Quoting Quiverfull: Legalism?

by Colin Campbell at Meat For Men -March 5, 2013

“It’s not legalism to eat three meals a day to feed the body. Why should it be legalism to feed your spirit and your children’s spirit two times a day at Family Devotions?”

Comments open below

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Force feeding doesn’t count

  • It’s not legalism if it’s by consensus, everyone enjoys and wants to do it, and flexibility is allowed to move times or skip devotions when necessary. It IS legalism if it’s required, there’s little or no flexibility, and some or all of the participants but do it because daddy says so, or because if they don’t they won’t be as good Christians as people who do.

  • Sorry, that “but” in the last sentence should be an “only.”

  • madame

    Define “family devotions”.
    There is the short reading, or natural conversation about faith, and there’s the long droning on and on on how children should obey their parents, how our life should glorify God and therefore we should separate ourselves from the world and anything that sounds like fun. Children are quite happy to take part in the first two. My kids love Bible stories and are happy to talk about God and Jesus on a daily basis. If we were to sit them down twice a day and lecture them, I think they’d start to resent it.
    As they grow older, if they don’t want to take part in Bible story telling or talks about Jesus, we will respect that. I hope we can handle things in such a way that our children feel free to figure out their faith on their own and know that we are open to talk about anything they want to.
    If that’s what Colin Campbell is talking about, then no, I don’t consider it legalistic.

  • madame

    Adding to the above;
    If it has to be done twice a day, and if the whole family must take part in said devotions, then it is indeed legalistic.
    Eating regularly is necessary. Doing so together is practical and helps bring the family together around the table once or twice a day, at least.

  • Meggie

    There is nothing legalistic about twice daily family devotions. I don’t think anyone criticises people for twice daily devotions.

    Feeding your family poison for their meals would lead to criticism. In the same way, teaching your family poisonous attitudes and values during family devotions will lead ti criticism.

  • madame

    if those family devotions are mandatory and nobody is allowed to opt out of them, then it is legalism.
    Eating regular meals is necessary for physical wellbeing. Devotions may be great, but only if those participating in them are free to choose not to participate.
    As I said above, if devotions are age-appropriate, children will be happy to take part.
    Would you expect all family members to schedule their day around family devotions?

  • Crabapple

    Not everyone eats three meals a day. By choice. When I was growing up, I didn’t always eat three times a day. The food was there, but if I wasn’t hungry, no one forced me to eat. Family devotions twice a day? Sounds rigid and controlling to me.

  • Rae

    Exactly my thought! Some days I’ll have three meals, some days I’ll have two, some days I’ll have four, some days I’ll snack all day rather than bother making food at all. So to me, yes, the thought of eating three meals a day on a fixed schedule simply because that’s what people are “supposed to do” does seem legalistic and restrictive.