# Quiver-full families and the Patriarchy Movement



## Pergamum

Recently it seems that a series of negative books are coming out against the Quiver-Full movement and against "Patriarchy." 

Some books say there is much spiritual abuse within the movement. Other books seem to be written by disgruntled women who may have feminist leanings.

What do you think? It seems that I hold to many of the tenets of these two movements (as would many here on the PB). What is the good and the bad we must watch for?


----------



## Caroline

I don't really know much about it, but I'd take issue with the term 'disgruntled' as a dismissive. The question would be whether the woman in question had a good reason to be disgruntled or not. Simply being disgruntled can go either way. The Hebrews were disgruntled when they complained about having no meat to eat in the desert. But Jesus was also disgruntled when He threw the moneychangers out of the temple. If any system chronically disgruntles people to the point that they write books about it, I think it is fair to ask why. Almost any movement of that sort does have its abusive elements that must be addressed, even if the movement overall has its good qualities.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> Recently it seems that a series of negative books are coming out against the Quiver-Full movement and against "Patriarchy."
> 
> Some books say there is much spiritual abuse within the movement. Other books seem to be written by disgruntled women who may have feminist leanings.
> 
> What do you think? It seems that I hold to many of the tenets of these two movements (as would many here on the PB). What is the good and the bad we must watch for?



1. Would you provide the names of these books? 

2. As you understand them, what are the tenets of the Quiver-Full movement and "Patriarchy?"


----------



## Caroline

My previous post was so vague that I thought I ought to add this, if only for the sake of saying something clear enough to be meaningful:

There is almost always a danger in such movements that people who don't fit the prescribed mold find themselves outcasts. There is also a danger that people with sinful tendencies find justification in certain systems for their sins (even if the systems have good things about them). How do women who are infertile feel about an expectation to bear children being so important? Do overbearing men find justification for tyrannical behavior in certain patriarchal circles? 

Anytime certain aspects of Christian life are emphasized above others, there is danger of extremism that results in abuse, especially toward those that, for whatever reason, don't fit the idealized mold. And probably not in every household or church that subscribes to the system (Quiverfull, in this case), but there will still be elements and pockets of it. That is the case in nearly every such system of emphasis. I went to a seriously creepy autistic support group once. As soon as I arrived, I was told I was doing everything wrong, and that I needed to get a lawyer and threaten the school district and put my son on a special diet, etc. I said I was taking a different approach, and they reacted like I had announced I was having my son executed. People get on a roll about things, and they can be oblivious.


----------



## Pergamum

Here are some book titles and short descriptions of each:

Quivering Daughters: Hillary McFarland, Megan Lindsay: 9780984468607: Amazon.com: Books



> *Homeschooling. Large families. Biblical womanhood. Quiverfull.*
> The Christian patriarchy movement promises parents a legacy of godly children ~ if they adhere to specific Biblical principles. But what happens when families who abandon "the world" for "the Biblical home" leave hearts behind, too? For many wives and daughters, the Christian home is not always a safe place. Scripture is used to manipulate. God is used as a weapon. And through spiritual and emotional abuse, women who become "the least of these" within Biblical patriarchy experience deep wounds that only God can heal. But if living "God's way" caused this pain, why should they trust Him to heal it?




No Will Of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood: Jon H. Zens, Wade Burleson, Stephen Crosby: 9780982744635: Amazon.com: Books



> Church history reveals that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism taught and practiced forms of patriarchy that essentially sided with the evil one's disdain for females. Women were not allowed to function or speak in the church, were viewed as existing to serve males, and were seen as conduits of sin and error. John Calvin, for example, rashly affirmed "Therefore all women are born to submit to the pre-eminence of the male sex . . . . Let the woman be content in her position of subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex."
> 
> In No Will of My Own, author Jon Zens compares the patriarchy taught to families by the Roman Catholic and Dutch Reformed churches in Holland with an aggressive patriarchal wing of the home-schooling movement in America. He shows that the earmarks of patriarchy doctrine result in varying levels of abuse of young girls and wives. This book serves as a vital warning concerning the misuse of Scripture and church tradition to smother female worth and dignity.




Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement: Kathryn Joyce: 9780807010730: Amazon.com: Books



> Journalist Joyce has conducted a groundbreaking investigation of a little-known movement among Christian evangelicals that rejects birth control and encourages couples to have as many children as possible. The movement, which takes its name from a verse in Psalm 127, advocates a retreat from society and a rejection of government policies that encourage equal rights for women, pregnancy prevention and an individualistic ethic. Quiverfull families share with more mainline Protestant groups, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, a belief that wives should submit to their husbands. But the group goes further by insisting that children be homeschooled and daughters forgo a college education in favor of early marriage and childbearing. The book probes a San Antonio–based ministry called Vision Forum, which began as a Christian homeschooling resource and now promotes "biblical patriarchy" through seminars and retreats. Members of the movement use militaristic metaphors and see themselves waging a war to win back the culture and rescue American society. The book lacks an in-depth historical account of the movement's connections to 19th- and 20th-century American fundamentalism or its accommodation with modernity, especially its heavy use of Internet blogs. Yet future historians and journalists will owe Joyce a debt of gratitude for her foray into this still nascent religious group.




Some books FOR the movement:

Amazon.com: A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ (9780943497839): Rick Hess, Jan Hess: Books

Be Fruitful and Multiply: Nancy Campbell: 9780972417358: Amazon.com: Books



> This beautifully written book presents the truth on how God feels about our fertility and about precious children!


----------



## Peairtach

I'm sure there'll be good and bad things about the movement. People are focussing on certain aspects of truth and sometimes taking things to extremes, maybe in reaction to the way society is. I don't agree with the view that the Bible teaches that all contraception is always immoral.



> He shows that the earmarks of patriarchy doctrine result in varying levels of abuse of young girls and wives.



Western society in the way that it now functions results in "varying levels of abuse of young girls and wives" of various sorts.


----------



## CharlieJ

It is one thing to reject birth control, which is debatable but has significant historical precedent. It is another thing to make a virtue of cranking out as many kids as possible. And I deliberately choose to use the term "cranking out," because I think it captures the mentality of the movement, which views women as baby-making machines. At least, that is what I understand from people who have been close to it. Because children are seen as prestige and spiritual capital, the pressure is to have more and more, a pressure that negatively affects primarily the wife, whose health is at risk from frequent births and whose resources are most taxed, since the gender roles of the movement make her the primary caregiver. There's something seedy about this that reminds me of strict Mormonism.


----------



## Pergamum

In what ways are and are not women "baby-making machines?" 

They do seem designed for it, after all.


----------



## Pergamum

Do many families feel pressured to try to have more and more, or are they just carrying out their normal married lives (without birth control) and seeing what happens (like most folks throughout the centuries have done)?

Also, do they feel "spiritual prestige" at gaining more children or merely happiness at adding to their families?


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Do many families feel pressured to try to have more and more, or are they just carrying out their normal married lives (without birth control) and seeing what happens (like most folks throughout the centuries have done)?
> 
> Also, do they feel "spiritual prestige" at gaining more children or merely happiness at adding to their families?



Define 'many'.

Most of the time, modern 'movements' are simply an overreaction to some previous 'movement'. For many years in the US there has been a movement to devalue children. The 'Quiverfull Movement' is a reaction against this. No doubt there are some who take it to the extremes of legalism. But, every 'movement' has such extremists.


----------



## ClayPot

Pergamum said:


> Here are some book titles and short descriptions of each:
> 
> Some books FOR the movement:
> 
> Amazon.com: A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ (9780943497839): Rick Hess, Jan Hess: Books
> 
> Be Fruitful and Multiply: Nancy Campbell: 9780972417358: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This beautifully written book presents the truth on how God feels about our fertility and about precious children!
Click to expand...


Those books deal only with quiverfull, not the patriarchy movement. But Family Man, Family Leader by Phillip Lancaster (Amazon.com: Family Man, Family Leader (9781929241835): Phillip Lancaster: Books) deals with the patriarchy movement.


----------



## joejohnston3

We feel that God chooses our fertility so we leave the decision or outcome to His will. It may or may not produce a lot of children but we feel it will produce the amount He feels is right and according to His will. I am sure there are extremist in these circles just as there are in most beliefs but I believe the driving force behind these areas is a desire that God has the leadership role and that we allow whatever He wills. 

We have found this to be a very difficult issue to discuss as our world has changed so much and society is not designed around single income families with a mother caring for the home and the father providing for his family. Also, with the feminist movement it has stifled the desire for women to embrace their God-given roles and for men to step up as the leaders God wants them to be. 

There is great information on this website, www.colingunn.com - Home and the Monstrous Regiment DVD was amazing!


----------



## Caroline

Pergamum said:


> In what ways are and are not women "baby-making machines?"
> 
> They do seem designed for it, after all.



I suppose it depends on what you mean by that. Women's bodies often (not always) are effective at building babies. However, a woman's identity is in Christ, not in her ability to pop out babies. I have heard of at least one woman who committed suicide after her childbearing years were over, saying in her suicide note that she felt she was no longer good for anything now that she did not have any children. Obviously, there were probably many problems in that situation, but it does suggest that sometimes women find their identity in motherhood rather than in Christ. There are only about twenty years out of a woman's entire life span in which she will be having children. Three fourths of her life (if she lives to be 80 or so, as many women do), she is not a baby making machine at all. And that is assuming that the woman gets married and is fertile, etc. Some women never have children.

Motherhood is an important role, but it is a temporary one. Women can be baby-making machines, but they not always, and for most of their lives, even normal healthy women are not. To put total emphasis on motherhood does seem to be getting involved in the worship of youth that is so prevalent in our culture. Women over the age of 45 have not lost their purpose in life, and women who are infertile are not broken machinery. I think therein lies the danger of Quiverfull.


----------



## Caroline

Pergamum said:


> Do many families feel pressured to try to have more and more, or are they just carrying out their normal married lives (without birth control) and seeing what happens (like most folks throughout the centuries have done)?
> 
> Also, do they feel "spiritual prestige" at gaining more children or merely happiness at adding to their families?


Again, it depends. My good friends who have nine children seem to limit themselves to happiness at adding to their family. However, in the family I grew up in, it was certainly 'spiritual prestige.' People are sinners and they find all kinds of things in which to take foolish pride. The bearing of children is an odd one, since that is really beyond their control (except in regard to the use of birth control). It is like taking pride in being a man (as many men do in machismo cultures). You don't need to study for that one, and you don't really work at it. The formation of a child in the womb takes place beyond the control of woman, and she has no power over whether the results produce a Down Syndrome baby or healthy triplets--or whether she is infertile and unable to conceive. One can be proud of being a good mother (just as one can be proud of being a good man), but simply having children is something no one achieves by effort, unless they are in treatment for infertility.


----------



## DeniseM

After our first son was born, even though we loved him dearly and would have loved to fill the house with several more like him, we decided to prevent other children for the time being. We didn't think that it would be wise for us to take on more children with the financial position that we were in and the doctor I was using at the time had also exaggerated possible bad outcomes that could occur due to some abnormalities with my womb. However, we just couldn't get away from the feeling of guilt, that we were somehow playing God. We felt as if we were saying to him that we knew better what was best for our family than he did. We knew that God had created us with the ability to bring forth children and given us a love for them for his own purposes, and it wasn't right for us to deny the sovereignty of God. Who are we to meddle with God's providence?

That was it. Just a desire to submit to God in every area of life and trust him with the outcome. And he has blessed that desire. We may not have a lot by the world's standards, but we certainly have enough. There was no following of any movement. There wasn't any life altering book(other than the bible) that opened our understanding on the subject of fertility. There are a lot of families in our church that have large families. There is never any mention of a quiver full movement. There are just a lot of people in our congregation that happen to believe in letting God plan the size of their families because he knows best. I don't think that any of us believe that there is some sort of race to have as many children as possible within our child bearing years. I don't believe that Nancy Campbell supports this idea either. I don't know if I would really group her in the quiver full 'movement'. I have read her book Be Fruitful and Multiply and also frequently read her magazine Above Rubies. I think that her stance on the subject is pretty much the same as what I've described. 

I should point out also that there are those in our church that believe in letting God plan their families that don't have a lot of children or in some cases any children. And, to my knowledge, no one looks down on them because of it(or if they do, they shouldn't). I do believe that children are a blessing because God says they are and I have seen the blessing of my own children, but they aren't the only blessing that God has to give. And, as Caroline pointed out, our identity is in Christ. I don't feel that I will be without a purpose when I'm done bearing children and it never came into my head that a barren woman didn't have a purpose in this life. If any movement is teaching that then it is definitely in error.

There do seem to be dangers with following after any movement. Just the word movement makes one think immediately of a cult or extremist group. As far a Patriarchy goes, I've tried to stay away from the leaders of that as much as possible because the one's I know of seem to be advocating some sort of veneration of the husband. Of course a wife is to submit to her husband and children are to honor and obey their father. That is clearly spelled out in scripture. But, so is the fact that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her and not provoke his children to wrath. If there is any abusing of these teachings by those within the Patriarchy movement, then that does deserve discussion.


----------



## Miss Marple

Pergamum said:


> In what ways are and are not women "baby-making machines?"
> 
> They do seem designed for it, after all.



The problem, for me, lies in the word "machines."

No one is a machine. We are souls, and should be treated as such. Souls with weaknesses, frailties, etc., which need to be considered.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JoannaV

There are some who wean their babies early in order to try to get pregnant again. That would be an example of "cranking out babies". I have no idea what the "average" Quiverful family believes. I do see people deciding not to call themselves that any more, just because they don't want to be associated with certain extremes. But then I also see people pick up the term whilst jettisoning any tenets of the movement that they don't agree with.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think Caroline noted well the danger when something even as noble as child-rearing becomes the central aspect of a Church's identity.

I've been reading a pretty decent book on Biblical counseling put out by CCEF lately. What strikes me about it, however, is that it spends about 4 chapters laying out how to properly interpret the Bible. Because the book is not a book about Historical, Biblical, or Systematic theology or a book about hermeneutics per se, it ends up having to touch on those topics in brief. What it says isn't bad in itself but I can imagine that there are some who pick up this book on counseling and assume that, because they have been exposed to four brief chapters on how to interpret the Bible correctly, they are prepared to counsel others from the Bible as the book then shifts into the practical aspects of applying Scripture to others' lives. 

As one who considers himself a constant student of the Word and trying to grow in wisdom and knowledge of the disciplines that sharpen my ability to be of service, I'm struck by how under-equipped many people are to handle a book on counseling. They just haven't been studying the Word long enough and seeing how it all hangs together to even move past the first four chapters and delve deeper for a few years. But, then again, nobody wants to spend years developing an ability to handle the Word properly. People want "point solutions", they don't want a full orbed understanding.

I think this is where many of these movements are. It's not as if the Scriptures don't speak about child-rearing but it can't even be argued that there is a single book of the Scriptures whose primary emphasis is on child-rearing (Proverbs comes the closest). All of the information is in the midst of a multitude of important things that all come together in an overall story or an overall doctrinal emphasis. You can't understand child-rearing in the context of the whole Christian life until you've understood the whole of the Christian life. The problem is that the "elders" of such movements are usually poorly trained or have so distorted the whole picture as to lead others to thinking that the family integrated or quiver full or covenant succession thing is what it's all about. It's sort of like the people you meet from Calvary Chapel who can tell you all about the end times but can't tell you what Justification is.

I've got 5 kids so I hardly qualify for the big family in some circles but there are some ministers who participate on this forum with quite large families. You'd never know it, however, because they're focused on the whole forest. It's not as if the trees of marriage and childrearing aren't important trees in the forest but they have a handle on the health of the entire ecosystem that Scripture is addressing and so they know how to care for every aspect. The reason I prize the input and counsel of such men is because they have stable Biblical, Historical, and Systematic theologies. You never have to wonder why they seem obsessed about one verse in an entire Book of the Bible because they show themselves capable of handling the Word of Truth rather than just the verses that dress up their hobby horse.

I guess at the end of the day, it's good to measure our passions and emphases against where the Scriptures place them. If we can't find even a single author of the Scriptures devoting 90-100% of his time to the things we're talking about incessantly then it's pretty certain that we're a part of a "movement" that is sub-Christian.


----------

