Thursday, April 25, 2013

Looking for Mr. Goodbar

I'm not qualified to comment on how representative this is:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2012/03/why-courtship-fails-a-males-perspective/

17 comments:

  1. Pretty worthless article, though.

    Lacking in key specifics.

    What did you see in it, Steve?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are small pockets of this around, but the homeschool circles my family has been in are not this way. Courtship isn't a bad thing, however. It's rightly counter to the romantic ideal that's been popular in Western culture for the past several centuries and has contributed to the increasing divorce rate in recent times, especially with the promotion of extreme romanticism in literature (romantic novels) and drama (TV and Movies). The characterization of the lifestyle in the article is also likely colored a bit by the bias of the NLQ. I've known people in this lifestyle who get along quite happily.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A close friend of mine, who is now happily married, went through a similar experience. Though he wasn't home schooled, she was. They both still go to the same, good Reformed Baptist church. It looked to me like he bent over backwards to accommodate her dad - asking permission to do things with his daughter, always chaperoned, did things with her family and their church regularly, etc. - but because my friend believes in infant baptism and thinks house churches aren't ideal, the dad eventually nixed it. A very awkward family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This kind of brings up a point I thought of asking in Steve's "Obey Your Elders" post, where he mentioned that elders are accountable to biblical doctrine, that we don't owe them blind obedience. But authority figures - both fathers and pastors - can have personality defects as well as theological defects, like being obsessive-compulsively controlling. I wonder if the latter is more difficult to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the article is spot-on. It's absolutely true about the way things work. I have sisters-in-law in their forties who have never so much as been on a date thanks to the ridiculous way in which their dad compelled them to live. They were in churches with single men. Not a one of them took a liking to them- one of the obvious reasons being they were not only past their prime, but their father as a control-freak to the core, and a total jerk towards others. He also talked about a young woman who had said she had no plans to go to college and just wanted to be married and have children. It was such a blessing to hear, according to him. Now, though he's dead, he has left behind several daughters who will never be married thanks to him.

    BTW, his death came as an ironic consequence of his own controlling attitude. He was allowed to drive despite mental health problems because his family was too cowering of him even as a disabled old man, and he wound up in a car accident and died. His own controlling attitude led to his death. That's how far gone these problems are, and I think whoever wrote this article saw the same things I and others in my family have seen.

    Also, while there were plenty of single attractive women in my conservative church, I never asked them out. I'm engaged right now, but to a woman I met at an anime convention. I have no interest at all in filling my life with so much loathsome drama by looking for a girl in places where I must necessarily fill my love life with three extra parts grief caused by her jerk of a father who has an ego the size of east-Texas. Yeah, I went and found someone outside my former congregation. I'd argue I'm living proof of the things this article describes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One problem that I see is that, while one might not be able to say that courtship is "unbiblical" in the sense that there's no explicit prohibition against it, I'd say it's unbiblical in that the Bible usually keeps human authorities in check, all too aware of the foibles of the human ego. Primarily, church governance is done by a multiplicity of elders. Apostles were also accountable to other apostles. Even King David seems like he kept the council and advice of others. King Saul, for the most part did not, and we can see how badly that went.

    Deferring to the father as a sign of respect is all well and fine, but having one guy in control of all the decisions is a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For one thing, by having such authority and control including veto power over the lives of their daughters, it seems to me such fathers are discouraging (to say the least) their daughters from developing into Proverbs 31 women who can wisely make all sorts of decisions for their potential future households. Protection is one thing, but still coddling and cosseting 20-something year old women is quite another.

    ReplyDelete
  8. FWIW, if anything, Recovering Grace is a self-described "online organization devoted to helping people whose lives have been impacted by the teachings of Bill Gothard, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI)." I can't vouch for it since I don't know it at all, nor am I familiar with Gothard and the like, but some might think it worth checking out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Relative to Steve's original comment, what we have in general are a small sample of anecdotes and experiential evidence filtered through a lens of cross-cultural differentiation. I grew up with Mennonites in our church, and have had mixed experiences with local indy-fundies as well as the Amish community nearby. I suspect that we are discussing a very small group of people in general, in which case they will likely non-breed themselves out of existence. The web site this article is on disses the now-famous Dugger's for example, but the Duggers, scripted or not, obviously are not the repressed-vs-overcontrolling individuals portrayed by this article. You can't fake being happy that consistently. What I do know is that I don't have any statistics whatsoever on the effects of various methods for implementing a school of thought the particular breed with which I'm not even familiar.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm somewhat familiar with Gothard and (less with Vision Forum) and I've read a number of articles like the one linked here.

    Gothard came to the attention of my wife when she started researching in earnest in preparation for homeschooling our son. She was enamored of his teachings from the first and I continue to be cautious. She's sent me a number of articles, including things like his Daily Success emails and I haven't seen any major errors.

    I continue to be cautious about his hermenutic, though. He has a number of (what I consider) strange views on how to read and apply the Biblical text. For example, his view that Proverbs is primarily a book of promises by God to us, apparently disregarding what the genre has to say about how we should be reading such books.

    I have encouraged my wife to look up articles critical of him to understand the negative aspects of his teaching and person. She has done so, sifting through tens of articles of the sort linked here. I, too, have researched him and I have seen a number of articles like this one.

    Primarily, they seem to be written by people who either have an ax to grind against ATI because they disagree with their cultural practice ("Girls are allowed to wear pants or listen to rock music!") or because they come from an abusive family ("My father dominated our family and mentally abused us all.").

    This is the first article that I have seen that conflates ATI and Vision Forum.

    The majority of negative articles I have seen have nothing but good things to say about Gothard himself, but abhor some segment of his teachings. What such articles fail to do, though, is separate the abusive activity or mental illness of their parents from the teachings of ATI or the general mass of people who ascribe to them.

    Articles you find on Recovering Grace and No Longer Quivering want to make the case that ATI (and organizations like it) teach error that causes parents to engage in mental, sometimes physical abuse. I, frankly, haven't seen it in real life.

    The people that I know who homeschool and hold to some form of modesty teaching and male leadership treat their families and others with great respect. Of course, these people are actual regenerate believers and that makes a great deal of difference.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suspect that we are discussing a very small group of people in general, in which case they will likely non-breed themselves out of existence.

    If it weren't for the Amish, Charity Ministries, or Mennonites snagging people in a shattered-liberal phase in their life, they'd die out pretty quickly. One way to slow that down is to mandate the people in their movement breed like mice, hence their over-grown families. You mentioned the Duggars who aren't even mentioned in the article Steve links to, and ironically, they help perpetuate this mindset too. They have way too many kids, their daughters can't go to college, they must become surrogate mothers unless they're married, etc. If that's not overcontrolling, what on earth COULD count as overcontrolling?

    As far as their happiness on TV, you don't get to see on TV what happens behind the scenes, and wonder of wonders, if you read interviews of what goes on in the house that doesn't make the cut, it's exactly like you'd expect. It's extremely rowdy, fights happen all the time, and were it not for the older daughters being compelled to remain at home all the time, the house would be in ruins. Happiness can happen, but it doesn't have to be scripted. You see overgrown families from the Amish in public, and often they behave perfectly. Surely, they aren't faking perfection, are they? Well, yeah, they are. You're buying into a myth, Jim Pemberton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it weren't for the Amish, Charity Ministries, or Mennonites snagging people in a shattered-liberal phase in their life, they'd die out pretty quickly.

      I don’t see people beating down the door to become Amish. I only know one young fellow who tried to join the local community and found out that it was a difficult process.

      One way to slow that down is to mandate the people in their movement breed like mice, hence their over-grown families.

      I haven’t seen this, but it really depends on each community. Amish and Mennonites aren’t uniform from community to community. It’s understood among the Amish at least that the elders of each community can set whatever standards they think their community should abide by. The Mennonites have been even more open to the culture outside. Like I said, I grew up in an offshoot of the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren. My mom served as a missionary for two years between High School and college.

      You mentioned the Duggars who aren't even mentioned in the article Steve links to, and ironically, they help perpetuate this mindset too.

      They weren’t mentioned in the Article, but the website that hosted the article had an anti-Duggar section.

      They have way too many kids,

      By what standard?

      their daughters can't go to college, they must become surrogate mothers unless they're married, etc.

      That’s untrue. They have daughters pursuing a college education. The only surrogacy I’ve found is where people commented on the help the daughters give Mrs. Duggar for helping the younger kids. I have three kids. My older ones have helped out with my younger ones. That has little to do with the number of kids you have. Contributing time and effort to the family is healthy.

      If that's not overcontrolling, what on earth COULD count as overcontrolling?

      How about mandating the number of kids a family should have?

      As far as their happiness on TV, you don't get to see on TV what happens behind the scenes, and wonder of wonders, if you read interviews of what goes on in the house that doesn't make the cut, it's exactly like you'd expect. It's extremely rowdy, fights happen all the time, and were it not for the older daughters being compelled to remain at home all the time, the house would be in ruins.

      The Duggars themselves say the kids get rowdy sometimes. I think the word “extremely” has been added by someone else desiring to mischaracterize the behavior of otherwise normal kids. Actually, I haven’t watched their show very much, but I’m familiar with the kind of family they are because of the families like them in my area. I don’t have reason to doubt that they are relatively normal for the exception of being very large. That means that they aren’t perfect, but the at least realize it enough to handle it well up front. The accounts of the daughters I have seen are favorable toward their parent’s values and they are glad to help out. But don’t think that the sons don’t help as well.

      Happiness can happen, but it doesn't have to be scripted. You see overgrown families from the Amish in public, and often they behave perfectly. Surely, they aren't faking perfection, are they? Well, yeah, they are. You're buying into a myth, Jim Pemberton.

      So what myth, precisely, am I buying into? The comment of mine that you responded to was aimed at observing that we lack statistics. You have offered none. Nor have you offered support to back up your assertions. What you need to do now is tell why you believe what you believe.

      Delete
    2. I don’t see people beating down the door to become Amish.

      Which, of course, isn’t what I said. The Amish garner members through Rumspringa. They let their kids experience an unrestrained liberal lifestyle, and then wonder of wonders, most of their children decide to come back at the time they’re compelled to decide which lifestyle they wish to live. It’s a real sneaky tactic, but they recognized it, and they use it quite effectively.

      I haven’t seen this, but it really depends on each community.

      I’ve seen it constantly. Perhaps you’re not acquainted with the Charity Ministries movement. In their sermons and writings they have the same attitude the Duggars have. No birth control. None. Zero, zip, nadah. They never say, “Breed like mice,” obviously, but that’s not the point. The point is if you’re a normal husband and wife and you want to be intimate with each other, you’re necessarily going to keep on having more and more kids. There was only one family in my former church that had less than four. A few had over ten (mine being one of them).

      By what standard?

      By the standard that they’re unable to care for them. That’s a pretty basic standard. Were you looking for something else?

      That’s untrue. They have daughters pursuing a college education.

      Oh, excuse me, you’re right. The Duggars did get some of their children into pursuing a college education- but, of course, it’s online, and if they want to pursue nursing or midwifery, that ain’t gonna help. You can’t learn how to do what a midwife or a nurse does on a computer. You need first-hand experience with dummies, cadavers, live-patients, etc. In other words, they can pursue a college education- just not the kind that would require anything beyond a computer and a textbook.

      The only surrogacy I’ve found is where people commented on the help the daughters give Mrs. Duggar for helping the younger kids. I have three kids. My older ones have helped out with my younger ones. That has little to do with the number of kids you have. Contributing time and effort to the family is healthy.

      That’s brazenly simplistic. I was in the same situation. I was one of the older siblings, but it wasn’t a matter of us temporarily lending a hand now and then when Mom and Dad wanted a little break or wanted to teach us something about being responsible parents or anything. It was a constant daily need that we raise our siblings because they couldn’t. It wasn’t possible. They had eleven kids and would have had more if they could, but they couldn’t spend a single solitary hour with any one kid in a day, let alone teach them school, let alone teach them things about growing up and interacting with others, etc.

      How about mandating the number of kids a family should have?

      It’s overcontrolling to say you should only have as many kids as you can care for?

      The Duggars themselves say the kids get rowdy sometimes. I think the word “extremely” has been added by someone else desiring to mischaracterize the behavior of otherwise normal kids.

      Right, because almost twenty kids being rowdy doesn’t result in extreme rowdiness. I suppose if they had a hundred kids and they all got rowdy but only at different times, then you’d argue they aren’t extremely rowdy. The point is it’s not something they put on regular display despite it being a normal household theme. If that part is edited out, you can be assured worse things won’t make the cut.

      Delete
    3. The accounts of the daughters I have seen are favorable toward their parent’s values and they are glad to help out. But don’t think that the sons don’t help as well.

      I agree about the sons, but as to the daughters, I’ve also heard a man in Charity Ministries read off emotionally incestuous love-letters from his daughters to himself in their recognition of his authority to control their love-lives. That’s a favorable attitude towards your parents, I suppose, but that doesn’t mean much as far as determining whether it’s right, proper, and healthy. Can they look forward to remaining happy and glad should they decide to deny their parents’ values?

      So what myth, precisely, am I buying into?

      The myth that a small, scripted, and edited sampling of a large fundamentalist family that appears to function just fine is proof that families function fine despite having more and more children indiscriminately.

      The comment of mine that you responded to was aimed at observing that we lack statistics.

      No, that was part of the last sentence of a comment in which you previously took one piece of alleged counter-evidence and upon that said, “Obviously, they’re not the repressed individuals portrayed by this article.”

      You have offered none. Nor have you offered support to back up your assertions.

      I have offered support. Perhaps you didn’t read my first comment in this post. I’d also point out that you were quite happy to come to a conclusion about the Duggar family absent any statistics of your own. You’re not unbiased, and you’re quite comfortable taking a particular side absent statistics, and since nobody is going to go around asking families if they’d describe themselves as dysfunctional despite their religious position on unlimited children, you’re asking for a piece of data that will never be obtained, nor (given that they’d all say they’re sufficiently functional) would it provide much in the way of coming to a useful conclusion.

      It’s comments behind the scenes and from within the movement that tell the real story- hence why I offer my own account as supporting evidence of my statements.

      What you need to do now is tell why you believe what you believe.

      Again, my first comment was directly relevant to that subject. I’ll assume you haven’t read it yet.

      Delete
    4. Which, of course, isn’t what I said. The Amish garner members through Rumspringa. They let their kids experience an unrestrained liberal lifestyle, and then wonder of wonders, most of their children decide to come back at the time they’re compelled to decide which lifestyle they wish to live. It’s a real sneaky tactic, but they recognized it, and they use it quite effectively.

      I generally see the word “garner” members as taking from elsewhere. Your comment wasn’t clear to me in that way. Basically, they get members by reproducing. Rumspringa is an opportunity to lose members.

      I’ve seen it constantly. Perhaps you’re not acquainted with the Charity Ministries movement. In their sermons and writings they have the same attitude the Duggars have. No birth control. None. Zero, zip, nadah. They never say, “Breed like mice,” obviously, but that’s not the point. The point is if you’re a normal husband and wife and you want to be intimate with each other, you’re necessarily going to keep on having more and more kids. There was only one family in my former church that had less than four. A few had over ten (mine being one of them).

      So I haven’t seen it and you have. It’s only experiential at this point. I doubt either of us has experience with a significant representative sample of this teaching in all its iterations.

      By the standard that they’re unable to care for them. That’s a pretty basic standard. Were you looking for something else?

      The Duggars seem able to care for their children just fine. Do you know a large family that is lacking basic needs in the little subculture we are talking about?

      Oh, excuse me, you’re right. The Duggars did get some of their children into pursuing a college education- but, of course, it’s online, and if they want to pursue nursing or midwifery, that ain’t gonna help. You can’t learn how to do what a midwife or a nurse does on a computer. You need first-hand experience with dummies, cadavers, live-patients, etc. In other words, they can pursue a college education- just not the kind that would require anything beyond a computer and a textbook.

      So only certain kinds of education count?

      That’s brazenly simplistic. I was in the same situation. I was one of the older siblings, but it wasn’t a matter of us temporarily lending a hand now and then when Mom and Dad wanted a little break or wanted to teach us something about being responsible parents or anything. It was a constant daily need that we raise our siblings because they couldn’t. It wasn’t possible. They had eleven kids and would have had more if they could, but they couldn’t spend a single solitary hour with any one kid in a day, let alone teach them school, let alone teach them things about growing up and interacting with others, etc.

      It’s overcontrolling to say you should only have as many kids as you can care for?


      You are imposing cultural sensibilities from one culture onto another.

      Right, because almost twenty kids being rowdy doesn’t result in extreme rowdiness. I suppose if they had a hundred kids and they all got rowdy but only at different times, then you’d argue they aren’t extremely rowdy. The point is it’s not something they put on regular display despite it being a normal household theme. If that part is edited out, you can be assured worse things won’t make the cut.

      The fact is, neither of us has seen this first hand in their family. With my three kids, rarely are they rowdy all at the same time.

      Delete
    5. I agree about the sons, but as to the daughters, I’ve also heard a man in Charity Ministries read off emotionally incestuous love-letters from his daughters to himself in their recognition of his authority to control their love-lives. That’s a favorable attitude towards your parents, I suppose, but that doesn’t mean much as far as determining whether it’s right, proper, and healthy. Can they look forward to remaining happy and glad should they decide to deny their parents’ values?

      I don’t know what kind of verbiage it takes to be labeled “emotionally incestuous”, but it sounds like you may still be imposing cultural sensibilities. By the way, I don’t doubt in the least that there are abuses in this little subculture. I can tell you that there are plenty of abuses in the mainstream culture. We can blame any culture for the abuses therein, but abuses are endemic only insofar as there is sin. Show me a culture without sinners and I’ll show you a culture without abuses.

      The myth that a small, scripted, and edited sampling of a large fundamentalist family that appears to function just fine is proof that families function fine despite having more and more children indiscriminately.

      I never said it was proof. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the Duggar family functions well enough off camera to assuage the sorts of contentions that some people bring against the convictions that the family holds.

      No, that was part of the last sentence of a comment in which you previously took one piece of alleged counter-evidence and upon that said, “Obviously, they’re not the repressed individuals portrayed by this article.”

      So you contend that I didn’t mean what I said I meant by the entire comment. I offered counter-experiences along with the observation that we don’t have statistics to weigh such experiences accurately one way or the other.

      I have offered support. Perhaps you didn’t read my first comment in this post. I’d also point out that you were quite happy to come to a conclusion about the Duggar family absent any statistics of your own. You’re not unbiased, and you’re quite comfortable taking a particular side absent statistics, and since nobody is going to go around asking families if they’d describe themselves as dysfunctional despite their religious position on unlimited children, you’re asking for a piece of data that will never be obtained, nor (given that they’d all say they’re sufficiently functional) would it provide much in the way of coming to a useful conclusion.

      You haven’t offered support. You offered what I said was offered by you, me, and other commenters: experiential anectodes. That’s not support. My contention is that that none of us has any significant support. You think I’m biased simply because my experience doesn’t match yours. I haven’t taken a side, really. All I have done is point out that you don’t have any support for the side you have taken and you want to make a bone of contention about it.

      It’s comments behind the scenes and from within the movement that tell the real story- hence why I offer my own account as supporting evidence of my statements.

      Using that logic, I could take the opposing side with my account as supporting evidence and be just as right. Your experience proves nothing.

      Again, my first comment was directly relevant to that subject. I’ll assume you haven’t read it yet.

      Of course I read it. And I summarily reject it as viable support.

      Delete
  12. Sorry. My above commment's first paragraph should be italicized since I was quoting Jim Pemberton. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete