ICSA TODAY 26
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world”—although one wonders just how much visiting of the
fatherless and widows takes place.
Sacred science is present, specifically in the form of the
patriarchal understanding of the Bible, from which no
deviation is allowed. No questioning of this understanding is
allowed, and resistance is punished, although often passively.
McFarland writes poignantly of the day she moved out of
her parents’ house to live on her own for the first time in her
life. She had saved up enough money from tips she received
at a café to buy an old used car, and as she loaded her few
belongings into it the whole family stood around silently,
except some of her younger sisters, sniffling because they
couldn’t understand why she was leaving. For that matter, her
parents couldn’t understand, either. Here McFarland describes
having to endure the manifest sadness of her entire family
because of her choice to leave home (and thus enter the evil
world). And although she is moving only a few miles away, the
whole family acts as if they are standing around her open grave
and saying their final farewells!
A lot of the vocabulary employed within patriarchal families, I
believe, qualifies as loaded language. As McFarland writes,
Labeling is one common way the daughters of
patriarchy are verbally manipulated. To hear things
like, “You are rebellious,” or “foolish,” “defensive,” “not
thinking,” “leading your brothers and sisters astray”
works to coerce change while not encouraging life
or growth. Who wants to be considered rebellious?
Stupid? Evil? Yet just as effective, what is left unsaid
also bears consequences of its own. “We heard a
lot about what we should and shouldn’t do,” writes
Catherine, “but never ‘good job,’ ‘I’m proud of you,’ or
really even ‘I love you.’ Just what we could’ve done
better, and what was wrong with us.”
…Emotionally abusive tactics can be subtle. … “If
you were more obedient, respectful, serious, righteous,
mature, godly, humble, patient, kind” or, “If you were
less sensitive, emotional, imaginative, impulsive”…7
Although the words used in the examples I give are normal
English words, their meaning has been expanded to
hold specifically patriarchal connotations that only other
patriarchals would understand. In addition, archaic and
obsolete words found in the KJV (viz., peculiar, see above)
that continue to be used by patriarchals also serve to load the
language with terms understood mostly, if not wholly, by other
patriarchals. Quirks of language of this sort are another means
of isolating group or movement members from the worldly
society beyond their front doors.
As we reflect, we see another characteristic of totalist
organizations that Lifton describes namely, doctrine over
person. The personal experiences of the group members are
subordinated to the “truth” held by the group—apparently
contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the
doctrine of the group. The doctrine is always more important
than the individual. Thus, as much as MacFarland, as the
oldest daughter, was required to tend to her chores, no matter
how hard, or hot, or uncomfortable, or beyond her ability to
perform well, she had to keep telling herself that this was what
God required her to do. It said so in the Bible, didn’t it? It was
there somewhere, right? …Until one day she realized that it
wasn’t.
In her separation from her family, and from neopatriarchalism
in general, the author seems to have succeeded in not rejecting
her family or others who practice neopatriarchalism and thus
snub those “on the outside.” From the account she gives of
leaving home, it is apparent that her family, while not snubbing
her, still believed she was leaving the “best” and only “godly”
way of life and accepting the “world’s” way. And they wept
for her. This, I believe, illustrates what Lifton calls dispensing
of existence. This means that those outside the group are to
be considered unspiritual, worldly, satanic, unconscious, or
whatever, and that they must be converted to the ideas of
the group or they will be lost. So when MacFarland left home,
although no one said so, she was on her way to being lost.
McFarland does get around to describing her process of
healing. As with the healing of cult victims everywhere, and
the victims of similar dynamics in relationships, the author’s
healing took time—lots of it. But she also had help along the
way, especially from others who had traveled the same road
before her. Her husband was also a major help to her as he
came, by degrees, to understand just what and how much
she had suffered. First, however, she offers a helpful history
of the Christian neopatriarchy movement in chapter 6. She
cites many sources, both proponents and opponents of
neopatriarchy, enabling the reader to understand the rationale
for neopatriarchy and the differences between it and other
Christian parenting models.
McFarland gives a helpful table in chapter 7 that shows in
side-by-side columns key differences between “authoritative
parents/parenting” and “authoritarian parents/parenting.”8 It is
important to understand the difference between authoritative
and authoritarian. McFarland defines authoritative parenting
as parental authority “derive[d] …from [the parent’s] Heavenly
Parent.”9 I would assert that there is likely a vast number of
irreligious parents whose parenting could be described as
authoritative rather than authoritarian, so I prefer to define
authoritative less absolutely. In the case of parents who
model authoritative parenting, the author’s definition may
be appropriate, whether or not those parents acknowledge a
“Heavenly Parent.”
...although she is moving
only a few miles away, the
whole family acts as if they
are standing around her
open grave...
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world”—although one wonders just how much visiting of the
fatherless and widows takes place.
Sacred science is present, specifically in the form of the
patriarchal understanding of the Bible, from which no
deviation is allowed. No questioning of this understanding is
allowed, and resistance is punished, although often passively.
McFarland writes poignantly of the day she moved out of
her parents’ house to live on her own for the first time in her
life. She had saved up enough money from tips she received
at a café to buy an old used car, and as she loaded her few
belongings into it the whole family stood around silently,
except some of her younger sisters, sniffling because they
couldn’t understand why she was leaving. For that matter, her
parents couldn’t understand, either. Here McFarland describes
having to endure the manifest sadness of her entire family
because of her choice to leave home (and thus enter the evil
world). And although she is moving only a few miles away, the
whole family acts as if they are standing around her open grave
and saying their final farewells!
A lot of the vocabulary employed within patriarchal families, I
believe, qualifies as loaded language. As McFarland writes,
Labeling is one common way the daughters of
patriarchy are verbally manipulated. To hear things
like, “You are rebellious,” or “foolish,” “defensive,” “not
thinking,” “leading your brothers and sisters astray”
works to coerce change while not encouraging life
or growth. Who wants to be considered rebellious?
Stupid? Evil? Yet just as effective, what is left unsaid
also bears consequences of its own. “We heard a
lot about what we should and shouldn’t do,” writes
Catherine, “but never ‘good job,’ ‘I’m proud of you,’ or
really even ‘I love you.’ Just what we could’ve done
better, and what was wrong with us.”
…Emotionally abusive tactics can be subtle. … “If
you were more obedient, respectful, serious, righteous,
mature, godly, humble, patient, kind” or, “If you were
less sensitive, emotional, imaginative, impulsive”…7
Although the words used in the examples I give are normal
English words, their meaning has been expanded to
hold specifically patriarchal connotations that only other
patriarchals would understand. In addition, archaic and
obsolete words found in the KJV (viz., peculiar, see above)
that continue to be used by patriarchals also serve to load the
language with terms understood mostly, if not wholly, by other
patriarchals. Quirks of language of this sort are another means
of isolating group or movement members from the worldly
society beyond their front doors.
As we reflect, we see another characteristic of totalist
organizations that Lifton describes namely, doctrine over
person. The personal experiences of the group members are
subordinated to the “truth” held by the group—apparently
contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the
doctrine of the group. The doctrine is always more important
than the individual. Thus, as much as MacFarland, as the
oldest daughter, was required to tend to her chores, no matter
how hard, or hot, or uncomfortable, or beyond her ability to
perform well, she had to keep telling herself that this was what
God required her to do. It said so in the Bible, didn’t it? It was
there somewhere, right? …Until one day she realized that it
wasn’t.
In her separation from her family, and from neopatriarchalism
in general, the author seems to have succeeded in not rejecting
her family or others who practice neopatriarchalism and thus
snub those “on the outside.” From the account she gives of
leaving home, it is apparent that her family, while not snubbing
her, still believed she was leaving the “best” and only “godly”
way of life and accepting the “world’s” way. And they wept
for her. This, I believe, illustrates what Lifton calls dispensing
of existence. This means that those outside the group are to
be considered unspiritual, worldly, satanic, unconscious, or
whatever, and that they must be converted to the ideas of
the group or they will be lost. So when MacFarland left home,
although no one said so, she was on her way to being lost.
McFarland does get around to describing her process of
healing. As with the healing of cult victims everywhere, and
the victims of similar dynamics in relationships, the author’s
healing took time—lots of it. But she also had help along the
way, especially from others who had traveled the same road
before her. Her husband was also a major help to her as he
came, by degrees, to understand just what and how much
she had suffered. First, however, she offers a helpful history
of the Christian neopatriarchy movement in chapter 6. She
cites many sources, both proponents and opponents of
neopatriarchy, enabling the reader to understand the rationale
for neopatriarchy and the differences between it and other
Christian parenting models.
McFarland gives a helpful table in chapter 7 that shows in
side-by-side columns key differences between “authoritative
parents/parenting” and “authoritarian parents/parenting.”8 It is
important to understand the difference between authoritative
and authoritarian. McFarland defines authoritative parenting
as parental authority “derive[d] …from [the parent’s] Heavenly
Parent.”9 I would assert that there is likely a vast number of
irreligious parents whose parenting could be described as
authoritative rather than authoritarian, so I prefer to define
authoritative less absolutely. In the case of parents who
model authoritative parenting, the author’s definition may
be appropriate, whether or not those parents acknowledge a
“Heavenly Parent.”
...although she is moving
only a few miles away, the
whole family acts as if they
are standing around her
open grave...
