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.

Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth

And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son our Lord

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit

Born of the virgin Mary

Suffered under Pontius Pilate

He was crucified and dead and buried

And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am

I did not make it no it is making me

It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man

I believe that He who suffered was crucified buried and dead

He descended into hell and on the third day rose again

He ascended into Heaven where He sits at God's mighty right hand

I believe that He's returning To judge the quick and the dead of the sons of men

And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am

I did not make it no it is making me

It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man

I believe it

I believe it

I believe it

I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth

And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son our Lord

I believe in the Holy Spirit One Holy Church

The communion of Saints

The forgiveness of sin

I believe in the resurrection

I believe in a life that never ends

And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am

I did not make it no it is making me I did not make it no it is making me

I said I did not make it no it is making me

It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man

I believe it I believe

I believe it I believe it

I believe it I believe it

Rich Mullins

Cease and Desist

To whoever left several hateful, confusing comments on older posts in the last 24 hours: this behavior constitutes harassment and Cyberstalking.

“Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.” Wikipedia.

Don’t have time to deal with bizarre behavior now, leaving on vacation.

Ingrid

Losing Your Life

Maybe I’m idealistic but I keep hoping that the Botkin girls will eventually realise that their way of life is dysfunctional. So occasionally, I read their blog. Unfortunately, it never fails to sadden me and the article written by Anna Sophia and Elizabeth on marriage has to be one of the saddest and most disappointing articles I’ve ever read. Why Am I not Married? In this article and the defence of it, Is it my fault that I'm not married? the Botkin girls seem to suggest that marriage is in the future of every girl when it may not be at all! Lifelong singleness is given only a passing reference before it is suggested that marriage is the chief end and goal of life. Instead of pointing young women to Jesus as the fulfilment of every hope and the answer to every need, the Botkin girls suggest that 1: the problem lies with the young women and 2: still seem to suggest that marriage is the ultimate glory of life.* It is not. Marriage is very important but it may not be God’s plan for your life at all. “The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:10-12. I wrestled with that verse a few years ago because I couldn’t understand why some people could be bound to a life of singleness. It seemed cruel of God to doom some to being single...or so I thought. Mostly I was just afraid that I was going to be single. The meaning of Jesus’ words did not come clear to me for a long time but I finally realized that he honestly meant it when he said: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.... The one who can accept this should accept it.” If you are meant to be single, you will be able to accept this and though it will hurt sometimes, you will be content. If that is what God has for you, it is not a curse. You have no “right” to marriage. God will place you in the path that He has chosen for you regardless of your own ideas. ““For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9) Remember, Jesus wasn’t married either. God knows exactly what you need and He will be with you every step of the way. Married or not, you are to focus on Jesus and find your identity in Him; not in your relationships or home or family or accomplishments. Sadly, the Botkin girls are misleading young women and telling them that they only need to perfect themselves rather than look to Jesus Christ and trust him completely with their lives. While it's actually okay to prepare and become a girl that someone will want to marry; that is not your chief end and goal in life. Your goal is serving Christ and living for Him and loving Him so much that you are willing to say "yes, Lord," if a young man never shows up. It’s not that what the Botkin girls say that is terribly wrong... it’s what they don’t say. Once you've left Jesus out of the mix and stopped focusing on him it’s not Christianity, it's Humanism. Worshipping your skills, father, mother, husband, or future husband is not going to bring you peace and eternal joy. Setting up a human being in God's place only sets that person up for failure and you will eventually be disappointed. It's regrettable that the Botkin sisters take a teachable moment, while discussing a real and painful issue that many girls face, and instead of giving true hope, only encourage these young women to try to perfect themselves and continue to further the idea that marriage is a right that all are entitled to receive.

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” Matthew 10: 37-40.

Ingrid


* Of course, many would say that in the Botkin view of things, acknowledging that some women may never marry is detrimental to their worldview and their business. I mean, who would buy the Botkin books and tapes on how to prepare for marriage if they thought they were going to be single? For that matter, who would want to remain in their father’s household preparing for a marriage that may never come? The Botkin girls have to assume that all girls will marry because if they don’t, what is the point of everything the Botkin’s teach and sell? Since their teachings are so wrapped up in one area of life, they seem helpless to answer questions alternatives or other areas of life. I wonder how they handle these words of Jesus: “Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14: 25-27) Very likely, they just avoid them since they don’t fit into their own worldview.

Of Visions and Humanism

I’ve been clicking around on the Botkin’s websites lately and I came across this page: http://westernconservatory.com/content/vision

Vision

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." - Matthew 28:20
The Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences has been established by Geoffrey Botkin's seven children to honor his vision in regard to Christendom. We believe the foundations of civil society can be improved for the future and must not be surrendered to a cultural way of thinking that is hostile to the past.
The vision is simple: that scriptural wisdom must be applied for maturity and leadership in all areas of society, including the gates of business, media, jurisprudence, science, the fine arts, education, and church reform. We believe these disciplines must integrate and should be mastered by all leaders, each of whom has personal duties to the King of kings.

So is Geoffrey Botkin the king of kings? Since no other name or person is mentioned, we must assume that all honour is to be given to him. "...has been established by Geoffrey Botkin's seven children to honour his vision in regard to Christendom." In other words, his children are speaking in his name in order to honour his vision? Where is Jesus Christ? Should we not be honouring Christ’s vision? It seems to me that Jesus is relegated to a backseat and His words are taken out of context to be the words of Geoffrey Botkin to his children. It almost seems that Botkin is the “I” speaking in the Bible verse! "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." That's only the last verse of the Great Commission! Elsewhere on this site, on the About page, under "How We Do It" there is this statement: “We stay focused on the main challenge of the Great Commission.” Oh really? Then why is the full text of the Great Commission nowhere to be found on the conservatory’s site? And the main challenge of the Great Commission is found below:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The Conservatory’s vision is not a vision for Christ. It is a vision for man. Or more accurately, a man.

And it's not Christianity, it's humanism.

Galatians 1:6-12
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Humanism: 1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. Found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/humanism

Ingrid

The myth of having to learn to run a household

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

Ingrid

Love is Not a Sin

I wrote this last summer and with a bit of editing, I decided to post it. I do feel guilty about not being able to write but college coursework drains so much of my time…. Hopefully after finals I can find time to think out more posts. :-)

My friends are really into courtship and I’m not…I mean courtship has its good points but I don’t really care about methods anymore… and when I talk to them about certain subjects they can be expected to react the same way every time. Basically, even though I’m happy with my life, people assume that I must secretly be miserable. After all, love (especially the emotion part) is such a *cough* bad *cough* thing that it must be squelched. And the easiest way to squelch me in peoples minds is to say, “Well, I’m sure you’ll meet someone else… just ask God to take your “feelings” for _____ away and then you can be open to anything.” Hello? I’m not upset, angry, or even worried―I’m happy with my life! Don’t even bring up anyone else!! Aack!

I hate this phrase so much that I’ll write it again. (It seems to be the pat answer in courtship circles about romantic feeling.)

“Just ask God to take your “feelings” for _____ away and then you can be open to anything.”

My response?

“What if He doesn’t want to take them away?”

Well, really, what if God doesn’t want to take your feelings for someone away? What if he wants to work on you through that person? I’ve found that romantic entanglements are one of God’s greatest teaching tools. (Not that you should seek them by any means, I mean when they come because God wants them to come.) Sometimes God doesn’t take them away―sometimes they’re meant to stay because you’ve met the right person.

And if you do have these “feelings” why do they bother you so much? They’re natural and when God brings them they’re amazing. (You don’t seek feelings, God provides them: they’re either there or they’re not. So if you’re into courtship and your parents are recommending some guy to you, it’s doubtful that you’re going to be able to pray for feelings for him and have them come. If you have to think about it that much, it’s not really what I’m talking about.) If you obsess about them it’s only going to make them worse and you’ll be focusing on them more and more.

When did we get onto this remedy of, “Well just pray and God will take these emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc away.”

Why do we need them to go away?

Is love so awful that you think it has to be gotten rid of or is love so meaningless that it can be removed effortlessly?

It is as if in response to the world’s selfishness in relationships we have become selfish in our “Christian” relationships and decided to withhold love in order to protect ourselves. In other words, both dating and courtship can be completely self-centered in an effort to satisfy and/or protect one’s own precious self. Is this not a paradox?

Loving is giving of yourself without desiring anything in return… when did loving someone become a sin in our eyes?

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that romantic love in its essence is a sin. (Hello? Have you read Song of Solomon?) If it were a sin, I think the Bible would be pretty clear on the subject. Romantic love is a gift and love, real love is not a sin. So then, why are you trying to pray it away like one?

Ingrid

10 Reasons to Read Betsy-Tacy

The Betsy-Tacy books were written by Maud Hart Lovelace and were based upon her childhood and young adulthood in the early 20th century. There are four books about covering her years from 5 to 12 and these are suitable for all ages. The next six books cover her high school years, travel, and marriage and are suitable for 14+. (The reason? Well, Betsy can be a little silly about boys…but really, you’ll just appreciate them more if you’re in high school yourself or have been in it.) There are also 3 Deep Valley books about other people that Betsy knows. They are delightful books and worth reading again and again…and here are 10 reasons why.

1. The characters are hopelessly flawed but always learn from their mistakes and become better people. Which is so nice, yes? :-)

2. Betsy and Tib are a little boy-crazy but Tacy isn’t.

3. The characters have loving relationships with their families (and their fathers!) but it’s not sickly sweet or obsessive.

4. College and education are viewed as good and beneficial things. Most of the girls go to college and then get married.

5. Betsy learns to keep house after she’s married and makes it a priority. But, she doesn’t give up her writing to do so. They’re some of the few books I’ve read with a healthy balance between homemaking and having dreams and pursuits as a married woman.

6. Betsy’s life doesn’t end with her marriage: the wedding is in the beginning of the last book.

7. The books make a statement against sororities and fraternities which shows some greatness of mind on Mrs. Lovelace’s part, I think.

8. The characters eat so well! Warning: These books will make you hungry!

9. Betsy doesn’t like Elsie Dinsmore (and neither do I)!

10. They show that heartache (even over, (horrors!) boys) is normal and can be a beneficial thing to growing up and maturing.

And the 11th reason to read Betsy-Tacy is….

After a long sojourn in the world of “out of print”… the high school books are being re-released on September 29th! And Carney’s House Party and Emily of Deep Valley will be out next year!







So now instead of having to track them down on Abebooks and paying $25 for one paperback you can find them on BN.com for 11.99 (for 2 books actually). Dreeaming.... :-)

And if you want to know more about Betsy-Tacy follow these links:

http://www.maudhartlovelacesociety.com/

http://www.betsy-tacysociety.org/

Ingrid

Mere Decorativanity

In homeschooling circles these days, there seems to be an inordinate amount of costume making going on. One glance at a few young ladies blogs (who shall remain nameless, you can make your own lists) and you will read of making a new costume either for fun or for an event. Now, don't get me wrong, I like costumes and sewing; one of the few websites I visit regularly is The Costumer's Guide to Movie Costumes. I have made two or three reproductions—all of them to be used daily or for a special event. So, I know how fun costuming can be. However, all things can cross the line. Many times as I read these young ladies' blogs, that's all there is: costume making. (Oh, and a strange obsession with food too…but I digress.) And make-up…that's another puzzler. It just seems weird to me that people that laud the Victorian age would wear make-up…something that was taboo back then. Take the Botkin girls, for example. I've often wondered how long they spend every day on those hairstyles and their perfect make-up. Maybe you've never noticed, but I can tell you that their hairstyles look easy but are not simple at all. It can take hours to make your hair look so perfectly lovely with every strand in place or a little tousled in a perfect way—they must spend lots of time on it. Also, they obviously wear layers of make-up. They look like the sort of girls you could tease by saying, "We're out of foundation and eye shadow" and could really freak out about it. :-) I have not been able to find a picture of the Botkin girls in a non-made up state. Do you think they ever get really dirty or exerted? I mean, like have they ever gone kayaking, hiking, trail riding, and swimming all in one day? (I have, in that order; it was exhausting, messy, and totally fun. :-)) There’s nothing wrong with make-up (I wear it myself sometimes :-)) or styled hair but I really don’t think it should be so important to us. Also, I am growing tired of hearing about dressing feminine because ladies should be feminine. They should be yes, but I am sooo sick of hearing about it! There's nothing wrong with being a girly girl and there's nothing wrong with being a tomboy—I'm an even mix—but, there is something wrong with focusing so much on outward appearances. It doesn't seem that many young ladies are actually focusing on running a household, it seems to me that they are simply studying the art of looking perfect all the time. It makes you wonder…are they being trained to be just delicate ornaments hanging on their husband's arm? (Many people would say yes, and I agree but I like to ask rhetorical questions.) Why is being decorative so important to these young ladies? Why are some of them so wimpy? (You read things like: "I am terrified of bugs" "I hate math" "I don’t like the outdoors"… it would be funny if it was only occasional but it's to the point of being unnatural now.) It always reminds me of this quote, "If you feel your value lies in being merely decorative, I fear that someday you might find yourself believing that's all you really are. Time erodes all such beauty, but what it cannot diminish is the wonderful workings of your mind. Your humor, your kindness, and your moral courage; these are the things I cherish so in you." ― Marmee, Little Women, 1994. They, meaning the Botkin girls and other patriarchy influenced girls, quote the verse, "Charm is deceptive and beauty is vain but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." Proverbs 31:30. But they don't mean it. There's nothing wrong with being beautiful and trying to look your best but if that's all you talk about and present to others; it really is all that you care about and all that anyone will take away from knowing of you.

Ingrid

Guys

Young men are widely misunderstood—especially by young women...and especially, in the courtship movement. Most of the time, girls are completely clueless about guys and their feelings and, really, mystifyingly so. Take several friends of mine, for example, they seem totally and completely clueless about young men…yet most of them have brothers and/or are close to their fathers. It is as if they cannot believe that other men do indeed have similar feelings to that of their associates. There's a lot of talk about treating young men as brothers in Christ…but I don't think very many young ladies even understand or think about how to do that. These same friends are crazy about Vision Forum and Courtship and everything that goes with it―they can recite all the steps in their courtship plans (though they deny having one…have you ever noticed how courtship people deny having a plan yet still have one??) but really cares nothing about understanding guys. It’s so unfair. I have a father, brothers, guy cousins, and a few close guy friends—I’ve talked to them and I’ve studied them… and have come to the conclusion that my friends and all the girls like them are very mistaken about guys. Below is a list of mistaken beliefs and behaviors that I noted that many of them hold on to and my comments (if I have them) on the items noted.

—Girls with a strong courtship mindset often:


1. Seem afraid of guys; as if they think every young man they meet is going to want to marry them or at least try to ask them out.

I’ve known a lot of guys…as friends. Some are nice and some are kind of Charlie Sloanish (read the Anne of Green Gables books to see what I’m referring to) but not one of them has ever done anything that was truly startling. :-) It might have been annoying or even aggravating but nothing to be scared of or worried about. I just keep other people around when I’m talking to a guy...it’s not a big deal at all.

2. Don’t give guys a chance or the benefit of the doubt.

3. Have over-blown expectations about guys between the ages of 14-18 especially.

Do you really think he’s going to brave all and hasten to your rescue when he’s 16? Is he really going to be perfectly polished or romantic? This is your chance to be encouraging towards guys; they need your support. Just don’t expect perfection from them. You wouldn’t want them expecting you to be perfect all the time, would you?

At a homeschool convention that happened recently, there were a lot of young men who were trying to be “cool.” You know the type, acting like surfer dudes on the wrong beach. Maybe the reason they were acting like that, trying to be tough, was because they are terribly insecure. Adolescence is a tough enough time for young men even without heaping expectations upon them that they cannot measure up to. There is no way a normal guy can be everything Vision Forum wants them to be…I know there are guys who appear to be everything and more. But inside, they must feel hollow.

I've also noticed that at many conventions there are far more young women than young men attending and as I pondered this, I wondered....

Could all this “vision casting” be having a negative effect upon young men?

That’s a whole other post and I’m not sure that I have enough information to write it.

4. Don’t understand real love; it’s either sappy romance or having to make a formal decision...both things can be part of love but neither is all of it.

5. Don’t apply their knowledge gained from father/brothers/cousins to guys they are not related to.

6. Seem shy, cold, or rude towards young men in their effort to keep their distance.

7. Obsess over marriage but don’t understand what marriage is.

A lot of girls are in love with love or they want to have children. They don’t truly want to get married. I know they say they do…but they really don’t. My friends say (quite often) that they want to marry young and have lots of kids…but what they really talk about are the kids. The guy rarely comes into the discussion―they say nothing him and what they hope he’ll be like. When I think of marriage, words like; “being able to read his mind”, companionship, humor, and love come to mind—thoughts of children follow afterwards. I really like children but they’re not my motivation for wanting to get married.

If all you think about in marriage is children or mushy romance...then you’re not ready to marry.

Marriage is, to alter a Jack Sparrow quote, “It's not just a man and a woman and a house and some kids, that's what a marriage needs but what a marriage is... what a good marriage really is... is a miracle.”

8. Think that love can be turned off and on like a light switch.

Well-meaning family and friends have sadly been guilty of telling me that I should just pray “that God will take your feelings for so and so away .” And my response is, “What if He doesn’t want to take them away?” That always floors them :-)

9. Treat God like a vending machine… saying things like, “Well God gave me a desire for marriage so I’m sure I’ll get married really soon.”

Honey, you’ve got a lot to learn. God gives you desires and dreams to test you and is watching to see how you handle them. They are wonderful things but have to be handled properly to be of any use. Saying things like, “But what if God doesn’t want you to marry soon?” is always amusing. Especially, because the young lady normally cannot think of any reply to this but repeating the avowal in #9.

It’s also like saying, “God has given me the desire to have a handsome guy for my husband...so I’m sure my guy will be gorgeous!” Sheesh. And I always wonder, “What about the homely man with a beautiful heart?” (Elizabeth Elliot relates a conversation similar to this in Passion and Purity...I think.)

10. Are unwilling to even think about having to be bold with a guy at any time.

There are times when you’re going to need to make a move and go after your guy…they’re rare but they exist. Think Ruth. :-)

11. Think that there are very few nice guys out there.

The world is full of nice guys…stop being so pessimistic!

12. Thinks that guys are “heart-stealers”.

I've heard a speaker about courtship say, (I'll paraphrase) "If a young man comes to you after he's already stolen your daughter's heart then he can't court her." Many people seem to agree with this but my mind always yells: "STOLEN!!! What the heck?? The poor guy!! Who would want to marry your daughter… you, you reprobate!!" Ahem, anyway.... :-D

First off, there's that word. Steal. That means to take something without the owner's permission. God should be the owner of a person's heart and when a Christian young lady gives her heart to someone, it should be because it's God's will. There's no stealing involved. No one can force you to love someone anymore than anyone can force you to stop loving someone.

"It is mine to give to whom I choose…like my heart," – Arwen Evenstar, in the movie of The Fellowship of the Ring.

Understand this: your heart is a gift and you give it to whoever you choose. It cannot be stolen without your permission. So stop acting as if the exchanging of hearts is a robbery!

Then, there’s the obvious question: Do you honestly think that a normal young man actually tries to steal a girl's heart?

Do you think that a guy wakes up in the morning and thinks “I’ll make so and so fall in love with me today!”

Get real!

13. Think that all guys are Casanova heartbreakers that lead girls on.

A girl I knew once told me, "Any guy who leads a girl on and can't make a commitment is a jerk." I didn't agree with her then and I still don't now.

Because, I mean really, does a guy actually, purposely lead a girl on?

Think about it…if he knew what he was doing…would he actually do it?

I doubt it. In reality, I think most nice young men…the kind that are worth noticing…are just as nervous about girls as we are about guys. Maybe even more so…because after all, the guy is the one who has to lay his whole heart out on the line. Whenever he asks a girl out or talks to her Dad or asks her to marry him…he's giving her the chance to completely and totally wound him.

14. Use the excuse “he led me on!”

You can’t be lead anywhere unless you move your feet. Basically, unless he's asking you out, NEVER assume he likes you!


—And girls of any mindset seem to think:

15. That guys have no emotions.

I don’t know what idiot started that idea but womankind has been believing that’s it’s true for generations. For one thing, I can tell you that guys are sensitive and emotionally vulnerable―but they don’t talk about it all the time…if ever. Guys feel...deeply. I know they do. Have you ever seen a teenage boy after his team lost a ballgame and he thought it was his fault? Or when they’ve gotten really injured (but are trying to pretend they’re not really injured)? It’s worse for them...because they tend to stuff it and therefore, can suffer much more and for a longer time than girls. Stop seeing young men as shyster Casanova heart-stealers who are out to get you and start seeing them as human beings. They’re people too after all and have the same essential needs that girls have. Moreover, you may want to marry one someday and likely will end up being a mother... I think making an effort to understand guys is worth your time. So, give the guys a chance...before it's too late.

Ingrid


P.S. I don’t recommend books very often but if you need help understanding guys...this is a fairly good (clean) book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-About-Guys-Shouldnt-Secret/dp/0784715440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196786739&sr=8-1

There are a few things I've discovered to be untrue or exaggerated in it but it's a good book to get you started being more empathetic towards young men. As with any self-help book though, it’s best to read it once and then refrain from referring to it unless you really need to. :-)