Quoting Quiverfull: Part 2 – Fathers Own Daughters?

Quoting Quiverfull: Part 2 – Fathers Own Daughters? January 19, 2017

quotingquiverfullby Sarah Faith Schlissel of Chalcedon and BibleTopics.com – Daddy’s Girl: Courtship and a Father’s Rights

Editor’s note: So this was written something like twenty years ago, but there are many in the CPM that still believe this harmful ‘ownership’ concept. Wasn’t slavery and person ownership outlawed over a century ago in America?

This might sound harsh. “Ownership” makes some cringe. So call it “authoritative stewardship.” But for many, this is not much better. “What are you talking about? This courtship stuff may be nice (up to a point), and I agree that dating is unwise, riddled as it is with temptations–but hold it a minute there, sister! Are you saying that you’re just a piece of property? How could you think of yourself in those terms? You need some serious help with your self-esteem there! Get real! Get with it! This is the 90s!”

Yes, it is grating to our ears. However, let’s not dismiss the idea without examining its merits. The Christian worldview, informed by Scripture, functions as our spectacles. Through the Bible, we see the world as it is; and no part of life is exempt from God’s governance. We want to live in accord with his law even if it means living in (uncomfortable) opposition to popular culture. Everyone committed to advancing God’s kingdom must be prepared to live against the norms of unbelief. Culture and custom which begin with God’s word will inescapably conflict with culture which begins with the word of man.

And the word of God teaches that progenitors have certain rights. Let’s use that as our major premise and construct a syllogism. Major premise: The creator of something is sovereign over that which he created. Minor premise: God created all things. Conclusion: God is sovereign over all things. This agrees with Scripture.

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.

Part 1


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

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

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

"When are these people going to accept that it's weird and inappropriate to smile 24/7? ..."

Smile or Else?
"I just finished watching this, so this is what came to mind- https://uploads.disquscdn.c...Seriously, though, this ..."

Smile or Else?
"Why am I visualizing a woman made up as the Joker?"

Smile or Else?
"I go for Desert Bluffs. Their smile specifically calls for showing all teeth and keeping ..."

Smile or Else?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


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

    She doesn’t sound convinced that she’s property, but telling herself otherwise.

  • SAO

    Live like a Middle Easterner in the Iron Age! That’s what God wants you to do in America in the 21st century. God hates progress.

  • Friend

    The “owner” apparently established a price for his daughter. A bio of her on Chalcedon.edu states in part, “Sarah Faith Schlissel, 19, is pursuing her MBA at Pace University in New York while working full-time as an analyst at a well known
    financial institution. She is the administrator of The Courtship Ring, an Internet ministry of Messiah’s Congregation […]. Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy.”

    She married at some point after writing this piece.

  • Nightshade

    If we’re going with ‘you made it, you own it’ as a valid argument then the mother should be the owner of offspring, not the father. She puts more into a child to start with-relative size of egg and sperm is clearly in her favor-and provides all of the remaining raw materials for manufacturing the new product, so if you really want to reduce children to being items to be owned the ‘Daddy owns me’ thing is still bullshit.

  • RetroPam

    A lot of them do seem to study Mammon worship financial professions, don’t they? Here’s another high-powered hedge fund manager and Reconstructionist whom she may even have met in person:

    http://rodmartin.org/
    http://chlcdnffaol.s3.amazonaws.com/06%20June_July%2002.pdf

    What publication is that second link? Yup, Chalcedon Report. This Chalcedon.

    The name stuck in my brain because he’s also a high-powered right wing activist.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Dear Sarah,

    The reason it sounds “grating to our ears” is because it’s as toxic as hell. If you actually read the Four Gospels– which purportedly record the teachings of God Incarnate– there is nothing like this in them. Jesus didn’t stand with the powerful to affirm their privilege; he stood with the reviled and outcast to affirm their right to compassion and dignity. And he had quite a lot of anti-patriarchal things to say, like “Whoever doesn’t hate their father can’t join my church” and “Let the dead bury the dead”.

    The question is, why do so many so-called Christians ignore what Jesus had to say when he was able to speak for himself, in favor of cherry-picked verses from either self-proclaimed prophets, or historical accounts which depict ancient Hebrew social customs pertaining solely to 1 percenters (or 10 percenters at best)?

  • Julia Childress

    Here is something that I thought you all would find interesting. A woman named Sharon Autenreith has a blog – link below – where she quotes some of Sarah Faith’s “ownership” essay. Sarah’s response is below. Thank God she has broadened her world view. Maybe there’s still hope for the Botkin sisters.

    https://strangefigures.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/talking-back-to-patriarchy-part-3-it-all-comes-down-to-authority/

    Sarah says:
    August 9, 2013 at 11:36 am

    I very much appreciate your kindness in the treatment of my article written in my youth. It is so rare to see such fairness in reporting. Truly, at the time, I was part of such a loving family and sheltered to the extent that it never occurred to me that there were horrible and control-seeking men who would take the doctrines of “patriarchy” and run so far with them. My life was a living context of the *responsibilities* of the father toward the children: to love, protect, nurture and encourage in their own path. That is the reality I and my sisters experienced. It was not until later in life (after my marriage and more exposure to the harsh world) that I even comprehended how awful it could be for a young lady whose father would take my words, so divorced from the context of my reality, and make her life a living hell. I have since met some of these women and I am friends with them. I deeply regret that my words were used as such, and thank you for also pointing out how young I was at the time. Things seem so black and white when you’re 15 and naive. Of course, since becoming Catholic, I no longer hold that ‘ownership’ theory of paternity, and I’ve considered (even quite recently after being quoted by Rachel Held Evans in her book) writing a retraction/explanation of sorts. The only thing holding me back was the thought that I’d be dragged through the mud again (which is still happening on patriarchy-bashing boards today) in my current role. But it seems you somehow found a way to link my blog/ new persona with the old, so I guess that point may be moot. Anyway, you’ve given me another push to distance myself from that movement which is apparently still hurting people today. (And which my family of origin was never part of. If anything, my dad is a feminist.) Thanks again.

  • Friend

    Sarah writes, “If anything, my dad is a feminist.” Really? What would she think if her husband put a note on the Internet inviting men with $100,000 or more to contact him about marrying one of her own 19-year-old daughters?

  • Val

    I’m glad she changed her mind! I looked at her blog, she seems nice and has a normal family

  • Rachel

    Except in that worldview, the husband owns the wife. Ergo, the husband owns her “property.”

  • Nightshade

    Damn…so much for that loophole!

  • gimpi1

    “And the word of God teaches that progenitors have certain rights. Let’s use that as our major premise and construct a syllogism. Major premise: The creator of something is sovereign over that which he created. Minor premise: God created all things. Conclusion: God is sovereign over all things. “

    First of all, apparently, the writer doesn’t think mothers are progenitors. Secondly, apparently, sons aren’t created. Thirdly, the sentient beings are different from objects. And, finally, yes, the Bible does talk about most people (women, prisoners of war and other captives, foreigners and some others) as property. That’s a great reason to not regard it as a template for life or a perfect guide for morality.

  • gimpi1

    I’m glad she grew out of these dangerous ideas. I would suggest that blogs addressing what she wrote in her callow youth aren’t ‘dragging her through the mud’ but exposing the ideas that were written as toxic and destructive – and she agrees with that stance. I would also say she perhaps could try to see these blogs as push-back on ideas you now understand need pushing back. We’re on your side – today.

  • Julia Childress

    I thought the same thing about calling her father a feminist. Maybe in their world, a feminist is someone who doesn’t believe that a woman who works is going straight to hell. When my beloved and I first got married, we both struggled to adjust to life and attitudes outside of the fundy cult in which we had been raised. Once we had a heated discussion about our respective roles in the marriage and I made it clear that if I’m working and bringing in at least half of the income, then he could lift a finger to some of the housework. I was not going to be the family slave like his mother was. He looked at me in all seriousness and said “well, at least I don’t beat you.” Talk about a low bar. I was so outraged, and I looked at him with what must have been unmitigated rage and said through gritted teeth “I’m supposed to be grateful that you don’t beat me?” Let’s just say that 36 years and 3 children later, I don’t even know how to operate our new washer and dryer, and it’s been decades since I touched a vacuum.