Friday, August 10, 2018

Spiritual Self-Defense: Master Your Greatest Enemy - Part Four

We survived the first half of Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's exposition on how various vices can lead to sexual sin in their blog series "Spiritual Self-Defense".  Personally, I found their logic underwhelming and their childish dismissal of abuse victims disturbing.   Thankfully, there are only four vices left.  Amusingly, the Botkin Sisters invented one vice I've never heard of before - and I'm clueless how that vice is different from another vice they listed.

Fear – the fear of loss, of retribution, of shame, of the unknown; of making a scene, of taking a risk; of rational things, of irrational things. It doesn’t make a difference what it is: Once we fix our fear on something other than God, we are bound and gagged. 

Oh, Anna Sofia and/or Elizabeth - your innocence surrounding fear is sweetly touching.  Believe you me; the world is full of scary, scary situations for people who fear God.   When the very young resident OB told me I had HELLP syndrome, I was absolutely terrified.  Not because my faith faltered; no, I was retroactively fucking terrified that if I hadn't had some random abdominal pains, my husband would have come home from work to find me dead on the couch when I laid down for a nap just before I had a stroke or heart attack.  Or perhaps he would had found me comatose in the time between seizures from eclampsia with a dying or dead baby.  I was well aware that I could bleed to death during the C-section in spite of the best efforts of my amazing care team.  I was even more petrified that my son could die before we got to know him and before he got to live. 

I don't believe God wants us to know fear or pain or suffering or death.  I believe that the people doing God's work that day were the multitude of medical professionals who kept me and my son alive.   I know that my faith helped me survive - if only because praying was something I could do while laying in a hospital bed attached to IVs and deep breathing.   But I was scared - very, very scared - and I don't believe that fear is a sign of a lack of faith.

We’ll need to practice keeping these truths at the forefront of our minds when we’re around other people, and we’ll need to practice speaking up and taking a stand for these truths when it’s scary and makes us unpopular. The more we do this, the more the focus of our fear will be shifted from people to God, and we’ll develop a reputation for being the kind of girl that would get an abuser in deep trouble.

Mmm-k.  This is sadly ironic coming from two women who have been told repeatedly since childhood or infancy that women are incapable of detecting deceit or malice in a potential suitor.  According to the Botkin Family line, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth have been completely sheltered from any bad influences their entire lives.  Who knows if that is true - but I hope for their sake it isn't.  As women in their thirties, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth should be experienced at comparing the actions of people with their words and alleged values.    Anna Sofia and Elizabeth were among the monied royalty of Vision Forum.  That's all good fun - but what does it say about the values of Vision Forum that there was a clear separation between the families with money and the far more common families that struggled to make ends meet?  The Sisters have never spoken out in any way shape or form about economic inequality in CP/QF.  My guess is that the Sisters have never thought about economic fairness at all - but they really should.  After all, that would give them plenty of practice taking a stand for a basic Christian belief that will evoke strong feelings from other monied former Vision Forum folks.  That would probably be quite scary for Anna Sofia or Elizabeth - but they are old hats at this, right?

Selfish ambition – wanting the perks (you name it – favorite-status, admiration, promotion, money, fame, popularity) that would come with being on this person’s good side. There is a kind of covetousness and ambition that women are very prone to when it comes to men, especially when it involves competing with other women.

*blinks*

I've never met a woman who had consensual sex with a guy for the sole purpose of competing with other women.  Like....never. 

I've never met a woman who abused or raped a man for the sole purpose of competing with other women.  Never ever.

And honestly, I've never seen women get particularly competitive with each other around dating.  I think this is because for women outside of CP/QF lifestyles, we have many other options for satisfying our competitive spirit.  There's a plethora of competitive sports for adult women.  Women can compete for employment or academic accomplishment.  The entire blot on Western society known as "Mommy Wars" comes from women (and men) treating child-rearing as a form of competition.  Dating as competition feels rather dull compared to joining a softball team, earning an advanced degree or landing a great job.

That's why I completely believe that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth's target audience IS tempted to look at romantic relationships as a competition.  They've got damned few legitimate avenues to compete with other women so courting a highly attractive suitor may well be counted as a win.

The suggested solutions for being ambitious are off-the-wall....as well as in sentence fragments.

For instance, to start thinking of the other girls as being more important than we are (which would even include seeing their relational lives or marital prospects as more important than ours). To stop seeing ourselves as the main character in the story, and all the other girls as supporting characters (or villains). To consider the souls of the young men around us (including their focus and their purity) more important than the ego boost we could get from them.

Yup.  Imagine living a life where a young woman is more involved in the marital prospects of church acquaintances because she knows she's not the main character in her own life and doesn't want to erode the focus of a young man by showing her interest in him.    That sounds like the beginning of a CP/QF version of "Single White Female" rather than a solid life choice.

Ladies, you are allowed to be the main character in your own life.  Full stop.  Other people do not need you to elevate them to the main character position of your life because they are the main characters in their life.  It's a win-win-win-win for all people to take center stage in their own lives.  If you don't, you risk becoming a passive-aggressive martyr who expects to control other people's lives as repayment for never living their own life.  Hint: passive-aggressive martyr is not an attractive character to play.

The next vice is the mostly made-up idea of "instability of soul".  Every time I read that section, I have a mental image of Geordi LaForge discussing how the Enterprise's engine is becoming unstable - and then an explosion of soul-goo.....

Instability of soul – 2 Pet. 2:14 says that men who have “eyes full of adultery” “entice unstable souls.” The word “unstable” means “unfixed,” “vacillating,” “unsteady.” An unstable girl is one who is not solidly, unshakeably rooted in what God says – she can be drawn or persuaded or manipulated by some other voice telling her “I’m only doing this because I love you so much…” “Did God say it’s a sin to do X? Don’t be such a legalist!” “It’s actually your fault I did Y, because you tempted me…” “If you tell anyone, my life will be ruined, and you’ll have to live with that!”

Man, that whole "CP/QF homeschoolers are smarter than the brainwashed masses"  idea keeps taking a beating every time Anna Sofia or Elizabeth defines a word that native English speakers over the age of 12 should already know. 

Apparently "instability of soul" is also a synonym for "not bright" or "very gullible".  The first three arguments given by "other voices" are easily proven false.

  •  "You love me?  Then stop doing _____ because I don't like it."  Problem solved.
  • "Don't insult me for holding a boundary with you.  I expect an apology."  Problem solved.
  • "Bullshit. You made a choice;  you need to own your actions." Problem solved.
The fourth one is a little more complicated - but only because people often feel guilty when doing a morally right action sets morally right consequences in action against someone they love.  Here are some options to try mentally:
  • "If it was ok for you to do ______, it's ok for me to tell people about it."
  • If _______ couldn't deal with the consequences of their action being known publicly, they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
  • "I can live with that.  I won't let ______'s dislike of consequences dictate my actions"
  • "Why do I have to keep a secret to protect _____ from the consequences of their actions?  That's unfair."
To be clear, you may not feel safe saying these things to the other person.  You don't have to; you do not need their permission or blessing to discuss actions that have affected your life.  


Spiritual laxness – when we identify as the Lord’s servants, and yet are not actively seeking out our Master’s will and striving to understand what He wants us to do.

By this definition, everyone is spiritually lax multiple times a day.  I don't have the skill set to seek out God's will while mowing my lawn or shopping for groceries.   I figure God wants me to exercise to keep my body healthy - but does God prefer when I go for a walk, mow the lawn, do water aerobics or swim laps?   What is the correct ratio of "play with the toddler" compared to "complete household chores"?  Before anyone quotes the story of Mary and Martha, remember that there was not a toddler in that story covering his glasses in barbeque sauce while crawling after an unguarded electrical cord.... 😜

But too often, we have adopted a brand of personal faith that expects God (and other people) to do all the work of seeking, buffeting, and striving for us. We may call this “letting go and letting God” – God calls this being wicked and lazy servants.

What is the last example of the Botkin Sisters dealing with any buffeting?  When have either of them strove for anything?  In their free podcasts, the Sisters claim that the second-generation of CP/QF homeschoolers have entire areas of theology to reconquer; remember their argument that they would personally need to look at every example of femininity ever to come up with an comprehensive new Christian form of femininity?  That's time consuming for sure - but they've dropped off producing anything new.  So....how does that fit in striving to change the world?

Good news: We've finished this post.  Bad news: there's still one post left.

19 comments:

  1. You handle all of this so well, esp the more subtle bits that require more nuance. It's all rules, rules rules for this crowd and Lord knows that includes many made-up terms. I do indeed get a kick out of how many times they feel the need to define a simple word for their audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! "To thank" means to express appreciation in a verbal or nonverbal way. "You" is a English second-person pronoun. This means that I am appreciative of Jenny's kind feedback. :-P

      It's not a bad way to drive up your word count if you don't mind boring your audience.

      Delete
    2. That's totally how I drove up my word count on essays in high school lol. It's a solid technique.

      Delete
    3. @HeatherAnne - Our teachers outlawed that one in high school. They weren't too hardcore on word count, but the entire English department didn't want us to get our heads handed to us on a platter when we went to college. Or at least that's what they told us....

      Delete
    4. I appreciate your kind reply, and that useful definition :D I'm now wondering if the Botkin dad ever tries to assign his daughters word counts in these things.

      Delete
  2. The fear one...I've run into that idea in evangelical circles. As a teenager, I sometimes mistook what turned out to be an anxiety disorder to being enslaved to fear and putting it above God and not having enough faith. Now I tend to see fear as a normal human emotion and it can be useful. Given that my sense of fear is often cranked up higher than it needs to be, even with medication to moderate it, I don't often find fear to be helpful and I do have to stop and force myself to think rationally when I'm afraid. I don't over-spiritualize it anymore, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A wise therapist once explained the difference between fear and anxiety. Fear is a sensible reaction to an immediate severe threat. Anxiety is having a fear reaction where there is no immediate threat - or the outcome of the threat is not particularly bad. Genuine fear is a good thing; I know it's kept me safe a few times. Anxiety is miserable, life-draining and exhausting - and I'm grateful my SSRI tamps the worst of anxiety down for me.

      Delete
  3. These only get better and better the longer you do them. Keep up the good work! Equally, the Botkins get more ridiculous the more you read them. I particularly liked this gem:

    “...we’ll need to practice speaking up and taking a stand for these truths when it’s scary and makes us unpopular.”

    Like how the two of you publically spoke out in support of your friend Lourdes after she was molested by Doug Phillips? Oh, wait....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you!

      I feel like I could respond to every paragraph ever written by Anna Sofia or Elizabeth on "moral behaviors" with the words "So...make that fit with your absolute silence on the Doug Phillip molestation scandal." I think...or hope...that #MeToo has caused the Sisters to rethink some of their earlier beliefs - but they are still quite caustic.

      Delete
  4. Can´t we send someone to infiltrate their social circle and possibly give some counterweight to their indoctrination? I´d volunteer as tribute but I´m afraid I´d give them shaken baby syndrome trying to get through on day one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck getting in. They live in rural Tennessee and belong to a church where Geoffrey and the sons preach on a regular basis. When I moved to the small town where I live now, I stuck out like a sore thumb simply because I was new. Like people hadn't known me since the day I was born. And after two years or so, I started being surprised when a new person showed up.

      Delete
  5. "Ladies, you are allowed to be the main character in your own life. Full stop."

    You just lifted years of legalistic patriarchial nonsense off my shoulders.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome! I figure if God wanted to make us into a communal species that didn't value individuality (like the Borg on Star Trek), God would have done that. Since each of us lives our own life, we each get to be the main character in our lives.

      Delete
  6. "wanting the perks (you name it – favorite-status, admiration, promotion, money, fame, popularity) that would come with being on this person’s good side."

    Um, they named a lot of things but, shockinly, "safety" was not one of them. And that is a reason why many, MANY women in abuive situations want to "be on this person's good side." They know that being on their bad side is dangerous.

    Their whole approach is just victim-blaming crap. That's the reoccurring theme in everything they have to say on this topic. They seem to be trying to wrap their minds around the fact that abusive men really do exist in Christian communities which is good--except their response is to tell women how they can make themselves abuse-proof by just being strong and Godly enough. It's so fucking offensive. I mean:

    "An unstable girl is one who is not solidly, unshakeably rooted in what God says – she can be drawn or persuaded or manipulated by some other voice telling her 'I’m only doing this because I love you so much…'"

    Bite me, Botkins. Anyone can be abused. Anyone can be manipulated by abusers to the point where they forget that they're allowed to HAVE boundaries. (So simply saying "Don't get mad at me for setting a boundary" or "Own your actions" is not actually so simple.) It's not something that only happens to people who are some how weak and that idea makes victims afraid to get help because they are too ashamed. (In my work, I see a lot of women ashamed that they "let" someone abuse them.) And that seems particularly problematic in these circles because "I'm only doing this because I love you" is exactly the justification parents are taught to give to their children when they beat them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good they're telling women to stand up to jerks or creeps, but the statement that people who are rooted in God can't be abused or deceived just pisses me off with its NONSENSE. So beyond offensive and false and disregards so many abused Christians while insulting non-believers.

      Delete
    2. I agree with both of you. There are things you can learn and teach others that reduce the risk of being in an abusive relationship - but those things are pretty much the polar opposite of everything the Botkin Sisters stand for. Crazy feminist ideas like the idea that a woman can leave any relationship at any point when treated abusively. No need to "reconcile" or "help them see the error of their ways". Nope. Someone demeans you, hits you, controls who you see, punishes you for breaking rules, forces or coerces you into sexual behaviors - you can run away and never look back (outside of what your lawyer tells you to do if you are married with kids.) Crazy ideas like women are pretty solid at seeing red flags in partners if they are allowed to look for them.

      Delete
  7. Read this (& completely agree w everything, as always) but couldn’t help but think of the scene in The Holiday where Arthur tells Iris to be the leading lady in her life!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never seen "The Holiday" - so I pulled the scene up on YouTube! That is such a cool scene! Thank you for sharing it!

      Delete
    2. It’s in my top three Christmas movies - definitely recommend it!

      Delete