E. J. Erichsen Tench

When people think of cults, the initial ideas may be doomsday cults, cults that end in mass suicide, orgies, and brainwashed drones.  The mainstream idea can be isolating and dangerous for survivors of less insidious and violent cults.  Left trying to find answers in a world that imagines cults only as massively violent, bizarre, and insulated, survivors of less radical cults find themselves cut off from help and support groups.  Some cults are doomsday cults, while others disguise themselves in the guise of religious movements with hundreds of members.  These such cults have a benign outside that can reach thousands of people, while a rotten inside holds sway over smaller, more tightly-controlled groups.  These more subtle cults are sometimes referred to as “new religious movement[s];” cults that “do not result from schisms or breaks with established ecclesiae or denominations,” but instead function for a time as another denomination within a larger religion (Schaefer, 2015, p. 357).

One such cult is best described by the overarching title of Christian Dominionism, a Neo-Calvinist interpretation that stresses full obedience to patriarchal leadership with the end goal of setting up a theocratic state through political activism and outbreeding the enemy (the Quiverful movement).  While some of its branches are prone to bigoted and unscientific teaching as opposed to cult behavior (such as Focus on the Family), both benign and harmful aspects of Christian Dominionism can trace their origin to an attempt by some Christian leaders to address the moral dilemmas of the 1960s.  Some of these such leaders are Doug Phillips (Vision Forum Ministries), Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries), Doug Wilson (Theology That Bites Back), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Geoffrey Botkin (Western Conservatory) and the most influential figure Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles).  I will demonstrate through sociological terms Christian Dominionism fulfills the requirements for a cult, or new religious movement, by focusing on five main criteria: a “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” a “Basis of Authority,” “Isolation,” the tools to “Establish Control,” and the need to “Maintain Control.”

Alex Jones (2009) provides an, if darkly humored, explanation of each criteria.  The first criterion, “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” refers to a cult leader’s attempt to structure their “cult like an onion, with the most benign and helpful features on the outside and the most controlling, kooky, and evil parts in the secret evil core.”  The success of Christian Dominionism can be attributed to this very criterion.  On the outside, Christian Dominionism presents a rational, scientific, and historical framework by which any Christian can gain the tools and knowledge necessary to influence their culture for good, starting with the church and family unit.  Through mainstream organizations such as Focus on the Family, Christian Dominionism hardly appears to be cult-like.

The Institute in Basic Life Principles (Gothard recently resigned due to his sexual scandals) offer a clearer look at the “evil core” of the Christian Dominionist movement.  Functioning under the same goals as Focus on the Family, Gothard founded the organization (originally called the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts) to “reach the troubled youth of the turbulent ’60s.  Parents obviously appreciated Gothard’s teachings as an antidote to the rebellious anti-authoritarian attitudes of the hippie culture, and soon his seminar attendance swelled, and unfortunately, so did Gothard’s head” (Sue 2008).  As his power and influence grew, Gothard developed key Christian Dominionist teachings, such as the “Umbrella of Authority,” the Quiverful movement, and a theocratic vision of the “Christian faith [as] a religion of world conquest” in a “world at war” (Wilson, 2001, pp. 104, 170).

Survivors of Christian Dominionism are most familiar with the emphasis on authority.  The appeal to an established “Basis of Authority” is the second criterion noted by Jones (2009).  Cult leaders “claim authority from a divine source, bogus scientific research [or] special knowledge.”  In addition, the “person with the most power resources is in control” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 168).  Cult leaders, like abusers, flex their authority over a group by emphasizing their power through “money, presents, trips, more knowledge, experience, a better vocabulary, and superior status” (p. 169).  This special knowledge and status has to come from somewhere; for the Christian Dominionist, the source of all authority derives not from “scientific findings” but through whoever is interpreting the Bible, “the Standard of all faith and practice.  The Scriptures, therefore, are the basis, and contain the criteria by which … to make every judgment” (Adams, 1970, p. xxi).

The Christian Bible clearly states some rules, but the Christian Dominionist movement encompasses a bizarre authoritarian bent, where (most notably) Gothard’s “personal opinions” on the Bible have risen to the “status” of actual “scriptural authority” (Veinot, 2002, p. 102).  Gothard’s abuse of Scripture “extends into medical advice (Cabbage Patch dolls interfering with the birth of children), adoption (tracing family lineage to bind ancestral demons), and other mystical elements (hedge of thorns, umbrella of authority/protection, sins of the father).”  How the Christian Dominionist leader can convince followers to hold personal opinions on the same authority level of Scripture is related to the idea of Biblically directed rules versus Biblically derived rules.  Lou Priolo (1997) notes “Biblically directed rules are those which all men are obligated to obey because God commands them in His Word. … On the other hand, biblically derived rules are those which are based on biblical principles; but which I am obligated to obey only as long as I am under God-ordained authority” (p. 36).

It is this emphasis on Biblically derived rules as determined by a spiritual authority that grants Gothard (and the other leaders) their power.  Jones’s fourth and fifth criteria will examine the cult leader’s use of control through this authority, but at the moment it is important to emphasize the patriarchal aspect of authority.  Not only are Biblically directed rules determined by only men interpreting Scripture, but Biblically derived rules are also only given authority when issued by men.  The Christian Dominionist is an inherently authoritarian patriarchal movement that teaches men are created to exercise dominion over the earth; they are fitted to be husbandman, tilling the earth; they are equipped to be saviors, delivering from evil; they are expected grow up into wisdom, becoming sages; and they are designed to reflect the image and glory of God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 13).  Women are left out of “this mandate” as it is “a masculine vocation in this world” (p. 31).  This emphasis on the isolation of women will be explored by the third criterion.

Jones’s third criterion is “Isolation.”  He notes cult leaders must “encourage separation from … family and friends.”  Relationships with nonbelievers are inherently “unhealthy” and most be “cut off” in order to ensure the spiritual well-being of cult practitioners.  This emphasis on isolation is a tactic cult leaders use to ensure members “tighten [their] bond[s]” through viewing all “outsiders as wrong.”  One survivor of a Dutch Dominionist church recalls how the “‘church dictated our entire social life, school, clubs, and acquaintances.  Friends were allowed to come home with us as long as they were from the same church’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).  Jones (2009) emphasizes how even former members of the cult are not exempt from this characterization of “outside” and are treated as “enemies” once they leave.  The Dutch survivor remembers when she left the church and “‘received a letter telling me that I was damned.  My parents dropped me, too’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).

In particular for Christian Dominionism, patriarchy “predominates in very narrow, sectarian ‘Christian’ practice.  As patriarchy comes to expression in the home schooling movement, there is a tendency to have an inbred, tribal approach to relationships” (Zens, 2011, p. 54).  This is especially true for daughters, whose fathers, encouraged by the “stay-at-home-daughters movements” of Botkins, ensure “young lad[ies] stay at home serving [their] father until a husband is chosen for [them] by him” (Zens, 2011, p. 45).  Proponents of this ideology “even use the word ‘helpmeet’ — a word in Scripture exclusively connected to the wife — to describe the daughter’s relationship to her dad.”  In many cases, daughters are forbidden to attend college (if permitted, they take online courses) and are instead “given ‘the tools for dominion,’ that is, kitchen and homemaking supplies.  Many home-schooled girls are not taught academics beyond the eighth grade.”  This idea ties into the Quiverful cult, where daughters must remain docile in order to accept their role as broodmares for Christianity’s eventual cultural domination.  Thankfully, not every Christian Dominionist family forbids their daughters to seek higher education.  However, children are still raised in a patriarchal structure in order to establish and maintain control of the family unit.

A cult leader’s success depends on how well he can establish control, Jones’s fourth criterion.  The methods used to establish control can vary immensely, from mandated devotionals, readings, and prayer to creating a “rigid schedule,” keeping members “active” and with “little sleep,” and controlling thoughts and emotions through “induc[ed] guilt and fear of the enemy” (Jones, 2009).  These latter examples most frequently occur at Gothard’s youth retraining camps, including his ALERT Academy for wayward males and the Hepzibah House for rebellious females.  While the Hepzibah House closed down many years ago, it was home to incredible abuse committed by staff against underage girls, including forced feedings, mandatory isolation, regular beatings, and stringent work.  Both ALERT and Hepzibah ensure the youth are kept on a tight schedule with little sleep, menial tasks, and devotions, all to ensure a rebellious spirit is destroyed.  A more mainstream, if less extreme, example is Summit Ministries in Colorado, a Christian worldview training camp for Christian high schoolers and college students.  Camp attendees (some of whom are forced to attend by parents) must conform to a regimented schedule, little sleep, mandatory seminars they cannot leave (even to use the bathroom), and are assigned physical labor as punishments for either breaking rules or not maintaining a clean dorm room (this includes picking lint off the floor).  Once youth are physically and mentally broken down, they are more susceptible to the religious teachings.  At Summit Ministries, this takes the form of biased and outright false teaching on other worldviews and religion, proponents of gay-conversion therapy, members of the radical religious and political Right, and a mandatory Bible-knowledge quiz that must be repeated until an acceptable score is attained.

In day-to-day life, Christian Dominionist leaders establish control through the appeal to authority.  Gothard developed the “Umbrella of Authority” concept to illustrate God’s use of authority for life and protection from sin.  At the top of the Umbrella is God, who ordains all authority and circumstances.  Next come Christian authorities (such as Gothard), who are the mouth-speakers of God.  Next come men fathers, the heads of the home, who have authority to lead and control and act as prophets of God in their children’s lives.  Next come wives, who have some authority over children.  At the bottom are children.  Individuals who submit to their God-ordained authority are assured blessings, while those who breach the Umbrella are no longer considered under God’s protection; they are no longer under God’s ordained shield of protection.  Christian Dominionism results in a retributive God, where curses and punishment are the natural consequences of removing oneself from under authority, but blessings and protection are offered to those who obey.

The Umbrella, while not present in Scripture, is a derived concept Gothard has used “to bring his legalistic teachings into all areas of life” (Sue, 2008).  Once a derived concept is law is made and implemented by an authority figure, disobedience now results in breaking of the Umbrella.  Laws not explicitly laid out in Scripture now become God’s laws and disobedience brings punishment.  Using the Umbrella, Gothard and other leaders gain power to control every aspect of life, including “use of cosmetics, clothing, beards, sleep schedules, homeschooling, courtship and marriage, and even medical advice.”  All “precepts, commandments, instruction, words, reproofs, discipline, and correction” derive from this “outside source imposed upon” the members (Adams, 1970, p. 100).

Once the cult and patriarchal leader’s teaching is considered God’s authority, “autonomous thoughts and actions” can be controlled (Jones, 2009).  Church and family members are taught “God’s desires are exalted over everyone else’s.  Everyone in the [unit] may be expected to sacrifice personal pleasures if God’s will requires it” (Priolo, 1997, pp. 26-7).  Personal autonomy in thought and action is restricted; instead, complete obedience to God’s will is the mandate and God’s will becomes whatever the present authority interprets it as.  “Males will necessarily be dominant in any given culture,” according to Wilson, so women are never granted spiritual authority and cannot interpret Scripture (2001, p. 24).  Since “in a scriptural worship service, both masculine and feminine elements will be present, but the masculine will be dominant, in a position of leadership” women’s interpretation of Scripture can never be personal, but must always be subject to the authority of the men in her life (Wilson, 2001, p. 95).  Women are not only forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but they are also forbidden from exercising personal authority.  “The most important message a woman hears in church is obedience” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 140).  Since “Eve was disobedient and [brought] sin … into the world,” women are considered naturally deceptive and weak-willed.

Once cult leaders have created a benign outside and a structured, isolated inside where control is established through authority, they must “Maintain Control.”  The fifth criterion is often the most difficult, as cult leaders must fight the “resistance [and] critical thoughts” of their members (Jones, 2009).  While the men in power in Christian Dominionism are comfortable, members can experience extreme discomfort as their autonomous thoughts conflict with the stringent legalism of their God-ordained authority figures.  Gothard and his ilk have developed techniques to subdue members by using common cult tactics, such as creating “guilt” and creating self-doubt through accusations of bitterness and “negativ[ity].”  “Critical thoughts are [presented as] evidence of crimes” by focusing on man’s depravity.  Nouthetic counselor Jay E Adams (1970) builds upon this framework, teaching that “unpleasant visceral and other bodily warning devices” are activated when a man “sins” (p. 94).  Christian Dominionist members are reminded time again by their authorities the physical and mental conflict they feel is a result of sin; questioning God-ordained authorities and rules disturbs a good conscience and results in “misery, defeat and ruin” (p. 105).  The only way to feel at peace is obedience to authority and confession.  For members of these churches who are mentally ill, the answer is the same.  Psychiatric diseases are treated as a manifestation of unconfessed sin since “God in the ordering and disciplining of his church frequently uses sickness as a rod of chastisement” (p. 109).  To this day, Nouthetic counselors deride the American Psychological Association and contend the Bible is the only mental health book required (p. xxi).

Not only does the Christian Dominionist ensure obedience through punishment of questions, but facial expressions and body language are considered accurate reflections of a sinful or righteous state of mind.  Members and children must interact or respond with the correct “verbal and non-verbal communication [that] reflect both submission to and respect for authority” (Priolo, 1997, p. 170).  Priolo includes asking “why” as a sign of disrespect, worthy of punishment (p. 131).  Children are punished by corporal methods.  The most common punishments are taken from the teachings of Michael Pearl and Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, who lay out detailed instructions for corporal punishment.  These techniques include spanking infants, purposefully testing if infants and children will obey a command, switching children with wooden switches and spanking them with wooden or metal rods, and resuming punishment if a child expresses too much pain.  The severity of the punishments and the range of physical punishment to mental manipulation vary from household to household.  Christian Dominionist punishment methods have come under more recent scrutiny since the deaths of Lidia Shatz, Hana Williams, and other children disciplined in Quiverful homes. 

For offspring raised in Christian Dominionism, legal adulthood is not recognized.  Obedience to parents is required for those still living at home, regardless of the age.  Male offspring experience more freedom while living at home, while female children are not expected to leave until marriage.  After all, not “only are these children different from one another, these differences reflect the wisdom of God, who intends for them to serve Him differently” (Wilson, 2001, p. 85).  While boys are encouraged to be visionaries and leaders, girls can “only honor God by doing whatever [their] father says” (Zens, 2011, p. 26).  Ultimately, women and daughters are forced to “repress [their] feelings, desires, and natural talents (which are not appropriate to her role), and to make these subservient to the feelings, desires and talents of men, specifically fathers and brothers” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 257).

Through these methods of control maintenance, Christian Dominionist leaders squelch critiques, “instill a fear of divine retribution or earthly punishment,” and “keep” their members “doubting” their own consciences (Jones, 2009).  It is no wonder the cult has managed to survive for decades, reaching thousands of members, and entwining itself with patriarchal Christianity, the political Right, the Quiverful movement, and homeschooling movements.  In order to break from these churches, survivors must first “overcome” a “very difficult” mindset where questioning “‘God’s appointed man’ is tantamount to questioning God” Himself (Veinot, 2002, p. 316).  Those who “recognize some signs of spiritual abuse, hypocrisy, or oppression” are conditioned to “reject this input out of fear of reprisal or condemnation for presuming to judge the leader or leaders supposedly anointed or specially anointed by God” (p. 315).  Children are especially vulnerable, as the stringent “‘obedience’” called for feels [increasingly] instinctively wrong to the youth” (Zens, 2011, p. 30).  For those who leave or who try to expose corruption, church leaders silence their voices through accusations of bitterness and sin (Adams, 1970, p. 167).

The Christian Dominionist movement fulfills five main sociological requirements for a new religious movement (cult).  While mass suicides do not occur, orgies are unheard of, sacrifice is unacceptable, and those influenced through various degrees are in the thousands, those who follow the teachings of Gothard, Wilson, and others subscribe to an authoritarian version of Christianity that traps its members in an isolated belief system built upon complete subjugation to derived patriarchal interpretation of Scripture.  With such a wide audience, church pastors and heads of homes vary in the severity of the practices, but the basic theology is stifling, harmful, and spiritually abusive across the board.  Those who, through exposure to new ideas and more moderate Christians, reject the teachings of Christian Dominionism are disowned and branded as trouble makers.  With the continual rise of the digital age and social media, survivors of this lesser known cult can now find healing and answers in Internet communities.  The Wartburg Watch, Homeschoolers Anonymous, No Longer Quivering, Under Much Grace, and Libby Anne of Patheos (among others) are continuing the survivors’ mission to educate and bring freedom to the adults and children still trapped under the Umbrella of Authority.

References

Adams, Jay E. 1970. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Imbens, Annie and Ineke Jonker. 1992. Christianity and Incest. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jones, Alex. 2009. “How to Start A Cult.” YouTube Web site. Retrieved November 15, 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBK5aKOr2Fw).

Priolo, Lou. 1997. The Heart of Anger: Practical Help for the Prevention and Cure of Anger in Children. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press.

Schaefer, Richard T. 2015. Sociology in Modules, 3^rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sue, Paul. 2008. The Blinding and Binding Teachings of Bill Gothard. Battered Sheep. Retrieved December 4, 2015 (http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html).

Veiont, Don and Joy Veiont. 2002. A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life. Buffalo, NY: 21^st Century Press.

Wilson, Douglas. 2001. Future Men. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.

Zens, Jon. 2011. No Will of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood. Omaha, NE: Ekklesia Press.

E. J. Erichsen Tench

The onus of leadership is incredibly high in our society; leaders must take command, while at the same time following, must inspire, while at the same time encountering reality, and must imagine wide possibilities, while at the same time ensuring work is accomplished at the base level.  To be a leader is to carry a great deal of responsibility; to be a spiritual leader is to carry out virtues of humility and servanthood.  As a business major whose degree is meant to support my martial arts, visual arts, and social justice work, I was hard pressed to find a leader in my field of study who could fit all the above requirements.  I turned to the basics of my vocation interests and realized I pursued all my interests as a female, and not very long ago in our human history, my vocational interests would have been staunchly closed to me.  I decided to focus on the leader who made it possible for me, as a woman, to pursue my outspoken interests.  Without the leadership of Susan B. Anthony, I would not be in the school or vocational position I currently enjoy. 

Susan B. Anthony was born in 1820 to a common couple of Quaker persuasion.  While her upbringing was common and normal, her parents would heavily influence the social justice giant she later became.  Her father, Daniel Anthony, “introduced [his children to] self-discipline, principled convictions, and belief in their own self-worth” (Barry 11).  He provided the strong force of self-discipline and steady conviction that would characterize Anthony’s later work.  Daniel and his wife, Lucy, were the first individuals in Anthony’s life who woke her to the realization men and women were not politically or culturally equal.  While her father believed in equal schooling and voting opportunities, he balked at the idea of having “a woman overseer in [his] mill,” which Anthony would later recall as one of the common inconsistencies in her gendered upbringing (18).  Lucy Anthony impressed upon Susan Anthony the reality the married woman had to sacrifice her identity to “long years of selfless toil” in “a kind of suffering” (48-9).

It was this peculiar insistence that married women lose their identity that began to awaken in Anthony a sense of deep injustice.  As she finished school and began work as a teacher (the only position open to women who did not marry), she noted her tight-knit circle of female family members and friends was constantly shrinking due to marriage.  “[M]arriage [conventionally] meant that a woman must subordinate all other friendships and relations to the relationship with her husband,” always resulting in daughters and sisters breaking off deep, emotional ties to other women in order to focus these solely on one man, who was still allowed to maintain deep relationships with his family and friends (Barry 36).  Susan B. Anthony noted as a single woman, she was able to “creat[e] her own separate identity in her work at a time when other young women, like her sister Guelma, were learning to establish their identities through their husbands” (39).  As a single woman, she was also able to keep the wages she earned, even though she “did not overlook the fact that she earned one-fourth of what her father was paid for teaching in Rochester and one-half of the eighteen dollars a month her younger brother Daniel R. was earning in a district school” solely because of her gender (47).  A married woman would have to turn over all her funds to her husband, in addition to losing any possible representation before the law, along with losing any legal authority over her own property or children.

While these marital gender-based disadvantages enraged Anthony, the tipping point in her silent brooding was the issue of alcohol.  Like many temperance workers, Anthony noted married women had absolutely no protection from alcoholic and immoral husbands.  Unique to Anthony, and one of the reasons behind her leadership brilliance, she understood without political representation, married women were unable to seek self-protection or to speak out.  With no ability to divorce for cases of abuse and marital negligence, and absolutely no way to support themselves, married women had nowhere to turn.  While the problem was moral and cultural, no tangible relief could be accomplished while women had no political voice; the only way to have political voice was to vote.  Unfortunately, women were not allowed to vote.

Susan B. Anthony realized she had to campaign and work for complete legal and cultural equality for women.  As such, in 1848, Anthony “wove the issues set forth in her … Declaration of Women’s Right (in which she had demanded full rights, including the vote for women) into the problem of intemperance (Barry 68).  It was at this time Anthony joined forces with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who, as a married woman, personally understood and felt the legal and personal losses she had to suffer.  The two became the most inspirational and effective women’s rights power couple of their century, forging a friendship that outlasted Stanton’s marriage in time and depth.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton essentially led the women’s rights movement until their deaths.  While women would not be able to nationally vote until fourteen years after Anthony’s death in 1906, the two women impacted their culture in incredible ways.  They managed to convince the United States to allow women to attend colleges alongside men, to allow married women custody rights over their children, property rights, ownership rights, the ability to sue and be sued, more equal pay for female employees, and the ability to vote in four of the states.  In addition, they shook the cultural ideas that allowed men to suppress women in the first place.

While Anthony was a child, the Jacksonian ideal of the self-made man was flaunted for all young white boys; they were “part of the foundation of the new, proud, and growing democracy, in which it was believed that [they], regardless of…class or station in life, could grow up to be president” (Barry 15).  However, with “all the talk about the aspiring common man in search of his unlimited potential, what could be said of the common woman?  Unlike her husband, there was no place for her outside the home, no national themes or grand philosophies to eulogize her” (16).  Susan B. Anthony expanded the cultural boundaries for women by allowing them legal and political rights.  Since women had more chances to earn income, they were more free to pursue their own interests and to create for themselves an identity apart from their husbands. 

Since Stanton was married, Anthony experienced the continual pains of watching her women-friends and lovers submit themselves to men who burdened them with household duties and encroached on their identities.  She encouraged women to challenge the very idea of two individuals of different roles marrying.  With the emphasis on different roles, true legal and cultural equality could never be gained.  She argued “the doctrine that love must prevail in woman while wisdom prevails in men” resulted in a world where “‘woman must look to man for wisdom — must ever feel it impossible for her to attain wisdom equal to him’” (130).  For Anthony, “real love could only exist between two free individuals who came together in equality.”

Leaders show their quality by how they handle challenges.  While Anthony was an incredibly driven individual, she often had to sacrifice her desire for total sexual equality in order to create unity between various women’s movements.  While she desired mutual submission and love between wives and husbands and the ability for wives to divorce abusive husbands, many other women’s groups, such as the American Woman Suffrage associations, wanted a more conservative approach that did not challenge prevailing religious ideas about marital hierarchy (296).  In order to preserve unity, Anthony agreed to narrow her focus down to gaining national suffrage.

Another key challenge in Anthony’s call for equality came from the Republican party and the temperance and abolitionist groups led by men.  Anthony was a key supporter in abolitionism and the right for both men and women of color to vote.  However, male abolitionists continually refused to work with her because of her insistence for suffrage.  In a devastating blow to Anthony, the Republican party took powerful ends to “deliberately exclude women from both the protection of citizenship and the right to vote[.  The] Republicans wrote the word ‘male’ three times into the [14^th] amendment,” thus ensuring women had no loopholes with which to argue for voting rights (164).  “The designation of sex had never before appeared in the Constitution.”  Forced with such obstinacy, Anthony improvised by supporting the male’s abolitionist work through speaking at their events, while separating their support from her suffrage work.  This break in unity resulted in the men’s movements receiving more support, while Anthony lost a great deal of influence during the Civil War.

Susan B. Anthony was an incredibly determined individual with a desire to “focus on what is good for others” (Patterson 1).  In her personal work, she demanded thoroughness and utter dedication from her subordinates.  Her ability to encourage the heart was most keenly felt in her personal relationships with her women friends; she showed deep “appreciation for individual excellence” and was hugely emotionally supportive (Kouzes and Posner 99).  For those outside her circle, her emotional warmth was less apparent.  Not a particularly humble individual to work for, her intra-personal strengths of character were most strong when it came to modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, and enabling others to act.  She modeled the way through “find[ing her] voice by clarifying [her] personal values and then expressing those values” through her speaking and writing (39).  Her ability to unite all women from all different racial and class backgrounds was a result of her ability to “envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities” (53).  Through challenging the legal and cultural processes of the day, she enabled others to act by banding together to change an “unacceptable [status quo]” (89, emphases in original).

Susan B. Anthony is an incredibly interesting person to study; I am hugely in her debt.  Without her work, I would not be able to attend school alongside other men, would not be able to own my own property, would not be able to keep earning my own money once married, would not be able to keep my own name, would not have legal custody over any future children, would not be able to have a life and vocation of my own, would not be able to divorce an abusive spouse, and would not be able to vote.  Her dedication to her work, even when the results were not apparent to her, encouraged me to continue working to better the students I teach and to continue addressing themes of redemption in my art.  It is this dedication in the face of opposition that most challenged me and, I think, most strongly illustrates Susan B. Anthony’s qualities as a leader.

While she was not specifically a Christian, her “spiritual belief in immortality, which meant for her a rejection of the idea that we leave nothing behind us after death, sustained her particularly because her political work often did not bring her immediate rewards” (Barry 96).  This was particularly encouraging for me.  In my on-line work to combat sexism, racism, heterosexism, and childism in media and culture, I know I may never see the positive impact my work has.  Much social justice work is thankless and involves one generation setting the stage for the next generation.  In Susan B. Anthony’s case, she was able to see some of her work gain success, but she died before universal suffrage was granted to women.  She kept her strength through understanding the results of her actions were what mattered.  This is something very close to what N.T. Wright argues for: “looking at Christian behavior [as active virtues bringing about redemption] means that we approach ‘ethical’ questions — particularly questions about what to do and what not to do — through the larger category of the divine purpose for the entire human life” (69).  Susan B. Anthony was working for a life to come, laying down her health and existence to accomplish something grand and redemptive for womenkind.  Her ethical virtues were shaped by a desire to better the human life, something completely in line with the Christian’s duty.  As a leader, she was incredible and an inspiration for generations to come.

Works Cited

Barry, Kathleen. Susan B. Anthony: A Biography of a Singular Feminist. New York: New York University Press, 1988. Print.

Kouzes, James M. and Barry Z. Posner (ed.). Christian Reflections on the Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Print.

Patterson, Kathleen. “Servant Leadership: A Timeless Leadership Style.” Christian Leadership Alliance. Asuza Pacific University, 2011. Print.

Wright, N.T. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Print.