|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 19, 2009 7:28:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 19, 2009 10:19:45 GMT -5
Hey all ~ Frank Schaeffer has joined the NLQ forums. Welcome, Frank So glad to have you here. I've been following your story for quite some time now. Read your book, "Crazy for God" and have your next book on pre-order with Amazon. In many ways, our stories are worlds apart ~ you having been raised in relative privelege, while I came from a broken and seriously screwed up home environment. But, at the same time, there are significant parallels which link our paths together and illustrate perfectly the reality of how top-level politicking filters down to the "common folks" with tragic consequences. I believe that making such an association will bolster the impact of our shared message ~ that fundamentalism is destructive, dangerous and wrong. Thanks again for writing to me. I look forward to working with you.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 19, 2009 10:32:40 GMT -5
FANTASTIC!
Welcome, Frank!
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Oct 19, 2009 10:54:43 GMT -5
Welcome Frank! You're a true hero!! One of the things that keeps me from either being an "ex" Christian or tipping into insanity is the image of the "Gospel Walnut" in the Calvin Becker trilogy! I take the good and ignore the rest in Fran and Edith's works. I have never been "sold out" like many and in fact, have never truly been a hard-core fundamentalist, in part because of the "perfection" required and epitomized in "the day" by Edith and today by the uber-perfect Christian Mommy bloggers.
I think Crazy for God, the Quiverfull Book and NLQ blog are at the forefront of try to stop the Madness, the isolation, the kid collecting and neglecting, the return to marriage as enslavement for women, etc. Every Church in America should be reading these and ignoring Rick Warren's vapid junk.
To most American's "homeschool" is synonymous with the Duggars and other "over-sheltered, totally isolated and UN or at least UNDER-educated broods of oddly dressed children." For those of us who chose homeschool to LIBERATE our kids from warehousing in public school this makes it a really, really hard sell to families. When the typical homeschool co-op or "group" requires a 3 page [or longer] "Statement of Faith" that makes membership in the Nazi party seem liberal that also is a challenge. Since I am still very much a Christian, albeit a pretty darned liberal one, I hate that Vision Forum, Gothard and such are the "Face" of homeschool, of Christian family life, etc.
VF, Gothard, the whole Q'full scene are far more similar to FLDS and other cults than they are to my faith and how I live it.
I'm glad Frank and Vicki that you are such tireless workers in the fight against this asinine "culture war".
I must be truthful though and add, that I do not understand why my kids can be taught in public school the basics of any faith except Christianity. I think fair is fair--if you're going to teach Native American beliefs, Muslin beliefs and countless others, than Christianity should also be presented in similar, respectful manner. Not an evangelizing manner. I do not think it is appropriate for my kid or any other to pray in school, and this not being a totalitarian nation, I see no need to recite a poem as an oath or "pledge" either and couldn't care less if the "under God" is in it or not! I don't see what ANYONE's sex life [straight gay or otherwise] needs to be discussed before middle school either. Some kids have two Moms or two Dads--so what? Some live with their Great Aunt or a former step-parent. Big deal! lol [Oh what a big deal for some!!!]. And, I don't care if my kids read Darwin's work and study it in biology--studying it lets them make an informed decision as to whether they believe it, the Bible, the Big Bang or the "who give's a rat's #ss therory" of how the world began.
I know I rambled a lot here, but I am very much Frank and Vicki's work!!
|
|
blair
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by blair on Oct 19, 2009 11:44:16 GMT -5
Vyckie wrote:
"Mine is a candid story of one who was seriously sucked into a hate-filled worldview and was so committed that I was willing to die for the cause ~and now I am equally bold in speaking up to say that the fundamentalist mindset is an insidious form of mental illness."
Yes. This.
Thank you so much, Vyckie, for sharing your story.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 19, 2009 12:41:42 GMT -5
Welcome, Frank. It's good to have you here. With all our voices combined, the world stands a good chance of finally hearing the other side of the fundamentalist/Quiverfull story.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 19, 2009 13:03:03 GMT -5
I'm glad to see that you've written this, Vyckie. I do have a minor quibble with your piece: I am uncomfortable with calling fundamentalism "mental illness." Fundamentalism is misguided, certainly, and it's a political ideology that has deeply harmed many of us. But mental illness is just a fact of life for many people; it's not necessarily "dangerous" in most people, and in any case... I hate to see these kinds of stereotypes perpetuated against the mentally ill.
wrt the work of Francis Schaeffer... Can someone provide me with some background on why Francis Schaeffer has become the latest trend among hipster Christians? Are they unaware that he spearheaded the Christian Right in the US? His writings are all over the place these days, and all the hippie Christians I knew in college spent time volunteering at L'Abri. I tried to educate my sister (another L'Abri fan) about his connections to RJ Rushdoony, and she wouldn't hear of it. I'm completely taken aback by these Christians who are now reading Schaeffer as some harmless guy who started a commune. And I'm worried about it.
Glad to see Frank Schaeffer reading here.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 19, 2009 13:18:26 GMT -5
hopewell: Turning this into a debate on whether or not Christianity should be taught in public schools is kind of a huge derail. For the record, other religions are not taught in public schools either. I don't know where this myth comes from among homeschooling families. I graduated from public schools in a Southern--and a conservative--region of this country. I come from a huge family of public school educators who live up and down the East coast. Some are administrators, and some are teachers. World religions are taught in a survey manner, sure... But have you stopped to consider the fact that a "Christian worldview" and "Christian history" dominates virtually the entire curriculum of most Western schools? The school might not *explicitly* teach what the Bible says like they do the Qur'an, but that's probably because Western history/Western thought *is* about Christianity. Not to mention, *it's downright impossible* to exist in the US without knowing *something* about Christian belief/mythology. This kind of claim is precisely as misinformed as the racist who says, "Why can't we have a white history month too!" Because in a state dominated by white people, every month is white history month. Same thing wrt the public school system; in a country dominated by Christianity, virtually *all history courses* are about "Western/Christian history." Sorry to encourage the derail, but I get really tired of hearing that line from homeschoolers. Please get over it. Christianity is *not* being neglected. In fact, it remains as dominant as it ever was in this society.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Oct 19, 2009 15:43:11 GMT -5
Hey--no debate need start here--I was rambling. It's ok to ignore my rambling.
|
|
|
Post by dandydeluxe on Oct 19, 2009 16:10:52 GMT -5
Funda-mental-illness-ism
....and the wheels on the bus go round and round,
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 19, 2009 16:57:48 GMT -5
The problem with fundamentalism-as-mental-illness is it assumes that it crops up independently in individuals. Fundamentalism is a mental system that ensnares individuals in a common net.
|
|
|
Post by Angelia Sparrow on Oct 19, 2009 17:04:34 GMT -5
Fundamentalism--of any sort--is a very human response to overwhelming change. It is a way of hanging on as everything around you flips on its head. It's a way of exercising some small control over what you can in a world that has--to your mind--gone crazy.
This is why fundamentalists, Muslim, Christian and Jewish, are flourishing and showing their misogynist, racist colors with zest these days. The world has changed and they have not.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 19, 2009 19:20:03 GMT -5
KM –
It’s true that ‘mental illness’ doesn’t have-to-be dangerous if recognized and, in some cases, treated. I can say that no one, in the history of this blog and its forum has ever harshed on the mentally ill as a general class.
And that’s part of what I think Vyckie means in qualifying her statement with the word *insidious* - fundamentalist/cultish thinking *creeps in* and becomes un-recognizable to the afflicted; which is exactly what does make it dangerous. What other mental illness is roundly denied these days? What other mental illness is there not a psychological/pharmaceutical treatment for?
I think, too, that we need to remember that there are even fewer resources for women finally exiting dangerous religious situations with a boatload of kids in tow than are available for the many thousands of single women fleeing 'immediate bodily harm' every day of the week.
As to wondering why Francis’ word is in with X-tian Hipsters - apparently they are unaware of the history of his influence, thus perpetuating the ‘normalizing’ of a worldview that requires women to give up their very corporal lives for the promise of Perfect Salvation.
This is exactly what NLQ is about - making the illness recognizable.
ihtp*
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Oct 19, 2009 19:57:09 GMT -5
I'm glad to see that you've written this, Vyckie. I do have a minor quibble with your piece: I am uncomfortable with calling fundamentalism "mental illness." Fundamentalism is misguided, certainly, and it's a political ideology that has deeply harmed many of us. But mental illness is just a fact of life for many people; it's not necessarily "dangerous" in most people, and in any case... I hate to see these kinds of stereotypes perpetuated against the mentally ill. Agreed....and yet, sort of, disagreed... I find it fascinating that my pastor-husband (almost ex-husband, just waiting on all the legal stuff) had an undiagnosed severe mental illness...at the same time as he was a very successful and esteemed minister. It's been something I've done a lot of thinking about, ever since his diagnosis. A psychiatrist recently told me that he rarely recommends divorce, but mine is one of the few that he said was 100% necessary, that my husband's severe mental illness was only the tip of the iceberg, that there were some very serious sociopathic elements in the abuse that I went through (underneath the wonderful outer image, the shining outward image that is still a number one goal to my husband, to this day)... Maybe it's not fair to blame the fundamentalist world for being a perfect haven for my mentally ill/Narcisistic husband. And yet, I can't help but wonder if there are some key aspects to fundie culture that not only allow mental illness and personality disorders to be easily hidden, but, in a way, even *encourage* their growth. I think this especially applies to the hard-core believers, which my husband was, especially those in ministry positions...
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 19, 2009 20:15:20 GMT -5
The problem with fundamentalism-as-mental-illness is it assumes that it crops up independently in individuals. Fundamentalism is a mental system that ensnares individuals in a common net. That just bore repeating. Very nicely put, Sierra.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Oct 20, 2009 13:05:44 GMT -5
Crazy for God was a very good read and illuminated a lot of things about fundamentalism/evangelicalism.
I don't think Fundamentalism is a "mental illness" in the strictest sense. However, I do think that there is a certain personality type that is very attracted to it. Maybe more than one. I see these same traits in very Conservative Catholics that I know. They seem to be people who desire extreme structure and lots of rules. We have teachers here (in Catholic school) who range from very liberal in their faith to one who is extremely Conservative. The extremely conservative guy reminds me very much of the Fundies I used to know. He wants everything to be done by a policy or rule and strictly controlled in some way--not just in terms of Church, but everything, school, activities, even a staff meeting.
I think there is a second personality type that lends itself to Evangelicalism as well. In my experience, people (especially women) who are very much ruled by their emotions are attracted to the emotional experience with God that those types of churches emphasize. One of my friends is becoming less and less fundamentalist in her theology, but can't bear to leave her fundamentalist church because mainline Protestant or liturgical denominations seem "cold" and "distant" to her--but she is a very emotional person, probably one that could be classified as highly sensitive and seems to crave the emotional stimulation that her church gives her--with all the weepy singing, hugging, "feeling God's presence", etc...
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 16:50:59 GMT -5
Thing is, mental illness is not something that people *choose* to have in their lives. Fundamentalism very often is. Literally speaking, of course, it's not a mental illness. Vyckie and others have been very upfront about being attracted to the lifestyle of their own free will. Isn't the fact that it's an oppressive system enough? I just object to seeing something like mental illness used as a literary flourish.
I have mixed feelings about the discussion of personality disorders and fundamentalism. I deal with personality disorders in my own family, which is very religious (it's a clergy family) if not fundamentalist... I've often thought not in terms of mental illness, but in terms of abusiveness. One of the reasons that I won't be involved in any form of organized Christianity is that I find the liberal/mainline churches troubling in other ways. In fundie circles, the rules and the system are themselves abusive. But liberal churches attract a number of abusers too, at least in my experience... And I've always thought that had something to do with the "come just as you are" mentality. I tend to think in terms of abusers/non-abusers, as I'm really uncomfortable with casting normative value judgments on something like mental illness. I'm saying this as a non-neurotypical person myself.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 20, 2009 17:02:30 GMT -5
Thing is, mental illness is not something that people *choose* to have in their lives. Fundamentalism very often is. Literally speaking, of course, it's not a mental illness. Vyckie and others have been very upfront about being attracted to the lifestyle of their own free will. Isn't the fact that it's an oppressive system enough? I just object to seeing something like mental illness used as a literary flourish. I have mixed feelings about the discussion of personality disorders and fundamentalism. I deal with personality disorders in my own family, which is very religious (it's a clergy family) if not fundamentalist... I've often thought not in terms of mental illness, but in terms of abusiveness. One of the reasons that I won't be involved in any form of organized Christianity is that I find the liberal/mainline churches troubling in other ways. In fundie circles, the rules and the system are themselves abusive. But liberal churches attract a number of abusers too, at least in my experience... And I've always thought that had something to do with the "come just as you are" mentality. I tend to think in terms of abusers/non-abusers, as I'm really uncomfortable with casting normative value judgments on something like mental illness. I'm saying this as a non-neurotypical person myself. Well, living under the quiverfull rules pretty much created a mental illness in at least Angel, and likely other children in the movement as well. That it was circumstantial and not genetic and got better in a different environment doesn't make it "not real." And quiverfull children most certainly do NOT freely choose the lifestyle, it is thrust upon them.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 17:07:54 GMT -5
Well, living under the quiverfull rules pretty much created a mental illness in at least Angel, and likely other children in the movement as well. That it was circumstantial and not genetic and got better in a different environment doesn't make it "not real." And quiverfull children most certainly do NOT freely choose the lifestyle, it is thrust upon them. Well, of course not, that's why I said that it's "very often" chosen, not always chosen. Of course an oppressive system can exacerbate mental illness. That doesn't mean it is *itself* mental illness. Why is the distinction I'm making so controversial?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 20, 2009 17:25:57 GMT -5
Well, of course not, that's why I said that it's "very often" chosen, not always chosen. Of course an oppressive system can exacerbate mental illness. That doesn't mean it is *itself* mental illness. Why is the distinction I'm making so controversial? Is there a real debate here? We all know that if we look in the DSM-V we aren't going to find "fundamentalism." That it is a direct cause of mental disturbance is apparent: it caused suicidal urges in Angel and anorexia in me. For myself, anorexia was the mental illness - fundamentalism was one of many enabling factors. I do consider myself over it, now that I've liberated myself from the environment. But the eating disorder lingered longer than the fundamentalism, a lasting scar from a lifestyle I didn't choose. But, jemand, whether the children chose the fundamentalist lifestyle or not is immaterial: the point is that there was human agency involved on the part of the parents. Parents don't and can't choose for their children to become anorexic or to develop bipolar disorder. They can choose environments where children are more likely to develop those tendencies due to stress. But those tendencies could always have sprung up without the intervention of fundamentalism. I would appreciate sensitivity from all reading and writing here to the specific term "mental illness" and actual illnesses such as anorexia. I know the latter gets used as a metaphor all the time and it stings every time. Please be careful about it. (Edited for typos.)
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 17:33:43 GMT -5
sierra: Exactly. Thanks for saying this.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 20, 2009 18:20:08 GMT -5
I agree with KM as well. Calling fundamentalism a mental illness associates mental illness with something that can be chosen, which is problematic because many people with mental disorders have difficulty being believed about their symptoms not being their fault.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 20, 2009 18:46:15 GMT -5
km ~ I understand your concern re: equating fundamentalism with mental illness. I don't know if it makes much difference, but in my post I actually said that "the fundamentalist mindset" is an insidious form of mental illness ~ and by referring to the mindset, I meant that it's a manner of thinking ~ interpreting the world and everything in it in terms of black and white absolutes ~ when a person's mind has been given completely over to that pattern of thought ~ you're definitely dealing with a mental condition which overtakes your entire life and affects everything and everyone you touch. Speaking for myself, there came a point that my worldview had me paralyzed ~ I could not function ~ and the only "rational" solution I could come up with (and this is giving away a shocking piece of my story before its time ~ but it does help illustrate what I'm trying to say here) was to load all of us ~ Warren, all the kids ~ hopefully, I could get Angel too ~ into the van and "accidently" crash us all head-on into a fast-moving oncoming semi-truck. That was insanity any way you want to define it. That plan to kill myself and my entire family along with me is what I had in mind when I wrote that the fundamentalist mindset is an insidious form of mental illness. My apologies if I hit a hot button for anyone here. I know how raw the hurt can be at times ~ and words can wound even when not intended that way.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 20, 2009 19:09:42 GMT -5
That is what I had in mind when I wrote that the fundamentalist mindset is an insidious form of mental illness. My apologies if I hit a hot button for anyone here. I know how raw the hurt can be at times ~ and words can wound even when not intended that way. I have no problem seeing it that way because I brainwashed myself into deep irrationality, believing that believing could actually alter reality.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 20, 2009 19:40:01 GMT -5
It's also troubling how the values of fundamentalism are found in less extreme and on the surface, less dangerous manifestations in society.
Some of the churches that I went to were Evangelical rather than Fundamentalist, and often the difference was in degree rather than in a real divergence of belief. While the Fundies had their belief that the woman was to be completely submissive dirt under the husband's feet, the Evangelicals were more moderate, BUT they still believed in the "head of the house" and the "spiritual leader". They dumbed down the idea of submission, but they didn't get rid of it.
These people can't be slotted into the "pure crazy" of the most extreme Fundamentalists. Maybe in a broad cultural sense, they're just as dangerous though- because they sanitize and legitimize these ideas of patriarchy- they make it seem palatable. They're obviously not mentally ill by any popular standard, but they continue to hold to this inequality, watered down as it may be.
** In my experience as a Christian schooler with some friends who loved Francis Schaeffer- I don't believe that any of us as teenagers really knew the extent of his involvement in patriarchy and the Religious Right. I suppose the remoteness of L'Abri made it seem like he was also somewhat removed from modern culture. The clothing he wore in the How Should We Then Live videos certainly made him seem that way- like a real eccentric.
The friends who really liked him saw themselves as minor rebels. They didn't want to rebel against Christianity, which they believed in, and Schaeffer-ism seemed like a way to rebel WITHIN Christianity. Admiring Francis Schaeffer made them seem different without being heretical. They framed themselves as the new intellectuals of Christianity. Very hipster.
** At first, I wasn't in agreement with the open letter to Frank Schaeffer, but I have changed my mind. I was dubious of Frank for unfair reasons. I strongly don't share his religious beliefs and I don't share a lot of his political views. But now I feel that those differences shouldn't affect the impact of the message that he shares with Vyckie. I'm no better than the fundamentalist I used to be if I'm not willing to accept that other people's stories being told unless they're exactly like me. Rejecting people for not being of just the right beliefs (or just the right gender!) is crap.
|
|