In
response to a
letter that I received from the
daughters of Geoffrey Botkin, at the time of this writing, I have
pended most of the material on this blog and have privatized and
changed the name of another that I created in 2007. This “Pages”
section of Under Much Grace expands upon this
post to
explain my core rationales behind my actions. As I have time to
review previous writings and edit relevant content in more than 1000
blog posts pertaining to spiritual abuse, I will restore them, again
making them publicly accessible.
I have restored “Who is Geoffrey Botkin?” first – a 2007 blog post which the daughters specifically mentioned, describing what they present as their own understanding of it as a fiction of lies.
These
young women who allege that I have dealt them sore abuse personally
in both name and image fail to understand that I never wrote about
them specifically. I critiqued their father and mentioned them
only with as much vagueness and generality as I could. The
daughters seem to find my allusions to them in a general sense to be
suspicious and unfair. My focus on their family model was never
about them; it has always been about the family's effort to
establish their own family as the exemplar that demonstrates how to
live properly as a Christian at the dawn of the 21st
Century. Geoffrey Botkin sold information about his theoretical
and allegedly Biblical model to homeschoolers, often through the
vehicle of Vision
Forum until the time that Doug
Phillips was forced to close it because
of scandal. Therein, all females in
the household (both child and adult) serve the vision/kingdom mandate
of their husband or father, so a righteous daughter could only ever
follow the plan that her father laid out for her.
Who
then is the person who is responsible for the plan for the family?
For his daughters, that can only be Geoffrey Botkin. If the
vehicle he used to share his plan with others happened to be his
teenage girls, one cannot discuss the model without making some
mention of the daughters who wrote a book and produced a video to
communicate their father's ideas. If I could have done so
without their names, I certainly would have . (In many ways, I
included their name to honor their personhood. While I find their
father's model for family repugnant, good scholarship demands mention
of their names, and I wanted to give them due credit for the
undertaking of writing a book, especially considering that they were
young teenagers at the time.)
I
believe that the Botkin letter appears at No
Longer Quivering
in its entirety. I’m not entirely certain, however, because
of my own emotional reaction of sorrow mixed with anger hinders my
ability apprehend its full intent. I did not have difficulty
discerning their primary endpoint demands: (1.)removal all
references to their family name on all online venues that I own
(prejudice
against those deemed by some Theonomists
to be antinomian
as a function of their own freewillism),
(2.) the drop-dead date that they imposed (what Cialdini
describes as the scarcity
weapon of influence),
and (3.) what I understand as a legal threat to collect recompense
from me for perceived financial loss they suffered because of my
blogging.
I
have pended the online material to which they most vociferously
objected at what once was botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com. The content
that I preserved here at Under Much Grace will need a great deal of
editing to remove the theological fringe descriptor of “Botkin
Syndrome” if I even elect to restore the content at a later date.
I'm willing to rename it as Enmeshed
For Jesus.
I am also happy at this late date to change the blog name and remove
as many references to “Botkin Syndrome” as possible in light my
spirit of compassion, acknowledging that bounded choice limits the
Botkin daughters' own
agency.
I
did not pend anything
out of any concern or fears that I’d either used terminology
improperly or because I thought that there was merit to the
daughters' allegations that I'd published libel to accuse their
father of a felony.
Please
note that I
am not willing
to remove all
references
to “Botkin Syndrome” which I claimed as a theological term that
describes the teaching of this fringe group. While I am disposed to
a spirit of grace towards these young women, in all good conscience,
I will not repent of a sin that I believe that I did not commit, nor
of the jeremiad that I've written honestly about my opinion of their
family's teachings. To remove any and all mention of the Botkin name
would make me guilty of what I believe is a greater sin – that of
having no accountability for what I have written. Removing the name
prevents me from publicly owning the terminology that I chose to use
as well as the defense of my beliefs about the matter.
Discerning
what constitutes meekness and patience when confronting and exposing
abuse presents a ubiquitous conundrum. I am of the mind that it is
also sinful to try to cover up or dress up the crushing of the heart
and mind of a child. I assert that their model prevents the
development of a female child's critical thinking and their
healthy psychosocial growth and development.
That which is tragic should seem tragic, and I believe that we do a
disservice when we use language to define evil or even soften some
evils to present them as something good or even benign.
Covert
incest and its sequelae stand among the most tragic things I've ever
seen, and when I see those dynamics presented as wholesome and
Biblical, I'm provoked to grief and travail. I understand if
Christians deem my public discussion and choice of language as less
than meek and patient or even bombastic. Those criticisms of my
choices differ profoundly from the allegation that I've used that
terminology improperly.
The
daughters don’t state it as such in the letter, but in a Dunning
Krueger style
error of their own, I would describe their allegations as their claim
that I've practiced medicine without a license by diagnosing what
they wrongly understand to be a mental illness. What they
claim constitutes a diagnosis actually qualifies as an assessment
finding that a diagnostician might draw from a theoretical
perspective to support a diagnosis. Nursing practice delineates
that a nurse may assess and teach information about health and
wellness – precisely what I believe that I've presented in the
blogosphere.
Standing
on my training at seminary, I claimed Botkin
Syndrome
as a theological term. If the Geoffrey Botkins and Doug Phillips of
this subculture had formal training and had submitted to the
discipline of seminary study, I might find their criticisms to be
more compelling. Had I not submitted to expertly trained and
credentialed theologians and mental health professionals who reviewed
my previous work, I might find the Botkin daughters' allegations more
convincing. However, I know that apologists within the Christian
community have challenged the aberrant teachings within this
subculture, and those apologists were also were countered with
threats of adjudication (a spirit of prideful, intolerant bullying as
opposed to a spirit of accountability, humility, and grace).
Without
evoking the Botkin name, I can still make a case for my position
using other legitimate, faithfully cited terminology that I use
in all of my writings to refer to covert
(emotional, nonphysical) incest,
the specific type of psychosocial
and emotional enmeshment
between a parent and child. (The
evidence of enmeshment that I observe between the Botkin daughters as
a coping mechanism does not constitute covert incest per the
literature because it doesn't involve the exploitation of a child by
a parent.)
The term 'covert
incest'
(non-physical, psychosocial abuse) overlaps with the colloquial
understanding and connotation of sex acts among immediate family
members and physical sexual abuse which describes a felony.
Laypersons often fail to transcend the stress that such a loaded term
evokes which causes cognitive dissonance which powerfully inhibits a
person's critical thinking ability with emotional distress and
distraction.
If
well qualified, use of the term (covert
incest)
as an assessment finding which describes emotional, non-physical
abuse exacted by adults upon children will remain in my writings.
Several well established, well credentialed, widely respected experts
use the term in both professional works and self help writings for
laypersons.
Especially
because of the vast degree of chronic, profound emotional and
spiritual damage as well as the physical disease that such Adverse
Childhood Experiences create
for children which persist and progress into their adulthood, I will
not abandon the term 'covert
incest,'
nor will I abandon my thesis that literature concerning abusive
relationships and the roots of addiction describes parallels that the
patriarchy movement within the subculture of Christian homeschoolers
attempted to establish as Biblical teaching.
Received February 4, 2019:
