Quoting Quiverfull: Women Only Want to Control Men?

Quoting Quiverfull: Women Only Want to Control Men? November 28, 2014
"Mad Men" Peggy Olson and the two guys she 'controls' in an 'un-Biblical' way - Stan Rizzo and Michael Ginsburg.
“Mad Men” Peggy Olson and the two guys she ‘controls’ in an ‘un-Biblical’ way – Stan Rizzo and Michael Ginsburg.

by Wendy Alsup at Visionary Womanhood and  Practical Theology for Women – The Voice of the Helper

Wendy is talking about the failures of theology of Mark Driscoll’s church Mars Hill Church. Armchair quarterbacking after the fact. Charming.

One thing I am processing is why so many women over the years at Mars Hill felt silenced. I think some of it is pathological – serious mental struggles due to childhood trauma by some influential leaders that resulted in over the top reactions to women who spoke up. But I also think some of it was theological, which is why I’ve hounded again and again the issue of Genesis 3:16. One elder referred to explicit theology – that which was taught – and implicit theology – that which was believed. There was a discrepancy between the two at times. Leadership at Mars Hill occasionally spoke explicitly about women with the assumption that our first root issue was that we would want to take over control from the men in our lives. But the implicit belief outside of what was explicitly taught was there at a fundamental, pervasive level. When that is your foundational(sic) assumption, then there is nothing that a woman can say short of complete agreement and affirmation of you in every way that will not be eventually labeled gossip, manipulation, or outright usurping of authority.

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, influential bloggers and cultural enforcers 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 and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully.

Daisypath - Personal pictureDaisypath Vacation tickers

 

 

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mel

    For a LAF article, this is a raging liberal manifesto….

    “The main problem seems that some men can’t distinguish between women speaking with wisdom and women speaking with authority. They are so afraid of a woman telling them authoritatively what to do that they can’t hear feedback or suggestions from them without defensiveness.”

    She allows that women are allowed to speak with wisdom…although not with authority. Obviously, the “not with authority” rule is always going cause silencing of women.

  • Saraquill

    Lock of the men of their church in a monastery and let the women have autonomy then?

  • MizzKittay

    Leadership at Mars Hill occasionally spoke explicitly about women with the assumption that our first root issue was that we would want to take over control from the men in our lives. But the implicit belief outside of what was explicitly taught was there at a fundamental, pervasive level. When that is your foundational(sic) assumption, then there is nothing that a woman can say short of complete agreement and affirmation of you in every way that will not be eventually labeled gossip, manipulation, or outright usurping of authority.

    She’s got a very good point. If men believe that all women are trying to do is usurp male authority anything short of silence could be deemed rebellious. That’s a wicked deadly belief. It is pervasive, very, very much so! It makes sense in fundi-world though. I mean Eve did convince Adam to eat that cursed fruit.

    I also believe she’s right in the sense that there would be some cognitive dissonance with that. Most men don’t tend to think of women as conniving and manipulative and only striving to get their own way. Though some surely do as sad as that is. Women usually show a lot more tendencies towards compassion and compromise.

    That woman has got a good head on her shoulders to think outside the box like that. That’s some serious psychologist level rationalizing. Good job to her for seeing that!!! 🙂

  • Is this a LAF article? I don’t think so. This is an article by Wendy Alsup, who AFAIK is “soft complementarian”, reblogged on a site (Visionary womanhood) that includes material from a variety of sources.
    Visionary womanhood’s own writer, Natalie Klejwa, seems Quiverful. But she certainly reblogs articles from non-quiverful writers, including even Barbara Roberts (A Cry for Justice). Barbara writes against spousal abuse and her main message include that divorce is Biblically allowed for abuse. Barbara Roberts have never upheld gender roles in anything she wrote.
    I don’t think it is just to call Wendy Alsup quotes “quoting quiverful” either.

  • Wendy Alsup (Practical Theology for women) is against, not for, the notion that women long to control husbands. See the link in the quoted piece.

    As it happens, an article she wrote on Driscoll got reblogged by a quiverful blogger (Visionary Womanhood). Said blogger also reblogs other non-quiverful articles, even from the site “A cry for justice”, an anti-abuse site which I am sure will never underwrite gender roles in any way, shape, or form.

    As such, putting Alsup under “Quoting Quiverfull” is misleading.

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    I think that I’ve officially hit the overload on feeling “stabby”. I’m going to go play with bubble wrap now so I won’t start poking holes in sh#t with an ice pick.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    There are things I find that Ladies Against Feminism and Visionary Womanhood and other QF places that aren’t straight up QF that are being treated as if they are. Which is why I always put the link stream of how I found them on the piece. It speaks more to the nature that QF is willing to use/quote those that aren’t part of the movement to prop it up by pretending that they are. Figured this piece got used because they’re all suddenly kicking Mars Hill and Driscoll now that the pedestal has crumbled.