For my military friends . . .

I'm astonished this hasn't received more attention. I saw it in the December edition of Reader's Digest . . . which has been out for probably a month. But the author, Lori Volkman, has received only 39 comments at the time I write this.

Volkman is a military wife. Her husband is a commander in the Navy. Her deployed husband was scheduled to return home sometime in the next 30 to 90 days and his response to an email she had sent him caused her to have "PTSD flash-backs of R&R"--i.e., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder flashback about Rest & Relaxation. --Not a pretty sight. She has definitely seen it in the past.

So, she said, "I did what any girl would do. I issued an OPORD [Operation Order]."

SBU – Sensitive But Unclassified

Copy 1 of 1
Issuing HQ: CIVHOMGRU WEST
LAT 45° 31′ 24N, LONG 122° 40′ 34W

 

OPERATION ORDER “PULL CHOCKS”

 I. SITUATION

 Civilian Home Group, West (CIVHOMGRU) has recently identified threat MILBRAIN, a condition which hinders communication and family reintegration, and which requires immediate and ongoing resolution. Current unit is composed of civilian leader MOM, two rogue operatives, and DAD. DAD is oncoming commander at expiration of MOM’s current tour of duty, scheduled for Change of Command in 30 – 90 days.

 A. Enemy Forces. Known and suspected causes of condition MILBRAIN include severe indoctrination of DAD into military life at round-the-clock intervals, complicated by heightened need for compartmentalization and deadening of emotional receptors. The indoctrination includes extreme armored, mechanized, and motorized emotional-blocking responses which appear to be temporarily incapable of destruction. Intel on effective methods for piercing the indoctrination barrier is weak, at best. Strength of the enemy’s fortification is at highest levels known throughout MOB 2010-11, and morale at CIVHOMGRU is consequently low. However, resiliency and capability of both the operatives and Commander MOM are high.

 B. Friendly Forces. Prime objective is to ensure DAD can identify CIVHOMGRU as a friendly force, not an enemy force, by engaging them both physically and emotionally.  However, if treated as an enemy force, CIVHOMGRU can become unstable, and is likely to fire upon, maim, kill, and take prisoners in its defense.

II. MISSION

PREPARE FOR REINTEGRATION OF DAD INTO CIVHOMGRU BY (1) DISINTEGRATION OF MILBRAIN; (2) INTRODUCTION OF COUNTER-COMPONENTS DADBRAIN AND HUSBANDBRAIN; (3) REINTRODUCTION OF CONCEPT “FEEL”; AND (4) SUPPRESSION OF DICTATORIAL HIERARCHY, OLIGARCHY, AND MISOGYNY. ACCOMPLISH NLT HOMECOMING 2011, WITH GOAL OF FOSTERING MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH OF THE FAMILY UNIT AND AVOIDING ANY FURTHER LOSS OF SPOUSAL CONSORTIUM.

III. EXECUTION

A. Concept of the Operation.  Faced with challenges to familial and spousal security interests after a long mobilization and separation, there are certain effects-based actions and responses which members of the team can employ to connect their differing strategic and operational objectives. Through the integrated application of select instruments of power, DAD will become capable of identifying desired and undesired outcomes in the CIVHOMGRU operational environment (OE). It is the intent of OPERATION PULL CHOCKS to separately prepare all members of the team for the next operational phase, tentatively identified as OPERATION REINTEGRATION.

1. Maneuver: Prepare to Interact

MOM, Operative-1^st Born and Operative-2^nd Born will each practice elimination of all expectations related to basic everyday interactions. This will be accomplished by standing in front of a brick wall and attempting to engage it in conversation, elicit sympathy and/or compassion, and attempting to get it to respond to external stimuli, touch, and/or tears.

DAD will increase situational awareness of social and nonverbal communications of others. This will be accomplished by standing in front of a mirror, making eye contact, and replacing common MOB phrases with HOME phrases:

MOB PHRASE	HOME PHRASE
“IT IS WHAT IT IS” and/or“LIFE’S A BITCH”	I’m sorry. There’s not much I can say about that. Is there anything I can do to help you?
“MINDOVERMATTER”	I’m right there with you. Let’s get through this together.
“WILCO/LIMACHARLIE”	I understand what you’re saying. Do you want my input?

2. Maneuver: Prepare to Respond

MOM, Operative-1^st Born and Operative-2^nd Born will each take turns yelling barking orders at each other. The non-barking members will practice a response that does not include crying. Upon successful containment of tears, team members will also attempt to respond by not feeling insecure, not becoming scared, not becoming angry, and finally by responding with a sarcastic, “YESSIR!” followed by an immediate hug for the barker, who may respond with an awkward back or head pat.

DAD will relearn proper human responses that engender connection and genuine relationship. This will be accomplished by standing in front of a mirror, making eye contact, and performing the following facial-neutral or facial-friendly maneuvers in 15 second intervals:

Smile

Raise eyebrows

Open mouth and tip head to one side

Blink

Upon completion of these basic maneuvers, DAD should progress to more advanced maneuvers such as SMIRK and WINK, the “HUBBA-HUBBA” (two successive eyebrow raises), and NODDING.

IV. SERVICE SUPPORT

A. General. The critical supporting actors and services required to sustain the unit during this operation include:

- Chaplain/Exit Counselor/Successful Mob Retirees

- DAD’s emotive alter-ego which has been suppressed for the last year

- MOM’s non-controlling alter-ego which has been suppressed for the last year

- Operative #1 and Operative #2’s obedient alter-egos which have been suppressed for the last year

B. Material and Services.  Upon reentry to the CIVHOMGRU OE, DAD will find more relevant materials and services available for use than his previous OE. Such services and materials should be considered for future maneuvers DATE and WOO, and include:

1.    Class I (subsistence): Fine Dining establishments, wine bars, candlelight or sunset/view venues.

2.    Class II (individual equipment): razor, aftershave, deodorant, mouthwash, elbow crème, and civilian clothing.

3.    Class VII (major end items): flowers, jewelry, chocolate, hand-written notes or cards, and perfume.

In preparation for such availability of services, DAD may spend time on the internet reviewing what these items look like, how they are utilized, and where they can be obtained upon delivery to the assembly point.

C. Medical Evacuation.  In the event the operation produces wounded personnel, they will be picked up and carried to safety by all remaining non-injured team members. No man, woman, or child shall be left behind.

V. COMMAND AND CONTROL

Because of the continuing mobilization of DAD, there will be two primary locations of command and control prior to OPERATION REINTEGRATION. CCC#1 shall be at home, and CCC#2 shall be at the location of mobilization. The unit commanders are expected to operate in a JOINT ENVIRONMENT for all theater, operational, and tactical maneuvers, and to balance the COG for the split CCC’s.

A. Command. The higher unit commander is GOD. If you suffer from the delusion that you are GOD, then knock it off. You are not. Your spouse and children are not subordinates, they are your support. They will not respond desirably to orders unless delivered in the methods described in this OPORD and the BHICCFG (Basic Human Interaction and Common Courtesy Field Guide).

B. Signals. This operation specifically prohibits use of the following signals: silence, thousand mile stare, dirty looks, shark-eyes, loss of consciousness during conversation, and drama (aka “pyrotechnics”) of any kind. Challenges and corresponding passwords to verify operations behind both friendly and enemy lines include:

 

Challenge Phrase	Password Response
Daddy?	Yes, what is it?
Good morning	Good morning
Good night	Good night
How Do I Look?	Amazing. Breathtaking. Phenomenal.
Will you take me out?	Yes, I’d love to
I missed you	I missed you, too
I’m so glad you’re here	I’m glad that I’m here, too
I love you	I love you, too

* * *

Acknowledge.

/s/

_____________________________________

MOM, COMMANDER, CIVHOMGRU WEST

Volkman follows her post with this encouragement:

Now you can get a copy of your free, generic, downloadable, printable, emailable OPORD TO MY DEPLOYED HUSBAND all for yourself. Makes a great addition to your late-deployment care packages or as an ice-breaker at spouse meetings. You must be able to view pdf files. And please, attribute and link back here at Witty Little Secret if you repost it somewhere! Thanks!

You can find the PDF here.

If you enjoyed this post, I think you'll find her blog as a whole a great joy.

"I don't love you anymore. In fact, I don't think I ever did."

Someone wrote on the Sonlight forums,

I just got a call from a friend. The fourth friend in two years to call me with the exact same situation. The sixth person I know in real life who this has happened to. The upshot: her husband turned to her this morning over breakfast and said, "You know, I'm just not in love with you anymore. I don't want to be married to you anymore. It's not you. It's me. I'm really sorry." . . .

In the midst of my prayers for my friend, her husband and their precious children, I am asking myself WHY? Why does this kind of thing keep happening? Why does one party in a marriage suddenly feel the need to throw their hands up in the air and walk away? Why? Why? Why?

This post immediately reminded me of an article I read in The Week just a few weeks ago (actually, at this point, about a month ago). Powerful.

It was a reprint of an article from the July 31st edition of the New York Times: Those Aren't Fighting Words, Dear, in which the author was told exactly the same thing by her husband.

“I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.”

His words came at me like a speeding fist, like a sucker punch, yet somehow in that moment I was able to duck. And once I recovered and composed myself, I managed to say, “I don’t buy it.” Because I didn’t.

He drew back in surprise. Apparently he’d expected me to burst into tears, to rage at him, to threaten him with a custody battle. Or beg him to change his mind.

So he turned mean. “I don’t like what you’ve become.”

Gut-wrenching pause. How could he say such a thing? That’s when I really wanted to fight. To rage. To cry. But I didn’t.

Instead, a shroud of calm enveloped me, and I repeated those words: “I don’t buy it.”

You see, I’d recently committed to a non-negotiable understanding with myself. I’d committed to “the End of Suffering.” I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.

My husband hadn’t yet come to this understanding with himself. He had enjoyed many years of hard work, and its rewards had supported our family of four all along. But his new endeavor hadn’t been going so well, and his ability to be the breadwinner was in rapid decline. He’d been miserable about this, felt useless, was losing himself emotionally and letting himself go physically. And now he wanted out of our marriage; to be done with our family.

But I wasn’t buying it.

I said: “It’s not age-appropriate to expect children to be concerned with their parents’ happiness. Not unless you want to create co-dependents who’ll spend their lives in bad relationships and therapy. There are times in every relationship when the parties involved need a break. What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?” he said.

The rest of the story is very well worth reading. Laura Munson, the author, should be given a medal. I believe what she has written could possibly save thousands--maybe millions--of marriages.

If only people will listen . . . and apply the wisdom she shares.

*****
I spoke with a woman on Friday who told me something very similar had happened with some dear friends of her family. The rebound took longer than it did in Munson's case, and the pain, it seems, may have been greater. But the end results were every bit as wonderful.

2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I

It was two weeks ago this past weekend that CHEC (Christian Home Educators of Colorado) sponsored its second "Men's Leadership Summit"--an event held not in Colorado, but in Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group.

Before I say any more, let me note:

Up until very recently, I wouldn't have noticed what CHEC was doing. The organization was very much off my radar. Even all last year, despite CHEC having the reputation of being the largest homeschool advocacy group in our family's home state; and despite their having banned our family's company from attending their conference, CHEC was way off my radar. I "just" really didn't pay much attention to what CHEC was doing.

And then--I think it was while I was on vacation in January and I began to read some of the books written by Christian evolutionists, and I began to realize how blind I had been to the concerns of an entire "wing" of the evangelical church--suddenly I became alarmed that we homeschoolers are having our educational options censored. As I wrote on January 20: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear?

So CHEC came onto my radar.

And then several people brought to my attention that I was not the only one concerned about CHEC. Indeed, they pointed out, CHEC seems to be part of--or becoming part of--a much bigger movement toward "patriarchy" or "patriocentricity."

As I followed the links, sometime in February I came across this post about a conference coming up in early March: The Vision of the Leadership Summit.

I agreed with "That Mom," the author of the blog post that brought this to my attention: it's rather disturbing to realize that the "leaders" of this "Leadership Summit" are themselves relative Johnny-come-latelies to the homeschool movement . . . and they are all men. Where are the women--the ones who are actually doing (a conservative) 90% of the work involved in homeschooling the kids?

[By the way: I didn't find this till today, but if you want a really disturbing follow-through to ThatMom's post, check out Cindy Kunsman's Under Much Grace post that, because, apparently, Cindy has suffered spiritual abuse in the past, focuses on some of the manipulative methods these "leaders" use.]

Considering the other issues I had been dealing with at that time, I decided I had to get an "inside look" at what was about to take place at the conference. And, happily, I did.

I didn't attend in person. But I got the recordings, and an eye-witness account, and the one document I was most concerned to see: the "Manifesto for Christian Education."

I thought you might be interested in what I found.

---

First. Some consistent themes throughout the conference [ETA on 3/29/09: as reported by my informant].

• Reformation
   
• The father is responsible for discipling his family. [Okay. Whatever that means. Does that mean he has to do it all? What is the appropriate role of the mother? And what of the use of resources outside the family? No answers. --JAH]
   
• The phrase we should use is Home Discipleship not Home Education or Homeschooling. We ought not to be preparing our children for Harvard . . . but (instead) for heaven. [Of course, a lot rides on the definition of discipleship. Back in college, I certainly appreciated the emphasis the Navigators made on "making disciples," "being disciples," "finding [our] Timothys," and so forth. Of course, the supposed dichotomy between “Harvard” and “heaven” is completely unnecessary. I believe Christians should be preparing their children to engage the world, whether they choose to go to college or not. But to completely cede the academic world to non-Christians means Christians also cede any and all hope of ever providing true cultural leadership. --How far we will have fallen, if that's the case! From the founders of most of the leading educational institutions around the world, Christians, apparently--according to these "movement leaders"--are to shun the very institutions they founded.
  
  Strange, too, from my perspective: Each of these "leaders" is, himself, a highly-educated person--enjoying not just a high school education, but a college and post-graduate degree! . . . But they feel their own children are unable to match them?]
   
• "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." [Of course, what biblical manhood and womanhood should look like is matter of broad controversy within the church today. But, as we will see, these "vision-casting leaders" have one very particular view . . . and one with which I am not particularly comfortable.]
   
• The rise of feminism in culture, the church, and the homeschooling movement. We can expect judgment from God as a result. [Hmmmm! Wonder what they really mean when they speak of "feminism"?]
   
• God should be integrated into every subject we teach. [Okay. Deuteronomy 6:6 and 7 and 11:18 and 19: "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up." We who claim the name of Christ need to consciously live our lives under God in every area of life--not only in our personal ethics, but in our cultural exploits as well. We need to seek God's "wisdom from above" (James 1:5; 3:13-17) in all we do and say. . . . and we need to teach our children to do this--and how to do this--as well.]
   
• We should teach the "City of God" rather than the "City of Man." [As one of my friends commented: "This needs some elaboration. Are they just referring to Augustine, for instance, or do they mean something else? The way it is presented here makes it a possibly false dichotomy. It also suggests somewhat a strong separationist approach rather than an engagement or transformational approach to the Christian role in culture."]
   
• There was no mention of our daughters or the daughter as a leader. The only mention of the daughter was to train them to be moms and supportive spouses.
  
  In an open forum Friday night, one of the participants at the conference asked three questions of Doug Phillips related to this obvious missing piece. One of the questions specifically asked for Phillips' views concerning a woman’s ability to have a career in addition to being a great mom and a great spouse. Phillips' response indicated that he believes it is unbiblical for a woman to have a career. Period. No discussion of any exceptions or options.[This really blows me away. Not that, after having become somewhat familiar with Phillips views, I am shocked to hear him actually say such a thing. Rather, I am astonished that he can suggest, with a straight face, that Christians should adopt such a view as normative for all without exception.
  
  I take it he thinks St. Paul must have been horribly mistaken to list the seven or eight women he does among the "workers in the Lord" he specially greets at the end of the book of Romans (chapter 16): Prisca (Priscilla), Mary, Junia (female name, or, possibly, Junias, a masculine name), Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, and the sister of Nereus. And, of course, he seems to ignore the Proverbs 31 woman who engages in all kinds of commercial ventures, buys real estate, earns enough from some venture to plant vineyards . . . and is educated enough that she can "open her mouth in wisdom" (see especially, vv. 13-14, 16, 19, 24, and 26).
  
  Sarita, my wife, reminded me, too, of the phenomenal growth of women's mission societies in America between 1861 and 1910 and the multiplication of single American women missionaries . . . and the subsequent decline of the societies (though not quite as dramatic a decline in the number of female missionaries) as soon as men decided they needed to "take over" and "provide leadership." [That story is worthy of its own post, so I'll hold off telling it here.]
  
  I ask myself: Where does this kind of dominionist stance toward women end? When daughters are no longer permitted to learn how to drive?¹ When wives are disciplined through spanking? (By the way: Notice the subtitle on the Links page of the immediately preceding reference: "Christian Domestic Discipline - Loving Wife Spanking in a Christian Marriage"! Why is it wives who must receive this kind of treatment? Men never deserve to be disciplined? --Oh! Sorry! I guess I'm showing my feminist side. . . . ) --But truly: Where does this kind of thing end?]

Bill Roach, CHEC's president, introduced each speaker at the Summit. According to my source, before he introduced Kevin Swanson for Thursday Evening Session I, he said, "This weekend is to define what Christian Home Education is and to strategize our next moves." My correspondent said he never heard a "final" definition of Christian Home Education. "I got a bunch of people’s opinion, but nothing that said, 'Yea, verily, this is Christian Home Education and here are the next steps to implementing.'"

---

¹ And now I realize who it was that was a popular speaker on the homeschool circuit a few years ago and who was preaching, as a keynote speaker at these conventions, that parents ought not to teach their daughters how to drive but leave it to their [future] husbands to decide whether they should learn. Yep. The author of the referenced article: Jonathan Lindvall. Keynote speaker at CHEC (and other conventions) in 2003.

Burqas, anybody? Human chattel? Is this what CHEC and some of the other self-declared Christian state homeschool groups are leading us toward? Such speakers are so important to be heard that they receive keynote speaker status . . . without apology? Return to text.

---

Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit," Part II--"For Such a Time as This -- The 1000-Year Battle Over the Hearts and Minds of the Next Generation".