True Love Doesn’t Wait

by Calulu

It seems that everyone’s favorite frequent Quoting Quiverful author Vaughn Ohlman has a new site - True Love Doesn’t Wait

The main subject of the site is the same as it is in most of Von’s postings at Persevero News – marriage very close after puberty is Godly and necessary. Young, young marriage in direct opposition to many in the fundagelical movement such as the Botkins, Vision Forum and the whole courtship True Love Waits movement. Slam, bam, wham, puberty-marriage-and the babies start a-coming. Quiverfull on hard core amphetamines!

Some folks believe early marriage is a violation of civil rights. I’ve written about my own personal struggles with having married a short 12 days after my Sweet Sixteenth birthday. I would not wish that experience on anyone! The money struggles, trying to figure out how to do everyday things, the just not having a clue! A miserable time was had by all. (Plus I think I owe my ex a big apology by the horrible cooking I inflicted on him. Man does not live by frozen pot pies alone)

One thing about his plan, it would stop the syndrome in the church of old maids like Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin. But the costs of early marriage are too high emotionally for it to ever be practical. In the old days when your life expectancy was perhaps 30 or 35 and you needed 20 children to help with all the work on your large agricultural enterprise early marriage would make sense. But not now, how can anyone actually be expected to support a bride with almost no education, no savings, no anything?

The best example on his site of the complete and total disconnect of his posit with the reality of our world and society in general is Little Miss Perfect. This the same type of disconnect Fundamental Christianity has with present-day reality. The Perfect family in his posting sounds almost like the Botkins.

Comments open below

Read everything by Calulu!

Calulu lives near Washington DC , was raised Catholic in South Louisiana before falling in with a bunch of fallen Catholics whom had formed their own part Fundamentalist, part Evangelical church. After fifteen uncomfortable years drinking that Koolaid she left nearly 6 years ago. Her blog is Calulu – Seeking The Light

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

 

About Suzanne Calulu
  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Wow, thanks for the link. Great article. We disagree fundamentally, obviously, but this is about the best opposition article I have ever read. I will probably comment more on my blog. Again, thanks.

  • Vaughn Ohlman
  • NeaDods

    Slam, bam, wham, puberty-marriage-and the babies start a-coming.

    Why does no one in this movement stop for a nanosecond to think “hey, this is the way things used to be AND PEOPLE WERE SO MISERABLE THEY CHANGED IT!”? Seriously, it’s not as though early marriage and no birth control are new things. They’re just things that society hated enough to change… and contrary to the fondest thoughts of this fringe, not many people want to go back.

    Including a lot of their own children.

  • NeaDods

    I love how you start the rebuttal with a vicious insult to the author (“And her goals and desires are, well, just the opposite: to destroy Biblical marriage and everything it stands for.”), rely on anecdote as scientific fact (hint: people DID get divorced when you were young; you either were blind to that or are outright lying), and completely blow off the original author’s actual experience in the quiverfull lifestyle to complain that she doesn’t know anything about it. I’m totally convinced and swayed by your facile disdain and will utterly ignore all my experience with opposite anecdotes, not to mention flush my history degree down the drain, because obviously your personal experiences in your little community trumps any actual data or research in the rest of the country and every other culture.

    Also? LOVE how you praise her for no ad homonyms and then promptly perform character assassination. Your Bible only has 9 commandments, I take it, because that was classic false witness.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Wow, you call that an ‘ad hominem’? I thought the very purpose of this site was a denial of (what I would define as) Biblical marriage: Ie the marriage spoken of in Psalm 127:

    Psa 127:1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

    Psa 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.

    Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

    Psa 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

    Psa 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    >> people DID get divorced when you were young; you either were blind to that or are outright lying

    I was speaking comparitively. I was in the sixth grade before we had our first student, in my public school, from a divorced home. Now it would be difficult to go into any classroom in the United States and not find several children, if not the majority, from divorced homes.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    >> her goals and desires are, well, just the opposite

    Do you really deny that we have opposite goals? I am quiverfull, she is anti-quiverful. My goal is to promote quiverful (young marriage, no divorce, plentious children, no birth control, homeschooling, patriarchy) and her goals are, well, the opposite at each point, aren’t they?

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    >>Seriously, it’s not as though early marriage and no birth control are new things. They’re just things that society hated enough to change… and contrary to the fondest thoughts of this fringe, not many people want to go back.

    BTW, I would agree with this. If anything I have written makes you believe that I think that society at large is yearning for young marriage and no birth control, please tell me where, since that is NOT my opinion.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    I am anti-quiverfull because I have lived it and see what dangerous poison that type of Christianity can be. However I have no time to go into rebuttal mode since I have a yard to mow and a large garden to weed this very afternoon. Will reply later.

  • NeaDods

    It isn’t. It is about the harm the lifestyle you espouse has caused to the author, her family, and others. Quoting Bible verses instead of looking at the site is foolish. Denigrating the author based on what you want to believe about her and her experiences instead of reality is the very definition of ad homonym.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Ugh…he apparently doesn’t understand the health risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth during the teen years. “Old enough to bleed” is NOT “old enough to breed.” I can only hope that he’s so extreme that even the extremists think he’s cuckoo, kind of like how even most on the Far Right don’t take the Westboro Baptist Church seriously.

  • NeaDods

    You were speaking wrongly, which is going to happen every time you use only your personal experiences as a definition of everyone’s reality. Divorce wasn’t just a reality for people I knew in school, it has been so common for so long that divorce is a major plot point in the works of Dreiser and Wharton and the children’s books of LM Montgomery, all written in the early 1900s.

    And that’s just off the top of my head for my favorite authors. It doesn’t even go into the real-world ramifications of a divorce obtained by a woman named Wallis Simpson….

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Biblical marriage isn’t one man to one woman in early teens. It can be one man and many women, one man, many women and a whole lotta concubines, or like in Genesis, one man and his sister, One man an a pile of virgins who are killed off the next morn. You cannot use the Bible to justify one man to one woman as that was definitely not the standard in Biblical times.

  • mayarend

    They actually think everyone was happy.
    Like in a TV commercial or those 60′s “American way of life” kind of movies.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    You can’t possibly be old enough based upon your stated biological age in your various profiles online. Even in the early sixties divorce was starting to be increasingly popular.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    My lawnmower won’t start so I guess I’ll have to stay and reply to Vaughn. However I’m going to move my rebuttal to my personal blog, http://calulu.blogspot.com instead of spamming up the comments here.

  • Renee Martin

    I will say your goals are scary. We live in the modern world, and it’s a wonderful thing. patriarchy is ugly, and not just for women. No divorce traps people in misery, and patriarchy makes half the population second class citizens (and no, its not “different, but equal”…)

    Why not move to Saudi Arabia, where you can bask in youth marriage (why wait for puberty?) total patriarchy, no divorce, enforced modesty (no stumbling!), and separation of the sexes? You can live in a theocracy with moral police! How wonderful! I don’t know if there is homeschool, but as a man, you can rule your home as you see fit, so Im sure it would be fine. So what if its Allah, not Jesus? In practice, there is very little difference on the fundamentalist side.

    PLEASE, go move to a theocracy, and stop trying to make America into such a place.

  • persephone

    Quivrfull is a destructive, un-Christian lifestyle.

  • persephone

    Cage match of the century: Botkin versus Ohlman. Who wants to help me set it up?

  • persephone

    Got anything from the New Testament?

  • Independent Thinker

    The idea of marriage close to puberty is a myth. According to the US Census bureau during the 1800′s in the United States the average age for marriage was between the ages of 20-22. For females in the 1920′s the average age was 21.2 again also according to the US Census bureau. Life expectancy was also lower so that should be noted. A woman is generally well thru puberty by the age of 20-22. Puberty in females usually is in the range of 10-15 years of age. So historically speaking based on actually facts. Women married about 7-9 years after puberty not near the time of. Gee, isn’t actual research refreshing.

  • Independent Thinker

    When you treat women like farm animals you don’t care if it is medically safe for them to reproduce. When the cow dies you buy another one. (Sick isn’t it).

  • Independent Thinker

    If you are truly promoting marriage and anti-divorce you would realize that a boat load of studies have been done on the topic of divorce. Those who marry under the age of 20 are statistically three times more likely to divorce than those who marry over the age of 20. Thank God college taught me things like that so when I made the decision to marry I could use actual facts in picking my partner based on tried and true research and not made up talking points. (By the way I am not divorced and had no kids out of wedlock)

  • Trollface McGee

    And having opposite goals/visions doesn’t mean your visions are equal in merit. Your vision would take away fundamental human rights from a large swath of people because you or your Bible say so. Your vision puts young women and their potential offspring at risk of death and defects because teen pregnancies are generally more risky than in more mature women. Your vision takes half the human race and makes them inferior because of their genitals. Your vision would increase overpopulation, infanticide, illiteracy, poverty, abuse. You vision, frankly, sucks.

  • naath

    Even back in the 16th century it wasn’t the case that most people married young. Sure the nobility were keen to marry off their children very early; but the average age of marriage was more like 25 than 15 – because if you were an average person you needed to reach a point in your life when you were earning enough to set up your own household.

    Historically speaking I don’t think life expectancy *at marriage* has ever been as low as 30. Life expectancy is usually given at *birth* and prior to the invention of modern medicine a whole lot of children never saw their first birthday.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Well, girls generally went through puberty later in the 19th century. The average age of menarche was much higher and started to get steadily lower over the course of the late 19th and twentieth century. But even so, marriage did not take place right after puberty and it is true that it was most common for women to marry in their early twenties and, often enough, they married later than that. Middle-class-and-above men married even later because they were expected to be established enough in a career to be able to support a wife and family and that took time. People seem to think that the baby boom era, when it really did become common for people to marry in their late teens (STILL not right after puberty, as the age of puberty was more consistent with our own expectations at this point) was the standard and that, the earlier you go back in history, the earlier people would marry. But this is just not true. Those couples married younger than their parents, in general. They were the anomaly not the norm.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Most of the big patriarchy passages are in the New Testament…

    And yes, large families were an asset in ancient pastoral societies, like the one that the quoted passages came out of. Why people should take them as commandments now, when our lives in no way resemble the lives of those people is beyond me.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Your vision puts young women and their potential offspring at risk of death and defects because teen pregnancies are generally more risky than in more mature women.

    His fetish for teen pregnancy is especially horrifying when you combine it with his favoring of homebirths. Not only should such births really not take place at home, since they are de facto high-risk pregnancies but in the the Quiverfull community, they would no doubt often be attended by non-CNMs who have just “Christian cred” or by other unqualified birth attendants. He must think that God really loves obstetric fistulas. Ugh.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I don’t think he is “so extreme even the extremists think he is cuckoo” , as he writes for a blog, Persevero News, with several writers. If others find him cuckoo, they will probably not let him share their site.

  • texcee

    I get a creepy pedophilia vibe from this guy. Eww…

  • gimpi1

    I was going to talk about the myth of early marriage in the past, but everybody beat me to the punch. Well done.

  • Lucreza Borgia

    My grandparents never got married but had to get a divorce and this was in the 70′s. Then my grandmother went on to be married 3 more times! My grandfather married a divorcee and they later got divorced as well. His ex-wife married another divorcee and ended up dying in her sleep from an unknown heart condition. My mother divorced my sister’s father in the 80′s while pregnant with me. Yes, the old days were just perfect! *rolls eyes*

  • gimpi1

    That’s the principal problem with this stuff. Outcomes don’t matter. As long as you are faithful to (their view of) Scriptures, things like birth defects, maternal death, brutality, oppression, hunger, poverty and misery are unimportant. I believe Mr. Ohlman is on record as saying your health, security or happiness don’t matter. Only his view of Godliness has any relevance.

    Rather un-American, isn’t it? Fortunately, he has no power over us, yet. Remember to vote, ladies, and do your research. If someone like Mr. Ohlman is elected, you may not have the right to vote much longer.

    (Yes, he in in favor of stripping women of the right to vote.)

  • gimpi1

    Then what do you want? Do you want to be left in peace to do what you please? Congratulations, you pretty much are. Well done.

    Do you want to force everyone else, those who arent “yearning for young marriage and no birth control,” to live as you decree, no way, no how, not ever.

    I think how a lot of us will feel about your postings depends on your goals. What are they?

  • Nightshade

    THIS is the real question. How about it, Mr. Ohlman? Are you set on imposing your interpretation of God’s will on the rest of us? If so, how? Would you try to force obedience by legal measures, set up a theocracy? I am verrrry interested in your answer.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Great question. My goal is to speak to the part of the church that has already accepted the principles of Biblical Inerrancy, full quiver, etc. and convince then that some of the new principles they are putting forward, which often go under the name of ‘courtship’, are in direct contradiction to Scripture and these other things they believe and teach.
    And, indeed, that it goes against much of what the church has historically taught.

  • Vaughn Ohlman
  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I think some people might be confused here. I am not some starry eyed conservative yearning for the old fashioned better days.
    I am speaking of what I believe the Scripture teach. It makes no difference to me if anyone or everyone ever did this before.

  • Saraquill

    *raises her hand*

  • Saraquill

    Young marriage, the command to be fruitful as soon as possible, scant education and a super theocratic society can also be found in the short story Children of the Corn.

    Perhaps Mr. Ohlman should pop over to that town for a research trip?

  • NeaDods

    So you think the scripture teaches something completely different than any or every other person — this would include Christians, you know — “ever did before”? Your bible is also missing the verses about pride and taking logs out of your own eyes, as well as the one about false witness. Also the “judge not” one. I’m sure you know the chapter and verses; you are so good at quoting the Bible after all.

  • NeaDods

    Your goal is to bring back chattel slavery. Telling women they cannot even have the pathetic protections of courtship, much less the autonomy of dating, but are to be handed over for sex and labor to a stranger at their father’s whim is SLAVERY. Slavery might be biblical, but it’s also illegal, immoral, and repugnant, so don’t be wildly surprised that people — especially people whose own gender is being debased — to Hand. You. Your. Ass… and not just on the internet. If you ever act on your heinous goals regarding your own children, you belong in jail.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    No…. somewhere between these two. As everyone knows people and societies, throughout history, have followed a wide variety of customs, traditions, and beliefs. I am saying that when someone comes and says ‘but they didn’t do this in 1960 (or whenever)’ that that comment is irrelevant to my point.
    I am trying to show what Scripture teaches. Sometimes people have followed parts, sometimes others, sometimes practically none (as in our society).

  • NeaDods

    I dare you to throw comments open there. The poster here allows conflicting opinions. You don’t. But then, you presumably don’t want to be called out in your own space for lying and bearing false witness. It isn’t just about your sick notion of Biblical marriage. It’s about your saying that the original poster didn’t understand a lifestyle she had been part of. It’s about your not considering the statistics given to you – you just say they’re quoted, as if knowing facts is some kind of slander against you. It’s about you saying divorce is new when it is not.

    You even lie about who accused you of ad homonym! It was me, not Calalu, but you have no problem conflating the original post with a commenter if it bolsters your warm fuzzy feelings of persecution.

    And the thing is? All the comments are here on the internet. Whine to your website that you were accused of ad homonym and that it’s soooo wrong. Who said it, why the accusation was made, that it’s NOT about what you said it was about… all those can be seen by anyone who actually seeks the truth.

    They’re also seen by the One Who Sees All. Bear that in mind, Mr. More-Scriptural-Than-Thou. You continue to break a commandment and I’m not the only one who’s going to notice.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    >>I dare you to throw comments open there. The poster here allows conflicting opinions. You don’t

    The particular blog she references is for a very specific purpose, discussion between Christians. However I write on three other blogs all of which allow open debate. You may post on, for example, Christianbetrothal.blogspot.com. It is moderated but I have almost never delted comments. Keep your language clean and support your views from Scripture and you are good to go.

  • NeaDods

    The blog I am referring to is the one where you keep putting your rebuttals. That you do so and then do not allow for commentary from the very people you are misrepresenting is very telling. I am not a Christian, so the very blog where you LIE ABOUT ME is not for me to comment upon? Instead, I should go to a third place where you will graciously refrain from “delting” me so I can defend myself… but only as long as I’m a good little girl. By *your* incontestable definition of good little girl.

    Do I strike you as being particularly obedient? Do you honestly think I will permit you to police my tone? Do you seriously think I’m blind enough to assume that this time you’re telling the truth? You don’t have a good track record with the truth in my eyes.

    I do, however, appreciate that you have now made it extremely clear that actual facts do not matter to you, only your interpretation of the Bible. I’ll stay here in reality, thanks.

  • persephone

    But not the get married and pop out a new village texts.

  • Nightshade

    I at least appreciate what seems to be a straight answer, and (presumably) an honest one. You are directing your teaching to the church then, at least those who are already headed in the same general direction as you, is my understanding correct? I disagree with you VERY strongly, but if you’re not going to try and force me to your way of life I have no (direct) quarrel with you. I do believe, however, that what you teach reduces wives and daughters to being possessions, women in general to slaves, children to mindless automatons, young men to pawns of their fathers, and forces fathers to assume total responsibility for their families far beyond what is reasonable, a burden that I feel is more than any human should have to bear. In short, I don’t feel that it is truly beneficial to anyone…but I see that we aren’t going to agree, there is no common ground here that I can find.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    It is entirely possible to believe that the marriage spoken of in Ps 127 is good, and yet to deny quiverful, male rule, parents picking mates for their children, and almost everything else you promote.

    I believe that if it is not from God (and it is not), quiverful, male rule and parents picking mates for the children is “labor[ing] in vain.” (verse 1) I believe it is in vain to rise up early, work hard towards the ideals of home schooling and quiverful and serving a father/ husband, while God gives his beloved sleep. (verse 2) I believe children are a heritage from the lord, but riches and food and many other things also come from God. Just like my whole life don’t need to be focused on getting as rich as humanly possible/ eat as much as possible, there are other things except having children to focus on. (verse 3) I believe children can be “as arrows”, and that fathers can be happy with a quiver FULL of them. (verse 4-5) But a full quiver means the quiver is filled, as in: “There is no place for any more arrows.” It seems that so-called quiverful people are the very ones who never say “my quiver is full, I need no more.”

  • Kristen Rosser

    This is what really burns me. Mr. Ohlman interprets the Bible so that women are not even allowed their own consciences. She is expected to think whatever her husband thinks, vote (if she can vote, which he wants to do away with as superfluous) the way her husband tells her to– in short, to have no personhood of her own, but to be merely an extension of her husband’s person– and to do this willingly. He calls this “biblical obedience,” but this is actually erasure of the humanity of the female sex. This is not marriage, it’s idolatry, with the husband as the god. And he claims his interpretation is the Scripture. It isn’t.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    lol, I initially read “Christianbetrothal.blogspot.com” as “Christianbrothel.blogspot.com. This could well be due to the fact that it’s been way too long since I got any sleep but, considering that you essentially advocate Christian-stamped trafficking of teenage girls, maybe it wasn’t such an accident…

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    As far as the blog goes:
    1) If you are a Christian then you are free to submit your statement of faith, agree to the terms of the site and, bingo, you can post comments there.
    2) It is a bit disingenous to make a public reply to a blog post on a site that you know is moderated and closed, and then complain that it is moderated and closed.
    You have a large audience here who, presumably, know and share your views. A rebuttal here will probably reach more people who will support you than an attempt to open comments on a closed site.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Oh, but the comments here are moderated too. Myself and Vyckie moderate the comments. My allowing you to post here is only because you haven’t called someone a naughty name (yet).

    How do you determine who is are isn’t a “Christian”? That’s really not any of your business at all. Seems rather judgmental, against the words of Christ himself. How are you going to explain that on Judgment Day? I am curious as to the mental gyrations you manage to do to proclaim you know Biblical truth and then act in a way that denies you believe in Christ.

    You’ve told a number of lies in disputing the facts presented by the other side, that should concern you considering out of the abundance of your heart come your words.

  • NeaDods

    Vaughn, how can I get it through your head that I am not Calulu? Does it say ”Nea” on the original post? Does it say ”Nea” at the other blog involved? Does Neadods somehow turn into an acronym of Calulu?

    Does it defend your constant use of false witness against Calulu if we all realize that you won’t even read the header on the comments you respond to?

    And no, insulting a non-Christian (me, not Calulu) on a blog and then saying that I can’t defend myself against your lies in the very space where you are lying because “I knew it was moderated and closed” doesn’t mean I am the one in the wrong. It means that you admit you can’t defend your position without controlling the conversation.

  • gimpi1

    Thank you for your response, but I still don’t quite understand. Are you trying to persuade people in your own group to change some of their beliefs? Or do you want to pass laws that would exert control over those of us who reject what you believe?

    For example, you have said you don’t think women should vote. Are you trying to tell women in the Quiverfull movement they shouldn’t vote, or do you want to remove that right from all women in the U.S.?

  • gimpi1

    As I recall, his arguments were some of the ones raised against granting women the vote back in the late 1800′s. That tells me a bit about the sort of world he wants. However, that said, bad on us if we let him get it. Pay attention. Tax rates aren’t everything. Immigration, unemployment, all these issues pale beside some political candidates who really want to turn back the clock.

  • gimpi1

    Yes, frightening isn’t it. Maternal and fetal death rates to the moon, preventable disabilities because of difficult births, widowers and orphans by the ton.

    I honestly don’t think many people know how bad the “good old days” were.

  • fiona64

    So, in short: women are slaves to their uteruses, and should have no life ambition beyond having scores of children, teaching them at home … and all of this despite not completing their own education, given your references to marriage as young as age 15.

    Wow.

    (PS – A trifle late to the party, but I’m nevertheless dumbfounded by what I’m reading here.)

  • fiona64

    Ohlman appears to yearn for a return to the days of coverture law …


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X