Under More Grace

Looking for Worth and Peace from External Sources: The External Locus of Control and "Victims of Circumstance"

2012-01-27T05:22:00.000-08:00

Three blog posts from a series on dysfunctional relationships at UnderMuchGrace.com.

(Click on titles to link to the original posts.)

The material here was specificallydeveloped to address the functional problems and emotionaldevelopmental needs of the young women who endured abject abuse andtorture at HephzibahHouse, a private boarding home for troubled girls run by anIndependent Fundamentalist Church, so it appears here as a particularfocus. (Learnmore about Hephzibah House HERE.)

1. Shame-based parenting

2. Enmeshment

3. How both types of parenting make an a adult who becomes a "Victim of Circumstance"

1. Shame-based Parenting Fills a Child's Heart with Shame Instead of Love: Disrespect for Children that Tilled the Soil for Abuse at Hephzibah House

If you recall, this latest discussionhere concerning developmental problems and deficits in children cameabout after a supporter of Ron Williams, the proprietor of HephzibahHouse (HH), published ablog post that challenges those HH Survivors who have comeforward to tell of the abject abuse and terrible conditions theysuffered while incarcerated there. There are many other IndependentFundamentalist Baptist (IFB) homes of this type where childrensuffer these same conditions right now, every day. KathrynJoyce wrote an excellent,must-read article describing several of these homes where youngmen and women live in and under unthinkable conditions as punishmentunder the guise of rehabilitation through religion.

Though the lasting psychologicalconsequences of the extreme conditions in these homes results in aloss of healthy perspective for the survivors, based on the historiesof the children who are sent to IFB reform homes, many of the homeswherein they were raised laid the foundations for unhealthy thinkingbefore those children ever made it to these facilities. I believethat to fully healfrom the abuse experience, the survivor must look deeper intotheir history to find the roots of the patterns that were intensifiedand exploited at HH. I believe that an essential part of healing formany of the survivors involves examining the developmental factorsthat originated with the their families of origin.

The focus in recent posts hereconcerning the special qualities, characteristics, and needs ofchildren addresses those roots of victimization, but they are highlyapplicable to many who have experienced all sorts of spiritual abuse. Parents must accepta child's qualities of self-centeredness, their boundless energy, andtheir resilience so that they can form realisticexpectations about the child's capabilities. These qualities,the gifts of childhood, create characteristics that a parentmust respect and anticipate because their children are valuable, vulnerable, imperfect, dependent, and immature whilethey are growing up.

In healthy parenting, though the job isnot easy and the parent grows and learns along with the child as theycontinue to learn and grow in their own development, the parentrealizes that the child lacks experience, reason, and capabilities(pictured as the empty beaker in the sense of self of the child). Anurturing parent provides for these needs of their children untilthey are sure that the child can perform these tasks themselves. Thehealthy adult holds resources that the child lacks and shares withthem with the child from the abundance of resources inside them whichthey hopefully built in their own childhoods (represented by theheart in the diagram). Nurture, care, and love flows from parent tochild so that eventually, the child can provide those things forthemselves, having developed their own abundance.

As we read in the review of the five basic characteristics of children, when a parent lacks understandingof their child or has a lack of their own internal resources, thatsense of abundance, worth and peace within themselves, they obviouslydo not have enough of that goodness to share. No human being isperfect, and parents often do lack their own sense of worth andpeace. They might also have their own personality-based naturalstrengths and weaknesses that interfere with communicating well withthe child. In dysfunctional families however, parents and childrendraw nurture from each other and/or they can unload theirfrustrations off on one another in unhealthy ways which create andfoster more dysfunction.

When a parent carries a great deal ofshame because of their experiences and because of the nurture andskills that they may have missed, they lack the resources toeffectively parent their children, at least in the ideal sense. Especially concerning imperfection and immaturity, we see prime examples of a parent who feels agreat deal of shame themselves. Human beings are both imperfect andare sometimes immature, and even adults enjoy a sense of their innerchildlike qualities. If a person believes false ideas including ideas that life should be fair, that they should be perfect, or thatchildren should have capabilities beyond their developmental ability,these ideas bring the parent's own internal sense of shame to thesurface.

What do we do with shame? It's anuncomfortable emotion, and when undeserved or inappropriate to bear,it's quite natural to seek to get rid of shame. Unfortunately, in aparent who carries a great deal of toxic shame through either falseideas about the reality of how life works or because they arefull of shame over the parenting they received, they usuallyunconsciously unload their own shame into their children. If shamecomprises the core experience of the parent, and this shame replacesthe parent's sense of abundance (worth, peace, and safety), they onlyhave shame to share with their child. The child becomes theirsecondary receptacle for it.

Most people do not like to dwell on orthink about the experiences that they found shaming, and for thosewho grew up in homes where they were shamed when they were verylittle, they will not consciously remember specific events. Theexperience of shame can be terrifying, and adults who carry this kindof shame through intolerance and controlling behaviors will usuallydo anything to avoid feeling these overwhelming emotions. When achild triggers shame in an aggressive or angry parent who compensatesfor their shame through control and intolerance, the parent usuallyeither shames or punishes the child.

Alice Miller writes in TheBody Never Lies: The Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting

(pp 27 -8):

In every adultwho has suffered absue as a child lies dormant that small child'sfear of punishment at the hand of the parents if he or she shoulddare rebel against their behavior. . . .
These patterns ofchildhood will inevitably then be adopted by their victims wheneverthe fear and anxiety used on their partners and their own children,at work, in politics, wherever the fear and anxiety of the profoundlyinsecuare child can be fended off with the aid of external power. It is in this way that dictators are born; these are people with adeep-seated contempt for everyone else, people who were neverrespected as children and thus do their utmost to earn that respectat a later state with the assistance of the gigantic power they havebuilt up around them.

Parents who tend to resort topunishment and/or demonstrate high needs for control often displaycharacteristics of narcissism. Note these excerpts from a post atOvercomingBotkin Syndrome about the Narcissistic Parent in thehomeschooling's partriarchy movement:

In a most basicsense, narcissists with NPD display exaggerated self-interest becausethey are compensating for fear and high sensitivity to criticism. This exaggeration is a means of coping with and resisting thedisturbing emotions that they feel deep inside, emotions that theydeny feeling, even to themselves. Some of the hallmark featuresof NPD include personal grandiosity, an excessive need foradmiration/attention, a sense of entitlement, and a diminishedcapacity for empathy. When a person with NPD feels threatenedor becomes uncomfortably aware of their internal sense of shame andinferiority, they behave in a number of predictable ways whichcreates problems for those with whom they interact. . . .
If you are achild or partner of someone with NPD, you will find them unable tohandle any kind of criticism, resorting to demeaning tactics andintense anger when they feel threatened (though they will never letyou see that they feel threatened because of their grandiosity). They NEVER admit to wrongdoing, and when consequences force them torealize that they have failed to be perfect, they will become evenmore dramatic, emotional, and aggressive. Life is all aboutblaming other people for their shortcomings, because they are reallyjust terrified inside. Like playground bullies, they don’ttake well to open confrontation. Direct confrontation usuallybecomes explosive, as the narcissist prefers to be passive-aggressivebecause they actually fear confrontation. That makes them hardto understand, because on the exterior, they seem to seek outconflict and aggression. Considering their inner experience ofhelplessness and fear seems oxymoronic (if not impossible) when youare on the receiving end of their wrath and if you believe theirexaggerated perceptions of themselves.

2. How Dysfunctional Parents Siphon Resources Back from a Child, Depriving them of Healthy Self-Development (Enmeshed Parenting)

In the previous post, we discussed howchildren lack internal resources which the parent provides to them sothat they can develop their own sense of self, internal peace andwhat many authors describe as a sense of abundance.

Healthy parentsunderstand that their children cannot tolerate or process manyaspects of living because of the natural characteristics of children. They understand that they are immature and dependent. When thechild reaches maturity, ideally, they've developed a sense andpersonal worth as well as a sense of peace about being alive and okayin the world.

In the diagram, an empty beakerrepresents the child's lack of resources, and a heart represents thehealthy adult sense of self. Parents that tend to be full of shameunload their shame onto their children, but this is not the only waythat a parent uses a child when they fail to respect theirdevelopmental needs.

The enmeshed parent uses their child in aslightly different way. As we will see in the next postto come, both of these patterns set up the child to become an adultwho does not look to who they are in Christ to find worth but obtainsall of their sense of worth and peace from performance,circumstances, and the esteem of others.

Quick Review of Enmeshment (arecap of the Vulnerability/Boundariespost)

Loosing sight of the fact that theirchildren lack boundaries, a strong sense of self, and experiencenegotiating rights and responsibilities in relationships, or if theyfail to recognize and honor the immaturity of their children, theycan find the attention and love that their child has for them to benearly irresistible. The dysfunctional parent shares inappropriateemotional intimacy with the child, drawing them into the world ofadults in some sense, by treating them as a peer. The relationshiplacks the friction encountered in their adult relationships, and itseems to the needy parent that the child has become their friend andcompanion.

A parent can use a child in many ways,though we have only described the ways a parent my use a child fortheir own emotional benefit at the expense of the child. This typeof abuse becomes sexually tagged when the parent focuses excessivelyon gender, and an iconic example of this is the “Daddy's LittleGirl” or “Mommy's Little Man” type of relationship.

This type of prolonged relationshipcreates marital problems within the nuclear family because theenmeshed parent and child will become more tightly bound andemotionally intimate with one another and almost inevitably exceedsthe intimacy shared between the parents. This tends to alienate theother parent and it is thought to set up problematic lifelongrelationship patterns for the child. (For more information on thesetypes of relationship problems, pleasevisit Overcoming Botkin Syndrome and explore specificrelationship topics via the link list.)

Consequences for the Child

This creates multiple problems for thechild.

First, because the parent utilizes thechild as a source of support, in effect, they siphon backto themselves the love and energy that the child needs to helpdevelop their own sense of self and wholeness. The child becomesdependent upon the parent for their internal sense of peace andwholeness which is appropriate when they are very young butincreasingly inappropriate as the child matures. As the childmatures and ventures into situations wherein they cannot rely on theparent, it creates a great deal of anxiety for them when they cannothave access to them.

Secondly, though the child enjoys somegratification and sense of specialness because they are so valuableto the parent, this benefit comes at a terribly high price. Thechild learns rather quickly that they have also become responsiblefor meeting their parents' needs for support. Because of their ownneeds and lack, this responsibility becomes overwhelming for them.

They learn self-worth throughcare taking behaviors and performance, and they feel shameover their inability to comfortably meet demands because they aregiven responsibility without authority. When the momentsarise when it is blatantly obvious that they are not really theirparent's peer or the parent behaves differently with them in thepresence of others, they also feel a great deal of shame. These children learn that love is about duty and the overwhelminganxiety and pressure they feel on a regular bases leaves them feelingdead inside.

And as previously mentioned, thesechildren become consumed with the overwhelming needs and concerns oftheir parent. Their own life is displaced by the concerns, the reality, and quite often with the shame of the parent. Instead of awareness of self, the child's inner world must be negated(their heart denied) in favor of the adult's experience, wants, andneeds.

3. Shame Based and Immature Parenting Creates Victims of Circumstance and Dependency on Self (External Locus of Control)

We've now considered the two primaryways that a damaged or immature parent takes from their child(unloading shame and by siphoning back nurture) which we understandresults from a parent's disrespect for the child's characteristics(and needs). With that background, we can now better understand howadults, both parents and grown children, cope with the sense ofemptiness that they face. As we've noted in the most recent posts,the parent has two drives and needs of their own. They need to bothpurge shame and gain their own worth, and they pass this“multigenerational faithfulness” down to their children becausethe have nothing else to give to them. The immature adult must thenlook to other sources to find worth, peace, safety and soothingelements so that they can cope with the pressures and problems oflife.

As discussed, the parent usestheir child to meet their inner needs. In the diagram, note that theparent holds a part of the child hostage through the dependency thehave on the child, and the child draws worth from the relationship. But what happens when the parent disappears or the child becomesseparated from the parent?

The child is left with their own sense ofemptiness, and they must try to find ways to function. They must dowhat their parents have done, and they will opportunistically findways to fill their inner emptiness. The child learns to draw worthform their performance (caring for others as they cared for theparent, through good opinions that others have of them, and throughoutward things like their appearance, or good circumstances. Allpeople tend to do this to build up their optimism, they have a fullhearts and an intact sense of self. The do not depend on theseoutward things as their sole source of good experience.

The immature, empty, and shamed parentoperates only external sources of good feelings. They work very hardto avoid the shame they feel as well as the emptiness, and theybecome rigid and tired in this process. They tend to becomeintolerant and demanding because they avoid facing their unpleasantemotions by controlling whatever they can in their world. Asmentioned before, the parent avoids shame by punishing theimperfection of their child because they cannot tolerate their ownemotions. When successful, they believe that they've conquered theemotion, but they've only managed to avoid it. It becomes a rewardfor their attempt to control, creating the illusion that they arepowerful and free. They learn how to manipulate others so that theirbehavior works to help them feel better and helps them avoid theirinternal pain.

The other ways that an immature adultavoids their inner pain comes through performance, basing their worthand peace on their successes. This is often why certain peoplebecome very driven to accomplish and why they work so hard in theirvocations, as they have learned to find their worth and peace outsideof themselves through their own effort. They trick themselves intobelieving that they are controlling things that are well outside oftheir influence. Though people can be responsible with money, it ispossible to end up in circumstances beyond their control where theycan owe more or need more money than they can obtain or earn. Peoplecan take impeccable care of their home, but in the event of anearthquake or a flood, that person's efforts to prevent harm to theirhome cannot protect them. We can do all we can to have good health,but quite often, we can end up developing diseases that are farbeyond our ability to control. Or a person can be the very best attheir profession, but kind of work that they do can become obsolete. So this system of looking outside of one's self to find worth andpeace works well only when a person can perform well and only whencircumstances are very good. But what happens on rainy days?

As we all well know when depending onpeace and worth from things outside of ourselves, we are destined forheartache. Life is full of a great many things that are well-beyondour sphere of control. When the people from whom a person derivesworth dies or becomes parted from them, and when they experience thethe painful processes of life, they go right back to the beginning ofthe process. When they fail or when the illusion of control fallsapart (as it does in life at some point), the person is left to againface their sense of shame and their lack of worth which feels likeworthlessness. Some people appear to do well in the process, butthey mask the pain of the rainy day.

Of course, for the Christian, thesolution to the problem should be rather simple through realizingthat human beings are imperfect and limited but finding one'sidentity in Christ will fill our hearts and our emptiness. He healsus of our toxic shame which Jesus bore on the Cross for us that wemight have no condemnation. We can put our faith and trust in Him toheal us and fill us up, and then on the rainy days in life, we canhave worth in Him and enduring peace in the storm. At its root, thereliance on external things to find peace and worth is no differentthan original sin. Man tricks himself into the idea of believingthat he can control his life, powerful enough and strong enough tobuild up his own sense of peace and worth. But we can only get sofar when we do this.

In my own life and in my own journeyout of shame, performance, and low worth because I derived my worthfrom the esteem of others, I think that a good bit of my life hasbeen the “fear and trembling” of repenting of all of the waysI've tried to deal with shame and low worth on my own instead. Manyreligious people do the same thing with their attempts to accomplishthings in Jesus' Name to accomplish great things for Him. Theydetermine what they think they need to do, then go about doing thosethings in their own strength through their own effort. We all gettricked into thinking that we are more powerful than we are,forgetting that without Him, we can do nothing. There is no switchthat flips that releases us from the trappings of being parented byan immature person, and in fact, that plight is very much the sameplight that all mankind suffers – the illusion and desire to bepowerful enough that we do not need God. We must spend our liveslearning that.

It is sad to realize that manyChristian systems teach others to be limited and dependent and thattheir only sense of self worth and self esteem can come fromfollowing the rules that they develop. It is our human tendency tobelieve, also, that we must merit the goodness that God shows to usin abundance because of His loving kindness and disposition of gracetoward us. In unhealthy parenting, the parent primes the child toaccept only outside sources of love and worth. This creates a greatfoothold for manipulators to be able to hurt and use the adult who isempty and full of shame. Religious systems can exploit that toxiclevel of undeserved shame that we feel, making it quite easy to graband use as a handle to twist us through condemnation and legalism.

I believe that for the girls who foundtheir way to HephzibahHouse, the abuse they suffered there only added to the shame andemptiness that many had before they ever arrived there. It primedthem to become the victims of Ron and Patti Williams (theproprietors), as they used the HephzibahGirls to bolster their own illusion of control so that they couldward off the darkness of shame and emptiness in their own hearts. Inthat sense, Ron Williams is far more pathetic than anyone who hasever been in his care, as he used people as objects to ward off hisown pain. How much pain and emptiness must be in his heart to drivehim to go to such extreme lengths to avoid his own negative feelings? But sadly, he chose to make victims of the girls there, teachingthem to become even more powerless and greater victims ofcircumstance.

Understanding How Emotional Development in Childhood Affects Adults: Fostering Spiritual Abuse via the "Roots of Victimization"

2012-01-27T02:55:00.000-08:00

Series OriginallyAppearing at UnderMuchGrace.comin January 2012

(Click on Subtitles to link to original posts.)

Though every person becomes vulnerableto spiritual abuse and mind control if the conditions favor it, manywho fall into spiritually abusive systems struggle with problems leftover from the wounds of childhood, and thus, they may find thematerial in this post also relevant and helpful. This synopsisaddresses the implications for adults resulting from deficits inemotional development during childhood which often give spiritualabusers more leverage which they use against their followers. Tofully address this aspect of this element of spiritual abuseexperienced by some, one must understand the the nature of thedynamics and how they developed. Also called “family dysfunction,”this pattern of unhealthy behavior and relating to family members hasbeen effectively institutionalized as God's ideal for families by theaberrant patriarchy movement within homeschooling (the primary focusof the blog, OvercomingBotkin Syndrome).

Section I: Introduction

Misunderstanding and Intolerance of the the Characteristics of Children
Introduction to the Five Characteristics of Children

Section II: FiveCharacteristics and Needs of Children

Value (Self love and self-esteem)
Vulnerability (Poor regard for personal boundaries)
Imperfection
Dependency (Ignorance, abuse and degrees of neglect)
Immaturity (Parental intolerance

Section III: Victims of Circumstance

(Fostering anExternal Locus Of Control)

Shame-Based Parenting
Enmeshed Parenting
The Problem of Looking Outside of the Self to find Worth and Peace

Section IV: Recovery and Healing

Relevance of the Topic to Spiritual Abuse Recovery
Finding Healing Through the Twelve Steps: Recovery from the Emotional Wounds of Childhood (and from Spiritual Abuse)Journey Out of Shame: Books, audio, video, and online help
Finding a Counselor to Help Specifically with Dysfunctional Family Issues

SECTION I:

INTRODUCTION

>> Misunderstanding and Punishing the Character of Children as a Root of Victimization

A few days ago, I pointedout that the girls who survived incarceration at Hephzibah House(HH) suffered both trauma/torture and spiritual abuse, and uponleaving, they struggle with unique problems including traumareenactment, revictimization, and an inability to self-protect. Though some of this relates directly to the debilitation of the selfcreated by the harsh conditions at HH, the roots of these relateddeficits are created in childhood. Many other fundamentalist andcultic evangelical groups share ideologies that predispose childrento these common patterns of dysfunction. I believe that to fullyunderstand the nature of problems such as problems with selfprotection, one must understand the root causes.

The Nature and Character of Children

To raise a child well, it gives toreason that a person should have a good understanding of the capabilities of children in order for parents to setreasonable expectations for children in terms of their behavior andtheir anticipated understanding. Many of the common problems seen inspiritually abusive religious groups begin with a misunderstanding ofthe capabilities (and needs) of children, and the misconceptionseventually produce patterns of dysfunctional thought and behavior inadults within the system.

Consider the three very obviouscharacteristics of children: they have incredible amounts of energy,they are very resilient, and because of the way themind develops and learning takes place, children are veryself-centered, initially aware of only their ownexperiences. In a recent post discussing levelsof consciousness based on brain development, thisself-centeredness can be understood as a physical limitation as achild first learns “how to be” before he learns how to fit intothe world around him. The child eventually grows beyond thisself-centeredness developmentally (both physically andpsychologically), but their first standard of comparison of how to bein the world begins with the self as a standard of comparison. Parents teach the standard to their children by modeling the standardfor the child and by serving as a mirror in which the child can seethemselves so that they can understand their own behavior.

Expectations of Parents

These considerations are all quitephilosophical, and they aren't of primary importance to parents whilethey are overwhelmed with the management of the practical needs ofthe newborn or the tiring busyness of a rambunctious two year old. Just the “battle fatigue” of raising young children alone canfrustrate parents, and this might lead them to feel frustrated bythat endless energy and that adaptability of children, too. A parentmay not stop to consider that the child needs that energy and thatability to bounce from experience to experience in theirself-centered ways in order to grow effectively into adulthood.

In that respect, the child'sself-centered nature, their busy energy, and their resilience are thevital and necessary gifts that they are given to accomplish themonumental task of growing up. But consider that the parent whopunishes a child for these traits or abuses their child for havingthese traits depletes these needed gifts and energy, stealing themfrom the child. The child pays the price for this diversion of theirresources, and as adults, it is up to them to go back to master thedevelopment that they may not have achieved.

Common Misconceptions About theImmaturity of Children

One pitfall that often takes placewithin Christian fundamentalism is the punishment of the child'sself-centered nature. There is a time and a purpose for everythingunder heaven, including this aspect of a child, but an inexperiencedor a demanding parent (who may be uncomfortable with balancing theirown wants and needs) may expect too much Christian orientedself-sacrifice from a child too soon. A parent may also expect theyoung child to have few needs – and young children are especiallyneedy! The parent with unrealistic expectations may teach a youngchild at an early age that they should have no needs at all,God-given or otherwise. They may also teach the child to feel guiltyif they ridicule or criticize the chld for having needs or if theparent complains about having to statisfy both wants and needs. Theparent may misinterpret the child's need as greed, failing to see thebalance and the difference between needs and wants, misinterpretingboth as sinful indulgence.

One of the developmental tasks of theself-centered child includes the development of healthy self-esteemwhich begins with the child's learning to love themselves. Jesusimplies that this is essential to properly relating to others andincludes appropriateself-love as part of the two greatest commandments whichencompass the Law and the Prophets. However, many Christians fail totake this self-love into consideration and interpret it as conceit.

Some misinterpret Paul's admonishmentto “esteemothers better through lowliness of mind” as a cause to haveless than appropriate or low esteem for oneself. “Notto be ministered unto, but to minister” can also bemisconstrued into feelings of shame during seasons of need. BillGothard extendsthis idea which confuses humility and shame, teaching that allshould should actively submit to all suffering without protest todevelop humility. He takes the principle of generosity andcompassion too far out of balance, claiming that God requires Hisfollowers to relinquish all personal rights of justice by denying theappropriate balance of forgiving tolerance between mercy and justice. This promotes the development of a lack of respect for the self andresults in a disrespect for the image of God in the person.

Ultimately, problems of this type stemback to the parent's lack of proper esteem for others, and amongthose others for parents come their children. They may believe thatchildren should serve their parents as opposed to serving God byraising them, being good stewards of the precious people God hasplaced in their care.

And ultimately, the child learnsbalance from the parent through all of these things which require theparent to exercise self-control. If the parent has difficultyunderstanding the difference between needs and wants because of theirown maturity issues, they cannot give to their children what theylack themselves. The parent may understand that they have no rightsor may be made to feel guilty for their own God-given needs, so theylack the perspective of balance and cannot pass that on to theirchildren. They may suffer from a “shame-existence bind”themselves, believe that they shouldn't have needs, while knowingthat they cannot endure life without help from others. Human beingsrequire a healthy level of interpersonal dependence, because wecannot meet all of our needs by ourselves. We are interdependentcreatures, but if the parent lacks this understanding or has learnedshame regarding their own needs, how can they pass that on to theirchild?

And the parent may also haveunreasonable expectations that the Christian life and parenting as anexperience that is largely free of tension or pain. Balance is not astate of floating bliss. Balance is the artful skill and dynamicprocess of managing two competing forces at the same time. Thatrequires effort, and sometimes it is nothing short of very hard work. The child also learns this from the parent, and as an adult, thatchild may gravitate towards extremes because this their parent taughtthem through their own example. They may see frustration as sinfuland may be uncomfortable sitting with their frustrations and theinternal discomfort that maturity requires. If their parent lackedfrustration tolerance, it is likely that they required their childrento pay the bill for their own needs. We see this pattern in thebehavior of men like VoddieBaucham and Michael Pearl who tolerate no repeated error in theirchildren, asking of them more than God asks of adults. Child of suchfamilies grow up and very likely pass this along to their ownchildren by being intolerant of their immaturity.

At the heart of love is respect, and atthe heart of respect is balance (self-control), the willingness andability to tolerate frustration. Either due to lack of maturity ordue to aberrant religious ideas that result from poor interpretationsof Scripture, some Christians understand their faith in terms ofbeing unbalanced, unable or tolerate diversity. If the parent lacksbalance, then their sense of respect for themselves and otherssuffers, and respect of a person's personhood is the minimumrequirement of real and healthy love. Quite often, the parent withlack of balance, respect, and love translates those issues intounreasonable expectations for their children, and they pass theirdiscomfort and frustration on to them. The child then pays the pricefor the parent's lack of maturity and mastery of the tasks ofadulthood.

>> Understanding How Dysfunctional Families Prime Children for the Experience of Shame (Leading to Victimization)

There are many excellent Christianbooks concerning dysfunctional family dynamics -- that is besides theBook of Genesis which contains the best archetypalexamples of how you should NOT relate to otherfamily members! One of the most interesting families to drawout on a relationship diagram is that of Jacob, Esau and theirparents, and some of the Christian self-help books in this genre look at many of the Old Testament patriarchs to explain howtriangulationin relationships works.

My favorites include titles on the topic offamily relationships include Loveis a Choice (by Hemfelt, Minerth, and Meier) and ForgivingOur Parents, Forgiving Ourselves (Stoop and Masteller) andmany others which are discussed at some length on the OvercomingBotkin Syndrome blog (posts which you can find by looking for the author near the top of thetag list). I also like SandraWilson's Hurt People Hurt People, too. And specificallyrelated to boundaries,the Christian books by Townsend and Cloud shouldn't go withoutmention, either.

These posts offer learning tools to thesurvivors of Hephzibah House (HH), though they are quite applicableto most people in the types of religious groups addressed here mostoften. With the HephzibahGirls in mind, I think that the approach taken by a fellow nursespeaks a bit more clearly to the specific needs that they have asthey look back to put their experiences into perspective. Conditionsat HH fostered problems with self-protection and issues related toboundaries suffered by girls after leaving, but the roots go deeper,back into childhood.

Understanding the Roots of Shame

PiaMellody approaches this topic by looking at the five basic,natural characteristics of childhood, which when successfullydeveloped and honored by the parent, form the basis for healthy andmature characteristics in adulthood.

Children are:

Valuable (Value becomes peace andwhat Jesus called the love of self in the mature adult who findstheir stability and worth within themselves instead of finding theirworth in performance and circumstances.)

Vulnerable (Forms the basis ofexperience which allows adults to be intimate along with theappropriate level of vulnerability required to engage in emotionalintimacy.)

Imperfect (Lays the foundationof the adult's ability to feel comfortable with themselves andaccountable for the impact that their actions have on others.)

Dependent (Provides for theability of the adult to care responsibly for their own basic needsand to be interdependent with others, because we are unable to meetall of our needs independently.)

Immature (Proper care andparenting teaches two types of boundaries to the child: internalself control which governs the adult's behavior, as well as what onechooses to allow into their lives. Mastery of maturity also providesfor a healthy sense of spontaneity.)

As previously mentioned, if the parenthas not mastered these tasks or if their parents didn't honor andrespect these characteristics in them when they were children, theyvery likely have gaps in their own development which the pass alongto their children. Teaching a child to be vulnerable involvesmodeling accountability and honesty as well as the sharing of power. (This is a major issue in patriarchy, both for men and for women.)

If the parent doesn't esteem their child as a valuable person whojust happens to be little and in need of care their respect as wellas their care, they will grow up with deficits in their developmentwhich are passed on to their children. Unfortunately, there are manyChristian traditions that misinterpret Scripture and fail in some ofthese tasks in particular. Piety fosters perfectionism andhyper-authoritarianism fosters shame and lack of self care thathonors the Image of God in us. Systems like those advocated by theBotkin Family and Vision Forum create life-long dependency problemsbased on gender hierarchy. Many of the teachings embraced within theIndependent Fundamentalist Baptist churches place a similar emphasison sexuality which, for the survivors of Hephzibah House, creates thejustification for their abuse.

Pia Mellody in FacingCodependence (pp 78 - 80):

In addition tomisdirecting these three characteristics, dysfunctional caregivers donot respond appropriately to children's five natural attributes ofvalue, vulnerability, imperfection, dependency, and immaturity. Instead these caregivers either ignore or attack children for thevery essence of who they are, creating an intense experience of shamein the children. Inordinate shaming happens to children when theylose contact with the sense that they are adequate and have valuefrom within, even when making mistakes, having needs or beingimmature. . . .

Children arenaturally innocent, inexperienced, naïve and believe that theircaregiver can do no wrong. But in fact, caregivers often attack orabuse children for having the normal traits of imperfection,dependency and immaturity. As a result, the children lose their ownsense of value (since they can't see that the fault might lie withthe caregivers). Also the fact that abuse is occurring means theparents aren't demonstrating boundaries, so the children don'tdevelop their own boundary systems properly.

When thecaregivers ignore or attack children's natural characteristics,children develop dysfunctional survival traits to keep from feelingcrazy and yet still maintain the belief that the caregivers arealways right.

From PiaMellody's

FacingCodependence:

WhatIt Is, Where It Comes From,

HowIt Sabotages Our Lives

HarperOne/Harper Collins, NY (1989; 2003)

SECTION II:

THE FIVECHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN

(And DEFICITS inthe development of those characteristics, leading to victimization)

>> How Parents Prime Children for Victimization Through Faulty Ideas About Self Love/Esteem

Failing to Teach A Child AppropriateSelf Love and Value

As noted in the previous post, childrenthe characteristics of children, when respected and anticipated bythe parent help to form the basis of appropriate core behaviors inadulthood. What is perhaps the most primary of these is thedevelopment of appropriate self-love, addressed briefly in an earlierpost.

When a child learns that they have precious value and thetrait is honored by the parent, the child matures into an adult whocan find stability and worth in themselves instead of either earningworth through outward performance (What happens when you can'tperform?) or only when circumstances in life are very good.

Most people tend to think of a personwith poor self esteem and self love as a collapsed individual, but aswe explore these traits, we will note that imbalance of eitherintroversion or extraversion results from poor development ofappropriate self-love. Remember the issue of balance and the neededmaturity of the parent to hold two opposing forces in tension,exhibiting self-control and modulating experience? We used theexample of the extremes on a continuum ranging from greedyover-indulgence and self-neglect. Both of these extremes constitutea show of disrespect for the person and for others. The ideal is notone extreme or the other but rather that “sweet spot” of balancebetween the two, where a person cares for themselves appropriatelybut also responds dynamically to the needs of others with empathy,caring and respect. The place of balance is one of movement and is not static, so there is a bit of swing, but it is within a certain limit, not too far from midline.

The Two Extremes of Self Love andValue

Parents teach their children abouttheir own personal worth based on how the parent models respect forother adults but also how the parent treats the child or children. When a parent lacks appropriate respect for the value of theirchildren, they can choose one of two alternatives:

They can devalue their children. They can neglect the child's needs and despise their nature. They may put their own wants before the child's basic needs, teaching the child that they have very little value as people.
Though it may seem counterintuitive, when a parent idealizes a child and behaves as though that child can do no wrong by idealizing them, exaggerating accomplishments and paying excessive amounts of attention to the child, it is also a type of abuse.

In both cases, the child is objectifiedbecause neither level of esteem is consistent with reality. One iscollapsed and the other exaggerated. Somewhere in the middle is thechild in real life – precious for being a wonderful human creature,complete with realistic flaws and imperfections. So though the childwho is idealized may seem to be free from abuse, the abuse comesthrough the demand of the parent that the child be something otherthan who they are. Both are fantasy based ideas, but the child'strue nature is rejected.

Two Outcomes of Poorly CommunicatedValue

Just as the parent either undervaluedor idealized the child, the child can manifest their poor sense ofself and lack of worth in two primary ways. First, the child who istreated as though they have little value will become a peoplepleaser, because they find their worth outside of themselves. Theyonly feel good when they have earned love or affection or esteem. Itcannot be given to them merely because they are creatures worthy ofrespect.

The child may also develop exaggeratedways of expressing their low sense of internal self worth by becomingmanipulative and arrogant. They feel entitled to praise and value,beyond reasonable worth, giving them the sense that they are indeedbetter than everyone else on the planet. So this, too, is anotherkind of low esteem, but the extraverted need communicates asarrogance and deceit. These adults tend to gauge themselves andtheir worth from their successes and through condescension.

Both outcomes manifest as ways to copewith the lack of healthy esteem. The parent lacked adequate maturityand resources to be able to teach the child appropriate worth, andthe child obtains their worth based on the parent's unbalancedperception of them.

>> Priming a Child for Victimization or Predatory Behavior Through Poor Regard for Developing Personal Boundaries and Vulnerability

Human beings are not omnipotentcreatures, and children are definitely not invulnerable. Whenproperly honored and taught to the child, appropriate vulnerabilityteaches and prepares the child to be appropriately intimate inrelationships in their adult life. To achieve emotional intimacy ina healthy way, a person must be emotionally honest with their closefriends and in love relationships through limited vulnerability whichallows them to connect to others.

An excellent resource concerningBoundariesis the Christian book of that title by Townsend and Cloud whosetopical videoclips are featured HERE online.

The Extremes Created by a Poor Senseof Vulnerability

As we will note in all of thecharacteristics of children that parents must honor, in dysfunctionalhomes, children tend to develop the same kinds of boundaries bothmodeled and taught directly to children by parents. Problems tend todevelop when children fall to one extreme reaction or the other, oran ineffective mix between the two, wherein the child learns onlypartially effective boundaries. As one only protects what isworthwhile protecting, boundaries can be closely tied to self-worth.

The child who learns ineffectiveboundaries becomes too vulnerable because the parent fails to teachthe child self protection. The parent may overprotect this child,objectifying them by viewing them as incapable of any discernment oftheir own, or they just fail to protect them altogether. The childnever learns where they begin and end, and they walk into dangeroussituations with no awareness of the threat of harm. Some childrenare taught to place implicit trust in any adult and authorityfigures, and in religious groups that follow patriarchy, girls aretaught to obey all men without qualification. Likewise, someChristian groups teach that adults and children alike have nopersonal rights, viewing any suffering that comes because of lack ofboundaries to be an opportunity to develop character throughdisappointment. These children learn passivity, or they followpassivity to avoid punishment by the parent who will tolerate noassertiveness.

The exaggerated alternative results ina child who does not set boundaries but establishes walls and thusavoids vulnerability by feigning invulnerability. They're toofearful to be vulnerable, and the cost of their safety comes at theforfeiting of emotional intimacy. They may start to developfriendships but will retreat in withdrawal.

Internal Versus External Boundaries

An internal boundary involves behaviorand thought originating with the self, that which refers to what that person does. Of people who have poor internal boundaries and set no limits on their own behavior, it may be said of them that such a person "knows no bounds." The primary problem originates with them as a lack of their own internal boundaries.

A child with a collapsed sense of self may have been conditioned to set very narrow limits on their own behavior in a way that is inappropriate, allowing others too far in to their inner world, if they have any internal boundaries at all. When any child has not beentrained to respect others or basic rules of appropriate social behavior, they may violate theboundaries of others without realizing it, merely out of ignorance. Their self-centered perspective may be the only indicator of appropriate behavior because they have not been taught to anticipate or be sensitive to the needs of others.

In the child who demonstrates too much invulnerability, they willeither withdrawal from interaction all together (their created internal boundary) throughantisocial personality traits, or they may exaggerate their behavior,willfully ignoring the boundaries of others by in order to feel powerful. They claim everything (including other people) as within their own boundaries by setting no boundaries on their own behavior.

An external boundary is a barrier that a person creates around themselves to limit outside forces. An external boundary involves what the a allows into their world and involves saying “No.” (LINK HERE to another Boundaries video about what the Bible says about saying "No.")

In the collapsed response, the childlets anyone and everyone take advantage of them. In theinvulnerable, the child does not allow anyone to get close enough totake advantage of them, and they may be well-known for always saying“No.” Another way an external boundary can be violated presentswhen adults do not permit the child to own their own perceptions andexperiences. If a parent does not like a particular emotion, theymay punish a child for it, teaching the child that they cannot knowthemselves or their experience. The child is required to allow thatparent in through their external boundary, exchanging their realityfor that of the parent.

Vunerability Issues in Adults

In a healthy adult relationships,boundaries establish what we will and will not tolerate. For adultswho grew up in very dysfunctional homes and didn't learn appropriateboundaries, this dynamic element of hard work within a relationshipfails.

Those who are too vulnerable fail toestablish any kind of boundary, and they let anyone have access toany area of their lives. Or they may have a difficult timeestablishing boundaries through assertive expression of their wantsand needs, the type of person who struggles with saying “No.” Sometimes, these individuals can declare boundaries to others, butcannot motivate themselves to defend their established newboundaries. These are not boundaries at all but are merely “niceideas” when they are not defended.

The person with very weak ornon-existent boundaries may also seek to have levels of intimacy thatare too close for the nature of the relationship, and this may createbehavioral problems and may violate appropriate social rules. Italso sets the adult up for disappointment through unmet expectationsand confusion.

Some individuals may also have onlypartially ineffective boundaries, and in one area of life, they maybe able to clearly establish what they will and will not tolerate ina relationship. But when dealing with a certain situation or aparticular type of person (such as a woman raised in an extremelypatriarchal system of gender hierarchy, she may find herselfcompletely unable to establish a boundary or may have been taughtthat a woman must submit to the demands of men. Authorityfigures also pose great difficulty for the person who tendstoward collapsed responses because it is human nature to tend tocomply with authority.

As noted earlier, the invulnerable typeof person tends to withdrawal from social interaction and may copethrough an anti-social personalty. They may have erraticrelationships, vacillating between the development of friendship,only to abruptly retreat in response to perceived threat. They havethe opposite type of presentation concerning their problems withintimacy, but both types of manifestations prevent healthy intimacy.

The invulnerable person can also develop ineffective copingmechanisms leading to the abuse and exploitation of others byviolating their boundaries through an exaggerated response, motivatedby manipulative behaviors and poorly controlled negative emotion, theextroverted expression of lack of respect. These are the classicabused people who go on to repeat the same type of abuse as theirabuser modeled for them.

One might think that the person withexcessively collapsed boundaries is more vulnerable to manipulation,but because the invulnerable type of person who hides behind wallscraves intimacy and attachment, this basic human need can also beexploited, making this person just as vulnerable to the rightinfluences.

Self Awareness and Self Regulation

Many adults who grew up indysfunctional families of origin struggle with knowing themselvesbecause they were never permitted to own their own experiences andfeelings, constrained to feel only that which was set for them bysomeone else.

Because their boundaries were never respected or because the parent fails to realize that the child is not an adult with the capability of setting limits, the adult who uses their child as a companion or requires the child to be someone that they're not overrides that child's sense of self. The interaction is too intimate and interferes with the child's development of a sense of self.

The child has no choice and does not even realize that the relationship is emotionallyinappropriate or damaging to them. (An adult can set limits and protect their sense of self when overwhelmed by another, but the child is obligated to absorb the parent's reality because of their dependence on the adult to protect and provide for them.)

Instead of awareness of self, the child's inner world must be negated (their heart denied) in favor of the adult's experience, wants, and needs.

These adults struggle with finding satisfyingvocations, pastimes and relationships because they are unaware of their feelings andemotions and do not have much awareness of their true strengths andweaknesses. They were not encouraged to make their own decisionsregarding their life choices and were required to sign the right todirect their lives over to someone else or some religious system. When they work on recovery, learning self awareness and experiencing the liberty of choicecan be a very difficult, anxiety-producing challenge.

Erratic patterns in relationships arecommon in people who suffer from complex PTSD, both cravingattachment and fearing it and feeling unable to modulate their ownbehavior. So in the person with patterns built around long-standingtrauma, they may have a very complex mix of incomplete boundaries,varying from the extremes of walls to the enmeshed type of unhealthyattachment found in the person with little to no boundaries at all.

>> How Piety and Perfectionism Prime a Child for Exploitation and Victimization

Human beings make mistakes, and it isunreasonable and unhealthy for people to believe that they areperfect. By embracing and anticipating the needs of children relatedto their characteristic of imperfection, parents can raise childrenwho become adults who not only feel comfortable with themselves, butthey learn to become accountable for the impact that their actionshave on other people.

Consequences of Expecting andDemanding Perfection of Children

This type of abuse of the child'squality of imperfection can be communicated to the child through demands requiring too high of a level of mastery for the child's developmental age or merely by the intolerance of any of the child's mistakes. This often comesabout because of shame issues in the adult's past, and when thechild's behavior triggers their own shame, they are unable tomodulate and control their own emotions. The parent may view mistakes as failure instead of an essential part of learning through trial and error. The child's normal mistake may trigger shame in the parent because of the parent's unresolved fears and emotions that have nothing to do with the child or the matter at hand.

In an effort to control theenvironment and to derive their own sense of calm and control fromoutside themselves, these parents who feel shame unload their shameonto their own children because they feel so overwhelmed themselves. They use their children as a receptacle for their shame, and demand ahigher level of control from their child than they are capable of(which the adult acts out through demands of perfection!). The childmust then pay the bill for the parent's lack of tolerance, toxicnegative emotion, and shame which is projected on to the child.

Some parents may also lackunderstanding of how children develop and may expect behaviors ofchildren that are not age appropriate, Children who are incapable ofperforming will be punished in some way for their incompetency. Withchildren who are precocious and intelligent, the parent may also takefor granted that the child may mimic behavior, follow learned ritual,or parrot back information, but they will be incapableof abstract reason until around or about age twelve. Even in thehealthiest of homes, as a very intelligent and competent child beginsto start to have flashes of reason, it is hard to anticipate thechild's real capabilities and develop realistic expectations whenthey approach this point in their development. The appearance ofthese age appropriate developmental lacks can be confusing, however, the healthy parent doesn't punish the child or see this as a deficiency.

Religious Factors Contributing toLack of Respect for the Child's Imperfection

In particular religious families whouse performance and piety to help control the emotions and shame inthe parents, though they can appear quite religious, they canactually like appropriate Christian attitudes which manifest as lackof personal and emotional accountability to others. When a parentfails to accept their own imperfection and/or imperfection in theirchild, they operate in denial, failing to admit to God that they areimperfect and dependent on Him, living, moving and having their beingin Him. Instead of embracing God's forgiveness, mercy, and sacrificewhich provides theologically for intimacy with God, they turn tolegalism and performance from which they draw their sense of worthand stability. That sense of stability is drawn from control of theenvironment rather from who they are in Christ. Unable to admittheir own imperfection to themselves, they also never admit mistakesto their children, demonstrating accountability with them.

From Pia Mellody's FacingCodependence (pg 194):

When childrenlive in families that expect perfection, they learn to lie (to avoidthe pain and shame of frequent failure) or to repress the fact thatthey are imperfect. And this means these children can't beaccountable and spiritual as adults, since they cannot tolerateseeing the mistakes and sabotaging behavior in their ownlives.

Because personalworth and peace tends to be drawn from outside the self and derivesfrom circumstances and performance, legalistic Christians tend to doa great deal of benchmarking, comparing themselves with others. Theylook down on others and moralize (or demoralize) them in order tocreate the illusion that they are better by comparison. Spiritualsuperiority such as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Doctrineof Separation fosters allows this person to play God. They becometheir own higher power, not God, through human effort and through theillusion of denial and other primitive types of defense mechanisms. Quite often, in adults who grew up as children in these types offamilies, because of the hypocrisy and inconsistencies, they tend toeither doubt that a real God or higher power exists, or they deem Himas untrustworthy.

Manifestationsof Perfectionism in Dysfunctional Homes: Family Roles

This typeof disrespect or rejection of the child's imperfect nature can resultin a variety of problems in both child and adult. How the individualas child or adult manifests this imperfection depends on the type offamily role they are expected to perform within the family. Typicaldysfunctionalfamily roles for individuals include:

Hero
Mediator
Mascot
Counselor
Surrogate (parent or partner
Rebel or “black sheep”
Scapegoat
Lost Child

Generally, the way each person copeswith the demand for perfection depends upon the role that the personplays within the family. The hero character, often the firstborn,will become a perfectionistic, uptight, overachiever who chases thefantasy created by the family that they are type of hero. It is partof the fantasy and the family script that is typical of families ofdysfunction or addiction, and family members are required to lavishpraise and attention on the identified hero. This goes beyond thetypicalpatterns associated with birth order and falls into a truefantasy which the family system demands that all members support inorder to maintain the illusion of wholeness, ultimately a patternthat is self-destructive. The other positive family roles (mascot,mediator, counselor, and surrogate) tend to follow with this sametype of ultra-compliant perfectionism to merit love and attentionfrom the parents, the positive reinforcement that they receive fortheir compliance and good performance.

Those who take on the negative roles indysfunctional families generally respond in different ways. Thosewho feel overwhelmed, hapless, and hopeless in response to the highdemands for perfectionism tend to give up and take on antagonisticbehaviors. The rebel acts out their frustration through rebellion,obviously, as does the black sheep, by doing the opposite of what thefamily generally demands. In very controlling families, thisbehavior is often quite passive aggressive. The black sheep as wellas the scapegoat (chronically blamed for the problems within thefamily system) often also respond by acting irresponsibly, becomingthe prodigal. Though the lost child (a negative role) tends to develop in homeswhere they were neglected, they can develop patterns of OCD or adoptirresponsible patterns of behavior.

Because of the intense demand forperfection and performance to compensate for shame, family membersall suffer with pain, fear, and anxiety, often turing to substanceabuse or addictive behaviors.

From Nancy Curtis in BeyondSurvival: The New Testament Solution for Adult Children ofAlcoholics (pg 53):

As children, wetend to mold our personalities to adapt to our environment. If ourenvironment is supportive, nurturing, and flexible, we are freed toexpress our own individuality. If our environment is rigid,demanding, and conditional, however, we are forced to shape ourbehavior to fit the needs of others. We substitute our true self fora false self that is more acceptable to our parents whose love andapproval we need desperately. In essence, we compromise who wereally are, and become what our parents need us to be.

>> How Parents Prime Children for Victimization through Ignorance, Neglect and Abuse of Dependency Needs

One of the primary roles of a parentshould be preparing their children to be safe, protected, and securein adulthood, preparation that begins in childhood, encouraging thechild's growth into maturity. When successful, parents preparechildren who become adults who are able to care adequately for theirown basic needs and are also responsive to the needs of otherswithout compromising their own self-care in the process. Indysfunctional homes, children derive too much of their identity andsense of self from within the family or specifically from anotherfamily member. When they enter the world of adults without havingadequately shapedtheir identity, they have much difficulty in relationships whenthey move on from the family of origin.

How Parents Fail to Provide forDependency Needs

Many types of abuse result when parentsfail to respect their child's dependency needs and balance thoseneeds with gradual preparation for their child's independence fromthe family. Children learn the lessons and skills of self-care inadulthood through the ways in which their parents meet (or fail tomeet) their needs, as well as the habits they observe in their ownparents who model their own self-care.

Degrees of Neglect

Obviously parents who neglect theirchildren fail to provide for their needs, be they material,psychological, intellectual, emotional or spiritual, but there areother more subtle ways in which a parent can abuse a child'sdependence and limitations.

A parent may have a false idea orexpectation that children should not be needy or may becomefrustrated with the needs that they have. They will meet the child'sphysical needs, but they will communicate to the child in some waythat their duty to responsibly care for them is a great hardship. They may fail to keep adult matters private and may inappropriatelyshare details about finances or other concerns with the child in away that is appropriate and understandable. The parent may alsodirectly or indirectly convey an attitude of resentment towards thechild because of their responsibilities to provide for them. Children are very perceptive and emotionally aware in most casesbecause they look to the parent as a mirror for themselves so thatthey can learn to be like the parent as they grow. In extrememanifestations of parental resentment, the parent may becomeaggressive or predatory with the child, punishing them for theirdependency.

When the parent communicates resentmentor fails to adequately shield the child from their adult concernsinvolved in providing for them, the child absorbs the message as oneof shame for having any needs. The literature on addictions refersto this experience as the “shame-existence bind,” a type ofPharisaicaltype of double bind that creates a no-win situation for thechild. The child may also be told that they are selfishfor having needs or that their common, basic needs are unusual orunreasonable. The parent may have their own misconceptions abouttheir own needs and wants, viewing the care of their own basic needsas optional, or they may behave as though all of their wants aresynonymous with their basic needs. They can only model for and giveto the child that which they have themselves, so they may conveytheir own misguided feelings about guilt over needs to their childrenwho will follow the parent's example and will tend to adopt theirways of thinking about wants and needs.

In these cases, the child not onlylearns shame for having basic needs, they also learn that beinginterdependent with others in a healthy way as they seek to meettheir needs is an unsafe and painful process that also producesshame. The parent either fails to realize for themselves or fails toteach their child that individuals must be interdependent and thatthis interdependence is a healthy, normal, and often pleasurable partof daily life and is necessary for survival.

Over-protection

Though JimFay (co-founder of the Loveand Logic Institute) identifies these traits as a part of aparenting style, they also describe a manner by which parents showdisrespect to the dependency needs of a child. Fay describes thisparent as one who “hovers over childrenand rescues them from the hostile world in which they live”in a set of predictable ways.

From Loveand Logic's free onlineresources, discussing the ThreeTypes of Parents:

The HelicopterParent [with Blog Host notes added]:

Provides messages of weakness and low personal worth
Makes excuses for the child, but complains about [how the child has] mishandled responsibilities [which sends a confusing and shaming mixed message to the child]
Takes on the responsibility of the child
Protects the child from any possible negative feelings
Makes decisions for the child
Provides no structure, but complains, “After all I've done for you...”
Whines and uses guilt: “When are you ever going to learn? I always have to clean up after you.”
Whines and complains about having an irresponsible child who causes “me” much work and responsibility
Uses lots of words and actions that rescue or indicate that the child is not capable or responsible
Protects child from natural consequences, uses guilt [as opposed to consequences] as the teacher

(Here, too, the parent's resentment fortheir responsibility to provide for the child's needs presents as afeature in overprotective parenting, just as it does in patterns ofparental neglect.) In essence, this type of over-protective parentcannot moderate their own feelings of fear and anxiety. They end upextraverting and/or projecting their own adult emotions on to theirchild who pays the bill for their own deficiency. The child absorbsthe parent's feelings, learning not only anxiety andpassive-aggressive communication as a standard of what is normal butalso that they [as the child] are a great burden that creates intensestress/pain for their parent. Again, the parent projects thisexperience and shame on to the child which they, in turn,internalize. The child responds by feeling responsible for theparent.

Enmeshment

Another failure to appropriately honorthe dependency needs of a child occurs when a parent uses a child insome way to meet their own adult needs, needs that are onlyappropriately met by another adult. In healthy parenting, nurtureflows from the mature adult who is rich in resources to the child whoonly has the resources that the parent provides for them. The childlacks information, experience in relationships, rational thought,boundaries, and a standard of what constitutes good/appropriatebehavior. The primary source of all of those things comes from theparent upon whom they depend physically for their survival. Thechild is not in a position to walk away from the parent and doesn'thave the internal resources or experience to be able to set limits onthe parent if they behave inappropriately.

In dysfunctional families, quite often,the parent has relationship difficulties with other adults, but theyfind in their child an attentive and wonderful little person wholacks all of the typical friction that they encounter in theirinteraction with adults. Their child has no boundaries and acceptswhatever the parent presents to them as trustworthy and good, lackingthose friction-creating factors that the parent experiences withadults. Failing to honor the dependency needs of their child, theycan reverse the flow of nurture when they begin to use the child as asource of friendship or as a resource to use in order to meet theiradult needs. (This differs from assigning age-appropriate dutiesto a child which help teach them how to appropriately care for theirown needs and to function interdependently within the family.)

The child mergeswith the parent and becomes dependent on them for their sense ofidentity and worth. The child internalizes the needs and realityof the parent and identifies them as their own instead of learningand growing to develop their independent sense of self and their own,age-appropriate reality. In some respects, the child gains a senseof power and specialness, knowing that they are of such importanceand are so intimate emotionally with the parent At the same time,they also realize that they havebecome responsible for meeting the needs and attending to thewelfare of the parent, an overwhelming experience. Their inner liferevolves around the parent's needs and involves a great amount offear. Instead of developing worth and a sense of accomplishmentbased on their own experiences, they draw that worth and confidencefrom the duties that they perform for the parent.

Dependency as a Religious Concept

As mentioned in a recentpost, some aberrant Christian groups which overemphasizehierarchy and authoritarianism teach that subordinates must endureany type of treatment from their superiors, and that mistreatmentshould not be protested but should be viewed as an experience whichbuilds virtue. In some instances, such as in BillGothard's ideology of authority and submission, bearing unjustmistreatment mystically serves as an opportunity to accumulateGod's favor which can be channeled to use as power to accomplishvirtuous acts.

Residentsat Hephzibah House are taught that their moral status whichresulted in their placement at the facility deprived them of statusand relegated them to obligatory abuse, a disrespect of theirdependency needs as teenagers deprived them of physical sustenanceand protection which was reinforced by intense physical andpsycholological abuse. In many groups, Complementariantheology supports obligatory servitude based on gender, promotingenmeshment for women as a religious requirement. In VisionForum's form of patriarchy which is also taught by the BotkinFamily, the theology requires that all family members deny theirindependence, personal needs, and inner personal experience in favorof their family patriarch's code of conduct and “vision” for themission of the family. All of these examples institutionalizedysfunctional behavior, misrepresenting these requirements as theminimum standard taught in the Bible and required by God, carryingeternal, spiritual consequences.

Many religious traditions also teachthe need for a spiritual intercessor putting other people in betweenthat person's access to God and spiritual things. Complementarianismand systems that define women as dependent on a male overseer suggestin various ways that women need men to make spiritualintercession for them. By teaching that a woman is of lesser essencein some way (such as Complementarian teaching that women are madeindirectly in or are the derivative image of God) and that women arecreated solely and primarily for the purpose of ministry tomen, these ideologies foster and facilitate dependency anddysfunction. In other traditions such as those followed in theShepherding/DiscipleshipMovement or in systems of ecclesiocentricty(the church and pastor as the central element of and authority in aChristian's life), such systems foster dysfunctional paternalisticdependency as opposed to healthy interdependence.

Consequences andOutcomes Experienced by the Adult

For the adult who was neglected inchildhood wherein the parent failed to provide for their needs, theadult carries over their childhood coping mechanism into their adultlife which manifests as lack of self-care, still affected by theshame-existence bind they learned in childhood. They've learned toignore their needs and have never learned to be aware of them whichusually presents through neglect of self through poor or absentself-care in different areas of their life.

Though this individual may have acollapsed social life wherein they fail to attend to their ownemotional care, they may also demonstrate a type of demonstrativecraving for love and affection producing “loveaddiction.” Developmental deficits tend to be overcome throughlearning and counsel, but love addiction becomes a basic compulsionwhich revolves around fear of abandonment and is more intense than asimple failure to provide for self-care. Those who develop loveaddiction seek enmeshment with others in their adult relationships asan addictive way of dealing with their internal feelings ofemptiness.

Read more about the dynamics of LoveAddiction and Love Avoidance that develop from the abuse ofdependency needs inthese posts at the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog. In contrastto the love addicted, those who develop love avoidance find theirself-worth in caretaking as a consequence of enmeshment, and intimacyin relationship is replaced by duty and deadness. The drama createdby the dysfunctional dynamics becomes mistaken for passion, intimacyand love.

Adults who learned that basic needswere shameful tend to be aware of their basic needs but often fail toseek to meet them. They've learned that interdependence results inshame and can involve punishment of some kind, so they avoid theirneeds to avoid discomfort. The experience of unmet physical needs inchildhood creates emotional consequences in adulthood, interferingwith the adult's ability to trust. Dependency plays on their senseof trust and vulnerability, so the building of emotional walls tendsto go hand in hand with this type of denial of needs.

Alternately, an adult can alsoextravert their frustration and can become aggressive, particularlyif they never learned the distinction between wants and needs. Theymay misinterpret all of their wants and desires as needs, and theywill go to any lengths to meet their desires. This may lead toself-destructive poor self management and planning. Such problemsoften result in financial problems as well as boundary issues inrelationships with other adults.

The child of the over-protective parentfails to develop effective and appropriate self-care traits andbehaviors which can result in self-care deficits. They were notencouraged to problem solve or anticipate their needs, so they failto attend to them, though they are generally well aware of them. Inrelationships, these adults tend to be very needy and helpless andusually resort to manipulative behavior to get others to meet theneeds that the parent once met for them. These individuals becomeprime targets for manipulation by those with poor externalboundaries, religious con men, and other types of exploitation when amanipulator promises to meet their needs.

>>How Parents' Intolerance of a Child's Immaturity Creates Both Victims and Abusers

As noted earlier concerning the naturalcharacteristics of children, the parent's proper respect for and careof a child's immaturity builds the basis for self control in theiradulthood and helps them learn how to effectively manage and governtheir lives as adults. This mastery, a characteristic of maturity,also provides for a healthy sense of spontaneity. Healthy maturityinvolves relaxation and time for restoration, an early lesson thatthe parent can build into a child through celebration of thatspontaneous wonder and joy of life that children possess.

Parental Intolerance of Immaturity

As discussed in anearlier post, sometimes parents can become weary of the boundlessenergy and the self centeredness of their children, failing to seethese qualities as the gifts they are given to accomplish the hardtask of growing up. When a parent fails to accept these traits whichthey view as an inconvenience, or they punish these qualities in thechild, the child learns to feel shame when “being authentic” andhonest.

They also learn that they are loved only when they perform, sothey learn to base their worth on performance. The parent expectsthe child to perform like a small adult instead of their behaving inaccordance to their developmental age, even though they lack theskills, the self-control, and the experience necessary. Voddie Baucham's First Time Obedience principle and Michael Pearl's Child Training Method offer excellent examples of parenting styles that demand inappropriately mature behavior from young children.

Demanding maturity of an immature childsets them up for life patterns of constricted control or chaos, orsome combination of a swing between both of them. The pressure toperform as an adult overwhelms the child, as they fear both directpunishment and denial of love and attention through parentalwithdrawal or disapproval.

The Powerful Influence of the FamilyScript

Depending on the role that the childwas required to play in their family of origin, they will experiencedifferent types of responses from the parent and will tend tomanifest different responses of their own.

As previously noted, dysfunctionalfamilies assign predictableroles to family members as a coping mechanism which helps toaccommodate the abusive or addictive traits of one of the otherfamily members.

These roles typically include both positive andnegative roles or characters:

Hero
Mediator
Mascot
Counselor
Surrogate (parent or partner
Rebel or “black sheep”
Scapegoat
Lost Child

The children who follow the positiveroles within the family tend to become very controlling themselves,modeling and repeating the parent's own intolerance, something whichproduced a great deal of self-disgust for the child as well as deeptoxic shame for failing to be what they cannot be, despite theirparents' unreasonable demands. They experience tremendous levels ofanxiety because they take on those dutiful roles in the family. Butin contrast, the rewards that the child derives from the praise andbenefit they receive for effective performance tends to give themmore opportunity and resources within the family. They learn to basetheir worth on performance, become people pleasers, andoverachievers. They tend to be very dogmatic and demanding withothers because of their difficulty in tolerating their limitations. These over-compliant children tend to become caretakers of thechildren in the family who fall into negative roles, learning caretaking behaviors for siblings and parents.

Those children who fall into thenegative roles within the family experience much different treatmentthan their siblings. They tend to be overwhelmed by the parent'sunreasonable demands, unable to perform because of their highanxiety, anger, and resentment which they are not permitted to directly and openly express. Because of their low performance,these children may actually be over-indulged and not held accountable fortheir lack of age-appropriate behavior and are just shamed instead. This is the fate of the scapegoat, and these children become theconvenient excuse for all of the problems in the family because theyare just not mature enough to live up to parental expectations.

Rather than working to help this child overcome their weaknesses,parents (and siblings who read the required script) may see them asthe eternally hapless, so the parent abandons the to theirimmaturity. Giving up on the child's ability to mature, the parentstops expecting them to ever grow into mature behavior, so the stopencouraging it altogether. It becomes a type of abandonment, andthey are left to themselves to develop self-control without any helpfrom the parent.

And many children developcompartmentalized maturity and immaturity, manifestingcharacteristics of several of the roles in the family script. Depending on what the parent needs from them and what their naturalstrengths are, these children may develop a mix of extreme behaviors. They will be over-responsible in some areas and completelyineffective in other areas, having trouble with self-control on manylevels.

Poor Modulation of Emotions andBehaviors in Adults

Primarily, the characteristics that thechildren develop in the home as children intensify in adulthood. Difficulty with moderation and outright avoidance of moderationemerges as a core symptom and problem experienced by adults who wereraised in homes where their lack of maturity was not tolerated andanticipated. These adults have difficulty with the routineexperience and expression of mature, adult behavior, understandingbalance as lack of passion or lack of life because the chaos anddrama in their family of origin raises the bar on the level ofstimulation they need.

The trauma experienced by the loss ofthe spontaneous experience of being a child creates a sense ofdeadness and numbness, a way of coping with pain and grief whichseems impossible to comprehend. In order to feel alive, the adultchild from a dysfunctional family tends to seek out the extremes, away of compensating and breaking through the numbness of theirdissociation.

Human beings are also drawn, almostcompulsively, to relationships that are familiar, especially if theyare traumatic. This tendency is enhanced by the compulsion to reenact unresolved trauma, a subconscious drive to some howunderstand and master their past as well as manage difficult emotions. New extremes can serve as a lovely diversion for emotionsthat keep popping up related to childhood and may help to promotedenial concerning the real roots of their ineffective and maladaptiveways of coping. (Read more HERE.)

The over-mature and controlling adultchildren of dysfunctional homes tend to erect walls as boundaries inrelationships, and the relationships that they do foster tend to bevery non-spontaneous. They've never been allowed to embrace theirimmaturity, and that is how they perceive appropriate playfulbehavior in adulthood. I believe that these individuals tend to gravitate towards legalistic religions and fringe Christianity, believing that their extremes demonstrate greater faith. Plain, old mainstream religion just doesn't seem like quite enough for them. They don't want to follow "dead Christianity," so they choose extreme versions of it that play on cultic themes of conspiracy, catastrophe, and legalism.

Those children who take on therebellion tend to become immature adults with poor self-control. Their adult relationships tend toward chaos. They may alsocompartmentalize over-maturity and immaturity, manifesting success,perfection, and overachievement in one area of life, while otherareas seem chaotic and disproportionately so, given their other competencies and successes. Their individualrelationships may flux between chaos and control which makes intimacyand long-term relationships quite difficult.

Those who tend to manifest collapsed orintroverted symptoms and chaotic relationships are at risk forvictimization and exploitation by manipulators, though they also tendto be manipulative because of their immaturity, using more primitiveways of coping with adult life. If the individual have difficultieswith their internal boundaries, they tend to become abusive in theirrelationships. They may be intolerant and dogmatic of those who holdideas that differ from their own, and they tend to repeat the samedemanding and intolerant family dynamics with their own children. They loathe their own immaturity, so they also loathe the samebehavior in their children.

UPDATE 22Jan12: Read about another aspect of this characteristic of children which gets transferred into adulthood when people leave spiritual abusive groups, only to join another one. When you visit, make sure to read the comments that follow Lewis' post on The Commandments of Men.

SECTION III:

"VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE"

(PEACE/WORTH FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES -- EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL)

>> Shame-based Parenting Fills a Child's Heart with Shame Instead of Love: Disrespect for Children that Tilled the Soil for Abuse at Hephzibah House

Alice Miller writes in TheBody Never Lies: The Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting

(pp 27 -8):

In every adultwho has suffered absue as a child lies dormant that small child'sfear of punishment at the hand of the parents if he or she shoulddare rebel against their behavior. . . .
These patterns ofchildhood will inevitably then be adopted by their victims wheneverthe fear and anxiety used on their partners and their own children,at work, in politics, wherever the fear and anxiety of the profoundlyinsecuare child can be fended off with the aid of external power. It is in this way that dictators are born; these are people with adeep-seated contempt for everyone else, people who were neverrespected as children and thus do their utmost to earn that respectat a later state with the assistance of the gigantic power they havebuilt up around them.

In a most basicsense, narcissists with NPD display exaggerated self-interest becausethey are compensating for fear and high sensitivity to criticism. This exaggeration is a means of coping with and resisting thedisturbing emotions that they feel deep inside, emotions that theydeny feeling, even to themselves. Some of the hallmark featuresof NPD include personal grandiosity, an excessive need foradmiration/attention, a sense of entitlement, and a diminishedcapacity for empathy. When a person with NPD feels threatenedor becomes uncomfortably aware of their internal sense of shame andinferiority, they behave in a number of predictable ways whichcreates problems for those with whom they interact. . . .
If you are achild or partner of someone with NPD, you will find them unable tohandle any kind of criticism, resorting to demeaning tactics andintense anger when they feel threatened (though they will never letyou see that they feel threatened because of their grandiosity). They NEVER admit to wrongdoing, and when consequences force them torealize that they have failed to be perfect, they will become evenmore dramatic, emotional, and aggressive. Life is all aboutblaming other people for their shortcomings, because they are reallyjust terrified inside. Like playground bullies, they don’ttake well to open confrontation. Direct confrontation usuallybecomes explosive, as the narcissist prefers to be passive-aggressivebecause they actually fear confrontation. That makes them hardto understand, because on the exterior, they seem to seek outconflict and aggression. Considering their inner experience ofhelplessness and fear seems oxymoronic (if not impossible) when youare on the receiving end of their wrath and if you believe theirexaggerated perceptions of themselves.

>> How Dysfunctional Parents Siphon Resources Back from a Child, Depriving them of Healthy Self-Development

Quick Review of Enmeshment (arecap of the Vulnerability/Boundariespost)

Consequences for the Child

This creates multiple problems for thechild.

>> Shame Based and Immature Parenting Creates Victims of Circumstance and Dependency on Self (External Locus of Control)

SECTION IV:

SUMMARY AND RESOURCES FOR HEALING

>> Parents Prime Children For Spiritual Abuse? More Posts to Come on Developmental Needs and PTSD

Partial Post.
The purpose for this review of thedevelopmentalneeds of childhood and how parents can showdishonor to those needs came about to help the reader understandwhy a young woman exiting HephzibahHouse (HH) would fail to protect herself once she left. If aperson had developmental deficits going into the home, she wouldcertainly have them upon leaving. Those identified characteristics(and resulting needs) are value,vulnerability,imperfection,dependency,and immaturity. (Explore these topics HERE in a developing index of posts on this topic.)

Why protect yourself ifyou have no worth, if youhave no right to have personal boundaries, if it is required of youto be perfect though it is impossible, if you're taught that you musthave no needs (and guilt over having them), and if you're required tobe the epitome of self-control when you're life is completely out ofyour own control??? A person can respond to trauma through a“freezingresponse” which we will explore further in future posts, butpost traumatic stress after leaving HH may only capitalize upon thedeep felt helplessness in the heart because of emotional issues fromearly childhood. For many who endured at Hephzibah House, it wasactually a revictimization experience re-traumatizing a previous andolder emotional wound.

Priming Children for Spiritual Abusein Adulthood?

Spiritual abuse is a type of trauma,and looking back on my own history, my spiritual abuse experience wasreally just a type of repeating of previous trauma. When I marriedto “leave and cleave,” I took all of my own shame and spiritualemptiness along with me, and I looked to a new source with which Icould fill up my own heart. I transferred some of that need, for atime, into my job and my husband, but my primary source of trying tofill what I thought was the “God-shaped void” that Pascal talkedabout with religion and the traditions of men instead of realself-worth. All I did was “switch drugs of choice,” transferringmy needs and attempts to numb my own shame using a source other thanmy parent.

I made the church my new parent (thechurch had plenty of shame to dole out), and I made performing rolesand the desires of church leadership my new means of earning worth(or grace, as Gothard would put it). Without thinking about it, andin my childish ways, I put God in a box that was shaped like my ownparents. I misunderstood religion and traditions for God's heart ofabundance, and I drew from an institution what I should have drawnonly from my identity in Christ.

I still seem to expect instant results,too. In my immaturity, salvation by faith in Jesus should have beenan “add water and stir” deliverance from the problems and pain oflife, and from the working out of my salvation in fear and trembling. Somehow, by grace through faith and the process of justificationalone, I have an expectation in my head that my immaturity in theseareas would melt away. “Should-ingall over myself,” I should have been able to avoidspiritual abuse, knowing better how to serve God instead of men whorepresented God, a thought (and a fact) that still disturbs me. Ilet that disturbed feeling fuel my recovery, because I dread the daythat I ever feel comfortable with it because it is the essence ofidolatry.

What still troubles me is that I hadknowledge of these developmental needs before both knowledge ofspiritual abuse/thought reform and my own experience of crushingunder a pastor in the Shepherding/DiscipleshipMovement. And more troubling on a functional level, I still workto bring my thoughts captive to Christ concerning these old wounds,because they are my path of least resistance when I drift off centeror slack off in my spiritual life. They are the patterns my fleshtakes when my flesh takes over. Depending whether I choose to lookat it that way, like the nature of my flesh which will always be aninfluence against which to guard, they seem like wounds that will notever heal until I leave this life because they are my “defaultprogramming.” I display my flesh nature as some way of playing outthat which I didn't get right in childhood. Most of my spiritualwarfare concerns the war in my own heart against some of these basic,sick ideas (“I should be perfect.” “I shouldn't have needs” “I am not valuable.”)and the many creative ways I translate them into myactive, ongoing, adult life.

>> Finding Healing Through the Twelve Steps: Recovery from the Emotional Wounds of Childhood (and from Spiritual Abuse)

Once you've realized that you've gotemotional wounds left over from your childhood and where they camefrom, where do you go? I go to the Cross. In terms of the specificproblems that arise from the particular emotional wounds that governthe way my flesh tends to act, I show myself responsible to God andothers using the framework of the Twelve Steps – the only viablehope of healing that I have to offer anyone.

My Journey of Acceptance

As part of my training as a nurse, andthrough classes that focused on the primary health problems ofadults, I spent time observing care in the clinical settings of drugand alcohol rehab facilities. At the tender age of 19 and 20, thisexperience taught me a some vital and very moving lessons about myown nature and myself. One day, I was in South Philadelphiaobserving a group therapy session with addicted teens, and as Ilistened to their stories, I had a very dramatic epiphany. At theend of the session, I asked the therapist if I could address thegroup, and he graciously complied. I explained to those teens at aninpatient detox ward that the only real difference that I could seebetween us was that rather than turn to drugs or alcohol to deal withmy own pain, I turned to other things. I turned, primarily, toperformance (through work and school) and to religion.

It felt important for me to verbalizethat to the group, because I recognized that I was no different thanany of them. I'd suffered feelings and family issues anddisappointments and circumstances that were in some real wayidentical to their own. I had an important epiphany about the natureof my own development, and I think that God graciously allowed me tohave that experience so that I could feel comfortable finding helplater. The therapy session ended, and I was in the center of a massof weeping and hugging from those kids, and I knew that I'd learned avery important life lesson that day. It put me in mind of the oldsaying from TheShadow: “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” I certainly shared the same pain and what seemed to me at the timelike too many uncanny common experiences with theseyoung addicts. I had non-chemical addictions. Today, I am sograteful to God for putting that powerful and defining moment into mylife, because I was quite ready and willing to admit thesimilarities.

Jump forward with me a bit to theweeks before my wedding. I vividly remember being told as afive year old child that my wedding was the one day in my life that Icould do whatever and could have whatever I wanted. For reasonsrelated to my own dysfunction (!), I spent a long time lookingforward to that promised day, only to realize that it wasn't going toturn out as I'd always hoped. My mother waged a war of controlagainst what seemed like my every effort and disapproved of so much,even though I paid for all of the expenses myself (and even elementsof that became a struggle with her). I ended up weeping on the phoneto the wife of the minister who was coming into town to perform apart of the ceremony, overwhelmed with the pain that was resultingfrom what I thought was supposed to be the happiest time of my life. She suggested a couple of books, and asked me if I could approach mymother to ask her for her blessing. GarySmalley's books were quite popular at the time, and TheBlessing was one of his themes. When I expressed that thiswas almost unthinkable, the pastor's wife and dear friend asked me ifI'd ever read or would consider reading Loveis a Choice. I didn't. I didn't want to think about beingone of those crazies on a talk show, whining and whimpering, and Ifelt a great deal of disgust at the prospect of anything like that.

Jump again with me to my earlytwenties and my first official experience as an assistantnurse manager (so I could be on day shift with limited weekends!!!),but a job that I learned later chewed up numbers of people and spitthem out, before I got there and after I left. After three weeks, Iwanted to resign and melted into a puddle of brokenness in mysupervisor's office, brutally aware of how limited I really was, atthe end of myself and in the face of so much human need. Long storyshort, I went straight away to read Loveis a Choice at herrecommendation. Shortly thereafter, I read Stoop'stransforming book, but I also learned throughanother book that like the majority of people who work in helpingprofessions, more than 90% of nurses classified as “dysfunctional”(as it was associated with addiction) and also had high degrees ofobsessive-compulsive disorder. I did qualify for a spot on a talkshow couch at that point, and I could not deny it. Not with hardresearch in front of me, and especially not without discounting theprecious wisdom of that pastor's wife and the powerful experiencesI'd had training as a nurse. The puzzle pieces started comingtogether, and though difficult, I saw answers to the problems that Istruggled with so desperately for so long. I didn't like thepicture, but the fact that there was a workable picture filled mewith hope and freed me from condemnation.

At this same time, I still felt veryuncomfortable when people devalued my religious ideas, believingwrongly that their reactions made more of a statement about them thatthey did about me. (This is no longer the case, but I lived itthen.) I was also very uncomfortable with the anti-religion biasheld by many in the field of mental health, and I struggled with thismaterial as I completed my training in nursing. Trying to figure outhow my religious beliefs fit into the practical needs of patientswith mental health disorders challenged that very dogmatic positionthat I learned while growing up in an uptight and easily intimidatedquadrant of evangelical Christianity. This was, of course,compounded by my own emotional developmental deficits, the subject ofthis series of posts. I lived as a “victim of circumstance” byan external locus of control, gauging my worth and peace based on theopinions of others.

On my very first day working as avolunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (after I left my few months atthat nurse-devouring, impossible job!), the husband of thewoman training me came in, and pretty much took over that day. (CPCwork was my alternative to the then very active RandallTerry who was in the throws of getting thrown in jail for hisabortion clinic protesting.) I sat back and watched this woman'shusband talk with a couple of high school girls who wandered in afterschool. He was a resident, a physician, in the psychiatry program ata local hospital, and I struck up a conversation with him. Iapproached the topic with my discomfort in tow, and as a Christian,this man dramatically changed my outlook. When I asked how he couldcope with the anti-Christian bias and the evolutionary premise inthat particular area of medicine, he rocked my world. He said thathe focused on the Christian message of the Twelve Steps, and fromthat vantage, he found a powerful place to not only make sense ofthings, but found a platform for Christian ministry within theprofession. Here again was another puzzle piece that fit right intomy picture. The Christian texts on the subject of recovery andcodependency all boil down to a central message of hope based on aquote from a written prayer of ReinholdNeibuhr:

God, give us thegrace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,Courage to changethe things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish thedifference the one from the other.

Living one day ata time, enjoying one moment at a time, accepting hardship as thepathway to peace. Taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is –not as I would have it. Trusting that You will make all thingsright, if I surrender to your will. So that I might be reasonablyhappy in this life, and supremely happy with you forever in the next.

Amen

Ever hear of the duck test? If itwalks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like one, then it's aduck. I could not deny that I was unavoidably dysfunctional, amessage that my life repeated and repeated, in grace and love. Whoknows what dysfunction lurks in the hearts of men? I saw or at leastbegan to accept myself in this way, just as I think that Paul sawhimself as the chief of sinners. And my work of healing wasdefinitely not yet complete.

The Hope of All Healing

I could try to reinvent the wheel,writing a history of the development of the Twelve Steps, but I willlet you do some of that exploration on your own. (I've alreadylisted many resources.) I could also go into a defense of the TwelveSteps, because I understand that some Christians say that they areflawed because they recommend starting from where you are – comingto God as you understand Him. They are offended that in order tohelp people start from where they are, they refer to God as aless-defined “Higher Power.” I hear that some claim that this isblasphemy, because we should meet God where He is – that we must goto Him, addressing Him in the most appropriate way (though many whostart the journey are very unacquainted with Him, even by name). Noteveryone has that knowledge, so they are encouraged to start thejourney honestly from where they find themselves. (I'm no longer toouptight or overly concerned with how other people put things intoperspective when it comes to starting the journey in this sense. I'mtoo overwhelmed with my own limitations, shall we say.)

All I can tell you is that I believeand know that He pulled me out of the miry clay, and I don't thinkthat I am at all capable of getting to Him without his lovingkindness and intervention. But I believe that I know who He is, andI a responsible for myself and focus on my own approach. I do thatthrough the approach laid out in the Bible.

That is really the core of all that Ihave to offer to anyone as a message of hope, when you strip away thedetails. God is God, and we are not. And as I understand God frommy vantage, He is pretty specific about His Name, identity, andcharacter. We must acknowledge our limitations and ascribe to Godthe power that is only His, and I believe that this is not fullypossible without believing in and confessing faith in Jesus theMessiah. I am powerless and weak, but in Him and through His help, Ibecome whole and strong. And I am on a lifelong journey of desire toknow Him in ways most clear, starting from where I am and how Iunderstand Him. Along the way and through that devotion, Hetransforms me into His image, day by day. My life has been a processof knowing Him better, developing the right opinion of Him and of allthings about Him, starting from where I am. Only He can deliver usfrom shame and only He can fill us.

Shame of Sin

Essentially, the message of dysfunctionboils down to original sin, and we must acknowledge that we are notGod and that He is. All of our shame ultimately traces back to ourshame that we are not like Him but desire to be. Isn't that thecondition of everyone? Doesn't that make us all "dysfunctional?"

If you happen to be reading here andare an atheist or have huge problems with God and how you fit withthe concept of a “Higher Power,” you'll have to figure out how toput that into perspective. I offer what I have to encourage people,and this is the only meaning that I find remotely satisfying thathelps me make sense of things in my life. I don't offer this messageas one of condemnation – I offer it because it is all I have togive. Everyone has to find the glue that holds their lives togetherin a meaningful way, allowing them to live a meaningful life. I hopethat all at least find a way to live a meaningful life, and that isthe work of every individual. This is message is the fruit of mine.

As mentioned in previous posts, theNational Association forChristian Recovery offers much wisdom on this topic, in additionto otherresources presented here. Their site features a veryuser-friendly search engine, and near the bottom right hand of theirhome page in the right hand sidebar, they also list links to otherChristian organizations (Ministry Partners) that also present themessage of recovery. Between the resource list and these links, youcan find more help and guidance than I could ever begin to provide. I hope that all these things will be a help to you on your journey.

The Twelve Steps ofRecovery

We admitted we were powerless over ourseparation from God—that our lives had become unmanageable. (Romans7:18)
Wecame to believe that a Power greater than ourselves couldrestore us to sanity. (Philippians2:13)
We made a decision to turn our will andour lives over to the care of God, as we understood Him. (Romans12:1)
We made a searching and fearless moralinventory of ourselves. (Lamentations3:40)
We admitted to God, to ourselves, andto another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. (James5:16)
We were entirely ready to have Godremove all these defects of character. (James4:10)
We humbly asked him to remove ourshortcomings. (IJohn 1:9)
We made a list of all persons we hadharmed and became willing to make amends to them all. (Luke6:31)
We made direct amends to such peoplewhenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. (Matthew5:23-24)
We continued to take personal inventorywhen we were wrong and promptly admitted it. (1Corinthians 10:12)
We sought through prayer and meditationto improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him,praying only for knowledge of His will and for the power to carrythat out. (Colossians3:16)
Having had a spiritual awakening as theresult of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, andto practice these principles in all our affairs. (Galatians6:1)

>> Journey Out of Shame: A List of Resources

Original post 19Jun08; Update Jan2012

Almost four years has elapsed since I first developed this list of helpful books and information for coping with shame -- specifically the type of toxic shame in adulthood that results from deficits in emotional development. If you found the discussion of the characteristics of a child and how immature parenting affects adults, you will benefit greatly from these resources. Explore the whole series about the childhood roots of victimization HERE.

I've broken down the titles into Christian resources and secular ones.

CHRISTIAN RESOURCES

Concerning Emotional Developmental Deficits and Recovery

Audio and Video: “From Shame to Glory”
Presentations by Kathryn Chamberlin, LCSW-C

Kathryn attends the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Maryland, a church that is a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination, following the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism.

As you are free to note on her webpage, she holds a nursing degree from University of Virginia, a Master's Degree in Social Work from The Catholic University and certification in Biblical Counseling. She practices Christian counseling with the Bethesda Counseling Group, offering services to those in the Baltimore-DC Metro area.

Kathryn's presentation, “From Shame to Glory” is perhaps the best place to start a journey out of shame and into the liberty that is afforded to all believers in Christ Jesus. She has several other audio resources available, and I would also recommend considering these additional presentations as well:

Shame versus Worth
The Approval Addict
The Performance Trap
Hurt Trail to Idolatry
The Door Metaphor

Books for Christians in Recovery (In descending order of importance)

Love is a Choice. Hemfelt, Minirth and Meier's book examines the problem of persistent shame in the Christian's life. Christ saves us from the shame of sin and restores us, but for those of us who have been raised in families that were lacking the support we desperately needed, we tend to get stuck in patterns of shame that can prevent us from fully embracing the fullness of our forgiveness and liberty in Christ. Their ten step program teaches about how we can get caught up in repetitive patterns of shame and how we can be liberated from shame. ** They also offer a companion workbook (which I have not read).

Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves. The book that I believe helped me the most during my own recovery has been David Stoop's book, Forgiving Our Parents, Forgiving Ourselves: Healing Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families. The aforementioned book (from the same publisher) presents an overview and an introduction to the topic of the less than ideal emotional development of a child, but Stoop's book takes healing to the next level and explains more specific information about how to heal. I found myself in its pages in a deeper way, amazed at how accurately it described the patterns that I'd lived.

Boundaries. As mentioned in recent posat and featured in this blog post concerning a child's characteristic of vulnerability, Townsend and Cloud's book explores the issues concerning boundaries from a Christian perspective. In addition to their landmark book, you can also find a host of resources and video clips on important topics at Cloud-Townsend Resources online. The authors also adapted their message about boundaries and authored subsequent books which focused on particular types of relationships, and they are worth considering as well, though I am partial to the first book because it reviews boundaries quite extensively.

The Lies We Believe and the companion workbook which adds significantly to the material in the book. The author, Dr. Chris Thurman, explores the false ideas that we hold about the world -- ideas which only serve to set us up for heartache. I think of this book as a more structured way of looking at spiritual warfare and bringing every thought captive to the truth, but it is focused on the issues of shame and negative emotion. Through this book, I learned that what healing professions call "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" or working through negative emotion by exploring unrealistic expectations and false ideas about life was essentially the same thing that the Bible teaches by renewing the mind and bringing thoughts captive to Christ by using the Bible as a standard. David Stoop also has a similar book dealing with the topic called You Are What You Think, presenting the same approach to right and healthy thinking -- renewing the mind with healthy thoughts and ideas.

Lewis Smedes' many books on the topic of forgiveness. I cannot recommend the writings of Smedes more highly enough on one's journey to better understand forgiveness in a healthy way and from a very Christian perspective. He has a host of titles, and I've found them all equally helpful, even though all of the aforementioned authors and books listed here touch on the subject.

This is Your Brain on Joy. If you've followed this series and found a great deal of benefit through the focus on brain as an organ of the body that deserves special care and consideration, I highly recommend reading Earl Henslin's Christian book which presents not only a plan to help balance mood and restore brain health, but also focuses on spiritual growth. His balanced, Christian approach makes the topic very understandable and practical, taking into consideration the concerns that many Christians have, promoting good stewardship of both mind and body.

Quivering Daughters (for women). Though Hillary McFarland's book focuses on the plight of young women who grew up in the radical end of the homeschooling movement, I believe that any young woman who grew up under shame-based and enmeshed parenting as an Evangelical Christian will benefit tremendously from this book. I am an example of those who can identify with the patterns of enmeshment, though my parents were neither radical conservatives nor was I homeschooled. The patterns of enmeshment do convey, and I believe that any woman from a background of religious condemnation and shame can glean a great deal from the book.

Make Anger Your Ally. Neil Clark Warren's book (published by Focus on the Family) explains anger from a Christian perspective, focusing on the benefits of anger as a protective mechanism and how to deal with the triggers of anger in a healthy way that we might all observe the Apostle Paul's admonishment to "be angry and sin not." There is also a title on anger in the Minirth Meier/New Life series of books, though I have not read it. Some might find this helpful, as understanding anger presents a significant challenge for many who were raised in evangelicalism that perceived wrongly that anger itself is sinful.

The Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog! Read many excerpts from these titles on this site's sister blog, Overcoming Botkin Syndrome, which deals directly with the topic of shame-based parenting and enmeshment as it relates to the patriarchy movement.

Other Christian titles on the subject of emotional developmental deficits. Hurt People Hurt People (Wilson); Families Where Grace is in Place (VanVonderan); Hiding from Love (Townsend); The Healing Path and and companion workbook (Allender).

Online Recovery Resources (some of which are free!):

Check the National National Association for Christian Recovery website site for searchable archives, their blog, and list of constantly growing resources
NACR online video workshops
Free library of articles from back issues of STEPS magazine
NACR audio workshops (for a nominal fee)
Meier Clinics' list of online articles discussing a variety of topics
The (aforementioned) Cloud Townsend Resources site with topical videos

Devotionals:

Rooted in God's Love (NACR, available as a book and as a free daily email)
Meditations for Christians who Try To Be Perfect (hosted on NACR by Joan Webb (available as a book)
Northstar Devotional Blog (online resource)
12 Step Life Recovery Devotional (Arteburn and Stoop)

Online Forums:

Christian Recovery International Forums (Both NACR forum and a spiritual abuse forum)

SECULAR
RESOURCES

Depending on how the first two resources minister to you, and depending on the nature of the areas that God begins to heal in your life, I would recommend choosing between a Christian and a secular resource.

Overview, Introduction, and Healing

If you find yourself very compelled by this series and are at ease exploring secular writings, I would consider reading some secular material concerning shame and recovery. Though any book on the subject of shame or codependency as it was once popularly called would be appropriate, I find that these titles have been very good. These have all been time honored and standards in the area of overcoming shame.

Codependent No More, Beyond Codependency and Codependent's Guide to the Twelve Steps (Melody Beattie)
Facing Codependence and the companion workbook Breaking Free (Pia Melody)
Compelled to Control (Miller)

Enmeshment

If while reading this series of posts, you identified with the subject and experience of enmeshment and the information on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog, there are titles that specifically deal with that subject.

The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What To Do When A Parent's Love Rules Your Life (Patricia Love)
Facing Love Addiction: Giving Yourself the Power to Change the Way You Love (Melody)
Toxic Parents (Forward)
Silently Seduced. . .Understanding Covert Incest (Adams)
When He's Married to Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed Men... (Adams)

Etc.

There are also a host of titles that concern intimacy and specifically delve into issues of parenting. I cannot begin to list them all, and my personal journey is unique, but I found these secular titles particularly helpful to me in my own journey of recovery. **Highly recommended**

**Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists and their Struggle for Self (Golomb)
**Who's Pulling Your Strings (Braiker)
The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self (Miller)
The Gifted Adult (Jacobsen)

>> Finding a Counselor to Deal Specifically with the Adult Problems Resulting from Emotional Developmental Deficits During Childhood

In response to the posts concerning the“childhoodroots of victimization” (the consequences faced by adults whogrow up with parents who fail to respect the characteristics andneeds of children), I've received several emails asking for adviceabout how to find a good counselor.

Given the very promising research andmy own positive experience, and though I'm a big fan of CognitiveBehavioral Therapy, I really believe that when dealing withtrauma and depression, I believe that EyeMovement Desensitization and Reprocessing offers the bestalternative.

So what weird language am I speaking?

Types of Therapy

CBT

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) isgenerally accepted as the best, standard therapy, and most peopleconsider general talk therapy to be synonymous with CBT (though I nolonger necessarily do). Cognitive means “thinking,” and CBTlooks at how thought affects behavior (and emotion). It assumes that if your thoughts are healthy and realistic, yourthoughts will guide your emotions, and your emotional state willbecome more positive. Essentially, this is the principle behindspiritual warfare. If you thoughts remain governed by a properunderstanding of Scripture, good behavior and emotions will flow fromthose thoughts. I think that right thinking is essential. In theprevious related post concerning resources for healing, I mentionedTheLies We Believe and the great companionworkbook by Chris Thurman and a similar book by David Stoopcalled YouAre What You Think. These Christian books can get you wellon your way to doing much of your own CBT work yourself.

Another nice thing about these books? They can help give you structure for keeping a personal journal whichfor some marvelous reason helps to speed and aid emotional healing. I have an associate who once saw data from a study quoted by MarciaMeans which showed that writing with pen and paper actually helpedenhance healing of the mind and emotions. However, I have also heardpeople claim that the bilateral use of hands to type on a keyboardcreates the same effect that EMDR achieves which helps reintegratethe brain. Either way, keeping a journal daily and expressing yourfeelings in some kind of written form does accelerate healing.

EMDR

But on to the mysterious EMDR – EyeMovement Desensitization and Reprocessing. EMDR encompasses the sameprinciples of CBT and adds to them the additional (verygoal-oriented) focus on the body's felt sense to the healing processin a way that dramatically speeds therapy. (The most promisingtherapies for PTSD and depression, according to the newest researchhave been somatic therapies or those therapies which focus on bodysensation, body movement, and felt sense. Some call this“mindfulness.”) A good place to start to learn more would bethe EMDR website's generalinformation and their FAQspage. (The drop down tabs at the top of thewebpage will also provide you with lots of info.) This website also offers a description of the process.

In depression and in trauma inparticular, it is as if the different parts of the brain loose theirability to work smoothly together. The right cerebral hemispherefocuses on feeling, and the left focuses on analytical thought andreason, and based on personality preference, the overwhelmed personwill try to “live” in only one side. They will try to avoidfeelings, or they will be incapacitated because they find that theyare unable to avoid them. At the same time, other areas of the brainbecome overactive (such as those structures involved in survival),and some become underactive, producing a less than healthy state andpractical level of function. Signs of this that we see translate asdepression, an inability to concentrate, or unpleasant memories thatbecome triggered and invade our focus, etc..

By stimulating the mind and the body tothink about how the body feels while simultaneously stimulatingseveral very different parts of the brain to work together at thesame time through feeling and movement, basically, the technique ofEMDR helps the brain realign itself and reintegrate so that it cansmoothly work together again. While the separate areas of the braincome back into balance, the technique also realigns the person'sthought and ability to feel physical sensation that the bodyexperiences, so it teaches a new level of self awareness whichultimately improves a person's ability to respond to new difficultexperiences in the future. In that sense, part of the healinginvolves a level of physical self-awareness which also helps alignthese areas of the brain.

In depression and non-complex PTSD,EMDR producescomplete relief of symptoms without medication or otherintervention in 75% of adults without a history of childhoodPTSD/dysfunction during a limited 12 week comparison study withcontinued improvement upon six month follow up. Adults whoexperienced some type of depression or trauma as children experiencedcomplete symptom relief at a rate of 33% in only 12 weeks. ([We]just need to work at it a little longer to develop the skill andcoping ability that [we] failed to develop inchildhood.) Explore additionalresearch HERE.

At the level of neuroanatomy andphysiology, as I understand the process and for those with interestin the technical aspect, the focus on the the way the body feels asit moves stimulates an area in the pre-frontal cortex (PFC, a part ofthat thinking area in the brain's higher cerebral cortex) which seemsto have a natural and reflexive calming action on the survival systemareas in the brain (the basal ganglia) which becomes very overactivein trauma and in depression. This is why mindful walking, yoga, taichi, meditation, hypnosis, massage, acupuncture and any repetitivemovement which requires the body to both move and focus on thesensations of the body helps in trauma – because they cause thatmedial PFC to become active, the area that appears to be our only“switch” which allows us to modulate and calm those structures ofthe brain that regulate the survival response. (In trauma orclinical depression, the idea of distraction or “Don't thinkabout the negative” message that one tends to hear in noutheticor typical types of “Biblical” counseling actually works againsthealing. Pastoral counseling can certainly be an adjunct to healing if it enhances the healing of the underlying physiology of trauma.) If you're struggling with overwhelming (irrational)emotion, EMDR presents a very targeted way of contending with thoseemotions and helps reunite thought and emotion.

A session of EMDR involves theidentification of an underlying negative thought and establishes thedesired healthy thought objectively and as a measure of intensity ofdiscomfort of the idea which gauges progress. Then, while thetherapist guides the client to focus intently on how they feel inbody and mind in response to the underlying negative thought thatfuels the experience of depression or trauma, the therapist usesrapid bilateral stimulation of the body of some type (eye movementback and forth via tracking an object or light, alternately “tapping”the right and left sides of the body, or through sound alternatingfrom right to left through a device) as the client focuses on theiroverwhelming and painful emotion. The therapist watches the clientfor cues and varies the speed of the stimulation to achieve eitherliberation of the negative emotion (from the vantage of safety) sothat the person can “think through it” and make sense of it, orthey can use the speed and pattern of the movement or stimulation toreinforce pleasant emotion (accompanied by the client's spontaneousideas or epiphanies that they experience once they've pushed throughthe negative emotion).

The aptly named process thus guidesthe client into a desensitization to their experience of painfulmemory (so that it no longer feels overwhelming, ongoing, or part ofthat relived type of re-experienced memory that is typical oftrauma). The memories of events remain, but the desensitized clientcan access the memory without that deep and threatening sense ofoverwhelming and invading emotion that tend to trigger the perceptionof threat. It becomes like any other memory instead. Thereprocessing aspect concerns the CBT element of drawing on rationalthought which allows the client to put the experience intoperspective.

Shadowspring, a blogger who discussesher recovery after spiritual abuse speaks highly of her experienceusing EMDR as a powerful help in her journey to find healing andwholeness. HEREis the link to many posts on her blog discussing her experiencewith the therapy. I have also been a very pleased recipient of thebenefits of EMDR myself, after years of CBT alone which did nothingto alleviate the PTSD component of my symptoms. Particularly whendealing with issues of childhood trauma, I believe that EMDR presentsthe current ideal type of therapy. It will certainly save you time,money, and perhaps the necessity of medication (which I believe canbe helpful in the early stages of treatment, especially whenaccompanied by physical pain and illness).

Develop a WorkingList of Affordable Practitioners

So stated reasons, Iwould recommend finding an EMDR therapist first, then I wouldnarrow down possibilities by asking certain questions related to yourparticular therapy need. And word of mouth and the recommendation of friends is also a most valuable resource, too. The next consideration for most peoplelikely concerns finding a provider that participates with theirinsurance plan if they have one. Visit the referral engine atwww.emdr.com on theirsite HERE (and take note of their “Hints” on how tobest use the search engine which is quite important).

Narrow Down YourWorking List

The NationalAssociation for Christian Recovery site features a nice andgeneral list of questions to ask a potential therapist as well as alist of Christian counseling organizations. It offers good adviceand is well worth reading through.

For stated reasons, I'm less inclinedto start my search with the list of organizations they offer, asNouthetic counselors can be members of some of the groups listed (mygeneral, negative thoughts concerning nouthetic counseling can befoundHERE). You may choose to try to cross-reference referrals fromthe EMDR site and from these Christian organizations, or you maychoose to navigate directly from one of these groups:

Here is my own tailored list ofsuggestions that one might ask a therapist, once you've created aworking list of possible providers:

Qualifications and Credentials. Once you've narrowed down some possible candidates in your local areathat ideally work with your insurance provider, ask questions aboutcredentials. I highly recommend finding a therapist with a moreclinically oriented background and would avoid some of the study fromhome counseling programs that do not include instruction in realmental health disorders. You can also check with your state to seewho they consider to be legitimate licensed or certifiedpractitioners. In my own state, a practitioner with under a fullyear of full time experience in counseling can work independently,and their credentials can give you some indication of their level ofexperience.

Focused Care for Dealing withProblems Arising from Dysfunctional Families. If you'veresponded to the material in this series of blog posts, beforedeciding to schedule a session with a therapist, find out whetheryour therapist appreciates the addictions and recovery approach or a Twelve Steps approach to therapy (I've used a codependency andrecovery model to address child development in these posts, so if youresponded to them, it would likely be wise to find a practitioner whoalso approaches matters from the same perspective.) Some counselorsdo not take this approach or specialize in different types oftherapy.

Ask about their favorite authors,books and researchers. I also prefer the brain based approach totherapy because of the objective nature of the new findingsconcerning mental health. Ask the therapist if they are familiarwith “three camera SPECT” studies or the writings of Daniel Amenwho specializes in these types of brain imaging. Ask who theirfavorite researchers are concerning trauma, and if Bessel Van derKolk, Peter Levine, or anyone associated with The Meadows facilityin Wickensburg, AZ or The Trauma Center in Boston, MA, you've verylikely found a fairly good practitioner who takes an approach tothese topics that is similar to my own (if the material on this blogspeaks to you.)

What does the therapist require ofthe client? Ask whether the therapist assigns homework orrequires clients to do certain reading related to the therapy. Dothey also encourage or require you to journal? What does thetherapist expect of a client?

How do they evaluate progress? I tend to prefer to seek care from a practitioner who writes a planof care and evaluates that plan on a regular basis. Ideally, theclient (you) should initially work with the therapist to establishvery clear and easily evaluated goals for your work together. (Agood therapist will show skill at setting goals and working with youto establish measurable and meaningful goals to guide your work with them.)

… And these ideas should give youa place to start!

Why Good People Make Dangerous Choices (Pondering Michael Pearl and Lydia Schatz)

2011-12-02T03:12:00.001-08:00

Entire Blog Series that originally appeared on UnderMuchGrace.com.

Click on subtitles to link to the original, single posts.

Subjects in this Series (following the Introduction):

I: John Bradshaw on the Culture of Blind Obedience

II: Moral Disengagement thru Dehumanization and DeclaringWar (Bandura's study on punishment and learning)

III: Aggression as Normal and Desired (The Bobo Doll experiments)

A Note about Reactive Attachment and Liberian Adoption

IV: Milgram, Manipulation & Committing Evil for theCommon Good

V: Pondering the Atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust and itsRelationship to the Study of Obedience

Zimbardo's Lecture Videos About the Lucifer Effect

VI: The Calm Before the Storm of Backlash Following theSchatzes' “Guilty” Pleas (Reactions within the homeschooling community)

VII: Breaking the “Diabolical Will of Infants” in theIFB – Even at Hephzibah House

VIII: There But for Grace (A troubled mother's experience and alternative choices)

IX: Using the Milgram Study to Understand How Pearl BecomesAppealing

X: The Schatz Family is Not Unique

Also of interest:

A list of ALL POSTS related to Lydia Schatz, Michael Pearl, and Blind Obedience
CNN's Reports about the deaths of Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, and interviews with Michael Pearl on AC360 and Dr. Drew.
Posts about Kidney Disease related to the Pearl Method
Posts about Harm to Children through discipline for religious reasons (including Pearl)

Introduction

When considering the Schatz Family and the tragic events that occurred, we are faced with confusing dilemmas and difficult ideas. Along with the questions concerning the problem of evil, we often cannot fathom how good, decent, and loving Christians could have so blindly followed such a dangerous practice to such an extent. (For background on the story of Lydia Schatz, please link HERE.)

I would like present many reasons why people do choose certain practices and how they lose perspective, just like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz did by following the teachings of Michael Pearl. They were loving and kind individuals who aspired to be the best examples of what Christianity represents, but their unfortunate choices and dedication to a misguided system of practices resulted in permanent disease and death among their children. They believed that the Pearl Method offered them the best and highest means of fulfilling their obligation as loving and dutiful parents in a way that would bring honor to God. '

I will offer ideas that strongly suggest that without understanding of human nature and manipulation, nearly two-thirds of regular, everyday people can easily end up in the same position as these parents.

In the discussion of the Schatz tragedy, it seems that the opinions that people tend to have fall into two main categories, depending on their perspective and whether they have experience with the Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement which utilizes the writings of both Michael and Debi Pearl quite extensively.

Some people deem the Schatz parents as horrible monsters. (This is a “dispositional” view, maintaining that the person was disposed to certain behaviors because of who they were – horrible people.) Among these, there are also two general sub-groups:

Those who know nothing about the Pearl Method and express their anger and grief by aggression toward the parents by deeming them entirely evil.
Those who either identify with the subculture that practices the Pearl Method or those who practice it themselves. Part of their motivation for laying complete blame on the parents involves a devotion toward Michael Pearl and fear that negative attention will result in the loss in their freedom to parent their children through State interference. I believe that there is also motivation to make scapegoats out of the parents because they cannot face the discomfort of admitting that what has happened to the Schatz family could well have happened to them. “I would never go so far as to injure or kill my own child.”

Those who offer compassion and acknowledge that circumstances can influence a person, and thought they are “good people,” they admit that good people can sometimes do very harmful things. They show compassion for the Schatz family.

For those who understand the sub-culture, I believe that they recognize on some level that they could easily have been in the same position as the Schatz family because the followed the method themselves (and perhaps abandoned or rejected it). “But for grace, there go I.”

I am among those who feel great compassion for these parents and recognize the types of influences that can cause a person to displace their better judgment in favor of the policy of a system or the consensus of a group. I understand this experience on a personal level and know how the loss of perspective affects individuals when they merge with a group ideal. Trust in the group downplays a person's sense of personal responsibility.

I will give a host of reasons why people get caught up in less than perfect systems of belief and why they tend to stick with them, doubting themselves as they put greater trust in the system. Several blog posts will follow this one over the next few weeks.

I would also like to invite visitors to also “tune in” to Jocelyn Andersen's Blog Talk Radio show on Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 11AM Eastern as we explore the reasons why and how good people like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz end up following formulas with seemingly blind obedience in favor of better judgment.

I would also like to leave the reader here with this statement from Vyckie Garrison of NoLongerQuivering.com in response to Laurie M. (and her testimony about the Schatz Family) as it appears in Lydia's Smile Could Have Lit a Room:

Laurie ~ the reason I am writing is because your blog post vividly expresses the message which I and other Quiverfull escapees have been trying to make at No Longer Quivering: those of us who succumbed to this insidious doctrine were sincere believers who love our children and only wanted to glorify the Lord in our families.

… Collectively, we are raising our voices to bring awareness and sound the alarm regarding this teaching which is rapidly gaining ground throughout the Christian church. I believe that your post brings exactly the humanizing perspective which we strive to highlight with regard to the families who have been caught in the Quiverfull trap. We hope to warn others away from the teachings ~ and to help rescue those who are realizing the harm this is doing to their families and want to get out. … I would love to be able to offer the prospective of your sympathetic and grace-filled account to help others understand that parents like Kevin and Elizabeth are not monsters ~ only deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing such as the Pearls and similar Christian teachers.

Part I: Virtue In Place of Unquestioned Obedience

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to hear John Bradshaw speak, and he is much different than the PBS guru that I remember. (The last time I heard him a few years ago, he said that when he did the PBS specials in the 1980s, he was dealing with repressed anger and that conveyed in his presentation.) In person and in recent years, I've found him to be engaging, deep, and loving, and I thoroughly loved his presentation. I'm also grateful for his new book, particularly the chapter entitled, “Were You There When Jesus Spanked the Children,” the subject of a upcoming post. In Reclaiming Virtue which discusses how we can foster moral intelligence and virtuous ethics, he notes that the religious beliefs of his past have recently become of greater significance to him and has found himself revisiting and reclaiming them. (Bradshaw was a well educated Catholic priest and had expert training in philosophy.) Read more about and from Reclaiming Virtue HERE.

Blind obedience which flattens the decision making ability of individuals by demanding an authoritarian submission to the stringent rules, legalism, and pressures of a group or leader create the conditions that are the same as those who produced the Nazi Holocaust. Rather than fostering the growing discernment of the individual and by teaching moral codes such as Christian principle to inform that discernment, cultures of blind obedience punish and crush liberty and independent choice which God even offered individuals under the Old Covenant (Joshua 24:15). On a personal level, Bradshaw who speaks from experience notes that if we do not do our own personal moral work as we grow into adulthood, we run the risk of falling into rigid black-and -white thinking, an immature understanding that polarizes the perception of right and wrong. Vyckie Garrison notes aspects of this through the patterns of extremes followed in the Quiverfull Movement, and in terms of development, psychological splitting describes this primitive way of perceiving the world.

The Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement (QF/P) offers all sorts of formulas which drive its culture of obedience and requires followers to develop an external locus of control by thriving on comparison and merging one's identity with the group. (Please read more about the Locus of Control at Overcoming Botkin Syndrome.) The Holy Spirit guides a Believer in liberty (Romans 8:1-7, Hebrews 10:16-18), and with ethics informed by the Word, and the Chrsitian does the daily, hard work of discernment when faced with life's dilemmas. In contrast, the culture of obedience creates some idealistic promise that offers some benefit to people for selling out to the “greater good,” promising to alleviate followers of the stress of decision-making with ready-made, foolproof formulas for success. Just like Adolf Hitler offered a convenient solution to the “Jewish problem” and the struggles of a shamed German people following WWI, child training experts like Pearl, Ezzo (Babywise), and even Bill Gothard promise fool-proof formulas that solve the problems and pitfalls of parenting. Bradshaw states that “blind obedience requires no real intelligence” (pg 228).

Bradshaw's book explains that a culture of obedience (based on power and subjugation before love and care) “fears equality and ultimately fosters violence, war, and death,” and is “intrinsically incapable of fostering moral intelligence and virtue.” Morality that depends upon unquestioned obedience can be harder to confront honestly. Quite often, it's promises (or it's “big lie”) were well meant and unintentional, perhaps even developing unconsciously. They are seen as normal. Bradshaw offers corporal punishment as an excellent example of the confusing and subtle problems presented by a culture of obedience and states that traditional patriarchy has created many of the problems that we now face concerning the dangers of blind obedience. The New Testament warns against putting new wine in old wineskins, stating unequivocally that it will not work.” (pg 228).

Before exploring the mechanics and the reasons why otherwise reasonable and rational people choose to follow blind obedience, I wanted to offer Bradshaw's explanation of the soil of thought in which blind obedience grows. QF/P represents one such culture of unquestioned obedience which promises safety and well being for families and children through the prescription of formulas which promise to solve all of the messy problems in life. (There are no solutions! Life is messy!) People buy these promises and believe they will catch the carrot that is dangled before them like they are ignorant horses, but the promises are largely empty.

The first step toward understanding the errors of the Schatz Family involves understanding that some acceptance of the principles and elements of the QF/P culture of obedience precedes that error. Please review the chart (above and to the right) adapted from Bradshaw's writing, noting the differences between the legalism and the contrasting liberty in the columns and how these descriptions parallel QF/P legalism and true Christian liberty as we see them today.

Part II: How Dehumanization (and Declaring War Against Family Members) Causes Moral Disengagement

How do good, kind, and loving Christian parents like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz lose perspective to such an extent that they “find themselves” capable of inflicting harm on their children? I believe that these parents did effectively “find themselves” in such a position after trusting and following the child training methods of Michael Pearl, never expecting that his techniques would ever result in harm and death. What makes a person lose so much perspective so that they are no longer able to realize that they are creating harm and injury? Are regular people at risk for falling into the same kinds of errors? Surely that cannot happen to regular people... or can it?

In a previous post, we mentioned that cultures which demand blind obedience and that operate under authoritarian styles displace critical thinking and even punish it, requiring that discernment be relinquished to a group, a system, or an authority. But this is just one piece to the puzzle – a group of conditions that create a perfect storm that dashed the Schatz Family against the rocks.

Moral disengagement creates yet another factor that causes perspective to dissolve into an alternate reality. Within complementarianism, religious leaders redefine women as creatures who are not only subordinate to men and of lesser essence than men, but they are said to be the natural and most dangerous adversary of men. Men are told that they are at war with them. In the Pearl's system of child training, parents are taught that their evil little domineering infants plot against them in a domestic war on the home front that will last for decades. The parent is taught to win at all costs, making grovelling peasants of their miserable rebel seed.

Moral disengagement ''is where all the action is,'' said Albert Bandura, a professor of psychology at Stanford and an expert on the psychology of moral behavior. ''It's in our ability to selectively engage and disengage our moral standards, and it helps explain how people can be barbarically cruel in one moment and compassionate the next.''

"In the Execution Chamber, the Moral Compass Wavers,” NY Times, 2006

During the '70s, Bandura wanted to continue to explore the reasons behind an individual's willingness to engage in punishment, building upon and confirming the findings of previous studies. Morality serves as a guide for behavior and governs what people find acceptable, and most moral codes prevent individuals from inflicting harm on others. Studies of punishment indicate that one of the important factors that enables harm involves the disabling of a person's guidance system, the standard that would otherwise stop them. Bandura examined the situational pressures and conditions that facilitate “moral disengagement” in otherwise common, normal, moral people.

Several college students were engaged to participate in studies testing the effects of punishment on learning, and part of Bandura's specific contribution to this area involved the effects of identification with and closeness to a person has on their willingness to punish or harm them. In order to create distance between the people to be tested through punishment and the students who would deliver the punishment, several students were recruited from another college. The students at the college conducting the experiment were told that the study was a “helpful' one, and that their efforts were meant to improve the other visiting students with their problem-solving abilities by using punishment. (The study framed the purpose in virtuous terms, stating that the endpoint served to benefit the students from the other school – an important consideration which engages an individual's willingness to comply, making the punishment seem less like a punitive measure.)

The punishment would be delivered as a series of electric shocks, and each “learner” receiving punishment would sit for several consecutive trials with the “teacher”, repeating several study exercises several times over. Over time, the “teacher” who was delivering the shocks was required to increase the number of shocks delivered as well as the voltage of the shock. What those students did not realize was that those who were delivering the voltage (which was not even delivered to the other participants) were the true subjects in the study.

Another factor unknown to the subjects was that Bandura had actually set up three groups of people to be tested and arranged to have the investigators “leak” critical personal information about the “learner”participants who were to receive the shocks to the “teachers.” For the first group, investigators mentioned prior to the study that the visiting students from the other college were “nice guys.” The second set of “learners” were not discussed at all with the “teacher” students delivering the voltage. The third set of people were said to be “animals” and “rotten” people, just before the study started. Bandura wanted to see if these personal assessments would have any kind of an effect on how the subjects chose to administer punishment, in both frequency of shocks and in the intensity of the shocks delivered.

During the first trial set for each one of the three groups (the “nice,” the “strangers,” and the “rotten animals”), there was no variation in the numbers of shocks delivered and no variation in the degree of voltage used. Nice guys, rotten animals, and those who were not spoken of were treated alike in the first round.

But the findings did not stay that way. As the subjects repeated the process, completing the battery of trials in the set, a notable pattern of behavior emerged. The nice guys received less voltage and fewer shocks. The group about whom the researchers said nothing received a level of shocks and voltage that was significantly greater than the “nice guy” group but was less than that of the “animals.” When it came to the group of people who were defined as rotten and animalistic, the true subjects of the study, the “teachers,” delivered more voltage and more shocks in their efforts to help those animals learn and to improve their rotten skills.

What can we say about these findings? It demonstrates several powerful effects that result from fallen human nature. Human beings have an intrisic sense of justice, and their preconceived ideas about people will determine how they treat those people. People who are cast in a negative light seem deserving of punishment, as though society owes them a debt to punish them. Bad people should be treated badly. However, when a person's moral compass remains intact, people will extend a general level of respect and consideration to those whom they do not know and of whom they have no opinion. For those who are idealized, people feel obligated and owe those good people good treatment and respect to an even higher degree than the general beneficence that they owe to strangers. It shows that dehumanization holds the power and the key to disrupt a person's morality and objectivity. Dehumanization causes a loss of true and reasonable perspective.

How does this apply to the Pearls in regard to child training? As previously stated, the Pearl Method redefines the traditional view that children are either innocent or are a mix of both good and evil, just like every other human being on the planet. Children are evil and are said to be the parent's evil adversary. The Pearls teach the parent that their relationship with their child is a war zone in a war that must be won at all costs, otherwise, both parent and child are deemed sinful. The war has eternal consequences for all involved, and salvation depends on following the method. (There is a promise of a good outcome, and parents are told that thinking of their children as enemies that must be subdued is something that the parent does in the best interest of the child, a show of love to them.) The child must be broken as an Amish farmer breaks the spirit and will of a horse in his stables, but breaking them becomes the parent's act of love towards them.

Jesus said to never forbid children to come to Him, and He taught that people should be treated with loving kindness. He taught that we should be well-disposed and willing to forgive others when they failed us, just as He so willingly forgave others. Those considerations were also extended to children specifically, and His attitude toward children was one of joy and tenderness. What Pearl offers to parents does not describe what Jesus taught, but rather follows the patterns that Bandura identified in college students. Pearl is teaching humanism and claims that it is God's highest and best way to raise children. It is a lie. It encourages aggression and thwarts loving kindness.

I must make a comment about the Darwinian nature of the cruel, fallen nature of the psychology that Pearl teaches as well. His model is actually evolutionary, stripping children of the goodness of the Image of God that distinguishes them from the animals. He reduces children to something less than human. This is not to say that children have no evil in them or that they are pure and innocent. The “Golden Rule” that Jesus set forth to entreat others in the way that we would like to be treated should apply to children as equally as it applies to any adult, regenerate or not. But Pearl has an expectation of perfection for children, and he essentially sets out to beat sin and error out of children through physical punishment. I would much rather be a horse in Pearl's stable than a child in his house, because though a horse is not an image-bearer like a human child is, the horse does not have a sin nature either. I think that the horse gets far more humane treatment, because there is no sin to beat out of the horse. The horse is not the adversary of his master.

And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.
Luke 6:31-38 (NKJV)

The study discussed was originally published as A. Bandura, B. Underwood, and M.E. Fromson. “Disinhibition of Aggression Through Diffusion of Responsibility and Dehumanization of Victims,” Journal of Research in Personality. 9 (1975):253-69.

Part III: Defining Aggression as Normal, Acceptable, and Desired Behavior

Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz chose to follow the teachings of Michael Pearl, learning far too late that their duty to do follow Pearl's system in the right way, their trust in his system, and their loving intent proved quite inadequate, resulting in both serious disease in one child and death in another. In previous posts we discussed several factors that contribute to the perfect storm that causes good, normal, and trusting people to lose perspective, falling into dangerous and deadly patterns. “Moral disengagement” and “cultures of obedience” foster these evil consequences, but there are even more factors that contribute to the development of dangerous degrees of blind obedience.

Albert Bandura not only demonstrated the significance of moral disengagement in the development of violence as noted in this post, but he also developed the theory of social learning which concerns learning through the imitation of behavior. In 1961, he did a landmark study with a Bobo Doll to evaluate how children respond to violent behavior, showing how children learn by observation of adults who set an acceptable standard for them. A child's penchant to learn through imitation might seem very obvious to most people, but Bandura demonstrated how easily and readily the children imitated the aggressive and violent behavior modeled by adults. The children in his Bobo Doll Study were not instructed to behave violently and received no reward for doing so.

In the study, a woman aggressively attacks the doll by throwing it, beating it, sitting on it, and hitting it with small toy hammers while she is observed by children. Those children were then placed in that room where they had watched the grown woman attack the doll, by themselves and without direct supervision. Every child in the study proceeded to aggressively attack the doll, and they employ other devices such as a toy gun in the toy chest in the room to use against the doll. Some of the children were rather creative in their play, testing out their new methods independently that were not modeled by the adult. Several variations of the study have been repeated since the initial one, including the substitution of the doll with a live clown. The results always prove to be the same. The children attack, and they continue to independently expand their behavior to include new methods of attack, above and beyond what they observed in the adult who introduced the aggressive behavior.

This video includes only a portion of the responses recorded during the initial study. If you can make it through the music in the beginning, the second song that plays midway through the video until the end is rather comical in context. This particular video features the representative and responsive behavior of one boy and one girl.

By citing this study, I hope to communicate a message about how one establishes acceptable behavior and its effects on the behaviors of others, a matter that I believe applies to the concerns about Michael Pearl as well as the Schatz Family. As adults, we continue to remain social creatures, and we are deeply yet subtly affected by the actions of others. The behavior of those around us sets a standard which suggests which behaviors should be tolerated, rejected, or embraced. When we see a leader, an expert, and especially, a minister set a standard, it bears an even greater significance for us and carries a greater level of influence.

In the interest of ethics, particularly in the wake of WWII, psychologists began to study the ethics of behavior, not because they saw human beings as evolutionary animals but because they wanted to prevent the development of the same conditions that allowed the Nazis and Jewish Holocaust to flourish. These efforts within social psychology test the veracity of what we tend to observe every day and put tried and tested quantitative values and estimates on behavior so that we CAN put the significance of behavior into perspective. These scientifically qualified and quantitative studies helps us understand specifically how potent our behaviors really are within groups.

In terms of modeled behavior that we see in all people regardless of their subcultures, one third of everyday people will observe and follow a group's behavioral consensus when their own behaviors are visible within that group and when the behavior is unanimous. (Conservative Christians show no notable differences in behavior from those within the general population.) The presence of only one or two dissidents among a person's peers [non-authority figures] also has a profound effect on individuals' public behavior within a group, dropping that figure of behavioral conformity down to a consistent 10%. Just one person's behavior holds a tremendous amount of power in terms of group behavior, far more power than they ever realize. An individual holds the power of choice, and because of the potency of his own individual behavior, each individual also bears a duty to those around them concerning their behavioral choice in terms of ethics. Upcoming posts will specifically examine the much higher level of compliance demonstrated by individuals in response to the expectations of an authority figure.

Opening Pearl's “Pandora's Box”

As the children imitated the behaviors established by the adult who opened the door to aggressive behavior that was directed toward the Bobo Doll, Michael Pearl likewise establishes acceptable patterns of behavior for parents and encourages them to follow patterns of punishment through his prescribed formulas of behavior. He has opened up an Pandora's Box full of a host of things which may include some benefits, but a predisposition to aggression against children was one of the most powerful and truly dangerous things that sprang from his teachings.

Many followers identify corporal punishment as the first choice for dealing with mistakes and inconsistencies right along with disobedience, as Pearl's standard defines mistakes as unacceptable. That box also contained intolerance of expressions of shyness and fear in children by redefining it as disobedience, intolerance that is echoed in the First Time Obedience teachings of Voddie Baucham. I'm sure that Pearl's teachings had a certain degree of influence on the development of the First Time Obedience concept and upon other leaders like Baucham.

Though he may not specifically teach specific rules for every single problem in the everyday life of a child, Pearl's standard of intolerance certainly did communicate the authoritarian “no mercy” standard to the Schatz Family regarding weakness and error in the general sense. Pearl's method teaches that honest errors, just like crying in an infant, demonstrate rebellion, and all occurrences and episodes of rebellion must be punished without variance. Though you likely can't find a quote where Pearl tells parents to spank their children to correct them for errors as they study their schoolwork, the principles he advances certainly communicated to the Schatz family that corporal punishment was indicated for the error of mispronouncing a spelling word. A spoken word of an eight year old requires far more deliberate will than does crying in an infant, that infant's only means of verbal communication. Punishment serves as the first choice for dealing with mistakes and just plain, old human error to which even adults are given. Addendum 8Apr11: Please see this additional note concerning extenuating circumstances that may explain why discipline was used with Lydia for the mispronounced word.

The standard of aggression does not remain with the parents only who accept this behavior as normal and as God's ideal. Parents model and communicate to their children that corporal means, punishment, and effecting positive change within one's environment through force and domination serve as the first and most reliable measures that normal and loving people rely upon in the course of everyday life. As the children in Bandura's study with the Bobo Doll responded to the standard set by the adult, the children who survive Pearl's child training will find force and domination to be the path of least resistance when they need to accomplish their personal goals.

Because of Michael Pearl, parents don't teach the primary lesson that obedience is a virtue. They teach the greater message that “Might makes right.” Children have learned to be aggressive and forceful and domineering, because they observed their parents as they set this standard for them. They've also learned that force should be used to counter the effects of human weakness, a principle that children will live out in their workplaces and in social settings like on the golf course or even in their churches, should they retain the desire to continue to attend. With their own children someday, punishment becomes their own path of least resistance for teaching and training and correcting errors. The measure of the use of domineering force does not apply to willful disobedience alone. The method makes violence acceptable through habituation. Untold numbers of children are required to “pick up the tab” on Pearl's indulgences, though Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz certainly continue to pay dearly. So have their daughters.

ADDENDUM:

***Not included in this long post is an addendum concerning Reactive Attachment Disorder and the struggles faced by children who are adopted from orphanages in Africa. It is well worth reading:

An Addendum Note About Lydia Schatz and the Correction She Suffered for a Mispronounced Word: Liberian Adoption and Reactive Attachment Disorder
“Whoever inquires about our childhood wants to know something about our soul. If the question is not just a rhetorical one and the questioner has the patience to listen, he will come to realize that we love with horror and hate with an inexplicable love whatever caused us our greatest pain and difficulty.”
Erika Burkart

Part IV: The Milgram Experiment and the Pressure to Commit Evil for the Common Good

The events surrounding the death of Lydia Schatz leave most people wondering why and how good people like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz could lose so much perspective that they could discipline their daughters to the point of lethal harm. They trusted the teachings of Michael Pearl, but mere trust alone cannot account for the tragic events. What other factors contributed to the blind obedience that they showed to the teachings of Pearl? Social psychology has wisdom to offer. As Philip Zimbardo phrased it, how many people would "electrocute someone if Hitler asked them to do it?"

Stanley Milgram graduated from Harvard with his PhD in Social Psychology in 1960, and he went to work at Yale. Pondering the Eichmann Trial which commenced in 1961 and his own Jewish heritage, Milgram set out to investigate the reasons why and how so many reasonable people participated with the Nazis.

The Asch Experiments in the early '50s demonstrated that one third of individuals were willing to reevaluate their perceptions in order to defer to the consensus of a group, but Milgram wanted to conduct a study that was was more relevant to human situations. Milgram rejected the idea of using college students and advertised for subjects that represented regular people from all walks of life. (College students want good grades and can sometimes yield different results than those from the general population.) He settled on 40 candidates [Big edit! 9Apr11: for the very first leg of the trial. The entire study included 1000 subjects wherein variations in this original group were performed. It was one of the most extensively studied trials in psychology, actually.]

The test subjects were told that they were going to participate in the study of the effects of punishment on learning and memory. The subjects were all assigned the title of “teacher,” and they were directed to ask questions of the other study participant who was hidden from his view, but he could hear the responses of this participant who was given the title of “learner.” The “teacher” was seated in front of a panel of electrical switches ranging in intensity from 15 to 450 volts.

Whenever the “learner” answered incorrectly, the “teacher” was instructed to deliver a shock, and each subsequent shock would be slightly higher in intensity. The panel also indicated that at a certain voltage, the charges were considered dangerous and were marked accordingly. What the “teacher” did not know was that the “learner” and the “experimenter” who was administering the test were confederates, and they were really testing his/her level of obedience. The responses of the confederate “learner” were planned and pre-recorded.

The “teacher” (the real subject in the study) begins to deliver shocks to the “learner” who eventually begins to cry out in pain and begs to stop the experiment, even banging on the wall and claiming to have a heart condition at a certain voltage level. Many subjects would progress with the charges until the learner begs to stop, asking if someone could or has checked on their well being. Most people continued after they were told that they were not responsible for the outcome. The “experimenter” was also instructed to pressure the “teacher” to continue. At a certain voltage set point, the “learner” becomes suddenly silent (they are unconscious or dead). If the subject, the “teacher,” continued to protest after four encouragements to continue, the study was halted. Otherwise, the “teacher” was required to continue until he had delivered the 450 volt shock three successive times. After performing some studies at the university, he also moved the testing off site to a less impressive looking building out of concern that the setting might have affected the data (finding that these statistics did not show any statistically significant differences from the data obtained at the Yale campus).

Prior to conducting the study, Milgram polled senior students and other colleagues about the results they would anticipate, and the opinions were all quite similar: they predicted only a 0 – 3% rate of compliance.

The actual findings in the first group within the study were far more disturbing: 65% of subjects completed the full course (26 out of 40), continuing up through the full 450 volts, though many of them protested and bargained to be released from the study.

Milgram's study confirmed the findings of the Asch Experiments, noting that social pressure had a potent effect on the responses of individuals, and that they were willing to surrender their better judgment to a system or a group as a system. It also demonstrated that people feel a diminished sense of responsibility if they comply with an authority or a system, seeing themselves as a passive instrument or tool being used as opposed to viewing themselves as a fully culpable moral agent.

Would most reasonable people electrocute someone if they believe they are doing so for a good cause? Apparently 2/3 of regular, everyday people will. Only about 10% of people will get up and leave when their conscience gives them pause. The findings of similar studies in the US offer the same general findings.

In the Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo asks whether we have any real-life examples of these findings regarding blind obedience. He offers the tragedy of Jonestown, Guyana as evidence of the profound power of the pressure and the deception that required followers to commit “revolutionary” acts of suicide and mothers mothers to poison their own little ones.

I would like to offer the example of the obedience of the Schatz family as an example of this same process that seduces good, faithful, loving, and dutiful people into following a leader and a system with blind obedience to the point of causing harm. I believe that when a person is engulfed in a culture that accepts, promotes, and even demands in some cases that participants follow the Pearls, they find themselves embracing an illusion that the system will protect them. The Schatz Family discovered that this was not the case. Somehow, the authoritarian nature of Pearl's system makes the system and Pearl himself seem ultimately responsible, likely because the individual has merged with the group identity while losing aspects of their own. They may have to merge with a group in order to survive, and obedience may be required of them. Obedience becomes more important than personal responsibility, and the participant believes that their good intent and their obedience will be credited to them as righteousness somehow. But it is only an illusion.

As an adjunct to last week's show, listen to a discussion of Milgram and More on Jocelyn Andersen's Blog Talk Radio on Saturday April 9, 2011 as it relates to the Schatz Family.

Part V: Pondering the Atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust and its Relationship to the Study of Obedience

Because I have discussed a few psychological studies, I believe that it is necessary to address the nature of those studies and the motivation behind why they were done. They were birthed out of a desire to understand the reasons why a whole nation of good German people could be influenced so strongly that they were able to commit such atrocities during WWII.

[As an aside note, this post on “What Goes on in the Soul of the Abuser” which quotes material from The Nazi Doctors may be helpful in understanding the leaders of groups, but it is not my primary focus today.]

On this site, I talk a great deal about manipulative behavior in Christianity, but I often approach it from a position that is informed by both the Bible and from observations about behavior. Some of that information comes out the study of why both individuals and groups of people behave in the way that they do.

Conservative (traditional, orthodox, Evangelical) Christians believe that God is the Author of truth as it revealed to us in the Bible. All other learning must be “brought captive” or brought under the authority of Christ (the Word of God) and is subordinated to that truth. Personally, I aspire to exactly this goal that I might be ever more conformed and changed into the character that Jesus Christ modeled for humanity. Many Christians find my perspective to be troubling because I am willing to accept as “truth” a degree of information from the material world that is not explicitly defined in the Bible. I am sometimes wrongly criticized as someone who accepts everything that the world offers as truth, particularly concerning what human beings have learned about the way we tend to act, why we act that way, and how we go about acting in the best way.

With the right intentions of maintaining pure thoughts that keep one under the authority of the Word of God, many Christians teach that because many of the original individuals in the area of psychology were atheists, all areas of study of human behavior have to be flawed in the same way that men like Freud and Jung were. They believe that all ideas that fall under the grand heading of “psychology” must be rejected and resisted. Sigmund Freud certainly had some bizarre ideas and was fixated on sex in addition to his atheistic ideas, likely because he was sleeping with both his wife as well as his wife's sister who was living with them, for example. Carl Jung walked in his garden while talking to his spirit guide whom he called Philemon.

Some Christians believe that if these men framed out the foundations of psychology, then all ideas about human behavior today can only be as flawed as these original ideas were. I agree that these men's theoretical ideas are flawed and their beliefs about who man was and why he did things (from an evolutionary model) must be noted. And though I'm sad that these men rejected the Christian perspective, I sometimes agree with some of their matter-of-fact observations about people. I generally reject their interpretations of what their observations mean because I don't share their beliefs about the nature of man.

I find the theoretical perspectives of some of these men to be only speculative, usually insignificant in comparison to the empirical, applied, and practical findings of social psychology today. I accept data and information that comes from observation of behavior after it has been empirically tried and tested. Exaggerating to make my point about more subtle matters, there are some Christians who would argue that it was raining outside or that the sun was shining if an atheist attested to it, or might deny that there was such a thing as DNA because DNA is not described in the Bible. There are also people today who reject data and findings from brain science and imaging that modern technology has provided us, because by suggesting that the physical aspects of the brain can affect behavior and the “soul,” they feel that the significance of spiritual matters becomes somehow diminished or denied. So I differ from some Christians in that I view the brain as an organ that is affected by not only spiritual practice, physical factors (disease, damage, health or function of the brain itself), and environmental factors. I also accept statistically tested, validated, and significant information about human behavior, and if approached through a responsible hermeneutic, I accept them as “common sense” truths.

Reframing the Findings of Social Psychology

In terms of the studies that have been presented as an explanation of why good people (Christian people, in particular) end up making dangerous choices and do things that seem to make no sense, I would like to talk a bit about some of the investigators and why they found the study of behavior so important. Some Christians believe that all psychology means to prove that human beings are only animals and that there is nothing about behavior that is influenced by intrinsic forces such as a fallen sin nature or by intervention and insight that is given to men through the Holy Spirit. (Some maintain that it is impossible to bring ideas classified as psychology captive to Christ.) Any information elucidated can only be flawed, because it is the misconception of some Christians that all those who study behavior and conclude meaning from those studies can only be in error because of the atheistic influence. Some conclusions drawn from ideas of psychology clearly are Darwinian (like those of B.F. Skinner who concludes ideas that are strikingly similar to those of Michael Pearl's). To those folks who reject all ideas related to psychology, I would like to offer this food for thought.

The Motivation Behind Social Psychology

Solomon Asch

I've made some passing remarks about the findings of the Asch Experiments, but I have said little about Solomon Asch himself. He was born in Warsaw and emigrated to the US in 1920, and while living in Manhattan, he learned to read English by studying Charles Dickens. He went to the College of the City of New York and Columbia, earning a PhD.

His own motivations were not to demonstrate that human beings were mere animals! In the wake of WWII, he was distressed and moved on a personal level about the atrocities that took place. He sought out to understand more about the effects of propaganda and how the Nazis and the Jewish Holocaust could have possibly taken place. He ended up elucidating very important information about conformity and fallen human nature's tendency to “sell the truth” in order to conform with a group.

Solomon Asch didn't set out to prove any atheistic principles so he could make men into animals. He studied human behavior so that he could figure out something about why a whole nation found it so easy to conform to inhumanity, essentially becoming animals themselves. He wanted to know how Germany could so easily dehumanize the Jewish people. He was a Jew who was born in Warsaw.

Stanley Milgram

As stated in a previous post, Stanley Milgram was motivated to design and conduct his study of conformity and obedience because he was disturbed by the findings that came out of the Eichmann trials in Jerusalem in 1961. In this video, Philip Zimbardo states that he knew Stanley Milgram from the Jewish ghettos in the Bronx where they both grew up. Both Milgram and Zimbardo graduated from James Monroe High School in NYC in 1950. After completing his training, Milgram studied with Solomon Asch at Princeton in 1959 and 1960.

He also wanted to understand in an even deeper way just how so many good, regular, everyday people could turn so evil. Hannah Arendt who wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem coined the term “the banality of evil” when she reported on the trials as she observed how dispassionately Eichmann described his own behavior, recalling unspeakable atrocities without an appropriate human reaction of disgust. (Hannah was a German of Jewish descent who was forced to leave Germany in 1933.) Adolf Eichmann described the horrors of the Holocaust as though he were describing a banal act of making coffee or combing his hair in the morning.

Stanley Milgram did not seek to prove that men were animals. He sought out to discover ideas behind the nature of men like Eichmann and those who followed his commands without questioning themselves. What happened to their consciences? How could committing the most evil of acts become banal and commonplace? He sought to understand the fallen nature of mankind and how on earth the Nazis could have convinced good people to commit acts of evil so that such a thing could never happen again.

Philip Zimbardo “Dr. Z” (as he is known to his students at Stanford), friend of Stanley Milgram, also describes his motivation for his study of the psychology of evil as having been birthed in the days he spent in his “ghetto sandbox.” I wept as I first read this section in the preface of his book, The Lucifer Effect, and I weep again today as I read it. He describes the abuse he suffered at the hands of Gentile kids on the street, the antisemitic prejudice of the police, and even from the janitors who would kick them off their stoops.

“Urban ghetto life is all about surviving by developing useful “street smart” strategies. That means figuring out who has power that can be used against you or to help you, whom to avoid, and with whom you should ingratiate yourself. It means deciphering subtle situational cues for when to bet and when to fold, creating reciprocal obligations, and determining what it takes to make the transition from follower to leader” (pg xi).

Quantifying Evil

At some point in the future on this site, I would like to explain more about the rigorous process of testing data to see if the information elucidated by these an any such study really means something and what the statistical analysis of that information reveals to us. I have touched on this in the past in some sense concerning Vision Forum's stance ectopic pregnancy, but would like to expand upon it in an upcoming post. In defense of the studies I've referenced recently, it may be helpful if people could get a glimpse into how statistics are used to put observations into perspective. But that is a subject for another day. I will leave you with another statement that Zimbardo makes in the Lucifer Effect.

“Thus the Lucifer Effect has been incubating in me for many years, from my ghetto sandbox days through my formal training in psychological science, and has led me to ask big questions and answer them with empirical evidence” (pg xii).

Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? The Short and Long Versions of Zimbardo on the Lucifer Effect

I am very happy to present Dr. Philip Zimbardo's lecture about the content of his book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Become Evil.
Please note that there is a very short section containg some objectionable language used and photos taken at Abu Ghraib, limited to a very short portion of the film.

Part VI: The Calm Before the Storm Following the Schatzes' “Guilty” Pleas

On Blog Talk Radio (BTR), Jocelyn Andersen and I spent the past two sessions discussing the death of Lydia Schatz and an overview of Michael Pearl's teachings regarding “child training.” The first episode (2Apr11) gives a general overview of Pearl's ideas and what the Schatz Family experienced as a consequence of following his methods. The second episode (9Apr11) focuses specifically on the reasons that social psychology offers to explain why and how good Christian people like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz can lose touch with their own rational thought when they follow a system like the one Michael Pearl has created, a system essentially enforced by Christian homeschoolers through social pressure. In addition to the undue authoritarian influence and the spiritual blackmail that Pearl prescribes, the majority of Christian homeschoolers enforce an elitist secondary system that makes a graceful and easy “exit” from Pearl's teachings even more difficult.

Note: “Exit” in this context is a term coined by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo which describes an additional factor that enhances the pressure upon individuals to yield obedience to a system of idealism. (Other factors include but are not limited to the appeal to authority, pressure from peers to conform, incremental increases in levels of compliance, etc..) Kevin and Elizabeth were compelled by many forces to adhere to Pearl's teachings, though it should be noted that this factor does not diminish their personal responsibility for their own actions. The lack of ease of “exit” is one of the items of discussion mentioned in the April 9^th episode of Jocelyn's BTR show.

The Plea Bargains

Several news sources reported on April 8^th and 9^th that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz agreed to pleas of “guilty” related to the death of their daughter, Lydia; the critical injuries sustained by their daughter, Zariah; and lesser injuries sustained by their son who was not named specifically and who I believe was not an adoptee. Kevin plead guilty to whatever California classifies as second-degree murder and torture, and Elizabeth plead guilty to a charge of manslaughter, a lesser charge than Kevin's. I hope that there will be additional discussion of the details of the case in the secular press, but for now, a few more can be read HERE.

The Implications

This weekend, several people asked me about my opinion regarding what will happen within the homeschooling community in response to these pleas of guilty. On one hand, the family avoids the many pains and the additional expense of a jury trial, and they are never a pleasant experience. Ramsey, the Butte County District Attorney planned to put young Zariah on the stand (the now 12 year old daughter who was hospitalized for renal failure). She will now be spared the personal difficulty (an understatement) and negative publicity which would no doubt reinforce the negative aspects of the whole experience of the abuse for her as well. Given the whole emotional and sensational nature of the case, adding to that all of the religious freedom implications, a jury trial would prove to be a messy affair for all involved.

On the other side of this benefit, the public no longer has the opportunity to learn more about the situation, at least until knowledgeable individuals come forward. From my vantage, a jury trial would make public the facts supporting the Schatz Family as an example of undue influence and these forces elucidated for us by the social psychology experiments noted here on this website in recent days past.

There is also always some hope that the evidence presenting the good and honorable aspects of Kevin and Elizabeth might actually pierce through the confirmation bias (selective or magical thinking) that they were “animals” and “bad apples” (people as apples being the analogy that Zimbardo offers to describe the experience of individuals who get trapped in bad systems, the virtual “apple barrels” created by those systems). Some might see the humanity and vulnerability of Kevin and Elizabeth, identifying with them, realizing the harrowing idea that Schatzes differ little from the average person – from themselves. “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows...” Or as I believe Hannah Arendt stated it, “We are all Little Eichmanns.” We all have the capacity to act in evil ways if the conditions are ripe for it and we comply.

We also like to hold confirmation bias, that wishful thinking in hope that all families are wonderful and sweet. I believe that truth challenges the concept that ideal families do not struggle with the messiness of life. The Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement (QF/P) that tends to ascribe to Pearl's teachings follow the myth of over-idealized families which they turn into a unique type of idolatry of family – their families. I think that the trial would have likely only polarized the QF/P's rejection and demonization of the Schatz Family as a group that in no way represents them in an act of denial of the problems inherent in both Pearl's system and their own. [Read a bit more about this HERE.] Yet, in spite of this selective thinking, the details that a jury trial would have revealed could have given us more insight into the process of abuse. All those involved and interested in Pearl's methods, or those who already abandoned the practice of the methods themselves, could have learned much.

The Calm Before the Storm

It remains to be seen, but I suspect that those within QF/P will either remain silent out of embarrassment at the thought of associating themselves with murder and death, or they will openly continue to show hostility toward Schatz Family by continuing to scapegoat them in more intense ways. In these few days following these pleas of “guilty” as we all absorb the sad reality that these sad events would have never happened in an idealized world of fantasy, I feel a calm sense of a sigh of both relief and emotional exhaustion. It will take a little time to process and understand the impact of it all, especially during the wait between the offered pleas and the anticipated sentencing of the Schatzes on June 10^th.

Sadly but predictably, I anticipate a particular show hypocrisy on the part of at least some within QF/P. The movement decries the secular system, and because of a dissimilar worldview, they claim that the secular world is essentially devoid of any ethics at all. I recall Howard Phillip's distortion and logical fallacy which he stated in so many different ways that to side on anything other than his side of politics essentially amounted to stand on the side of the absolute wrong, no matter where you might fall on a continuum to perceived right and wrong. QF/P follows this same principle and distortion where they paint all things in absolute black or white terms. To differ from their mistaken sense of uniformity as a show of Christian unity makes those who are different from them any sense of in principle or practice those who represent and support pure evil in the most extreme terms. The world's system and the judgments of the world represent the worst of evil. Only their system, special to God in a unique way, can determine the real truth about right and wrong.

I predict that while they reject the idea that the secular world can know anything about right and wrong, the QF/P world will say that in the case of the Schatzes and their pragmatic pleas of “guilty,” they will claim that the world “got it right this time.” QF/P should understand well that what is legal does not equal that which is moral in terms of society. It is not against the civil law to lie under many circumstances, for instance. You cannot be convicted and go to jail if you deny that you were the person to put the last carton of milk back in the 'fridge with only a teaspoon left in it without making mention of it to the person in the family who procures milk for the family's consumption! But such a statement is not a moral one.

So I'm waiting to see how many will say, “Look at those evil Schatzes. See! They were guilty and they admitted it!” There will be no consideration that the plea offered many benefits, something not so much about justice but about the pragmatic consideration of lesser consequences. Such an accusation will enhance the illusion that the faithful QF/P follower is elite and a cut above everyone else, especially these people who imitated what they do but didn't have what it takes to get it right. The Schatz Family was not “cut from the right cloth” and were probably never elect.

The proof that the Schatzes messed up the system and brought shame against the “noble” name of Michael Pearl and his glorious teachings proves to them that Kevin and Elizabeth could not have been true Christians in the first place. It shields them from the pain of admitting that the people in QF/P are human like the rest of us and saved by grace instead of the illusions that they create through legalism. They will have to admit that they are “The Shadow” and that they are “Little Eichmanns.” “Thank God that I am not like the Schatz Family.” In keeping with these ideas that are consistent with the Jewish holocaust and the conditions that hypnotized a whole nation, you can operate without a central leader, but you must always have a demon (a scapegoat) in order to make a system of ideological manipulation work.

How long with the calm last before the storm comes in the defense of Pearl?

Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:9-14, NKJV

Part VII: The Breaking the “Diabolical Will” of Infants in the IFB

Warning: This one's tough to read.

The news media tells us that the Schatz Family also adopted an infant from Liberia (along with Lydia and Zariah), a total of three children. We know that they used the Pearl Method to “chastise” the two older girls, but we are not told the age of the infant they adopted nor whether they also used plumbing line with the baby, too. (Please note that Pearl says that infants have a “diabolical will to dominate.”)

Michael Pearl recommends the spanking of young infants in To Train Up a Child, but we don't know how many people actually follow this specific advice. Many parents read this book, only selecting certain principles from it while resisting others. Some find the plumbing line to be a bit too much, and they stick with wooden paddles and spoons. Some parents follow Pearl's patterns of low or no tolerance for human error and the learning process but use their hand for spanking in order gauge the force that they use with their children. I've heard a friend say of Pearl's advice that she “ate the fish and spit out the bones.” Why am I reminded of the aggressive Asian Carp that threatens the Great Lakes with invasion and ruin?

In ABC's 20/20 Episode, Shattered Faith, we heard clips of Jack Schaap and other ministers affiliated with the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement preach about the virtues of the beating of infants. Elizabeth Esther's blog discussion focuses on this practice, one that she likens to the teachings of Michael Pearl. 20/20 also features Jocelyn Zichterman who explained the literal Biblical translation of Provers 20:30 from the King James Version of the Bible, a verse understood by many within the IFB to proclaim the virtues of bruising. Many believe that both the rod and the bruising induced by correction mystically “drives away evil.”

Should we be surprised to discover that the beating of infants also took place in chapel services at Hephzibah House? Should we be surprised that it was something that the proprietor, Ron Williams, encouraged? Here is another testimony of abuse at Hephzibah House, told to us by Susan Grotte. The scene describes the practices of the prevailing philosophy of punishment within the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches.

Sundays at Hephzibah house were dominated by Church.

I sat in a metal folding chair trying not to squirm since I had no fat left to cushion the hard seat beneath me. I was in the last of 5 rows of 6 girls interspersed with 4 staff ladies. The Hephzibah girls and Hephzibah staff, along with their children made up the entire congregation in the little unfinished basement room. Behind me I heard the familiar sounds of little baby Steven nursing away during the service. It felt good to know that sweet Mrs. K. was behind me. She would not be quick to find fault in my posture or how my hair was curled. The rhythmic sounds of a suckling baby were soothing and normal sounds in this surreal world.

Back straight, eyes forward. I tried to pay attention to the long winded sermon and take good notes. Notes were turned in after every service and checked to make sure we paid attention to the service and were not daydreaming. If staff did not like your notes it was a paddling offense. Ron Williams had a theory that young people who were not engaged in busy work were lusting and enjoying lascivious fantasies.

My feet were cold and my back ached but otherwise the sermon was a nice reprieve from the normal stress of daily life at Hephzibah house.

Ron Williams deep voice filled the small room. He dwarfed the tiny podium.

Patti Williams sat on the left side of the room with all eight children in a row. There was always a well worn paddle laying on the seat beside her. It was not unusual to see her paddle her children for wiggling or making noise during the long sermons. The youngest was Seth, perhaps two years old and the darling irrepressible Benjamin was just four years old. I do not recall a service where that poor little boy did not get a severe beating. I was amazed how undaunted and happy he remained. Seth seemed dull. He just sat and sucked his fingers. He showed no signs of normal 2 year old curiosity and wonder. Maybe that is what a successfully broken will would looked like in a two year old. I found it profoundly disturbing.

Suddenly there was movement. I sensed rather than saw Mrs. K. stand up behind me. I dared not turn my head but up front Mrs Williams also hefted her wide girth out of her metal chair. It creaked loudly in protest. At just 40, Patti Williams was fat, slovenly and mean as a snake. Her grey hair in a stringy bun she stood looking back behind me towards the Mrs. K. and Steven. She had picked up the small paddle. A hard, tight smile crossed her humorless face. Mrs. K. had now made her way into my line of vision.

Mrs. K. was clearly upset as she carried her tiny baby towards the front of the chapel.

Ron Williams just droned on.

My stomach clenched. What was this???

Patti guided Mrs. K. into a small walled off area at the front of the room. The area was meant to be a closet one day. Now it had no door and served to store extra folding chairs. The two women entered the narrow room I had a partial view of the inside of the room but could no longer see Mrs. K. and the baby past Patti’s wide back.

Ron Williams kept preaching.

“NO! Oh NO!”

I was frozen. Staring straight ahead and gripping my pencil in horror.

WHACK!!

The baby SCREAMED.

We heard every powerful, stinging blow of the paddle hitting that tiny baby. It went on and on, every time there was a pause and I thought it was over it started up again.

Ron Williams actually stopped preaching. Grinning from ear to ear he made a fist and moved it enthusiastically across his body like a diabolical cheerleader, “Hit him again Sister! Hit him again!”

No one moved. No one DID anything. The babies cries were becoming strangled as he choked and he seemed to gasp dangerously between blows.

“Go get that baby Susan!” The voice in my head was screaming, “DO SOMETHING!”

I stared straight ahead as Ron Williams resumed his droning sermon. I thought of twenty scenarios where I saved that baby, but I sat glued to my seat. My blood ran cold.

The crying stopped before the blows stopped. Soon Mrs. K. stepped out from behind the wall she was sobbing and clinging to her baby Patti was right behind her with a huge self satisfied smile on her corpulent face, now red from exertion.

The baby was quiet. A spooky unnatural quiet. I watched the little bundle for signs of life intently until I saw his little chest heave showing he was indeed breathing.

How hard would you have to hit a baby to make him stop crying? Why would we all just sit there and let it happen?

I realized I had not taken any notes for several minutes. Somehow, knowing I would be paddled for that offense gave me a bizarre moment of satisfaction . A form of penance for my cowardice.

Everyone took their places.

Ron Williams droned on.

Susan asks, “Why would we all just sit there and let it happen?” I believe that the concept of Bounded Choice, the sense of learned helplessness, and profound cognitive dissonance felt by many constrained everyone to obey. Anyone who intervened to help that baby would have been punished severely, and the baby still would have been punished as well, perhaps even more harshly than he had been. Our choices appear to be open to us when we are under pressure, but the are not viable choices that are truly available to us.

When you mix a system of violent control, a system of manipulation, an idealistic belief system, and a charismatic leader all together, you really have no choice, save the one dictated to you by the system. In this situation, Susan seemed to have options, but she had only one. She had to obey and follow the system. She was as trapped as baby Steven. In many ways and at the time, her prison was more complicated than his.

Read more HERE as the readers of Quivering Daughters elaborate

on how God is in the business of

healing our will, not breaking our heart.

Part VIII: There But For Grace

When I first heard about dear Lydia Schatz and her sister Zariah, I felt an eerie chill run up my back and a sick creaturely feeling in the pit of my abdomen, deeper and more cutting than just my stomach. The term “pit” could not be more fitting.

Not having managed to carry a pregnancy very far myself, most women at my old Gothard-influenced church held me at a distance. Two or three mothers who knew me well let me into their worlds, but I kept my own distance when they discussed some of the “methods” that they used with their kids. In the early nineties, one set of close friends followed the Ezzos meticulously, and I didn't ask much because I felt my own grief and insecurities when I did. I also learned that my honest questions about too many details were always followed with an equally defensive response from some of these moms asking, “Why do you want to know?” I learned to stick to matters that concerned cooking and gardening and the other topics featured in Gentle Spirit magazine.

My dearest and best girlfriend has great kids, and I have only ever seen her be loving with them. Discipline that took place while we were together had more to do with consequences of one's actions and sitting alone in a bedroom as a type of time out. I knew of one occasion when one child who kept running out of the fenced yard and into the street was taken into the house and paddled. It seemed an appropriate trade-off for the young child who did not yet appreciate the risks involved and would not listen, putting themselves and a younger sibling at great risk. My friend and her husband loved and cherished their children. I did hear rumors of how willful one little girl happened to be, the one that I grew to be closest to over the years, probably because she was as willful as her mother whom I adore. I respect and honor that trait in her, for it makes her capable of great determination to do the right thing in the face of hardship. And I have said that I suspect that this one daughter may have been harder for my friend to raise because of all of the many similarities they share.

I moved away but stayed in regular and close contact with my friend and continue to do so today. The relationship strain that we do have comes because of some of these doctrinal differences. The worst stressor involves her embrace of the writings of Michael Pearl, followed by her ambivalence when listening to me express dissatisfaction with various teachings of Bill Gothard. And, in fact, I did not know that she followed Pearl's methods specifically by name or in much depth until I started blogging about patriarchy, though I knew that the method presented problems.

The phone rang one evening almost ten years ago, and my dear friend called me, in tears. She was in great distress, and it took some prodding to find out why she was so upset, because it was difficult to get her talking – and this was not typical of her. She blurted out that she feared that she was going to kill her daughter. I would have laughed at her and thought her comment to be an exaggeration, but I clearly knew from her level of distress that it was not an expression of sarcasm. As I asked for specifics, she spelled out for me that she believed that she was required to break the will of her daughter by continuing to spank her (mentioning an mind-numbing number of whacks) but feared that she would truly harm her if she continued. At one point in the painful discussion, she did say that she had failed to work things properly with the daughter that is deemed as willful (though I see her as a gifted young woman with good discernment and determination). Yeah, I know... I don't have to live with her. And it takes one to know one, too.

I asked only the bare minimum questions, still a bit confused but definitely aware of my friend's distress. I felt terrified, and I felt terrified for her and her daughter I didn't understand much of anything except the level exasperation and fear and a whole host of other emotions in my friend. What I found most significant was my friend's insistence that she had to follow a specific plan, or the world would unravel, or so my friend believed. She had to break her daughter's will or she would never listen again, and it would affect her relationship with God in the most negative way. (At this point, there was no mention of love, only a duty that my friend could not bring herself to carry out without guilt and fear for her daughter's ability to survive. She was also confused because she did not get the results she desired.

With my fresh perspective, I brought some other information to the table. Back when I used to listen to Focus on the Family, I'd heard Cynthia Tobias talk about Gregoric Learning Styles and knew from my own experience that I was a “Concrete Random,” the kind of kid that will call your bluff and will likely die like a martyr before doing what is expected of them on principle. They are principled thinkers, and things have to make sense to them. (Concrete Randoms don't do well under authoritarian parenting. It is not rebellion but a reflection of how their brain makes sense of the world and best takes in the information around them. It is more brain and personality based than anything else, one of those things we tell our kids is their precious gift from God to them, part of His expression of love and care for them.) Not long before and thankfully so, I'd shared a copy of Tobias' Redefining the Strong-Willed Woman with this same friend. I came up with a plan with which my friend agreed to comply, just because she felt so trapped. I suppose that she'd only agreed because she liked this other book, and for that, I am grateful.

I explained how Einstein said that true insanity was defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time. It seemed that the stakes were getting high, and for whatever reason, whatever was happening and whatever was being done had failed to work. To continue doing something that was painful for her and dangerous (per her tears and admission of fear) did not seem wise to me, particularly when she readily admitted that it wasn't working. She was deeply distressed, and I encouraged her to consider that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit. God has not given us a spirit of fear but one of love, power and a sound mind. She felt alienated from all of these things.

From a purely pragmatic position, it seemed reasonable for her to at least take a break to rest and think. There were older siblings in the home at the time that could be assigned to watch this little five year old for the next 48 hours, and they seemed to have fewer problems with their sister than mom did at the time. I asked my friend to do this and to merely take a 48 hour break at the very least. I then overnighted a copy of Tobias' other book entitled You Can't Make Me, But I Can Be Persuaded to her, asking her to read it and then decide what to do after that little break. I think that my friend only agreed to this and found it reasonable because she was in such distress. She also felt uncomfortable talking with anyone else about it, fearing some kind of reprisal. I didn't understand that at the time, either.

The plan worked. My friend enjoyed a break, and I sent the book as a Fed-Ex first morning delivery because I was literally terrified and very confused about what I'd been told about all this. And I couldn't just get in the car, drive over, and “fill in for mom” to give her a break. It was the best I could do from my helpless vantage – 1,700 miles away. She devoured the book when it arrived. I'd also like to note that this child turned out to be her last one, so there were no new dilemmas with other younger children.

Inspiring her daughter and fostering her natural problem-solving skills through the use of the wisdom that Tobias offered her in an hour of need worked remarkably well. I still ask from time to time, and in what is quickly approaching ten years at this point, this young “concrete random” has never had another significant discipline problem. She is loving and sweet, and a sheer delight to her family. I love engaging her on the phone when I call, and sometimes her mom will have to ask her who she's talking to on the phone. She and I chat at length and she's sometimes reluctant to hand the receiver over to my dear friend.

Fast forward to 2007. I learn from one of my many fine teachers about the Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement, Corrie, that this child training teacher whom my friend followed had a name – Michael Pearl. When I called and talked with my friend later that day (the one with the daughter who had success with the suggestions made by Tobias), she readily admitted her unwavering devotion to Michael Pearl and the wisdom she'd learned from him. I was really quite shocked. I asked her several questions that day, but I said nothing about the trouble she'd called me about and the problems we'd discussed years ago. It was clear that this was not a comfortable subject. I was mortified to discover that my dearest friend had used the Pearl Method! In retrospect, we realized that many of our other friends did as well.

When word of the circumstances surrounding Lydia Schatz became public in early 2010, I approached my friend about the topic of Michael Pearl and about the death of poor Lydia. I never anticipated the response that I received from my friend who I expected to become humble and melacholy. My friend who had once called me in tears, expressing terrible fear about actually hurting her daughter and feeling capable of doing so lashed out against Elizabeth Schatz in particular in her defense of Michael Pearl. Her strength that I love so much swelled up and with angry boldness. My otherwise compassionate, forgiving, humble, and empathetic friend said that “only animals” would have done such a thing and that none of the tragedy could possibly ever be any responsibility of Michael Pearl. I was astonished and a bit in awe.

Several weeks later, I broached the subject again. I didn't push things at all but mentioned that I felt badly for the parents (Kevin and Elizabeth) who must be in a terrible state, having to go through such agony and realizing how “out of touch” with reality they'd become. I stopped talking about it for awhile and stated later that I had to ask my friend if she honestly could feel no empathy toward this couple. Initially, her answer shocked me, until I had a chance to think about it more deeply.

It seems that the events of those few days were so traumatic that my friend does not remember anything specifically about calling me and crying, expressing fears about her potential to “acutally kill” her daughter by “breaking her will” through spanking. I asked her if she remembered crying about how she gave her daughter over 50 whacks and lost count but stopped because she just felt so wrong about it. (At the time, I was so sickened and terrified by the number of lashes that was given to this little one whom I knew and loved by her mother whom I knew and loved, I never asked about what was used as an instrument of discipline. I don't know if they actually used the plumbing line.)

My friend said, “What are you talking about?” She and I had a discussion about You Can't Make Me..., about what Tobias taught, about how this little girl was no longer a discipline problem, about specifics in the book, etc.. She told me, “Well, I sort of remember that you sent me a book. Was it you that sent me THAT book? I don't remember. That was a long time ago.”

She also could not remember the specific turning point that changed things with her daughter. She remembers that they did have a big problem with this little girl, but she's never had a discipline problem with her since, well... and she goes on to name a specific event that corresponded with the general time frame. But my friend did state that this little girl in question is now her most well-behaved and good-natured child. In fact, she's described as the most gentle and kind of all her daughters.

When I heard about Lydia, Zariah, Kevin and especially about Elizabeth Schatz, I did little else but think back on the week where I prayed and paced the floor and placed several calls all week to check on my dear friend. The first thing that my husband said – the first thing out of his mouth when I told him about Lydia Schatz – was “That could have been [our friends' daughter]. It could have been her that died that time. Remember?” And I said, “How could I forget? You know how sick I was and how painful it was for [our friend].”

I would love to offer a post here, written by my dear friend who has been a true blue and faithful friend to me over what is now quickly approaching two decades of walking together through both seasons of joy and dark nights of the soul. I called with the plan to ask her to write about her experience for me to put here on my blog. That week of pain that she so humbly shared with me in desperation was so traumatic that it has passed out of her memory, and she remembers only her duty to Pearl after using his methods with the rest of her family's full quiver. Those painful events that followed with her youngest have passed from her memory, too painful for her to remember. She only recalls using the Pearl Method somewhat successfully with the older children, though I don't know how true that is and could debate that it was ineffective with her other “more determined” daughter.

Though I am glad that my friend was spared tragedy, in my own estimation, I believe wholeheartedly that it was only God's intervention that protected everyone concerned in her case. As wonderfully stubborn as my friend can be (a quality I tend to like in a person because of how beautifully it glistens when God transforms it into determination to do that which is right and good), I know that it had to be God's own work. And I tremble. For whatever reason, death visited Lydia and not [my friend's daughter], as I believe that it well could have. I might have sat here last Spring, blogging like Laurie M. did a year ago, talking about my friend instead of reading about a stranger for whom my heart breaks.

I understand the pressures that my friend faced and some of the pain that she felt. I also understand that I was a safe person for her to seek out and am humbled by that. I know that her friends in homeschooling would have rejected her and shamed her for wanting to give up on the Pearl Method while her family who did not follow Pearl would have shamed her for following his recommendations.

I wonder how many other followers of Michael Pearl can't remember the nights when the feared for their child's well-being, just as my own, dear friend? It's in their best interest to forget, after all they've invested in the promises of the power of the rod.

There, but for grace, go I. And I am grateful for all the grace that I am given, over and over again every day – God's unmerited favor.

PART IX: Using the Milgram Study to Understand How Pearl Becomes Appealing

What We Can Learn

From Milgram

In his book, The Lucifer Effect, Dr. Philip Zimbardo offers a list of ten primary elements of Stanley Milgram's Experiment that reinforced and enhanced the compliance of the study subjects.

Using a unique mix of factors, the study played upon human tendency and nature, essentially exploiting those human traits in an attempt to arrive at some kind of reliable number that allows us to put the human capacity for evil into perspective. Being aware of subtle processes of manipulation which some people use as techniques gives a person much more power of choice and confidence to resist subtle manipulation in the future.

If you haven't watched the video of Zimbardo at MIT, please take time to do so – at least, just the portion about Stanley Milgram's Study of blind obedience to authority. Also, if you've not done so before, please read back through the previous posts on this topic, also taking special note of this post on moral disengagement as well as the post about the Milgram Experiment. Cialdini's “Weapons of Influence” are also very helpful when working toward a better understanding of why people complied in the Milgram Experiment, capitalizing on human nature and tendency.

(There will be a few more posts on this subject to come in the future, too.)

We can learn from the Schatz Family, because like so many others within Christian homeschooling and other such communities, I believe that all of these factors contributed to their progressive loss of perspective of which Michael Pearl's teachings were only a part. So many additional factors become part of the mix of Christian living because individuals who are convicted that a certain practice is Biblical for them preach their preferences as moral imperatives. These factors and more (many listed in the sidebar here at UnderMuchGrace.com) create the perfect storm that caught up the Schatz family – a storm that could well be true of all of us. May we learn the lessons from the tragic example they have set for us.

May their sad experience be like a beacon of warning for us as Christians and as people.

Please don't miss the Moral in Milgram at the end of this post!

Ten Methods

that Enhance Comliance with

Ethically Questionable Systems

(Adapted from The Lucifer Effect, pp. 273-5)

~ With a Comparison to the Pearl Method ~

1.) Pre-arrange a verbal or written contract at the beginning of interactions, something directed at complying with an agreed upon behavior.

Pearl Method: The system defines good, dutiful, loving Christian parents as those who who follow the method.
- The expectation is reinforced within homeschooling communities through social pressure, and sometimes in their churches.
- In order to prove to yourself and others that you are a good parent and truly Christian, you are expected to follow those expectations that are part of the unwritten contract enforced by social control and pressure within churches and homeschooling groups.
- People will go to great lengths to prove to themselves and others that they are consistent with commitments that they have made.
- It is human nature to “stick with the program.”

2.) Give participants a meaningful role to play that builds upon positive and honorable values and those roles that have automatic responses associated with them. (Milgram assigned status of “teacher” which is understood culturally, usually in a positive light.)

Pearl Method: The good parent comes along and reads a book with many good ideas in it.
- Following the program has been framed out by a good minister as the only good way for good parents to raise good children.
- It's all about the ideals and one's Christian mission and duty in life.

3.) Imperative rules that seem to make sense can be presented to participants can be be argued in advance of the interaction. These rules can be used at a later time to justify and enforce mindless compliance. People will feel committed to them because they believed and accepted them initially, before they had an opportunity to really think about them. This can be exploited later.

Pearl Method: Christians naturally want to do what the Bible teaches, and Pearl's new rules can be enforced by stressing their divine nature which bypasses most people's radar when they don't scrutinize the nature of those new rules.
- Parents are also told later in the process that if they don't follow the formula, their children will suffer physically and spiritually, ultimately dying physically and spiritually.
- By the time the true nature of the risks are fully realized, the person has already become very deeply invested in the system and committed to it.
- At this point, it becomes easier to follow the process rather than to exit from it.

4.) Changing the language used to describe the process from either benign or negative terms into those which connote pleasant, virtuous, and lofty ideals obscure the true nature of the dynamics. Doing something unpleasant can be redefined as something beneficial, meaningful, and good.

Pearl Method: Parents are told that resorting to physical discipline is what God Himself has prescribed for them.
- Corporal punishment is reframed as “chastisement” which carries the connotation of Hebrews Chapter 12, and this Biblical language reinforces the elite nature of corporal punishment as an act of Christian virtue.
- “Spanking” replaces “beating.” A “switch” replaces a “whip.”
- People also identify the “rod” as a Biblical term and what God requires of them as the method frames it for them.
- Not everything defined as “Biblical” is really so – and the term itself is a big “thought-stopping cliche” within Christian groups.
- People take the shortcut and trust the term without searching out the validity of its use because it's easier.

5.) The system exploits participants by “creating opportunities for the diffusion of responsibility.” They are lead to believe that they will be exempt of responsibility for negative outcomes if they follow the prescribed pattern of behavior (moral disengagement). Someone else will be held responsible and they will not be liable.

Pearl Method: Parents are promised that the system cannot fail if it is followed consistently and will yield great benefits for parent, child, church and society.
- It will also please God and will satisfy the requirements He demands.
- The system itself, because it has so strongly been identified with God Himself, is never questioned as potentially unreliable as a misguided one with good intentions.
- The promised virtuous outcome justifies the means used to gain that outcome.
- The system itself is responsible, and God is responsible.
- God will eventually justify those who stepped out in faith. Only reward can result from following the system.

6.) The “path toward the ultimate evil” begins with very small, incremental changes. Biderman's Chart of Coercion points this out very well, and complete compliance is surrendered in small steps. It is essentially a slippery slope of increasingly greater requests or requirements of compliance.

Each step takes you a little closer to the cliff's edge as though there is no cliff to fall from at all. Because of the gradual changes over time and because of a loss of perspective, you don't realize just how many changes you've made over time until you've fallen over the edge.

Pearl Method: On the surface of things, parents just expect to spank their children when things become necessary but soon realize that, according to the program, a parent must spank very often.
- For the program to work properly, consistency is required without room for error.
- You can't just quit the program, or it won't work. It's comprehensive.
- The program demands more and more over time and becomes a whole lifestyle.

7.) With each incremental step in the process, a new and slightly increased level of compliance or intensity must be introduced. The increases are framed as so indiscernible that they are insignificant. (In Milgram's study, the first shocks that were delivered seemed to be relatively benign and mild, but they progressed from 15 volts to a deadly 450 volts at the end of the study.)

Pearl Method: Parents soon realize that it is not just enough to spank, but they must inflict the requisite amount of pain for the system to work properly.
- They have to increase the intensity of the force used or the length of the practice to get the desired effect.
  - You might decide that the paint stick or the designated paddle has worn out its usefulness and you might switch to the plumbing line for “better results.” Then you might find that you need it in every room, and then you need to carry it around in your purse.
- As the child ages, it gives to reason that greater force must be used to achieve this effect.
- I find it interesting that the Pearls loose many followers at this juncture, finding that it is either not necessary to get the harsh sounding recommended implements, or they find the whole plumbing line option to be a little too strange.

8.) Gradually changing the ethical nature of the authority figure from a good, trustworthy and “just” person who behaves reasonably into a bad, demanding, authoritarian, “unjust”, and perhaps irrational person. The confusion enhances the compliance, and people generally respond with mindless obedience. The inconsistency tends to galvanize compliance in a manner very similar to that of women in “date rape” and domestic abuse situations.

Pearl Method: Elements of the Method are quite good, and some of the concepts that it teaches are very sound.
- Consistency, structure, and teaching consequences does help children. So parents get quite a lot out of these beneficial elements of the Model.
- The Pearls talk about love and their duty to both their children and to God to do the right thing.
- But that concept does not match the aggressive nature of the harsh and often unbridled punishment methods.
- Peers and church leaders take on the primary authoritarian role, showing painful disapproval for non-compliance. Doubt is discouraged or punished.
- The inconsistency induces cognitive dissonance which makes people very compliant and greatly compromises their critical thinking ability.

9.) Compliance increases when the process makes it difficult to nearly impossible to comfortably exit the process. In the Milgram study, the “teacher”/subject was permitted to voice their verbal dissent so that they could feel at ease with the moral dilemma, but at the same time, they were required to continue with the process.

Pearl Method: Parents are told that though they may not like their role, they are required to continue to keep their own salvation and to properly care for their children.
- There is no exit, and the consequences are defined as eternal.
- In “hard” complementarianism which the Pearls also observe, women often talk of repenting of their sin of not liking the limits of their role, but they are still required to suppress their desires and comply, even though it doesn't feel good or natural to them.

10.) Ideology or offering “a big lie” to justify the process and the system reinforces the idea that the system can and should resort to necessary means to achieve the benefit and the virtuous endpoint.

“In social psychology experiments, this tactic is known as a 'cover story' because it is a cover-up for the procedures that follow, which might be challenged because they do not make sense on their own. The real-world equivalent is known as an 'ideology'” (pg. 274).

Pearl Method: Following the formula promises to solve discipline problems as well as shape and prepare a child for an increased if not guaranteed Christian status.
- The parent will be rewarded in many ways for their dutiful Christian service and for their parenting efforts.
- This ideology is actually a strong component in every one of the conditions in Zimbardo's list about the Milgram experiment because of the religious nature of the Pearl Method.
- It isn't only a program which uses coercion to increase compliance of participants – the program defines and redefines one's Christianity and Christian status in terms of the program itself and compliance with it.

The Moral in Milgram

“Such procedures are utilized in varied influence situations where

those in authority want others to do their bidding but

know that few would engage in the “end game”

without first being properly prepared psychologically

to do the “unthinkable.”

In the future,

when you are in a compromising position

where your compliance is at stake,

thinking back to these stepping-stones to mindless obedience

may enable you to step back and

not go all the way down the path – their path.

A good way to avoid crimes of obedience

is to assert one's own personal authority and

always take full responsibility for one's own actions. “

~ Zimbardo, pg 275

referencing Kelman & Hamilton

in Crimes of Obedience:

Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility

Part X: The Schatz Family is Not Unique

In only a few days, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz are scheduled to return to the Butte County Courtroom in California for sentencing, months after they plead guilty for their respective roles in the death of their adopted daughter Lydia and for the injuries sustained by their other children related to their use of the discipline methods taught by Michael Pearl.

The United States Court System bears witness to other deaths and injuries to other children, some of which author Philip Greven notes in his book, Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse. To those who wish to understand how Christians can make such dangerous choices to discipline their children to such an extent and how the practice is especially tied to Protestant traditions in the United States, please read Greven's book.

And please read it, especially if you employ the Pearl Method as a disciplinary measure with your own children.

Had Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz opted to stand trial, though we would have certainly learned more about the details of the family and the discipline methods used within the family, though the Pearl Method would have likely been described in the proceedings, the press has noted that the prosecutor had no interest in focusing on Michael Pearl. Perhaps one of the Schatz children may later decide to pursue Michael Pearl for damages in a wrongful death suit in the future, but as it stands, Pearl still operates unchecked in terms of the law. His subjective methods of cruelty remain at large, and his writings remain in the marketplace.

But... Consider that, as Greven writes in his book, in the history of our nation, a few similar cases have gained the attention of the courts, demonstrating that the Schatz Family is not entirely unique. And in at least one other case in 1985, the spiritual leader of a group that promoted stringent discipline methods was convicted and held culpable for the abuse and death of another child. Perhaps this precedent may one day provide some basis to hold Michael Pearl accountable for his teachings and for the tragic consequences of his ideas.

From the Chapter entitled Memories of Pain and Punishments in Greven's Spare the Child

Rev. Frank Weston Sandford

Reverend Frank Sandford developed an authoritarian apocalyptic sect called “The Kingdom” and also “The Church of the Living God” in the late 1890s in Durham, Maine. In a memoir written by Arnold White chronicles the abuse that he and others endured in the group, noting that any lack of obedience was defined as “stubborn,” and that parents sought to "'break a child's spirit' beginning at an early age.”

In 1904, a former member commented about the lack of normal and natural affection among the members and among family members. She recalls how babies would be put on 40 hour fasts with no food and water, including nursing infants. When she talks of how a room full of babies cried like little lambs and called an elder over to listen, the elder snidely commented that it was “the devil in the babies.” She reported that at any given time, a person could hear some child screaming while being whipped.

Sandford's own six year old son was required to fast for 72 hours and was threatened with a beating thereafter for behaving with impertinence. Sanford stood trial and was convicted in court for cruelty, but was only fined $100. However, as soon as this trial concluded, he was charged with manslaughter for the death of a fifteen year old who was required to fast while he had diphtheria. The court could reach no judgment regarding this incident, but the State prosecutor was convinced that Sandford's actions caused this child's death. (Kindle Location 725 - 768)

From the Chapter entitled Disciplined to Death in Greven's Spare the Child

In 1985, a jury found Dorothy McClellan of West Virginia “guilty of involuntary manslaughter and conspiracy to commit the unlawful wounding of Joseph Green,” a twenty-three-month-old boy who had died after being paddled for two hours by his parents. (Kindle location 833)

In 1974, Dorothy McClellan and her husband established a Fundamentalist community called Stonegate, a cultic group that lived in a large 27 room Victorian home in West Virginia. The group followed a system of discipline that became child abuse which they justified as a religious practice. Because the spiritual leader, Dorothy McClellan, promoted and enforced the practice, the judge also convicted her for her role in the child's death. Her appeal was overturned.

The judge declared that:

Dorothy McClellan is an extremely strong-willed and manipulative woman who was unquestionably the leader of the Stonegate group. She instituted therein a policy of child discipline which ultimately encouraged the acts which brought about Joey Green's death, and thus is just as surely responsible as if she had wielded the paddle herself. One only has to realize that her teachings created an atmosphere I which each set of parents had their own monogrammed paddles which were carried openly and used frequently. Indeed, through her leadership there evolved a system of child abuse which was mistaken under the guise of religion. (Kindle Location 865)

Greven's states that the judges statement overlooks the implicit issue that “the pervasiveness of such views about physical punishment among Fundamentalist, evangelical, and Pentecostal Protestants as well as many Americans of other persuasions, both religious and secular.” (Kindle Location 876)

Before considering the man complex consequences of physical punishments, we must first explore some of the religious and secular rationales for inflicting painful punishments. Only then will we begin to understand some of the intellectual sources – as well as the experiential roots in the early lives of many individuals – for our persistent collective commitment to hitting children in the name of discipline. (Kindle Location 889)

~~~~~

I still plan a few posts for inclusion in this series, but the sad nature of the material has slowed my pace in preparing them. They will come in time.

I would like to again revisit John Bradshaw's Reclaiming Virtue and also discuss Heimlich's new book, Breaking Their Will.

And most importantly, as both Greven and Bradshaw note, no discussion of child discipline can be complete without the inclusion of material from Alice Miller's number of works on the subject, especially For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence.

More LINKS on the topic:

A list of ALL POSTS related to Lydia Schatz, Michael Pearl, and Blind Obedience
CNN's Reports about the deaths of Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, and interviews with Michael Pearl on AC360 and Dr. Drew.
Posts about Kidney Disease related to the Pearl Method
Posts about Harm to Children through discipline for religious reasons (including Pearl)

The Mission of Under Much Grace

2010-08-20T07:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Under Much Grace!

Revised and updated, August 2010

Because so many earnest Christians still remain ignorant of the phenomenon of cultic social practices within Biblical Christianity, I hope to educate and hopefully spare others the pain and tragedy that I have endured. Most Christians have no knowledge of the techniques of thought reform and psychological manipulation employed by legalistic Christian groups, so this site purposes to inform as many people as possible of the cultic nature of these otherwise Christian schools of thought.

I am a survivor of many years of Spiritual Abuse at the hands of the remnants of an aberrant Evangelical Christian group with ties to Charles Simpson of Christian Growth Ministries (a disbanded groups of Charismatic who fostered the movement in the early 1970's). Although the philosophy of the group was recounted and renounced (the most famous participant of whom was Derek Prince), many churches who ascribed to their focus on "authority and submission doctrine" continued in this false teaching. My group, of the New Covenant Churches in the DC/Baltimore corridor was also strongly affiliated with the ministry of Bill Gothard, another false teacher who focused on submission and patriarchy within the home and church. Prior to my involvement with the New Covenant Churches in Maryland, I was predisposed to manipulation by cultic tendencies in the Pentecostal and Word of Faith movements. It was an easy transition into what I later learned was called the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement.

Of special interest to me is the increased interest and acceptance of "Family Integrated Churches" which promote the traditional idea of family as central to the restoration of Christianity within Western Civilization. I am deeply disturbed by this trend because groups such as Vision Forum headed by Doug Phillips promote the family but with rigid, legalistic standards of acceptable conduct. These extra-biblical standards are dangerous in my opinion but are marketed and widely accepted by many unsuspecting Christians as Biblically sound and orthodox.

The tactics and practices used and promoted by Doug Phillips via the Vision Forum vehicle correspond to cultic practice and thus create a hegemonic and neo-gnostic belief system. Because of the strong focus on their own version of patriarchy ("patriocentricity" as some have named it to distinguish it from legitimate patriarchy), it is the opinion of many that the sequela of this system present a very real danger to women. Having attended a local Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Antonio with Doug Phillips and his followers prior to the founding of his own church and through my long history of participation with Howard Phillips' Tax Payers/Constitution Party, I draw upon a unique history that includes both the roots of Christian Reconstruction and the ideological predecessor of submission doctrine to address what is now known as the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement.

May we all pray fervently for this false teaching within Biblical Christianity to finally cease, for all teachers to make themselves accountable to the larger body of Christ and for all such abuses within Christendom cease. May each believer do all that God bids them to speak and act against spiritual abuse, legalism and blasphemy of God's Word. May the church recognize the difference between true unity through love for the brethren, distinguishing it from uniformity through legalism. May we all become one as Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, but may it not be via the means of thought reform and coercive manipulation.

Link HERE to read more about my personal testimony and my spiritual abuse experience.

Cynthia Mullen Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin, ND

Cynthia is a nurse, naturopath and seminary graduate with a wide variety of training and over 20 years of clinical experience. She has used her training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine as a lecturer and liaison to professional scientific and medical groups, in both academic and traditional clinical healthcare settings. She also completed additional studies in the field of thought reform, including the study of hypnotherapy for both chronic pain management as well as its efficacy in the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that is often associated with cultic group involvement. Her nursing experience ranges from intensive care, the training of critical care nurses, hospice care, case management and quality management, though she currently limits her practice to forensic medical record review and evaluation. Most of her professional efforts concern the study of manipulative and coercive evangelical Christian groups, the recovery process from thought reform, and PTSD associated with such involvement.

INDEX to Links, Book List and Resources: Summarizing Lists of Lists

2010-08-20T07:04:00.000-07:00

Where to Begin? It depends on what you’re looking for!

TAKE NOTE:

Please also SCROLL DOWN to note the Tag List and Index in the Footer of the Webpage.

Navigation through this material may be easier by exploring UnderMuchGrace.com first.

LINKS:

If you haven’t already seen the list of general links to other sites concerning spiritual abuse topics, try HERE.

If you are looking for information on a VERY SPECIFIC spiritually abusive group, I recommend the very extensive list on the Spiritwatch Ministries site.

Please also scroll down or link to the two separate lists here with a little more of a specific description about the links pertaining to both: (1) Spiritual Abuse (2) Patriarchy

HEALING RESOURCES:

Please read HERE on the blog about how to help yourself heal and also how to obtain counsel.

For those dealing with issues of shame, please scroll down to read more HERE.

Check the Under Much Grace Blog list of free audio and video resources online HERE!

Link HERE (or scroll down) to view the Under Much Grace blog buttons, quick reference information, and widgets.

BOOK LIST AND READING PLAN:

Following the sage advice I received from my exit counselor and the many others that have helped me in my own recovery, I recommend what they recommend in this book list, followed by all sorts of other books that are available.

LINK HERE to read more.