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.