Quiverfull Movement

[Zymologist]

My dad was a pastor, and the first time I ever heard the "quiverfull" thing was from him. I had 14 siblings (3 of which were adopted).

I guess I had kind of the same reaction to the article as Paprika...I grew up in "that environment", so to speak, and when she says things like this:

"Quiverfull is a mindset (a very powerful head trip) in which each family becomes a cult unto itself with Daddy enshrined as the supreme Patriarch."

"The problem was, everything I knew about relationships had been so completely redefined by Christian teachings that I did not have the language to name the abuse."

"using any form of birth control was tantamount to playing God, " (I was never taught this)

"and for those who are curious, but too polite to ask what it is like for these Quiverfull wives who are breeding like rabbits, " (My mom gave birth to 12, and raised an additional 3)

"You see, being in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a set up for dysfunctional game-playing and crazy-making head trips."

"When the very definition of perfect love is sacrificing your children and martyring yourself, there is no place for emotionally healthy concepts like boundaries, consent, equality, and mutuality."

"Growing up in a Quiverfull home means being raised by a narcissistic father and having a mother with a huge martyr complex. The kids are treated as property to be hoarded. They are isolated, coerced and manipulated, abused and deprived socially and educationally." (Hogwash.)

...I'm skeptical.

[DesertBerean]

I believe Dolly Parton had 11 brothers and sisters. It was interesting watching her meeting the Duggers. This was when I was following the family more closely then I do now. I don't agree with the Duggers' lifestyle but they seem all right..

[DesertBerean]

Forgot to mention my pastor came from a family of nineteen surviving kids, and I know at least three other large families. Only one of them were from the younger generation.

[QuantaFille]

How is this more biblical?

Are you seriously implying that the more biblical model is that a wife be treated like the one in the article in the OP?

There is nothing in the Bible that says that a husband is to have absolute dominion in his household and the wife is to have no say. It says that he is responsible for his household, which is not the same thing. There is nothing that says that since all women are basically controlled by Satan, the husband is the only one fit for making decisions, as the woman in the article seemed to imply about what her husband believed. Instead, the Bible says that a husband and wife have authority over each other and should always have each other's best interests in mind. Forcing a woman to go through risky pregnancies - over and over - is NOT in her best interests and the husband who does that is at fault. If their aim was to "out-populate" the enemy, they could have adopted a reasonable number of children rather than risk the mother's life so many times.
The Bible says that a wife is to submit to her husband, and the word "submit" used here carries the connotation of it being willing submission that he has earned from her. How on earth is he supposed to win submission from her by basically abusing her? There is another word for submission that could have been used if forced submission was what was called for in that verse.
It also says that a husband is to love his wife enough to give his life for her if need be, and it says that wives are to respect their husbands. Typically, women need to feel loved by their husbands, and men need to feel respected by their wives in order to be happy in the relationship. Women will naturally love their husbands and men will respect their wives, but that is not what the other needs from them.

I have some book suggestions for you. Read "Love and Respect" and "The Meaning of Marriage" for a better explanation. Kathy Keller wrote a chapter in "The Meaning of Marriage" on decision making and gender roles which is very good.

http://loveandrespect.com/

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...AJ&redir_esc=y

[KingsGambit]

I'm really tired of hearing people insist that we need a "biblical model" for everything. People who call for this generally don't attend churches where everybody has everything in common; or churches that have pluralities of elders rather than pastors; or practice holy kisses. It seems people frequently use that term to dismiss things they don't like while conveniently ignoring it when possible.

Also, Pap, I thought Scrawly's point was fairly clear on divorce. He wasn't saying that any of those exceptions were being used; he was saying that what seems to be an absolute statement "til death do us part", and that you were citing as an absolute statement, actually has to be qualified somewhat.

[Paprika]

I'm really tired of hearing people insist that we need a "biblical model" for everything. People who call for this generally don't attend churches where everybody has everything in common; or churches that have pluralities of elders rather than pastors; or practice holy kisses. It seems people frequently use that term to dismiss things they don't like while conveniently ignoring it when possible.

But surely you think that in many instances churches need to have significantly deviated from Scripture in one or more aspects of their praxis, and thus need to revert? If so then it seems that you're just frustrated that people aren't being thoroughly consistent.

Also, Pap, I thought Scrawly's point was fairly clear on divorce. He wasn't saying that any of those exceptions were being used; he was saying that what seems to be an absolute statement "til death do us part", and that you were citing as an absolute statement, actually has to be qualified somewhat.

I wasn't citing it as an absolute statement, not least since "til death do us part" is understood to not hold all the time. Now given the wider context, he is holding that the divorce was justified, and hence I was prodding him to explain why: what are the exceptions, and how does this case fall under it?

My accusation of dodging isn't limited to the citation of Jesus but also of 1 Corinthians; he also has been dodging and ignoring a lot of relevant points in our conversation.

[Darth Executor]

Darth, sometimes it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

I'm usually both.

[Darth Executor]

Are you seriously implying that the more biblical model is that a wife be treated like the one in the article in the OP?

She willingly entered the arrangement (and by her own admission egged him on). The type of relationship they have does seem closer to the biblical model than the egalitarian model, which as far as I can tell was invented in the last 50 years or so.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that a husband is to have absolute dominion in his household and the wife is to have no say. It says that he is responsible for his household, which is not the same thing.

So the only options are "equal input" and "absolute dictator"? Also, the verse I had in mind was Ephesians 22-23. I really don't see the church giving Jesus orders.

There is nothing that says that since all women are basically controlled by Satan, the husband is the only one fit for making decisions, as the woman in the article seemed to imply about what her husband believed.

"Plus, I knew that as a woman, I was particularly susceptible to deception by Satan. How many times, when we were discussing an important decision, had my husband said to me, “What you are suggesting SOUNDS reasonable, but how do I know that Satan isn’t using you to deceive me?”"

Seems to me that he listened to her, otherwise they wouldn't be discussing important decisions. He simply held right of veto. It's not even clear that he used it to shut down her conversation, she brings it up as an example of him putting her down and not as an example of how she wasn't granted any decision making input.

Instead, the Bible says that a husband and wife have authority over each other and should always have each other's best interests in mind. Forcing a woman to go through risky pregnancies - over and over - is NOT in her best interests and the husband who does that is at fault.

He didn't force her. I agree that it's stupid but that doesn't have anything to do with the model itself. There's nothing stopping people in egalitarian relationships from making stupid decisions, and it wouldn't necessarily be the model's fault. Also, please provide references, I haven't memorized the bible. I assume you're talking about Ephesians 5:21,which is subsequently expanded into explicit duties (and none of them involve giving women authority).

If their aim was to "out-populate" the enemy, they could have adopted a reasonable number of children rather than risk the mother's life so many times.

Yes, thank you for plagiarizing my previous post.

The Bible says that a wife is to submit to her husband, and the word "submit" used here carries the connotation of it being willing submission that he has earned from her. How on earth is he supposed to win submission from her by basically abusing her? There is another word for submission that could have been used if forced submission was what was called for in that verse.

Not true.

http://biblehub.com/greek/upotassetai_5293.htm

"the demons are subject to us in Your name."

This is a forced submission.

Discussions about forced submission are irrelevant though since she willingly submitted to this arrangement.

It also says that a husband is to love his wife enough to give his life for her if need be, and it says that wives are to respect their husbands. Typically, women need to feel loved by their husbands, and men need to feel respected by their wives in order to be happy in the relationship. Women will naturally love their husbands and men will respect their wives, but that is not what the other needs from them.

Ok.

I have some book suggestions for you. Read "Love and Respect" and "The Meaning of Marriage" for a better explanation. Kathy Keller wrote a chapter in "The Meaning of Marriage" on decision making and gender roles which is very good.

http://loveandrespect.com/

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...AJ&redir_esc=y

Nah.

[KingsGambit]

But surely you think that in many instances churches need to have significantly deviated from Scripture in one or more aspects of their praxis, and thus need to revert? If so then it seems that you're just frustrated that people aren't being thoroughly consistent.

I don't think "consistency" across the board is needed; I just think that terms like "biblical model" should be used for situations that it is clear are meant to be universally applicable and not simply cultural situations or something that one church happened to do once, or that somebody did once. When said support for such a model comes from the wisdom literature, I find the support especially tenuous.

[Paprika]

I don't think "consistency" across the board is needed; I just think that terms like "biblical model" should be used for situations that it is clear are meant to be universally applicable and not simply cultural situations or something that one church happened to do once, or that somebody did once.

Agreed.

When said support for such a model comes from the wisdom literature, I find the support especially tenuous.

If you see the video that Scrawly links at the time he indicates, a man draws from Genesis 1 - the command to be fruitful and multiply; ergo it's not just from the wisdom literature.

[KingsGambit]

Agreed.


If you see the video that Scrawly links at the time he indicates, a man draws from Genesis 1 - the command to be fruitful and multiply; ergo it's not just from the wisdom literature.

Okay, I'm on board with that sort of thing. Other theologians have made much of the specific command to subdue the Earth and have argued that particular command has not been rescinded. The one thing that might give me pause is the notion that the idea was to populate the Earth, which has now been done. Overpopulation is more of a concern than underpopulation so I can't help but wonder if that need has been "fulfilled". Of course, I would not argue that it is sinful to have many (or few/none) children but rather that it is not the most appropiate point of emphasis in this passage.

[Paprika]

Okay, I'm on board with that sort of thing. Other theologians have made much of the specific command to subdue the Earth and have argued that particular command has not been rescinded. The one thing that might give me pause is the notion that the idea was to populate the Earth, which has now been done. Overpopulation is more of a concern than underpopulation so I can't help but wonder if that need has been "fulfilled". Of course, I would not argue that it is sinful to have many (or few/none) children but rather that it is not the most appropiate point of emphasis in this passage.

Hmm. I haven't thought about overpopulation. However, for me it seems that the command to make disciples of all nations and to announce the Messiah's reign to all peoples is the parallel command that now takes precedence.

[KingsGambit]

Hmm. I haven't thought about overpopulation. However, for me it seems that the command to make disciples of all nations and to announce the Messiah's reign to all peoples is the parallel command that now takes precedence.

A general impression of mine is that some of these would-be "patriarchs" may be more concerned about their own family's glory and spiritual well-being than the wider implications of the Great Commission. Maybe that's unfair.

[Paprika]

A general impression of mine is that some of these would-be "patriarchs" may be more concerned about their own family's glory and spiritual well-being than the wider implications of the Great Commission. Maybe that's unfair.

Probably. However, I do think that criticism can be directed at just about any group.

[QuantaFille]

Nah.

Since you are unwilling to even consider that I may be right, and won't even read a better explanation of my belief than I could give myself, I can only come to the conclusion that if we were to quote scripture at each other all day you'd still dismiss anything I said out of hand.

This conversation is over.