Another baby for the Duggars … 1st grandchild is on the way

I wonder if they are really as happy as they appear on tv. The tv show is really a job for them, and looking happy is part of that job. Can everyone really just be happy all the time? That isn’t normal. I don’t care how “Christian” and Bible-loving you are.I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls.Michele (not Duggar!) LOL!

I’ve been wondering what your opinions are on the Duggars and their strong media presence and stuff. The way they’re presented on the TV, they seem rather pragmatic for religious extremists, especially compared to the stories you guys tell, and the “ideals” of the movement you describe.I’ve also wondered whether they’re really that much less creepy than their friends that pop through now and again (or, yanno, sire their daughter-in-law) or if they’re just edited that way.

Vyckie and Laura, I am curious…since such emphasis is placed on gender roles in the QF movement, what would a QF family do with a child that was born intersex? (To learn more about intersex people, go to http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex )

I’m almost certain that they’re not nearly as perfect as they seem on the screen, even though those “imperfections” might well be buried very deeply.There’s actually a very cruel joke going around about how, since about one-in-ten people are born gay, and the more boys you have the more likely it is that your younger ones will be gay, it’s statistically extremely likely that at least one of her kids is living in the closet.But even cruel plays with statistics aside, there’s probably some deeply buried problems, and unfortunately such problems have a bad habit of erupting in the worst possible way *resists urge to link to that poor evangelical christian who died while doing some very weird, kinky self-play*

The Duggar family’s media presence is what made me aware of the QF lifestyle. As a neo-pagan mom and wife, I’m somewhat fascinated by their story. I find the patriarchical leadership creepy but the large family interesting. I wonder what their inner dynamic is and how the children will grow up under the scrutiny.

I have been reading this blog with interest. What mystifies me is the notion that a woman cannot possibly be happy being in a submissive role as a quiverfull wife.It seems to me that a true feminist would see that not all women are the same, and that each one should be free to pursue whatever lifestyle she desires. I think it is extremely short-sighted to think that only certain “feminist-approved” lifestyles could make a woman happy.Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me. I am happier than I have ever been in my life right now, as a Christian and one who strives to be meek and submissive to my husband. I did a complete 180 like Vyckie did, yet in the opposite direction, when I came to know Jesus Christ. I have never once felt disillusioned, discontented, or resentful in my new life. I also think it is narrow-minded to paint all men in the “patriarchy movement” (whatever that is) as domineering, abusive jerks, or the families as all dysfunctional, unhappy people hiding behind fake smiles. That simply is not true.If this is really a feminist site written by feminist women, it seems you would see that the QF/P lifestyle really could be “a wonderful, godly lifestyle which makes for happy families. …” for some women. Just because it was not wonderful for either of you ladies, doesn’t mean it isn’t wonderful for others. What left you both empty and disillusioned could very well be deeply fulfilling and enjoyable for others.~Amy

Amy- My answer would be that as a feminist, I can simultaneously support women’s rights to make their own choices about their own lifestyle, and also believe that not every lifestyle is healthy.I don’t think that the patriarchal lifestyle is an intrinsically healthy model for a relationship, but I defend your right to get into the type of relationship that makes you happy. I think you are misrepresenting what is being said on the blog to some extent. When were all patriarchal men accused of being abusive? It was merely pointed out that the patriarchal model does a poor job of allowing women to protect themselves from abusers. That is a criticism of the model, not of all patriarchal men. Do you disagree that there is a heightened potential for abuse when one partner holds all the decision making power? As far as I can tell, the purpose of the blog is not to tear down anyone else’s families, but for Vyckie and Laura to tell their personal stories, and also for them to lead discussions in questioning a certain type of lifestyle. If you are so certain that your lifestyle is good, you shouldn’t feel threatened when others examine it.

Amy, if you had read both the blog and the comments more closely, you;d have noticed that no one here says that you cannot arrange your marriage in any way that suits you best, including being a submissive houswife. This is about the expectation that this is how you HAVE to be to be a good woman, about the fact that the QF/P movement promotes inequality in power so that defending against abuse is difficult and even discouraged, and about how the bible is used to achieve that.let me ask you a question: if there were no QF/P movement, what would stop you from living the way you do now?on the other hand, if there were no QF/P movement, would it be as easy to force women into an abusive relationship and deny them the right to complain?

Amy,You said “Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me.” Could you describe the whole liberal feminist thing that did nothing for you? I’m pretty sure I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m quite curious now.

AmyI know you weren’t really adressing me, but I’m tempted to reply anyway.You’re right – a feminist respects the decision of a woman to submit to her husband, if, and only if, it’s what she really wants. I can certainly see that in some relationships the woman is really not as good at decision-making, and maybe feels happier when she follows her man than when she leads. The opposite dynamic, with the man as a follower, exists as well, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as both are happy in such a relationship. But that’s not what the patriarchy movement (and I don’t really know why you put that in “quotes”, since it’s title is self-proclaimed) has in mind.You see, for a feminist to respect such a choice, it has got to be that – a choice. Not something the woman feels obliged to do, which is exactly what is clear in Laura’s and Vicky’s stories. Take the 2nd part of Laura’s story “Dresses and Dashed Dreams”. She does not want to wear dresses, but Christian modesty and her husband demand it. She was coerced into it.You say the QF/P lifestyle really could be “a wonderful, godly lifestyle which makes for happy families. …” for some women. But that’s not what the quiverful lifestyle presents itself as. It explicitly says that this is the only acceptable way of marriage – women who don’t submit are frowned upon and if the relationship ever hits rock bottom, the woman is told she isn’t submissive enough, she must change her ways. And here lies the reason why Vicky has the notion that there are no happy QF marriages – such a set up promotes abuse. Not only that, it protects the abuser over the victim. If the man is given absolute power over the woman, he is bound to abuse it. Power corrupts and all that. As I read more of Vicky’s story, I, too, am left with the impression that QF created a tyrant and abuser in Warren – which is nearly as awful abuse Vicky suffered. To be turned into something evil… and with the best intentions, namely, to follow a good, moral (seen from a biblical perspective) lifestyle. *shudder*The quiverful movement does not allow for women’s choice – it guilts, it threatens, it coerces, all in the name of Christianity. “If you don’t submit, you’re not a good Christian. You don’t love God enough. You are sinning. You will burn.” It does not allow for different personalities in women – one size fits all. There is no dissent – you have a vagina and therefore you must be this and that. The quiverfull lifestyle is inherently disrespectful to any and all feminist lifestyle. Even if a woman, with no coercion whatsoever, chooses this lifestyle – what about her daughters? They will be indoctrinated into the belief that they have to be submissive. That their place is at home, barefoot in the kitchen. Kinder, Küche, Kirche in the truest sense. And they’re sheltered from the world, homeschooled, to protect them from evil (read: feminist) influences. Do you really think all daughters would choose their mother’s lifestyle? They cannot make an informed decision. How could a feminist respect a choice when there is none?

I’m confused! When I came to read this posting, earlier today, I thought the title of it was “Michelle Duggar is pregnant again”, but that’s not what the title says now. Then, when I look at the side bar where all the new comments are coming up, it says the same thing for this posting. Was there a change in the title? Does that mean Michelle is not pregnant again?Sorry, I just thought maybe I had read wrong and wanted to know what the situation really is.Thanks,Kelly

Kelly ~ you are not crazy ~ I actually did change the title of the post. Guess I hadn’t had enough cups of coffee when I read the NY Times article ~ I thought it was an announcement that Michelle was expecting again. So ~ oops! Sorry for the confusion.

Amy – I have to echo what Kaderin said. The problem with your post is the “for some women” part. I am a Christian who homeschools my two children, and I know over 10 quiverfull families. Not ONE of them does not look down on me or try to judge me in some way because I only have 2 children. If questioned directly, some will say that God does not require it for everyone, but what they live out is something totally different.I am very thankful that my husband didn’t feel led to go down the quiverfull path, and that we both are strong enough in our relationship with God not to be taken in by this particular legalism. But I have seen firsthand the damage it has done in other’s lives, along with every other variant of legalism out there. And it might have just a little bit more of a draw for me if ANY of the quiverfull women I know seemed truly happy. They all vacillate between the blank stare, giving each other pep talks to keep themselves going, and being judgmental of all the poor Christians around them who aren’t as spiritually mature as they are. No thank you to that!Jennie

You know (this is not just in response to Amy) when I read Quiverfull-ish websites, one of the things that occurs to me is that it’s about 1/3rd reasonable advice clouded in 1/3rd things that make no sense to me and 1/3 things that I think are probably not healthy in general. Like all these discussions of who does the decision-making and the division of household work: I suspect it is actually just plain sane to decide one partner is better at balancing the checkbook, giving that job to that partner, and trusting that they’ll do what they need to do. And then that really reasonable advice (I buy the groceries, my partner does the yardwork; we don’t second-guess each other’s projects) gets buried under this assertion that some of these jobs are jobs for Big Masculine Leaders and unless your husband gets to do them (even if he’s terrible at balancing the checkbook and is a really good grocery shopper) he will be emasculated and Jesus will weep for your marriage.

“I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls.”——–I am curious here too. I suppose there no “close to scientific way” to find out, either.

“It was merely pointed out that the patriarchal model does a poor job of allowing women to protect themselves from abusers. That is a criticism of the model, not of all patriarchal men. Do you disagree that there is a heightened potential for abuse when one partner holds all the decision making power?” –atheist in Bible BeltThere is a potential for abuse in ANY relationship. I personally believe there is greater potential for abuse from men who do not know the Lord and who do not strive to be like Jesus Christ. They have no perfect example to follow as Christians do. I guess it’s all in one’s perspective.”If you are so certain that your lifestyle is good, you shouldn’t feel threatened when others examine it.”To be clear, I am not quiverfull. My husband doesn’t know the Lord (I was saved after I married him). But I am still called to submit to him, even if he is not obedient to God. Again, my perfect example is Jesus Christ, who submitted Himself to the Father even to the point of death. Any submission I am called to do to an unregenerate man is nothing compared to what my Lord went through. If my husband were to be converted tomorrow and desired to live the QF lifestyle, I’d follow his lead. If he wanted to stay as we are with 4 kids, I’d still follow his lead. Either way, it’s my choice to follow his lead. And either way, I’d be happy because my joy comes from the Lord, not my circumstances.–Amy

I agree with the commenter above, at least one of those younger boys has to be gay. And given this strand of Christianity’s hatred of Teh Gay, it seems like that he will stay closeted and live a miserable life. Sad, really.

“I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls.”I grew up in a quiverfull family. For years I thought the only way to please God was to follow in my mother’s footsteps. It was like carrying a huge burden on my back while trying to run a race. It killed my joy and made me seriously question God and his goodness.I’m shaking it off. We don’t see any command to breed as many children as possible, or to avoid using contraception, so my husband and I have concluded that it’s up to us. I think that having lived in a “poor” quiverfull family helped me avoid believing all the rosy tales from some books. Sure, there is a lot of happiness, but it’s also very hard. My mother has talked about her feelings of helplessness, overwhelming fear, loads and loads of work and depression. I remember much of this too.On the other hand, I think her testimony is positive in many ways too. She doesn’t paint it all the color of rose, she talks about it as it is. She knows that each family have to decide what is best for them, so she doesn’t expect us to follow in her footsteps. And she doesn’t raise herself as some expert, telling younger women what to do. She lets her life do the teaching, and she is happy to answer our questions.She’s a great role model to me in many ways, I appreciate her input and seek it often, but no, I don’t feel called to have 10 children!My dad is a bit different.

“Amy, if you had read both the blog and the comments more closely, you;d have noticed that no one here says that you cannot arrange your marriage in any way that suits you best, including being a submissive houswife.”–JadehawkI haven’t read the comments because of lack of time. My reference is merely the blog. “This is about the expectation that this is how you HAVE to be to be a good woman”Although the QF part can be debated, a woman is most definitely called to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home in the Bible. And parents are instructed to train up their children for the Lord.”…about the fact that the QF/P movement promotes inequality in power so that defending against abuse is difficult and even discouraged, and about how the bible is used to achieve that.”If a person believes the Bible to be true, it makes sense that they would make their decisions based on the Bible.”let me ask you a question: if there were no QF/P movement, what would stop you from living the way you do now?”I have never followed any movement. I just follow God through the Bible which, I am sure, is what QF people are trying to do as well.It’s not really about living any lifestyle, but about living in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. The Bible is the instruction manual that tells us how to do that. If God tells me to jump, I’m going to jump! If he tells me to humbly submit to my husband and be his helpmeet, that’s what I am going to strive to do.”…the other hand, if there were no QF/P movement, would it be as easy to force women into an abusive relationship and deny them the right to complain?”Who, exactly, is being forced into these relationships? It was pointed out in this blog that it is the woman who are often the ones who seek out this lifestyle, and they do so because they want to please God. And I’ve never seen complaining as a right. The Bible tells us to do all things without complaining (and that isn’t just addressed to women).–Amy

Amy,”You said “Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me.” Could you describe the whole liberal feminist thing that did nothing for you? I’m pretty sure I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m quite curious now.”It would take longer than I have to answer this as you want it answered. But I will say since coming to know the Lord, my happiness doesn’t depend on my own selfish wants and desires or following my own path, or even getting my own way, but from pleasing God.When I became a Christian, I chose to give up any “authority” I possessed in a 50/50 relationship (which, by the way, led to a lot of bickering and butting heads) and gave it to my husband.There is no more arguing, butting heads, or discontent for either of us in that regard. He gets his way, and I get to please the Lord. I think I got the better end of the deal, personally. )

That last comment responding to Mer was from me, Amy. I forgot to sign my name. Sorry.

You see, for a feminist to respect such a choice, it has got to be that – a choice. Not something the woman feels obliged to do, which is exactly what is clear in Laura’s and Vicky’s stories. Take the 2nd part of Laura’s story “Dresses and Dashed Dreams”. She does not want to wear dresses, but Christian modesty and her husband demand it. She was coerced into it.–KaderinI cannot speak for Laura, but I can say that there is most definitely a choice in serving God or serving self.When we love the Lord and desire to please Him, there is a higher calling beyond satisfying our own wants. As Christians we are called to die to our own selfish desires so that we can truly live in Christ. In other words, I gave up one thing (pants) to attain another, better thing (the joy of obeying God). –Amy

Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it’s unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the “joy of obeying God” without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband?

But that’s not what the quiverful lifestyle presents itself as. It explicitly says that this is the only acceptable way of marriage – women who don’t submit are frowned upon and if the relationship ever hits rock bottom, the woman is told she isn’t submissive enough, she must change her ways. And here lies the reason why Vicky has the notion that there are no happy QF marriages – such a set up promotes abuse. –KaderinJust because something may promote abuse (I’m not saying it does or doesn’t, but for the sake of argument), that doesn’t mean there IS abuse.That’s the problem I am seeing. You [general] simply cannot paint all families with the same broad brush. There are plenty of happy, QF families where there is no abuse (and dare I say, plenty of non-QF, non-Christian families where there IS abuse).”The quiverful movement does not allow for women’s choice – it guilts, it threatens, it coerces, all in the name of Christianity.”You assume all women go into this lifestyle kicking and screaming. That simply is not the case.”Even if a woman, with no coercion whatsoever, chooses this lifestyle – what about her daughters? They will be indoctrinated into the belief that they have to be submissive.”We all indoctrinate our kids to some degree with our beliefs. From your perspective, submission is a bad thing. From my perspective, it is a wonderful thing. Why would I not desire my children to live for Jesus Christ, when I believe it is the greatest of all possible ways to live?–Amy

Amy, I am glad that you have a life that you are happy with.You said: Although the QF part can be debated, a woman is most definitely called to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home in the Bible. And parents are instructed to train up their children for the Lord.I sense that we are not going to be able to accept one another’s basic principles. You “know” that the Bible is the Word of God and that Biblical living is THE Right Way, and I “know” that it is not. However, I hope that you will respect that not everyone who is a good person adheres to a Biblical definition of a “good woman”. I am not called by any god to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home. My 50/50 relationship is very peaceful and happy. There’s no bickering, no discontent. I feel that you make a bit of a false dichotomy between “selfish wants and desires” and “pleasing God”. I can tell that there’s going to be no convincing you that your relationship choice isn’t the “better thing” for ALL women. And I don’t want to convince you of what’s right or wrong for your own life, but just as you want us to accept that you are happiest in a submissive role, I hope you can reciprocate and accept that others of us are completely happy and content in an egalitarian relationship, or in one without strictly defined gender roles.

Okay, so I’m not going to get into this discussion… I am going to bring this back to the Duggar family. Have you ever met them? (I know the network of QFers is pretty small, and people seem to know a lot of other people.) So, here’s what I think of the TV series… I think it’s watered down and that it romanticizes the family. It depicts the lives of a family that lives in a huge, luxurious home (a far cry from the majority of QF families that must struggle to provide basic necessities to so many children.). It tends to show the family only when they are supremely happy. It never shows the struggles in a critical light or bothers to ask critical questions. It frames the family as quaint and harmless–and gives the audience no understanding of the politics of the movement.I don’t know anything about the Duggar family themselves, but I have big problem with the TV show. I think it’s a part of the reason why I keep seeing feminist women with no history in this movement saying, “But I am drawn to the lifestyle.” The show provides no sense of the harmful aspects of the lifestyle. Finally, as a feminist… Damnit, Amy, I am gonna respond to you after all. I support women who voluntarily enter into a submissive role in BDSM relationships. (For the most part. I am speaking of consensual, healthy BDSM relationships, not the abusive sort.) This is because I know that BDSM culture places vast importance on consent–and that most people involved in BDSM relationships do a lot more negotiating about what is okay and what isn’t than most “vanilla” couples. So, as a feminist, yes, I do support women who choose submission.The Quiverfull lifestyle, however, portrays itself as one that is best (read: “most Godly”) for *all women.* The suggestion that this is only about women’s choices is dishonest.Kristin

That’s the problem I am seeing. You [general] simply cannot paint all families with the same broad brush. There are plenty of happy, QF families where there is no abuse (and dare I say, plenty of non-QF, non-Christian families where there IS abuse). – Amy Amy, I think you have this backwards. Many responding to you have said that it is fine if the woman chooses to live like that. It’s the QF people who are painting with the same broad brush: they claim that their way is the only way to happiness. But the evidence of real life clearly shows that there are happy and unhappy QF families, good and bad husband-led families, functional and disfunctional wife-led families, and happy and unhappy co-led families. Personally, I’m someone who functions best in a co-led family, and married someone who is the same. What works for you would not work for us. What did not work for you does work for us. I think that for the most part, certainly for my part, what the anti-QF people are against is not the QF lifestyle itself as long as it is chosen by both spouses; rather, what we are against is the claim that this is the only way, or necessarily the best way, for everyone. That is what the QF people claim, and that is clearly false.

People who say the Bible mandates a woman’s submission to her husband, along with forbidding women to hold positions of leadership in church, simply don’t know much about bible scholarship.Some of the verses that are most used to support these things are actually considered by scholars to be later additions to the original text.I recommend the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Professor Bart D. Erhman for an introduction into textual scholarship. The book also mentions this very subject.In fact, in the very early church that existed immediately after the death of Jesus, women had enormous power. As time went on, some male leaders wanted to limit their power. Hence, you had verses about women’s submission and not speaking in church added into the text.BTW, just before those verses, there are instructions on how women ARE to speak in church (with a covering over their head), which contradicts the next verses about not speaking in church at all.

Purple said: I suspect it is actually just plain sane to decide one partner is better at balancing the checkbook, giving that job to that partner, and trusting that they’ll do what they need to do. And then that really reasonable advice (I buy the groceries, my partner does the yardwork; we don’t second-guess each other’s projects)…You know, that is a really good description of my marriage 10 years ago, when we had young children and college and new jobs, etc.But while we found it efficient and necessary, we also found it ultimately unhealthy for us. We both need to be more well rounded to continue to grow up. Now that things are a little calmer at my house, he does lots of dishes, and I handle more financial stuff and yard work!I’ve been telling my guy about the experiences of the QV movement, and he thanks me heartily for not assigning him the burden of being in charge all the time.

Amy: Amid counting all the stars in heaven and all the starving children and war-dead on Earth, God has set aside a little time each day to make sure you’ve put on the proper garment – in this case, a dress – as proof you’ve “died to self” through setting aside a different garment you liked better.Do I understand you correctly?

Speaking of gay children in QV families, has anyone seen this documentary: “Deborah 13: Servant of God”Here is one url (I’m never sure if I set up the link right), but it’s also on Youtube:http://www.documentary-log.com/free-documentaries-online/search/servant/Although about Deborah, the really interesting story is the oldest son in this family, who seems likely to be gay. It is fascinating to watch the family dynamic.

Hey there everyone, I am not a scholar or really for that matter know the Bible that well, but, I just wanna throw this question out there: It says in scripture that you leave to cleave. It also says that the two shall become one: so if the fact,and husband and wife are one, does it not mean they are a partnered union? Are they not equal? Do they not have equality in decision making? I would really like someone to take the wording of submission back to the original, greek and hebrew to find out the exact contectual meaning of it…MELISSAwith4kids.

“In other words, I gave up one thing (pants) to attain another, better thing (the joy of obeying God).”So in other words, you’ve decided feminism is not for you; what is for you is arbitrary submission to random entities such as god and man, so that you can fulfill a self-perceived duty. As a liberal feminist I certainly think you have a right to, but please understand I’m not going to skip over to join you now. Tabby

Hey there everyone, I am not a scholar or really for that matter know the Bible that well, but, I just wanna throw this question out there: It says in scripture that you leave to cleave. It also says that the two shall become one: so if the fact,and husband and wife are one, does it not mean they are a partnered union? Are they not equal? Do they not have equality in decision making? I would really like someone to take the wording of submission back to the original, greek and hebrew to find out the exact contectual meaning of it…MELISSAwith4kids.Actually, the Bible says that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. It says this three times, once in Genesis 2:24, once in Mark 10:7, and once in Ephesians 5:31.

Oh by the way: All this legalistic nonsense seems to overshadow, what Jesus set out to do:To set the captives free, to reveal truth, in a long list of objectives. I read with shock and amazement at the DAUGHTERS (highlighted in green on someone post) a girl is to untie and loosen her dads tie? Shave his face? What immediatly came to my mind was Celie in the Colour Purple shaving her fathers face!! Besides as a wife shaving a husbands face seems kind of intimate, not something a daughter should do. No where in the Bible does it ever say anything about creating intimacy with the daughter as this article stated about the mandate of this movement. Are we not to direct our children towards God? our Heavenly Father? I am sure that is what they are “trying” to initiate but I think they have taken the whole thing out of context, driven the idea into some sort of money making endeavour duping and sucking people in as they line their pockets with cash. Not to mention that the poor daughters will only be relegated to a submissive servant. I personally think it limits the potential and maybe true destiny these girls were called to be. Another thing I have issue is with is the statement that these girls will be relegated to the home and not missions. Was not the call to ALL believers to go to the ends of the earth? Not just the men?One another note: People in this whole movement seem to remind me of particular folks in the Bible called Pharasees, and as I remember Jesus wasnt too fond of their legalistic ways……I thought he came to free people of such legalism? To be very honest when you read the belief systems of these people they sound almost identical to the women/men of Warren Jeffs compound and their sister compound Bountiful here in Canada. I just read the book STOLEN INNOCENCE by Elissa Wall, and the admonishment “TO BE SWEET” sounds identical to the submissive attitude that the women in the Quiverfull movement must possess.This stuff is all so crazy..and WHY if it is God’s true way..is it only in North America????Sorry for rambling but I had to get this off my chest even if it is not in order.MELISSAwith4kids

Oh by the way: All this legalistic nonsense seems to overshadow, what Jesus set out to do:To set the captives free, to reveal truth, in a long list of objectives. I read with shock and amazement at the DAUGHTERS (highlighted in green on someone post) a girl is to untie and loosen her dads tie? Shave his face? What immediatly came to my mind was Celie in the Colour Purple shaving her fathers face!! Besides as a wife shaving a husbands face seems kind of intimate, not something a daughter should do. No where in the Bible does it ever say anything about creating intimacy with the daughter as this article stated about the mandate of this movement. Are we not to direct our children towards God? our Heavenly Father? I am sure that is what they are “trying” to initiate but I think they have taken the whole thing out of context, driven the idea into some sort of money making endeavour duping and sucking people in as they line their pockets with cash. Not to mention that the poor daughters will only be relegated to a submissive servant. I personally think it limits the potential and maybe true destiny these girls were called to be. Another thing I have issue is with is the statement that these girls will be relegated to the home and not missions. Was not the call to ALL believers to go to the ends of the earth? Not just the men?One another note: People in this whole movement seem to remind me of particular folks in the Bible called Pharasees, and as I remember Jesus wasnt too fond of their legalistic ways……I thought he came to free people of such legalism? To be very honest when you read the belief systems of these people they sound almost identical to the women/men of Warren Jeffs compound and their sister compound Bountiful here in Canada. I just read the book STOLEN INNOCENCE by Elissa Wall, and the admonishment “TO BE SWEET” sounds identical to the submissive attitude that the women in the Quiverfull movement must possess.This stuff is all so crazy..and WHY if it is God’s true way..is it only in North America????Sorry for rambling but I had to get this off my chest even if it is not in order.MELISSAwith4kids

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 Vyckie said… Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it’s unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the “joy of obeying God” without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband?Let’s see: The joy of the Lord…obedience is better than sacrifice…He is our strength…were not ALL scriptures written to BOTH men and women? Were not MEN also required to submit themselves to the Lord? If they are TRULY Christ followers, (men) the women would be happy to follow in their footsteps, because they (women) would be loved by their husbands just like Jesus loves them. Unconditionally. That is, whether sick or healthy. Size 10 skinny or size 22 and fat bellied. Flawlessly beautiful or struggling under a load of make-up to look as good as the sexy models a husband may be looking at on TV or the internet. Loved whether or not she rubs his feet or back, loved if she is the one needing the back rub or even just a hug that doesn’t require her to immediately want sex with him. And that quick. With the thought of producing yet another sweet little person that she will have to nurse for three years, bathe for five, dress for the same amount of time, sit up with while it pukes, while husband sleeps soundly because “I gotta work tomorrow…” like she doesn’t???If I sound slightly bitter here, it’s because I’ve BTDT. Loved my children, but they were grown and on their own when I became a really serious Christian (it was Vyckie who led me to Him). I really began to live and experience the JOY of obedience to Him then, and I didn’t have a flock of “skirt hangers” OR a husband at the time. Didn’t want one, either. Oh, you have no idea how I didn’t want one! Then I met Wayne. Fought the idea of dating, marriage, the whole nine yards. I mean I FOUGHT the idea! A dear old Lutheran minister counseled with me, and quoted some Shakespeare to me…”Methinks the lady doth protest too much…” Got me to thinking, and I realized this guy (Wayne) was a really close FRIEND! And Jesus was my friend! I could have both, praise God, and remembering that FRIENDS don’t expect one to lead and the other to follow walking, head-down, ten paces behind, finally figured out I could LOVE this man! That Jesus would BLESS us in our marriage even though we were and ARE equal partners in life.And the two of us are obedient to HIM only…

Wendy said: “I’ve been telling my guy about the experiences of the QV movement, and he thanks me heartily for not assigning him the burden of being in charge all the time.”Lol, that just made me chuckle a little. I have also been telling my guy about the Quiverfull movement and Patriarchy lifestyles. He responds very similarly to your guy.

The Quiverfull lifestyle, however, portrays itself as one that is best (read: “most Godly”) for *all women.* The suggestion that this is only about women’s choices is dishonest.–KristenI don’t think I am being dishonest. QF people are choosing to live within the confines of the Word of God.When I surrender my will (voluntarily) to God’s will, it is going to place limitations on me and force changes in my lifestyle. But it’s a choice. –Amy

Amy: Amid counting all the stars in heaven and all the starving children and war-dead on Earth, God has set aside a little time each day to make sure you’ve put on the proper garment – in this case, a dress – as proof you’ve “died to self” through setting aside a different garment you liked better.Do I understand you correctly?–AlyzzaAre you asking if God requires our obedience down to even the smallest details? The answer is yes. The Bible tells me I need to have even my thoughts in subjection to God.–Amy

Okay, if this blog is about No Longer Quivering… I’m a bit confused–why do some many of the threads keep turning into debates about biblical headship? I’m thinking this does not seem to be what the authors set out to do.Kristin

Dear Amy, I would have to agree with Kristin. Following the bible, the way that my spiritual head interpreted it for me and the family was very much legalism. I am not trying to paint all QF/P folks with the wide brush you speak of. I am only trying to tell my story as I lived it, as I saw it, as I felt it. If you are happy in your submissive lifestyle, then that is wonderful. I am so glad for you that you made a good choice and found a good man to live your life with. I sincerely thought I had done that too. But things became very convoluted and hard and I realized that I had not made a good choice and I couldn’t stay there. I think that often the QF/P idea takes on the same attitude that I remember in Fundamental Christianity. That is to say that it’s not okay with the Fundamentalist for a person to tell them, “I am glad that works for you. But it isn’t right for me.” The fundamentalist cannot accept that. At least I couldn’t. (Don’t want my brush to get too big here!) I totally believed that MY form of Christianity was right and therefore it was right for everyone. Those folks who rejected it (my entire family and most of my friends) were deceived. I looked down my self righteous nose at them. And I did the same when I became a part of the QF/P lifestyle. Someone said earlier in this thread that they had only 2 kids and felt judged by the QF ladies in their fellowship. I think most QF women would be unwilling to admit that they feel superior to their sisters with fewer children. But I think alot of them do. I certainly did. This same commenter said she noticed that these women often needed to give eachother pep talks to keep up the hard work and they seemed exhausted and overwhelmed. You are totally right there again my dear reader! Of course we were exhausted! How could we not be. I personally was trying to homeschool multiple children at my kitchen table with a toddler pulling the pots out of the cupboards and making a racket, much to his delight. I also was most likely nursing a small baby or pregnant again. I was trying to make lunch, teach a wee one to read and quiz another child on their times tables while correcting the math papers I had created that morning with a pen and paper. This after a night of interrupted sleep with my fretting baby/toddler/preschooler/child. I had to clean the school stuff all up so we could have lunch at the table we used for school. Before that we had breakfast there and couldn’t begin to school until that was all cleared away. I know I am rambling on and on but yes..those women are overwhelmed and exhausted. And I was judgemental to boot! Now I am exhausted just writing about it!

I’ve often thought the younger Duggar boys are more likely to be gay. It has been known that younger brothers are more likely to be gay and many thought it was because as the “babies” of the family they were more indulged. Now it is theorized that they are actually exposed to more estrogen in utero. The mother’s body sees the male fetus as not belonging to her body. Over time the female body becomes more efficient at neutralizing this masculine invader. Or that is the current theory. I’ve always thought this must explain why I know so many gay men from Mormon backgrounds! Here is a link to the research study. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.fullCecilia

In my opinion, Amy *has* to be happy, just as I *had* to be happy. We are/were obeying God. We have to be joyful about that, you know. This is why no one on the outside had a clue about just how bad my life was like. Because I didn’t have a clue either. I had to be joyful, I had to be cheerful, I had to be submissive, because I thought that was what God wanted for me, and “though He slay me, I will trust Him.” Only…come to find out, a lot of my assumptions about what God wanted were based on very very poor interpretations of the Bible, assumptions I’d brought in from my own cultural background, etc. It’s interesting, Amy, that you compare the woman’s role to the suffering Christ. Ephesians 5 compares the *husbands* role to the suffering Christ. Funny how the “submissive wife” camp has turned that around and now it’s the WIFE’S job to take on the role of Christ and “submit unto the death.” But that’s actually not in the Bible at all. The one who’s called to act like Christ is the husband, and he’s called to emulate Christ’s LOVE—-which was a love that raised His bride up to a ruling position with Him (“seated in heavenly places in Christ,” etc). And as far as it being safe to submit to a Christian man because he’s a Christian, I’m afraid that is not true. Just as many Christian men are abusive as secular men. Statistics don’t lie. I thought that because my husband was a pastor—and a well-loved one at that, it meant that he couldn’t be abusive… I thought I was safe with him. I thought he’d never lie to me. Wrong. Totally wrong. He was abusive as soon as the marriage vows were said and it didn’t end until I seperated from him 11 years later. All of it, interestingly enough, in God’s name. My marriage reads like a cult experience, and the cult leader was my husband. He loves God, still. He’s just a really screwed up person. Screwed up people can love God, too. And God can love them. Just don’t submit to them, unless you want your life sucked down the tubes. Amy, it sounds to me that you are in the throws of the “romantic stage” of this movement. That’s when it’s the Answer, when it’s What God Wants, when it’s the Solution to all the craziness of the world, when it will Guarantee Godly Children, and all that stuff. I get it. I was once there. Interestingly, it’s exactly what happened to the church in Galatia. They had a lot of hope in Christ PLUS a few little touches of Law. Not just Christ, but Christ Plus [fill in the blank]. It sounds good and it LOOKS good. It looks REALLY good. Paul didn’t really have much good to say about it, though. He said that those who believed in Christ-Plus had fallen from grace. He said that the work of the Cross would be of “no effect” to them. Apparently, he thought it was a pretty bad deal.He was dead right. It’s a very VERY spiritually destructive way to live, but it’s so tricky, because, for one thing it looks so incredibly GOOD and RIGHTEOUS and HOLY, and secondly, at least during the initial stages of it (which can take years), it FEELS so good, so right, so very very spiritual. It always gets you in the end, though. That’s the important thing to know. It always gets you in the end. Concerned,Molly

Laura,Thanks for your honesty. In many ways, you sound just like my mother when I call her and tell her about how overwhelming it is to have 3 children that I’m mostly on my own with! I’m grateful for mothers who say it as it is and aren’t judgmental.

I attend a church with strict standards (women don’t wear pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no cutting the hair, etc), but we all believe we are saved by grace and grace alone. –AmyDear Amy, if you and your fellow churchgoers believe in salvation by grace and grace alone, then why the “strict standards”?? I am with Molly on this one. I used to be exactly where you are. I think I understand the mindset and it wasn’t very long ago that I would have taken up my Sword of the Lord and fought right beside you. But things happen. People wake up and see what has been going on around them and they may not like it. It took me 25 years. Vyckie not so long. (she’s smarter than me!)”I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me.”—AmyI walked that road as well and put up with alot of things, excused alot of behavior and looked to God to fill my heart. All that did was let my husband off the hook. He was forever trying to convince me that I had to let God fill my needs, that he (Dale) couldn’t possibly do it. I was made to feel guilty for having any human needs at all. I was made to feel like a failure as a Christian when I wanted my husband to sleep with me and just having God in the bedroom wasn’t enough. Right now things are good with you. You are most likely young, strong and healthy not to mention fiercely loyal to your faith and your God. These are good things. I was just like you. Remain faithful, serve your God if that is what makes you truly happy.. but…if you ever wonder if there is life “out there” in the world…don’t let guilt, bitterness and anger keep you in an unhealthy place. Just a word from a woman who bore 11 children for the Glory of God, submitted to her husband for the Glory of God, wore a head covering, dresses, no make up, no secular music, no tv, no movies, no alot of other things and felt like God either didn’t care about her or didn’t exist as she had thought He had.

I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me.If you take your belief to its logical conclusion, then a woman abused to death, either physical or emotional, by a bad husband is a Christian martyr. If they believed as you do, Vyckie and Laura should have stayed with their husbands and continued to submit to a lifestyle that was killing them. You’re free to believe that this was the right thing to do and that Vyckie and Laura did the wrong thing, but don’t act like you’re the one who’s being attacked when they say that these beliefs went to the roots of their abuse.

Amy, you said:Perhaps we don’t agree on what constitutes legalism. I attend a church with strict standards (women don’t wear pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no cutting the hair, etc), but we all believe we are saved by grace and grace alone.Our standards would become legalistic only if we started preaching that one could not be saved apart from women wearing only dresses and skirts, forsaking wearing makeup, etc. and not solely by faith in Jesus Christ.Out of sheer curiosity, how would your church react if a woman had her hair cut and wore jeans? Are there any such regulations for the men?

Molly, And as far as it being safe to submit to a Christian man because he’s a Christian, I’m afraid that is not true. Just as many Christian men are abusive as secular men. Statistics don’t lie.It’s far worse than that. Recent population studies have actually found that the second best indicator of abuse (after alcoholism) is Conservative Religion. This means that alcoholics are most likely to abuse their families, and patriarchs the second most likely!

KR Wordgazer says,Quoting Vyckie: Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it’s unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the “joy of obeying God” without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband? I doubt if Amy will agree with anything I’m going to say, but since Vyckie has asked, I am going to set forth some Christian egalitarian responses, in sort of a shotgun fashion, since it’s impossible to set forth the entire Christian egalitarian position in one comment to one post.I’m coming from a perspective similar to Amy’s in this one thing: I believe the Bible is inspired by God and I choose to view it as my primary source for Christian faith and practice. However, first of all, my perspective on how, to follow it differs greatly.I follow the Bible by first determining the overall message of all the different books and writings, when viewed together. Focusing on the New Testament, I find that the overall message has to do with the love of God for sinful people, Christ’s sacrifice to restore relationship between God and humanity, and the freedom of walking in righteousness that comes through faith rather than law.I find that the Old Testament never gives a law for women to be subordinate to their husbands. (It assumes patriarchy as the way of life of the people who received the law, but there is no explicit law placing men in charge of women merely by virtue of being men– in the home or anywhere else). I cannot, then, view a few short texts within the New Testament (which is about freedom from law in Christ) as setting up a whole set of new laws for the relationship of Christian men and women in the home and church. Whatever the texts may mean that discuss these matters, they are not about new laws for women to be under men.Secondly, Amy says the Bible says women are to be meek and submissive and keepers of the home. Well, Jesus said all Christians are to be “meek” and that he himself was “meek and lowly in heart.” “Meek” here simply means gentle, gracious, yielding. “Submit” is a word that in the New Testament primarily means (in a nutshell) “to voluntarily yield.” Yes, women are told to voluntarily yield– but again, men are told the same thing. The passage in Ephesians which says “wives submit to your husbands” actually begins with the words to all Christians, “Submit yourselves to one another in respect for Christ.” The husband is then told to sacrificially love his wife– in light of the opening “submit to one another” section, his sacrificial love can be seen as a way of yielding to his wife’s needs above his own.The letter to the Ephesians should be read taking into account a culture in which men married much younger women in arranged marriages, and people lived in a patriarchal structure in which a single grandfather was head of the family, and everyone else arranged themselves under him. The Bible does not seek to overthrow the culture in which it was transmitted, but rather to come within the culture and redeem it. That men are told to sacrificially love their wives, and that wives are told to submit (instead of “obey” — that word conveyed a sense of inequality which “submit” did not) was a departure from and a change to the entrenched patriarchy of the culture.As for the passage that says women are “keepers of the home,” the word “keeper” in the original language did not mean “the one who does the housework.” What it actually meant was “guard, protector.” Women (who were at home in that culture, having no other choices) were being asked to be guards and protectors over their homes (a position of responsibility!) “so that no one will malign the word of God.” (Tit 2:5) The purpose of this, from the text, was so that no one in the surrounding culture would have a reason to disrepect the word of God. One wonders why the injunction to act in such a way as to give those in the culture no reason to malign, is not applied to today’s cultural situation. I can think of very few stronger reasons why our culture today maligns Christianity than when it advocates patriarchalism!There is also a passage in 1 Tim 2 which says women are to “manage” the home. That word in the original language meant “to be the householder, to be in charge of the home.” Women, then, are called to be “head of the house” right alongside their husbands. Translators over the centuries could scarcely credit such a thing, and thus revised the word to mean something more like “manage” — which implies a manager with an “owner” above her. But that is not what the original text actually says.What it comes down to is this, for my understanding of the Bible: The New Testament tells all Christians, not just women, to be gentle, humble and yielding. It works within the culture to sow the seeds of full female equality, just as it sowed the seeds for the later liberation of slaves. Its primary message is freedom in Christ as we walk in simple love– it’s not about a whole bunch of new rules and regulations we have to follow. “It is for freedom that Christ made us free, so do not be subject again to a yoke of bondage.”KR Wordgazer

I’m feeling a little uncomfortable with how people are ganging up on Amy. Amy – I don’t share your views but I don’t think this current forum conversation is going to change any of your views. I know some of Amy’s comments about the blog seemed hurtful to me because of being privlaged enough to read Laura and Vyckie’s experience. Amy, I think it would be wonderful if you kept reading this blog, but I’d also like you to understand that your experience is in the context of your life. Keep your ears and heart open.Cecilia

Tabby – I bet it hurt like hell. Where I’m coming from is just wondering if the way Amy is being talked to would have changed your view point. Go to Amy with love, no one can argue with love.CeciliaPS: I posted a post earlier about the increase in homosexuality amoung younger sons. Was that not posted on purpose or was there just a glich?

I just caught up on the back and forth with Amy.I fully understand the reaction to her words and the impulse to show her a different way. Let’s assume for a moment that her life either does or will come to be just like some of the negative experiences we’ve been reading about. It will take time for her to come to that conclusion. It can’t be forced or rushed. Preaching to her, essentially, will just make her less likely to remain here and keep reading. If we want to help, be friendly and welcoming and write generally about what we’ve observed in the lifestyle without directing it AT her.I know, it requires a lot of patience.Amy, I apologize for talking about you like you’re not here! I just had quite a reaction to reading the whole comments section here all at once and it really does feel like everyone’s ganging up to convince you to change your life. I don’t think it’s productive for anyone.

Anonymous said… Cecilia: A lot of us were Amy.It hurt.–Tabby.Oh, this is so true! Like a knife in the gut couldn’t hurt worse, I think. To totally love and trust God, your husband, and want nothing more than to be a good wife and mother, try your best, knock yourself out, and have it all come crashing down on your head…and then to be ‘to blame’ for the fall…to blame yourself on top of it all…nowhere to run, nowhere to hide…

Cecelia ~ I have heard from others that occasionally their posts don't go through. It is almost never because the post was rejected ~ I absolutely hate to push that reject button My suggestion is that you make a copy of your comment before you hit the "post comment" button ~ and then if it doesn't appear while other comments are going through ~ post your comment again and hopefully it'll make it through the second time.I just got home from picking up Hazelle at the airport ~ she's back home now after having a super fun week in Seattle with Laura & Richard.I see that there's been a whole lot of discussing going on here in my absence ~ and I'm sorry I missed it ;( There's a lot here that I'd like to respond to ~ when I get a chance, I'll most likely pull these comments "Out of the Pile" and address as many as possible.Thanks so much for your participation here ~ it's great to see you all "policing" yourselves regarding what could be perceived as "ganging up" on Amy. I'm sure no-one intended to come across that way ~ but when I got home and read all the comments directed at one person ~ even though I think the individual responses were in no way attacking ~ taken all together, it is a bit overwhelming. Anyway ~ I appreciate the way you all handled that discussion.I'll be responding here asap. More later!

I’ve known a lot of women who held Amy’s beliefs and in the long run were disappointed. In fact I’ve never known a successful long term marriage that worked for a woman with Amy’s beliefs. The problem isn’t the Bible, it’s the way its interpreted. That’s why we have to question what we believe. Otherwise our beliefs will disappoint us, just as Amy’s belief system has disappointed so many women.

Here’s something important for you to understand, Amy – the word “head” in Ephesians 5 did not mean “leader” or “authority” in the original Greek. To give it that meaning when it isn’t in the original Greek is to change the Bible. Another thing, Paul told wives to submit, not obey. When Christians tell women to obey their husbands they are not telling them what Paul said. Someday you may be one of those burned out, betrayed by their husbands women. And then you will understand what the women here were trying to tell you. I just hope you don’t have to go through a lot of suffering first.

To be clear, Amy stated:To be clear, I am not quiverfull. My husband doesn’t know the Lord (I was saved after I married him). But I am still called to submit to him, even if he is not obedient to God. Again, my perfect example is Jesus Christ, who submitted Himself to the Father even to the point of death. Any submission I am called to do to an unregenerate man is nothing compared to what my Lord went through.With that thought in mind, she doesn’t even fit the stereo type that Laura and Vyckie are talking about.By Amy’s own words, she is making these choice, without her husband even suggesting them to her, for her life, in obedience, not to a person, not to a movement, but to her reading of God’s Word and personalizing it for her life.May the Lord Bless you, Amy!Kelly

Amy,Jesus says to lend to everyone who asks you for money. Are you obeying this scripture? And if not, why not? After all, Jesus said it.There is such a thing as selective literalism where we ignore some scripture and magnify other scripture. Are you sure you aren’t doing that?

MELISSAwith4kids. You got it right. All of this talk of submission baffles me. In most churches you do not hear this preached, but you hear that a man should leave his wife and cleave unto his wife. Dale was not a very good cleaver I take it from his trips to Brazil and his lack of attention to his families living conditions. Also that the two become one. Your arm would not cut of your leg because the whole person would bleed. My husband and I work as a great team. We accomplish a lot: taxes, business decisions, what cars to buy, how to raise our kids, how to remodel, how much money to spend and we do it together smoothly because we function as one. A friend offended me when she said my husband really trusts me a “gives me a lot of descretion in the decisions” in our home. We have been married 22 years and it never occured to me or him that he gave it to me. We have always owned our life together, wins and losses. If the truth were preached correctly then you would see that it would say submit to one another!! We must yeild to each other constantly as niether of us have the time to be involved in every aspect. I have CHOSEN to not work outside the home very much. We I say to my hubby that I feel like I am not contributing enough he reminds me how smart I shop and save us money, how seldom we have to eat out that we do that when we want to. How my kids have advanced in school through my involvement, and how straight our finances are because they have my daily attention. He has never dominated or tried to make me feel like a lesser person or partner. He has never dicatated I stay home and if he came home now and I had a job he would do 50/50. My husband has told people pressuring him for answers about jobs, money deals, purchases “I am half of a top notch corporation, let me check with my CFO and CMO and we will let you know”. And yes we often attend church and are never in your face about it. It is about balance and marrying a man who is emotionally ready to share his life as 1/2 of one.Responding to:Anonymous said… Hey there everyone, I am not a scholar or really for that matter know the Bible that well, but, I just wanna throw this question out there: It says in scripture that you leave to cleave. It also says that the two shall become one: so if the fact,and husband and wife are one, does it not mean they are a partnered union? Are they not equal? Do they not have equality in decision making? I would really like someone to take the wording of submission back to the original, greek and hebrew to find out the exact contectual meaning of it…MELISSAwith4kids.Equal partner in Oregon

I’ve been really chatty over this issue of one way female submission but I have one more piece of advice.When you feel the Holy Spirit come over you to share your witness of female submission to male authority you may feel blessed. But you will turn your audience off to Christ.

I don’t really think that it’s fair to tell Amy that preaching submission will turn off her audience to Christ. If that’s what she believes that God expects, that’s what she’s conscience-bound to say. She is more honest and honorable than the proselytizers who only present the fun stuff (heaven! jesus loves you!) and then spring a list of their real requirements on you later. If you feel you have to hide stuff about your beliefs so as not to scare off or turn off unbelievers, what are you ashamed of and why? As an atheist, it actually doesn’t turn me off any more than anyone claiming that the Bible is THE truth.

Aimai Said:I’m glad I, for once, stayed out of this debate. But where is Charis? I think her experiences are very on point here. The niceness or otherwise of Amy’s marriage is neither here nor there. A person can freely choose submission and people often do. Freely choosing submission doesn’t mean its a good idea–a guy in Germany “freely choose” to allow another man to kill and cannibalize him. Amy’s choice to “submit” even to a bad husband (which her’s admittedly is not, but she stated that she was called to submit even to a non christian) is either a super good idea because he’s an amazingly prescient and moral person or because she is wilfully giving up her moral being to another person and she doesn’t care what kind of decisions he makes for her.Charis’s position on an earlier thread is on point here. She choose to “follow her husband” and “submit to him” and almost wound up losing her children because, as she discovered, social services almost stepped in and took them away when they became ill because of poor living conditions. As she stated so eloquently here on the board (and I’m paraphrasing) you can choose to give up your decisions to another person but that’s no legal defence if the government finds you at fault. Its possible for both parents to end up making some radically bad decisions and you will both be equally guilty and will both equally suffer.Now, on the larger point, is it worth having this discussion with Amy? Well, Jadehawk made two incredibly important observations (at least I think it was Jadehawk) when she likened religious fervor to a drug addiction and also to a romance. I’d say it can be like a romantic fever that has to run its course. Good bad or indifferent Amy is in the throes of a totalizing institution, a little sect within a little part of a greater whole. Her little church and her little family are a romance that she is having, a drug to which she is addicted. She might say, using the same language, that it is the medicine for what ails her and she can’t give it up without dying. We might say that time will tell and she won’t know whether it is good medicine or bad drug abuse until she is old enough to have seen all that it will bring. The world she’s in is, as she says, a changeful one and she is a person who is afraid of change. She has chosen this way, and its a time honored way, of putting off fear by shoving decisions and control onto first her husband and then onto her all powerful god. None of us can say, or does say, that’s a bad thing. If Amy is happy and doesn’t ruin the lives of her children more power to her.We just seem to think, especially those of us who have known lots of “Amy’s” that on balance tying your boat to a branch found floating in the water isn’t really as stable as it first seems. Personally, I don’t believe in Milton’s assertion:”He for god only, she for god in him.” I believe, to the extent I believe in any numinous divinity, that we all have god within us and we are all equally responsible to cultivate that spark of the divine. And when we do we can say we are acting morally in the world. And that is our duty. The very notion of submitting to another–even or especially in something as pathetically petty as hair or dress and mistaking that for actual morality, astounds me. If you want to take it back to Jesus it is clear from all surviving records that he had no interest in making his followers conform to any kind of social imperative–whether in family matters or in dress or food or anything else. He lived in a world of class and custom, dress rules and food rules and he overthrew them all. The notion that he wants you *now* to conform to some fake fifties beaver cleaver image is just absurd. But whatever floats your boat.I guess what I’m saying is that even, or especially, if we believe that Amy is in a dangerous situation–dangerous because she has given her love of a transcendent being to a mere human in error. Or dangerous because she is submitting her own moral authority to that of another person who may abuse it and her. She is in the throes of her own romance and she can no more be reasoned with than a teenager during her first love affair. But when the student is ready, the teacher arrives. Let this be a place where “Amy” and people like her, can come and find some recognition and some comfort as they are journeying in or out of this, to me, idolatrous lifestyle.aimai

Talking about fairness – is it fair to tell women to obey their husbands when scripture doesn’t tell them to do that?Paul tells believers and wives to submit, and slaves and children to obey. Yet Christians constantly tell women to obey. If Paul had wanted wives to obey, why didn’t he use that term? Why did he instead use the term submit?By the way, I don’t believe in slaves obeying. I think Paul only advised slaves to do that since they were not in a position to gain their freedom. They really had no other way of staying safe, since there was often physical retribution against slaves who didn’t obey. The day evangelical Christians are fair to women I’ll faint.

Aimai,:)aka Charis here.the kids are on spring break, I just retrieved my virus infected computer from the shop yesterday, and came home to our dog having puppies yesterday (4 days early), so its been wild around here I just took a minute to read the thread now. Thanks for missing me and you are soooo right! Being controlled like a 10 year old child is dangerous for the family! I see above that KR Wordgazer summarized the truth that KEEPER of the home is about protecting and guarding the home. I FAILED to do this! And KR pointed out the verses about a wife’s authority (she is the oikeDESPOTeo- penned by the same Paul, and obscured by biased translation- see the “DESPOT” in the middle? The word reeks of authority) Amy,Just for the record. I suggest digging really deeply into the scriptures you hear as advocating this lifestyle. I used to hear them the same way as you and I believe it was a fruit which looked really shiny and healthy but was deadly. It ROBBED my husband of the equal and powerful companion God intended, and ROBBED my children of the protection God intended.More later…

Rach, SydA post I replied to on Monday has disappeared and my reply was never published. It was about the Campbell family. Was this on purpose?Just wondering…

rach, sydhmm was trying to find the post about the Campbell family. Obviously working night duty is giving me brain fog! Now I will have to look at all the posts you have written lately to find it! Oh well…still 7.5 hrs to go and my patients are very quiet tonight

Kelly said:a.b.e. stated: See the word “submit” in verse 22? It’s not there in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament. The translators put it there in the English because they saw verse 22 as a continuation of the thought in verse 21. In other words, Christians are asked to submit to one another, and in the same way wives are asked to submit to their husbands. That’s false.No, it is not false. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament did not include the word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22. (Some of the newer ones include it) You need to do more research before you call something “false” that actually isn’t false.

Becky,Well, that seems fair but of course Amy herself came here to show the rest of us the error of our ways so its only tit for tat. I personally think that people might want to ratchet back and ignore the pro-submission trollers on the grounds that either they can’t be reached, aren’t interested in real dialogue, or are yearning for some information or help that they can’t yet articulate. Better to encourage them to keep reading and thinking for themselves than to discourage them by piling on. But of course comments tend to post simultaneously so the conversation itself takes place in fits and starts and can’t be organized that way. I think some of the posters, with more experience of the culty/submission focused side of christianity are seeing warning signs that the rest of us are not. Some of us are just personally a bit put off by the notion of an adult woman who pretends to have given up moral and intellectual authority to another adult while simultaneously indicating that her submission is selective and therefore somewhat fake. I say that on the basis of the many things Amy has said which reveal that she actually picks and chooses very carefully to make sure that her submission is comfortable and easy for her. For example, as someone pointed out up above, she ignores the strong NT adjurations to give up everything material to follow Jesus and prefers to live comfortably in a domestic idyll. Her witnessing to others, too, could be called fake (if she’s doing it at all) because she’s unable to convince some or any of us that her way to Jesus is better or more authentic than anyone else’s. God called *me* to a happy closeted life but has made the rest of you suffer with abusive husbands, miscarriages, other issues is just not that generous a missionary message.aimai

Kelly,In a way, we are both right because there are some textual variations. The earliest and oldest manuscript called “P46″ omits the verb in Eph 5:22. This manuscript was discovered in the 1930′s. There was some discussion of P46 here:http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/calvins-ideas-about-women/#comment-8022Amy,1 Peter- the entire book was extremely helpful to me. I’m sure you are familiar with the famous Sarah role model of submission? Looking really closely at Sarah- how she is with Abraham- is eye opening (I have blogged on this some “as Sara obeyed Abraham”. Also, and extremely critical, the “no guile” sandwich around the renowned Sarah role model (2:22; 3:10). I was extremely conflict avoidant for 22 years of my 27 year marriage, stuffed my feelings and brushed things under the rug to keep the “peace”. IF one wants the following BLESSING, then one must be prepared to be honest (NO guile!) “For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile“ 1 Peter 3:10There is another angle to this, in that the heart of the wife of a disobedient (to God) husband is “hidden” 1 Pet 3:4 KJV. That is not a justification for conflict avoidance. I think that is more about her pearls and treasures, she best keep them to herself lest they be trampled underfoot (by verbal and emotional abuse).

Ok, maybe this is a different perspective on the “submit” thing, maybe not.I was/am a very strong willed person. I grew up in an abusive household. I was not, never, ever going to let someone be in charge of me EVER again.I was constantly “forcing” issues with my husband. He is pretty laid back and eventually it led to me demanding and he just kind of “eating” it. We had an aweful relationship. I was so busy being perfect, right and in charge I couldn’t see what it was doing to my husband. I got saved and was introduced to the “submit” to your husband doctrine. Which I did know about before and thought was hooey. But now, I had a change of heart, a lot of pressure was taken off my shoulders (life) with the realization that “what we do-works” does not save us. I began to see how my domineering behavior was not only affecting our relationship and how my husband felt about himself, it was also not allowing him to take responsibility for his actions and for him to mature as an individual. He would do sneaky kid stuff and hope I never found out. So I did practice the submission thing and still do. This has been good for me to read both sides. I still think it is good for me to learn to submit (bite my tongue, let him make some decisions, ask his opinion, etc). But am I going to ever be the woman who won’t do anything with out his permission? Probably, not? I will say, I am wanting to serve on the board for xyz, what do you think? Because it will affect him, too. If he was totally against it, I would really need to rethink it…Anyhow, this is kind of rambling…Rose

Kelly,I don’t know about others, but I was, at the beginning, willing to accept Amy’s word that she was happy in her submission, and was merely defending the position that what worked out for her is NOT what works for all women.but after a while, she started saying things that just do NOT sound like things a really happy person would say:“Any submission I am called to do to an unregenerate man is nothing compared to what my Lord went through.”“I’ve never seen complaining as a right. The Bible tells us to do all things without complaining”“I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him”I would never have lasting joy and happiness if I relied on my circumstances to make me happy, because they are always changing.“He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25″Now those are maybe a bit ambiguous, but that sounds more like the words of someone who has found a way to cope with a bad situation, rather than someone who is genuinely happy.

Kelly,I didn’t see your post until just now. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think Amy was saying a lot more than that and she posted many, many times and many things. I, myself, didn’t bother responding to her until very late in the thread so her original intentions had long since been lost in a sea of self justification and contradictory statements. But it really doesn’t matter if Kelly’s original intention had been to kindly draw our attention to her own marriage as proof positive that everyone else’s experience of patriarchy was false. Or simply to attack “feminists” for not being “feminist enough” in her mind to defend her submissive marriage. She started the discussion but she doesn’t get to control how the rest of us understand it.On the feminist issue and what feminists are, or are not, required to do with the self styled history of women who renounce their human individuality in order to submit to the demands of particular men or gods–well, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Let me break it to you. Feminists aren’t required to do anything. We aren’t required to clean up the messes made by non feminists. Or to exclaim over christian patriarchal marriages. Or to discount testimony from Vyckie and Laura because Kelly and Amy say that their experience is not identical to V and L’s experience. This is how I take your remark “In fact, of all the families I know, that are Christian, have lots of children and educate their children at home, in all these years, I can think of only one family I have met that had me *wondering*…”** ** I’ll put my footnote here. You know TWO FAMILIES that don’t fit the model of healthy, submissive, Christian patriarchy because you are blogging here where two (and more) women have sincerely testified to their experiences. I don’t expect you to agree with me since the very first thing that every good Christian Quiverer, or any other kind of Christian does, is explain why every other Christian family that the writer might know is “not really Christian” or “not doing it right” or belongs to a “splinter group” with the “wrong interpretation” any testimony that “I’ve never known a Christian family that was doing something bad, or wrong” has to be taken with a heaping cupful of salt. In fact that was the whole argument of several previous threads. Both Laura and Vyckie were in bog standard Quiverful Christian marriages and both seem to have gone wrong. That’s two serious patriarchal marriages that didn’t work. You might consider them in the tally of “those you know.” OK, back to what Feminism is or is not responsible for. Amy started it off by saying that Feminism, specifically, wasn’t making her happy. It wasn’t good enough for her. Fair enough. I’m not surprised. Feminism isn’t a dating service, a god substitute, a life raft, a tolerance handbook, a floor wax or a set of ginsu knives. Its a principle that some men and women ascribe to that says that both men and women are equally endowed with reason and with rights and that even in the context of marriage (or outside of it) neither man nor woman should abdicate his or her responsibility to act morally. If that didn’t make Amy happy or give her the kind of family life she wanted more power to her for rejecting it. But why does feminism have to approve her choice? I’m willing to say that this feminist is *indifferent* to her choice. I’m also contemptuous of it. But so what? Why does she need my approval? As I understand it the kind of women who are attracted to these very submissive, family centered, slightly paranoid and anti social churches and family structures already think I’m going to hell for having short hair, or approving gay marriage.I’ll leave you with a little joke from one of my favorite sience fiction writers. Once upon a time there was a Chinese Emperor and he decreed that since order was very important every misdeed by each person would be punished equally severely. The punishment for every social infraction was death. One day a huge revolution rose up and swept his empire away. What started the revolution? Three peasants had been ordered to report for duty in the military. They were sitting in a muddy field when they realized they would be late for report. One said to the others:”what’s the punishment for being late?”"death”"and what’s the punishment for revolution?”"death.”"Ok, guys,” he said “I’m leading a revolution. Because *we’re already late.*”My point is that, in my personal experience, highly separatist Christian women with a hate on for feminists despise me, and my perspective, before I even open my mouth. Since the punishment for not wearing my hair long, not wearing dresses, not having ten children, not being a Christian etc… is exactly the same as disagreeing on minor points of interpretation I see no reason to bother with the fine points of what Amy thinks or doesn’t think. She doesn’t really respect my *existence.* Let alone my arguments. aimai

Amy said:There is a potential for abuse in ANY relationship. Agreed I personally believe there is greater potential for abuse from men who do not know the Lord and who do not strive to be like Jesus Christ. They have no perfect example to follow as Christians do. I guess it’s all in one’s perspective.I can’t agree with you there. I’d say abusive Christian men hide their sense of entitlement behind their belief that God has given them certain rights and entitlements, sometimes called responsibilities (that boil down to rights). It’s a very twisted abuse.The worst case of abuse I know is a Christian married couple where the man verbally, emotionally, and sometimes physically abuses his wife. It’s all done in the name of the Lord, it’s always “her fault” for not submitting the way she should, for not supporting him, for being a Jezebel… Sometimes I wonder whether she’d be so hurt by his abuse if he didn’t use God’s word the way he does against her.

I believed what Amy believes, pretty much. Because my husband was a Christian, a well-respected minister, and could quote practically half the Bible or more verbatum, well-studied and doctrinally sound, that he couldn’t be abusive. So I thought it must be me. I spent about 8 years that way. I started catching on, eventually, when I realized that it couldn’t be possible that EVERY single problem in our relationship was MY fault for eight entire years. When I started catching on (and it was a very slow process), it started getting a lot worse. His ability to control was being challenged, and it just spiraled downhill from there.The primary tool for my husband’s abuse was God, helped GREATLY by him taking full advantage of my own sensitive heart that wanted to please God no matter what). I have since discovered that I am not alone…that this has happened many many times over and will continue to happen. Abusive men will use whatever resources there are at their disposal. My husband would treat me with contempt, twist my brain into a confused pile of knots, accuse me of all sorts of things, blame everything on me, control where I could go or who I could see or what I could read, and then go stand up in front of our church every Sunday and sing passionate praise songs to God, lifting up his hands, even crying sometimes. BECAUSE he was so passionate for God (or so it seemed), BECAUSE he was such a fervent Christian, BECAUSE he was so well-respected and loved by my church, I thought it *had* to be me. A man like that COULDN’T possibly be abusive, right?I did the whole, “When it doubt, it must be my fault” thing, since I’d learned through complementarian and patriarchal teachers that Genesis 3:16 means that a woman is always going to be trying to usurp her husband…must be my fault, if I don’t like what he said or did, it must be my own rebellious heart. (This lack of ability to trust my own mind was also helped by doses of “I-am-just-a-worm theology” that promotes the idea of self-hatred and shame). Check out, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by VanVonderan. It’s really a must read for those of us who’ve been abused spiritually. I am currently in a situation where I’m not sure what to do. My husband is swearing he has changed. I am looking at a dismal financial future if I leave him for good…five kids…eleven years of no job experience becuase I was a stay-home homeschool mom…or I can try again…even though my gut tells me that the things that are wrong with him are so deep that I’m not sure they are “fixable.” I am trying to get my degree finished but have 1.5 years left to go on it. That will help. I’m thinking I might try a “last try” thing, and hopefully I can stick it out until I get my degree. I hate it. The whole thing just sucks. And one of the worst parts is being chided by those who are supposed to be my sisters, for not embracing wifely submission…when wifely submission just about killed me. You do NOT submit to a tyrant. There is NOTHING positive that comes from submitting to tyranny. There is NOTHING good gained for abusive men when they are catered to, and I don’t care what Debi Pearl says to the contrary. The Pearls tell us not to cater to whiney two year olds—why should women cater to whiney men? It is the LEAST loving thing we can do for them. I know. I did it. Because nothing he said or did was flagrant sin (and I was taught that the ONLY time you disobey a husband is when he tells you to commit a flagrant sin, such as to kill someone, etc), I did everything he wanted, I tried to be everything he wanted, I tried to THINK every way he wanted me to think, (though all of those things were never enough for him, never good enough) and you know what it did? Took a bad thing and made it MONSTROUS. Monstrous. There really are no words. My thoughts on Paul’s instructions for wifely submission really aren’t all that complicated. Dude, women in Paul’s day *had* to submit to their husbands. Paul didn’t make up that concept, it was the law. So Paul saying that women should submit is neither here nor there. Of course they should submit. They had to, under pain of death, just as slaves had to obey their masters or be beaten and/or killed. Making an eternal law out of Paul’s acceptance and acknowledgement of the law of the land seems really irresponsible, unless a person has made double-dog sure that these are actually eternal decrees. Paul commanded, literally commanded, the church to greet each other with a holy kiss SIX TIMES in the New Testament. I don’t see anyone kissing at the churches I’ve been to, though. Why? Because we understand that it wasn’t an eternal decree, even though it’s written as if it was one. Yet when it comes to women, there’s this double standard. Any verses that mention women are taken automatically as eternal decrees. We’re not allowed to take in cultural context at all. It’s so strange. (I can’t complain–I did this too). Anyways, Paul telling women to submit is a no-brainer. That was NORMAL, totally normal, and made a lot of sense (same with slaves obedience). Christians were already dealing with the death sentance for beliving the Christ rose again, no sense adding mass social upheaval to the mix (anymore than was already taking place, that is). So what we really should pay attention to is what Paul told husbands. Because THAT is where he really broke status quo, albeit in a slyly subversive manner (just as he did with masters when he intimated that slaves and masters were equal in the eyes of God, a shocking thing to readers then!). Instead of telling husbands to rule over their wives, or to lead their wives, or be in authority over their wives, Paul told husbands to… (drum roll, please) LOVE Their Wives As Christ Loved The Church.And just a couple chapters earlier, we learned that Christ took the church, who was certainly lower than He was, and raised her up and put her INTO Him. He seated her in heavenly places (to that culture, a clear uncontested statement of putting her in a ruling position). THIS is how Christ loved the Church. In a different letter, Paul described very clearly what he believed “love” to be. 1 Corinthians 13 is a good picture of what Paul told husbands to be toward their wives. And somehow, through the space of two thousand years and all the confusion that obviously brings, we assume that he means husbands LEAD your wives? The passage says no such thing. And the original readers would have read no such thing. THe original readers would have been shocked to no end at the radically subversive thing Paul just said about husbands loving wives as their own selves (what? WHAT?) and loving their wives as Christ loved the church (what? WHAT?)… Christ didn’t view the church as someone to serve Him—He went and gave His life to the church. He served HER. Crazy. THis is that reciprocal love, reciprocal submission, reciprocal service, reciprocal respect thing here…something my hierarchal marriage never ever even came close to. My must-have-control-or-die-trying husband had a lot of love, but it was love of self. You can’t feed that kind of love. It is the WORST thing you can do to it. So those of you who advocate for wifely submission, please know that when you do so in the context of abusive marriages, you are feeding destruction and misery and pride in ways that future generations will perpetuate. Is that really something that brings glory to our God? Concerned,Molly

This comment apparently did get eaten, even though it said it went through. So here’s the re-post:I just want to say that I understand the temptation to try to convince those who still follow a path that you have left, for what seemed to you like good reasons, that they should leave too. I feel it to with regard to the organization I left behind, ISKCON. (International Society for Krishna Consciousness)What I’ve come to understand is that each person has their own unique history and psychology, and what became toxic for me may be what they still need to feel whole and secure. Whether that changes for them in time is for them to discover.I came to ISKCON out of a chaotic childhood. I needed to understand why I was suffering–my prime motivation for joining and adopting that philosophy. The doctrine of karma made sense to me. Living in the temple provided a structured life that I really needed to regain my equilibrium. Eventually I married in the movement and that turned out to be very painful for me, for reasons I list in links I’ve already provided. The marriage replicated parts of my childhood, as first marriages by young people often do. Divorce was not supported so I tried to stick it out but finally ended it. It was 6 years before I also left the philosophy behind, when I came out and found no place for me there anymore.Someone else with a more positive marriage experience might still be quite happy there. Who am I to tell them otherwise?Having been told what to do and how to think first by my grandmother and then by temple authorities and my husband, I’ve become allergic to telling others how to live their lives. I think all we can really do is share our own experiences. If they resonate with someone and cause them to rethink their circumstances, that’s their choice. If not, again that’s their choice.I know it doesn’t feel like QF women have choices. It doesn’t seem like Hare Krishna women had choices after they joined, either. But choice is still there, as evidenced by women who’ve left both systems.–Tapati

aimai,I don’t have time to read all your posting, so I will just address the one point you were making, which was not my point. I was talking “personally” on one family that I know, where I *wondered* if there might be abuse. I do not know Vykie and Laura personally, so I cannot count them in my personal connection of families, sorry.a.b.e.,Is there suppose to be a link in that posting of yours, to me? If so, I don’t see it….I’m typing kind of fast, I might have missed it.I’m sorry you feel I was trying to call you a liar, which is not at all what I was trying to do. I was calling the information, false, questioning where you got the information. See my wording at the end of that quote? I was asking where you got that information.Secondly, I was gone for much of the afternoon and too busy this morning, after I did a bit more study. I took another one of my Greek Bible’s and looked at the wording in it. It was very similar, but still different, from what Gem posted, which would line up to what you were saying.a.b.e. stated: The translators put it there in the English because they saw verse 22 as a continuation of the thought in verse 2 this is what I was referring to, a.b.e., my Greek New Testament has it in the manuscript, not in English, in Greek. The English has it, but so does the Greek. However, as I stated above, my other Greek Bible does not have it….so……I need to do a bit more study on manuscripts, I have forgotten the details.Again, sorry that my quick reply came across as calling you a liar, it was your information I was questioning. Please forgive me.Kelly

Okay, I really need to start getting ready for church, but I will pop in here for a second just to address one thing that Kelly said (I think it would take me a week to address all the other posts…I honestly wasn’t expecting the avalanche when I first posted).I REALLY am happier than I have ever been in my life. I guess people are going to want to believe what they want no matter what I say, but it the honest truth.It’s a little odd to me that perfect strangers on the internet are judging that I can’t possibly be happy despite what I say. How in the world can anyone know that?I have the most precious, perfect God who is absolutely everything to me. I am just crazy about Him. If you took a scale with good and bad on opposite sides and EVERYTHING in my life was one the bad side, with Jesus Christ being the only thing on the other, the scale would still tip to GOOD. He is that wonderful!There is a reason countless Christian martyrs have gone to their deaths singing praises to the Lord and rejoicing. It is because they had a God who was greater than any pain, even the pain of death. And they knew that once this life was over, they were going to be in His glorious presence forever.THAT is why I am happy. Because I know and love Jesus Christ. He is the love of my life, the Anchor of my soul, and the Rock upon which I ride out the most raging storms.I wouldn’t trade Him for anything…not the perfect life, the perfect marriage…NOT FOR ANYTHING! Yes, I am happier than I have ever been in my life because I have a God who never changes no matter what may change in my life. I am in love with my life because I am in love with the Lord!Okay…I am going to be late to church! But I just had to say that. Please don’t place your own perceptions on me on how I should feel or do feel! –Amy

Amy, that’s great. Truly, wonderfully, great. Please just extend the exact same courtesy to all the other posters who have said they are happy in their lives.aimai

If you took a scale with good and bad on opposite sides and EVERYTHING in my life was one the bad side, with Jesus Christ being the only thing on the other, the scale would still tip to GOOD.either you’ve never experienced such a situation in real life and therefore don’t know what an immense pain that would be, or you’re knee-deep in it without a way out, and have simply found a coping-mechanism that looks like a solution but isn’t.I sincerely hope it’s the former, and that you will never end up experiencing that situation, because that is EXACTLY what the formerly submissive wives on here are trying to explain to you: when everything in your life is bad, blindly going with it because of Jesus might kill you. or your children. And you and your children deserve better than to suffer for no reason.On the other hand, you also need to accept that your chosen lifestyle isn’t the only way to find happiness, regardless of whether your interpretation of the bible tells you otherwise

Thanks, a.b.e., I will look forward to seeing your information.Kelly

Molly writes: I am currently in a situation where I’m not sure what to do. My husband is swearing he has changed. I am looking at a dismal financial future if I leave him for good…five kids…eleven years of no job experience becuase I was a stay-home homeschool mom…or I can try again…even though my gut tells me that the things that are wrong with him are so deep that I’m not sure they are “fixable.” I don’t know anything about you besides what I have read here, and a little bit of your blog . . . but I would go with what your gut says. In the meantime, I hope you are talking to lawyers and finding out about options. If there’s any justice in our justice system, your husband will surely be required to pay child support. And you’re obviously an intelligent woman (and a wonderful writer!) – I’m sure you’d be an asset to any employer.

Kelly,This is for you. It’s about the word submit not being in Eph. 5:22 in P46. There is other information on this issue also but this is the easiest for me to give you at this time. (I’m in the middle of the a project on Mexico I have to hand in on Saturday and don’t have as much time as I would like to give you on this. But if I do have more time I will get you more resources.)http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/Here’s a quote off this website:If “submit” is not in verse 22 then verse 22 must be closely linked to verse 21, which says “submit to one another.”