Discussion of the Stay-At-Home-Daughter lifestyle and the long term effects of growing up in the Patriarchy/Quiverfull Movement associated with Christian Homeschooling in the US
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
Note: A child can fill both positive and negative roles.
Roles Assigned to Child With Enmeshing Abuse
"Positive Roles":
Hero or heroine (good child)
Counselor
Surrogate partners
Surrogate parent
Mediator
Mascot (comedian role)
Daddy's Little Girl (a ROLE, not a name said in passing)
Daddy's Little Man
Mommy's Little Girl
Mommy's Little Man
In Enmeshment,
In a relationship, this person will be “very good at being good.” Because he/she is so adaptable as a child, when they become an adult, they will seek intensity in order to feel alive and do it in a “positive” but COVERT manner.
They derive both shame and a false sense of empowerment from these roles which imparts a sense of value. They objectify those whom they care for by devaluing their partner while also elevating self.
“Negative Roles”
Scapegoat (problem child)
Rebel
In a relationship, this person will be “very good at being bad.” This adult will seek intensity in order to feel alive in a “negative” OVERT manner.
Roles Assigned To Child With Abandoning/Neglecting Abuse
“Negative Role”
Lost Child:
In a relationship, this person will act in a dependent, needy manner and try to create intensity inside the relationship itself as he/she perceives that it is the relationship that keeps him/her alive.
Irrelevant Child:
Deeper level of the lost child.
Xenophobia for BOTH SUBTYPES:
Fear in general.
Fear of strangers.
It is a biological imperative and sometimes is necessary for survival, and we then tend to be relational with what is familiar.
For the person who has been neglected or abandoned, he/she will try to be relational with people who create distance in relationships through the use of walls. (They will naturally be attracted, ironically, to those who are emotionally unavailable to them.)
For the person who has been enmeshed, he/she will feel compelled to be relational with people who are needy and who believe that they are worthless.
I
recently received a private inquiry from someone who visited either
Under Much Grace or Overcoming Botkin Syndrome, but when I tried to
email a private response, I received a delivery failure notice. As it
is always good to review some of this kind of info and in the hope
that the person who made the inquiry will see this post, I offer it
here on both websites.
The
reader writes to ask what the Stay-At-Home-Daughter type of enmeshment is called when you
pull the dynamics out of a Christian or religious context. The
reader hopes to find as much information about the problem from a
variety of perspectives, particularly secular ones, and Borderline
Personality Disorder was specifically mentioned in the
correspondence.
Here
is my response:
~~~~~
Dear
_______,
About
the Christian Perspective
In
terms of Christianity, I think that the patterns of behavior
recommended by the Botkin Family constitutes an idolatry of parents
and family. (Please
take note that this is not a mental health or medical“diagnosis”of
any type but was a name that was applied to the followers of this
ideology and was bestowed upon them by a group of homeschooling moms.
Read
more HERE about the origins of the “term”.)
The
group of Christians that propagate the idea of the “Daughterhood
Movement” within a Christian homeschooling sect described by what
is referred to as “Biblical Patriarchy” sees family as somewhat
salvific or an essential and critical element of the spiritual
“salvation” process. The ideology draws from principles of
adopting the submission doctrines that were made popular in the
Shepherding Discipleship Movement, aberrant theology that resulted as
a reaction to the Charismatic Renewal of the late '60s/early70s.
(Read more about the history of the Shepherding
Movement HERE and the theology
of submission HERE.)
In
terms of Christianity, another way of describing the belief system
might include the pursuit of the virtues of family not by following
the guiding of the Holy Spirit or the principles that are found in
the two greatest commandments, but rather by a program which draws on
the works of the flesh as Paul described them in the Book of
Galatians. Elements of the process and the formulaic life prescribed
by the group may have many Christian elements and often espouses
aspects of Christian virtues, but those who pursue the endpoint of
the system use dynamics and means are not expressly or necessarily
Christian. It is a system of salvation by good works which is very
similar to the system advanced by Bill Gothard's organization, widely
discussed at the Recovering
Grace website. A list of blog posts pertaining to Gothard's
system on
this site appear HERE.
The
Secular Perspective
In
terms of psychology, these patterns of behavior and the dynamics
taught by the movement are entirely consistent with what is generally
described as family dysfunction.
Murray
Bowen, a psychiatrist in the '60s became the pioneer of family
therapy, coining the terms of "triangulation"
(ineffective and passive communication among three people
instead of direct, assertive communication between two) and the
"undifferentiated
ego mass" (describing the natural state of children within
families who are too young to have developed their own identity but a
pathologic state when continued into adulthood). Both of these
descriptors and key concepts of family dysfunction are well described
by Bowen's original landmark work. Christian author David
Stoop draws heavily on Murray Bowen's model in describing
conflict within Christian families in his series of books on this
subject.
In
the '70s, Salvador
Minuchin whose works popularized the term "enmeshment"
wherein he further described and delineated the same types of
dynamics within families that Bowen observed and taught within his
model of family therapy. He described the loss of
individuality and identity of family members within such families or
with one or more members within the family system. Individuals
are denied a healthy sense of autonomy and decision making because of
the over involvement or one or more family members resulting in a
functional handicap for that enmeshed individual. Affected
family members fail to develop a clear, healthy, and functional sense
of self. Personal boundaries become obscured or are
non-existent between family members in enmeshed systems.
In
the '80s when "Codependency" became a popular term, it went
on to further describe enmeshment and the problems that result from
the dysfunction – factors generally seen as the root problem noted
in individuals who struggle with addiction, whether it be through
compulsive behavior or substance abuse. Several authors in this
genre used the terms "covert incest" and "emotional
incest" to describe enmeshment that occurs between parent and
child when a parent uses a child to meet their own needs that are
only appropriately met by another adult. Children lack
the sophistication, experience, and resources of adults needed
to set limits on appropriate behavior, as they rely upon adults
(particularly their primary parent) to teach them these skills and
appropriate standards of conduct. The child is duty bound to
please the parent and rely upon them for their survival and basic
needs, so they have no ability to protest or question the adult's
behavior. When a parent uses the child to draw from them to
meet their own adult needs instead of supplying those things to the
child, they draw the child into the world of adults and obligate that
child to provide for their adult needs. The child ends up
paying the price for the parent's deficits by feeling responsible and
by becoming consumed with meeting the needs of the parent.
I've
written about this HERE,
and
I would take note of the tag list there noting “authors” to get
ideas about books that will help you understand these dynamics. I
also wrote this
long series on this effect on UnderMuchGrace.comearlier
this year describing the ways this situation develops by using Pia
Melody's work, though there are many other authors who write on this
subject. I liked the way Pia broke down the problem into
categories and focused on the neediness of the child. I also like her
writing on Love
Addiction and Love Avoidancewhich
describes the pathology that enmeshment tends to produce in enmeshed
adults and how it affects how those adults relate to the opposite
sex. Love Addiction/Love Avoidance are a deeper set of problems
and a subset of codependency, according to Pia Melody. Another
author who writes extensively on this topic is John Bradshaw. Another
book that I particularly like but have never discussed online
is Hurt
People Hurt People
by Sandra Wilson.
Psychology
and the addictions/recovery specialty describes the dynamics of
“Stay-At-Home-Daughter Syndrome” using many of these terms:
Family
Dysfunction
Undifferentiated
Ego Mass
Enmeshment
Co-dependency
Toxic
Shame
Covert
Incest
Emotional
Incest
In
some cases, Love Addiction and/or Love Avoidance also apply if the
therapist accepts these models and opts to use them.
In
terms of the DSM, the manual of criteria that is used for the
diagnosis of mental health disorders, these conditions can foster the
development of dependent and avoidant personality types. They could
possibly promote the development of other types of personality
disorders, obsessive-compulsive traits, some types of trauma, and
addictive behavior as well. Skilled and credentialed mental health
professionals must diagnose these types of problems through a
detailed process of history and assessment, though the development of
these kinds of conditions in individuals are often very complicated
and don't usually boil down to a single or simple factor. As a
registered nurse, I can assess traits that are reflective of certain
traits and findings, and I can teach information about certain
disorders, but I am not licensed to diagnose or treat any such
conditions. If you have a loved one that suffers with problems that
information on this blog describes, in addition to the resources
listed here, I highly recommend private counseling with a licensed
therapist. A therapist can help you work through your specific
problems with your loved one by serving as a sounding board to help
you broaden your perspective, helping you to develop effective coping
strategies, and providing emotional support.
BPDCentral.com
also offers message boards and helpful information pages. I'm very
grateful to author Randi Kreiger who hosts BPD Central for her help
and assistance. In the past, she's privately provided occasional peer
review on some related projects and writings that appear on this
website. Randi authored
several excellent books on the topic and focuses on effective
communication.
This blog specifically explores aspects of enmeshment in
general, the mission of that blog. Any info about narcissism
also addresses the problems faced by the loved ones of those who
suffer Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) which you expressed as a
subject of interest. I recently came across this informative site,
Light's
House, that is loaded with easy to read, practical information.
Even if you have a BP in your life who does not have a diagnosis with
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), make sure to look over the
narcissism pages at Light's House website as well. (About a third of
people with BPD also meet criteria for an NPD diagnosis.)
The previous post discusses the primary characteristics of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and how it affects the children of those affected by the disorder (abbreviated as “BP” which stands for “borderline person”). In “Understanding the Borderline Mother,” Christine Lawson presents four different “character profiles” of affected mothers, one of which she names the “Witch Mother.” Please note that BPD can affect both men and women, and in terms of how the example of BPD relates to patriarchy, it should be noted that the father can be substituted wherever “mother” appears in these posts to make it even more applicable.
Note:[Bracketed terms] in any excerpts were adapted and added by this blog host for the ease of the reader of this post in order to abbreviate the terminology which was explained in the context of the book (in terms of character subtypes) but is beyond the scope of this post.
BPs that Lawson identifies as the “Witch” variety wrestle with annihilating rage, and this kind of BP mother believes deeply that she is evil and must compensate for an inadequate sense of self. When she feels threatened, she becomes predatory and demands submission as a means of medicating her own emotional state at the expense of her children. She often singles out one of her children as the receptacle for her self-hatred, though she may show this side of herself to all of them. The message she communicates to her children is that “Life is war.” This is also the rarest of the subtypes Lawson describes, and quite often, this type of mother tends to hide within another BP persona or apparent competence until something triggers the predator within (pg 38).
Borderline mothers can be difficult to recognize (pg 38) because BPs:
Seem normal to casual acquaintances
Have unique symptom clusters
Are different with different people, including their own children
Have different external or public personalities
Function well in structured environments and specific roles
More Similarities Between Behaviors in Dysfunctional Stay-At-Home-Daughter Families and BPD Parenting Styles
Parents who follow Botkin-style patriarchy sometimes manifest these same traits or variations of them, and in the previous post, I explore several other similarities between parenting styles within these two groups that both manifest enmeshment. The reader should understand that this post draws a comparison between the common features of both groups in order to help children of enmeshment both understand dysfunctional families and thus move through their pain into wholeness.
Though I believe that the ideology of patriarchy lends itself well to those with personality disorders which makes those who do have such a diagnosis more protected within these patriarchal systems, I am in no way contending that parents in patriarchy suffer from BPD. The followers of patriarchy sometimes behave very aggressively with critics, showing intense anger and demeaning those who do not meet their expectations, both inside and outside of their families and groups. Like the high functioning BP who keeps more unpleasant matters well-hidden by showing only a careful façade to most others, patriarchy follows a very obvious rule: the parent can never be wrong and fathers can never be criticized.
Those who follow the Family Integrated Church (FIC) system see each individual father as the gatekeeper concerning doctrine and related practice for his own family, and in many FIC churches, men are even discouraged from talking directly to other women concerning conduct and doctrine because it is interpreted as interfering with the authority of the patriarch as independent prophet, priest and king over his own family jurisdiction. The FIC system itself tends to naturally insulate against criticism, inhibit legitimate concern for members within a family, and the system itself is quite punitive and intolerant of deviation from its narrow standards.
Often in the same manner by which parents with BPD use their children to bear and contain their negative emotions, parents in patriarchy often objectify and scapegoat their own children to preserve their devotion and high regard for their ideology, the leaders they follow, as well as the outward appearance of the family. Also noted in the previous post, dysfunctional families spontaneously and unconsciously assign identified roles to family members, and one individual tends to be labeled and serves the family as the primary scapegoat. Because of the inequitable balance of power in families (favoring the BP and the patriarch), any subordinate within the family system can be blamed, however. Black and white thinking fosters this response in both BPD and cultic families where ethical issues as well as dynamic people reduce down to static elements – objects of use – which are understood through narrow predefined prejudices.
Drawing Insight from the Personal Accounts of Concentration Camp Survivors
Lawson and other authors concerned with child abuse report that enmeshed children and adults often find value in reading literature concerning concentration camp survivors. Many report dreams about captivity themes because they feel guilty, falsely condemned, trapped, and hopeless. Many of these things reported by children of BPs and abuse victims echo the statements and feelings of those who grew up in spiritually abusive patriarchy. As so many in patriarchy profess to be acting in the best interest of their children by following the prescribed paradigm, something the loaded language of this cultic group describes as “shepherding” or “protecting the hearts” of their children, BP mothers also feel entitled to their duty to dominate their children as a part of their role as parent. They do so because they believe that this treatment is “for the child’s own good.” When confronted by therapists, the BP becomes very defensive because they do not recognize their behavior as destructive. Lawson states,
Having been raised by parents who demanded absolute loyalty and obedience, the [borderline] mother wields her power as blindly as she once relinquished her will to her own parents. Denial of her child’s pain comes as easily to her as denial of her own pain. The [borderline mother] projects the war that rages within her onto the no-good child (pg. 273).
Many people who did not grow up in dysfunctional homes often question why people remain in destructive and demeaning relationships, and this is very true of people who do not understand BPD. Likewise, people who do not appreciate the concept of “bounded choice” do not understand the plight of the children within Botkin-style patriarchy because they do not understand the subtle dynamics and complex pressures upon adult daughters within the patriarchal system. But the survivor of a concentration camp knows deeply and intimately what the ill-affected daughter in patriarchy faces, something Lawson in particular points out as true of the children of BPs in “Understanding the Borderline Mother.” This kind of degradation at the hands of a parent is vastly different from that which comes via a stranger because the child builds their own identity upon that which the parent gives to the child. If this is based upon denigrating shame, it has a devastating affect on the child.
From Lawson, Pgs 273-4:
The words of a concentration camp survivor reflect a child’s blind faith in the parent: “Why did we not fight back? . . . I know why. Because we had faith in humanity. Because we did not really think that human beings were capable of committing such crimes” (Klein ["All But My Life"], p.89). The [borderline mother’s] children, too, fall victim to their own faith in humanity and therefore repress awareness of their mother’s destructive power. . . Children have faith in their parents and believe in their greater wisdom.
In his book on moral life in concentration camps, Todorov ["Facing the Extreme"] (1996) observed, “In the totalitarian ethic, loyalty to the leader is a fundamental obligation” (p. 189). Young children need to believe that their mother knows what is right and good. Their trust and loyalty are truly blind, for they have no other experience by which to assess her judgment. They believe in her basic goodness, more so than they believe in their own goodness. It is safer to accept the view that they are evil than to consider the consequences that the mother is evil.
Just like a survivor of a Nazi prison camp, the child of a BP must realize that if they do not take responsibility for their responses to their captivity, they run a great risk of becoming like their captors. This is very true for those in recovery from spiritual abuse who must address the lure of the benefit that they believed the ideology offered to them, because they are also at high risk for allowing their devotion to idealistic virtues serving as justification for behavior. They must make peace with their former abusive leader and work toward forgiveness, one of the long-term goals in recovery that occurs in the final stages of healing after steady progress and perseverance. They must also admit to themselves that their former ideology was flawed, just as the recovering BP parent must perform a painstaking moral inventory in order to take the first steps toward their own healing. Lawson quotes Todorov saying “Someone who sees no resemblance between himself and the enemy, who believes that all the evil is in the other and none in himself, is tragically destined to resemble his enemy” (p. 200). For me, this echoes that “if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us” (1 John 1:10, KJV).
As a part of working through their trauma, it is essential that those who have been hurt by any trauma, be it spiritual abuse, a personality disorder in a parent, family enmeshment, or Botkin Syndrome must be able to express themselves as they make sense of their experience so that they can progress through it into full healing. The silence must be broken regarding the silent suffering of Jesus’ little lambs. Lawson quotes another concentration camp survivor concerning the importance of telling one’s story to encourage healing.
Pg 290:
Those who experienced imprisonment . . . are divided into two distinct categories . . . those who remain silent and those who speak . . . those who remain silent who feel more deeply that sense of malaise which I for simplicity’s sake call “shame,” . . . The others speak . . . because . . . they perceive . . . the center of their life, the event that for good or evil has marked their entire existence. [Levi, p.149]
Lawson concludes this chapter by pointing out again, that like the BP parent who is often difficult to recognize and mistake the child of the BP as the problem in the family, concentration camp survivors were not believed at times. History has documented accounts of many who escaped camps in the early phases of WWII who were not believed when they escaped to tell the horrors of what they endured. For the adult children of patriarchy, this is absolutely true in many cases, because it is painful for people to be shaken out of their comfort zones to consider a very disturbing truth. Things aren’t always as they seem, and few people often believe what both the children of BPs and the children of abusive patriarchy have to say.
In conclusion, I would like to offer the footnote on page 290 of Lawson’s book:
Primo Levi (1988) writes in The Drowned and the Saved: “Almost all of the survivors, orally or in their written memoirs, remember a dream which frequently recurred during the nights of imprisonment, varied in its detail but uniform in its substance: they had returned home and with passion and relief were describing their past sufferings, addressing themselves to a loved one, and were not believed, indeed were not even listened to” (p. 12).
Lawson also states that,
“Pain that is expressed, heard, and believed is not experienced in vain. Pain that is heard can then be tolerated and healed” (pg 290) . . .Children need to be held, to be mirrored, to be soothed, and to be given some control throughout their childhood, but especially following separation and loss. Unbearable pain that is expressed, heard and believed becomes bearable (pg. 304).
It is my great hope that the daughters and sons of patriarchy can speak the truth about their experiences and also see them for what they are. I pray that they will be able to separate from the oppression they endured, can forgive their parents for their shortcomings and what many experience as spiritual, psychological, and emotional abuse. I pray that they can see themselves as good and can trust in their own personal goodness, no longer serving as a scapegoat and source of blame for the family. Exploring some of these writings about the plight of the concentration camp survivor as well as the child of a borderline personality can offer helpful encouragement to the children of enmeshed families.
Without intervention, their emptiness, hopelessness, rage, and fear will be passed to the next generation . . .
Borderline mothers are not evil; evil lies in the darkness of unawareness.They cannot see what they are doing.
Those of us who can see must shine the light of our understanding like a beacon guiding a ship to harbor, or share in the responsibility of allowing mothers to drown their own children in a sea of despair.
As children, we tend to mold our personalities to adapt to our environment. If our environment is supportive, nurturing, and flexible, we are freed to express our own individuality. If our environment is rigid, demanding and conditional, however, we are forced to shape our behavior to fit the needs of others. We substitute our true self for a false self that is more acceptable to our parents, whose love and approval we need desperately. In essence, we compromise who we really are, and become what our parents need us to be.
Chaotic and Rigid families – families at the extreme ends of the adaptability scale – have several things in common. For one thing, they are both rather poorly equipped for problem-solving. While the Rigid family will make some effort to discuss ways to solve problems, they tend to make decisions quickly and arbitrarily, and then to impose them on family members with little forethought or planning. The Chaotic family, by contrast, will often take a great deal of time talking about a problem, but in a confused, disorganized way that makes arriving at a clear conclusion very difficult. The Chaotic family typically does a poor job of following through with whatever decision it finally does come up with.
Both types of families also have a hard time dealing with emotions. The Rigid family tends not to allow the expression of emotions, and those that are expressed tend to be ignored. The result is that a great deal of anger builds up. But it is expressed in indirect and manipulative ways. In the Chaotic family, there is often a lot of expression of emotion, but the structure of family life is such that its meaning and significance get lost in the shuffle. The resulting implusiveness and volatility also stirs up anger...
The Rigid family is a very authoritarian family. Leadership is clearly defined and recognized: everyone knows who the boss is, and everyone knows what the rules are...
The Adaptable Family
The health balance between Rigid and Chaotic families is the Adaptable family. It is characterized by an approach that offers clear but flexible leadership and healthy but adjustable discipline. Everyone knows who is in charge; they also know that the leader is someone who can be talked to and reasoned with. They know that there are rules, and consequences for breaking those rules; they also know the rules are fair and sensible, and that exceptions can be made when the situation warrants.
Problems are discussed, and the discussion leads to a decision that reflects the input of various members of the family, both children and adults. Roles are clear – parents are parents, children are children – but communication is plentiful. People know what is expected of them, and they know how to negotiate those expectations when legitimate needs to do so arise.
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.
these implications. As with all idolatry, the fruit and final product produced often ironically yields the very opposite of what was originally intended. 
