Joyfully At Home: Chapter Thirteen - Part Two

Oh, my dear readers, I am so excited to share THIS post with you!

I don't often remember the details of when I read a section of a book for the first time - but I remember this one.  "Joyfully At Home" by Jasmine Baucham had been a bit of a slog for me to read through - but I had decided that I was going to finish it.  It was a cold, snowy winter night and I decided to read it curled up in bed next to my husband.  (I am lucky to have a husband who can sleep with my bedside lamp on.)   I plowed through Chapter 13 - and that chapter had enough crazy attempts to ignore the financial issues that a SAHD will face if she's unmarried when her parents died that I decided reviewing the book was worth it.   I started reading Chapter 14 and was a bit confused as to why Jasmine was still attempting to refute the obvious idea that women may well need to support themselves at some point when we hit this lovely quote:

Question 2: What if your father or husband dies, or they are unable to provide for you because of an injury or illness?

Answer: What if the local church took its duty towards widows and orphans seriously? (pg. 153)

I burst out laughing so hard that I woke my husband up.  I gave him a quick recap of Jasmine's living situation at the time and read him that quote.   We both agreed that Jasmine was living in a warped fantasy world....and he went back to sleep.

Reality check time:

Jasmine Baucham wrote this as a fully fledged adult who had a high school diploma and was 19 years old.    The local church would certainly be in a place to help her - but expecting a congregation to sacrifice to support Jasmine as a SAHD until she marries is financially unsustainable.  Sarah Mally, for example, is 41 years old and Sarah Maxwell is 38 - are congregations supposed to have line items in the budget for several hundred dollars a week to go their mothers to support able-bodied adult women in upper-middle class comfort until they marry?   How would that even work?

Instead, let's think about what help in this situation would have looked like historically.  Jasmine, after all, has stated several times that she wants a return to a Biblically mandated society.

Biblically speaking, Jasmine would have been married off quickly to an available man.   Forget all of the CP/QF obsession with the eligible man who shares the right spiritual beliefs and is ready to be a priest, prophet, protector and provider - the correct man for her to marry would be a man who was looking for a wife and able to remove her from the church charity rolls.   That's a very different man than the imaginary husband who will be able to keep her and their children in upper middle class comfort without Jasmine working.   The real husband of orphaned Jasmine might well be working two jobs to keep the two of them in a manufactured home in a trailer park.  Adding kids means Jasmine starts working night shifts at the local grocery store to feed everyone.

Practically, a church would expect modern Jasmine to go to work.  Most  families in an average CP/QF congregation have daughters who work outside the home as nannies or mother's helpers.  Families who are financially struggling may well have daughters working in food service or retail - and Jasmine would likely end up working there until she completed her college education.  Voddie Baucham may well have enjoyed being able to show off that he made enough money to keep his unmarried daughter out of the workforce in middle-class comfort - but churches can't be expected to continue that conceit for deceased members. 

I know it's not polite to answer a question with a question but think about it: while wills, life insurance policies, and detailed plans are all important measures that a father can use to ensure that their families are well provided for ( and I have nothing against these methods, and personally know the security that they provide)(1 Timothy 5:8), so many of us miss out on the security that the body of Christ should afford us.

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. ( James 1:26-27) (pg. 153)

I was hoping young Jasmine would bring up 1 Timothy because 1 Timothy 5 shows that the early Church was already struggling to provide for all of the needs of widows and orphans - and placed some pretty hard and fast limits on charity.  1 Timothy 5:3-5 starts by stating categorically that the grown children and grandchildren of widows are responsible for supporting widows in their families. The next two verses lay out that good widows pray a lot and bad widows party a lot.    1 Timothy 8 in the context of the chapter is not directed husbands or fathers; instead, it is aimed at the children and grandchildren of elderly widows.   Historically, that emphasis on children and grandchildren makes sense since living offspring were the only form of insurance that women had after their husband died.

1 Timothy 5:9-15 is far more pertinent to rebutting Ms. Baucham's arguments.  A widow should be supported by the church if she fits all of the following criteria:

1. Is over 60 years of age
2. Has been faithful to her husband
3. Is known for good deeds

With the emphasis on family caring for widows in the earlier section of 1 Timothy 5, we can add a 4th requirement:
      4.  Has no surviving children or grandchildren for financial support  

Now, Jasmine was 19 when she was writing this book and 20 when it was published.  She's also mentioned on her blog that she was conceived in the first month after her parents married.  Since a previous chapter mentioned that her mom was 23 when she got married, we can estimate that her mom was 23 years at marriage + 1 year of pregnancy + 20 years of raising Jasmine = 44 years old at the time of publishing. 

This means that if Voddie Baucham had passed away unexpectedly neither his widow nor his daughter would have been old enough to be supported by the church. 

What would have happened instead?  1 Timothy 5:14 states that younger widows should remarry.  Remember, marriage was the primary way of organizing labor and family connections in the ancient world.  Telling a young widow to remarry was the same thing as saying that she needed to remain in the workforce until she was older.

Long story short: the Biblical and modern answers to the question of "what will happen if your dad dies?" are the same: you need to be willing and able to be employable.

The Battle Of Peer Dependency: Chapter Three - Part Five

In broader Christian life, people are supposed to put God first, others second, and themselves last.  Swap out "God" for "Jesus" and you get the acronym "JOY".  Plenty has been written about the dangers of placing seven billion people's needs in front of your own needs - but Christians pretty solidly agree  that following the will of God should be first.

Well, Marina Sears in her opus "The Battle of Peer Dependency" repeatedly demonstrates that CP/QF families expect their children to place the desires of the parents first, God second, and everyone else in the universe last:

For five years, I didn't understand that the reason he didn't want to go in the direction that God was pointing our family was because he had decided in his heart that he wanted to go in the direction of his friends. So I approached my child and asked him, " Do I have your heart?" I was wondering who was on the throne of his life in relationship to Proverbs 23:26 and Malachi 4:5-6.

"No," he replied.

With heart pounding, I asked, "Does God have your heart?"

His answer was the same. "No!"

"Well, who does have your heart?" I asked.

" I do," he said.

Panic flooded my soul is I thought about the ramifications of his answer.  Questions filled my mind as I struggled with what to do. How can I change this heart? Is there anything another individual can do in order to change the heart of another person? Is God the only one who can change a person's heart? (pgs. 37-38)

Mrs. Sears sets up this entire chapter leading to a climax where she realizes that she's lost the heart of her son to peer dependency - and the implication is that any response from parents no matter how draconian is legitimate to make the child or teenager give their heart back to the parent.

That was her intent, but the story as written makes her seem deranged. 

I hope in real life she had taken some time to lead into a loaded question with her son before tossing "Do I have your heart?" at him - but as written - she may well have thrown the question at him while shopping, or doing laundry or passing in the hallway.

More broadly, the first correct answer should have been "Yes, you have my heart, mother!" rather than declaring allegiance to God above all others or explaining that under Biblical principles the teenager was an adult responsible for his life choices before God starting at age 13 - so it would immoral for him to give his heart to his mother.   His mother clearly throws the question about God out as a frantic attempt to regain mastery of the situation - but the fact that obedience to God is a secondary concern permeates the entire story. The invocation of Malachi 4:5-6 is unintentionally ironic given Mrs. Sears' placement of God as less important than herself; Malachi 4 is a standard warning from a prophet that people are drifting away from worship of the Lord and that divine smiting is approaching again.  The declaration of parents and children turning to each other means nothing outside of the fact that parents teach their children how to obey the Law - and teaching children encourages parents to obey the Law as well. 

Including Proverbs 23:26 shows CP/QF's sloppy methodology of reading comprehension; that verse is the beginning of a parental decree that young men don't have sex with prostitutes and don't marry young women who will cheat on them.  While good advice, it's not exactly groundbreaking in terms of parental advice - and certainly not a huge thrust of Christian life.

The frantic questions that Mrs. Sears asks herself about how she can change her son's heart are both touching and disturbing at the same time.   The questions are heartbreaking because the questions echo the pathos of parents who see that their children are on a dangerous path but are unable to stop the choices being made by the older teen or adult child.    Those same questions take on a disturbing patina, however, when directed at a young teen or tween by a parent who literally controls everything in that person's life.   Mrs. Sears had effectively isolated her children from every outside influence that could provide some grounding outside of her personal desires.  She is their teacher - and their mother - and the person who keeps her children away from outside families in their church.   The same wrenching questions asked by a parent whose child is spiralling into mental illness or criminal behavior become sinister when the parent is asking the questions of a healthy, law-abiding teen who wants to play volleyball with his friends and listen to pop music.

The last quote that we'll discuss from this chapter is proffered as a way to test of a child is peer-dependent.   Honestly, the activities discussed here remind me far more of a cult leader assessing if their followers are suitably dependent on them or a domestic abuser trying to see if they have adequate control over their victims than normal parent-child behavior:

One approach a parent might take in order to find out if his son or daughter is peer dependent is to tell your child that all outside activities with peers will be suspended for one week. Will your child willingly and joyfully go along with that plan, or will they whine and cry, manipulate and control, and completely make your life miserable until they can do things with their friends? Another approach is to simply ask, "Who has your heart?" or "Who would you say is in control of your life?" (pg. 38)

"Hello, family.  This is your Beloved Leader speaking.   All peer activities will be canceled this week.  Everything here is happy and neutral* here!"

That is a level of behavior and emotional control that I have not expected out of my child since he was around 4 months old.

Why 4 months?  That's about when he started to figure out that he was a separate person from me.

 I do expect my son to eventually go along with decisions he doesn't like - but I always explain why (as best I can) in an age-appropriate method and I accept that "going along" doesn't mean "be happy about the decision".   

For example, I went to a new park with him that had paved walking/biking paths so he could use his walker.   I hadn't realized that the park had several playground areas scattered about.   My son really wanted to go play on the playground - especially the one that was perfectly preschooler sized - but we couldn't because public play equipment is closed under the current stay-at-home order. 

He's way too young to understand COVID-19 so I told him we couldn't play because that area was closed.   Spawn was angry-sad and he threw a tiny temper tantrum. (He actually picked up his walker and slammed it back onto the ground; I was impressed at his motor control while pissed off).

 I told him that I wanted to play there too - but we couldn't right now - and look, there's an area where like 7 paved paths come together....wouldn't that be fun in a walker?   He took off towards the merged paths area - which is all I ever expect in terms of "going along".

I didn't declare that his feelings were a sign that he was peer-dependent because 1)he's not; he's not quite into cooperative play yet and 2) I accept that he's needs more than being attached to me for his entire life.

Teaching your kids that any authority figure should be obeyed unquestioningly when giving harmful orders without any rationale is seductive if you want to control them.   Remember, though, that a parent who raises their kids like that is also raising their kids to be extremely attractive to abusive people.  Abusers are attracted to docile people who don't make a fuss when you isolate them from friends and family.......

*Yes, I've been watching "Tiger King" on Netflix - a story of 2-3 cults depending on how you class a cult.  For people who haven't watched, there's a guy named "Doc" Antle who is the head of a polygamous cult that supports itself by breeding tiger cubs and getting a lot of money from photo ops and cub petting.   There's a whole ton of cult-speak that spews out of Antle - but the point where he describes everyone as being "happy and neutral" was pretty much the moment that I said "Yup, that's the money-line for every cult."

Joyfully At Home: Chapter 13 - Part One

 Welcome to the thirteenth chapter of Jasmine Baucham's "Joyfully At Home"! 

This chapter is all about Jasmine's second attempt at rebuffing questions that will be asked of young adult women who live at home with their parents without working or obtaining career training or advanced education in the absence of an illness. 

This chapter is the best chapter in the whole book from a standpoint of personal amusement for me.  Jasmine has been a stay-at-home daughter for a few years at most when she wrote this book - and she's still struggling to answer well-meant questions.

Sensibly, she starts off the with question that most adults will immediately ask - if staying at home is about preparing you for marriage, what happens if you never marry?

Question 1: What if you never get married?

Answer: My usefulness at home is not contingent upon how old I am. (pg. 151)

And, you know, if she had stopped right there, the entire section would have been fine.  The easiest defense of being a stay-at-home daughter (SAHD) is to state that being a stay-at-home daughter works for this girl and this family right now and that future circumstances will be faced as they come. 

People will still ask questions about how that daughter will be supported as her parents age and eventually pass away - but "It works for me" is pretty hard to tear apart. 

The issue is that Jasmine immediately derails into a page-and-a-half spiel about how her understanding of logic is better than the rest of us (which I excluded from the quotes in the ellipse passages) and a frantic, impassioned explanation that she's going to be married, goddamnit!

She wanted to know " whether if you don't get married by the time you're 30, will you stay at home when your brothers are grown up or will you take up some missionary work?"

(...)

The first assumption? That I won't be married by 30. If I'm not married by 26, I'll take arsenic and end my spinsterish misery. In fact, make that twenty one. The countdown has begun. Because life is meaningless if Johnny isn't by my side.

(...)

My first observation was the assumption that if I'm not married by 30, I shan't be married at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. This year has brought me so much news of courtships, engagements, and marriages of dear friends and acquaintances, ranging from age 18 to age 40. (pg. 151)

The first assumption isn't an assumption; it's a conditional situation.  Her blog reader asked a sensible question about what options Jasmine would have as a mature single adult if she's not needed at home. 

And, really, that's a question that parents and young adult SAHDs should think long and hard about.  Even the most fertile woman eventually stops having babies and those babies grow up.   Having one or more unmarried adult daughters around the house must be helpful when the 10th-15th children are aged 5,4, 2,1 and infant.   The importance of those daughters, though, declines when that same cluster of kids are 15, 14, 12, 11 and 10 and the chances of that daughter marrying when she's 30 instead of 20 is much lower as well. 

Instead of talking about ministries that are appropriate for unmarried women of all ages, Jasmine pretty much screams "I WILL BE MARRIED!  MARRIAGE IS FOR ME!"

As a data person, I have one question about all of those courtships, engagements and marriages of 18-40 year olds.   What is the shape of that data set?   Of all unmarried women, are the chances of a 40-year old woman getting married the same as an 18 year old?     I suspect that the chances of marriage after age 24-25 drops strongly for single women in CP/QF land - and there's very little the women can do about that.  The reason is simple; it's easier for men to leave CP/QF than women and it's easier for men in CP/QF to find partners who are CP/QF adjacent than it is for women to do the same thing.

What about women who are 41?   Is marriage impossible for them? 

Honestly, I don't believe marriage is the beginning of life as an adult for women.  I do not believe it is essential for a happy life or a good life.   CP/QF beliefs, though, only allow one life path for adult women to follow - and that makes a rough road for women over the age of 25 who haven't married yet.

The Battle Of Peer Dependency: Chapter Three - Part Four

In an earlier post, I mentioned that Marina Sears frequently uses a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well" in her book "The Battle Of Peer Dependency".  Poisoning the well is a tactic to preemptively discredit people on the opposite side of the argument by declaring that opponents have a series of negative connotations that are not supported by wider evidence.

 A great example of poisoning the well is encapsulated in "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies" which posits that the longer a discussion goes on the internet the higher the chance of an analogy between one side and the Nazis or Hitler becomes.   An example of Godwin's Law is the argument against vegetarianism of "Hitler was a vegetarian!".   I have no idea if Hitler was a vegetarian - but the evil of Hitler was killing millions of people which is unrelated to his eating habits.  Similarly, there are many people who are vegetarians - but that doesn't mean they will kill millions of people.

CP/QF writers need to prepare their readers for two possible groups of people who could undermine their message.    For Mrs. Sears, the first group is rank outsiders who are not CP/QF adherents.  That group is easy enough to discredit by claiming that True Christians homeschool and shelter children extensively unlike those Ungodly Heathens in public schools.  The second group offers a much harder challenge.  This group consists of homeschooling Christian parents who let their kids interact freely and without excessive oversight with other homeschooling Christian teens. 

To new Christians or to lost people searching for the Truth, a peer dependent group may seem godly on the outside. One may see the outward evidences of Christian life: Church attendance, tithing, politeness and manners in speech and conduct, or serving the Lord by teaching Sunday school, Bible classes, or participating in mission trips. On closer examination, however, one may also find the peer dependent individual or group being just as comfortable with the things of the world. They balance the spiritual with a quest for pleasure whether it is through materialism or personal gratification. (pg. 35-36)

The first sentence in the quote is excellently crafted to align people who let their teens hang out with other teens with inexperienced Christians.  You know, those baby Christians who don't know the real truth of the Gospel which is forming nuclear families that align under a paterfamilias for the extent of his life. 

You don't remember that from the Gospels?   That's because you're a baby Christian - not a mature Christian like Marina Sears. 

I particularly appreciate how Mrs. Sears manages to smear every sign that a Christian might have of actually following the Gospel.   Near as I can tell, a teenager who is attending church willingly, polite to all, behaving morally while giving back to their community by tithing, teaching and serving others is the ideal teenager in all religions. 

Wait.   All religions except Mrs. Sears' personal cult.   Her teenagers manage to do all those things without having any friends at all.

But did her teenagers do all those things?   I'm always impressed by how very little well-known CP/QF teenagers accomplish.   It's not the teenagers' fault; their parents have them so extensively sheltered that they have no chance to shine in teaching, in service or even in being polite to people who are very, very different from them. 

The most insidious problem with Mrs. Sears' theological practice is that it pits families against each other and promotes hubris.   Instead of emulating good traits in families that have happy teenagers, Mrs. Sears encourages her followers to mentally denigrate people who make different choices by declaring them to be materialistic or shallow.

The next quote set off my cultic thinking alarm bells. 

Most parents make the mistake in believing that because their children are " hanging out" with other Christian kids, and their activities on the surface are moral, all is well. They may even falsely believe that if a brother or sister is present, the family standards will be upheld. This is one deception that is probably the most dangerous for parents to believe. Many times brothers and sisters do not have the relationship, inclination, or spiritual maturity to understand the problem in order to give protection. Also, peer dependency can attack more than one person in the family at the same time, so the sibling or other family member the parent is sending to monitor the situation , may very well be peer dependent himself. Many times young people split up into groups, and siblings may be separated during times of fellowship. What parents must realize is that children and young people act differently when they are with their peers than they do when they are with adults. (pg. 36)

Whatever you do, parents, you cannot trust your own eyes. 

Your teenager is having fun with other teenagers while playing volleyball at church.  No!   Volleyball is a known gateway sport which leads to friends which leads to thinking - and you do NOT want you teenager to think.

You think that sending siblings to chaperone each other is a safe bet?  WRONG!  Your teenagers are sheeple!  Sending two teenagers to a youth group talk on the history of the Bible will lead to friends which will lead to a romantic relationship which will lead instantly to sex and unplanned pregnancy.  An unplanned pregnancy will make you look like a bad parent - and the most important thing is avoiding any criticism from anyone - so don't let your kids go to youth group. 

You think you know your teens well enough to figure out which ones need extra support around peers to make good choices and which are secure enough to make good choices?  Fool!  Kids act differently around their peers than adults!  There is no correlation between the choices your kids make around their parents and other adults and how they will act around peers!

I thought the point of CP/QF homeschooling was that parents - mainly the mother - would spend so much time around their kids that the mom would have a solid understanding of the strengths and flaws of each of their kids.   Using that insider knowledge, I assumed that CP/QF homeschooling families would be better able to adapt character training for each kid.   The kid who is a bit lazy gets extra support on learning how to work.  The kid who is overly cautious learns how to be a bit braver.  Done correctly, I assume that CP/QF kids should be more than ready to deal with a smidge of peer pressure - such as it is - by their teenage years because they've been steeped in the morals and ideal of their families while having their innate characters strengthened.

Instead, their teenagers are apparently as impulsive, reckless, and blind to moral danger as the average preschooler.

Why on Earth would I raise my kid in a method that promises to keep them underdeveloped, immature and incompetent? 

I wouldn't - but I have no desire to keep my son dependent on me for as long as possible. 

IOW, I'm not the target audience of the author.

Joyfully At Home: Chapter 12 - Part Six

Tomorrow, I start two actual full days off from my job!  I've worked something like 60 hours in the last week because several of my team members have needed time off due to chronic conditions.  Physically and emotionally, I've been through the wringer.  My legs are constantly sore from being on concrete all the time while hauling multiple 10 gallon paint pails around.   I'm completely over humoring people about getting the right color for their walls when there's a god-damn pandemic going around. 

Needless to say, two days off feels great. 

This is the last section from Jasmine Baucham's "Joyfully At Home" chapter 12 where she makes some enthusiastic, but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to teach young women how to defend their choices of being a stay-at-home daughter in the face of tricky questions like "Shouldn't you be starting a job or career or something?"   The last question is "Is your dad making you do this because he's on a power trip?".   I mean.....that's worth thinking about.   This is a worldview, after all, that claims that adult women who are old enough to marry and become wives and mothers are incapable of choosing a spouse without extensive and invasive input from their parents during parent-lead courtship.

Jasmine's answer is haunting:

Answer this particular question emphatically, because the honor of your parents is at stake. " I am at home because I want to be. Because I realize the advantages of living under my father's protection and my mother's discipleship, and because I am so grateful that God's word makes provision for the home to be such a thorough training ground for my future."

I am so grateful for the Lord's hand in my life for turning my heart towards home when I was inclined on a different path. If you find yourself struggling, as I did, with what may be a new emphasis by your parents on a daughter's place in the home , I would encourage you to go to the Scriptures for answers and show grace to your parents, even when they don't have all the details sorted out yet. When it all comes down to it, though we may be accused of being coddled and cosseted, our consciences need to be right before God. If that is the case, we have nothing to fear or to apologize for. (pg. 147)

The first paragraph is a pretty solid defense of being a stay-at-home daughter.  We've already covered extensively that "thorough training ground for my future" translates to "I'm going to marry a guy who is rich enough to never need me to work outside the home while raising a huge group of biological kids.  We'll be married until very old age and I'll die just before him so money is never an issue."  But ignoring that issue, Ms. Baucham comes up with a catchy and memorable defense that makes it sound like the daughter is totally on-board.

If she had stopped writing at the end of that paragraph, I'd have believed her.

The next paragraph, though, has the truth of the story trickle out.   Jasmine wanted to go to college and do something big.   Honestly, I don't remember what her life goal was - but she did want to do something that required advanced career training.   Her story is generally that God somehow turned her heart back towards her family.    That does happen in life - but usually because of a major crisis that requires a child's support of a family member.   The young women I'm thinking of had family members who developed a severe illness or cancer while they were college-aged and the daughters took some time off from college to help out while the family member was recovering from surgery and chemotherapy. 

Jasmine's family was doing fine when her aspirations changed - and the person who lead the change was her parents Voddie and Bridget Baucham - not Jasmine.   That doesn't surprise me.  The only thing that surprises me is that that admission made it through the proofreading process by her family and Vision Forum.

In terms of being "coddled and cosseted", SAHDs are coddled and cosseted most of the time.  The amount of responsibility on the shoulders of a junior housekeeper, teacher's aide and general mother's helper in her family of origin is low compared to the same girl working for a neighbor's family.   It's a whole lot lower than the amount of responsibilities that a young women balancing school and a part-time job or starting a full-time job would have.   The level is even lower compared to a young woman who is living on her own while getting advanced training or starting a career.

It's not even an accusation; it's a description.

The funniest bit, though, is the fact that having a SAHD is a way of advertising the relative wealth of a CP/QF family.    CP/QF families who have highly educated and high earning breadwinners are much more likely to keep their daughters at home than the average CP/QF family with a breadwinner with a high school diploma.  The Maxwells can keep three adult daughters at home because Steven Maxwell had a good paying job and a fairly small family.  Compare them with the Duggars who have married off  four of their daughters very quickly once they hit adulthood; the family finances probably can't support more than one adult SAHD.  In my community, being a SAHD is more of a idealized mindset than a practicable one.   Families aspire to keep their daughters living at home before marriage - but I've yet to met one that can afford to have a daughter who has graduated homeschooling skip getting a job.   There's just not enough money to do that.