Explaining Triangulation (Part III of III): Relationships and Implications

Relationship Triangulation in Botkin Syndrome

The evangelists of the Stay-At-Home-Daughter (SAHD) model of family promote enmeshment with daughters, using their children to gratify adult psychological and emotional needs, and in some cases, physical and financial needs. Daughters are taught to defer to the father primarily but also to the wishes of all men, and it extends into teachings concerning relationships with brothers. All women are restricted to roles that define them as the helpers (“ezer” in Hebrew) as well as subordinate. This teaches both young women as well as young men alike that the fairer sex has one purpose only: tools to be used to meet the needs of men. It is not only just an issue of prescribed or limited roles for women, but their very essence defines them as lesser creatures: tools and objects for the purpose of service and meeting needs.

The subtle and psychological implications of this are profound. The boundaries between sexes become virtually non-existent. This is not to say that those who intend the paternalistic protection of their daughters out of love purpose these negative outcomes at all. I believe it is an oversight wherein the followers of this teaching become blinded so that they cannot anticipate these implications. As with all idolatry, the fruit and final product produced often ironically yields the very opposite of what was originally intended. 

 Consider Romans chapter 1 wherein idolatry of man (worship of the creature over the Creator) will actually produce gender ambiguity. There is quite a bit of this notable within the movement already, while preaching gender priority actually produces men with very effeminate characteristics and behaviors. The group has become so culturally irrelevant and detatched, they do not even recognize this growing evidence of the effete. Also, there appears to be a developing trend of estrangement between grown children with their patriarchal families, characterized in some patriarchal groups by rebellion, depression, self-punishment and suicide.

The book “So Much More” focuses upon the critical nature of the father and daughter relationship, teaching both spiritual and physical salvation for daughters through service to fathers. This might not be so troubling if there was an equal attention devoted to the relationships between daughters and mothers, but mothers are rarely referenced in this capacity within the subculture. Fathers have all the priority, and mothers seem to be pushed off to the side. Victoria "Vicky" Botkin, wife to Geoff Botkin, is rarely referenced, photographed or discussed in their literature. The mother and daughter relationship is rarely discussed if at all.  The priority within patriarchy falls upon sons only, and purity becomes paramount when it comes to women.

In regard to triangulation, what we see is an unhealthy relationship triangle where father and daughter are aligned, but husband and wife as well as daughter and mother are not.




Following the example presented in the writings of Dr. David Stoop, the implications for other relationships are quite notable, primarily the adult child’s relationship with a new spouse. (I can attest to this difficulty personally, as both my spouse and I had enmeshed relationships with our mothers.) Parental enmeshment destroys intimacy and relationships between husband and wife like nothing else. Within the synoptic Gospels, Jesus tells us that not only can a house divided not stand, but it is also impossible to serve two masters. If one attempts to serve two masters, Jesus said that one will love one master and hate the other. The “multi-generational faithfulness” concept as taught by the proponents of the SAHD model may work for the initial family, but it will undermine the relationship between the new husband and wife. 



The next implication of enmeshment involves what Pia Mellody identifies as an inevitable gender-related “Love Avoidant” pattern. According to her model that expands upon the triangulation model of family therapy, enmeshment (covert incest) produces a “Love Avoidance” toward all members of the sex of the parent with whom the adult child shares enmeshment. If these fathers so control and derive non-sexual need satisfaction from their daughters, the daughters will be love avoidant with other men. They will have intimacy difficulties with their husbands, compounded by the competition that is created with the father-daughter relationship that they carried with them into the marriage. In an attempt to stress appropriate gender relations as Biblical and “kingdom architecture” (as the Botkins define it), they are actually promoting a milieu that drives women away from men.



Revised 24Feb2019

Explaining Triangulation (Part II of III): The Father/Husband Patriarch as an Idol

Patriocentricity

Some religious homeschoolers follow “Biblical patriarchy.” but it is far from Biblical and does not actually reflect traditional patriarchal systems but rather a type of male hegemony. (Power must not only be established, it must be willingly yielded by subordinates without protest or constraint. It is not enough to follow and submit to the pattern in obedience to the law, but it demands a surrender if not destruction of any opposing will. “They say it cannot be taken; it must be given,” says the Merovingian character in the third film of the “Matrix” trilogy.)


From Wise Geek’s definition of hegemony:

Hegemony dates to the Greek verb hegeisthai which translates to “to lead.” Early leaders who were able to exert a great deal of control and influence over a group of people might be referred to as hegemons. A hegemon had to have a great deal of support from at least one dominating class, in order to keep the people of the state from rebelling against the leadership.

From Wikipedia on hegemony:

The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition.


Within the Stay-At-Home-Daughter model associated with Christian homeschooling, all family members revolve around and serve the needs and vision of the patriarchal husband/father. The model encourages sons to “cast visions” and have callings of their own, so long as they are approved by the patriarch. Daughters may follow pursuits that are both circumscribed by the patriarchal father but also the “sphere of the home.” In other words, women must not be permitted any activity in the public square, the sole domain of men. Marriage is deemed the only “normative” role, so any premarital pursuits must be directed only towards that which will prepare the daughter for marriage and motherhood.



















Even so, these pursuits must be approved by the father and must directly and indirectly serve and benefit the overall “family vision” as declared by the father. Home based businesses are strongly promoted, though they must be deemed appropriately feminine in nature as circumscribed by the concept of the so-called “Biblical patriarchy.” Daughters are permitted, however, to serve the visions of their brothers who are encouraged to have their own, independent pursuits that are not necessarily permanently directed at the family unit. A distorted interpretation of Numbers 30 serves as the only Scriptural basis for this belief.

This is idolatry, and it is not even an optional choice of children but is a required element of “multi-generational faithfulness.” This adds to the concept that the family patriarch serves to purify and sanctify all those women assigned to him. Add to this the teachings that all daughters are to be “helpmeets” to their fathers until they are given in marriage to the spouse of their father’s choice. The ideology teaches that girls should refrain from all emotional interest and attachments to potential mates, directing those only towards family members, until their father presents a suitable mate to them. Presumably, the daughter has the option to decline a particular spouse, but based upon a concept of bounded choice, this option is only an illusion. What viable choice does the daughter have to decline? Is she not required to submit to her patriarch’s will in all matters? She cannot flee the home because she has been taught that to do so is apostasy and will render her completely deserving of God’s wrath and Satan’s pleasure. Leaving the home deems her anathema. That is not choice but is bounded choice. The idolatry of the father and then the husband after marriage is non-optional.

Explaining Triangulation (Part I of III): Objectification

Having reviewed the basics of triangulation, I would like to explain my concerns about the Botkin model for raising families. The model views deems males more powerful and capable in respect to both essence and capability, physically and spiritually. In addition, all family members, boys until they are deemed adult men and all women and girls throughout their whole lives, must serve their male “federal head.” (Many Reformed ministers I know attest that the SAHD movement's interpretation misrepresents and grossly misinterprets "federal headship".) In addition, women and girls are required to defer to males in general as well, whether they are their brothers or even their 13 year old sons. Many believe that two factors combine to create a very dysfunctional environment for women, particularly daughters, as is promoted in the teachings of the “Visionary Daughters.” Women, particularly young women and girls are used as objects to gratify needs, particularly by fathers but also by all males in general.


Objectification of children and all females

Whether they formally profess agreement with the ontological subordination of females as the “derivative” or “indirect” image of God in comparison with males (the direct image of God) matters little. Coming right out to admit this would be interpreted as a red flag to people, so they say anything but that direct statement, using unstated assumption and intentional vagueness for the purpose of denying culpability. They use these logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to convey their message subtly and deceive their intended audience. They will not come out and directly state “Woman is made in man’s image” because those specific words would be inflammatory to most Christians, though I believe that everything else that they teach is completely consistent with this premise. It is subtle and crafty.

The consequences of this assumption objectifies women, or that which treats all females as objects to be used like a tools. It is far easier to blame a lesser creature for one’s problems, just as it is quite easy to “kick the dog” after a hard day of frustration. Original sin, seeking to be like God (not woman seeking to be like man as some teach), was followed fast with blame by Adam. In Genesis 3:11-12, when God asks Adam why he disobeyed God’s command to refrain from eating of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam explains that he did so because the woman that God gave him gave him the fruit to eat, so Adam ate. Many interpret this as a very unmanly attempt to reduce his own culpability or “pass the buck” to both God first and then to Eve. The Botkin model does not follow the “flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone” concept that Adam states himself in Genesis 2:23, but more closely approximates the Genesis 3:12 concept that woman is at fault for his own shortcomings and choices.


Under such conditions, it is quite easy to “scapegoat” all women, laying blame upon her for all the ills of mankind. Many notable Bible teachers affiliated with CBMW teach that sin actually entered mankind through woman, but as a technicality, God made Adam responsible because of either or both “federal headship” and “progeniture.” I believe that this interpretation can only be “read into” the text (eisegesis) because of the presuppositions that define all females as lesser creatures. This is also a “Fallacy of the Simple Cause” or "Single Cause" that explains relationships in oversimplified terms, explaining relationships with faulty causalities. Scapegoating is then a consequence of this oversimplification: A single cause or element is identified and vilified as the source of all undesirable circumstances or outcomes. The scapegoat distracts the audience from other possible contributing factors. These teachings are well noted in “So Much More” and “Return of the Daughters” wherein women are attributed the driving desire to usurp man’s authority (and not to be like God as the Genesis account teaches). In redefining women in this way, I believe that the enmity that God placed between the serpent and the woman has been improperly reassigned between man and woman. (Wives are redefined as a husband’s adversary and not as his helpmeet.)

Healing from Emotional Incest

From “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love with Jo Robinson.. Exploring the dynamics of covert (emotional or non-sexual but gender-related) incest.

In previous posts on this topic, specifically from Patricia Love's book “The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life,” I presented information directly from this book to demonstrate the many similarities between covert/emotional incest and the family relationships advocated by patriocentricity.

 Where the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement applies these same dynamics, teaching them as the true Scriptural model for family relationships, I've named these same dynamics “Botkin Syndrome.” Geoff Botkin as well as his daughters, Anna Sophia and Elizabeth, advocate these relationships through avenues affiliated with Vision Forum including their book “So Much More,” and their video production entitled “The Return of the Daughters.” Presenting information about healing and correcting these unhealthy patterns of relating to one another within families proves to be far more complicated than citing examples of dynamics from Love's book, but subsequent posts here will give you a taste of the wise advise that I believe that Dr. Love offers in the remainder of her work on this subject.

In addition to the general problems of covert/emotional incest, I believe that the Botkin's teachings represent an outgrowth and logical conclusion of a legalistic and work-based understanding of the New Testament, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Protestant faith. A true experience at the Cross of Calvary and forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus should dispel the understanding of the Christian faith as a process of living by and under Old Testament legalism, such as I believe is followed by those within the Biblical patriarchy/patriocentric belief system. So in addition to healing this type of emotional abuse of children and families by those who were likely unaware of the damaging nature of this process and related teachings, I also believe that an honest examination of the teachings of patriarchy is called for to bring about complete healing. To that end, I believe that reading at my other blog and website gives those interested a good place to start the process. I also recommend “thatmom” Karen Campbell's podcast series on Patriarchy/Patriocentricity (Sept – Nov 2007) and Spiritual Abuse (Apr – May 2008), and a planned update in the Fall of 2008 as a good place to start. These podcasts can be downloaded at www.thatmompodcast.com. The links here to both the Patriocentricity and the Spiritual Abuse series sets will also link you to a discussion of the material covered in the podcasts.

Putting Dr. Love's Book and Advice into Perspective

Since the late 80s during my clinical experience as a nurse and during the first serious confrontation of my own denial about my family of origin, I've read about this concept of covert/emotional incest. As I recently wrote in this post, I've found that each time I revisit this process of looking back into my own history to be frustrating and intimidating. Even now that I am in a very safe place in my life with safe and growing relationships of trust with supportive others, part of me feels both anger and frustration that there is yet another unpleasant level of denial and myth to tear away in both my memories as well as in the way I look at the world. But this is precisely where the keys to my continued wholeness lay hidden.

When certain traumatic events occurred in my life, a part of me became fractured off from the rest, and I stopped growing in that area. I also had a series of traumas that followed one another when I was quite young. Though my faith teaches that I am living out God's plan for my life , I also understand the perspective that the lack of personal boundaries and behaviors that I learned in my family also made me a vulnerable target for emotional predators.

 I learned to yield unconditionally to all authority figures, any of those who were older than I was (elders as a general class of people), and particularly to men. In the process that was magnified by my own family situation and my personal history, I was taught to distrust my own internal discernment when I found myself in a conflict with the opinions of others, particularly if they were viewed by me as an authority by virtue of age, position and gender. The covert/emotional incest dynamics, not unlike the Botkin teachings, promoted the circumstances that resulted in subsequent traumas. I once saw a T-shirt that said something about “being flypaper for freaks,” and in this example, I agree that this was true. Like predatory animals target the weak and the young who linger near the outskirts of their flocks, I found myself in precarious and vulnerable circumstances because of the beliefs and experiences my family of origin taught to me.

When I see others suffer or when my life is touched by new pains as a consequence of living, I am reminded of similar hardships that I have encountered at earlier times in my life. As I pass by these events in memory or through a realization that the old hurts of the past have not completely healed at the deepest levels, I find myself going back to these similar places in my history. The process of reclaiming myself at each event where I became “stuck” or stopped growing as a result of trauma did not take place fully on the first visit of re-examining the past. Each occasion that seeks to bring deeper healing to these areas is like a redeeming of the parts of myself that became lost in the trauma. 

I currently have the great blessing of a loving therapist, a Christian, who has guided me through this process, adding to the work that I embarked upon through my own journey. (I also seek counsel because dealing with the emails and accounts of others who write to me also requires that I find my own support as I reach out to them.) I've been on a journey where I've gone back to rescue and liberate myself from those circumstances where a part of me became stuck in the memory of traumas and disappointments. I've gone back to those memories of the great disappointments and traumas in my life to rescue and redeem those “dis-integrated” (or “stuck”) parts of myself that never progressed past the disappointments, as I have “re-integrated” myself so that I am made ever more whole, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually.

Note: I believe that God orders the events of my life, allowing trials to “prove” me like a master swordsmith repeatedly heats and pounds and processes the metals over and over again. I'm reminded of the narrative that we are given in the Book of Job where the Accuser approaches God, asking for the opportunity to prove what is in Job's heart. Jesus also states to Peter that Satan has asked to “sift him like wheat.” I believe that all that has occurred in my personal history likely follows this same process, including what the author calls the plight of the “Chosen Child.” God has a purpose and a plan to demonstrate both His Own Glory and Faithfulness through the events of my life as He demonstrates and manifest healing in my life. The process conforms me to His Image, despite the difficulties and often hard circumstances. As I have been comforted, I seek to also share this comfort with others, my main impetus for presenting this information.

Begin Your Personal Journey Toward Healing

I encourage all who have gleaned insight from the many examples of “Botkin Syndrome” and the “Chosen Child” excerpted from Dr. Love's book to buy and read the whole work. This journey of healing is an intensely personal one. I will begin to conclude this blog series with some summary ideas from the rest of Love's writings, but not in as great detail as I did in describing the dynamics and similarities between Botkin Syndrome and the Chosen Child.

Another great adjunct to this process, if you found a strong element of truth in the descriptions of the Chosen Child includes a study of the freedom from shame we should embrace as Christians who are made new creations in Christ Jesus. Please revisit the list of these resources in this blog post. Chamberlin's audio series concerning shame as well as the book, “Love is a Choice” provide much insight, adding a decidedly Christian perspective to healing.

I pray that all who read here will continue the process of recovery from all these “syndromes” posed by these dynamics – dynamics that I do not believe accurately reflect the freedom and liberty that we should enjoy in Christ.

Concerning
Dr. Patricia Love'sThe Emotional Incest Syndrome:
What to Do When a Parent's Love Rule's Your Life
Bantam Books, 1990