Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit: Talking with Your Husband

Communication is critical in a marriage. 

My husband and I have been dealt some tough times since we've been together.  We've stayed together because we are able to communicate our feelings, needs and desires to each other. 

This section of Teri Maxwell's "Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit" bothers me because she teaches that homeschooling mothers should lie through omission to their husbands:

It is most likely when a Christian family begins to homeschool that both the husband and wife are in agreement that this is the Lord's direction for the family.  When homeschool becomes difficult, I encourage you, Mom,  never to consider quitting unless your husband is the one who says you are to do so.

Keep in mind: it is entirely possible that a loving husband, one who does not want his wife to "suffer," might suggest she quit homeschooling even though he wishes her to continue. This will usually be the result of the wife having regularly complained about her struggles, fears, and failures. Eventually, despite his heart's desire, the husband will decide that homeschooling is just too much for his wife. Therefore, consider well the possible consequences of not developing a meek and quiet spirit. (pg. 53)

ATI Wisdom Booklets: Bright and Shining Countenance

If you've ever wondered how people can pick out the Duggars - or the Bates Family or the Mally Family - as members of the ATI/ATIA/IBLP Gothardite cult from glancing at a picture of their daughters,  Wisdom Booklet 15's medicinal resource on "Ways to Direct the Eyes of Others to Your Countenance" will give you an overview of the basics.

And I did type that correctly - this is in the medical resource section.  My doctors have never given me clothing or hair tips so they must be heathen scumbags.

Here we go!  We have 10 tips overall.



Yup - if you are not smiling, you are failing as an ambassador to Christ!  People are going to hell now because you were too lazy to smile!  HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT!

Look, I'm a natural smiley person.  Having someone smile at me when I'm feeling down makes me feel a bit better.  I hope that making eye contact and smiling at people makes them feel seen if nothing else.

Having gotten that out of the way, this is so ham-handed it makes me want to glower at people for a week.

God so loved the world that he created a cheat sheet of colors based on the northern hemisphere temperate seasons. 

I refrained from screen-shoting the mangled history of how the seasonal skin tone was created.

There is an example of a season-color wheel to use.  There are two problems.  First, there's no real explanation of how to determine which season you are personally.  Second, the "right" colors are not explained well...and some are just plain wrong.  I'm a "winter" color palette - blue/pink undertone, blue eyes, blonde hair, can sunburn year-round pale skin.  The winter color section wants me to wear grey and "shocking" pink....no.

This section is true enough factually - but wearing the wrong colors is now implied to be a moral failure.   

I don't buy the premise that the wrong colors make your face disappear, either.  You might look like a wreck - but people aren't going to be staring at your clothes instead.

The editors probably had to work overtime on this section.  The real goal of female hair styles is to imitate the style that Bill Gothard finds sexy - below the shoulder and in loose curls that are clearly done by human styling.  If hair is naturally curly, straighten it - then curl it into orange juice can curls. 

Obs, everyone in this cult is of Northern European or Western European descent.  If not, get working on getting rid of any hair features that aren't NW European.

Men, you all get one hair cut.  As described in "The Big Bang Theory", it is number 7 on that chart from the 1950's.

Long hair on men is a sign of rebellion, pure and simple.  Keep it short or else.

Reminder: this is in the medical resource section!

This is the reason the Duggar Daughters often wear infinity scarfs - but wear them so high they look like a cowl that is trying to suffocate the wearer rather than a scarf.

For women, there is an even easier way to determine if an accessory is appropriate: You should look like a airline stewardess from the early 1980's before you leave the house.

Guys - never dress casually.  That's how Satan gets people.  Beards are the Mark of Cain.

Number Five is that men should wear clothing that fits properly - including diagrams that show proper fitting suits as being too tight.

Plus, the "too short" trouser is only too short by a millimeter or two - if at all.  

The person who wrote the first two tips must not have much of a sense of humor - how else could you follow a section on how evil sundresses are because they show shoulders with a section on how a clinging fabric is worse than being naked? 

Really, at this point, the author is making a decent case for running around buck naked.  We can all stare at each other's genitalia for a minute or two then move on.

Fishnet stocking can be sexy; sheer hose with a lacy pattern....not so much.

Geez - people read the messages on shirts?  Will the wonders never cease?   I'm sure that I've tempted plenty of men today in my heavy cotton t-shirt that has two moose exchanging a maple leaf with the slogan "I love Canada!" located on my chest.  It's soooooo sexy!

Asymmetrical hemlines are evil.  So are any color combinations that Gothard doesn't like.  Mmm'K.

The "Lines of Accessories" thing is a hoot.  First, that's not what people's eyes do.  Vertical lines tend to cause us to assume the shape is more elongated.  We don't follow the line to the end and stare blankly just below it.  Second, under those rules, men's ties point right at their crotch and women's neck scarves point at their breasts. 

The line about how shoes can draw attention to the ankles kills me - Gothard preferred the teenage girls he was grooming to wear pumps so he could play footsie on car trips.

I love how the last section is all about how women need to wear make-up.  Having flawed skin is now a moral failing along with wearing makeup in a way that Gothard doesn't like. 

Does anyone remember a section of the Gospel devoted to details on how to keep people looking at your face?  I certainly don't.....

Number Seven is be neat, clean, don't be overweight and exercise.  Of the three short paragraphs written on this topic, the longest is on the importance of keeping clothing washed and pressed.  There is a single sentence on the importance of hygiene and weight control so that the flaws in your appearance don't detract from the Gospel message.  That sounds like the worst weight loss plan ever....

Yes, ladies.  Despite being continuously pregnant, lactating and chasing after a house full of preschoolers, you still need to look like Donna Reed when she's at her lowest body weight.  Good luck!

Telling women to keep their abdominal muscles toned is especially cruel since repeated, closely-spaced pregnancies is a risk factor for diastasis recti or a permanent separation of the abdominal muscles.  This causes the stomach to have a pouch-like shape - and most abdominal exercises tend to make the problem worse rather than better.

The feet bit is insane.  Most people are slightly pointed out at rest while standing - but obsessing about having your feet pointed exactly straight may cause gait problems over time.

First - no shit.  I've yet to run into a woman who doesn't know that a woman in a skirt should keep her legs together while sitting.

Second - Have a section on how men sit.  Some women slouch - but there are a whole lot more men who look like sacks of pudding on a chair.  Guys can keep their legs together, too.

Nothing says timeless elegance like a cable-knit sweater over pleated chinos.  That'll never go out of style.  

I get where the author is trying to go with setting a good example in clothing - but people will stare at you if everyone else decided the correct outfit is a t-shirt with a message and patched jeans while you are wearing a collared shirt, tie, dress sweater and business khakis

OMG!  It's a true cable-knit sweater with pleated khakis!  That is a perfect example of a classic look that NEVER went out of style!

Um.... two paragraphs back the author claimed that the important part was dressing appropriately - and damn what others think.  Now, dressing differently from others is bad.  Which is it?

Also - the second paragraph is word-salad.  How is someone supposed to pull off being separated from the world while blending in enough to interact with others? 

The author is implying that people completely lose control of their eyes and the eyes are sending all sorts of messages without the consent of the person.  That's not how that works.

Plus, QF/CP teenagers are already nervous about interacting with the opposite gender so telling them that looking too long and winking are major problems is just mean.

So....the only eyes that are showing insincerity, dishonesty and/or treachery in the practice section is the only African-American in the whole booklet.  That's disturbing.

The workbook comes with a section that you can use to practice finding eye traps!  

What kills me about these outfits is that none of them are immodest a long stretch.  Number six manages to look fairly dowdy even by mid-eighties standards - and yet it has TWO eye traps!  The bib is pointing down towards the chest...and I think she's wearing nylons with patterns woven in them. 
(Medical tip: if your legs look like that without figured hose on - seek medical attention.  Something bad is going on.....)

Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit: Phonics Frenzy

This section came from a chapter on anxiety. 

Mrs. Maxwell's premise is that telling others what to do is anxiety-provoking while following orders is anxiety relieving. 

I don't agree with the premise at all. 

I never feel particularly anxious when I tell others what to do because I give orders when I believe that I have information that will be helpful to accomplishing a task.  When I was helping with an autumn olive removal work crew, I gave some suggestions on how we could use the tools and people available to remove the most plants as possible in a short time period.   On the other side, I get nervous when someone tells me to do something that doesn't seem like it will work out well.

Mrs. Maxwell takes this questionable premise and adds a religious twist:

In a very similar way, when I can view myself as simply following the Lord's orders, then I don't have to own the responsibility for the outcome. When this is true, many of the fears and worries vanish. (pg. 49)

*blinks*

This is a strangely un-Biblical idea - and certainly un-Christian.  Does her Bible have Matthew 25? You know - the wise and foolish bridesmaids? The parable of the talents?  Dividing the sheep and goats?   The Bible makes it's pretty clear that Christians are expected to make choices and live with the consequences.

After laying this warped framework out, she dives into how it plays out in a homeschool setting.

It may be that you have begun your six-year-old on a phonics program, but it is going poorly at best. You start to worry that the phonics program was not a wise investment, or that your child has some kind of learning disability. How can you regain a meek and quiet spirit in this situation? You can take your thoughts captive and remember several things.

First, you prayed about your choice of a phonics program, and the Lord led you to this one. Secondly, much is learned in homeschooling aside from the actual targeted "academics." Perhaps the Lord has in mind some other learning through this problem. (pg. 49)

*rubs head*
Let's attack this from an educational standpoint where we accept that the goal is to teach the six-year old phonics first and see if that solves the problem before requesting Divine intervention.

With that goal, the cost of the investment is moot unless the program is completely inflexible.  (Hint: no program is completely inflexible because 30% of teaching is learning how to adapt materials to fit the students.)

Next, I brainstormed all the reason that a phonics program may not be doing well.  I ordered them from "most common" to "least common" based on my experience teaching HS students.  (I would love feedback from people on their experiences!)

• The teacher is learning the new program.
• The student is still figuring out the new program.
• The program's methods are a poor fit for the student who is progressing normally.
• The program-student interface is fine but teacher expectations are too high.
• The student is not developmentally ready for phonics.
• The student has a learning disability.

Honestly, if the program has just begun, the best solution for the parent-teacher to spend more time to get comfortable with the program while observing their kid's response to the program.  Give the program at least 10 contact hours (that would be about 2 weeks in traditional schools) to let the newness wear off before making any decisions.

If progress is still slow, try and adapt an activity.  Maybe the kid needs something more active like making the sound of the day out of play-dough or tracing it in shaving cream.  Grab a dry-erase marker and do the lesson on a window or mirror.  Pull out the Scrabble tiles and see how many words - real and imaginary - that the student can make with that sound.  Give creative options at least 5 contact hours to work.

Still not working?  Your kid may not be ready for phonics yet.  I'm assuming that the kid has mastered the sounds of the alphabet for both the capital and lower-case letters and can sight-read some common words.  If not, the program may be too advanced for your six-year old - and six is a bit young for detailed phonics lessons.  Keep working on basic reading and try again in a month or two.  (The freedom to focus instruction exactly to the student the biggest benefit of homeschooling, IMHO.  The biggest drawback is that the parent-teacher would need to track 4 subject areas multiplied by the number of kids they have...that adds up quick!)

Learning disabilities are more common than many people think - but the diagnosis should be done by a trained educational professional.  The local or regional school district employs professionals who do this for a living.  If you think your student has a learning disability, consider strongly re-enrolling the student in public schools for diagnosis purposes at least.   (Most public school teachers have a story about a home schooled student who was re-enrolled because the parent-teacher decided slow progress in an area was due to a learning disability...except that the slow progress was remedied in a classroom without special education services. The parent had been doing everything right - the kid simply performed better in a setting away from home.)

Regarding God's Plan - maybe the lesson is to be humble in regards to the decisions we make or to be diligent in carrying out the responsibilities shouldered by the parent-teacher.  

Maybe this is an opportunity for your child to learn to persevere through something that doesn't come easily for him. It could be that this is a time for you to develop the added patience while you gently and sweetly work with your child every day, even though the progress isn't visible. Rather than giving in to fear and worry, spend time with the Lord and your husband discerning if there are "bigger" learning projects in this trial that a 6 year old who isn't "getting it". Face your concerns with a meek and quiet spirit! (pg. 49-50)

Perseverance is an excellent "soft" skill to cultivate in children - but the goal that the child is expected to reach must be reasonable or else the child learns that hard work leads to nothing but frustration and despair.

Likewise, teachers must be patient and capable of regulating their own emotions.  They also have to judge the capacity of a student to learn the material.  I co-taught Chemistry with a certified special education teacher for two years; it was one of the best experiences of my teaching career.  I had one student who has a documented severe learning disability in reading combined with a mild cognitive issue.  Teaching him to find information on the Periodic Table took a great deal of patience and gentle humor to keep his spirits up -and it was amazing to see his pride when he mastered that skill. 

Now, I still possessed patience and humor when the class reached balancing equations - plus I had a strong relationship with the student - but that task proved to be beyond his capability.   He tried hard, I tried hard, my co-teacher worked like a demon - but balancing required a level of abstract thinking that was a step too far for the student.  We let that concept go and created a chemistry-based skill that was achievable for him.

Mrs. Maxwell has a strange faith in her husband's ability to suss out the problems in her home school from afar.  This theme reappears later in the book - but how does that work?  Mr. Maxwell was working full-time as an electrical engineer; he wasn't observing the dynamics in the school or the way his children were learning.  I'm sure he could give excellent emotional support but I'd be a bit leary of substituting a soft skill goal in lieu of learning phonics.

Oh, well.  I'm watching my son amuse himself on the floor while I write this.  He's playing with a plastic toy and he seems to be in the very first stages of using a pincer grasp.  When he was 4 months adjusted, I took a toy off his play-gym that was a plastic maze that had beads that could be maneuvered along the lines of plastic.  I did that because he would reach out for the beads with his fully extended fingers,  try to move the beads with his rigid fingers, fail repeatedly and begin to cry/scream with frustration.  Rather than face 5 months of a frustrated infant, I put the toy away.   Now that he's approaching readiness at 7.5 months adjusted, I'm going to put the toy back.  The toy might be a little frustrating now - but a little frustration is manageable.

ETA: Little guy is off oxygen 24/7 now - and has started hard-core rolling.  Time to child-proof everything.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Epilogue - Part Two

We've reached the shining pinnacle of "Before You Meet Prince Charming" - Sir Valiant and the Princess are safely married and are allowed to have an emotional and sexual relationship.

That would be less concerning if they had a platonic relationship prior to engagement and marriage.  Heck, I'd feel better if I knew that they knew each other better than they know the cashier at the local grocery store.

This is most of the conversation.  I cut out a few sections where Valiant and Princess cattily bash the Alligator.  The Alligator is interesting and incisive; the model humans are not.

The moon was bright and a cool breeze kissed the cheeks of the princess and Sir Valiant as they sat talking in the Royal Garden. They had just arrived home from their honeymoon and although they were a little worn out from the trip, they were as excited as ever. It was a peaceful evening, with no noise but the crickets chirping and the leaves rustling in the wind. (pg. 245)

ATI Wisdom Booklet: Burning Bones

After a long break, I'm back to reading the absurdities of the ATI/ATIA/IBLP Wisdom Booklets!

This week's exploration is of Wisdom Booklet 7's Medical Resource - "How Does A Lack of Mercy Trouble The Bones?" 

Apparently, the correct answer of "Not a damn bit" was too short.

The first section of medical resource is a bit disorganized, but gives a cursory overview of:

•  bone fusion in infants 
• how the sacrum forms 
• the strength of bone compared to reinforced concrete 
• the tissues within a bone
• the importance of joints
• how joints work
• how joints are stablized
• how synovial fluid works
• how bursae work
• how the spine is cushioned
• bone marrow creates red blood cells

I have some minor quibbles with a few of the explanations - but there are no major factual errors in the first part.  That makes the insanity of the second half all the more stunning.

Presumably, everyone who reads this blog understands the idea of literary forms.  The Bible is a compilation of works by many authors in many languages over a long period of time.   Entire books in the Bible were never meant to be read literally like Psalms and Proverbs; these books attempt to convey ideas about interactions between humans and the divine through poetic forms.

Using Psalms or Proverbs as a reference for how emotions affect bones - that would be bat-shit crazy.

And it is bat-shit crazy.

Here are the examples someone created by combining a superficial and shallow understanding of the human body and isolated Bible snippets:

This Psalm has a straightforward message: When I had unforgiven sin, I felt like shit.  It's not complicated or difficult to understand.

The scientific "explanation" falls apart rapidly under mild scrutiny.

• I've never heard any correlations between stress and coagulation time before but a few minutes on PubMed showed that under acute stress blood coagulates faster.  This makes some sense; severe wounds are extremely stressful and increasing coagulation may lessen blood loss.   Under chronic stress, blood coagulates faster as well - but not as rapidly as during acute stress.
• Yes, coagulation requires calcium and lots of coagulation will use up calcium in the blood - but that is not going on in massive amounts in healthy adults.  Uncontrolled coagulation causes serious, potentially fatal disorders like heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and acute kidney failure.  
• The body will mobilize calcium from bones if blood calcium levels fall too far - but if blood calcium has dropped that low due to blood coagulation, the person is screwed since they've coagulated most - if not all - of their blood so they have no way to circulate oxygen from the lungs to major organs.  Plus, muscles need calcium to work including the heart so the person is in cardiac arrest as well.

  

The term "senile" has been removed from osteoporosis because osteoporosis can develop in younger people who suffer extreme malnutrition or have certain genetic disorders. 

When blood circulation slows, the first problem living tissue has is lack of oxygen - not calcium.  Without oxygen, cells cannot produce enough energy to continue vital processes and die.   This can happen in bones and produces avascular necrosis - not osteoporosis.

Living organisms have finely tuned balances on the amounts of certain chemicals in the blood including calcium.  Excess dietary calcium is excreted.  Similarly, if a person is eating enough calcium and vitamin D, the amount of calcium in the blood is generally adequate.  Adding excess blood flow to a region will not improve the amount of calcium in a bone if the area already has normal blood flow and appropriate blood calcium levels.

Why won't the body let us add excess calcium to the bloodstream when it is available? Too much calcium in the blood can cause cardiac arrest so the body prioritizes heart function over bone health.

That last bit on red blood cells (RBCs) is totally wrong.  Cells in the kidneys produce a hormone that controls the production of RBC based on the amount of blood oxygen.  Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through the body - not nutrients.  Waste disposal is handled by the skin, lungs, kidneys and liver, not RBCs.

Here's my (sane) response: Chronically stressed people often do not have the time or energy to take in the daily recommended amount of calcium.   Since calcium is needed for the heart and nervous system to work, the body will remove calcium from bones to keep the person alive at the risk of weakening bones over time.   If you cannot eat properly, take a calcium + Vitamin D supplement daily to protect your bones.

*rolls eyes*

Oh, yeah!  That totally makes sense!  One time, my twin sister scared me in the middle of the night.  I screamed in fear, jumped out of bed and both of my legs absolutely shattered!  Once the doctors fixed up my legs, they realized I had become severely anemic from the fright.   I knew we should have paid attention to the 1980's public service announcement "Scary tricks, broken bones".

Seriously.  We'd all have stories like that if the Wisdom Booklet was right.

Adrenaline acts to prioritize blood flow to the heart, lungs and skeletal muscles to prepare and power a fight-or-flight reaction. The reaction doesn't last forever so there's not permanent damage to the digestive system, skin, bones or any of the other systems that get less nutrients and oxygen until it is over.

Interesting fact: Red blood cells take 7 days to mature in the bone marrow and live for upto 3 months.  This means that an adrenaline rush - or even a theme park week-long trip - is not going to cause a noticeable decrease in the amount of RBCs in the body.  

Psalm 102 is thematically simple: "God, my life is crap because I'm chronically ill right now.  Please help!".

My biggest problem with this section is that it implies that osteomyelitis is much, much more prevalent than it really is.  According to Mayo Clinic, there are less than 1,000 cases of osteomyelitis in the US diagnosed a year - so it's really rare.   

The reason osteomyelitis is so rare isn't because Americans are relaxed and calm; it's because osteomyelitis requires multiple failures of the immune system to become clinically significant.  Bacteria has to pass through the layers of protection of the skin, respiratory system or digestive system, travel through the bloodstream while avoiding immune cells, and finally lodge in a bone without being destroyed by the immune cells there.

People at risk for osteomyelitis have serious chronic diseases that affect the immune system directly like rheumatoid arthritis and HIV/AIDS or reduce blood flow to extremities like sickle cell anemia and diabetes.  Another way osteomyelitis can occur is when bacteria can skip one or more immune system layers like illegal IV drug use, dialysis, compound bone fractures (which means the bone broke through the skin) or bone surgery.

                           

This section messily combines two separate conditions - osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis - into an inchoate mess. 

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs when the immune system attacks the lining of joints causing severe inflammation and pain. The inflammation process damages cartilage plus the damaged lining doesn't produce enough fluid to lubricate the joint leading to worse damage to the cartilage.  Untreated RA can lead to fused joints.  The first joints attacked are often the small joints of the hands or feet and there is often visible reddening or swelling of the joint externally.  There are around 200,000 cases in the US each year making it a common disorder. 

In the snippet above, the first sentence and the diagram are about rheumatoid arthritis.

Osteoarthritis (often just called arthritis) is the degeneration of cartilage when daily wear-and-tear on joints cannot be fixed by the body.   The joints most affected are large joints that bear weight in the legs - knees and hips - and the shoulder joint.  Visible inflammation of the joint is rare. Over 3 million cases of arthritis occur annually in the US making arthritis extremely common.

The section about using antidepressants to treat arthritis describes the use of Cymbalta to help combat chronic pain due to arthritis.   Medical science is only starting to understand how chronic pain changes a patient's body.  It's clear that long-term pain causes changes in the amount of neurotransmitters in the brain which makes the brain more sensitive to pain.  SSRI's and SNRI's (classed as anti-depressants) cause the brain to slow the destruction of neurotransmitters which "reset" the patient's brain back to levels of neurotransmitters that pain-free people have.


When facing a chronic illness or the chronic illness of a loved one, stress relief is a good idea - but it's not a cure.   People who are facing RA or arthritis need medical and logistical support, not a spiritual intervention.

Homeschooling With A Meek And Quiet Spirit: Mom's Reaction to Dawdling

In traditional schools, students arrive in a teacher's classroom with a variety of experiences, beliefs and aptitudes.  Building relationships with 100 students a semester takes practice and patience - but teachers benefit by learning that students bring unbelievably many different paths to success.  No two students are alike - and woe betides the teacher who makes too strong of comparisons.

Home schooling parents, on the other hand, have a much more limited group of kids to base their experiences on.  Deprived of a student teaching experience as well as classroom experience, they are limited to comparisons of their children to each other as well as close relatives and any other homeschool families they know well.

This difference in breadth of experience can lead to homeschooling parents labeling their child as having problematic behavior when the kid is behaving in an age-appropriate manner - but is perhaps developing a tad more slowly than an older sibling or has a higher activity level.

This example cropped up in Mrs. Maxwell's book:

"One of my children is much slower in his learning than the others have been. This son is my dawdler as well. When he sits down to do his school work,  he is immediately up to sharpen his pencil, pat the dog on the way, washes his hands for good measure, checks out what his sister is doing at the piano, and finally hops back to his work. My ingrained reaction is frustration and irritation. This one child takes so much more of my time and energy than the others. I am discouraged because of the slow progress we make in areas he is struggling with. Can you see my wrong thinking and focus? Unfortunately, my eyes are on myself. My spirit is not quiet. If it were, I would be content with the way God made this child, and there would be no turbulence inside me." (pg. 18-19)

Truthfully, "slower" isn't a diagnostic term in education.  There is a wide amount of variation between students when acquiring new skills.  When doing genetic problems in high school, some students reached mastery after a single day of practice.  Others took over a week of exposure before reaching mastery.  Did I worry about the students who were five times "slower" than the early mastery students?  No, as long as they were showing forward progress and didn't seem discouraged, they would get to mastery soon enough.

Next, let's discuss "dawdling" for a moment.  Humans have a wide continuum of levels of attention and focus to a task on hand.   Some people have attention that drifts when any new stimulus appears; the other extreme is nearly unbreakable focus on a single task.  Equally importantly, few students have levels of attention that exactly match the teacher's attention.  Yup, Mrs. Maxwell's son's attention drifts more than hers does; after all, she can list exactly what he did during a time period when he probably can't.  The difference doesn't mean that a problem exists - just that humans are not identical copies of their parents.

I also am a highly focused person - but I found that I was a much more effective teacher when I stopped wasting emotional energy on trying to get students to be on-task every moment of the class period.   The truth is that Mrs. Maxwell's son gets to make choices about how he uses his homeschooling time and lives with the consequences of those choices.  Mrs. Maxwell could save herself a lot of irritation and frustration by deciding what the consequences of not being on-task during school time are and enforcing those consequences calmly.  Most homeschooling kids schedules have a good size block of free-play time between the end of quiet time/nap and dinner/chores.  Personally, I'd let the kid keep 30-60 minutes of that free time to blow off some steam, but then the kid would be expected to continue working for the rest of the play time until he finished the assignment.  If he still was off-task, he'd have to continue working during a portion of evening play time. (I need to put a caveat here: this assumes that the assignment is age-appropriate, that the student understands how to do the assignment, and that I created an area that had an appropriate atmosphere for studying.  If any of these issues exist, forcing the student to spend more time spinning his or her wheels is an exercise in insanity building.)  My rationale for doing this is that many excellent home school graduates mention struggling with time management and completing tasks on a schedule when they move on to college.

As I was writing this post, I realized my main annoyance with that quote: good teachers are focused on positive academic and personal outcomes for their students while Mrs. Maxwell's main goal is maximizing her spiritual growth.   I've spent my time figuring out how to teach her son to modulate his attention; she's spent her time figuring out how to ignore her.

I probably would have forgotten that quote if Mrs. Maxwell hadn't decided to reference it much later in the book:

Remember my son who takes so much of my time and energy for his home schooling? It is very easy for me to have a frustrated tone in my voice when I am interacting with him. The Lord will convict me of this. When I respond with worldly sorrow, here is how my thinking goes, "This child is just more than I can handle patiently. I am not cut out for this task. I have prayed for patience. I have worked on being meek with him, but I keep failing over and over." My whole focus is on me. I have no real concern for this particular sin in my life. My sorrow is worldly because it wants to be right and good on its own efforts. (pg. 51)

Notice that Mrs. Maxwell conflates being honest in her thoughts with a form of sin.  Her thoughts are completely clear and lucid.  She's not being patient with her son.  She's not well-prepared or educated for teaching.  She's not patient or meek and she's failing repeatedly. 

The problem is that she fails to take the next logical step of "What do I need to change to improve my teaching skills with my son?"  Instead, she becomes more self-centered and self-involved by prioritizing her "worldly sin" over learning how to teach.

We do agree on one thing: Mrs. Maxwell's focus is entirely on herself - not her son.

The use of the verb "to convict" is a pet peeve of mine - see endnote 1.

"This is how I see godly sorrow handling the same situation, "Lord, you have said that man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that You desire. You have also said that love is patient and kind. I have not been obedient to You. Your fruit is not showing forth in my son. I am wrong, Lord. Please forgive me. Thank you for your forgiveness and working in my life. I submit to You and ask You to continue to teach me your ways." Then I quickly confess my wrong attitudes and tone of voice to my son and ask his forgiveness." (pgs. 51-52) 

See endnote two for a rant about capitalization in CP/QF prayers.

This is an excellent example of the belief that fixing the sin of one person can fix a completely unrelated problem in a different person.   Mrs. Maxwell implies that her son is progressing slowly in academics and dawdles because Mrs. Maxwell is impatient with him.   

That's reversing cause and effect. 

More problematically, Mrs. Maxwell denies any autonomous effort or action by her son.  Her son initiates behaviors - he works on his assignments, he wanders the house, he pets the dog, he checks in on his sister.  Her son controls all of those actions.  He's not a puppet who responds solely to the amount of meekness she shows in her life.  Heck, he may be completely unaware of how annoying she finds his behavior since he's one kid in a household of 8 kids and two adults.  Perhaps he's learned that being off-task is a consistent way to get her attention since negative attention is better than being overlooked.

I'm shocked at how many times Mrs. Maxwell can realize that her method of doing something isn't working - and then double down on making the solution all about her needs and wants.

Teaching is not about the needs of the teacher but the needs of the student.


1) CP/QF writers' use of the verb "to convict" is irritating.

There are two meanings of the noun "conviction".

• having been found guilty of breaking a criminal law 
• a strongly held belief or opinion

The verb "to convict" only refers to the legal proceedings meaning - not the act of having a strong belief or opinion. 

The paragraph would make much more sense if she stated that "God has shown me the truth of this conviction" etc. 

2) When capitalizing prayers, authors and editors need to chose if the pronoun "you" will be capitalized when describing Jesus/God and if possessive pronouns referencing God will be capitalized.   I learned to capitalize both - but I accept any combination as valid as long as it is uniform in a work.  In the prayer above, both types of capitalization are used for "you" and the possessive pronouns are all over the place in other sections of the book.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Epilogue - Part One

I noticed while preparing for this post that the chapters of the book end BEFORE the Princess and Sir Valiant begin courting.  I suppose that's a stylistic choice based on the title of book and - perhaps - a dislike of ending on Chapter 13.

Personally, I'm still freaked out by the King's interpretation that Sir Valiant was asking to marry the Princess when Sir Valiant asked what qualities the King would be looking for in a suitor for the Princess.

Anyway, the King wanders off to tell the Princess that Sir Valiant, the King, and the Queen are all in favor of the Princess dating sorry, "courting" Sir Valiant.

As always, the Princess is off doing critically important stuff!

Returning from one of her frequent trips to the various villages where she joyfully and kindly met the needs of many who were fainthearted, poor, injured, and troubled. Today she had paid a special visit to her friend Maiden Flirtelia and had given counsel and encouragement to a girl named Simplicity whom she had met along the way. She also visited a sick mother and played with her children, gave some fabric to a needy family, and delivered a personal letter from her father to a village nobleman. The princess was learning again and again that it is more blessed to give than to receive. The more she delighted in her heavenly Prince, the more she wanted to share with others the fulfillment she had in Him. (pgs. 239, 241)

To recap, the Princess visited a friend, pontificated to a random kid who she'd never met before, provided minimal help to a sick woman, gave a raw material to another family and acted as a page.

 Whoo-hoo!  She managed to do two activities that Jesus wanted his followers in one afternoon.  That's a 40% return on her afternoon activities!

More seriously,  the Princess has power as a member of the Royal Family that she is squandering.  While not as powerful as a reigning monarch or the male heir to the throne, a sole daughter of marriageable age would have access to some money as well as great influence over the activities of noble families.  The Princess could be endowing orphanages,  establishing storehouses to supply goods to needy commoners or funding hospitals.  Instead, she's puttering around doing what she likes to do (e.g., play with kids) and giving away items she's finished as a hobby (e.g., fabric) and pretending that she's doing good works.

Notice as well that the Princess spends more time around children or alone than she does around people her own age or adults.  In my mind, that's an unconscious statement about the mental and emotional maturity of the Princess.

The King and the Princess meet somewhere out in the woods and walk to the castle together.  The King is noticeably distracted while the Princess talks about her day, but he brushes off her questions and changes the subject abruptly:

" My daughter"  he said, ignoring her questions, " what shall I say when one of the young men of the kingdom cometh to me to inquire about thy hand? There will be many young men at the summer contest. I would not be surprised to receive such request."

" Father, it seems that many young men seek only that which will bring pleasure or money. Some be good men, but they have not the vision for the greater tasks, nor are they willing to make the sacrifices that such tasks demand. Also, they often be proud and seek their own Glory."  She thought for a moment then continued, " it bothers me sometimes when I observe the young men in the kingdom. Do any understand the true battles of our day? Do any fight the good fight? It is this, not noble birth, that is true nobility." (pg. 241)

In real life, random commoners do not wander up to the King and ask to marry his daughter.  No.  Not going to happen.  Neither would the Princess so quickly dismiss noble birth.

Psst!  Princess!  Let me let you in on a little secret: sole bread-winners of ginormous, ever-growing families have to seek activities that bring in money all the time.  That's their main job in life besides keeping their wife pregnant yearly and being the spiritual leaders of the family.  When approached by a suitor, make sure he can bring in cold, hard cash unless you want to take a large drop in personal living standards.

The Princess derides the vision and sacrifices of the young men of the kingdom.  That's a hoot!  She lives in the lap of luxury - hell, half of the descriptions in the book read like a blurb from a linen sale catalog - but the only good she does for the community could be accomplished by an average 8 year old.  Pick up veggies for an old woman.  Play with the kids of a sick woman and orphans.  Hand fabric to a needy family.  Be a page for her father.  That's not the vision of an adult woman - so why should the readers trust her opinion of the young men of the kingdom?  I certainly don't.

Since the Princess has signaled so clearly that she'd court someone like Sir Valiant, the King continues to creep along:

Attempting to conceal his own enthusiasm, the king proceeded with another question. " My daughter, thou knowest the knight, Sir Valiant?"

The princess felt a shiver surge through her.  " Yes, thou knowest I have met him several times."

" What thinkest thou of him?" he asked calmly, rubbing his chin.

" Father, I have tried not to think of him --not because he is undesirable, but maybe because he is too desirable. I do not want to be distracted or consumed with that which is simply a dream." (pgs. 241-242)

The King has rough-rode over the Princess' thoughts, dreams and feelings through the entire book when he wasn't gaslighting her - but we are supposed to believe that he's suddenly concerned that he's unduly influencing the Princess towards Sir Valiant.  Nope, that's completely unbelievable based on everything we've seen so far in the book.

The Princess use of the word "several" should be changed to "twice in a few years plus that time I saw him announce a proclamation six years ago".   The Princess and Sir Valiant are strangers; it's way too late to try and white-wash that.

The last two paragraphs shows another insidious problem in Emo-Pure: single adults have been conditioned for years to "guard their hearts" and "keep every thought captive".  They can't instantly change that pattern of behavior even if the long-awaited suitor appears and passes inspection.

The next quote is one of the most telling in the book:

"But what thinkest thou of him?"  the king asked again.

"Of what I know he is true, he is kind-hearted, and... and he is becoming."  The princess tried to read the expression on her father's face, yet continued, " I have been impressed with everything I have seen of him. I have never talked with him at length, Father, but I have wanted to... How well do you know him?"

" Well, my fair one, your mother and I have been observing him and discussing his character. He indeed has conviction and is steadfast. He knows the battles we face and is the most zealous and faithful subject." (pg. 242)

The Princess has finally learned to parrot her father's beliefs and feelings about others back to him.

 That's the only conclusion possible for why the Princess is trying to read her father's expression while talking about the fact that she finds Sir Valiant attractive - and it's quite telling that she's mastered that immediately before she gets the reward of courtship/marriage.  Good girls who do not rock the boat by thinking, expressing unpopular opinions or having feelings get married; bad girls who do any of those things sit at home as old maids.

The main trait that the Princess knows about Sir Valiant is that he's hot.  The Princess has no way of judging Sir Valiant's "truth" or "kindness of heart" when they've met for less than two hours and have only ever exchanged small talk.   The King, on the other hand, knows that Sir Valiant says exactly what the King wants to hear.   Sir Valiant hasn't made any inroads against the Dragon or Giant that are "terrorizing" the country; I'm sure we'd have heard about that.  No, he's a good toady to the King.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on Sir Valiant.  After all, he's well on his way to moving from a random, nobody knight to heir apparent of the Kingdom.  Maybe he does have more vision than the King or the Princess.  I think Sir Valiant can see himself on the throne of the Kingdom quite clearly and gaining a conventionally beautiful, subservient, childish wife is a perk.   Most disturbingly, there's no one in the story who'd be able to see clearly enough to discern the difference between an ambitious, power-hungry usurper and a humble knight who wants to serve the Kingdom - except the Alligator who is kept on the edge of things.

After all of this, the Princess and Sir Valiant are officially courting - and I use the word officially because the King announces their courtship - or is it their engagement...Ms. Mally is very unclear about these things - at the end of the Ren-State Fair:

"Finally, he announced the news everyone was waiting to hear. Sir Valiant had won the heart of the princess! Not with talent or skill, not with words or money, not with bravery or nobility, but with a heart that was pure and a life that was true. The King was careful not to offend the other knights as he applauded the character and strength of Sir Valiant. Rather, he challenged and encourage everyone to follow the way of Truth, reminding them that God is always faithful to reward the righteous." (pg. 244)

*giggles*

 Nothing like damning by faint praise, King! Let us know how you really feel about Sir Valiant.  "He's unskilled, poor, cowardly and low-born, but hey, he's not given a hunk of his heart to anyone else, so I'm marrying him off to my daughter!"

Honestly, that's poor writing construction.  The purpose of that section is to demonstrate that Sir Valiant's most important quality is his pure heart and clean, brave living.  Stacking his skills first - "He guards the Kingdom from..... His bravery during.... His service to the Crown...." followed by "Above all of these things, his heart and life shines as an example (blah, blah, blah)".  Now, the same point is made - without making Sir Valiant sound like the town idiot.

In historical terms, this would be marked as the watershed moment that lead up to the fall of the house of the King.  The King has chosen his heir apparent to be a young, unconnected commoner who has accomplished nothing in defense of the Kingdom.  It doesn't matter how carefully the King tries not to offend the other knights; his actions speak far louder than his words - and implying that Sir Valiant is God's chosen due to his righteousness isn't going to go over well, either.

There is one last section in the book - a stilted conversation between the Princess and her husband SirValiant when they return from their honeymoon.  This is supposed to be inspiring - but I found it insipid, depressing and unnerving instead.

Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit: Letting Anxiety Rule Your Life

My life was riddled with anxiety from age 4-19.

 My younger brother died suddenly and unexpectedly from an undetected birth defect that greatly weakened his immune system. David was a week away from his first birthday.

 From that point on, I suffered from severe anxiety. I suspect I had a genetic predisposition to anxiety to start with - but David's death was like gasoline on a fire. I was terrified that my parents or youngest brother were going to die. I had panic attacks at school at the beginning of the year because I was sure my parents were going to die. After all, that's roughly what happened with David from my point of view: my baby brother was fine when I went to bed one night and dead in the morning.

As I got older, the panic attacks about being away from my family lessened although never went away.  Instead, I became a classic overachiever.  I studied all the time and was crushed by grades lower than a "B" - and a "B" was a sign I needed to work harder on my next assignment or test.  I trained, conditioned and cross-trained on my own outside of sports practices.  I pushed so hard that no one caught the fact that I had exercise-induced asthma until I was 16.  When I switched my attention to music and theater, I trained as extensively there.

The problem was that I was frantically trying to get the anxiety and resulting depression to stop by doing one more thing.    Ironically, the perfectionism I developed was making the anxiety much worse rather than better.

When I started college, I had a major episode of depression which required hospitalization.  While I was in the hospital, I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder.  The drug Klonopin saved my sanity; it tamped down the anxiety long enough for me to learn coping skills and gave me a chance to use those coping skills.  Thankfully, my anxiety responds well to SSRIs and I've seen a great therapist for the intervening 16 years who has taught me more coping skills while exploring the causes of my anxiety.

I share my story because my history has given me a finely tuned radar for anxiety in others.  When I read a story written by someone with untreated anxiety, my anxiety starts resonating.   This snippet from "Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit" by Teri Maxwell screams of untreated anxiety.

When my youngest child was a baby, she went through a stage when she wasn't nursing well at her breakfast time feeding. We decided that I should quit waking her up at 5:30 a.m. to nurse her so she would be hungrier at 8:30 a.m. As we began doing this, I found I became very nervous from 6:45 until 7:45 because I would not be available if she happened to wake up and be hungry. I was out of the house, walking, and someone at home would have to pacify her if she awakened. That time became miserable for me because of my anxiety over the baby. I asked Steve, and he agreed that we could go back to waking up the baby early in the morning. Do you know what happened? Rather than dreading having to get up at 5:30 every morning to nurse the baby I loved it. I was so happy to again have a peaceful heart during that hour I was out walking that I didn't mind, in the least, the early morning nursing time. (pgs. 33-34)

For readers who haven't had a young infant, the feeding time is always being adjusted by parents and the infant.   Babies eat larger amounts at less frequent feeds as they get older - but sometimes a baby is eating more heavily before a growth spurt or wants smaller amounts more frequently as a comfort during teething.  As a parent, I prefer that my son is hungry enough that he eats during a feed rather than eating for 2 minutes, playing for 5 minutes, eating for two minutes, telling me a story for 5 minutes which is his preferred feeding style some days.

In other words, dropping an early morning feed is pretty routine.

Reading between the lines, dropping the early morning feed worked fine. The baby never woke up hungry and screaming.  No one - not Steve or any of the older kids - had to pacify the baby until Mrs. Maxwell returned home.  Plus, with the scheduled exercise time, Mrs. Maxwell was in the house for a hour after the skipped feeding time and 45 minutes before the 8:30 feed.  If her littlest one was going to freak out over a missed feeding, Mrs. Maxwell would be in the house and ready to nurse.

No, the problem in this situation is the disabling anxiety that Mrs. Maxwell feels.  My heart goes out to her; anxiety that can hang on through sixty minutes of exercise is severe.  I feel a great deal of compassion because no one deserves to be enslaved to anxiety and there are many medical and behavioral treatments for anxiety.

 Heartbreakingly, the process of relieving anxiety by rearranging her schedule makes the anxiety worse over the long run because she never faces what she is afraid of.  One technique I've learned is discussing what I think is the worst-case scenario to determine that 1) that's pretty damn unlikely to happen and 2) the outcome isn't that horrible.

Here's an example using an imaginary CP/QF patient (P) and a therapist (T):

P: "I can't keep exercising without an early morning feed for my baby."

T: "What are you afraid will happen while you exercise?"

P: "Well, the baby will wake up, be hungry and cry inconsolably until I get home."

T: "Has the baby woken up so far?"

P: "No, not yet.  But she could."

T: "What would happen if she did wake up and start crying?"

P: "My husband would have to take care of her."

T: "Ok.  So the baby would be taken care of."

P: "But my husband shouldn't have to take care of the baby.  That's my job because I'm a good mother and wife."

T: "Tell me more about what being a good wife and mother means to you."

I don't know what Mrs. Maxwell's anxiety around feeding her daughter stemmed from but I'm willing to bet a trained therapist would find that she had concerns or expectations for herself that were unrealistic. 

I believe that most CP/QF adherents are attracted to the lifestyle in part due to untreated mental issues since it offers a simplified world view that promises safety and fulfillment in response to following some "Biblical" ideas.  My hope is that CP/QF believers think long and hard about getting a mental health screening from their doctors; the results can be life-changing.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Chapter 12 - Part Four

A quick recap of the previous post: God arranges marriages so girls/women should sit around and wait for some combination of men to set up a courtship for them.  If a girl/woman should happen to meet a guy outside of that, ask snoopy questions about his salvation status to kill time while her parents get involved.

This section is the second half of "Young Man Takes Initiative":

If the young man meets the qualifications, if you are interested, and if the Lord so directs through his Word and your authorities, now is an opportunity to begin building the friendship. As you proceed, it is best to first continue to get better acquainted in a group setting. I know one family that simply has a particular "interested" young man come to their home several times a week for supper and just to be with the family. The whole family is getting to know him well.


If possible, it would be nice for the two families to spend some time together as well. In fact, it would be ideal if both families could become good friends and possibly have ministry together. (pg. 230)

The conditional phrase "if you are interested" is the only discussion of consent in the entire section on how God arranges marriages.  At this point, I suspect most young women would begin a relationship with the guy.  If the steps previously stated had been followed, the man and woman don't know each other at all. Certainly not well enough to object to getting to know each other at that point. 

There's no discussion of how to bail from any of the next stages (close friendship, engagement or marriage) even though two of the three are not legally binding. This implies that when a guy and a girl agree to get to know each other they've started on an unstoppable journey that will end in marriage. That would be an excellent reason to demur from getting to know anyone of the opposite gender well in CP/QF circles.

  The rest of the sentence is absurd in the context of the steps.  If a guy doesn't meet the undefined "qualifications" set by your "authorities", the girl's not going to be allowed to get to know him better.  Expecting the Lord to direct you through his Word is a phrase that sounds elegant, but has no meaning.

There are so many potential pitfalls with getting to know a romantic partner amidst large families.

• Some families don't get out much - so adding a new person to the mix creates some unconscious power plays and rivalries about who the new person likes the best.
• Multiply the previous idea by 10 when combining two large families.
• It's rough enough when the person who monopolizes the conversation is one of the kids - but when Mom or Dad wants to monopolize the conversation with the new person, no one has any recourse. 
• Getting dumped for a stranger sucks.  Having a potential suitor fall in love with your sister - or brother - would REALLY suck especially since you have no emotional coping skills from previous ended relationships.
• All of this cozy fraternity is based on an unspoken assumption that the two families will be united in marriage.  Now, potential couples have to weigh the effects a breakup will have on their families, too.  I'm not sure which would be worse - wanting to call off a relationship when your family loves the other family or wanting to marry someone when your family has negative feelings (unrelated to your future spouse) about his family.  Either way, the pain of the broken relationship has grown much larger than the average dating relationship.

I feel compelled to point out that the relationship is in the "Casual Friendship" stage.  In the rest of the US, casual friendship would be a safe description of people on sports teams, co-workers, or that neighbor down the street.  People can certainly follow Ms. Mally's scheme - but don't be surprised when potential suitors balk at bringing their entire immediate family to pass out tracts with their not-a-girlfriend's family.  Most people have too much self-respect to be put on display for the family of a possible romantic interest if their family passes inspection.....

Close Friendship

This next phase is an exciting part of the adventure --but one still requiring much discernment, caution, and patience. It is tempting to rush ahead at this stage, rather than taking enough time to get to know each other well in a not- too - romantic environment. As much as possible, the goal is to keep your emotions in check until you determine that this indeed is the life partner God has for you.

Allow this phase to take as much time as is necessary. It is important to get to know each other well. We accomplish this not just by being together, but by doing together. Choose specific ministry projects that the two of you can work on as a team. There are also many areas that will be important to discuss during this courtship period: your purpose in life, your future ministry goals, your doctrine , your convictions, your views of family and child rearing, and your spiritual walk. But it is still best to avoid intimate talks until there is official engagement. (pg. 230-231)

My mind is boggled.

"Close friendship" is not a synonym for "courtship"to start with.  A close friendship can span decades without expectation of moving into a different stage.  A courtship is a transitional period in determining if two people are suitable for marriage.

Keeping emotions in check while actively deciding if a person is a marriage partner borders on the pathological.  Part of marriage suitability is mutual attraction as well as affection.  Refusing to acknowledge those feelings is harmful enough - but failing to recognize the absence of those feelings brings heartache down the road.

Like in dating, relationships develop on their own timeline - but extremely short or long timelines can be a sign that something is wrong.  Short courtships may miss some disconnects between partners; long courtships can be a sign that someone is uncomfortable with commitment.

Spending scads of time working on ministry projects together during the courtship is a horrible idea.  People are seeing how they fit as life partners, not ministry buddies. Being together is an important part of determining compatibility - and not only in scant moments stolen from massed family gatherings.  Once a couple marries, they won't have a chaperone available to fill silences.

Did an editor read this section or was it written piecemeal?  In previous stages, a couple learned about their life purposes, ministry goals, and spiritual walk.  That was the thrust of the "Observe" and "Have Parents Stalk Future Boyfriend" sections - so why are we rehashing this again during courtship?  Has their beliefs changed massively? 

I guess a couple can chat about doctrine, but my marriage hasn't been challenged by the differences in belief between my church and my husband's church which I suspect are more substantial than the differences between sects of CP/QF.

If a person has previous convictions or ongoing criminal legal problems, they should disclose that to suitors. Oh, I know Ms. Mally doesn't mean that type of conviction - but she should.   Josh Duggar should have disclosed his multiple molestations to his future wife and Toby Willis should have let his wife know that he rapes kids.     A whole lot of shit is apparently being swept under rugs in CP/QF land so a woman who plans to be financially dependent on her husband while raising a very large family should be damned sure her husband isn't going to end up in a pseudo-rehab center or in prison.

The idea of laying out my future family life with a man to whom I can't say "I love you", can't hug or kiss seems completely out of whack.  By reacting to perceived imbalances in dating relationships, courtship has swung too far in the other direction.

Engagement

Engagement is the home stretch towards marriage. Many long talks have already occurred, but ahead are some of the most special times and a greater level of intimacy as you enjoy a new sense of belonging to one another. A couple needs plenty of time together to have these necessary long talks that engagement requires.

But you still do not want to put yourself in any tempting situations. There are lots of opportunities to be together while just going about normal daily activities. Continue to maintain close accountability with your parents, and purpose to avoid even the appearance of evil.

Concentrate on the spiritual and continue to wait for the physical. I respect many couples I know who have chosen to reserve their first kiss for their wedding and all physical affection for marriage. (pg. 231-232)

Wow.  That's.....wow.

I don't know what Ms. Mally thinks marriage is like - but it's not a series of long, deep heart-to-heart conversations interspersed with sex.

Communication is key in a working marriage - and yet  the couple has never talked about money, family issues, sex, or end-of-life issues.  These are difficult conversations that need to happen.

Let's talk about money for a minute.  Young adults from CP/QF families are in a different situation than many engaged Americans because they generally live at home prior to marriage.  This creates some potential sticky points for a young marriage that should be discussed:

• Each person should find out how much money their current standard of living costs - a home, car, gasoline, utilities, internet access, food, insurance, and clothing.  Next, compare those numbers to the previous year's income of the husband.  Discuss what changes will have to occur for the new couple to make their budget work.
• The new couple will presumably live on their own.  
• Look up the cost of either a mortgage on a two-bedroom house or the monthly rent of a similar apartment.  Assume that the apartment will require at least two month's rent as a deposit and that a house requires a 20% down payment.  (Since rampant fertility is a design of CP/QF,  I'm going to assume that a one-bedroom or studio apartment is not workable.)  
• Next, determine the amount of cash-on-hand needed to furnish the apartment/house with a double bed, a couch, a table, and a few kitchen chairs prior to moving in.
• Determine the daily commute costs for the husband.
• Revamp the budget to make these numbers fit.
• Couples in the twenties not using birth control have a 90% chance of conceiving in the first year of marriage.  
• Determine the cost of OB visits - one first trimester, three second trimester, 6-8 third trimester visits plus costs of delivery - under your health care plan.  
• Determine the costs of an infant health care plan including 5-6 well-baby checkups in the first year plus two sick-baby office calls and one ER visit.  
• Estimate the costs of diapers, wipes, and formula for one year.  (Don't skip this step if you plan to breastfeed.  Some women cannot produce enough breast milk to exclusively breastfeed and some infants cannot safely grow on breast milk due to inborn metabolic issues.)
• Assume an additional $50-100 in maternity clothing costs and random infant supplies.  (I bought all of my maternity clothes from thrift stores like Goodwill - but you will still need new bras and underwear both before and after giving birth.)
• Add up the total costs of the previous four lines and divide by two.   This is least amount of money that having one baby every two years will cost.  
• Revamp the budget to make the numbers fit.

Get my drift yet?  The reason many Americans have smaller family sizes is because raising offspring is expensive.  One reason many mothers work is that raising offspring is expensive.  One reason many people receive vocational training or college educations is that raising offspring is expensive.

Don't let CP/QF obsession with avoiding sexual contact before marriage hurry a marriage that will be marked by grinding poverty instead of waiting a few years for education and career prospects to pay off.

Good news!  Ms. Mally has lost most of her steam at this point so the section on marriage is short and completely unrealistic.

Marriage

In God's amazing plan, the two become one. As women, we were created to be our husbands' helpmeets. We need to remind ourselves frequently that our purpose in getting married is not to get, but rather to give. We can be assured that, as we follow God's calling and honor his design, his plan is what will bring us ultimate fulfillment and joy. (pg. 232)

I've written answers similar to this before when I hit a question on an exam that I was completely unprepared for.   Since I wasn't sure what the right answer was, I did my best to string a few concepts together and hope that I was right.... but the most common outcome was being absolutely wrong.

Ms. Mally strung together the Biblical ideas of two people becoming one in marriage, women as helpmeets, a divine plan, and what is usually derided as a "modern feminist" obsession with fulfillment for a frantic punt that sounds like no marriage I've ever seen - and no marriage I would want to be in.

Well, the chapter continues for several more pages - but it's not worth going over.  Next, we move on to the happy ending of the allegory where the Princess and Sir Valiant have a deep heart-to-heart talk after their honeymoon.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Chapter 12 - Part Three

The exhort and advise section of  "Know That God Arranges Marriages" is completely theoretical so Ms. Mally begins by explaining that she can't answer any questions about how or when a person will get married because that's totally up to God - and the experience that God has in-store is going to be amazing!

I hate how cynical this sounds - but a lot of CP/QF courtship stories sound far more painful than enjoyable.

The majority of the chapter covers the steps from meeting an interesting guy through marriage.  

Observe

As the Lord brings someone into your path who is of interest to you, your first step is not to show interest or get excited about him, but just to observe. It's good when parents can help with this too. What are his goals? Does he know the Lord? Is there ministry or spiritual fruit in his life? Is he committed to the word of God? How did he treat his mother and sisters?" (pg. 229)

This phase seems to be at cross-purposes.  Girls aren't supposed to give pieces of their hearts away (whatever that means) but following these directions will lead to far more wasted time and energy as the girls -and their parents(!) - try to assemble a dossier on a young man before figuring out if he's available let alone interested in the girl.

Heck, even thinking through the advice shows a few gaping holes.   Trying to get answers to a half-a-dozen personal questions will make a girl's interest in a guy extremely clear and obvious to anyone who is watching.  Adding parents to the mix will increase the level of awkwardness without adding much important information especially when the girl and guy are simply trying to get to know each other.

IMHO, there are a lot of far more important questions that need to be answered before moving into a more romantic relationship like:

• Am I in a good place for a relationship right now? 
• Is the other person available for a relationship right now?
• Am I attracted to this person?
• Do we have interests in common?
• Does this person treat all people respectfully- like wait staff at restaurants or that irritating teen at church?

An adult who is ready for a romantic relationship should be able to get the answers to these questions through their own observations, through interactions with the person they are interested in or from mutual friends.  Consider it good practice for forming adult networking skills. 

According to Ms. Mally, once a person has moved beyond observing, they can become casual friends.

"Acquainted as Casual Friends

If God desires to bring two people together, he will give opportunities for them to get to know each other in natural settings --at church, school, work, homes of friends, conferences, camps, Christian organizations, ministry projects, or in one of God's other creative matchmaking situations.

You do not need to date in order to get to know another person. You actually learn more about an individual by seeing him in real life situations. Anybody can act mature, romantic, and considerate on a date. But how does he live in everyday life? How does he interact with people? How does he respond to various stresses and pressures?" (pg. 229)

I agree with Ms. Mally that many, many people will meet marriage partners through work, school, church or social activities. 

I don't understand how that helps a homeschooled young woman who is a stay-at-home daughter of large family with limited means that home churches or is a member of a small congregation.  She can't meet new guys at friends' houses if she already knows the entire congregation.  Ministry opportunities will bring her into contact with those same people.  Going to camps, conferences and belonging to many Christian organizations costs money that she doesn't have access to.  That at least partially explains why so many CP/QF families have unmarried daughters who are over 30 in a culture that idolizes early marriages.

The second paragraph of the quote demonstrates the fundamental misunderstanding of dating that Emo-Pure writers have.  There is a world of difference between "going on a date" and "dating". 

Yes, most people can handle being romantic for at least an hour or two on a date - but keeping up a false front is tiring and most people will have their real personality come through.  That's why a person can gain as much information by watching how their date behaves towards others on a date - the wait staff, the crabby toddler at a nearby booth, or a rowdy bunch of teenagers.

Dating, though, transitions from the early days of solely romantic dates to longer periods of time spent together in a wide variety of settings including family and work events.

Actually, this entire discussion about dating is a moot point.  Casual friends exist in wider US society because men and women can be friends without becoming romantically involved. 

Young Man Takes Initiative

When the young man (or a young man's father) expresses interest, a new phase of the adventures suddenly begins. Interest has been specifically expressed! Now what?

It is at this point that parents (and/or other godly mentors) can play a key role in screening and protecting our emotions. If parents take the time to get to know a young man first, ask the many important questions, find out where he is spiritually, and discuss how your life goals fit together, think of how much parents can determine before we get too emotionally involved. This is a tremendous safeguard for us! I'm not talking about an "arranged"marriage. I'm talking about using common sense to avoid mistakes, pain, and heartaches. My parents understand how I think, and they know what I'm looking for in a spouse. I trust them. I trust God to give directions through them. If my parents have "checked out" a guy first, I will feel a whole lot safer in pursuing the serious matter. (pg. 230)

The first paragraph brought a basic truth home to me.  In spite of Ms. Mally's protests to the contrary, this courtship model could be an arranged marriage.  A guy - or his father (!) - could be observing and becoming casual friends with a young lady's parents instead of the young lady.  Honestly, sucking up to the parental units may well be more effective than winning the heart of the young woman. 

The second paragraph brings home how passive a young woman is supposed to be in courtship.  She's allowed to notice a guy exists and learn some basic facts about him.  Everything else is taken care of by her parents.   

The phrase "ask the many important questions" reminded me of the McDonalds' three hundred questions to ask potential suitors.  Whenever I need a laugh, I go to that list and throw a few of them at my husband.  I love how suitors are allowed to refrain from answering any questions that are too personal - but no one seems to question how creepy having the parents of a girl you want to date ask about a guy's exposure to porn including the extent and circumstance is....

I think I've figured this out: courtship isn't meant to make marriages; it's meant to scare off any potential suitors.

We are about halfway through the list; we'll cover the remainder in the next post.