When Courtship Fails - Thoughts from Natalie Nyquist

[silvia]

I figure that is why he wasn't mentioned, either. We know they didn't court, so doesn't that mean they... wait for it... dated? Seems like it would be revelevant then, since she has had bad experiences with both courtship and dating.

Yes, it is odd that she doesn't mention James. Did her disastrously failed courtship marriage put her in a place where she was vulnerable to the malignant incursions of someone like James? If so, that's another good argument against courtship right there.

Also, if Natalie continues to write about this topic in the future, I hope she goes into more detail about how her friends and acquaintances reacted to her decision not to go with the courtship paradigm--and, if relevant, what this reveals about how legalistic differences can destroy strong bonds. We know, for instance, that Natalie was unceremoniously booted off of the YLCF site soon after Gretchen et al. got wind of her relationship with James, though we don't know all the details about exactly why.

Another interesting sidenote: I believe a couple of the people leaving Facebook comments or "likes" on Natalie's anti-courtship piece have previously published their own courtship stories (aka "memorial stones of God's faithfulness," according to Gretchen) on YLCF. Hmmm...

[hoipolloi]

Yes, it is odd that she doesn't mention James. Did her disastrously failed courtship marriage put her in a place where she was vulnerable to the malignant incursions of someone like James? If so, that's another good argument against courtship right there.

Also, if Natalie continues to write about this topic in the future, I hope she goes into more detail about how her friends and acquaintances reacted to her decision not to go with the courtship paradigm--and, if relevant, what this reveals about how legalistic differences can destroy strong bonds. We know, for instance, that Natalie was unceremoniously booted off of the YLCF site soon after Gretchen et al. got wind of her relationship with James, though we don't know all the details about exactly why.

Another interesting sidenote: I believe a couple of the people who have left positive Facebook comments about Natalie's anti-courtship piece have previously published their own courtship stories (aka "memorial stones of God's faithfulness," according to Gretchen) on YLCF. Hmmm...

I suspect she was rendered highly vulnerable to a scammer like James. Between a complete lack of experience in meeting men for social/companionship purposes & the devastating break-up of her first marriage, she was probably a sitting duck.

I hope that she does take on the ramifications & fallout from her experiences.

[Guest Anonymous]

I suspect she was rendered highly vulnerable to a scammer like James. Between a complete lack of experience in meeting men for social/companionship purposes & the devastating break-up of her first marriage, she was probably a sitting duck.

I hope that she does take on the ramifications & fallout from her experiences.

From what she said on Yuku, she had some non-courtship friendships with men before #1, and in hindsight she knew she never wanted to marry #1 in the first place. Maybe she was generally a bit vulnerable and the courtship model was super-disastrous for that reason? She sounds to me like someone who would have particularly benefited from a period of singleness and a chance to find herself before getting involved with anyone.

[Austin]

Here's what dumb-dumb Heidi, who appears to be not only drinking the kool-aid but swimming in it, doesn't get: there is no magical (or "godly" or whatever - fill-in-the-blank) formula for a successful marriage. She reminds me of those women who say, when another woman gets raped, "Well, that could never happen to me because I don't dress so scantily". She thinks a "biblical" formula (it's not biblical and scripture never lays out the steps to getting married one way or another) will immunize her and other women who "do the right thing". I think people like Natalie fly in the face of that supposition, and now the only thing Heidi can do without her whole world, built most certainly on quicksand, sink away is to blame Natalie and Natalie's lack of faith. Additionally, it is evidence of a childish personality, one who does not wish to take responsibility for her own life and decisions because the big-bad-world is just wayyyy to scary for this child-woman.

Heidi and her type are just very insidious individuals who do untold amounts of damage in the church. I've known more than one like her.

[fundiefan2012]

Sad! Can't she trust the wisdom of others who say "don't go there - it is not worth it"? So a few of the courtship marriages may fail. Did anyone say they would all be perfect? We are still dealing with falable human beings here.

- From the Facebook discussion page.

Interesting to me is not just the comment itself, but who "liked" it--none other than Jessica Nicole McDonald, daughter of Stacy McDonald of Sacred Calling. Funny....the McDonald's used to like Natalie....they published a piece by her in their short-lived magazine Family Reformation. They also recommended her book Quest for the High Places in her insipid book Raising Maidens of Virtue, or something like that. I can't remember the exact title.

But now Jessica doesn't seem to care much for Natalie. Maybe because Natalie shows how fake Jessica's world is?

[fundiefan2012]

Now one of the McDonald's (Romantique Photography) has posted on Natalie's blog post. Verrrrry interesting. An excerpt:

This just isn’t a healthy view. Both of my sisters courted and are now married and they have some of the happiest most beautiful marriages I’ve ever seen. This also goes for many couples that I know. This doesn’t mean that it’s because of courtship that they have such beautiful relationships, but don’t you think that God uses all of our circumstances to shape His will for our lives? Whether that be “courtship†or “datingâ€. You can’t blame your sorrow and pain on courtship.

To say that we should go “shopping†so we can get our “heart’s broken†before we get married seems a bit ridiculous. Where does the Bible support this view? I see warnings in the Bible against “awakening love before it’s time†and “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.â€â€¦I see nothing that supports your implied idea of giving your love away to many men before marriage.

Natalie responded too. Check it out.

http://pursuethebeauty.com/2012/05/21/c ... mment-2218

What do ya'll think? Is this Stacy writing?

[hoipolloi]

Now one of the McDonald's (Romantique Photography) has posted on Natalie's blog post. Verrrrry interesting. An excerpt:

Natalie responded too. Check it out.

http://pursuethebeauty.com/2012/05/21/c ... mment-2218

What do ya'll think? Is this Stacy writing?

Probably not - just one of the Kool-Aid drinkers who's really afraid of getting divorce or failure cooties. That why she's so defensive about courtship.

After all, if Natalie failed because she didn't do it right or had the wrong expectations or didn't love Christ enough or whatever the hell reason these dolts come up with, then none of the fail can happen to the Kool-Aid drinkers, right?

[silvia]

So I was digging around on web.archive.org and found a bunch of old YLCF posts written at around the time of Natalie's original wedding in 2007. Many of them are gushing recollections about its beauty from Gretchen and Lanier (see web.archive.org/web/20080105094832/http://www.ylcf.org/archives/2007_10_01_archive.html for much of what was posted during the month of the wedding), but primarily I wanted to post the speech that Natalie's dad, Paul Nyquist, gave at her wedding because it reveals so much about the mindset she was raised with. (This was previously posted publicly on YLCF, but if mods have issues with me posting it here, let me know.) Without further ado (from http://web.archive.org/web/200802241906 ... .ylcf.org/)...

**********

I have been in this position many, many times before. At the same time, I have never been in this position before. I have had the privilege of officiating at dozens of weddings through the years--- many of them here at EBC. But I have never given away my own daughter. I have seen many a father walk her beautifully dressed daughter to the front of a church to give her away in marriage. But it has never been my daughter and it has never been me walking her to the front.

So, this is different. And with all due respect Rick, I think I understand what Chuck Swindoll meant when he married off his daughter. He said, “It felt like I was handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla.â€

But this is why you invest in your children. This is why you tenderly nurture them when they are small and fill them with love. This is why you patiently instruct them as they grow up and model godliness before them. This is why you help them spread their wings when they become young adults and teach them how to fly. You do all that day after day and year after year so that perhaps one day they will fall in love with another godly young person, and desire to join together in holy matrimony.

And that is what we have here—with Rick and with Natalie. This is a good thing! This is what you want--- especially in a society that treats marriage with little esteem or honor. For here are two young adults who know Christ as their Savior, who want to love and serve him and now want to publicly make a commitment to each other in the presence of all of us as witnesses.

So, what can I say to you today? What should I say to you today as nearly 200 people—family and friends-- have gathered to share in your joy and witness your vows?

Well, as you well know, God’s Word has something to say about this relationship. Marriage was his idea, instituted way back in the Garden of Eden. And since he created it, God also knows how it is supposed to work. And nowhere are the responsibilities of the husband and wife stated more clearly than in the Apostle Paul’s words in Ephesians 5. In the final 12 verses of that chapter, he tells you, Rick, the role you are to have in this marriage relationship. And he also tells you, Natalie, the role you are to have in this marriage relationship. And if you choose to ignore these roles—and if you decide to just do it your own way, you can expect you will have serious difficulties because this is how God, in his infinite wisdom and with his understanding of how he created us as human beings, put together this thing called “marriageâ€.

So, let’s look at what God says. Rick, the two commands that God gives to you are “love†and “leadâ€. He says in verse 25, ‘Husbands, love your wivesâ€. Now, that is a present tense imperative verb. Now, that not only means that this is a command, but also that this is a command that we are to keep obeying and keep obeying and never stop obeying. It means Rick, that you are love Natalie, keep loving Natalie and never stop loving Natalie. Not just in an emotional way, but in an active, practical way. For the Apostle goes on to say that you are to love Natalie “as Christ loved the church.â€

For the Apostle goes on to say that you are to love Natalie “as Christ loved the church.â€

Now, honestly, as a husband, that analogy causes me to shudder. For I can see from His Word how Christ loved the church. He loved the church unconditionally. He loved the church sacrificially. He loved the church even when we were absolutely, positively, totally unlovely. That’s what it says in Romans 5:8. It says, “God demonstrates his own love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.†And what God says to us as husbands, is that I am expecting the same quality of love out of you for your wives. If that doesn’t make you sweat a little bit, then you don’t understand the gravity of that statement.

But that is what God wants, Rick. In fact, that is what God commands, Rick. He says, “love Natalie as Christ loved the church.â€

Now, that is easier to do when Natalie is acting lovable. It’s never easy, but it is easier to love someone when they are acting lovable. The trick is to keep showing them love when they are unlovable. The trick is to love them when they are acting like a doorknob. Now, I don’t need the gift of prophecy to make this next statement. All I need is a cursory understanding of human nature and the experience of living with Natalie for the past 23 years. But Rick, I can say with a high amount of assurance that there likely will come the time when she may act unlovely. No guarantees, but I think it likely will happen!

That’s when the rubber of this command hits the proverbial road. For God did not give you an escape clause. God did not allow you to love her only when she is lovable. Instead, God said love her, love her and never stop loving her. Love her as Christ loved the church.

Now, it is from that position of love that you are to lead her. In verse 23, Paul says, “the husband is the head of the wifeâ€. That means, God asks you to lead. That means that ultimately God is holding you responsible for the wellbeing of your family. That means that you are the family shepherd and will one day have to give an account of your care and nurture to your family to God. In other words, God is not going to ask Natalie about this area. He is going to ask you. For he has placed you as the leader of the home.

Now, that does not mean that you seize this as a biblical excuse to lord it over Natalie and treat her as less than an equal. For remember, this leading emerges from a position of love. But it does mean that, as the loving leader of this family, and as the one that God is holding responsible for the well-being of the family, that you lead, guide and shepherd Natalie so that she can become all that she can possibly be in Christ.

Now, Natalie, the same passage in Ephesians 5 has a pair of commands for you. For Rick it is to love and lead. For you, as the wife, it is submit and respect. The first command is found in the first verse of the passage. There Paul says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.†And just like the other verbs in this passage, these are present tense commands. Which means, Natalie, you are to submit to Rick’s leadership, and follow his lead, and never stop doing so. And the reason you can do so is because of the little phrase at the end of that verse—“as unto the Lord.†In other words, you can do this because you know in submitting to Rick you are submitting to Christ. So, in your obedience to Christ, you place yourself in submission to your husband.

Now, there may be times when frankly, you don’t feel like submitting. There may be times when you are in sharp disagreement with a decision that Rick has made. There may be times when you think he is not listening to you as you think a loving leader should. At those times, resist the temptation to abandon your obedience to Christ and try and grab control. God is holding Rick responsible to lead the family. And he is holding you responsible to do everything you can to support his leadership.

So, the first command is “submitâ€. The second command, which is found in the final verse of the chapter is “respectâ€. Paul says there, “and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.â€

Now, that word “respect†is a significant term in the Greek language. It is the word “phobeomaiâ€, which literally means, “to fear†or “to reverenceâ€. It is a word that is often used in the NT of the believer’s relationship to God—that is, we are to fear and reverence him. But here, in this context, it has more the meaning of a deeply held respect. And I think this is the environment in which submission occurs. That is, out of your reverence for Christ, and out of your deep respect for your husband, you willingly follow his loving leadership in your life.

Now, let me give you a clue as to how people will know you respect Rick. They will know by how you speak of him in public. That is, if you are badmouthing Rick to your friends, if you are criticizing his actions in a public setting, people will know you don’t respect your husband. But if you honor him with your words, if you speak highly of him to your friends, if they hear nothing but praise from your lips for him, then the verdict will be obvious: they will say, “there is someone who truly respects her husbandâ€. And it all works together. For a husband struggles to lead when he doesn’t believe his wife respects him. But when he is confident of her support and hears often of her respect, God gives him the courage to lead his family with strength and dignity.

And that is what I want for you. I want you to have a marriage that people rave about. I want you to have a marriage that brings you great joy. I want you to have a marriage that powerfully honors God.

To have that, Rick, that means love and lead. Natalie, that means submit and respect.

Natalie, you have been under my care for the past 24 years. I now entrust you to Rick. Rick, she has been my princess for 24 years. I now entrust her to you. Take care of her.

And may God richly bless your marriage!

[bea]

YOW. I never read Dr. Nyquist's speech. That's just....awful, frankly.

And I'm waiting for Natalie to bring up the rebound with James and the second divorce, because that WASN'T a courtship, but she was so obviously the walking wounded, emotionally, when she fell for his lies - I think her relationship with him can also be tied to the courtship process.

[hoipolloi]

Silvia - Thanks for your intrepid googling! I thought YCLF had wiped that stuff off the face of the intertubes years ago. You can also get to caches of their courtship story through the same links.

Mr. Nyquist's address is awful - even without the hindsight of what happened to Natalie's marriage.

[silvia]

And here's Natalie's "courtship story": http://web.archive.org/web/200712242156 ... /klein.htm

[silvia]

I'm reading the courtship story... For the most part, she makes her romance with Rick seem like a fairy tale (she even starts with, "Once upon a time, there lived a young girl who longed to be wedded to her one true love"). But if you read closely, it's evident that even before the wedding, all was not roses. Take these excerpts:

That night--and the night when he first said "I love you," stand out as the happiest of my life thus far. I do not say that lightly. One cannot live for those unforgettable moments--and they are few and far apart. They must be, for the very joy and bliss of them is built upon the thousands of other moments--happy, sad, exhausted--of which life consists. Yet they are beautiful, perhaps even more so because they are so rare.

Um, what? A girl preparing to get married in weeks is already talking about how blissful moments are "so rare"?

One of the young girl's favorite activities was writing. During a quiet afternoon she composed a summary of her quest and future dreams, closing with:

"By His grace, I believe God has gifted me to be a wife and, if He allows, a mother serving with my husband. I seek a man I can trust, who will be a gentle leader. In return I will give him a heart with depths that he cannot even imagine."

Little did she know that her hastily written piece would be read and re-read by a young man who had nearly given up on finding a maiden that fulfilled his hopes and desires.

Ahhh!! Shades of Meredith and Stephen much? Here we have the aspiring groom looking for a submissive wife on the Internet. Sounds like a real winner...

He asked about me and my parents confirmed that I was who I said I was. "Natalie doesn't need someone who wants to be just a friend," Dad told him. "She has been preparing herself to be a godly wife and mother and is looking for a man who will be a strong leader."

"So dad, is there anything you have a problem with?" I was out of state when the portentous meeting took place so my debriefing with both parents and Rick came via phone. "Nothing? Really?" I asked mom the same question. "So...do you think I'll like him?" Excitement began to build. This fascinating man was coming to meet me. To meet me!

Oh, boy. The protective patriarch grills the prospective suitor before the couple has ever had a chance to exchange a word in person. (And in hindsight, his vetting obviously wasn't very effective.)

[fundiefan2012]

Oh this wayback machine is FUN! Look what I found...

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070212 ... .org/team/

The YLCF team as it was right before Natalie was kicked off.

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070231 ... tthoughts/

The HeartThoughts website that once was linked to ylcf. I tried to find the YLCF statement disavowing connection with Natalie but was unsuccessful. sylvia?

[silvia]

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070231 ... tthoughts/

The HeartThoughts website that once was linked to ylcf. I tried to find the YLCF statement disavowing connection with Natalie but was unsuccessful. sylvia?

No dice yet, but here's the statement Natalie made at the time: http://web.archive.org/web/200905231126 ... ouncement/

[wtylcf]

Oh this wayback machine is FUN! Look what I found...

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070212 ... .org/team/

The YLCF team as it was right before Natalie was kicked off.

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070231 ... tthoughts/

The HeartThoughts website that once was linked to ylcf. I tried to find the YLCF statement disavowing connection with Natalie but was unsuccessful. sylvia?

I believe the YLCF never made any such statement. Instead, I recall that Natalie posted on Heart Thoughts that upon visiting YLCF's website, she'd realized her former friends had removed her from their board of directors and scrubbed her name from the website without telling her. I think this was around the time she married Ference. Shortly before her divorce was made public, she visited Lanier's farm alone, which I thought was a bit strange for a newlywed. After her divorce Gretchen posted a quite kind reflection on her friend's plight, supporting her, as the divorce was not her fault. As I recall it wasn't the divorce itself that caused the split between Natalie and the YLCF; it was her remarriage that caused the break. Either they disagreed with the idea of remarriage after divorce, or with the specifics of her remarriage to Ference, but either way she was never discussed on YLCF after her remarriage.

[fundiefan2012]

Here's Ashleigh way back when...

http://web.archive.org/web/200710112335 ... -home.net/

And her courtship story! :gasp:

http://web.archive.org/web/200710222228 ... /baker.htm

[fundiefan2012]

wtylcf, I remember clearly there being a small statement on the YLCF about how they no longer had ties to Natalie. It stuck in my mind because it was on the link, back a few years ago, where they'd originally sold her books. I was looking to purchase one and was confused to see they had parted ways. But since I can't find it.... :shrug:

[wtylcf]

No dice yet, but here's the statement Natalie made at the time: http://web.archive.org/web/200905231126 ... ouncement/

I must be wrong about the idea that YLCF never made a statement, because Natalie mentions the statement in her post, but I can't ever remember reading it!

[fundiefan2012]

i know I keep commenting on people's avatars today, but it's like all the especially funny ones are coming out of the shadows. wtylcf yours rocks. ;)

Back to wandering the wayback machine...

[kpmom]

Re. this link that fundiefan found via the wayback machine. It appears Natalie was updating her book on courtship in 2008. Yet, if I'm understanding this thread, it sounds like her 2007 marriage was already falling apart by then. I wonder why she was still advocating courtship at that time?

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070231 ... tthoughts/

[silvia]

Re. this link that fundiefan found via the wayback machine. It appears Natalie was updating her book on courtship in 2008. Yet, if I'm understanding this thread, it sounds like her 2007 marriage was already falling apart by then. I wonder why she was still advocating courtship at that time?

http://web.archive.org/web/200810070231 ... tthoughts/

Good question. Maybe she was still sorting through what she believed in the wake of the emotional dislocation of her divorce? (I don't think she married Ference until 2009, when she left courtship behind for good and the YLCF board turned on her.)

You'd have to ask her for the full story, though.

[ladidah]

Natalie's father's message makes me so sad—not only because of the outcome of Natalie's marriage, but because that rhetoric is so common, even in less fundamentalist circles. I've sat through more than one wedding sermon that trotted out that basic message in only slightly less skin-crawlingly creepy language.

[wtylcf]

I'm pleased that Natalie's taking the onus on herself to argue against the idea of courtship after her disastrous experience, and I wish her the best. A couple of thoughts on her post: firstly, I don't think it's helping her case that she's leaving out salient details of her experience in her argument against courtship. She leaves out mention of James Ference altogether and makes it seem as though her son is from her first marriage. She doesn't outright lie, and perhaps she thought that in writing for a general audience it was best to not go into details, but it is not exactly honest. Her relationship with Ference was not a courtship (and she married him without her parent's knowledge or approval) but that doesn't mean that her previous courtship wasn't implicated in the situation. It stands to reason that someone whose idea of a good, Godly life meant marriage to one person and purity before marriage would feel not only emotionally devastated, but less valuable as a person as a result of their experience, and therefore be vulnerable to the manipulations of a smooth-talker who showed them affection. It doesn't hurt her argument that the second relationship was not a courtship. It further implicates courtship, in my opinion, because it left her unprepared for dating afterwards when the courtship relationship went wrong.

Secondly, I see a definite impasse growing between commenters on her facebook who support courtship at all costs and commenters who don't. Some of these people may support courtship but also have firsthand knowledge of Natalie's experience that enables them to make an exception to their rules in certain cases. Natalie's argument, as I read it, is that courtship shouldn't be held up as the only way in which to go about a relationship, and that it may well cause harm. Natalie is arguing from her experience and points out that deception can be present in even a thorough vetting process. And while she's a bit subtle about the way in which she says it, the implication is that if courtship isn't the only way, perhaps it shouldn't be practiced at all, if it's so inherently risky. Her detractors are arguing against her from an idealistic standpoint, that what she's saying has no foundation in the Bible, and are throwing verses out with as much energy as if they were bailing out a sinking ship. I don't think Natalie is ever going to win over these kind of people. They perceive real life experience as a direct threat to their ideals and will condemn those who don't conform. And I don't know that anyone can win the argument against these people. I mean, Natalie didn't arrive at her presently held position through abstract reasoning, but through experience. And if they don't hold her experience as valid, they'll be no convincing them. I guess the hope is that some thoughtful, rational parents and their children read it and give a second thought to the way in which they may have conducted a courtship or dating relationship. For this reason, it might be a bit better to offer a few more pertinent details of the stuation, to convince those parents that Natalie's family did due diligence in their vetting of Natalie's first husband. Natalie's said she found the outfall of teachings about emotional purity to be damaging, and hearing about why that may be the case may be helpful to others about to embark on a courtship.

One thing I really like about her essay is her insistence that her life is full of beauty, richness and delight even after divorce and even as a single parent. She's not broken and she's not living less of a life because of her misfortune in the past. This is a message that those in her community need to hear.

[wtylcf]

i know I keep commenting on people's avatars today, but it's like all the especially funny ones are coming out of the shadows. wtylcf yours rocks. ;)

Back to wandering the wayback machine...

Hey, thanks! Anna Sophia and Nadia are techincally "navigating Egyptian history" in the image to the left. If it was Greek history, they may well have been accidentally stumbling upon what's described in my avatar!

[ricky_ticky]

wtylcf, I remember clearly there being a small statement on the YLCF about how they no longer had ties to Natalie. It stuck in my mind because it was on the link, back a few years ago, where they'd originally sold her books. I was looking to purchase one and was confused to see they had parted ways. But since I can't find it.... :shrug:

I remember this post very clearly. It was brief and written by Gretchen. It said something about how the "values" that Natalie was living by were no longer in keeping with YLCF and that she had been voted off or resigned from the bod or core team or whatever term they use. It was very shocking because no one outside of the irl friends knew about the marriage to Ference that motivated the parting.

Here's one to challenge your way-back memory - before Rick and before the courtship, Natalie was writing a series of posts called "The Journey." I believe she had written two or three installments describing a very dark time in her life where she was struggling with health issues, (pcos) and depression - a crisis of faith. She made the decision to go be a nanny, possibly in a remote place like Alaska iirc. Natalie promised to let her readers see her come out of the darkness of her situation, but all of a sudden - poof - it disappeared. Rick came on the scene and she just couldn't write about "The Journey" anymore. There was silence for a time and then she came back with her and Rick's courtship story. I'd love to ask her about the rest of the Journey today.