Quoting Quiverfull: Justifying Saying Words That Hurt Others?

Quoting Quiverfull: Justifying Saying Words That Hurt Others? August 16, 2016

quotingquiverfullby Doug Wilson of Blog and Mablog – Whoa and Giddyup

Editor’s note: Whenever I see fundamentalists or evangelical cultural enforcers discussing ‘speaking the truth’ at the same time as ‘taming the tongue’ I know it’s coded language for ‘put down and verbally abuse anyone not in our personal cult.’ I wish these types would understand just how unkind and hateful they come across when they are ‘speaking the truth’ to those they don’t agree with. The examples he makes here are all positive ones, but we all know what the likely language towards others really is and it isn’t that kind.

But there are two reasons why we want to be able to direct a horse we are riding. The first is to prevent it from going where we don’t want to go. The first is to keep us on the trail, to keep us from arriving at a destination we do not want. The second is to direct us positively, to actually arrive where we need to be.

When Christians think of sins of the tongue, and of a lack of self-control there, they almost invariably think of the things they wish they hadn’t said, the words they wish they hadn’t said. When horse and rider are off in the bracken, everyone knows about the poor horsesmanship. But what about an inability to get a horse to take more than several paces in any direction?

Men will not be able to speak the truth to governors, congressmen, and presidents when they are unable to tell their wives that they love them, their children that they are proud of them, or their parents how grateful they are. Control of the tongue includes much more than an ability to say whoa—it requires also a mastery of giddyup.

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, cultural enforcers and those that seek to keep women submitted to men 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.

moreRead more by Doug Wilson:

What the Heck is Nuisance Lust?


Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

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

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

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
  • SAO

    The horse analogy makes it sound like the purpose of speech is manipulation. Generally, people focusing on the negative will never see the positive. You can either notice that a girl has zits or that she has a pretty smile. “You’d be pretty if you dealt with your acne” is as bad as calling someone pizza-face. No one wants to hear it.

  • Abigail Smith

    Does anyone here have an example of a fundie sincerely saying (and meaning) “I’m only speaking the truth in love” then NOT slamming you with a criticism or subtle putdown that really comes from THEM and has nothing to do with love ?
    Me neither.

  • BlueVibe

    “I’m only speaking the truth” = “I’m saying something in a manner that I know to be needlessly hurtful but under the guise of ‘helping’ you so I don’t need to take responsibility for myself.”

  • I also understood “speaking the truth”(TM) as “I’m spewing off ideas that I’m dogmatic about.” It’s classic fallacy of assertion. It would be interesting for them to encounter Salafi Muslims, who go out trying to convert people to Islam, rehashing some of the old Christianese lines but Islamicizing them. When asked by Deutsche Welle about it they said the reason they tell Jews and Christians they’ll go to hell unless they accept the Muhammad(peace be upon him) as the apostle of Allah(subhanu wa ta’ala) is because it’s the truth(TM). (The Quran says whoever comes with a deen[religion, way of life] other than Islam will not be accepted.)

    What I find intersecting about this is the direct contradiction to Fundamentalist truth assertions and I think it would be interesting to see how Fundamentalist Christians would respond to their Muslim counterparts. (Get popcorn! :-))