Our oldest daughter, Melody, went through quite a rebellious stretch in her senior year of high school. Up until that point, she’d been at the top of her class, a model student and child. Then something snapped (which occasionally happens to sixteen year-olds). She began lying to us, sneaking out of the house, and openly disobeying us. But how do you discipline a sixteen year-old? You can’t spank them. You can’t lock them in their room. You can’t boot them out of the house. Lisa and I were at our wits end. So we looked for more creative ways to discipline her.
One of those ways was to take her bedroom door off its hinges.
With two brothers and a baby sister, this was a blow to Melody’s privacy. Which we intended. She ended up draping a sheet over the door, which we reluctantly tolerated. If that didn’t work, next we would take away all her make-up. Soon, things changed. Melody weathered that tough stretch and is now a wonderful married mother of two… with household rules of her own.
So I was a bit surprised recently to realize that, according to some, the disciplining of our daughter could have been considered… abuse.
This weekend, I posted this on Facebook:
To be clear, the reason for my qualifications is that many “survivor” networks or “recovering” ____________ (fill in the blank, preferably with something of a religiously conservative nature) often seem less about actually promoting healing and more about raging against evangelicalism, fundamentalism, the Bible, organized religion, conservatism, patriarchy, religious kitsch, or dumb Christians.
Well, I received some great links and some important private correspondences. Many thanks to those who responded. One of the links was for Quivering Daughters (QD). If you’re not familiar with the Quiverfull Movement (as I haven’t been) it’s a rather authoritarian, ultra-conservative group applying rigid “biblical” ideology to issues of Family (contraception, home-schooling, patriarchy, etc.). Some go so far as to define the Quiverfull Movement as a cult. (The Wikipedia article is a good starting place for those who want more.) As a result, more and more people are exposing Quiverfull, and survivor groups are springing up, seeking to help victims detox from this potentially poisonous brand of fundamentalism. Quivering Daughters is one such group.
The more I perused the QD website, the more it appeared this was the type of site I was looking for. Balanced. Not trying to slam Christianity or foist progressivism. Encouraging grace and forgiveness, rather than victimhood and vindictiveness. Its founder, Hillary McFarland, even wrote a book on the subject. But as I continued researching, I was rather surprised to learn…
not everyone agrees with the anti-Quiverfull crowd.
Shocking, I know.
So a counter site was started named Steadfast Daughters (SD) whose sub-heading explains their mission as
…a biblical response to the “quivering daughters” (QD) movement that originated from Hillary McFarland’s book (and blog), Quivering Daughters: Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy.
Which means it’s a biblical response (SD), to a biblical response (QD), to a biblical response (the Quiverful Movement), to secularism. Oy!
While the folks at Steadfast Daughters “fully acknowledge that true abuse occurs, even in Christian homes,” they believe that “according to the writings of some QD proponents, the line between solid biblical teaching and true abuse is blurry at best,” with the result that “some solid, biblical teachings may also be considered emotionally or spiritually ‘abusive.'” Thus:
…we believe it is wrong to blame proponents of real biblical patriarchy (father-rule) for the tyrannical actions of selfish men who cloak themselves in a pseudo-patriarchy that does not resemble Christ-like, biblical headship in the least.
This led to return fire from popular blogger Elizabeth Esther in Steadfast Daughters? Not so fast. Among her many contentions was that SD’s approach
…entirely misses the point because while they demand that we “define terms” [of abuse] and nail down EXACT specifics, the broken victims bleed to death.
Esther is not alone, as you can see in the follow-up comments to that post. The crux of the divide, as far as I can tell, has to do with defining abuse. Under SD’s Frequently Asked Questions page is a lengthy section entitled What Is Abuse? Why is that question important?
…sometimes, when people use the word abuse, they mean other things. Today, the word abuse is used to describe everything from violence, rape, molestation, and verbal cruelty to any form of corporal punishment, hurting someone’s feelings, offending the religious views of another, or even “grounding” a child from something he wants to do. In society’s effort to extend the definition of abuse, the word has nearly lost its meaning.
The author, Stacey McDonald, goes on to cite the true account of a 12 year-old girl who was grounded by her father for posting inappropriate pictures of herself online… and successfully sued him for mistreatment and abuse.
Question: Is grounding your 12 year-old daughter for posting inappropriate pictures of herself online, abuse? If so, then taking Melody’s door off its hinges might have been grounds for the same charge.
Point is: The line between discipline, submission, biblical authority and abuse may be a lot finer than we like to admit. Especially nowadays when autonomy is revered and authority — primarily religious, parental, and patriarchal authority — is seen as oppressive and evil. Of course, situations that involve physical violence, demeaning, entrapment, systematic, unchallenged indoctrination, are indisputably abusive. But the term has definitely become squishy. Especially as it relates to biblical authority.
- Is the Christian man who postures himself as the “head of the house” automatically an authoritarian?
- Is the woman who sees her role as submitting to her husband really a victim, or a naive enabler?
- Are the parents who believe in teaching their children Creationism, home-schooling them, and making them go to church, abusers?
- Is the pastor or leadership team wrong to publicly discipline or disfellowship a member?
Each of these scenarios present countless nuances. Yes, some may cross into abuse. But do all of them? And if not, how do we tell the real abuse from perceived abuse? Or is all perceived abuse, abuse?
The pivot of my own spiritual journey, and probably the most difficult season of my life, was when I was publicly disciplined for “the sin of pride” and was asked to step away from the pulpit for a year. This eventually led to the collapse of our church and my leaving the ministry after eleven years. Along the way, some labeled the church a cult and suggested I’d been manipulated and victimized by an authoritarian senior pastor. Frankly, I’m still not sure I understand the psychological and spiritual dynamics of that season of my life. Was I victimized? Was I brainwashed? Was I a willing participant? Did I deserve what I got? Was I submitting biblically? Did I go too far in submitting to, or enabling, spiritual abuse? The questions go on and on.
But at the heart of my personal struggle, as with the aforementioned Quiverfull saga, is the definition of abuse. Are we, as Elizabeth Esther suggests, too busy trying to “define terms” and “nail down EXACT specifics,” that we allow “the broken victims bleed to death”? Or as Steadfast Daughters asks, is society seeking to “extend the definition of abuse,” thus gutting very biblical, hierarchical structures?
Both have a point.
No doubt, nit-picking terms can be evasive and insensitive to victims. It may even perpetuate an abusive situation! But embracing all charges of abuse can be equally damaging (especially if you’re the father of a 12 year-old girl who effectively sues you for grounding her).
So what do we do?
Obviously, one of worst things we can do is wink at, or openly defend, potential abuse and extremism in Christian circles. In the aforementioned church I was a part of, a child-rearing program became popular that was entitled Growing Kids God’s Way. It was a video series and syllabus that many in the church became enamored with. Lisa and I attended a couple sessions (we had four adolescents at the time) but, frankly, thought the program was rather legalistic. So we declined continued participation. Our lack of enthusiasm for the program was frowned upon. It wasn’t surprising to me that, years later, the group behind the video were charged with having cultic characteristics and was critiqued in Christianity Today. Point is, if stuff seems legitimately weird and people are getting screwed up from it, we need to take a closer look. Even if our church or theology comes under scrutiny. Which is what Hillary McFarland did at Quivering Daughters, to her credit.
But as Christians, we must also be cautious about hacking away at Scripture. In this case, because some who hold to biblical patriarchy are authoritarian and abusive, we disavow biblical patriarchy altogether. This is Stacey McDonald’s point. Because of some abuse, we discard very biblical structures as “emotionally or spiritually abusive.” Thus, all “biblical patriarchy” is bad.
Scripture tells believers, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” (Heb. 13:17). It also commands children to obey their parents, wives to submit to their husbands, leaders to lead, and followers to follow. It commands husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church and for citizens to obey the laws of the land and pray for those in governance over them. We can juggle these commands all we like, but the Scriptures are pretty clear.
Basically, we are commanded to submit on multiple levels.
And the buck has to stop somewhere.
In the case of Melody, the buck stopped with me. Yes, my wife and I were in complete agreement. We believed God loved Melody, that He’d loaned her to us, that we were responsible to have her best in mind and instruct her in the way she should go. And we believed it was Melody’s role to obey us. She wasn’t hit. She wasn’t called names. She wasn’t left unfed. But did we do the right thing in that situation? Was taking her door off its hinges appropriate? Or were we being too hard, even borderline abusive by stripping her of that privacy?
As much as we’d like a clear line between biblical submission to authority and abuse, I’m just not sure there is one. Which is why, I think, Quivering Daughters and Steadfast Daughters both have an important role in this discussion.
Oh, Mike – why do you hate the internetz? 😉
I think it’s good to remember the purpose of discipline: to correct behavior and to restore relationship. I think the approach you took was creative and appropriate and it sounds like it had the desired result. When my daughter was first becoming rebellious, we discovered she was calling a boy she met online. Long distance. Overseas. On the telephone. Before we knew what hit us, she’d racked up something like $3500 in telephone calls. When I opened the first bill, my first thought was somebody had accidentally sent us the bill from a small business. It didn’t take long to realize what had happened. I spent an hour in my car on the way to work having that one-side argument with an invisible person: “…and if YOU think I am going to SIT and TAKE this behavior…” I must have looked like a raging loon.
When I got to work and calmed down a little, I prayed, and prayed, and prayed some more. Finally, late that afternoon, I noticed when she got home from school when her avatar appeared on YIM (we used IM back in the stone age). I greeted her and then got down to business. “You may not know this – when you make a phone call outside of town, it costs a little extra. They call this Long Distance. When you make a call overseas, they call that an International Call, and it costs a lot extra.” I waited for a long, awkward moment and then she wrote ‘dad, i think i’m in a lot of trouble.’
She confessed to calling a boy in Britain and said she had no idea the calls cost money. Why would she? If she spoke to him online via Skype, there was no cost. I’d never considered the scenario to warn her about it. She apologized, I told her I was turning international calling off on our phone line, and that was that.
But she still had feelings for the boy and I suspected if we banished the relationship entirely, it would just encourage other ways of communicating. I prayed about it and then I had a flash of inspiration. I told her she could still talk to the boy but asked her to limit their discussion to e-mail, no IM.
The relationship died within two weeks and she met another boy, a local boy, a couple of weeks later. He was an Eagle Scout, and went to a nearby church. They dated throughout High School and married two years later. They now own a home and have gifted us with two healthy grandsons. I believe God has blessed her contrite heart and she was never rebellious again.
What was the secret? Why did that work?
Turns out, e-mail was too slow to maintain a relationship among hormone-soaked teens.
I’ll say it again: the purpose of Biblical discipline is to change behavior and restore relationship in grace, mercy, and love.
Selah.
As a long-time guest writer for the Quivering Daughters blog, I think that, although your intentions and your overall point are both good, you’ve misunderstood the background of both sites in a few ways, and I wouldn’t like your readers to get the wrong idea. For instance, it would be worth mentioning that Hillary McFarland offers a workable definition of “abuse” in the site’s FAQ: “Consistent behavior—intentional or inadvertent—that has a toxic, hurtful effect on mind, body, heart or spirit….” (Being grounded would certainly not qualify, which makes the “Steadfast” rebuttal sound suspiciously like a strawman!)
She also anticipated many of this post’s objections in her insightful and detailed explanation of the differences between parental authority and authoritarianism, which I very highly recommend you read. Another good post, in which she clarifies that she’s not attacking authority or even “patriarchy,” is entitled I Love Homeschooling, Quiverfull Families! And there’s an excellent guest blog by Darcy also on the subject, Abusing Abuse?
For background on the “Steadfast” site, you should also peruse Lewis Wells’ series of blog posts at Commandments Of Men, in which he critiques it for being what he sees as a passive-aggressive attempt at victim-shaming. The problem as he sees it — and I basically agree — is that teachers like the McDonalds, who make their living promoting Quiverfull doctrines, are attempting to self-servingly redefine “abuse” too narrowly (notice the baffling appeal to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, which she didn’t even quote correctly by the way?). This makes them able to say, “This doctrine caused you severe emotional trauma? Well, that wasn’t real abuse. Being taught you’re not good enough for God to love you is no worse than being grounded.”
McFarland writes, “To be honest, I don’t care if someone chooses to ‘be patriarchal’. I do care when someone’s practice of patriarchy misrepresents the heart of God to a desperate young woman.”
I do agree with you, of course, that “Is this abuse or not?” is often an unedifying rabbit trail (especially, as in the Steadfast case, when the perpetrators are the ones asking it!) that can distract us from our real task of finding consolation in the Lord — because, whether we label it “abuse” or not, it still hurts the same and we still need a Comforter.
Eric, I’ve read a bit on all sides, most of the links you noted, and feel the real divide between Quivering Daughters and Steadfast Daughters is their view of patriarchy. You seem pretty eager to portray the McDonalds and Steadfast in a negative light, which frankly makes me suspicious. I tend to agree with D.M. Dutcher in his comments below:
“There’s recognizing clear abuse and abusive philosophies with the capital-letter Patriarchy Movement (which does say some worrisome things,) but there’s also a battle it seems between complementarian and egalitarian versions of Christian gender relations, and the two intertwine and get tangled up.”
…Suspicious of what? I’m rather baffled what you think my dubious motive might be for providing links that clarify what QD’s “view of patriarchy” is. For one thing, they show that Hillary McFarland specifically disavowed many of the views that SD attributes to her, in most cases long before that website even went up. So of course I do take a dim view of SD when they devote an entire website to negatively portraying QD’s position with what amounts to strawman caricatures. (SD even describes McFarland as “Satan … whispering into the ear of a struggling sinner”, as noted in Christianity Today’s review). If that makes you suspicious of me then I’m not really sure what to say!
Another significant divide between the two sites is that SD is written by people who have a lot of vested interests in promoting the “capital-letter Patriarchy Movement” to parents, whereas QD is written from the perspective of children who grew up under those doctrines and experienced their actual effects firsthand. SD never once provided space for any “daughters of patriarchy” to write about their lives growing up in the Patriarchy Movement. To quote CT again, “But reactions like McDonald’s show why it was so important that McFarland tell her story.” Or to quote C. S. Lewis quoting Sir Michael Sadler on experimental forms of education, “I never give an opinion on any of those experiments till the children have grown up and can tell us what really happened.”
Anyway, my point mainly is that the differences between the two sites’ approaches is more than just a doctrinal nuance on the definitions of “patriarchy” or “abuse.” It’s a matter of how we respond to people who experienced toxic and hurtful effects from spiritually abusive doctrines. Do we say, “Those doctrines aren’t really abusive by my definition, so if you think you were hurt, you must be wrong”? Or do we say, “Despite whatever doctrines may have hurt you, Jesus isn’t like that and He loves you unconditionally”?
What I’m suspicious of is the fervency of your defense of QD and denunciation of SD. As I said, McFarland is doing a good thing exposing patriarchal abuse. I just happen to feel it feeds (whether intentionally or unintentionally) into the anti-evangelical movement so prominent among progressives. Which is why I see both sides as serving an important purpose.
Sorry, Mike, but I’m really still not tracking with you here. I mentioned in my first comment that I’ve been a contributing writer for QD; doesn’t it make sense that I care about not wanting that ministry to be misrepresented, or that I stand up for my friends against false accusations? Again, my “fervency” is suspicious because it means I might be up to… what, exactly? Caring? Standing up for my faith? Being concerned about the truth? Forgive me, but I’m at a loss to tell what you’re insinuating.
The purpose of McFarland’s writings is not primarily, as you say, “exposing patriarchal abuse,” but as the book’s subtitle itself says, offering “hope and healing for the daughters of patriarchy.” The target audience is not the progressive movement but wounded Christians. Those who grew up in the “capital-P” Patriarchy movement need someone to help them heal, often by helping them see that Christianity is something different altogether.
As for “anti-evangelicalism,” if you ever have the urge to make a progressive feminist really angry at Evangelicals, show him or her some Patriarchy doctrine and don’t clarify that it’s not what all Evangelicals believe. I’ve personally seen far too many people leave the faith for precisely that reason, in fact, because they can’t separate what they were taught by Patriarchy from Christianity as a whole. Compare this angry article about Patriarchy on Jezebel.com for an example; notice that QD is specifically held up as a positive contrast for offering support instead of repression. Thus I see the Patriarchy Movement itself as anti-evangelical, unless maybe evangelicalism has lately become a lot more legalistic than I realized. I think your concerns here are, frankly, totally misdirected.
Eric, I’m a little unsure which of my concerns you believe are misdirected. As I’ve said repeatedly here, I believe Hillary McFarland is doing a good thing. There’s much on her site to be commended. However, I also believe, as McDonald suggests, that a culture of victimhood exists. Furthermore, many “recovering Fundies,” rather than working towards a proper understanding of spiritual authority, end up viewing patriarchy as abusive, and swinging toward an opposite extreme. Oftentimes, complete rejection of the faith. I wouldn’t put Quivering Daughters in that camp. But just reading the post on Elizabeth Esther’s site (EE wrote the Forward to Hillary’s book, as you know), the snarky tone, and rancorous dismissal of SD, it’s clear that QD is viewed as an ally to many progressives (as well as those who don’t share her gracious spirit).
Unless you’re charging Steadfast Daughters with condoning abuse or being flat-out unbiblical, I see no reason to be so opposed to them. let me repeat the last paragraph of my post: “As much as we’d like a clear line between biblical submission to authority and abuse, I’m just not sure there is one. Which is why, I think, Quivering Daughters and Steadfast Daughters both have an important role in this discussion.”
So what about this is “misdirected?
As I explained in my previous comment, the Jezebel article demonstrates (and so do others) that if you want a doctrine that supports the progressives’ view that Christianity represses women, then Steadfast Daughters is the site for you, as well as most other teachers in the Patriarchy camp. But instead you criticize Quivering Daughters for this, a website that demonstrated to the Jezebel authors that not all Christians condone this abuse. Hence “misdirected.” (Not to mention that agreeing with Christianity Today‘s view of them is somehow “anti-evangelical”?) Surely the easiest way to convince progressives that Evangelicals aren’t pro-abuse is to show them Evangelicals who offer support to abuse victims, not to deny the abuse in case they may figure out the all-too-obvious fact that it exists.
I also think you’re confusing “a culture of victimhood” for what really exists, a culture of the victimized. Well of course people like Elizabeth Esther who are genuinely victims of abuse can get rancorous when sites like Steadfast Daughters dismiss their experience as “not really abuse” (as I also explained in previous comments). While I might not say that SD outright “condones” abuse in so many words, this is a clear example of victim-blaming, a common tactic of spiritual and emotional abusers. This attitude not only creates a culture that makes it easier to overlook or condone abuse when it does occur, it is itself a form of “secondary victimization.”
As for “unbiblical,” I find it impossible to reconcile SD’s view of authority (as with the Patriarchy movement as a whole) with what Jesus said on the subject: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:25-28) This also suggests an answer to your quote above: The line to draw is that abuse says “I will force you to submit to me”; biblical submission says “I will serve like Christ.”
You also haven’t answered my question about what you’re “suspicious” my motive might be for being so fervent about a subject I care about. If you can show me where anything I’ve said is factually inaccurate, I’ll gladly retract or amend it. Otherwise, I find your insinuations equally misdirected.
Eric, my suspicion is that you’re a religious progressive posing as an evangelical. There are plenty of others who’d disagree w/ you that SD supports a doctrine that “oppresses women.” If you’d like some links to such folks , I can give you some. But my guess is that you’ll take exception w/ those too. My attempt here is to try to listen to both sides while listening to Scripture. Frankly, I haven’t seen enough Scripture or evidence to take sides against SD or QD. So I’m suspicious of why you insist I do.
Mike: You say, “Frankly, I haven’t seen enough Scripture or evidence…” My goal in commenting was to give you some. As for my position not being “evangelical,” I’ve repeatedly said that I agree with Christianity Today‘s assessment of both sites. (You also could have found out a lot about what I believe if you’d read some of my articles on QD.) But if my sincere beliefs make you “suspicious” about the genuineness of my walk with the Lord, then I’m truly baffled. So let’s skip the ad hominem and end this discussion here.
I do encourage you, though, to consider the resources I’ve provided which explain the background, intention, and effects of both sites. I think the more you look into QD and SD, the more you will see that QD takes a Christlike attitude of compassion and healing to the wounded, and SD espouses a false gospel that is ultimately incompatible with any Evangelical confession.
Eric, I’m not suspicious about “the genuineness of [your] walk with the Lord.” I’m suspicious that you are ANTI-patriarchal and see ALL male headship / leadership as a “false gospel.” I read the CT article, the others you’ve linked, and am familiar with the Scriptures you quote. I don’t think any of them detract from the point I’m making in this post: There is sometimes a fine line regarding what is / isn’t abuse, and both QD and SD have important things to say.
Mike: As I’ve repeatedly explained in my previous comments, that is simply a strawman caricature both of QD’s views and of mine. Compare the quote I cited from McFarland saying explicitly that she is not opposed to all “patriarchy,” only the kinds that misrepresent God, and consider the link to the article Abusing Abuse, which anticipates and answers every charge leveled by SD and your post, published several months before SD was even created. I also proposed an identification of the line between submission and abuse based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 20. I’ve got nothing more to add to what I’ve already said, but I do encourage you to carefully reconsider the Scriptures and the evidence on this issue, which is deeply meaningful to many people.
If I may throw in 2 cents. From the outside, what I am seeing is not so much a question of vehemence or sincerity, I think it’s a question of love for Mike (and Eric and me as well).
Yes, a question of Christian living, but it is easy to start to demonize an opponent and forget that we are one body and that that person who may sincerely be wrong in some ways or many ways is still someone who God calls a child. Someone for whom Messiah gave up his life. And I think that is a very real danger. We must never forget that the world will know us by our love for each other. Sometimes that is a hard love, but I think Mike’s question is do you still love the SD members?
On your side, I think yours is also a question of love. If Mike can see the damage of the true abuse of abusive patriarchy, then why isn’t Mike more concerned and able to see that SD is defending what does not need defending? How can he really love the women who have gone through the fallout if he will not be as vehement and black/white on this issue?
But that’s my 2 cents. I haven’t read enough to know more than my own opinions on what I think of abuse and patriarchy, but I would encourage all of us, to decide that we love the person who claims to be a Christian. Decide that despite how dirty someone else’s feet are, that you will wash them all the same. And however important our doctrinal position (even on this), if love is not apparent in it, than ultimately it fails.
Eric, it appears you want me to arrive at the conclusions you have, namely that “SD espouses a false gospel.” I HAVE read your links, articles, and Scripture citations, and simply can’t make that charge. I’d appreciate the benefit of the doubt here, especially being that I’ve struggled under possible spiritual abuse myself and, as having pastored for 11 years, have counseled many who have been abused. I’m not slamming or shaming victims. Nor am I denying that abuse has / does occur in Quiverfull.
I’ve been clear in this post that the Quiverfull Movement is “a rather authoritarian, ultra-conservative group applying rigid ‘biblical’ ideology to issues of Family (contraception, home-schooling, patriarchy, etc.). Some go so far as to define the Quiverfull Movement as a cult.” I’ve also been clear that the QD website appears “Balanced. Not trying to slam Christianity or foist progressivism. Encouraging grace and forgiveness, rather than victimhood and vindictiveness.”
As far as I can tell, your MAIN contention is that Steadfast Daughters and Stacy MacDonald are perpetrating a “false gospel.”
On this, we simply disagree. But more than that, it makes me “suspicious.” I mean, you don’t regularly comment on my blog. So why, after a post on spiritual authority and abuse, would you “show up” and begin a lengthy dissent, with an ultimate objective to discredit a sister in Christ?
As you know, there are other perspectives about QD and SD. Like Robin Phillips’ review of Quivering Daughters in which he ultimately concludes that McFarland’s book “does provide some valuable warnings about the horrendous abuses that go on behind the scenes in conservative families and, for that reason, I recommend that it be taken seriously.” Nevertheless, Phillips expresses reservations about several aspects of the book, mainly the broad-brushing of patriarchy and patriarchal systems (I encourage the reader to follow the link and peruse the comments). Interestingly enough, you have commented there as well. I especially found your statement in THIS COMMENT illuminating:
At some point, don’t we have to question whether what we see is the abuse of the doctrine or the fruit of the doctrine? There’s a terrible consistency to all the stories. If one person follows someone’s teaching and abuses their child, it could be a misunderstanding; if 100 do, something’s very wrong.
As I’ve suggested here, I find that many of those who slam MacDonald and SD appear to do so on the grounds that patriarchy is intrinsically evil. This doesn’t take MacDonald and SD off the hook! But it appears to be what you’re inferring in this quote — physical and psychological abuse is not the result of the misuse of the doctrine, but “the fruit.” This is where we disagree. It is also a point you seem to be evading.
Do you believe that the physical and emotional abuse going on in the Quiverfull Movement is the result of misapplied patriarchy or the actual fruit of patriarchy?
Commenter Tonya on Elizabeth Ester’s post said this: “Oh, I’m so sad to read all of this – from what you posted to the comments. In some ways the Quivering Daughters group and the Steadfast Daughters group are actually on the same page. It’s just that they can’t communicate well. When you’ve been hurt (as in the QD group), you are approaching anything that even ‘smells’ like what you’ve been raised with in the defense! And when the SD people are trying to explain and defend what they believe, it just comes across as hurtful to the QD group.” Tonya’s comment was not responded to. However, I tend to agree with her — QD and SD “are actually on the same page.”
J.S. Clark: Wonderful point, and thanks so much for your contribution.
Mike: I find it disheartening that you admonish me to give you the “benefit of the doubt” (which I have done) while still maintaining that you’re “suspicious” of me, even dredging up a three-year-old comment I wrote on a post by an SD contributor rather than engaging most of the points I’ve made here. Though I must say I’m rather surprised that you’re annoyed this post attracted new commenters!
To answer your question, I believe part of the problem may be that you and I have different definitions of “patriarchy”: you seem to mean “any male leadership” while I mean “male authoritarianism.” As I said above, “abuse says ‘I will force you to submit to me’; biblical submission says ‘I will serve like Christ.’” I have and do take issue with the “capital letter Patriarchy Movement,” as you identify it, but as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m “not opposed to all “patriarchy,” only the kinds that misrepresent God.” Those include what you rightly identify as the “rather authoritarian, ultra-conservative” tendencies of the Quiverfull movement. So yes, I believe that “the physical and emotional abuse going on in the Quiverfull Movement is… the actual fruit of patriarchy” in the sense I’ve given the word. However, as I’ve also repeatedly said, to suspect I think this is true of *all* cases of male leadership is nothing but a straw man, and I consider it insulting that you ignore all my statements explicitly denying it.
As for why I believe SD promotes a “false gospel,” try reading the posts on SD as though they were written as a “biblical response” by your pastors to your own experience with spiritual abuse. Is this really the kind of empathy, compassion, and love that Jesus would show the wounded? Does it point people to Christ and the need for grace+faith alone, or does it reinforce the idea that God is behind the legalistic systems that hurt the readers? If you still think QD and SD are “on the same page,” well, frankly I think that’s preposterous, but it’s probably time to agree to disagree. This will be my final comment, but please do consider the facts I’ve presented.
Eric, what points haven’t I engaged? I’ve read the articles you’ve linked. There’s some good things there. But there’s other positions, other considerations. The Scriptures you cite are but one of MANY regarding spiritual leadership, male headship, and authority. There’s the Genesis account of Eve being formed from Adam, which is used as the basis (according to Paul in I Tim. 2:12-15) for women not teaching men in church (not saying I agree with this interpretation). There’s God revealing Himself as Father and Christ selecting twelve disciples, all MEN. There’s wives being commanded to submit to their husbands and husbands being commanded to love their wives (Eph. 5:22-33). There’s children being commanded to obey their parents and church members being commanded to obey and submit to their spiritual leaders (Heb. 13:17). Point being, there’s lot of Scriptures about spiritual authority! So let’s not take just that one to the exclusion of others.
I believe you’re right in suggesting that we probably “have different definitions of ‘patriarchy.'” If, indeed, you are “not opposed to all ‘patriarchy,’ only the kinds that misrepresent God,” then I suppose it would come down parsing various contexts of application or misuse. Nevertheless, that position is potentially slippery in that, depending upon what one considers “misrepresenting God,” just about ANYTHING can be considered abuse. Which, again, is one of the things I’ve suggested in this post.
As I’ve already said, I am not that familiar with Quiverfull. What I know of the Bill Gothard school of thought (which we learned from some of the homeschool co-ops we briefly came in touch with), I’ve no problem believing there’s weirdness involved. But Eric, I just can’t throw out blanket accusations against an entire group or individuals (like Stacy MacDonald). Much of what I read from MacDonald… I agreed with. Could she be off-base? Absolutely! But to suggest she’s spreading a “false gospel” is, to me, way over the top.
Also, I didn’t say I’m “annoyed this post attracted new commenters.” I’m “suspicious” about how you, apparently an active commenter on this topic elsewhere, just “happened” to land here. So I’m wondering, how were you directed to this post?
Anyway, I’ll continue to ponder this issue. Blessings!
To quickly answer the questions left hanging in your final comment —
– I used to subscribe to this blog back when I worked in the Christian publishing industry. (Here’s one of my comments on your site from 2010.) So your name was familiar when one of my friends posted a link to this article on Facebook. As you rightly note I’m “an active commenter on this topic,” so naturally enough I commented. At this point I’m simply bemused that you’re so “suspicious.” How are people usually directed to your posts? If you had given me the benefit of the doubt as you asked for yourself, this dialogue would surely have been more edifying.
– My comments are intended not to “attack Stacy McDonald” but to defend Hillary McFarland against a site (SD) that was specifically created to attack the ministry of my sister in Christ. That’s a very significant and obvious distinction to me. The raisons d’être of SD and QD is one of the points you didn’t address, although the facts were presented in my very first comment and others.
– The syllogism seems quite sound: (1) The [capital-letter] Patriarchy Movement is unquestionably a false gospel, (2) Steadfast Daughters is spreading the Patriarchy Movement, (3) Steadfast Daughters is spreading… well, Q.E.D. Granted (1) might not be immediately obvious at a cursory look, but with in-depth study it’s simply an unavoidable conclusion, at which many Christians besides me have also arrived.
– I’m familiar with all the verses you reference and see nothing in them, taken as written, that’s inconsistent with any of my views.
I’m not inclined to reopen any of the above issues, but I thought those few points could stand to be clarified. Blessings to you as well.
Our society doesn’t revere autonomy. We revere teamwork. We aren’t anti-authoritarian, either. We love government intervention in our lives. I’m very sticky about authority. If I first acknowledge an authority figure, I then have very strict boundaries for that authority. If my authority crosses the line in any way, I will not respect that person. These patriarchals live in such a way that they would cross my line from the get-go. I could not accept that way of life.
They always say the Lord speaks to you and this article certainly did. It’s often difficult to interpret the Scriptures and to do exactly what they say. As a woman, I just can’t stomach the idea of always having to submit to a man, to keep silent, to stay at home and make babies. I’m extremely independent, have an awesome career teaching college students about the amazing biological world that God created, don’t have kids (never wanted them and never will). Would my loving Father in heaven truly want me to live a life of misery by going against all the things that bring me peace and joy? My husband and I are divorcing because of this very thing. I refused to submit to his decision to sell our home and go back to renting. I wasn’t disrespectful. I pointed out the fault of his reasoning by explaining that we would be spending double every month on rent compared to a mortgage and we’d lose out on the tax deductions. He accused me of not being a “good” Christian wife and brought up another sore spot: the kid thing. He knew before he married me that I never wanted kids. He married me thinking he would change my mind and has resented me for years when it didn’t happen. Is this all part of God’a plan? Does he want me to stay in a marriage that strips me of myself or would he rather me be alone or perhaps find another Christian man who will treat me the way Christ would desire? I don’t know. I’ve wrestled with this every day for weeks now. What I DO know is that regardless, God loves me and still wants what’s best for me. Everything else will sort itself out
Shay, that’s a tough spot. It sounds like both of you went into marriage with conflicting expectations. That makes it easy to feel cheated. Feeling cheated leads to resentment and bitterness.
My wife and I deal with that a lot, in the present. When you’re dealing with these kinds of feelings, it’s hard for anyone to speak into your life. No one else can truly understand what it means to be in your situation, frustrated in the most intimate area of your life which should be your greatest joy. It’s been bad enough for us that each of us has thought about divorce, but if I could encourage you. It would be to say maybe get some space. And get alone with God.
I don’t mean that to be cliché, but ask yourself what is the most important thing you can do in this life? I’m not going to say have children, but in a sense it is. God did not design life to be good by getting tax deductions or even furthering our careers (man or woman). He designed life to be best inside and out when we act most like Him.
God married us despite our frailties and betrayals. He sticks with us. The reason to stick with a husband or wife, regardless of circumstance is not because it’s smart or even because it’s commanded, but because it’s what God would do. That is what being Christlike is. Christ sacrificed so that people would be changed; people did not change so He decided to sacrifice himself.
I’m not saying you should give up your career. I’d say keep doing whatever you’re doing. But decide to love your husband and not to leave him. Does God want you to live a miserable life? No. But you aren’t in a position to know what will happen. You don’t know that leaving him (or him leaving you, I don’t know which), will make you happy. And would it make him happy? You don’t know. You don’t know that living through this trial and seeking God for your husband and your husband seeking God for you, isn’t exactly what is needed to bring about true happiness. Faith and sacrifice and living like God go hand in hand. You have to trust that God will make it right, and that means in the moment letting go of what looks right or feels right.
Obviously, you know this or you wouldn’t have hung on this long. But keeping hanging on. I know in my own marriage, that I hit the rocks almost weekly. Some days I have a montage of “It would be better if one of you died”, going through my head. But I take that to God, “Why is this so hard? Can’t I have one thing right in my life?”
But what I get back is that my wife and I both had tough lives. We both feel cheated or abandoned. And that’s why I can’t leave her, because if God brought us together than I am exactly who she needs to be healed. And she is who I need. God is working in each of us, on each us. I believe God brings people together like us just for that reason, because we’re each suffering from curses, and us together seeking God is an opportunity for God to break that curse. All He needs is for us to live it out.
The most important thing is for me to be the hands and feet of Messiah to my wife, and our son. And that mission to her is more important than my business or my writing or anything. It is that mission of being God to the world that God put me here for. And you too.
Please, be encouraged. Stop the divorce if you can. Minister to him as a disciple of Messiah.
There are some wonderful and heartfelt posts here. I know my posts are usually short — but to the point, I hope — and this one will be too. Just try to imagine a world without discipline, without rules, without authority. At first, that might seem appealing, especially to most young people — and don’t forget, we were all young at one time — but, if you stop and think about it, such a world would, in reality, be a scary, dangerous, and unhappy place to be. May the love and grace of our Lord, Jesus be with you all.
This is one that I have nothing on. There’s recognizing clear abuse and abusive philosophies with the capital-letter Patriarchy Movement (which does say some worrisome things,) but there’s also a battle it seems between complementarian and egalitarian versions of Christian gender relations, and the two intertwine and get tangled up. I don’t think we’ll see it get stable until that greater battle stabilizes.
I mean, we all know abuse on the family level when we see it. But people go beyond and try to prevent it by tackling the philosophies behind it, and that’s where the tangling up mentioned above happens. It’s not something that can easily be resolved, and we’ll have the dilemma you mention Mike for a long time.