It's Not That Complicated: Chapter Two - Part Two

The third and fourth themes in this chapter are pretty straightforward.  The problem is that the Botkin Sisters decided to try and support their themes from the Bible - and the results are pretty funny.   The post got longer than I expected and I don't want to short the fourth theme, so this will be divided into three parts.

Overarching Theme:

• Women in the Bible supported the men around them; women were never leaders.
• "In the Bible, we see men leading the charge (for good or for evil), and women following, responding, supporting, and enabling (for good or for evil).  Even the women who weren't wives stepped into generally supportive roles towards the men around them, as we can see if we take a quick look at some of the heroines in Scripture." (pg 21.)
• As I've read more CP books, I find word choices when the author is lying fascinating.  Notice that whichever sister wrote this section couldn't say that women were "into supportive roles" but were "into generally supportive roles".  After all, when you read the Bible, women behaved as independent agents with their own goals and objectives.

• "Rebekah had no particular obligation to the strange man who showed up at the well, but she jumped to offer him more than the sip of water he asked for (Gen. 24:15-20).  Watering several camels was no light task, but she was looking for ways to serve and assist." (pg. 21)
• That's a plausible explanation as long as you ignore Genesis 24:12-14 where the servant Abraham sent out prays that a girl who would be suitable for his master's son responds by giving him a drink of water and watering his camels.  
• You could also look into the cultural history and emphasis on treating strangers respectfully since a) they may be relatives, b) they may respond to disrespect by slaughtering your family and/or c) they may be unrelated, but good marriage prospects.  Turns out in Rebekah's case that A and C are true.
• More importantly, remind me how Rebekah is serving or assisting her husband in Genesis 27  when she orchestrates Isaac giving his blessing to Jacob instead of Esau by having Jacob dress in Esau's clothing, place a furry pelt on his skin to mimic Esau's body hair and hands Jacob a bowl of stew that Isaac had asked Esau to prepare for him.  Oh, wait.  She wasn't.  She was undermining her husband for the benefit of her preferred son. After all, Esau was her son as well.

•  "We don't know whether Miriam ever married, but we do know that she was an aide to her brothers Moses and Aaron until her death.  And as Moses led God's people out of Egypt, she rallied the women in following him (Ex. 15:20-21)." (pg. 21)
• She also joined Aaron in a rebellion against Moses since Miriam and Aaron were annoyed that Moses was more facetime from God (Numbers 12).

• "When spies from a rival nation descended on Rahab's house, she chose to support God's forces and not her home city's (Josh. 2:1-21).  She didn't insist on going with the spy team, but she did risk her life to defend them and ensure that their mission would be successful." (pg. 21)
• The Botkin Sisters couldn't resist that jab at women who "act like men" - but they should have read the passage more carefully.  The spy team had been discovered and was hiding out at Rahab's house.  Rahab protected the spy team initially, worked out a deal to save her family and helped the spy team escape from Jericho.  She even told the spy team where and how long to hide to escape the people chasing them!    "Going with the spy team" would have meant that her parents, siblings and nieces and nephews would have been killed during the invasion.  Rahab's deception wasn't an act of a submissive woman; she was protecting her family against a conquering force.

• "Though she was away from the action, Jael knew of the battle raging between Sisera's army and the Israelites.  When God brought Sisera to her doorstep, she fearlessly jumped in to assist the Israelite army and cause, from the home front, using household items (Jdg. 4:17-23). (pg. 21)"
• That paragraph made me laugh so hard I cried.  Jael?  Good ol' "Tent Stake" Jael? The woman who drove a tent stake through the entirety of Sisera's head by hammering it through his skull is described as "helping on the homefront using household items!"   The Botkin sisters ignore the fact that Jael - like Rahab - was acting against an ally, but I can forgive them that one because the description of Jael as a demure 1940's homemaker is causing me to crack up.
•  Alas, their Bible doesn't include the Book of Judith or we could have had something like "Judith, a lonely widow, used her picnic supplies to help the fighting boys win!" *giggles*  I think that's an adequate Botkin-esque paraphrase of Judith calling the Israelites out as faithless wimps, getting gussied up, seducing the enemy's general Holofernes, chopping his head off with a knife when he comes to her bed then taking his head back to the Israelite encampment in a basket to place the head on a pike.  

• "Deborah was a strong woman, during a time when the land was filled with men who weren't doing their jobs.  Even when pushed towards positions of leadership, Deborah never actually took the reins of authority, but rather extended them to Barak, and stood supportively behind him (Judges 4:6, 14).  She had to rally him, urge him and even accompany him as he led troops into battle; but in the end she succeeded in helping a man into leadership, rather than taking leadership herself." (pg. 21)
• And now they are outright lying....
• Deborah is described as the judge of Israel in Judges 4:4; the term judge is never applied to Barak.
•  Remember how married women are supposed to be a help meet to their husband?Deborah's husband is alive, but except for that notation in Judges 4:4, he's not involved in the story.  So....Deborah - prophetess of Israel - is going against God's divinely ordained plan for her when she saves Israel if the Botkins are right.  
• The comma in the Judges citation from the book is there for a reason.  In Jdg. 4:6-7, Deborah tells Barak that God wants him to march against Sisera and if he does so, he will be a hero.  Barak waffles and says that he will only go if Deborah goes with him in verse 8.  Deborah agrees in verse 9, but tells him that because of that, a woman will kill Sisera (e.g., Jael).  That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Barak as a leader.
• So, this continues on for another page or so, but after this, it feels like they are laboring the point.   In the next post, we get to hear the Botkins take on Abigail's and Bathsheba's interactions with David. 

It's Not that Complicated: Chapter Two - Part One

Chapter Two has the delightful title of "Why We're Interested in Boys And Why That's a Good Thing". This chapter can be divided into four themes, but two of the themes are so absurd that they need a separate post to deal with.  Today's two themes are strange in their own right.

Overarching Themes:

• The Botkin Parents are incredibly weird.
• I don't think Anna Sofia and Elizabeth meant to portray their parents as monomaniacal lunatics, but that's what outsiders will see them as based on these vignettes.

"It's a great testimony to our parents' wisdom that they knew how aware we were [about boys, marriage and romance] - and not only aware, but eagerly searching for information to feed our curiosity.  By highchair age, most of us have had a lot of exposure to romance, too. [This theme goes on for a while but can be boiled down to "see married parents" and "culture dumps romance down our throats"] (...) Mom and Dad knew if they  weren't filling our heads with the right ideas, there were plenty of other sources to fill our heads with the wrong ones.  So we remember having those serious highchair conversations as we chased our dry cheerios (sic) around on the tray and acted out dramas between the boy animal cracker and the girl animal cracker.  Mom would talk to us about being sensible about boys.  Dad told us there were good boys and bad boys, and he would help us know the difference.  Mom talked to us about being wives and mommies someday.  Dad would look at picture books with us - our favorite was a collection of Norman Rockwell Post covers - and he would tell us the story in each picture.  We were already eagerly soaking up information about relationships with boys, and we had plenty of questions.  "Why is that boy trying to kiss that girl?" "What are proms for?" "What's a date?" "Aren't those kids too young to get married?" "How is he going to support a family with nothing but marbles and a sling shot?" (pgs. 16-17)

• Victoria Botkin was teaching her daughters to be wives, mommies and cautious around boys before they could eat at the dinner table.  Seriously?  
• Geoffrey Botkin was teaching his daughters that they could never be trusted to judge the character of men.  That's insane.
• Women exist solely to serve their husbands.  Failing to have a husband, women should serve their male family members.
• God created men first for the purpose of "dominion".
• "When God created man, He gave him a mission: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it.' (Genesis 1:28).  To take dominion over everything else that God had created - to "tend the garden", tame the wilderness, build nations, explore the unknown, manage creation and bring forth its treasures: cultivating its soil, mining its gold, silver and precious stones, naming and taming its creatures, studying its plants to learn their nutritional and medicinal value, and harnessing its natural energy.  God knew that this mission was too big for man to accomplish on his own, so Eve was tailor-made as "a helper fit for him" (or as the KJV translates it, "a help meet for him," Gen. 2:18)(pg. 18)"

• The Botkin sisters pulled a fast one on the Bible verses.  
• Genesis 1:28 reads "God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 
• Why did the Botkins leave out the first portion of that verse?  Because Genesis 1 gives men AND women dominion over the Earth rather than just men.  Acknowledging that causes the entire "Men are made for dominion and women for helpmeet" storyline to fall apart.
• In Genesis 2, God creates Eve (a helper and partner in NRSV translation) after showing Adam all of the other creatures in existence - but dominion over the world isn't given explicitly until after the Flood a few chapters later.
• The Botkins are REALLY into men are to dominion as women are to helpers.  It is the cornerstone of the entire book, unfortunately.
• Because of women's "help meet" status, we can't avoid our fate - to be with men.
• "But because of what God created us for, we can't escape from our need for [men].  Every woman's life is built around men and their leadership in some way.  Girls who run away from their fathers usually end up working for male bosses; women who refuse to commit to a man in marriage are frequently tossed from boyfriend to boyfriend; and feminists who build their identities around not needing men still define their lives and achievements in reference to men: earning as much as a man or doing any job a man can do.  Even the radical feminists who lead the charge against male authority were actually furthering the agenda of male social engineers (more on this is Chapter 3). (pg. 19)
• This sounds more like anti-feminist propaganda from the 1950's than a reasoned discussion on problems within feminism.  
• This paragraph especially reflects badly on Geoffrey Botkin.  His adult daughters - 25 and 23 years old at the time this book was written - believe that they will be treated like trash by male bosses and sleazy boyfriends if they leave home for any reason except under the protection of a husband.  
• Unmarried women, then, are less than whole. 
• "In the end, we can't do without [men] any more than they can do without us.  And we're not supposed to.  What about those of us who are never meant to marry? Even for women who have truly been given the gift of singleness or will never marry, this holds true.  All of us will have men in our lives that we will need to know how to relate to according to our created purpose as helpers.   Of course, a married relationship is the only place where our created purpose as helpers will be fully realized.  In other words, until you are married, you will not experience the level of unity that's exclusive to husband and wife or the full role of "helpmeet" that only applies to a wife with her husband." (pg.  20)
• Generally, marriage-biased drivel like this makes me mad.  In this case, though, I have mixed feelings of schadenfreude and sadness.  When Anna Sophia and Elizabeth wrote this book in 2011, the brothers on either side of them (David and Ben) had married.   The sisters had a thriving public speaking ministry and no reason to expect to be single for very long.  Well, in 2012, Vision Forum - who gave a lot of business to the Botkins - collapsed due to sexual assault allegations.  In 2014, the oldest son, Isaac, got married. It is now 2016 and the Botkin sisters are still single and - in their own words - not fully realizing their created purpose.  That's gotta hurt.
• Create absurd explanations for any Bible verses that directly contradict the "logic" shown above.
• "But as we've already established, this doesn't - and mustn't- mean making men our ultimate interest.  1 Corinthians 7:34 says, 'There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin.  The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for things of the world, how she may please her husband.' (KJV)  This verse isn't saying that it's less holy to be married or that married women can't love the Lord.  It's also not saying that there is a conflict between loving the Lord and loving others (such as our husbands)." (pg. 29)
  
• Actually, 1 Corinthians 7 is pretty firmly on the side of singleness.  Paul states repeatedly in that chapter that singleness is the preferred state according to God, but that marriage is not a sin and better than fornication.

The next post: How to shoehorn female Biblical characters into subordinate positions by ignoring most of the verses about those women!

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter One

The title of this chapter is "The Relationship Mindfield: What Makes Guy-Girl Relationships So Complicated" and begins with the definition of the meme "It's Complicated" from Facebook relationship statuses.

Overall Themes:

• Relationships have always been hard, and will end terribly most of the time.
• "The playing field has descended into a chaos of hazy communication, confusing expectations, unclear boundaries, non-existent accountability, and aimless direction where the only thing we can be sure of is the pain. " (pg 8)
• Makes a girl feel confident about a dating relationship, doesn't it?

• "No other season of life introduces a world of such intense and volatile relationships - or such high stakes - to such an inexperienced demographics.  We believe that women make most of their biggest mistakes during this window of life, between 13 and the 30s - and that most of them involve the opposite sex."  (pg 8)
• Mistakes are most common when starting a new skill set.  Since the desire and ability to start a romantic relationship begins in the teens, that does make mistakes likely - and also means that 26 years later most women will have figured out the basics well enough to make romantic relationships easier.

• "Ashley believed for years that Bradley was going to marry her and is now reeling from his announcement that he's engaged to a friend of hers.  Jessie felt unnoticed and neglected by boys until she met Omar online, who's now trying to convince her to run away from home to be with him.  Tiffany became afraid that her high standards for a husband were keeping her unmarried, so now she's "getting practical" in a relationship with a guy she knows might not be a Christian.  Candie and Jacob knew that they weren't old enough to get married, but let their relationship intensify to the point where their parents had to step in and put an end to it for their children's safety.  Esther can't believe she's still not married at 28 while other, "less pure" girls have been snatched up, and is starting to feel twinges of bitterness against God for this "reward" for her patience.  Kate had been Eric's best friend for three years and was sure the "next step" was coming any day, until he mentioned offhandedly in one of their heart-to-heart talks, "I don't see myself in a relationship anytime soon..."(pg. 9)
• I have a mental image of Anna Sofia and Elizabeth curled up chummily on the couch writing out every bad relationship their friends have ever had with that glee that is strangely present in every CP book.
• None of these anecdotes are dangerous situations when they are examined calmly.  Ashley and Kate found out a relationship didn't go where they wanted it to.  Jessie hasn't run away with Omar - and "running away" would only be an issue if she was a minor.  Esther feels hurt that she's not married yet while Tiffany decided she wanted to get married rather than twiddling her fingers while waiting for Prince Charming.   Candie and Jacob will eventually be old enough to marry given time.  None of these things are unusual or going to cause long-term problems for anyone.

• We are victims of Big Romance-Feminism-Interwebs!
• "Every year, billions of dollars are spent on messing with our heads.  Feeding women's appetite for romance is a very lucrative industry and we're a gluttonous audience.  (pg. 9)
• Remind me to add more "romance purveyors" to my stock portfolio.... :-P

• "Girls used to have a lot more protection and help through these problems than they do today.  Fathers and brothers used to provide screening and kept scoundrels on the right end of a Remington."  (pg. 10)
• There's never been a legal right to threaten to shoot guys because they want to date your daughter or sister.

• "Today, co-ed relationships stalk us everywhere.  Young ladies used to face young men at social function.  Now, the swains follow us home, and into the privacy of our rooms, popping up on our computer screens or cell phones, wanting to chat at all hours of the day and night.  And this time, there are no parents or brothers around to tell us when someone is pushing his limits, and when we are courting disaster. (pg. 10)
• Oh, yeah!  Three co-ed relationships jumped out at me tonight when I got out of the car.  I had to hit them with my cricket bat.
• Interesting fact: Electronic devices have power buttons.  If you don't want to talk, turn them off.
• Girls may be too stupid to know when a guy is pushing his limits.  Women aren't. 
• When I read this to my husband, he replied sadly, "This is what happens when you teach women to read." I would not be surprised if that sentiment appeared somewhere in a Botkins book.

• We are amazingly educated and hip at the same time!
• "Long before Facebook coined it as an official relationship status, every generation had its own way of saying "It's complicated."  As Shakespeare put it, back in the 1500's, "O! How this spring of love resembleth the uncertain glory of an April day!" A great deal of what we call Western Civilization was made up (as anyone who has ventured into classic literature or opera will observe) of people using the arts to agonize over the complexity "(pg. 7)
• The Botkin Sisters have intellectual name-dropping down to an art.  I have to be impressed by pulling Shakespeare, "classic literature" and opera all in one paragraph.  Of course, the fact that Shakespeare and opera were the soap operas of their day seems to be lost on them.

• Scenarios like these [referring to the paragraph about Ashley, Jessie etc.] aren't just the stuff of novels, Greek tragedies, chick flicks and comedies with heartless titles like Much Ado About Nothing." (pg. 9)
• This was the sentence that made me really wonder how many of the items they've named-dropped the Botkin Sisters have actually read.  The paragraph they referred to has nothing in common with Oedipus Rex, Antigone, The Trojan Women, or Medea.  I will happily rescind that comment if  someone can find a Greek tragedy that revolves around teenagers having a minor heartbreak, but I'm not holding my breath.  Much Ado About Nothing is one of my favorite works of Shakespeare and the title is a great description of how Claudio goes bat-shit crazy and dumps Hero at the altar because he saw a servant having sex with a woman and called her "Hero" rather than her actual name.  I'll concede the generic "novel" category, but "chick flicks" have more meat than those scenarios.

• And even if we shrink-wrap ourselves away from the risk of relationships, safety and freedom from pain are not possible in a world where we ourselves are stained with sin.  After all, "The only place outside of Heaven where you can be safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love," writes C.S. Lewis, "is Hell."
• That is NOT what that quote means.

• Because Bible!
• "But God doesn't leave us to figure out what's right and wrong for ourselves.  He's has left us a handbook - His Word - packed with principles that answer even the most specific and personal questions about the most specific Bradleys and Omars.  We just need to open up that handbook and figure out how its principles apply to us and our boy situations."  (pg. 11)
• I've always hated Bibles that are branded to certain groups like "The Message" or "The Bible for Married Women" or "The Bible for Cattle Farmers who live in the Midwest and Own Fruit!"(The last one is sarcastic....kind of....) I find them condescending because it implies that various subgroups can't figure out the Bible without special help.  This section feels like "The Bible for Worried, Unmarried Girls". 
• This launches into ~3 pages of Bible references that could easily be summed up by "be nice to others."

On the positive side,

• The reading level in this book is slightly higher than the Pearls.  There are very few syntax or spelling errors.
• In an effort to make this book accessible to anyone in the CP world, the Botkins become so vague that no one could base a plan of action off this book.
• Reading "Preparing to Be a Help Meet" made me feel like I needed brain bleach.  This book is so scattered, so vapid and so unintentionally ironic that I end up laughing through most of the chapter.

On the negative side,

• There are 12 more chapters.

It's Not That Complicated: The Introduction

While my brain continues healing after my car accident, I grabbed an easy to read book to discuss.

 I picked "It's Not That Complicated: How to Relate to Guys in a Healthy, Sane and Biblical Way" by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin.

The Botkin Daughters interest me.  Based on their website, Anna Sophia was 16 in 2001 which means she's about 30-31 while Elizabeth is two years younger and 28-29 years old.  I'm 34, so we're contemporaries; all roughly members of the older end of the Millennial Generation or more specifically members of the Oregon Trail Generation.

Yet, there are so many differences.

The Botkin Daughters have written two books.  I've never written a published book.  I have a Bachelor's degree in science and education; they don't have advanced education.  If you saw pictures of Anna Sophia and Elizabeth along with a picture of me, reasonable people could expect that both of the Botkins would have married before I did.  I'm a pretty enough woman, but the Botkin sisters are gorgeous.  But I was engaged at Elizabeth's age and married at Anna Sophia's age while they are single.

So, with that introduction, we shall wade into the breach.

Overarching Themes:

1. The authors show 'modesty' by detailing why they wrote the book in spite of their life experiences.

• "A book about boys, romance, and relationships was not a book we ever thought we would write" (pg 1).    This is the opening line of the book, FYI. 

•  "Though the fact that we're young women makes us uniquely qualified to say some things, it also means that there are certain things we're not qualified to say. (...) We're not married...so we're not going to be talking about how to get married.  We're not parents ...so we're not writing to parents.  But most of all, we're not men...which disqualifies us from telling all the young men how to do their part or get their own act together "(pg 2). 

2. Bible verses should be cited, but not actually quoted.
 Here's a fun game!  I'll list the Bible verses cited.  Give yourself however many bonus points you want if you know the verse before I list it from BibleGateway.

• Jeremiah 17:9 (The heart is devious above all else;  it is perverse—who can understand it?)
• 1 Timothy 2:12 (I permit no woman[a] to teach or to have authority over a man;[b] she is to keep silent.) 
• Philippians 2:3-4 ( Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.  Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.)
• 1 Timothy 5:2 (2 to older women as mothers, to younger women as sisters—with absolute purity.)
• Exodus 20:12 ( Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.)
• Ephesians 6:1 (Children, obey your parents in the Lord,[a] for this is right.)

3. Unmarried young women should be infantilized and overly sheltered even while reading this book.

• "How to Read This Book:      

          1. From Beginning to End  This book was written to be read from (front) cover to (back) cover.  The stories and ideas in this book develop chapter by chapter, so you will get the most out of it if you start at the beginning and keep going until you come to the end.  Then stop."  (pg. 3)    This is the most condescending paragraph I have ever read.

• "We encourage parents to read this book before their younger daughters do.  There are some somewhat mature topics in here (such as the concept of emotional pornography and the characteristics of the Proverbs 7 woman), though we have tried to handle them in a tasteful and non-defiling way, even for girls who have been more sheltered.  And although we tried to avoid unnecessary descriptions of evil, we did not avoid the fact of evil, or the fact that it wells up in our hearts, or the ways that it can come out in the lives of even a very conservative girl." (pgs. 3-4).  What is emotional porn? Is it like the 30 Rock episode where women can get pay-per-view of a handsome man who "listens" to them?  How young of girls are you expecting to read this book if they can't handle reading Proverbs 7 which warns against adultery?

4. Be like a Bereans! Read the verses we tell you support our ideas!  

• "Acts 17:11 tells us of the "noble" Bereans, who "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."  Please don't take our words for any of the ideas in this book - study them out of Scripture to see if they are so.  (We've included Scripture references for many of the ideas and statements we make so you can do just that.)  (pg. 4)   I'm guessing that the Bereans read the whole of the Scriptures, not random verses detached from others.

Well, this should be fun.

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus: Part Fifteen

We are finally nearing the end of the Application Form for RU: School of Disciples.    So far, RU's collected personal identification information, legal information, health information and previous employment information.

They have a section on a background check that matches closely the background check run by the school districts I have worked for.  The two major differences are that the background check used for teachers costs ~100 dollars and involves being fingerprinted by the local police department.  The RU background check costs $40.00 and is limited to what information was provided by the applicant.

The drug screen form is similar to one I signed for an industry job with one little change:

I'm pretty sure the legality of the document is based more on the signature of the applicant than the fact that RU is paying for them.

Notice that RU never asks for permission to see the results of the drug test - that's an interesting oversight.

This next part is a doozy that I didn't see coming.

RU requires their students to apply for food stamps.

That's really fucked up - especially since the patients/clients are ineligible based on the amount of wages they should be earning.

Why should students in RU's program be ineligible for food stamps?

From the USDA website: the gross monthly income eligibility maximum for a family of one is $1,276.

Illinois' minimum wage is $8.25 per hour.  According to RU, patients are working a minimum of 40 hours a week which is 160 hours a month.  160 hours x $8.25 dollars per hour = $1,320 gross income per week.  In the previous post, I argued that most of the patient / students probably earn more than minimum wage, so RU's fleecing the government.

How much could RU earn?  

From the USDA website:
 - Take the net monthly income for the family unit and multiply by .3.  This is the amount of money a household is expected to pay for food.
     - Since RU students/patients make $0, $0.00 x 0.3 = $0.00
-Subtract the maximum monthly allotment limit from the expected household payment to get the amount of food stamps.
     - $194 is the maximum for 1 person.  $194 - $0 = $194 dollars monthly.

That's $1,164 in six months.

Follow up question - Do the patients/students declare themselves as a family of one - as I did - or do they count their dependent spouses and children?

Let's run the math for Josh Duggar if RU required him to declare Anna and his four kids. He's still making $0.00 - but the maximum allotment for a family of six is $925 per month.

 Josh's monthly EBT would be $925 per month or $5,550 dollars in six months.

I think I just figured out why they wanted the age and marital status of all of the kids of the clients/patients.   Fuckers.

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus: Part Fourteen

Honestly, I never expected this series to get this long - but the more I read about this program the more freaked out I got.  In fact, my husband argues that signing up for RU's Schools of Discipleship should be legally admissible as a sign of mental incompetence.

Today, we look at the work information that RU wants prior to acceptance.

Previous Employment:

1. Notice the conspicuous absence of the standard box under each job that asks "Can we contact this employer?"  I don't want RU to call anyone I've ever worked with...ever....for any reason.
2. RU doesn't seem to care about length of employment either.  
3. What do you do if you have more than three previous jobs?  I've had nine paying jobs since I was 16.

Skills Section:

1. Later in the application, RU argues that all of the work completed during the ministry is similar to an unpaid internship.  Without going into all of the problems with their interpretation of an unpaid internship, the first legal requirement of an unpaid internship is that the intern is learning new skills that can be applied to other employment opportunities.  As such, if you have any of these skills before the program, you can't do an unpaid internship to learn the same skills.
2. Let's do some math on how much money RU is actually making on each "student volunteer".  To find salaries/wages, I used salary.com for median salaries in 61101 which is the Rockford, IL zipcode.  

Example One: A woman who working in the shipping/orders department for 40 hours a week, completes 2 hours of chores that the facility should have paid wages for and 5 hours of janitorial work on Saturdays.

• Median salary for shipping clerk in Rockford, IL is $30,995 per year - so that would be approximately $15,497.50 in six months.  
• Minimum wage for 2 hours per week which is 48 hours in six months at $8.25/hr = $396
• Median salary for janitors is $13.00 per hour for 120 hours in six months = $1,560

Total wages to RU: $17,453.50

Example Two: A woman works as an office assistant for 40 hours a week + the same 7 hours of extra work in Example One.

• Office assistant median wage is $19.00.  Six months of 40 hour weeks is 960 hours for $18,240.
• Seven hours of additional work across 6 months = $1,956

Total wages to RU: $20,196.00

Example Three: A woman works in the North Love Christian School or College as a substitute or "specials" teacher.  

• The first quartile* (25%) hourly wage for teachers in Rockford is $22.00 for $21,220
• Seven hours of additional work across 6 months = $1,956

Total wages to RU: $23,185

Example Four: A man works as an intermediate level carpenter or auto mechanic for 45 hours a week with 2 hours of additional chores.

• Carpenter II median hourly is $23.00 per hour for 960 hours for $22,080.
• 120 hours of over-time for $34.50 per hours for $4,140.
• 48 hours of minimum wage chores is $396.

Total wages to RU: $26,616

Example Five: A man works as an intermediate level electrician for 45 hours a week with 2 hours of chores.

• Electrician II median hourly is $27.00 per hour for 960 for $25,920.
• Overtime wages: $4,860
• Chores wages: $396

Total wages to RU: $31,176

RU gets a good amount of cash from each of their "students".  In addition, RU Ministry manages to avoid having to pay the matching taxes and workmen's compensation that would be required if the jobs done by "students/patients" were done by employees.

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus: Part Thirteen

Now that RU: Schools of Discipleship has collected enough personal and legal information to steal your identity or mess with your life, they move on to collecting health information.

If RU was an employer, they would be allowed to ask if you can perform the job you are applying for.

If RU was a medical facility, they would ask detailed questions about your health after accepting you as a patient.

At this point, remember:

• all information is being collected prior to acceptance into the program
• RU has no written policy on who has access to your records or how those records will be managed if you are accepted or rejected from the program.
• At least one current staff member has been in prison for unspecified charges.

Can anyone who has a chronic condition fit their appointment schedule and medications in the space provided?  I know I'd be way out of space....

Interesting fact: If you are "required" to volunteer for anything, you are not volunteering any more.

1. I don't trust these goofballs enough to give them a list of prescription drugs I am using right now, let alone a list of drugs that were abused with dates and length of time I used them.  Minor annoyance: they spelled length as "legth".
2. I can live with the question about hospitalization for mental illness.  The details of when, why, where and discharge date are none of their damn business on an application.
3. I can live with the therapist question.  The dates and reasons are none of their business.
4. The list of health issues is both strangely over-detailed and missing things at the same time.

• How many adults have NEVER had a toothache or backache?
• Leukemia is a type of cancer.
• "Kidney, Thyroid, and Prostate" are names of organs not disorders.
• HIV is missing; AIDS is the point where someone's immune function is impaired from HIV.
• Odd omissions: asthma, allergies, skin disorders, sleep disorders, and muscular disorders.

Interesting fact: The 45 hours per week is work at RU ministries and outside employers.  They forgot to count the ~30 minutes a day you spend doing facility chores that students/patients are supposed to get paid for in Illinois.  It's more like a 48 hour work week.

Why did it take 5 pages of personal information BEFORE the disclosure of RU being "not a medical facility?"

If this is not a medical facility AND they will provide no medical assistance, why do they need all this medical information?

NO non-medical facility should be involved in treating eating disorders or people who are currently physically addicted to a substance.  Anorexia has the highest fatality rate of mental health disorders.  Some drugs are safe to stop taking "cold turkey" although the process is miserable.  Some drugs - like alcohol and some frequently abused prescription drugs - change brain chemistry in a way that makes going "cold turkey" life threatening.

"Have you ever thought about or tried to commit suicide?"  I don't think that question is asking what they want it to since everyone has thought about suicide as a topic or a word at some point in their life.  

My two cents: Do you want to give these people a list of your current and former family members, how to contact them and the information that you had a STD at some point in the past?  Do you trust these people to use this information responsibly? 

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus - Part Twelve

We've moved on to the Complete Application portion of RU Homes.  So far, you've coughed up enough information for your identity to be stolen (name, address, birth date, SSN), and plenty of information that could be used to steal passwords and/or use as emotional manipulation (current and previous marriages, children's name, age and marital status.)

As previously, red/orange marks are for information that has potential to be misused while blue is something I find funny or ironic.

Today's theme: Legal information that RU Homes wants.

Have you ever been arrested or in jail?  Where? Charges? Time Served?

Oh, freaking no.  Arrests and being in jail are not a sign of guilt; many people have been arrested or been in jail without having done anything wrong.  

Why would RU Homes want this information?  Well, emotional manipulation springs to mind - or blackmail.

Status of supervision, parole, probation:

I don't have a problem with that question per se; the problem is that people who are on supervision and parole are generally required to stay in a tight geographic area.  I doubt they are going to be allowed to relocate for RU Homes.

Name and contact information of parole/probation officer:

I wouldn't give that information over either - before or after being accepted to the program.  So far, RU has information that can be used to embarrass patients.

 Contacting a parole or probation officer with a negative behavior report can have negative repercussions on personal freedom.

 Imagine a parole officer getting calls that Jane Smith has received two major infractions during her program.  Now, hopefully the parole officer would ask about the cause because this could be as minor as "occult or New Age behaviors" or talking with a guy.  On the other hand, a parole officer could mistakenly assume that a major infraction means Jane is using drugs again or has tried to escape.  Bluntly, turning this over is giving RU a free rein to threaten to have you returned to jail or prison.

Details of upcoming court cases:

Is RU Homes a lawyer?  No.  They don't need to know the details - except perhaps dates needed in court - in writing.  

You may be obligated to reschedule court dates when accepted to the program.

Uh.....seriously?  Does RU Homes expect the US Court System to accommodate them?  Good luck with that.

Do you have to register your residence with any entity whatsoever? Y/N

*Sniggers*

Everyone over the age of 18 should answer "Yes" since you would need to register as either a resident of Rockford for voting purposes OR report your long-term absence from your home voting precinct to get absentee ballots.  After all, any student/patient who has not lost voting rights due to a felony conviction has the right to be involved in the political process.

Answering "Yes" may or may not disqualify you from the home:

A few thoughts:

• While men and women are theoretically separated during this program, I would be extremely uncomfortable being in a program with men or women who had been convicted of violent crime or sexual misconduct.    The program seems understaffed to be sure of patient safety.

• Who is doing the screening?  Is there a preset list of convictions within a timeframe that excludes people or does a "I found Jesus" story outweigh an aggravated assault charge?

Driver's license information:

You can have it when you explain why you need it.  Since presumably I won't be driving during the program, I have no idea why they need it.

State photo ID and SSN card/birth certificate are required for entrance:

You do often have to show a photo ID at a hospital, but I've never needed to show an SSN/birth certificate in a hospital.

Of course, I've needed both to fill out my I-9 for employment purposes - but that makes no sense.  All of the people at the RU Schools of Discipleship are "volunteers" or "unpaid interns".  Either way, they have NO reason to turn in an I-9.

Questions about Government Assistance:

Why on Earth would RU Homes need this information - unless they can take that funding from you....

This is sketchy.....

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus - Part Eleven

According to the application process on RU: Schools of Discipleship website, you need to read the handbook, fill out an application, then fill out a supporter agreement.  Once you've completed all of that, you send all of the information in and RU calls you to discuss going to the school.

My main concern with the application is that it asks for information that is far too sensitive and/or can be used for identity theft long before accepting you into the program.  There is no statement - anywhere - about how they handle the data before, during, or after the program or what they do with the information of people who are rejected from the program.

As with the handbook, the screenshots are taken from the application.  I've marked areas that give me great concern in red or orange. They correspond with bolded sections. Things marked in blue are simply amusing or contradictory and have a italicized heading.

Social Security Number:

1. NEVER give you your social security number blindly.  With your address, birth date and SSN, RU Ministries - or any member of their staff - can steal your identity.  
2. RU Ministries shouldn't need your SSN anyways.  

• Since all of the work is "volunteer" or "like an unpaid internship", RU shouldn't need to report earnings to the IRS or Social Security agency.
• Since RU isn't a medical facility, they don't need your SSN for any kind of record-keeping; plus medical facilities haven't used SSNs for record-keeping in years.

Business Phone:

1. Nope.  You can contact me at home or through a cell phone.  You may not have access to my employment number since I don't trust you to keep personal information safe.  Plus, that's some primo blackmail information as in "If you don't do what the program says, we will call your job and tell them you are addicted to ______".

Can you read and write? Y/N

1. It's a fair question - but one that should be asked over the phone in the interview.  If someone is functionally illiterate and is having another person fill out this paperwork, why would they circle N?

The ENTIRE section about Monthly Support:

1. What monthly support?  It's a $7,500 flat fee + your wages while in the program.  
2. Why would I give you this information before you've accepted me into the program?
3. I would accept the question "Are you able to pay for the program and incidentals? Y/N" because that's all the information they actually need.

Emergency Contact Information:

1. Interesting fact:  When making contact with people during an emergency, speed matters. My emergency contact information for my spouse or parents always consisted of every phone number that they could be reached at - not their home address.   A letter doesn't cut it.

There's an odd typo I just noticed: I doubt RU wants people to skip section III; that's legal information.  Proof-reading seems to be a lost art at RU.

Detailed information on Spouse:

1. There is NO reason for them to collect the address, phone number, age, occupation and marriage date of your spouse on an application.
2. If accepted, the phone number and address (if something is going to be sent there) could be useful.
3. I don't know why they want to know your spouse's age, occupation and/or marriage date - but it's handy information if you want to steal identities or apply pressure to a patient who is asking too many questions.

Detailed information on children:

1. I have no idea why they want that information.  I've never been asked that on any medical, employment or volunteer form before - let alone the age and marital status of each kid.

Give brief information on previous marriages:

1. The information has to be very brief because you have less than an inch to fill out any information.  What would you write?  "I got married; it didn't work; we got divorced."

My mom worked in Loss Prevention at a large retail store for 15 years.  If I filled out this part of the application so far and sent it in, she'd go berserk because I'd be giving enough information to ruin my credit for the rest of my life.

RU Ministries: Just Say NO!

RU: Labor Exploitation for Jesus: Part Ten

This is the last post from the handbook!

• For starters, Hebrews 12 is about remaining steadfast when life gets hard and viewing the normal hardships of life as becoming more like Jesus. 
• Things that are legal to do in hospitals in the USA that will get you punished in RU:
• Carrying cash, cash equivalents and bartering
• Occult and new-age type behavior (What does that mean?  Would I get a major offense for doing yoga, praying the Rosary or making an Advent tree?)
• Fraternization with the opposite sex.
• Breaching the "Chain of Command" or complaining.
• What does "loss of all privileges" mean?  The patients don't have any privileges to take away unless phone calls are counted.
• When do any of the patients have 10 extra hours of time to do anything?  They have NO free time built into the schedule.  Are "service hours" extra working hours?  When can they do that?  How can they do that? 
• It's amazing how a problem action by the student ends up bringing in more cash for RU - e.g. students work more hours and their wages are sent back to RU.

• I find this section more scary than the major offenses.  For any "minor offense", you end up doing more work for RU.   Let's think about some minor offenses listed so far:
• Not making your bed properly.
• Not wearing a belt if you are a man or having an untucked shirt.
• Having an unauthorized photo in your room
• Showing any non-happy emotion.
• I spent years in Catholic schools where having your shirt tucked in was paramount - but you never got a detention because of it.  
• Think about this:  
• If you have your shirt untucked twice, you are punished by RU getting four hours of your wages. 
•  If you have your shirt untucked a third time, you get 10 hours of discipleship training.
• Make it to a fourth time and RU starts racking up 10 hours of labor wages + an extra month of wages.

My concerns:

• Notice the lack of timeline for dealing with any complaints.  You can fill out a "Complaint Form" and the staff can handle it that day - or in two months.  Either way, you can't tell anyone about it - that's the outcome of "general complaining = major violation".
• Notice the fact that the student/patient cannot be present when the person in authority is confronted with the "alleged" offense.  You have no idea what the steward said to the dean or intervention mentor - just the outcome.
• Procedural question: How do you give the written grievance to the non-offending steward without interacting with them?  Remember, you can't have a conversation or fraternization with anyone of the opposite gender.
• Notice that you have to fill out a complaint form to go around the steward - which you have to turn into the steward....who has no timeline to deal with it.....and could bury it.
• The entire process pits patients needs against the needs of a group of people who work together.  It's really hard to be genuinely objective towards your coworkers which is why there is generally outside oversight.
• There is no outside oversight.  You have no appeals to an outside entity or people not involved in RU.