|
Post by km on May 29, 2010 1:08:10 GMT -5
Further, I said this privately, but I wanted to say it here as well: I am sorry for my sarcasm in response to what arietty shared about her family. I completely misread and misunderstood something she said previously as the same kind of sarcasm in response to something I shared--and was an asshole about it. I am sorry for that.
ETA: Brad, I am really interested in hearing more about your experiences, and I am sorry that the effect of my commenting was to shut down your thread. I hope you'll post further, and it won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on May 29, 2010 1:53:59 GMT -5
Nikita, there is a quote button but they don't make it obvious. If you look at the various symbols and buttons, it's the second to last on the bottom row. Looks like a sheet of paper with a blue arrow. Took me the longest time to find it! How 'bout a Q for quote? As for the discussion, while it seems like it's so easy for a man to "just leave" I can imagine that means, in most cases, leaving the kids in the custody of their mom to be raised in QF. That would seem pretty daunting to me. Perhaps NLQ can empower the less aggressive men to band together and work to change QF to a more reasonable form rather than just be steamrolled by the aggressive leaders influencing their wives. Some people just have an easier time of it when it comes to speaking out. Those who are conflict-averse have to learn new skills and overcome whatever past experiences made it difficult for them to advocate for themselves and others directly. It doesn't help when you are in a society or subculture where speaking against it is heavily penalized and the Bible is being used as a weapon. Peer pressure is a powerful force. So many studies have been done that demonstrate this. I think we all have something in our past we wished we had done differently or better. I have a truckload myself. I sincerely wish people would quit attributing words to me that suggest that I think men have the ability to "just leave." Please do not put words on my mouth, and engage me based on what I have actually said. Please. Not just you, Tapati, but everyone. I have tried to do that here, with substantial quotes and examples. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I said that, structurally speaking, men are probably *more able* to leave than women. I do not believe that this is a simple matter or that men can just up and go when they have family and relationships and connections. I think it is utterly ridiculous that I should have to clarify this, but just in case it wasn't explicitly clear... I don't think that. I haven't seen anyone here express such a ludicrous belief. I have explained at length what my problems with the post are, and I don't really see a point in continuing to explain it differently. If I am addressing you in particular, I will add your name and a specific quote I'm taking exception with. I was addressing a particular concept, that of men in general having an easier time (or are "more able" as you write) of leaving than women. I strongly disagree with that concept for many reasons. That idea was present in some of your posts but that was by no means the only place I've seen it lately so mine was a general rejection of that notion. I simply wanted to point out just a few reasons why I disagree with it. The "just leave" phrase is something often directed at women who've been abused which is why it comes so readily to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 29, 2010 2:17:16 GMT -5
this was a very fascinating article. it demonstrates the concept of "patriarchy hurts men, too", which is basically that while those who suffer most from patriarchy are women and children, the system is so toxic, it even harms large parts of the group that's supposedly benefiting from it.
Basically, patriarchy designs one, and only one, definition of what a man is supposed to be like and how his wife and children are supposed to relate to him, and then it employs peer pressure from both women and other men to police and enforce it, and make those who don't conform feel inadequate and wrong. I usually write about this in the context of secular toxic masculinity (i.e. macho culture), but it seems the same thing happens in fundamentalist religion, even though the rules are slightly different.
It seems that the definitions of what a man is supposed to be like are always designed by those who will do harm with it: the abusers, control-freaks, and otherwise testosterone-poisoned woman-haters. Normal men absorb some of it when they grow up in that environment, but to a large degree they may feel pressured to emulate this toxic ideal.
And I get the feeling that more often than not, they resent it. Unfortunately, often that resentment is directed at the wrong target, i.e. the women within the patriarchal system. And then you get the nutsoids from the MRA's complaining about women only wanting them for their money and making them work 60+ hours.
I think hearing the not-sociopathic, non-resentful men's side of this can help to create an exit strategy for men that doesn't lead into the arms of anti-women groups, and that may help them get their families out of it, as well.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 29, 2010 11:14:21 GMT -5
this was a very fascinating article. it demonstrates the concept of "patriarchy hurts men, too", which is basically that while those who suffer most from patriarchy are women and children, the system is so toxic, it even harms large parts of the group that's supposedly benefiting from it. Basically, patriarchy designs one, and only one, definition of what a man is supposed to be like and how his wife and children are supposed to relate to him, and then it employs peer pressure from both women and other men to police and enforce it, and make those who don't conform feel inadequate and wrong. I usually write about this in the context of secular toxic masculinity (i.e. macho culture), but it seems the same thing happens in fundamentalist religion, even though the rules are slightly different. It seems that the definitions of what a man is supposed to be like are always designed by those who will do harm with it: the abusers, control-freaks, and otherwise testosterone-poisoned woman-haters. Normal men absorb some of it when they grow up in that environment, but to a large degree they may feel pressured to emulate this toxic ideal. And I get the feeling that more often than not, they resent it. Unfortunately, often that resentment is directed at the wrong target, i.e. the women within the patriarchal system. And then you get the nutsoids from the MRA's complaining about women only wanting them for their money and making them work 60+ hours. I think hearing the not-sociopathic, non-resentful men's side of this can help to create an exit strategy for men that doesn't lead into the arms of anti-women groups, and that may help them get their families out of it, as well. You're right. Everyone involved suffers. Certainly the typical QF man does not suffer to the same degree as a QF woman. I bet a lot of these guys would just like a normal life. I wonder how many really want 6+ kids. How many really want a wife martyring herself? Martyrs are no fun to be around. It probably sounds great at the beginning but gets old quick. In a lot of cases it really does seem as though its the women who lead the way into this. But the QF/P spin-meisters really go to work on them. They play on guilt, fear, obligation and insecurity. Women are chastised for performing even the most basic and responsible of grown-up tasks. Like earning a decent living! Or limiting family size to a managable number of kids. Or negotiating in a relationship rather than being dictated to. Or questioning authority when needed. It's sort of like being told you're a bad person for making your bed.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 0:00:20 GMT -5
I really enjoyed the opening post. I've been working on my next essay, identifying "hierarchy and control" as it applies to QF, and this is an aspect I think I need to include-- that some husbands feel as controlled as their wives do, only for different reasons.
I think about how my parents must have felt when I entered the Maranatha cult. They really only had a few choices, since I was bound and determined to join. They could forbid me to join-- and would probably have lost me entirely for a good number of years. They could express their concern but let me have my own way in the hopes of keeping some relationship with me-- which is what they did. Or they could have joined the cult themselves, which would have been unthinkable for them.
But I was in college and no longer living with them. How much more difficult, then, are the choices of a spouse! Brad could have exercised his "Christian male authority" and forbid his wife to join Quiverfull-- but such an idea was abhorrent to him, and would have seriously damaged the marriage. He could have let her have her own way but tried to refuse to have anything to do with it himself-- but how do you approach a spouse who won't have sex with you if you use a condom? Brad wasn't going to force her, so it was either go along with her ideas, or forget sex. So unless he wanted a sexless marriage, the idea of refusing to have anything to do with QF was out. There were probably other areas like this as well, where choosing to have nothing to do with it was far more problematic than it might appear.
His other option was to join the movement which is what he chose-- but definitely under coercion. He was caught between a rock, a hard place, and a brick wall. This is not to say he is not responsible for his own choices, but I have a great deal of compassion for the kind of choices he was being forced to make.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 31, 2010 3:20:47 GMT -5
I really enjoyed the opening post. I've been working on my next essay, identifying "hierarchy and control" as it applies to QF, and this is an aspect I think I need to include-- that some husbands feel as controlled as their wives do, only for different reasons. I think about how my parents must have felt when I entered the Maranatha cult. They really only had a few choices, since I was bound and determined to join. They could forbid me to join-- and would probably have lost me entirely for a good number of years. They could express their concern but let me have my own way in the hopes of keeping some relationship with me-- which is what they did. Or they could have joined the cult themselves, which would have been unthinkable for them. But I was in college and no longer living with them. How much more difficult, then, are the choices of a spouse! Brad could have exercised his "Christian male authority" and forbid his wife to join Quiverfull-- but such an idea was abhorrent to him, and would have seriously damaged the marriage. He could have let her have her own way but tried to refuse to have anything to do with it himself-- but how do you approach a spouse who won't have sex with you if you use a condom? Brad wasn't going to force her, so it was either go along with her ideas, or forget sex. So unless he wanted a sexless marriage, the idea of refusing to have anything to do with QF was out. There were probably other areas like this as well, where choosing to have nothing to do with it was far more problematic than it might appear. His other option was to join the movement which is what he chose-- but definitely under coercion. He was caught between a rock, a hard place, and a brick wall. This is not to say he is not responsible for his own choices, but I have a great deal of compassion for the kind of choices he was being forced to make. Very well said. No one could possibly have 'fought harder' than my father against my mother joining the Message. Conveniently, the cult has exemption mechanisms for that situation: if the husband forbids the wife from joining or speaks ill of the Message, he is acting outside of God's will and you no longer need to submit to his headship. You know that metaphor about authority descending from God to husband to wife to children? If the guy is 'out of line' the authority passes directly to the woman as long as she's submitting to God (read: the church). I'm fairly certain that wasn't just a Message/Branham doctrine either. I honestly do believe spouses' hands are tied, as are parents'. The only way I can possibly see an intervention working is if all parties involved do careful research about the cult and discover stories like those at NLQ and see the uglier doctrines firsthand, before the cult has the chance to work its magic on the victim. If someone had told my mother that the Message was all about dehumanizing women and would result in the destruction of her life as she knew it, maybe she'd have looked at her friend Anna's 'perfect life' a lot more critically at the outset. If I could go back in time and tell her about the Message within days of her meeting Anna, I might have been able to warn her. But I'm still not certain. The lure of the 'perfect family' and especially a strong personality like Anna's is hard to counteract with reason and experience, unless you're naturally inclined to be the research-before-you-buy type.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 31, 2010 3:53:43 GMT -5
I knew a woman (really knew her, this is not rumor or anything) with three kids and a husband who was an unbeliever. And she was determined to be in our cult. He was determined that she wasn't. He used to beat her up to try to convince her to give it up. She refused to quit. One evening, he held up a gun and told her he was going to shoot her if she went to church and asked her what she was gonna do now. In front of the kids, no less. She told him, 'If you shoot that I'm going to heaven. If you don't I'm going to church.' He just stared at her and let her go. This was a point of pride and an example of just how committed you needed to be to follow this path, to be able to say something like that. 'If the unbeliever leaves, let him leave...' was the directive.
At the time I was shocked that she did that, but weirdly proud of her for being so committed. Later, I would think that maybe she would have been better off just going to another group and keeping her family together, because he did finally give up and leave her. But we were true believers, and you cannot reason with a true believer.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 31, 2010 5:36:26 GMT -5
I knew a woman (really knew her, this is not rumor or anything) with three kids and a husband who was an unbeliever. And she was determined to be in our cult. He was determined that she wasn't. He used to beat her up to try to convince her to give it up. She refused to quit. One evening, he held up a gun and told her he was going to shoot her if she went to church and asked her what she was gonna do now. In front of the kids, no less. She told him, 'If you shoot that I'm going to heaven. If you don't I'm going to church.' He just stared at her and let her go. This was a point of pride and an example of just how committed you needed to be to follow this path, to be able to say something like that. 'If the unbeliever leaves, let him leave...' was the directive. At the time I was shocked that she did that, but weirdly proud of her for being so committed. Later, I would think that maybe she would have been better off just going to another group and keeping her family together, because he did finally give up and leave her. But we were true believers, and you cannot reason with a true believer. Oh, wow, nikita. I wish I could say I was shocked by this story. But stories like this woman's were constantly sold to women like my mother as evidence of the power of faith. There was another story told at my church about the power of a woman's convictions eventually winning over her abusive husband who tried to keep her from going to church by similar means. Stories like these are made out to be 'persecution' and feed right into the hands of the cult leaders. Those who lose their families have given them up for Christ and will be rewarded. Those whose families get sucked in 'won souls for the Lord'. Those whose families doggedly hang on, resisting, get to tout the Scripture about one's 'enemies' being of one's own household (my mother quoted this almost daily about my father). That man's reaction, and my father's, cannot be 'right' because both used blatantly abusive and terrorizing tactics, but the gentler men I knew also failed to persuade their wives by nonviolent means. (It goes both ways, too: my pastor won over his wife after an entrenched battle of a few years, for which she seemed to be eternally repenting.) This is a system that does not accept 'no'. A spouse has three options: a) leave, b) get sucked in, or c) be made into a persecutor/enemy/devil. I feel like going and handing out NLQ pamphlets and Kathryn Joyce books for free at curriculum fairs to all the 'fresh meat' who think those Vision Forum seminars look sweet and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 31, 2010 10:05:56 GMT -5
Spouses have one power minor children don't have: they can leave.
More and more I think that's why these churches teach that divorce is the worst thing ever. It takes away the one and only power the spouse really has.
|
|
|
Post by beccablue on May 31, 2010 11:03:27 GMT -5
I am new to the boards, I'll get to introducing myself further later. This post may take me a bit to compose because I struggle with the words and thoughts.
I know Brad and Dawn in person. I was involved in a more limited capacity with "running" Blessed Arrows. It is true, Brad was never really involved in the day-to-day stuff, just "tech support". In fact, there really weren't any men all that involved in any of it. I helped process applications for a while and did some moderating. Most of the apps, it was obvious it was the wife filling it all out. I backed out for various reasons and the new "leadership" (Dawn was beginning to pull away some at this point too for other reasons than myself, but still) that was moved into place were die hard Vision Forum and Gothard thumpers. Quickly, BA became an exclusive haven of nut jobs and extremists. One night, back in about 2004, Dawn and I were on the phone and they had deleted a KJV only post by her (she was arguing against KJV only, ftr)... that was it. We stormed the castle and booted them out and took over. Thus, the other reversal ministry was born from the extremists we gave the boot too. From that, we sort of started over and lowered the "standards" and became softer and gentler. I'm not there anymore.
It was during that time that Vyckie stopped speaking to me and dodging my calls and went over to the other reversal ministry (I was living in the same state as Vyckie at that time). Well, whatever, I was a heathen with tattoos and smoked cigarettes and I never wear a dress. BA is not the same place now as it was way back then, and I do not regret that. I have since completely left BA simply because I am in a different place in my life and don't really care about who wants to conceive or whatever.
Okay, yes, going back to Brad and Dawn... Brad doesn't say it and you need to understand, he has his own abuse issues from childhood that make it virtually impossible up until recently to speak up and be heard. Most of us abused as kids go one of two ways, we either stuff it and take the path of least resistance, or we fight tooth and nail and are labeled as having "anger problems". It takes time to work it out either way.
I was part of the MOMYS web group for a long time. I grew increasingly depressed because I could not bake my own bread and grind my own wheat, could not sew, hated dresses, refused to head cover, and really hated (though I tried) to home school my kids. There is this entire standard, particularly where large numbers of Vision Forum and Gothard adherents gather, that you just can't ever live up to. Now, for the record, MOMYS has reverted to all things jewish/messianic and it is torah this and torah that and feast this and feast that.... Extremism regardless.
I could not live up, I never measured up....
In the pit, my husband says to me, much like Brad expressed, that he wants the girl he married. The independent, loud mouthed, red-headed girl who thinks for herself. In the midst of trying to meet the standards, I started to lose myself. I know Dawn did too. We weren't intentionally trying to foist stuff on our husbands... we just got sucked in and lived with a certain view in our minds based on a fear. Who doesn't want to be accepted? Who doesn't really want to fit in? And the problem is, once you are in deep, you don't have outside friends really so the only voices you hear are those cramming the crap down your throat and you start to feel scared you will be alone. At that point, it doesn't occur to you to say, screw this, I'll go make new friends who aren't crazy.
See, James refuses to balance the checkbook or hand the finances. By QF standards, that makes him a horrible man. But by real world standards, that makes him smart because he sucks at it and I'm better at it, so I do it. End result? The bills are paid and we have electricity and cable TV. Duh. If the QF community had known that about us while I was in it, I can only imagine the amount of garbage I would have heard. James is a manager and has to work every Sunday. So guess where we DON'T go on Sundays??? We were actually told to our faces by someone in that movement that James should quit his job to make church a priority and trust God to work it out. Seriously? So the job God already gave my husband isn't good enough?
These were the voices that Dawn heard too. And mostly, the voices are focused on indoctrinating the women. The men are either along for the ride (and somebody threw them in the car before they even knew they were taking the trip...) or they are the ones driving the car.
I met the Hess's in person.. trust me, I think it is pretty universal.
Brad was heading over the Grand Canyon before he even knew he was on this vacation. Dawn never understood really that Brad thought they were only going for coffee and so he didn't pack his bags.
And that is how it starts really... Subtle at first.. And *most* of the men who go on to become patriarchial abusers weren't that way when it started. It was thrust on them until the frustration built up and they lashed out with the tools we women and the movement so handily provided them. Power, domination, "submission to your man"... and the club comes out and the very thing we said we wanted we now suffer under. Too much ice cream, though sweet at first, still upsets the stomach... and if you are lactose intolerant, the price goes higher that you pay.
I'm rambling probably. Sorry. Years of stuff is tumbling around in my head. I hope to get to know you all in the future. Until then, I am Rebecca, married to James, we have 5 kids and live in the gorgeous southwest.
~Becca
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 31, 2010 11:08:53 GMT -5
Loved your post, Becca blue.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 31, 2010 11:23:54 GMT -5
Okay, yes, going back to Brad and Dawn... Brad doesn't say it and you need to understand, he has his own abuse issues from childhood that make it virtually impossible up until recently to speak up and be heard. Most of us abused as kids go one of two ways, we either stuff it and take the path of least resistance, or we fight tooth and nail and are labeled as having "anger problems". It takes time to work it out either way. Just wanted to note that I hear you. If it helps, I would be willing to go back and delete my earlier contributions to this thread. I don't generally do that because I don't feel good about erasing records, even when they show me badly fucking up. But if it would be helpful to the community here, I would be fine with deleting them. Just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by beccablue on May 31, 2010 11:28:26 GMT -5
Nah, I don't think that is necessary at this point... It is that which helped me decide to reply. Not as a defense sort of, but more just because I understand why he didn't "put his foot down" and he went with the flow.
I don't think he has ever tried to completely absolve himself of his share in the responsibility, but I think he maybe never realized how he got sucked in and why he didn't stand up for himself.
It's a journey for sure.
~Becca
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 11:33:38 GMT -5
KM, you're a wonder. I have no opinion on whether or not you should delete anything-- it's up to you, as far as I'm concerned-- but you were speaking from your heart then, and you're speaking from your heart now, and I find your heart to be warm and deeply feeling. Hugs to you. Sierra, that's interesting how they had a doctrine that a wife didn't need to submit to an unbelieving husband. I believe that's directly contradictory to Peter's advice in 1 Peter 3 (given to Christian women living in Greek patriarchal society), which was in effect to yield to him and not try to nag him into Christianity. Branhamism, more even than other cults, really picks and chooses which scriptures to read and which to ignore, doesn't it? Rebecca, I loved your post! Your writing style is excellent, did you know? Your metaphors are witty and poignant and really help the reader understand. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by km on May 31, 2010 11:37:44 GMT -5
KR: Thank you, that's very kind of you.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 31, 2010 12:07:21 GMT -5
Rebecca - I too loved your post. Welcome.
KM - I don't think you need to remove anything, at least that's my opinion. I agree you were speaking from your own heart and perspective at the time and it's not just sitting there, subsequent posts have fleshed out your position as new information is received. There's a whole picture there. I wouldn't worry about it.
As far as picking and choosing scriptures goes, some groups emphasize certain things over others. In my group marriage was supposed to be forever and divorce was a bad thing. But a worse thing was being unequally yoked to an unbeliever or being saddled with a lukewarm mate. One of the worst things that could happen to you was to be stuck with a mate who made it impossible for you to serve God in the way to which you were supposedly called. A poor mate could really drag you down. So if you wanted to do anything for God, you might need to let them go...
We were all really young and we didn't always know what to do in certain situations. If a woman was being physically abused that was considered to be a terrible thing. But leadership didn't feel comfortable telling her to leave her husband. They would waffle about not being able to tell her what to do, to pray about it, etc. If she did leave her husband no one said a word, more relieved was the reaction, problem solved and no one in leadership had to actually be responsible for counseling someone else to make that decision, it was on her/him. That didn't apply to those not in leadership though. We would listen to tales of woe from friends and tell them what we thought they should do in extreme situations where leadership felt hamstrung by scirpture to avoid certain advice.
I helped a few women leave abusive husbands, packed em up when their husband wasn't home and squirreled them away to new living quarters. I watched strapping young ushers, on numerous occasions, wrestle an abusive prick out the back doors because he kept physically assaulting his wife during song service (I had a crush on that jerk before he chose to marry my friend - boy was glad I didn't get what I wanted then!). That same guy had thrown her out of a moving car once too. We all were so alarmed that we begged her to leave him until she finally admitted she couldn't stay. So 'no divorce' wasn't the only standard we lived by, although it was certainly something we really tried to avoid. And we were strict fundamentalists, very extreme.
Note: in my earlier example of the woman whose husband beat her and threatened to shoot her is she didn't stop our group, we begged her to leave him but she refused to do it. She had a beatifically fanatical air about her, and said she couldn't leave him, only he could leave her biblically. Her situation freaked us out a little bit frankly, but officially she was held up as a woman of extreme virtue and faith. That's not just a little sick.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 31, 2010 12:14:54 GMT -5
I am new to the boards, I'll get to introducing myself further later. This post may take me a bit to compose because I struggle with the words and thoughts...
~Becca Becca ~ I'm so thrilled to see that you've joined the forum! Thank you so much for sharing your perspective here ~ you did a great a job of laying out just exactly how the whole "headship/submission" dynamic usually plays out in QF. It was during that time that Vyckie stopped speaking to me and dodging my calls and went over to the other reversal ministry (I was living in the same state as Vyckie at that time). Well, whatever, I was a heathen with tattoos and smoked cigarettes and I never wear a dress. BA is not the same place now as it was way back then, and I do not regret that. I have since completely left BA simply because I am in a different place in my life and don't really care about who wants to conceive or whatever. So sorry about this, Becca When the other reversal ministry got started ~ wow ~ did I ever feel like the rope in a major tug-of-war! It was because Warren and I (okay ~ I ~ because in our home, it just made sense for me to handle the finances also since Warren could not see), because we couldn't settle on a like-minded church fellowship, decided to divide our "tithe" up between Pastor Tom's rescue mission ministry and Blessed Arrows ~ and because the newspaper was a fairly good money maker for us (it's so natural to say, "us" ~ even though in reality, I was running nearly the entire operation), we were making fairly generous contributions every month. And then I got the idea for the Nativity Tradition ~ and used all proceeds from that as a fundraiser to bring in even more money for Blessed Arrows ... I don't think it's a stretch to say that our contributions were a major factor in getting many of the reversal funds completed. So ~ then there was the split ~ and I was inundated with emails ~ and even phone calls ~ wanting me to join the other reversal ministry. About that time, things were really heating up with Angel ~ and Warren was becoming completely intolerable ~ I had that last c-section due to partial-uterine rupture ~ all of it was becoming so overwhelming and on top of everything ~ I found myself in the middle of this conflict between competing reversal ministries. For a while, I did both ~ stayed with BA and also joined the other list ~ and I divided my contributions between the two. But then, Christmas time came around and it was time to start up the Nativity Tradition fundraiser ~ and I had to decide which ministry I was going to list on the website as the recipient of the profits. It's interesting to look back on it now ~ because I remember feeling a real affinity with Dawn and Becca ~ I dreaded the impossibly high standards of the other ministry ~ and yet, with my life falling apart as it was ~ when it came down to making a choice, I went with the one with the stricter standards. I think that I came pretty close to understanding why I made the choices I did during that period of conflict and I explained it to my uncle this way: ... With all the struggles that we're going through right now, I know my family needs me desperately ~ they are all so upset and confused. But I have nothing to offer them. I'm too confused myself. All the presuppositions which I've used to interpret the world and order our family have been swept away and I'm left in that "dissonant world of emergence and transition" of yours which once seemed so foreign but now is fairly obvious to me. You've somehow found comfort in that world, but to me it's a barren place devoid of any real meaning or purpose.
And I'm all alone there. I wouldn't think of telling anyone that there's been a radical change in what I believe (don't believe) ~ it's dreadful enough for me to think about, but I don't want to panic my loved ones who would be sure to fear for my eternal well-being if they knew ~ especially not now when things are such a mess anyway and they need their worldview intact in order to make sense of things and find purpose in these difficulties.
So I offer them my assurance by saying all the right stuff ~ but it's just empty talk for me right now. I'm thinking of Christopher Hitchens' words about Mother Teresa in a recent Time magazine article www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1655415,00.html : She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself.... Anyway ~ all of that is not to make an excuse for my decisions ~ it's just that I know the way I treated you was hurtful, Becca ~ so I'm hoping to make up for it in a small way by at least sharing with you what was happening on my end. I'm thrilled to have you here ~ I really do hope we'll have lots of opportunity to get reacquainted and to work together to spread the word about this insidious philosophy which pits women against one other and destroys every relationship it touches.
|
|
|
Post by beccablue on May 31, 2010 14:49:43 GMT -5
I never resented it Vyckie, just that was the time frame (the "split"). In all honesty, when I attempted to call it was not for BA, it was just as a fellow MOMYS friend hoping to meet another face in real life. I do understand what was going on looking back now, and that helps. I have no ill will at all, quite the opposite. In fact, it was that split at BA that led me where I am now. It was the realization of how legalistic things had become and how I had allowed myself to be herded right along that led to some of the radical changes at BA. A certain other leader was very angry at me anyway for saying I was considering using charting to avoid pregnancy (yet, she would have no problems had I been using it to conceive I suppose). This same person was turning BA into a Gothard club and even proposed putting such things on the application about smoking history (that was a slap at me naturally) and even wanting to ask (not sure what prompted this) about things like if there had been a past abortion, etc. A large number of the couples getting approved during her reign were dresses only, head covering, and other Gothard families. It had become an "old boys" club so to speak. That night of the split, we just wiped out the foundation and started over. In the end, it was a pivotal moment for me to finally realize I didn't even want to fit in anymore. Dawn and I were separately questioning certain beliefs anyway and that was the manifestation ultimately. I have often wondered if, especially for women, those who had abuse in their past are more easily suckered into these types of cults. And yes, it was a cult... correction, IS a cult. There is an unhealthy reverence for the likes of the Pearls, the Boyers, Vision Forum, etc., and never mind the constant disgusting display over the Duggar family. Idolatry at its finest. Thanks for the welcome Vyckie.. ;D ~Becca
|
|
|
Post by arietty on May 31, 2010 20:25:03 GMT -5
WOW Becca your posts are SO interesting! I hope you will be posting more!
The passive husband along for the ride, I will say I have known many of these. Very strikingly so. I think we have focused a lot on NLQ on the abusive control freaks (which is what I was married to) in this movement, they are often the male leadership as well, but the passive husband sucked down the drain is very common. I know the only QF friend I have left is a woman of ideas.. and dramatic life changes.. and plans.. and their family has lurched in the 20 years I've known her through a series of financial, pentecostal, QF and other movements and fads and every single one of them has been her idea. And every single one of them has either fizzled out or blown up in her face. She blames her husband for it all because on the one hand he has anger problems and on the other hand he has never taken leadership, LOL. I now think she needs to have him as a scapegoat, he has certainly been that in all the time I've known her.
Anyway.. that isn't even the most extreme story of passive males along for the ride I could tell. I remember sitting in some homeschool meetings or socials and thinking they were in some kind of coma, some of them.. couples where the woman was like an AXE in manner and feel (scary to me) and the man was very very very soft and doughy and shook hands like a limp wet fish. At the time I did not get how these marriages could function since I was trying VERY hard to make myself all soft and quiet and meek in answer to my husband's tyranny. I was very naive back then and sometimes a little envious of these marriages because the men seemed so.. nice. Which my husband most definitely was not. But they were also kind of creepy in their passivity, the way some find Michelle Duggar creepy.
Now here's a truth. My current husband (LOL) is actually a passive man. If I had rammed QF down his throat when we married he would have gone along with it. His fundamentalist upbringing would have ensured he would not have been able to escape from the God's will card. He's not a fundamentalist at all but the God guilt card would still hit him and he would cave. I could probably get him to do ANYTHING with some Christian imprimatur because of this, just by waving around a few "shoulds". I am very glad he didn't marry someone all super christian like his family would have preferred because frankly his life would be hell. It's given me a lot of insight into how passivity does work (not a natural thing for me, my family of origin is anything but). It's a whole new ball game to be mindful of someone's innate passivity after my first marriage where it was all tiptoeing and dodging someone's wrath. It means I have to hear the unspoken, give weight to what seems a very quietly voiced preference (which since it is actually voiced means it is super important).. this is a tangent now, lol.
And of course the big question is.. what drives women to seek out this alternative, zeal filled life. That can be discussed endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulwife2brad on May 31, 2010 20:41:44 GMT -5
Hello:
Sorry I am late in entering this discussion...but this is Dawn, Brad's wife.
I have read through the pages of dialogue and noticed there were some questions asked of me, but I have already forgotten what they all are! (Short memory! LOL!)
I do want to say that someone had mentioned that our faith had been shaken and that we were really re-thinking our Christian stance. That could not be further from the truth! Our faith in God has never been shaken in the slightest! I would say that we are still very much deeply in love with God and faithfully follow (as best as we can the teachings of Christ as revealed in the Bible.)
Someone had asked the question of Brad's leadership responsibilities in Blessed Arrows (BA)-- and I think Vykie beautifully explained that by saying when QF women say "My husband and I" or "We think".... it is a blanket statement because it would be completely unacceptable in that community for a woman to do anything independently of her husband.
Brad had full confidence in my abilities to organize, run , create and get this ministry off the ground. He really had nothing to do with it but support my desire to do what I wanted to do (not hardly the patriarchal heavy handed ego-maniac!)
The unfortunate side was that he had no idea the DEPTH of "indoctrination" I was getting from my closest friend of 19 years. That is a story all its own....
When Brad and I met we were both in college. We were both involved in our schools journalism program, drama programs and we had tons of common interests. We did a lot of public speaking and performing togeher -- yes-- he encouraged me to speak and even "preach" publically when I wanted to give my testimony at our college chapel service. He was always encouraging me to do whatever I wanted to do. He never once, that I can recall, told me not to do something that I felt I needed to pursue.
I was a strong and determined woman-- even a bit head-strong-- and liked that woman!
|
|
|
Post by arietty on May 31, 2010 20:49:36 GMT -5
The unfortunate side was that he had no idea the DEPTH of "indoctrination" I was getting from my closest friend of 19 years. That is a story all its own.... Hello Dawn YES.. the depth of indoctrination. How could a person know what they were in for, or what their loved one was in for? Unless you had been exposed to cults in the past and knew all the red flags it just looks like a very sincere, family focused christian movement. Who wouldn't be happy for their spouse to be sincere, bible searching and family focused.. it would seem like it could only be good for the family.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulwife2brad on May 31, 2010 21:05:14 GMT -5
Sprry-- I got cut off....
It was not until we married and started having children tha I had severe post partum depression and felt absolutely cut off from the world. I had one friend I had known since high school who felt it her "call of God" to mentor me.
I was so lonely for a friend... I would have done anything for fellowsip and companionship at that time in my life.
She began feeding me a diet of QF literatur--- and I still had the presence of mind at that time to argue some of the hideous points made by Mary Pride-- and even had just as solid a biblical argument to show "intrpretation" of the passage was not the only idea on the matter.... the battles and debates went long and hard.... and then I just got weary... I wanted the friendship more than I wanted to be right... so I stopped fighting and arguing...
I tried to justify a lot of it because after all, motherhood was not awful to me-- I loved kids and I did regret my sterilization.... I did think a reversal would heal my broken heart.
I was on the QF Digest when I heard so many women talking about regretting their tubal ligations... and so the idea for BA was born. I just simply asked how many people would be interested in pitching in to a savings account to help pay for reversal surgeries... and the ministry wsa born.
I still do not regret starting BA-- I think it helped a lot of people who genuinely wanted reversals.
What I DO regret is that I let extremism get entrenched into some of the leadership positions-- which I found scarred a lot of people. The standards were so high it was impossible.
I loved how Becca described how we "stormed the castle" and overthrew the leadership who began editing and censoring my posts... As she described-- I had already started moderating many of my QF positions personally-- the legalism had done a number on me and I refused to let it continue in a ministry that was attached to my name.... so we completely overhauled the leaderhship team and became the "kinder and gentler" version of QF that was not so hard-lined.... but even after a while... I became wounded by the community of hardliners who kept telling me I was not really a qf believer because I had come to a place of contentment after 7 miscarriages and I was fine with never having more children again....
THAT did not fit in with their idea of QF! I thhought it was just letting GOd decide and I was fine with thqt.
I battled a longterm illness that ultimately completly destroyed my fertility== and I am fine with thqt-- and honestly, relieved as well.
But I admit that my conscience is as rest because I did nothing to break my conscience for myself.
So my current position with QF ideaology is a bit like a feminists perspective on abortion. I believe in the individual's right to choose this conviction for themself. I can cheer the couple who genuinely agree and consent to this lifestyle-- but I am NOT what you would call "evangelistic" about the belief system, nor do I decry it as evil. I believe it is a personal conviction between a couple and GOD... not a manipulative spouse, God, and a MOVEMENT.... a marriage only needs THREE-- husband, wife and GOD to make these decisions.
There are many regrets I have with decisions we made as BA staff members in the past that i wish I could take back that impeded people's personal right to choose on some issues....
I regret that my need to be accepted took me down a path of buying hook line and sinker into movement that i once had the strength to stand agaist the extreme positions -- to th3e point of just going with the flow to be accepted and have friends.... I regret that.
I regret that my husband felt trapped by my convictions. I never intended to manipulat him-- though I clearly see now that I did. I truly BELIEVED and he had no room to voice oppoition that would not be met by my questions and the invisible presence of Jonathan Lindvall, Bill Gothard, Vision Forum, Above Rubies, etc, aqd nauseum!!!
|
|
|
Post by gratefulwife2brad on May 31, 2010 21:20:33 GMT -5
I regret that a valued my friend's opinion of me, authors of books opinions of my choices, more than I valued Brad's opinion of me!
Brad wanted that spunky, hard headed, woman he fell in love with in college-- not this moldable, pliable, needy girl who ws desperate for friends and hopelessly drepessed and suffering from post partum stuff after deliveries...He wanted the girl who had a brain and thought for herself.
He wanted a help mate-- not a servant. To us-- a "help mate" means an equal partner called along side to share the burdens and lighten the load of family responsibilities.
as far as our everyday lifestyle-- We never really "fit in" with the average QF family. We NEVER (on purpose) attended a QF minded church-- we felt it was dangerous to sewclude yourself from other believers just because they did not hold EVERY conviction you held... we knew that was the makings of a cult... so we never left mainstream church (and yes, out church often uses the term "help meet" ;-P)
We homeschooled our kids for 8 years-- but did not feel condemned when we put them in public school-- and those QF friends who tried to make us feel bad-- I ended up breaking off the friendships because , by then, I had my back bone back and told them clearly where they could shove their legalistic practices, because I was not going to take it anymore.
I felt secure with the new leadership at BA being more down to earth and not legalistic so I even stepped out of working there as well and focused on my health issues.
Soooo many regrets....
But I am grateful that I did come to a place of having my eyes WIDE OPEN about what my beliefs had done to my marriage... it almost destroyed our marriage!
So if you have questions, I will answer what I can..
Dawn
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 31, 2010 21:47:00 GMT -5
Dawn ~ so glad to have you here! I do want to say that someone had mentioned that our faith had been shaken and that we were really re-thinking our Christian stance. That could not be further from the truth! Our faith in God has never been shaken in the slightest! I would say that we are still very much deeply in love with God and faithfully follow (as best as we can the teachings of Christ as revealed in the Bible.) Um ... I'm afraid that might have been due to poor wording choice on my part when I wrote: Dawn and Brad are both still believers ~ they are questioning their assumptions about Christianity and their practice of it ~ but they are both still fully committed to loving and serving Jesus. I've watched (via following them on facebook) over the past year or so since Dawn first contacted me after stumbling upon NLQ ~ and I have to say that their humility and growth in grace-based faith has been a real encouragement to me. I actually did not mean to imply that you and Brad were questioning Christianity and the bible per se ~ just the QF approach to Christianity with its legalism and rigidity. There are many readers / members here at No Longer Quivering who have been through and / or are still in the process of re-examining the bible and finding that Christianity does not have to be the narrow-minded, soul-destroying system which Quiverfull makes of it. I do hope that you will feel welcome here, Dawn ~ please do not feel as though we are putting all the blame on you for your family's involvement in QF ~ as one who "knew" you since before the founding of Blessed Arrows, I always believed that you were sincerely living out what you believed to be the Lord's best for you and your family and also for those whom you served through the reversal ministry. Quiverfull is a very seductive teaching ~ and its made even more so by the fact that other women whom we admire and trust can be so persistent and persuasive in evangelizing us into the lifestyle. I was one of those women ~ and I truly regret introducing my friends, newspaper readers, etc. to Above Rubies, Vision Forum ~ and ugh, yes ~ Lindvall It an encouragement to me that you and Brad went through the QF head trip together and have come out of it ~ still together. I'm wishing you all the best.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 31, 2010 21:58:30 GMT -5
I'm really glad you're here too, Dawn. It is really interesting having both spouses perspectives on their experience also. We usually only get the one side or the other. I think you make a good point about being able to choose the lifestyle if you want to but not being forced and guilted into it, or coerced by church or spouse. The problem, of course, is that once you start on the path the movement and all it's minions make your life their business and subtly and not so subtly move you in their direction rather than your own. It takes a strong couple to stand against the minions of QF/P and work out their own salvation. At least that is my perception and my experience in a non QF cult. You can try to avoid the excesses, but you are looked down upon for your lack of commitment and holiness out there on the 'fringes' of 'true belief and dedication'. Ugh. Such unnecessary pressures we put on each other. Anyway, glad to hear from you.
|
|