jesus' death and resurrection not even cross Phillips' mind? Is Phillips so naïve that he thinks we won't notice if he waxes poetic about the stupid Titanic and leaves Jesus out of the picture? Because it really looks like he doesn't care at all.

Ingrid

The Economics of Literalism

"Maybe Doug Phillips will suddenly advocate following the mixed fiber law and then sell special non-mixed fiber costumes? It could happen."
Before posting my last article, I pulled out an entire sub-article that deserves its own post. You see, it’s this idea of economic literalism. Throughout the Bible and Jesus’ ministry, God comes down pretty hard on the wealthy. For example,

Psalm 49:16-17
“Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them.”

Proverbs 11:28
“Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.”

Matthew 19: 16-24.
“Just then, a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Luke 12:13-21
“Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Luke 16: 10-12.
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

1 Timothy 6:16-18
“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”

James 1: 9-11
“Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business.”
1 Tim 6:10a
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. My family isn’t destitute and I have everything I want; I certainly have not yet achieved the selling of my possessions for the Kingdom of Heaven. Almost all Americans are rich, even those in poverty. We don’t live in huts as people do in Zambia or have to drink contaminated water as they do in many other parts of the world. We are all wealthy and we must be good stewards of that wealth. One of the ways we are good stewards is not flaunting our wealth. Doug Phillips and many of the leaders of the Patriarchy movement seem to have missed this memo. After all, if Jesus told us to sell our possessions and give to the poor, does that include Doug Phillips’ $7000 Leica M9 camera (with 1K-4K lenses) or the family collection of $500-$600ea. Saddleback Leather bags?

If Doug Phillips can afford expensive items and trips into the Amazon, he’s certainly very wealthy. Where is this money coming from and where is it going? There’s a sickening amount of product placement on his blog and the blogs of many other leaders. Do we really need to know that Doug Phillips has a Macbook?

How much did those gorgeous Reformation 500 costumes of the Botkin’s cost?


Almost all of the leaders have huge homes, complete with potted palms, huge kitchens, and lots of expensive things. Unless you're Peter Bradrick bragging about the resourcefulness of heating water on the stove. It makes me ill thinking of how one of his little children could have been burned while they were hauling boiling water around their "unheated farmhouse". Amazing that the founder of a network of safety "experts" (*groan*) can't provide his family with a hot water heater. Anyway, the followers of patriarchy, usually have far less. About ten years ago, a poor friend of mine, now deeply involved with Vision Forum, visited the San Antonio headquarters. Doug Phillips was super nice to him and gave him things to bring back to his family―but even at eleven, I was not impressed. Why? The items were all “seconds” that no one else would have wanted―I have a particularly strong remembrance of a lazy-eyed Liberty doll. The Phillips family is apparently very wealthy―yet, they’re not generous enough to give a poor man nice toys for his children? That’s like giving dented cans of spoiled food to a food pantry or old, broken toys to the children’s Christmas fund. It’s wrong. It’s always been wrong and always will be. What really bothers me is the hordes of patriarchy followers who want to emulate these leaders and spend thousands of dollars on things they don’t need. And the conferences and events… they’re so horribly expensive! Why does it cost $149 ($99 for under 18) to attend the Titanic dinner? That doesn’t even include lodging! The Father-Daughter retreat costs $405 per father plus $205 for each daughter. (That does include lodging.) I can’t even imagine how much the European or Amazon trips cost! An individual registration for the NCFIC Sound Doctrine conference is $299, plus any travel/lodging costs and the family registration for their White Unto the Harvest conference is $399. Why do these events cost so much? For that matter, who would actually pay this much, plus travel and lodging, for a conference? Vision Forum still sells expensive things like a harp ($375) and various $200-$300 book sets. Plus, very little of the audio/video for any of the NCFIC or Vision Forum stuff is free; if you miss a conference or event, you still have to pay between $50-$100 for the audio. Honestly, how can the average homeschool family afford any of this? I wish it wasn’t like this… because it’s really sad. People don’t need to spend their money on all the things the Patriarchy movement has to offer. They just need Jesus. The gospel Vision Forum presents is akin to the Prosperity Gospel of modern, secular Christianity. As Rich Mullins said, “Jesus said whatever you do to the least of these my brothers you’ve done it to me. And this is what I’ve come to think. That if I want to identify fully with Jesus Christ, who I claim to be my Savior and Lord, the best way that I can do that is to identify with the poor. This I know will go against the teachings of all the popular evangelical preachers. But they’re just wrong. They’re not bad, they’re just wrong. Christianity is not about building an absolutely secure little niche in the world where you can live with your perfect little wife and your perfect little children in a beautiful little house where you have no gays or minority groups anywhere near you. Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken.” How is the patriarchy crowd doing at loving the broken? How are they doing at giving to those in need? And I mean the ones right here in the U.S., not the children of Haiti, where Doug Phillips can swoop in to save the day and pose with orphans to build up his image. (There’s absolutely nothing wrong with ministering to Haiti or those around the world… but that stint of Phillips’ reeked of exploitation for publicity purposes. Remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 6: 1-4: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly, I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.) The patriarchy crowd, especially its leaders, need to clean up their act. I’m not the first to say this and I doubt I will be the last. I pray that they will learn someday… before it’s too late.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.” 2 Corinthians 8:9.

Ingrid

All Commandments Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others

“All Animals are Equal but Some Animals are More Equal than Others.” – A very famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Certain parts of the patriarchy movement are very interesting to me and by turns, quite hilarious. You see, I just finished A Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs. It’s basically Jacobs’ journal as he spent one year trying to follow every single rule in the Bible. It’s a thought-provoking read and I really enjoyed the insights into fundamentalism that Jacobs took away from his project. One of the biggest insights: even fundamentalists pick and choose which rules to follow from the Bible. Different groups get hung up on different rules, found in both the Old and New Testaments, and then they expect everyone to follow them. Fundamentalists also take the Bible literally in some places and figuratively in others―this seemingly hinges on how well a verse fits into their preconceived theory. I find it amusing (and sad) that patriarchy people are so hung up on the Numbers 30 vow passage that they believe binds daughters to serve their fathers until marriage. (Of course, I’ve never heard of a Jewish scholar ever coming up with that interpretation of Numbers 30 but who’s keeping track?) Yet, they don’t make their daughters or wives follow the monthly female impurity laws. As Jacobs points out, no one individual law in the Torah is specified to be more important than any of the others. (Except maybe the Ten Commandments… but still, they’re all given equal weight.) Isn’t the monthly impurity law as important as the (pseudo) command to stay at home and not go to college? For that matter, why do patriarchy followers wear clothes with mixed fibers? Or cut the hair on the sides of their heads? Do they always stand in the presence of the elderly? (Lev 19) If a man isn’t supposed to wear women’s clothing, (Deut 22) why can men in the patriarchy movement wear kilts? They are *cough* skirts *cough* and are worn by women as well as men. Of course, the women of the movement are (generally) not allowed to wear pants... hypocritical much? Moving to the New Testament, why doesn’t the patriarchy crowd steal the Shakers thunder and encourage celibacy instead of all these courtship ideas? After all, Jesus and Paul encourage believers not to marry (Matthew 19, 1 Cor 7) and courtship isn’t even in the Bible! It seems that the men leading the patriarchy movement have carefully chosen which rules they want to follow and ignored others that don’t fit into their theory. Who knows? Maybe Doug Phillips will suddenly advocate following the mixed fiber law and then sell special non-mixed fiber costumes? It could happen. :-D
Seriously, taking the Bible too literally is dangerous. In doing so, one misses the spirit of the whole. As A.J Jacobs wrote, “Here’s the amazing thing: those who overliteralize the words of God are mocked in the Bible itself,” (290). Jacobs then discusses Nicodemus’ literal understanding of Jesus’ telling him to be born again. “Nicodemus is like a sitcom dunderhead here…. He can’t see that Jesus’ words were figurative and poetic,” (291). Far too often, we focus on the wrong part of scripture. We take verses out of context, overliteralize them, or simply fail to grasp the true meaning in and behind the words. I think we all have a little bit of fundamentalism inside us and we have to fight it. Instead of just forgiving and letting go, we keep track of the 490 times we have to forgive. We lash out at our neighbors in “righteous judgment” instead of turning the other cheek. When the time does come to judge, our leaders especially, we are too scared or in awe of man to stand up for truth. We tell women and minorities to be silent and forget that Jesus talked to and loves the poor, the outcast, the hated, and the sinner. We fight about whether or not women should wear head coverings instead of caring about what’s going on in their hearts. In the 1850’s, we preached that slavery was biblical from the pulpit but ignored the fact that it just wasn’t right. We buy what we want instead of what we need in order to give away the difference. We truly do not know what we have done. Within the patriarchy movement, it all goes back to the same idea of picking and choosing which rules to follow from the Bible. In the patriarchy movement especially, some commandments are more equal than others―particularly the ones limiting women and children. By doing this, those in the movement are totally missing the spirit of the Gospel. You cannot approach the Bible with your own system and pull out verses that support your theory while ignoring contradictory passages and the spirit of the whole. However, that’s exactly what the patriarchy movement does. It’s a top-down, male dominated system and I find it amazing that free, redeemed people would want to shackle themselves to such a movement.

Ingrid

Locked in a Tower

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

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

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

Ingrid

My Dad's Goals for Me

Written when I was eleven for me and my sister:

1. That she will grow up to be healthy and happy.
2. That she will grow up to live the life of a true Christian.
3. That she will grow up to make the world a better place to live by making decisions that make a positive difference in people’s lives.
4. That she will work hard for the causes she believes in.
5. That she will treat others the way she would like to be treated, with dignity and respect, and be accountable for decisions that she makes.

Still trying to live up to them. :-)

Ingrid

Just Kiss Her Already

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

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

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

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

~~Grace

Falling off Again

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

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

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

Ingrid

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

A Psychological Paradox

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

Ingrid

A Desire to Control

It is difficult for me to read about women in the Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity movement. Aside from the not being allowed to vote, go to college, or get a job; there’s also the fact that some of the women have a baby nearly every year. It might seem strange to be writing this article when I’m not married but believe me; I have a good grasp of anatomy and have done my research. (I’ve also posted links at the bottom to other resources.) One young Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity mother has given birth to four children in four and a half years, at risk to her health due to requiring an emergency c-section for baby #3 and a life flight trip to the hospital for a D&C after baby #4. Quite frankly, this is not normal or natural! Don’t get me wrong, I love children and I want to have as many as God wants to give me…. (The Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity crowd has an annoying way of taking something good and making it an ugly, idolatrous route to "perfection".) However, when the time comes, I want to have children naturally. “Wait, stop!” You say, “Quiverfull is natural! They’re not using birth control!! It is God’s design!” Uh, no, it is not God’s design for a woman to give birth every year or to be pregnant again within 6 months of her last pregnancy. Women’s bodies are simply not designed to have children this quickly. When I see that a woman has four children in four years, I don’t see God’s design for family; I see a desire to control. It is known that many Quiverfull proponents are not exactly proponents of attachment parenting. I highly doubt that many Quiverfull women co-sleep, exercise, eat correctly, or do anything to maintain a healthy body. I also doubt that they continue to nurse for an extended period of time. It saddens me to write this but most of the women in the movement look as if they never lose their baby weight―a fairly telling sign that they aren’t nursing correctly. My guess is that early weaning and blanket training is the norm for most Quiverfull mothers. In fact, an old friend of my mother’s is a proponent of attachment parenting and is in with the Vision Forum crowd; she was very sad to find that many women in the Vision Forum crowd are fairly hands-off with their babies. Purposely weaning your child, making them sleep in a crib, and blanket training them is a way of controlling how many children you have. It is birth control… in reverse. It’s not in line with biblical custom either if you want to think along the lines of their culture. Hebrew children were not weaned until they were at least two; most commentaries on the first book of Samuel agree that Samuel was at least three by the time Hannah brought him to Eli. Again, women’s bodies are not designed to give birth every year; it is unhealthy and risky for both mother and child. God is good and He knows that having a child every year is not good for a woman’s body or for the wellbeing of her other children. He has designed a healthy, simple way of controlling fertility. “How food-foraging peoples regulate population size relates to two things: how much body fat they accumulate and how they care for their children. Ovulation requires a certain minimum of body fat, and in traditional foraging societies, this is not achieved until early adulthood. Once a child is born, its mother nurses it several times each hour, even at night, and this continues for a period of four or five years. The constant stimulation of the mother’s nipple suppresses the level of hormones that promote ovulation, making conception less likely, especially if work keeps the mother physically active, and she does not have a large store of body fat to draw on for energy. Continuing to nurse for several years, women give birth only at widely spaced intervals.” (1) When a woman breastfeeds on demand, her fertility declines. If she carries her baby with her in a sling, sleeps beside her baby and nurses him or her at night, doesn’t use a pacifier, or even continues to nurse a toddler or young child, her fertility will decline sharply. (2) “It has long been observed in cultures where breastfeeding is common that nursing a child has a prophylactic affect against conceiving. In fact, this phenomenon has been so consistent and observable that it has been named: lactational amenorrhea, the absence or suppression of a woman's menses (or menstrual flow) due to breastfeeding…. Studies show that this method provides more than 98% protection against pregnancy during the first six months after birth. Many women find that breastfeeding is effective as a prophylactic against getting pregnant well beyond this six month period. Sound incredible? There is actually a perfectly logical, or, more to the point, physiological explanation for this phenomenon. Here's how it works. As a baby nurses at its mother's breast, the sucking action stimulates nerve endings in the areola, which send messages to the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that controls metabolism. This in turn signals the pituitary gland to release two hormones (oxytocin and prolactin) which work together to produce and release the mother's milk. However, in addition to contributing to milk production, prolactin has another effect: high levels of prolactin in a woman's body helps to suppress ovulation.” (3) We in the U.S. are pretty culture bound (4) when it comes to babies, as this quote from the Anthropology textbook will tell you: “As a case in point, consider the fact that infants in the United States typically sleep apart from their parents. To most North Americans, this may seem normal, but cross-cultural research shows that co-sleeping, of mother and baby in particular, is the rule. Only in the past 200 years, generally in Western industrial societies, has it been considered proper for parents to sleep apart from their infants…. Recent studies have shown that separation of mother and infant in Western societies has important biological and cultural consequences. For one thing, it increases the length of the child’s crying bouts. Some mother’s incorrectly interpret the cause as a deficiency in breast milk and switch to less healthy bottle formulas; and in extreme cases, the crying may provoke physical abuse. But the benefits of co-sleeping go beyond significant reduction in crying: infants also nurse more often and three times as long per feeding; they receive more stimulation (important for brain development); and they are apparently less susceptible to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or “crib death”). There are benefits to the mother as well: frequent nursing prevents early ovulation after childbirth, and she gets at least as much sleep as mothers who sleep without their infants.” (5) And this is in a secular textbook!! :-D Perhaps one truly unfortunate aspect of young women not going to college is the fact that they are less likely to be exposed to sociology and psychology classes which contain a lot of useful information about marriage and family. I never thought I would learn so much about childrearing as I have in my Psychology and Sociology survey classes. Did you know that people of other cultures consider cribs to be “cages”? One missionary to New Guinea who visited my church explained that the people there wanted to know why she put her baby in a “cage”. Take a moment to study all the other cultures that practice co-sleeping including Korea, China, and Thailand, and allow your eyes to be opened to how the rest of the world functions. And for the “you’ll roll on your child!” crowd, here’s information on sleep cycles from a psychology textbook, “Even when you are deeply asleep, your brain somehow processes the meaning of certain stimuli. You move around on your bed, but you manage not to fall out of it. If you sleep with your babies, you will not roll over and suffocate them (assuming you are not intoxicated). The occasional roar of passing vehicles may leave deep sleep undisturbed, but the cry from a baby’s nursery quickly interrupts it. So does the sound of your name―a stimulus our selective attention responds is ever alert for. EEG recordings confirm that the brain’s auditory cortex responds to sound stimuli even during sleep.” (6) Yes, I am a proponent of the family bed. (Read some articles by Dr. Sears and you will be as well.) I believe that babies and children are entitled to as much love and cuddling as they want and I believe they should be allowed to nurse as long as they want to nurse. I believe that blanket training and letting a child “cry it out” is neglectful and even abusive. Now, I know not all Quiverfull proponents wean early or blanket train but I ask you, can you name one? My Mom’s friend in the Quiverfull/Vision Forum crowd who was a proponent of attachment parenting did not speak up! She was and still is too intimidated to say anything! If there are those who understand natural child spacing or attachment parenting in the Quiverful/Militant Fecundity movement, they need to speak up! Can you imagine how wonderful it would be for mothers and babies across this country if Michelle Dugger was a proponent of attachment parenting? A perfectly good opportunity lost! Militant Fecundity (I hate that term!) really is a good name for this type of child raising/training because it is much more akin to a military campaign than normal living. It is also just as toxic as a war zone to mother, child, and family. Quiverfull and Militant Fecundity are NOT pro-family nor are they Biblical; those who believe that these movements are beneficial are sorely mistaken.

Ingrid

Addendum

November 5, 2014,

I’ve gotten so many comments on this post that I feel a few explanations are necessary. So, I’m taking a minute here to address a few things that have confused several readers…

1: I’m not advocating NFP here. I’m explaining how patriarchy claims to be “natural” and “God’s design” but really is not at all. I truly believe that God designed women’s bodies to self-regulate and space out pregnancies. However, we live in a fallen world and sometimes things just don’t work how God planned due to genetics, disease, and etc. So, while NFP can be a good option, I don’t think it’s for everyone. 

2: I think some forms of birth control are a perfectly fine option and plan to use some sort of control when I get married. The reason? I don’t want to spend 10-15 years of my life able to become pregnant at any point. There are many personal reasons for this but one of them is simply practical: I have seasonal allergies and I take medications for them. I get migraines sometimes and take ibuprofen. I wouldn’t want to worry about unknowingly becoming pregnant and having medications affect the baby. Because I care about stuff like that and I think it matters.

3: Let me make something clear. In this article, I’m taking about parents within the patriarchy movement… not parents in general. There’s a big difference. I don’t care if you have one child or ten or how closely spaced they might or might not be–unless you’re having all of them because some system made up by random people told you that you should. You should have children because you want to have them and love having them–not because some guy somewhere decreed that you needed to have kids. But please, space your kids out as much as possible, for your own sanity, there’s usually no need to have them all at once. ;)

4. Seriously, I don’t care about your baby weight. Like really. Please stop telling me about your baby weight. Life happens. I believe in being healthy and keeping a healthy weight, even during pregnancy. I do firmly believe that pregnancy is not an excuse to eat whatever and whenever you want. That is a recipe for disaster. It’s actually one of the times when you should be most health conscious. And any doctor you ask will back me up on that. Just please, I beg you, no more comments about your baby weight. That gets awkward for me and for you and it just ends badly. So please no more. :D 

Works Cited

1. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

2. Now please, don’t start giving me the, “Well my sister/friend/cousin tried the nursing thing to limit her fertility and it didn’t work. She ended up with another baby 11 months later!” I’ve heard that many times before and all I want to say is: “But did she co-sleep? Did she use a pacifier instead of nursing? What about slings?” All of the mothers I know who nursed on demand, co-slept with their babies, didn’t use pacifiers, nursed more than one child, and etc. had child spacing of 2-3 years. It is always possible that one spacing might be closer than another just as another could be longer.

3. Overton, Larry G. Breastfeeding and the Bible.
4. Culture Bound - “Theories about the world and reality based on the assumptions and values of one’s own culture.” As defined in Cultural Anthropology.

5. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

6. Myers, David G. Exploring Psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2005. Print. Page 210.

Resources

1. Family friend with 10 children (who is not Quiverfull influenced!) Proponent of the family bed and natural child spacing via extended breastfeeding. http://www.themotherscompanion dot org/index.php

2. I <3 Dr. Sears! http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/sleep-problems/co-sleeping-yes-no-sometimes

3. Has a great article right now about not letting your baby cry it out and co-sleeping. http://parentingfreedom.com/

The Story

Pride and Prejudice, 2005

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

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

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



Pride and Prejudice, 1995

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I wouldn’t have learned anything either.

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

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

Why post this?

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

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

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

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

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

Ingrid

Interesting...

I found Katie Botkin's blog awhile ago; it is an interesting read. She's Anna Sofia and Elizabeth's cousin and doesn't agree with their outlook on college or daughter hood. (Katie has a master's degree and taught at the University of Idaho for a time...definitely not actions condoned by the Botkin sisters.) The blog is a bittersweet read... I can only imagine how I would feel if my cousins were in such a legalistic lifestyle.

Here's Katie's post about her cousins:
http://missthewind.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-daughters-college-and-nouveau.html

And about women and the church:
http://missthewind.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-which-i-react-to-20-years-of.html

Ingrid

Some Numbers For your Edification

Currently on Facebook

8,638 people like Vision Forum.

There are over 1.5 million homeschoolers in this country.

Even with another 1000 or so not on Facebook, not even 10% of the homeschool population likes Vision Forum.

*normal people rejoice now*

Isn’t that the most encouraging thing you’ve heard in a long time? :-)

Random note: Most of the recent questions and posts on the VF Facebook wall are written by women. I thought men were supposed to be leading this? Hmmmm…. *weird*

Also, on Facebook,

The Visionary Daughters – So Much More group has only 232 members.

The two So Much More pages only have 32 likes between them.

The National Center for Family Integrated Churches is only liked by 1,477 people.

I think this shows what I’ve been thinking for a long time, to quote George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, “You sit around here and spin your little web and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things I'd say you're nothing but a scurvy little spider." Amen.

:-D

Ingrid

Anne the Queen

http://visionarydaughters.com/2009/07/resurrecting-two-great-queens

This article by Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin is from 2009 and I remember seeing it then and thinking I should respond to it…. Then I forgot about it. However, I found it again recently and decided that I should correct the errors found in it. I am often annoyed with how badly history is portrayed, researched, and documented in patriarchal circles. See: Of Daughters of Destiny and Watered Down History My favourite history professor would either laugh or cry if I gave her the Botkin’s article. I’m a student of history and Tudor England my favourite area of concentration. I’m aghast at the lack of historical knowledge and research shown by the Botkin sisters in their discussion of Anne Boleyn. (And of course, there’s the all too common dig about Disney…. :-( *sigh* Oh well) Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about Jeanne D’Albret, to comment on the treatment of her and I don’t have time yet to dig deeper. Maybe this summer.... By the way, don't just take my word for all this stuff on Anne Boleyn...look her up in several different biographies and see what you think. :-)

First, the Botkin girls' article quotes no sources, except John Foxe (and who knows what book of his they are referring to because they don’t say), and this seriously wounds its credibility. Any historical article must have sources! If you don’t cite your sources, it is considered plagiarism. Secondly, the facts are just plain stretched or missing.

“During her years of education in France, through exposure to men such as Jacques LeFevre and Guillaume Farel, Anne’s love for the pure gospel was fanned into flame, and she returned to England an ardent reformer during a time when England was violently persecuting its Protestants.”

Even the year of Anne Boleyn’s birth is still a matter of debate among historians and we don’t know when Anne went to France (and/or the Netherlands) or when she returned to England. One of my best sources: The Life of Anne Boleyn by Phillip W. Sergeant devotes almost a whole chapter to discussing the different ideas and dates assigned to Anne’s time in France. We only know that she was there at some point in her childhood. It would have been hard to return and be an ardent reformer if she was only 12 or 13! And historians aren’t even sure where in France Anne was or what she did while there and it is pure fancy to say that she was exposed to reformers because we simply do not know.

“Upon being crowned queen, Anne used her position to promote and defend reformers such as William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Matthew Parker, and Miles Coverdale, to encourage the translation and dissemination of Scripture into English, and to make England a refuge for persecuted Protestants from around Europe. The martyrologist John Foxe called Anne “a special comforter and aider of all the professors of Christ’s gospel… What a zealous defender she was of Christ’s gospel all the world doth know, and her acts do and will declare to the world’s end.”

Ehh… sorry… we don’t know if she did that either. While she did authorize an English translation of the Bible before she fell from favour1 and gave to the poor, we don’t really know very much beyond these few facts. Anne was a protestant and could have been saved by grace through faith. I like to think that she was but we honestly don’t know. Almost none of her writings exist anymore. John Foxe describes her as a martyr but that’s really best left to one’s own conclusions. Most historians agree that Anne died because her husband wanted to marry someone else―not directly due to her faith.

“Brought down by a conspiracy of her papist enemies, who called her “the principle cause of the spread of Lutheranism in this country,” Anne was beheaded on false charges of adultery, incest, witchcraft, and “high treason against the King’s person.”

Again, no sources are cited, even for direct quotes. (I looked up the first quote and it is credited to the Spanish Ambassador who obviously hated Anne for supplanting the Spanish Catherine of Aragon.) Again, Anne was arrested because her husband wanted to marry someone else and decided to fabricate charges of adultery. I’m not sure what papist enemies they are speaking of, for sure Anne did have enemies, but evidence is scarce in showing that they were solely responsible for her death. Henry VIII was said to be “the most dangerous and cruel man in the world”2 and Anne’s death was entirely his doing.

“- From the last letter Anne wrote to her husband Henry VIII, while imprisoned in the Tower. This letter was recently found among the personal papers of Thomas Cromwell, likely to have never reached Henry.”

This letter, quoted in the article, is regarded by many historians to be a fraud. And it wasn’t found recently either; Sergeant knew of it when he wrote Anne’s biography in 1924 and he says in a postscript, “It may be noted that I have made no reference, in the account of Anne Boleyn’s last days, to her alleged letter to Henry VIII from the Tower. All evidence for its authenticity is lacking, neither the handwriting nor the style being Anne’s.”3

Anne Boleyn is a fascinating figure in history but her record is not as pure as Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin would like to make it. Yes, Anne was a reformer but she did not accomplish much on her own. God did use her in extraordinary ways but I’m not so sure she sought these opportunities out. Yes, Henry VIII broke with Rome to marry her and then he tolerated protestant views but he never truly embraced them. Anne mistreated Mary, her stepdaughter, and caused the annulment between Henry and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Also, Anne was likely sleeping with Henry before they were married because Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth I) was born only six months after their wedding. Also, this article mentions nothing of Anne’s scheming father who used his daughters to climb the social ladder. Even Anne’s own headstrong personality and defiant voice have been silenced. In any case, Anne Boleyn is not someone I would expect the Botkin girls to like very much. Maybe it’s good that they can see past her faults but I wish they wouldn’t try so hard to make her good. The Botkin girls greatly stretched the truth in this article and completely made Anne Boleyn into a martyr of the reformation. It’s a great example of hagiography or “treating its subject with undue reverence.”4 It would be nice to see more historical method in this work and a quest for accuracy and balanced portrayals of historic figures. I can only hope the Botkin’s other historical endeavours are accurate but somehow I doubt that they are. :-/ (That’s kind of scary when you think that they sell history CD's and etc.) I know from experience… I can catch myself trying to make historical figures “good” and it's a silly thing to do. When you start twisting history to suit your own ideas, it can be difficult to stop.

Ingrid

Works Cited
1. Sergeant, Phillip W. The Life of Anne Boleyn. Hutchinson & Co., London. 1924. Print. Page 262.
2. Weir, Allison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII Grove Press, 1991. Print. Page 283
3. Sergeant. Page 309.
4. Encarta English Dictionary.