In Remembrance and Honor of John and Halcyon Botkin

John and Halcyon Botkin are no longer with us on this side of the veil. They raised three sons and a daughter to carry on in their absence. They were proud members of Tulsa Christian Fellowship for many decades, and they raised their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They were dearly loved by many.

I am grateful to those who have written to me, heartbroken and offended about Geoffrey Botkin's claims that he was raised in a Marxist home as he publicly repudiates his Christian upbringing. I am also grateful to those who worked to shield Halcyon Botkin from distress, as she was quite advanced in age during the time that her son claimed that his family of origin was something other than a God-believing, God-fearing home.  I am moved by those who contacted me to attest to the Christian witness of John and Halcyon Botkin, for it speaks powerfully to their good character and their love for God and family.

For those who have questions as to why their son Geoffrey has made so many claims to have been raised as a Marxist and in a family that did not attend church, I would suggest that you contact him directly. He teaches a doctrine that was once called “multigenerational faithfulness,” and it is heartbreaking to think that he would have any desire to deprive his own parents of the honor that they are due, in both life and death. 

Geoff Botkin talked much about his 200 Year Plan for his own descendants, but he didn't seem to show much honor to his own family of origin and their own fine heritage.

Tweet

Zelophehad's Daughters

Originally appeared in 2010 at Quivering Daughters.com

An acquaintance of mine asked me what I knew of some of the ideas that neo-patriarchy had about unmarried women living alone. I explained that some sectors within patriarchy maintain that Numbers 30 requires unmarried adult women to have an assigned male overseer who is accountable for her and her affairs. Others in these circles maintain that all woman require a male as her a protector at all times to remain both spiritually and physically safe. Some actually extend this concept to support their idea that a woman who works outside the home (for a man other than father or husband) commits a form of adultery by serving the vision and efforts of another man.

Tweet

Pinocchio, Al Mohler, and Geoff Botkin

I don't know how this stuff happens. I'm deeply honored that my Jiminy Cricket meme has been featured right beside Christa Brown's comment about the new public relations move of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). It reminds me of that Judge Judy saying, “Pee on my shoe, then tell me it's raining.”   [I also don't know why the formatting is so crazy in this post.  I give up on it.  Please don't write to tell me.  I already know.]

Tweet

The Right Side of History

An excerpt from Marshall's The Peril of Selective Inerrancy:

Today is a time of reckoning for Southern Baptists, as even Albert Mohler has observed. It seems like he is hastening to get toward the right side of history on sexual abuse — distancing himself from his colleague — even though he was a pawn in the larger conservative movement. His ambition blunted his theological perspicuity, and he changed his course for the sake of being acceptable to his sponsors. As a professor when he was a graduate student, I remember a different persona.

Tweet

Jim McCotter on "Media Mandate"

Tweet

A Botkin by Any Other Name....?

After almost ten years of faithful service, my MacBook may be granted retirement.  I'm toughing things out with an iPad until a replacement arrives next week.  The Google Blogger platform and the iPad don't interface well, and I'm weary of hunt and peck single hand typing and the frustrations of autocorrect that doesn't!  They prove to be a great hindrance as I aspire to meet my objectives as stated here.

In the interim, No Longer Quivering (NLQ) and Patheos expressed interest in hosting blog posts discussing why I moved all of my dated blog content into draft.  It all started with a letter and the man at my door.  My postman, Joseph, has been really considerate to my husband and me.  This past year in particular involved crutches, walkers, and a whole new lock on our lesser used post box because we couldn’t get the thing open.

Tweet

Some Family Integrated Satire

Enjoy a little humor for the weekend, though it's a sad commentary on a sad reality.  I found the video on a blog comment that added that "the Quiverfull Movement will be barren within a decade if this keeps up!"  The second video points out well the truth that very few homeschoolers within the hardcore end of the Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement encourage their sons to serve in the military.

Tweet

A Botkin Update: Who is Geoff Botkin and What is the New Zealand Exit Strategy? (I think it is a reading from Jim McCotter's old script.)

A few months ago, I posted a substantial portion of Geoff Botkin’s history with the cultic evangelical group, the Great Commission Ministries (GCM). Since that time, I’ve been contacted by several people who have reported information about Botkin’s past, his present activities, as well as his declared plans for the future.

THE PAST: Recruitment of the Botkins into the GCM Cult

It seems that Geoff and his brother, Gregory (now a family practice physician who now works in an Emergency Department), grew up in Tulsa, OK and were recruited into Jim McCotter’s Great Commission cult while attending Oklahoma University during the 1970s. McCotter spent time on the campus of OU during his “Blitz,” his evangelical recruitment campaign. The sources that contacted me and had knowledge of the family stated that they had absolutely no knowledge about the family professing Marxism, and neither Gregory nor Geoffrey were known to these sources to be Marxists. What is interesting to note is that there was a cult member in Norman, OK who interacted with Geoff who members report had a history of some involvement with Marxism and whose family immigrated to the US from the USSR. (This man whose name has been removed from this post reports that left the Great Commision cult decades ago.) It appears that, based upon the testimony of those who contacted me, unless the Botkin Family of Tulsa went to great lengths to keep their Marxism under wraps, Geoff Botkin may have absorbed aspects of the testimony of this man in order to embellish his own

Tweet

From the "Return of the Daughters" to the Liberation of the Daughters of the King: Resources to Combat Botkin Syndrome

The teachings of the Botkin family, including Geoff Botkin and his daughters Elizabeth and Anna Sophia promote many unhealthy patterns of enmeshment and family dysfunction according to the professional addictions and recovery literature. Many who have reviewed their teachings believe that their ideology hinges critically on their misinterpretation and eisegesis concerning Chapter 30 of the Old Testament Book of Numbers. For additional information refuting many of these teachings from the Old Testament using Orthodox Judaism as a contrast, please review this collection of posts from Maurice Lamm's “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage,” and check with the True Womanhood website for discussions on these matters. 

True Womanhood soon plans to post a new topical index of the discussions on many long threads including the “Visionary Daughters” (the Botkin Sisters) and the 7^th thread discussing the patriocentric oddity known as the “Prairie Muffin Manifesto” for an easier reference to the discussions of their teachings.

As I've discussed before on Under Much Grace Blog, these teachings concerning fathers and daughters not only insert a human intercessor into a woman's relationship with God, but they also correspond to what is hopefully non-sexual but gender related “incest” or the inappropriate using of daughters by the father to meet their own emotional, psychological, spiritual or physical needs. There is however, a widespread usury of children and family inherent in the teachings of the patriocentrics in general, so I have listed resources that address the general problem of family dysfunction here as well.

I also stress the importance of the list of resources in the preceding blog post entitled “The Journey Out of Shame.” Kathryn Chamberlin's “From Shame to Glory” and/or the Christian, Minirth-Meier publication, “Love is a Choice” remain essential resources for anyone seeking to heal from or understand the roots of these inappropriate relationships within families.

Covert or Emotional Incest:

(Non-sexual but gender related inappropriate usury of family members to meet unmet needs or to medicate shame)

• Silently Seduced, When Parents Make Children Partners (Adams)
• Emotional Incest Syndrome (Love)
• Facing Love Addiction (Mellody)
• Trapped in the Mirror (Golomb) [I found this book to be very helpful to me, BTW.]
• (Also note links to online information in this blog post)

Sexual Abuse

• The Wounded Heart (Allender) [Note: This is a Christian book!]

Family Dysfunction and Healthy Parenting

• Children of Trauma, Rediscovering Your Discarded Self (Middelton – Moz)
• Adult Children, The Secrets of Dysfunctional Families (Friel & Friel)
• Compelled to Control (Miller) [I also listed this as a shame resource in the previous blog post.]
• Toxic Parents (Forward)
• Emotional Blackmail (Forward)

Always Daddy's Girl (Wright)

Tweet

Vision Forum Heresy

Well, it seems I'm not the only person that takes issue with the neo-pagan ersatz-Calvinist catechism Mishnah of the patriocentrics.

Joy, a frequent blogger and second generation homeschooler, reported on her experience at the Home Educators Association of Virginia Conference that was held recently in Richmond. She attended the session presented by the Botkin Family, the Vision Forum affiliated “Visionary Daughters.” Read some of this content, originally posted on the True Womanhood blog, detailing some of the cries of “heresy” in response to the Vision Forum message. You can link there to read more about her experiences and read some of the content presented by the Botkin Sisters.

About the response to Vision Forum:

The Vision Forum booth was large, but moved very very little product. (Unfortunately, the catalogs flew like hotcakes!). The Western Conservatory booth was painfully, painfully, abandoned and empty for large time periods during the whole convention. (It was stuck in an obscure back corner) Poor Geoffery Botkin was stuck at the booth for long periods of time alone with no one to talk to, except for an occasional Anna Sofia and Elizabeth adoring fan inquiring as to where they were…I think they may have sold 50 movies/dvd’s the whole convention. And from what I could tell, they were bought by people who already ascribed to the NCFIC credo (judging by the long skirts and hair coverings, etc.)- although I am in no way making a blanket stereotype here. I merely stating what I observed. 

Particularly on Saturday, people were going out of their way to avoid the Vision Forum booth (it was pretty obvious, being right near the front), giving it a wide berth. The guy (in tie and jacket, of course) was trying to hand out catalogs, and I would say two couples out of every five (couples or family groups) flat out refused to take the catalog. One man went so far as to fuss at the man for having the heretical “stuff” there. [his words] Again too, if you stood near the Vision Forum or American Vision booths (which are much linked in consumer’s minds, even though one professes not to have anything to do with the other) the conversations you would hear were interesting…I think “kooky” or “legalistic” were most often used as descriptors. Most of the women using those kind of terms were often discussing Vision Forum’s position on women in the home. Often, when I would hear things in favor of VF, the speakers almost always turned out to be clearly VF leaning (again with the long skirts and head coverings). 

To put it another way, there weren’t many “outsiders” that were easily fooled.

And in reference to the Botkin Daughters' Presentation:

But before I actually get into what they said…I thought I’d fill you in on some of the reactions. In a room filled to standing room only (the workshop was actually closed due to space/fire code constraints) I would say that 10-15 people walked out in anger. Most of them were mothers practically dragging their daughters out. I would say another 20-50 stayed through the speech, but were very upset and angered by what they had heard. (My husband, by twist of fate, got stuck outside, and shared what he heard and saw during the speech and immediately afterward- I was stuck inside.) James said he heard “heresy” from 9 out of the 10 people who walked out (before the speech was over). Of that first wave of people who left quickly as soon as the doors were opened…there was a lot of anger/confusion.

More on the cultural irrelevance and patriocentric paranoia:

There were a few women (and a man) near me that immediately struck up a conversation with me as soon as it was ended. One of the questions was basically like my own to you gals back in the day: “I know something is wrong here, but I can’t quite figure out why”. I discussed in *brief* detail our concerns regarding the Botkins and NCFIC and Doug Phillips; pointed them to this blog and Karen’s and Molly’s and Cindy’s (at least, all the blog url’s I could remember off the top of my head). 

My husband stated after hearing them that he finally (although he had always understood) realized why I couldn’t let the whole thing rest, why it was keeping me awake at night (the topics discussed here at TW). He was the one who was adamant I get these speech notes posted this morning…He’s so incredibly angry. As a father of a daughter, he said he realized that he needed to ‘contend for the faith’ because he doesn’t want Lorelei getting into this mess when she is older. 

Interestingly enough, most of the first wave of people that left the speech after it was over were angry about the egotism (their description of a ‘normal day’ really bugged people) and hubris. They may not have been angry about the theological differences so much as they were angry, as johanna-from-england so aptly said, that young girls were telling them what to do.

Tweet

Web Searches Concerning the "Return of the Daughters"

When I check the sitemeter on this blog, I notice that I still get regular hits for the "Return of the Daughters," the video produced by the Botkin family. I also get about one email every few weeks asking for additional information on the topic. In response, I've added "Return of the Daughters" as a Label/Tag.

I also would like to point out that although the video was not discussed during these podcasts, the young ladies who participated in the family effort to create the film also have written a book that delineates their views more specifically.

"thatmom" Karen Campbell and "Spunky" the Homeschool Mom reviewed the Botkin book in the fall of 2007 via podcast. For those of you who have great interest in this topic, I encourage you to listen to these podcasts to learn more about the ideology behind the film, "The Return of the Daughters."

Also, please note these other blog posts that I featured here on this blog concerning the film and just a few of my concerns about the material. I would write more about the issue, but frankly, I find the topic far too disturbing. (See also "The Disturbing Return of the Daughters" and "Recent Discussion Concerning the Vision Forum Concept of the Father/Daughter Relationship.")

Tweet

Recent Discussion Concerning the Vision Forum Concept of the Father/Daughter Relationship

I recently received a few new comments of response to my post on the film "The Return of the Daughters," and believe that it warranted highlighting as it's own thread and discussion. I appreciate how respectfully and graciously the anonymous respondent approached the topic and my perspective. I pray God's abundant blessing upon them for approaching this often emotional topic with such a degree of maturity, offering my thanks and gratitude.

.

Tweet

The Disturbing Return of the Daughters

Here's my second attempt at posting a new comment on Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin’s new film, ”The Return of the Daughters.” I sent my first attempt into cyberspace oblivion. There are so many things about the film that are disturbing to me, and I was amazed to see how “emotionally engaged” my very logical husband became when we viewed it together. 

We were both disturbed for a wide variety of reasons, probably because the general premise of young women desiring to live godly lives to impact society is such a desirable premise. But like so much of Vision Forum influenced ideology, “you get much more than you bargained for.” I actually thought at one point, that it might be nice to have Dave Letterman’s blink counter set to sound whenever “Biblical” was used as a modifier.

Vision Forum’s description of this film states:

This highly-controversial documentary will take viewers into the homes of several young women who have dared to defy today’s anti-family culture in pursuit of a biblical approach to daughterhood, using their in-between years to pioneer a new culture of strength and dignity, and to rebuild Western Civilization, starting with the culture of the home….. As the home goes, so often goes the church, and society at large. Learn along with Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, the fulfilling, exciting life of impact and accomplishment that young women can and should have. Discover the power of the family unit and a picture of the biblical home as the center of dominion work — a vibrant center of education, ministry, evangelism, culture, entrepreneurialism, and hospitality.

Certainly, this film represents great ideals, and many of them are vital to Christianity, representing core Christian principles. The film presents a vignette of the lives of several young women that either work for their fathers in their own place of business, volunteer or work from home to generate income to help support the vision of the father. 

What is more subtle is the reason why these young women are portrayed as shining examples of “Biblical womanhood” that is not directly and obviously stated in the film. The film doesn’t argue their point for the sole purpose of singing the glories of staying at home but as a positive support of their narrow, legalistic interpretation that this is the only acceptable “Biblical” standard for all unwed women. 

In keeping with the patrarchical doctrines and practices taught by Vision Forum and the Family Integrated Churches, I think that a more appropriate name for the film would be “The Return to the Fathers,” because I found the focus of the film to be the glorified ideal of the father-daughter relationship. Brothers get a plug in the Extras section, but mothers barely appear on camera.  After the focus on the first young woman and her family, there were few mothers on screen. I do specifically recall the mother of one of the girls appearing in the film, but only in portrait where she is shown embracing the girl’s father. 

If examining the content of the film, the focus is not on family or home, so the “Return of the Daughters” calls really for a return of daughters to return home to their father’s vision for them. The Botkin girls stare hypnotically into the camera with come-hither gazes, and everyone else is interviewed in documentary style, looking away from the camera’s eye. There’s been discussion on some blogs about the disturbing nature of some of this technique, especially when some interviewed demonstrate some unnatural lack of eye movement. Some people are trained to control eye movement to conceal information about the truthfulness of their statements, although this might have been due to the use of a teleprompter. This is a great distraction in the film, especially in the Extras sections where Geoff Botkin and Doug Phillips explain the “Biblical Foundations” for the belief system that they advocate in the film. 

The Visionary Daughters website posted a clip of this section online, but it was coincidentally removed after only a day. 

My husband was quite incensed over some of the poorly chosen language used in a particular clip within the “Courtship and Marriage” section, also included in the Extras on the DVD. If anyone has an opportunity to watch it, I would like to hear feedback on that section specifically via private correspondence. 

My husband was actually offended by some of the just poorly worded commentary in that section. In fact, I think that it’s so disturbing, unless interpreted with previous knowledge of the subject of courtship and within the mindset of the Christian community that embraces the courtship model, I will not present the transcript of that section here. I interpreted that section with understanding of the intent of the speaker, but I have grave concerns that those outside of patriarchy’s influence would not be so kind in evaluating it.

Tweet