But They Look So Happy!

Image credit masochismtango on Flickr

News about the Duggars’ newest baby has spawned a number of online arguments. One of the most frequent comments was about how cheerful their family is, especially the children; how Michelle is a great mom who doesn't yell. Life must be working for them, because the kids are well behaved and look happy. Sounds reasonable, right?


I might believe it, if I didn't know what I know of Gothard/ATI, the Pearls, and S. M Davis. One of the creepiest things about their teachings is that happy is the only acceptable emotion. Not only must children be perfectly compliant at all times, they must also look cheerful at all times.


The Duggars are deeply enmeshed in ATI, (Gothard's homeschooling program) and ATI takes allegiance very seriously. It isn't a vague statement of beliefs that you sign so your kids can take the courses. It is several pages of in-depth info that covers what kind of music you can listen to (no Christian rock), the kind of TV you may watch (mainly Christian DVDs), the way you must dress (those jumpers are about modesty), the kind of punishments the parents must use (spankings), and more. It isn't just a curriculum--it is a lifestyle which delves into family finances, child planning and every other detail.


One key idea teaches the importance of a joyful countenance and a light in your eyes. This is a measure of how mighty you are in spirit. Not only that, it is also an indicator of your respect for authority. Bill Gothard explains in the Basic Seminar session on How To Relate to Four Authorities that if you look unhappy, you are publicly shaming your authority. In parenting, that means that if the kid looks unhappy, it is a personal offense against the parents. He also teaches that unhappiness is the result of ungratefulness, and that anger comes from not yielding our rights to God. This boils down to the idea that if you are not cheerful, you are not pleasing God.


The Duggars also strongly recommend S. M. Davis in their Family Favorites link under Solving Family Problems. Although he is perhaps not as well known as Gothard or the Pearls, his teachings are similar. Along with the strong insistence on father rule and corporal punishment, he is adamant that not only must the child immediately obey without question, but that it must also be done with a smile.


In advising parents of young children, he says, "They need to learn to obey what you say, do it right away and do it with a smile. Maybe that is a statement that you should have your children memorize and even hang in your home. ‘Do what I say, when I say and with a smile.’" A few lines later, he repeats it, "After all, isn’t the goal immediate obedience with a smile? If it isn’t that, it isn’t obedience, and the child has won." (Quite a contrast to Jesus' parable of the two sons in Matthew 28!). 


There has long been a lot of speculation about whether the Duggars use the controversial punishment methods taught by Michael and Debi Pearl in To Train Up a Child (TTUAC). The Duggar’s website includes it along with a glowing recommendation. Considering that some of the other recommendations list personal details about how the materials were used by the family, I cannot believe that it was randomly included on their site without their approval.


Pearl's writings contain many nauseating anecdotes about how children (even infants) who expressed unhappiness or anger following punishment, were hit even harder and longer until they were ‘cheerful’. One of these examples is found in Chapter 13 of To Train Up a Child:

"My nine- and eleven-year-old daughters came in from a neighbor's house complaining of a young mother's failure to train her child. A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened, clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down damnation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby's face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, "What can I do?" My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, "Switch him." The mother responded, "I can't, he's too little." With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, "If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.""

A seven month old. Hit with a switch for crying. How twisted is that?

He goes on to add, "Bad attitude is pure bad. For as a child "thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23: 7)." "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23)." If a child shows the least displeasure in response to a command or duty, it should be addressed as disobedience. If a child sticks out his lip, you should focus your training on his bad attitude. The wrong slant of the shoulders reveals a bad frame of mind. Consider this a sign to instruct, train or discipline. A cheerful, compliant spirit is the norm. Anything else is a sign of trouble."

So it isn't just verbal disagreement. A "wrong" slant of the shoulders deserves punishment. Children are taught from babyhood to always be cheerful, or else they deserve a spanking. As they grow older, it is not just the fear of a spanking that causes them to keep smiling. It is the sincere belief that they are sinning with ungratefulness, rebellion and more if they don't present a happy face.

You know the whole fake it till you make it idea? It is pretty effective. I am sure that there are plenty of times where the kids are genuinely happy. There are many good things in their lives, and I do believe that the kids are loved. I am not saying that it is all a sham. I do strongly suspect that the habit of "joyfulness" is so deeply ingrained that denying "ungodly emotions" is automatic by now.

If you repeatedly ignore a feeling of satiety and force yourself to continue eating, eventually it becomes very, very difficult to even recognize when you are full. In the same way, those who have come out of cultures where they must always present a calm, smiling face, often go through a phase where they can’t even recognize which feelings are authentic and which ones have become nothing more than a conditioned response. If you are under observation or threat of punishment all the time, such emotional repression becomes an essential defense mechanism to protect yourself.

A very telling question is, "Do they laugh?" Yes, they smile often. But how often do they lose themselves in a deep belly laugh? What other emotions do you see openly displayed besides peace and contentment? Do you see spontaneous outbursts of any strong feeling, even joy? Or is every response carefully contained? Do they ever flip a switch? Go from distress to instant calm?

Self control is admirable, of course. But so is healthy self expression. Suppression is not. Consider how the Bible portrays emotion.  Jesus wept. He even cried to the point of bloody tears.  He got angry, threw over tables and chased people out of the Temple. There were times when He sounded suspiciously close to exasperation with the disciples. David, the man after God's own heart, yelled and raged, cried and despaired. Read the stories of the heroes of faith- they argued, tantrumed, got discouraged, and felt afraid. They were open and real with their big emotions, even when they looked messy.

Part of our job as parents is to give our children healthy ways to express all of their feelings, not to punish them for having the feelings in the first place.  Expressing intense feelings in safe and appropriate ways is a skill that requires practice.  We must model speaking the truth in love.

For many people who follow Gothard, Davis and the Pearls, there is incredibly strong pressure to be a salesperson witness. Your countenance is your sales pitch testimony, and if you present an ugly picture to the world, it is a public shaming of your parents and ultimately your God. Are you going to be the cause of people in the world turning from Christ?

I have heard women who are part of this mindset justify staying in abusive relationships because "it would look so bad for a Christian to divorce". As if God would rather you live a damaging lie and deceive others than expose the truth that even families who claim Him are not perfect. (Shhhh. Maybe He won't know that your marriage is really broken as long as you don't sign divorce papers! It is the letter, not the spirit that counts, right? Oh, wait...) Please check out Families Where Grace is In Place or Grace Based Living to read more about living free from curse-filled relationships.

I believe that God values wholehearted authenticity over superficial perfection. As C. S. Lewis expressed so powerfully, "until we have faces" and remove our veils, we will not have the relationship with God or others that we were meant to experience. Such honesty and vulnerability is often uncomfortable, both to demonstrate and to witness, but it is vital. 

He is truly a God who is our Rock, the anchor for our souls. He is big enough to handle our fleeting emotions, even the messy ones. He can take our deepest questions. We can pour out anguish, discouragement, loneliness, petty annoyances, frustration and anger, knowing that His arms are everlasting and that He has promised to wipe away all tears from our eyes.

Jesus didn't say, "...or I'll give you something to cry about!" Instead, He said, "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." He doesn't condemn us for our feelings. He comes alongside us and comforts us. He doesn't punish us if our smile slips.

So when I hear someone say, "But they look so happy!" I can't help but think, "Of course they do. They know that happy is the only acceptable emotion in their world. But is it really happiness when you aren't allowed to express anything else?"

If you are interested in more of what life is really like for someone growing up under Gothard and the Pearls, there is a wealth of information and stories at:


No Longer Qivering
Commandments of Men
Darcy's Heart-Stirrings
Enigma
Love, Joy, Feminism
Permission to Live
Recovering Grace
The Eighth and Final Square
Why Not Train a Child?
A Quiver Full of Information


Reference:
Davis, S. M. (2011) www.solvedifficultfamilyproblems.com. Difficult Young Child Help
Duggars, J and M. (2011) www.duggarfamily.com. Duggar Family Favorites and http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/amazon_blitz
Gothard, Bill. (2011) http://embassyinstitute.org/speakers/gothard Basic Seminar Session 04: How to Relate to Four Authorities.
Pearl, Michael. (1994). To Train Up a Child. No Greater Joy Ministries.

 ***Note***This has been edited from the original post to correspond to the version that I wrote for Home Educating Family Magazine.  Both versions were written before Mrs. Duggar's miscarriage.  Although I disagree very strongly with their position on many things, particularly corporal punishment and patriarchy, I believe that the loss of any child is a tragedy, and they have my very deepest sympathies. 

Peering Underneath the Umbrella: Musings on Gothardism

Image credit: Molly DG on Flickr

I've mentioned a little bit about Gothard in my post on Razing Ruth (which still surprises me with the number of hits it receives!) and my posts about courtship/dating.  I have been reading some articles shared by  Why Not Train a Child and the Hippie Housewife that talk about Gothard a bit, and it has brought back a lot of memories.  We never went hardcore into the ATI program, so we would still be considered on the outer fringes by the inner circle members.  We were actually very worldly from a Gothard point of view:  we wore pants and watched TV (although our family standards were much more conservative than most people I knew).  In later years, my sister and I listened to Christian rock, despite knowing about the demonic powers being summoned through the witchcraft-beat! GASP!  (Not only that, we also occasionally listened to worship songs written in a minor key!  Somehow, we escaped the curse of depression.)

On the plus side, though, we attended every seminar (both Basic and Advanced) every year from the time I was twelve (that was before the kid's seminars, which my brother attended).  We led their Follow-up course to the basic seminar, and the Financial Freedom seminars.  We were homeschooled (of course).   We played all their board games.  We memorized the 49 character qualities, and could quote The Pineapple Story and Character Sketches (all volumes).  We spoke the code.  We did Wisdom Searches in the mornings.  And, looking back, I realize how deeply entrenched my parents were, and understand things like why my mom continued to get pregnant, even after a staggering number of miscarriages and being told she needed a hysterectomy.

If you just casually attended the Basic seminar, you probably found it quite easy to take the good and spit out the bones.  It starts off Monday night with a pleasant introduction to the whole thing, and a teaching on self-acceptance.  He takes you through the 10 Unchangeables and explains that God is using all the things that we cannot change about ourselves to paint a beautiful masterpiece of our lives. Bill is a good speaker, and is brimming over with amazing examples of all the people who have been helped through his teaching of the "non-optional principles".   Even now, there are a lot of things that I would probably agree with, at least to an extent.  But knowing more about the core makes me nervous.

The next night's teaching on authority sneaks up on you.  He outlines a vertical chain of authority (God, father/husband directly under God, wife below, children lower still) and explains the consequences of getting out from under the umbrella of (patriarchal) authority (women have none, except what their husband delegates to them over the children).  He gives a long litany of stories of those who went against the wishes of their fathers and suffered terribly, contrasted with tales of those who submitted, against culture and common sense, and were rewarded beyond their dreams.  Those who rebel and eventually return are gravely compared to cracked diamonds--only worth a fraction of the value they could have had if they had been submissive all along.  

In a sense, all of his teachings come back to the idea that if you align yourself underneath the umbrella, perfectly submissive to all of Gothard's principles, then you will be safe.  If you dare to go out from under the umbrella by not conforming perfectly with a joyful countenance and light in your eyes, then any number of hailstorms will pound you to a bloody pulp.

It sounds a bit fanatical (and it is), but when you are there it is much more palatable.  His quiet humor, lovely chalk talks and assortment of hooks are appealing.  By the time you get through the teaching on how to conquer anger by yielding rights (Thursday), you are probably ready to overlook some of the more extreme parts of his teachings on moral purity (Friday) and any discomfort from the teachings on authority begins to blur and fade as he leads you through the examples of success through meditation on Scripture (Saturday). 

It is nicely packaged, and full of guarantees.  If you follow the principles, you will be blessed with success.  Suffering is the result of rebelling, even unknowingly, against any of the principles, but all can be made right (with a smaller diamond, of course) by simply following his steps.  I bought nearly all of it, until sliding out from under the umbrella in my relationship with Carlos.  Once I was married, I stopped attending the seminars.  Even so, it is only recently that I have been able to put together my disagreements with the underlying Gothard doctrines.

One of these is the extreme patriarchy.  Nearly everyone I knew growing up believed that the father was the head of the house.  What many people don't recognize is the difference in degrees when it comes to the application.  Many of the families that I know who believe that the wife should submit to her husband actually practice something much closer to mutual submission.   While I believe that they are very sincere, it winds up that through temperament or conscious design, the wife has the respect of her husband and freedom to participate in many decisions, and even the ability to come to some on her own.  Although there may be a theoretical agreement that the husband has the final say, in reality, decisions are reached together.

Gothard's view of authority is far more extreme.  The wife must submit entirely to her husband, regardless of the rightness of his choices.  She is allowed to appeal if he wishes her to sin.  Of course, the definition of 'sin' is incredibly and inexplicably narrow in this context, especially compared to the hyper-sinfulization* of those not in the position of authority!  If her appeal is denied, she may choose to suffer for doing right, but must continue to honor her husband, and look happy to the rest of the world, since any discontent in her countenance is a public shaming of her head.  In addition to this, he teaches very strongly that the one under authority is the one responsible for change: in other words, if the husband does something wrong, it is all your fault.  If you were only more submissive, more this, more that, you would please him and he wouldn't do that.  You can patch the leaks in your umbrella by just trying harder to submit.  It is the perfect recipe for abuse.

Whatever God is speaking, he will speak to your husband/father.  It doesn't really matter what the topic is:  a daughter's future spouse, your callings and responsibilities, how you should spend your time, how you should raise your children.  Any decision is between the father/husband and God, and the father/husband will let you know when he is ready.  Your responsibility is to cheerfully go along with it.  Even if your father is not a believer (which is also your fault, of course), you still have to rely on him to be the go-between between you and God.

There are all kinds of other, minor things that have become twisted and elevated into doctrine, some that I agree with aside from the theological status conveyed upon them, others very weird indeed, but to put it all into a nutshell, the fatal flaw of Gothard's teachings is that he denies the power of Christ.  It is all about Man (and here, the male gender is most definitely implied).  Even grace becomes redefined as MAN's desire and MAN's ability to do God's will.  "Grace" rests squarely on our efforts.  (Would you make a vow to do XYZ? And if you really mean it, would you raise your hand as an outward demostration...) The work of the Cross becomes an afterthought, and all that matters is our ability to conform to the checklist.  Instead of works flowing out of faith in God, the works flow out of faith in the works themselves to provide carrots or avoid the stick.  If you can keep your facade together, and especially if you can make your man look good, then you will reap all kinds of goodies.  If your life isn't perfect, well, that is your fault for not following the steps precisely. 

The concept of mercy is ignored.  The power of Christ's sacrifice is a mere footnote to our own efforts and accomplishments.  This is incredibly dangerous, especially because it is the kind of mindset that corrupts every thing it touches.  Every relationship, every accomplishment, every action becomes tested by whether or not it follows Bill's principles.  When you hear of someone going through a difficult situation, rather than responding in compassion, you wonder which principles they violated to reap that problem.  Or, if you know them at all, you have probably already figured out which principles were violated.  Because of the unrelenting emphasis on appearances, you condition yourself to pretend all the time, until you have spun it all in your mind to the point that you aren't really sure what the truth is anymore.   You yield your rights to others (Jesus, then Others, then You, what a wonderful way to spell JOY!) and may never even realize that you also yielded any healthy, necessary boundaries.

I felt a bit smarter back before my diamond was cracked, back when I was centered under my umbrella of protection.  I could give you all the answers to any situation so that you could apply the principles and understand where you went wrong (You were cursed because you let a Cabbage Patch doll into your home/because you went to college away from home/because you didn't joyfully submit, etc.).

Now, I find that grace isn't about me; it is about the amazing love that God lavishes on us.  It isn't all about my efforts or shortcomings.  It is about His mercy and patience in helping me grow.  Instead of seeing all relationships in a vertical line of top-to-bottom hierarchy, I am seeing them as a circle of love and service.  It makes all the difference.  Instead of shaming myself and others, I am learning to joyfully proclaim that His banner over me is love.  Instead of desperately trying to patch leaks in my umbrella, I am enjoying the glorious sunshine of freedom and grace.

Image credit: Pink Sherbert Photography on Flickr

* My own word.  I am quite pleased with it.  :)

Authority, Submission, Control and Discipline

Do you ever have ideas tickle at the edges of your mind, just barely out of reach?  I have a lot of those right now, and it is frustrating.  Mamapoekie's recent post on discipline brought some things to the surface, but it is an issue I am still working through, so this post may be "in progress" for quite some time.

Much of my dislike for punitive parenting boils down to its dehumanization of children. Babies and children are assigned a status similar to pets, or even lower. Reading authors like the Pearls, Dobson and Ezzo gives the idea that children are little more than unruly toys for the parent, meant to provide some measure of satisfaction, but who should be ruthlessly quelled if they ever become inconvenient or show signs of thinking for themselves. First time obedience, with a happy heart, (lest the parent feel embarrassment or distress at coercing an obviously unhappy child) becomes the goal. The child's actual feelings are irrelevant as long as the facade is preserved.

Many of the proponents of punitive parenting base it on Scriptural passages. They justify it by claiming a parent's position of authority over the child. It is no surprise that many of those who follow this also believe strongly in wife-only submission. Pretty much the only difference between the status of the child and the status of the wife is that the wife may outrank a pet, at least barely.

In both cases, followers are quick to assert that it doesn't actually play out like that, because the benevolent dictator (the husband/father) is a nice guy who truly cares about his inferior subjects. Therefore, his rulership will always be benign.

I don't believe that the presence or absence of male genitalia automatically confers superiority or better decision-making ability. And although I have heard that acknowledged by Gothard and some other teachers of wifely submission, they generally follow it up with some nonsense about the submissive wife gaining some obscure spiritual reward by following her husband into a wrong decision. Quite frankly, I find that absurd.

Some leave a rather empty caveat that she is not required to sin, but defining sin can be rather difficult. Does mere selfishness and pride on his part constitute sin? Apparently not, according to the teachings. Certainly, there is no recourse if he is not living up to his end of the bargain, just as there is no recourse for children whose parents use "authority" as the basis for justifying their own desire for convenience and ability to control others.

I have actually seen some of these marital relationships that were, in my opinion, healthy. However, in reality, they practiced mutual submission. Regardless of whatever they called it, when walking it out, they made decisions as a team. The wife's opinion, feelings and thoughts were valued, and not just as a mirror of her husband's. Decisions were made by whichever was most informed or best suited (by inclination, experience and talent, not genitalia). The goal was true unity and harmony, not compliance.

I can see many parallels in my relationship with my children. My goal is not obedience. My goal is harmony and helping each of us reach our potential. I see myself as a facilitator for them, equipping them with any tools that they might need as they grow. There are times when I am better informed or equipped to make certain decisions (like whether or not they can play in the street and other safety and boundary issues). There are also times when they teach and lead me. Always, their thoughts and feelings are just as worthy of respect as mine or any other human beings.

I can feel the outrage at this view of discipline by many of my religious brothers and sisters. But I ask you to consider something. What does God's authority look like in your life? Is it about coercion? Or is your obedience something that you freely give? Is it really a choice that you have? Does God allow you to disagree with Him, even going your own way if you prefer? How does He deal with talking back? My own experience is that because of my love and trust, I choose to follow His direction.

I also find that many times He encourages me to discover the giftings and skills I have, and to develop new ones by giving me freedom to pursue my own choices. There are many areas where God does not always (or even usually) give me specific directions, not because He doesn't love me or care, but because it is part of my growth process. He has guidance in place for my protection and for the protection of others. Always, He is more concerned with my heart than with any outward professions of compliance.

The obvious difference is that I am not God. My knowledge and goodness are limited. For me, this is all the more reason that I should guard myself from using "authority" as an excuse to control my children. Sure, there are times when it may be necessary. But far more often, my place is washing their feet, listening and loving and trusting. Jesus had strong words about those who would vie for status over others. Following His example of grace and freedom means encouraging them to exercise their own autonomy as much as possible within boundaries of safety for themselves and others. If I truly believe that being the greater (in authority) means being a servant, then my position looks very different from many models. My authority means that I have the responsibility for giving my children what they need to reach their full potential, and to respect and value where they are right now.

Courtship vs Dating, pt 3

Growing up as a Gothardite really tweaks your perception in many areas. Carlos and I had spent four years seeking God about our relationship, we were both in our mid-twenties, financially stable, etc. To most people, it would have been a no-brainer that if we wanted to get married, we should. However, my dad's disapproval was a very big deal.

Some people wondered if it was a racial thing. That always surprised me. Although Carlos will always have a much deeper tan than I will ever get, that was never a blip on the radar at all. In fact, my dad was my role model for approaching racial issues. I never once saw or heard any form of racism, either subtle or overt from him. Not only that, he would bring to our attention things that many people never notice if they are not the target. If someone made a negative comment using racial descriptors, like, "I was waiting for that parking space and then that Black woman took it from me!" he'd question it (after all, who would say, ""I was waiting for that parking space and then that tall woman took it from me!"?). A couple of times when we were little, my sister or I repeated a racial joke that we had heard without realizing the significance. He was genuinely saddened and took care to explain exactly what the terms meant and why they were so hateful and hurtful. That is one of the things that I have always admired about him.

Again, it would be pure conjecture on my part to give reasons that I never fully understood to his opposition. I am not a psychologist, although I occasionally play one in real life, ;) but I know that he was going through a very difficult time. After an entire lifetime of pastoring, he was giving up the church, and I think that he needed to feel that there was an area where he still had a position of authority. But, I could certainly be wrong.

How did Carlos' dad feel? Well, years before I ever met their family, he had a dream of Carlos and me being married. He recognized me from the dream as soon as we met, and welcomed me with open arms. During one of the rocky points early one in our relationship, he intervened with some wise counsel and encouragement that helped tremendously. When Carlos met with my dad to ask his permission for us to marry, his dad came, too, to share his support.

My mom, of course, had loved Carlos from the beginning (she told me the day she met him that we should get married!), but she was in a hard position because of my dad. We had a lot of people whom I respected tremendously listen and share loving, wise words with us (thank you again, Granny2Five!!!). If my dad had come against it strongly from the beginning of the relationship, I might have followed his wishes. If you haven't been a part of that kind of patriarchy, it is hard to understand how deeply ingrained it becomes. But after four years of earnestly seeking to do the right thing and believing that it was for Carlos and me to be together, I decided to go ahead without my dad's approval.

We set our wedding date after my graduation the following Spring, and that Fall was incredibly busy. I was teaching seven college classes, and taking five, all while planning the wedding. I was very grateful for the work, but it was hard to prioritize some days. I made my first B, in Ecology, and cried and had bad dreams over it for an absurd amount of time. It makes me laugh now at how important it seemed to keep that 4.0. Things were a bit uncomfortable at home, so I didn't particularly mind being gone so much.

My dad decided that he couldn't participate in the wedding at all, since he felt that it was wrong. He wasn't going to walk me down the the aisle or even show up. Ouch. We didn't talk about it much, because there didn't seem to be too much to say. I heard some things second-hand, about how we would regret the marriage and that shortly after, I would meet "The One," but I don't know how accurate it was.

Those close to us were praying for everyone involved. Interestingly, I learned later that a couple of very strong women felt led to speak with my dad. I don't know what all was said, but three days before the wedding, he told me that he would come and walk me down the aisle if I wanted him to. We both cried. I know that he still had some reservations, but he wanted to reach out and be a part of us. I am so very, very grateful.

It sounds pretty cheesy to say that we all lived happily ever after, but my dad has never said a negative thing to us since then, and not long after was bragging on Carlos as if it had all been his idea in the first place! Seeing the joy we have together has been a significant part of that, and of course, he adores his grandkids, too. I know that Bill Gothard would say my diamond was irrevocably cracked by going out from underneath the umbrella, but we have blessed with a rich and joy-filled marriage.

Now I am left with the confusing part of trying to figure out exactly what to teach my own children on the whole issue. I can see a lot of good things in the whole courtship approach, but I don't feel nearly so dogmatic about it being the only way. It is something that I will be exploring in subsequent posts, and I would love your input!

Courtship vs Dating--Our Story, pt 2

So, in my last post I was explaining how Gothard's teachings on courtship had affected my relationship with Carlos. Really, though, it was much more than the idea of courtship vs dating. It was underpinned by the strong emphasis on patriarchy that goes throughout his materials. The father is the final authority of everything in the family, including who his children, particularly the daughters, shall marry.

I've known some happy marriages who believed in wifely submission. As long as the husband is laying down his life for the wife and respects her and is unselfish, it can work for some people. I was surprised and later pleased to learn that Carlos doesn't agree with that. He believes that the husband and wife should both submit to Christ, and that they should both demonstrate unselfish love to each other. Being male doesn't give him a position over me.

Of course, all the people I know who believe in wifely submission agree that the husband's dictatorship should be benign, that he should not abuse his power, etc. (kind of like how the people I know who spank insist that it shouldn't be done in anger). In practice, it doesn't always work that way, and when it doesn't, the wife has little recourse. She is often told that her attitude is at fault, and if she would only x, y, and z, then her husband would come around.

Bill Gothard teaches that the person under authority is the one who must be responsible for any change. He does give the right of appeal and then the choice to suffer for doing God's will if the authority doesn't yield. However, in nearly all circumstances, it is hard to prove that the husband's will is a direct violation of Biblical commandments, so it usually is interpreted back to the wife's lack of reverence for her husband. If she is visibly unhappy by anything that he has chosen, that is also wrong, because she is publicly shaming him by not being cheerful. The message is clear that the wife must put up and pretend to like it. While this is directed primarily to wives, it definitely applies to their children, as well.

I said at the beginning of part one that I am not sure how much to share about people other than myself. My parents believed the patriarchal teachings, but in my relationship with my dad, there had been relatively little conflict, especially concerning decisions that only involved the two of us (I was guilty of "taking up offenses" sometimes regarding others). I knew that my dad wasn't thrilled with my relationship with Carlos, but since he had responded passively when Carlos asked permission to court/date me, I assumed that would continue.

For those of you who are wondering, yes, yes, I was already demonstrating a lamentably strong will and lack of deference and meekness by not responding to the unspoken disapproval by cutting off the relationship entirely, let alone going ahead with it. Ah, well.

Some of you are also wondering what it was that my dad didn't approve of. It wasn't anything specific with Carlos. He was a dedicated follower of Jesus; he was very disciplined financially and had a good job; he was close to his family and helped his parents in the church they pastored; he had obtained his Masters in one year with a 3.9 GPA; he didn't have issues with anger, lust, etc. He loved kids, he was both bilingual and bicultural. It basically boiled down to the fact that my dad hadn't heard a clear, "Thus sayeth the Lord" that I should marry him. Or at least that is what my dad said.

I could speculate on other factors in their personalities, and my dad's possible preference for another guy who attended our church, but it would be pure conjecture. (The other guy pretty much worshiped my dad, and naturally it is hard to resist someone who admires you so profoundly. I had seen the way this guy treated his sisters, and didn't agree with him on much of anything, so I viewed him quite differently. And, as shallow as this sounds, I must say that physically I was not the least bit attracted. Even at a size 6 and about 118 lbs, I probably outweighed him. It doesn't inspire romantic feelings when sitting next to each other I notice that my thighs are three times as wide as his. But of course, that is my carnal side coming out. I must add, though, that if you have seen pics of Carlos, even someone much more impressive physically than this guy couldn't compete.)

Anyway, Carlos and I dated for a year. After all the weirdness and ups and downs of the previous three years, this year was delightful. I was finishing up my degree and teaching at our community college; he had started a new job and we were both busy with responsibilities there as well as being part of the worship team at church and interpreting regularly (the services were bilingual). We also spent a lot of time with my little brother. All of our time together, though, just cemented our growing love and respect for each other. I felt more myself with him than with almost anyone else. Not only did I like him, I liked myself with him. After a year, we both were ready to commit to marriage. He asked my dad for permission. My dad said no.

Courtship vs Dating, Our Story--pt 1

With the last post about sexuality and reading Razing Ruth's blog, I've wondered if it was time to do a post on the whole dating vs. courtship thing and our story. I am not sure how much detail to go into, or how much commentary I should add. As you know, I am comfortable sharing about myself, but I am not sure how much to share about other people. So, we'll see what ends up making it into this post. Feel free to ask any questions if you are interested!

As I mentioned before, my family was very heavily involved in all of the Bill Gothard teachings. There were some things, like TV, where my dad took the teachings with a grain of salt and we applied them according to our own conscience and discretion. The whole issue of courtship was one where we embraced those teachings much more fervently.

I first started attending the seminars for myself when I was twelve. Like most girls my age, I had guys that I had a crush on. However, Gothard's point of view made a lot of sense to me. He taught that instead of the typical dating cycle that begins fairly early here, it was better to not play around with relationships. Instead, he advocated courtship where the outcome was marriage (unless something very unexpected occurred) and that this should be an agreement between the guy and the girl's parents.

(A quick note: although courtship and dating are considered to be drastically different, I found that in real life the distinction was a bit blurrier. Also, the term courtship sounds so archaic that it is easier to use dating, even though we never did the casual dating according to definition. As I said, it wasn't always clear since we wound up not perfectly following the prescription for courting, either.)

I could already see kids around me going through emotional rollercoasters by getting involved with someone when there was no thought of marriage at all. The hurt feelings, rejection and jealousy they had to deal with, even without any physical involvement, made me sad for them. It seemed like a waste of time and inevitably brought heartache. I soaked up books like Elisabeth Elliot's Passion and Purity, and decided that I would guard my heart.

It worked out pretty well. For one thing, there weren't too many guys around me that would have tested my resolve. I was homeschooled, and there weren't many guys my age in our church, so my field of potential interest was limited, to say the least. There were some guys that I really liked, but they happened to live hundreds of miles away, so that wasn't too promising. I had a pretty active fantasy life, but that was it.

Then, my first semester in college, I met Carlos. I posted about that first meeting here: http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/2008/08/14-years.html Um, yeah, I was knocked head over heels from the beginning. However, in spite of that, I still held on to the whole Gothardite view. While Carlos hadn't grown up with the Gothard seminars like I had, his family had the typically conservative Hispanic outlook. He hadn't dated much or had a girlfriend. We became friends, but I tried really hard not to read anything more than that into it. I got to know his family and we ran into each other often at school. He was an instructor (not mine), and that was yet another reason for me not to expect anything.

The first Valentine's Day after we met, it crossed my mind to get a card, but I decided that that would be definitely taking things out of the realm of friendship. Even if I hadn't been terrified of rejection and embarrassment, it was a big no-no for the girl to do anything that might seem to be initiating. Once we had talked very briefly and superficially about the whole courtship thing--the guy has to get permission from the dad, it is not about casual dating but done with the intention of marriage, etc.

Apparently, the talk was even briefer and more superficial than I had realized. He surprised me with a gorgeous bouquet of roses, some tapes that he knew I would love, an assortment of other beautiful, extravagant gifts, and a stunning ring. And I had thought even a card was too much!

I was totally shocked and overwhelmed. I had no idea how to respond and felt like I was in one of those weird dreams where you can't move or talk. The one clear thought in my head was that we were no where near ready for marriage--I still had several years of college left--and that this wasn't following the courtship script. I wound up giving it all back. Ouch. I had thought that this approach was supposed to save us from heartbreak and embarrassment! It felt as though we both had gotten enough of that to make up for all my smug years of following the Gothard approach.

The truth was that my heart was already involved, too. I was so scared that I had totally ruined any chance for any future whatsoever between us (not an unreasonable fear, you must admit). Thank God, Carlos was no wimp. While very respectful of my limits, he was still open to being my friend. Even more than that, we began to write letters to each other as a way of getting to know each other better, since most of out time at school was limited to saying hi in the hallways or the language lab.

Now, according to Bill, this was probably dating (he actually says that even thinking about the other person can be dating, which even back then I considered hilarious. Was the guy supposed to go the girl's father and say, "Excuse me, sir, but I would like your permission to think about your daughter?" :snickers: Any guy who asked that would be branded a weirdo by me right off the bat, and I would be a bit concerned about the type of thoughts he was having). Yet, we both tried to keep things on the same level that we would with any other friend.

We tried that for a few years, believe it or not. Looking back, it seems pretty ridiculous to me. However, our motives were pure, and we were truly trying to do the right thing. We wanted to be absolutely certain that God was leading us before moving our friendship to another level. I've since come to the conclusion that God's will isn't as hard to learn as we often make it. Back then, though, we agonized over the tiniest step.

Another tenet of the ATI teaching is about defrauding. Defrauding is defined as stirring up desires that cannot be righteously fulfilled. Women are specially cautioned against dressing in any way that might possibly provoke lust in a man; men are cautioned against leading a woman on more emotionally than they should; and of course, physical involvement is considered to defraud both. Our first kiss wasn't until we were officially dating/courting, three years into our relationship.

Those three years were difficult, needless to say. We wanted to always be honest with ourselves, each other, and every one else. It was blurry and confusing at times, though. Maintaining the delicate balance of holding a relationship to a good friendship when there was a romantic attraction on both sides was tricky, and caused both of us to pull back at times and occasionally to doubt the other.

After three years of that, we believed that changing from "just good friends" to dating/courting was both what God had in mind for our relationship and just being honest about where our hearts were. Carlos went to my dad, but my dad didn't want to commit himself one way or another. So we were dating/courting/whatever, but without official approval (or offical disapproval).

My mom had been for the relationship from the very beginning, and I have some doubts as to her full commitment to the whole Gothard courtship view. She agreed with things like the guy being the one to pursue the relationship, not the girl, and liked the idea that the parents would give their blessing and so on. Still, she believed that God would speak directly to the couple, not just through the girl's father.

I don't know exactly what to say about my dad's view, except that he aligned much more closely with Gothard in that God would reveal especially to him who I was supposed to court/marry.

Funnily enough, even though I had carefully considered the other parts of the courtship teachings, it had never occurred to me what would happen when I believed that God was leading me in one way but my dad didn't. As you would probably guess, it was painful and sticky for everyone.