What is Botkin Syndrome?
“Botkin Syndrome” describes the emotional, psychological, spiritual, and sometimes physical effects manifested by children who have been raised under the so-called Biblical patriarchy theology, a Quiverfull mindset, and other such religious paradigms that promote authoritarian parenting.
The term “syndrome” refers to a group of coincident factors, is used in the most informal sense, and is not an variety of “diagnosis.” The use of “syndrome” emerged from an ongoing blog discussion of the phenomenon among a group of Evangelical Christian homeschooling mothers who continued to use the term in reference to the far-reaching effects of these types of religious teachings. The descriptor has been borrowed from these laypersons and describes a pattern of religious practice and teaching.
Botkin Syndrome is named after the Botkin Family and their teachings concerning family, particularly daughters. They promote a paradigm that is a mixture of different ideas pulled from several aberrant ideologies that grew out of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement and moved into the Homeschooling Movement within an extreme view of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity. All groups focus upon submission and authority doctrine. (Aberrant and cultic refer to doctrinal problems and the covert manipulation employed by religious or ideological groups that use behavioral tactics and group manipulation to deceive followers, gaining undue influence over them.)
When Geoffrey Botkin parted ways with cult leader Jim McCotter in 2002, decades after his recruitment into the cultic Great Commission religious movement in the early ‘70s, the whole family soon reappeared publicly through their association with Vision Forum. Vision Forum is a parachurch organization which fosters the patriarchy movement, an affinity group or special purpose religion that has developed from within homeschooling. (Doug Phillips maintains that God the Father “homeschooled Jesus” before the earth was created, as statement he made in the late ‘90s at a homsechooling convention.)
Through and in association with Vision Forum, the Botkin Family serves as evangelists for their way of life. Geoffrey Botkin promotes his views through film and various speaking engagements. Vision Forum published the Botkin Daughters’ book,
“So Much More” and helped promote their later video,
“The Return of the Daughters,” to advance their paradigm for living in their effort to save Western Civilization. The Botkin Daughters host a website named
“Visionary Daughters,” while other members of the family work for their own film production organization,
“The Western Conservatory.”Under the Botkin Paradigm, all members of the family orbit around the family leader, the husband/father. Each person within the family must “serve the vision” of their household patriarch and his “vision” for the family. Boys follow their father’s wishes while they remain under the family’s roof, though men are afforded much more liberty and freedom than are women. In some homes, mothers are not permitted to teach or discipline sons once they reach the age of thirteen.
Wives and adult daughters (until given in marriage through the courtship process) must do the bidding of 
their father who approves of their activities. Young women who do not have a male to oversee them or have a father who declines participation in the paradigm are advised to go out to obtain a representative male to serve as their covering and protector.
Women and daughters are not permitted to work outside the home unless it is in the workplace of the father who provides both spiritual direction and lends physical protection to the family as well. Women who work outside the home are likened to prostitutes whose “feet wander from home.” All education must take place within the home through homeschooling, and adult women are not permitted to be trained outside the home setting. Women are beings created for the use of men, and in some forms of patriarchy, women are defined as the “indirect image of God,” the ontological lesser of their male counterparts (of lesser essence physically and spiritually).
Fathers are venerated in the Botkin paradigm, and the entire system of patriarchy which is followed by many Quiverfull Families also fosters enmeshment and developmental problems, particularly for girls, though all of the family members suffer. Enmeshment describes the relationship between child and parent wherein the parent used the child to meet needs that should only rightly be met my another adult. These needs may be emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual. With the overfocus on gender in what some call a fertility cult, many believe that the exploitation of gender within the group is also sexual exploitation. Parents within this system use children to meet their unmet needs, a type of covert or emotional incest.
Read more about the notable features of Botkin Syndrome:
Enmeshment
Covert Incest
Triangulation
Unhealthy Idealizing of Parents
Read more about the religious system and how the theology works HERE. (At the UnderMuchGrace.com
archive site)
Origins of Botkin Syndrome
Because I find that very little of what Vision Forum produces proves to be original, I believe that though they may be among the contemporary promoters of their twist on the concept, I do not believe that it originated with them. What I see in a broader perspective is a rehashing and repackaging of ideas and sometimes intellectual property drawn from other sources and from authors from periods in history that they idealize and venerate. Where I believe Geoff Botkin developed his basic concepts came through what I believe are related but different channels that adapt themselves well to Vision Forum’s system as branches off of the main concepts of aberrant submission doctrine that developed from the Shepherding Discipleship Movement, something that many see as a response to both societal change and the experientialism of the Charismatic Renewal.
Such of Doug Phillips’ concepts are drawn and borrowed directly from men like Bill Gothard, Jonathan Lindvall, and Michael Farris. Gothard, far and above his contemporaries, deserves the highest recognition as the first to develop a formulaic approach to Christian living which promises a safe, Biblical plan for raising children who will remain devoted to Christianity. Add discipline and stir. Other influences on other ideologues such as Douglas Wilson, for example, also include those with gender concerns such as John R. Rice, George Knight, Wayne Grudem, and those affiliated with the Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Though they seem to differ in emphasis and certain salient points, the primary foundations of Doug Phillips’ ideas have generally been presented by others but are packaged and mixed with marketing in modern, epicurean fashion. In terms of homeschooling, all of these men stand on the shoulders of the true pioneers in homeschooling outside of their religious group including the Seventh Day Adventist Raymond Moore and the secular John Holt. They do make some appeal and reference to Rousas J. Rushdoony, but I see more credit and laud bestowed upon Gothard than upon Rushdoony within Vision Forum circles.
I believe that Phillips also borrows from other circles that were fostered by the Chalcedon Foundation, the organization that Rushdoony founded. Rushdoony encouraged publishers and others to draw from previous eras in order to borrow from their arguments for the defense of homeschooling and religious liberty in the United States. Rushdoony who has been referred to as the “ultimate decentralist” used examples and insights from both the Confederate Period and from the Medieval Period to advance decentralization of our top-heavy federal government in order to give power back to individual states and local municipalities. But I believe that many missed his point and venerated too much the periods themselves, drawing more from them than Rushdoony ever intended. Doug Phillips is notable among these individuals who seeks or has sought to advance societal elements and practices from these time periods within aspects of his own religious practice which he then tends to advance and promote as ideal if not non-optional aspects of responsible Christianity. I believe that his paradigm concerning women draws from both of these time periods, something that ironically also corresponds to the paterfamilias that were part of the secular culture in Rome during the First Century. As Solomon wisely put it, there is nothing new under the sun, but there is little but packaging that is new at Vision Forum.
Vision Forum has made some claims that their traditions are, in part, taken from Scripture, but the “Bride’s Price” which Moses set forth describes the price required of a man to be paid to a father if he has dishonored her by damaging her reputation or by forcing a sexual relationship. In Vision Forum style weddings, I am told that Phillips prefers that a gold coin be used which the groom pays to the bride’s father. I certainly hope that this is not an admission of the daughters impurity per the passage found in Chapter 22 of Deuteronomy. I believe that it likely derives from the Germanic Medieval tradition that existed for a time wherein the groom did pay the bride’s father a dowry, which reinforces the message within the Vision Forum system which suggests indirectly that the wife is a commodity. It is notable that the German tradition of the “morning gift” which the groom offers the bride after their wedding to ensure for her provision is notably absent, in my understanding, from the traditions created by Vision Forum.
I believe that more of the Vision Forum traditions and preferred social conventions derive from the Confederate Presbyterian literature concerning women as well as other beliefs and goals. The writings of Robert L. Dabney and Benjamin M. Palmer, and the revival of their literature within circles related to both Chalcedon and people also affiliated with the League of the South (a secessionist organization) have been cited and celebrated for their formulas and supposed solutions to contemporary problems in both society and church. Douglas Wilson and Doug Phillips both pay notable attention to RL Dabney in publications such as “Slavery: As It Was” and “Robert Lewis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.” Though it appears that others who promote the Stay At Home Daughter Paradigm have derived many of their concepts from Eric Wallace, he also borrowed from Benjamin Palmer for his own version of a formulaic paradigm, citing this Confederate Presbyterian in his book, “Uniting Church and Home: A Blueprint for Rebuilding Church Community.”
During the mid-sixties, within the same time frame when Bill Gothard started his ministry, Jim McCotter launched his concept of a New Testament Church, and both of these then parachurch organizations followed the concepts of submission that were stressed with in the Shepherding Discipleship Movement. Both movements emphasized a strict chain of command, unquestioned submission to authority figures, and formulas governing proper conduct which correspond to what is now termed Spiritual Abuse. Spiritual Abuse manifests and employs a network of behavioral techniques which surreptitiously manipulate and coerce followers with out informed consent through a process that is also described as Thought Reform. McCotter channeled his evangelism efforts through newspapers that his ministry owned and through Bible-based communities that he established on several college campuses into which he successfully recruited large numbers of students. Geoffrey and Victoria (then “Vicki”) Botkin became active members when recruited at the University of Oklahoma in the Seventies.
The campus ministry later became the Evangelical Christian Denomination known as “The Great Commission,” though it was known by other variants of that name. For a time, the group at Oklahoma where the Botkins participated was referred to as “The Saints.” These very organized groups followed very stringent courtship practices which were governed by house parents who monitored the activities of the recruits under their care. Dating was forbidden and treated as a “faction,” and factions were seen as highly sinful and cause for shunning, a potent means of maintaining control over followers (a loaded language term). Marriages and courtships were arranged by leadership in the group, and Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin’s marriage resulted from a match made by group leadership in Norman. Though a great deal of courtship concepts and the preaching of the” evils of emotional attachment” have been popularized by Gothard and Lindvall, the concepts and teachings were also a significant part of the early years within the Great Commission while the Botkins were active members. It was a very significant element of all of the Discipleship Shepherding Teachings which many unsuspecting parents today fail to realize.
Jim McCotter’s group expanded to several college campuses in several states, and during the 1980’s made an attempt to establish a political presence in local and federal government, moving their headquarters to Silver Spring, Maryland. It is also instructive to note that McCotter advanced what he called the “Media Mandate” wherein he taught that Christians had a responsibility to take control of major media outlets in order to best influence the culture for Christ. There was a sense of urgency, because it was believed that the Great Commission issued by Jesus to His disciples in the New Testament to carry the Gospel throughout the earth would be accomplished and completed in McCotter’s generation. Geoff Botkin was noted in the press in Maryland as the administrative assistant for the Great Commission in 1986 when they practiced lobbying for Right Wing causes and ran nearly twenty members in political races. The group practiced very aggressive recruiting on many college campuses in the area, particularly the University of Maryland and what is now Towson University, something to which Geoffrey Botkin alludes in Vision Forum related audio downloads that are available online. In addition to rivaling the aggressive child discipline practices of Michael Pearl, the Great Commission’s aggressive authoritarian practices among college students sent many into inpatient psychiatric care because of their heavy-handed abusive cultic manipulation.
When McCotter left his position as the formal leader of the Great Commission group and after other failed attempts at realizing his Media Mandate in the US, both he and Geoff Botkin moved to New Zealand to pursue their end. They owned a failing newspaper, a Christian television station, and they launched a more successful style magazine but disbanded after a short period of time. The newspapers in New Zealand document Geoff Botkin’s resignation in 2001, and shortly thereafter, he appeared in the ranks at Vision Forum. According to my last note, the Botkins sought to lead an Exodus of faithful and elite homeschoolers from the US to New Zealand to live in order to save themselves from economic hardship and a decaying culture.
That said, I believe that it is appropriate to say that the major influences responsible for the paradigm of Stay At Home Daughters advanced by the Botkins and Vision Forum primarily arises from the Shepherding Discipleship Movement from a synergy of the branches of Jim McCotter’s Great Commission denomination and Bill Gothard’s influence through his Institute of Basic Life Principles organization.
Source for these articles: Overcoming Botkin Syndrome
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: Patriarchy Movement, SGM/Shepherding/Discipleship Movement, The Quiverfull Movement Tagged: | Biblical Patriarchy, Bill Gothard, Council on Manhood and Womanhood, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Geoffery Botkin, Great Commission religious movement, homeschooling movement, Jim McCotter, Purity Movement, Quiverfull families, Robert L. Dabney, Rousas J. Rushdoony, submission authority doctrine, Vision Forum, Visionary Daughters
Through and in association with Vision Forum, the Botkin Family serves as evangelists for their way of life. Geoffrey Botkin promotes his views through film and various speaking engagements. Vision Forum published the Botkin Daughters’ book, “So Much More” and helped promote their later video, “The Return of the Daughters,” to advance their paradigm for living in their effort to save Western Civilization. The Botkin Daughters host a website named “Visionary Daughters,” while other members of the family work for their own film production organization, “The Western Conservatory.”
their father who approves of their activities. Young women who do not have a male to oversee them or have a father who declines participation in the paradigm are advised to go out to obtain a representative male to serve as their covering and protector.
