Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
“Taking Her Myself” A New Trend in Quiverfull Courtship/Betrothal
by Vyckie Garrison @No Longer Quivering
“Does God Hate Women?
As Bible-believing Baptists who hold to reformed theology, X and I believe that God is sovereign in choosing who will or will not believe in him, having chosen his people before the foundation of the world (see Ephesians 1), and that his selection is unbreakable and irresistible. If marriage is to mirror this principle, we believe that a woman has no right to select a husband for herself, but that she is to be chosen by a man and marriage is to be an unbreakable arrangement between the man and her father. Based on this reasoning, we have shunned a standard proposal and wedding ceremony, because if I had asked her to marry me (which I did not) then I would have given her the decision to marry me rather than selecting her and taking her myself. Furthermore, if we had exchanged conventional marriage vows, our union would have been based on X’s will and consent, which are not Biblical factors for marriage or salvation. Instead, I asked X’s father for his blessing in taking her hand in marriage. When he gave his blessing, X and I considered ourselves to be unbreakably betrothed in the sight of God. While we had initially intended to consummate our marriage after today’s symbolic ceremony, we instead did so secretly after private scripture reading, prayer, and mutual foot-washing.
PZ Meyers commented on Pharyngula, “It made my skin crawl.” Yeah – mine too.
As Quiverfull Believers dig ever-deeper into their Bibles in search of the truly “biblical model” for godly marriage, ideas about courtship and “betrothal” are becoming increasingly savage and brutish. It would seem unlikely that Courtship standards could get even more oppressive considering that Christian notions of “biblical match-making” have already been taken to outrageous extremes.
Josh Harris started a back-to-bible-living revolution among Christian young people when he advocated the courtship model in his book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye
Jonathan Lindvall, teaching “God’s Design for Youthful Romance,” cited the betrothal of Matthew and Maranatha Chapman as an ideal example of a “true romantic betrothal.” Lindvall describes the crazy-making process by which Maranatha’s father, Stan Owen, orchestrated a year-long betrothal which was to be a “demonstration of Christ’s coming for His bride” based on the parable of the Ten Virgins.
Mr. Owen still faithfully directed both Matthew and Maranatha to avoid physical affection until their wedding. He particularly cautioned them to guard against impatience. Especially since Maranatha was rather young, their wedding might be quite a long way off yet. Though they hoped that the time would be soon, they nevertheless resigned themselves to the real possibility that the wedding could be a matter of years down the road, much like Jacob’s seven year betrothal to Rachel (Gen. 29:18-20). Yet they were both naturally quite motivated and energetically prepared in every way they could, as quickly as they could, just in case the wedding should suddenly be announced.
Not to be outdone in the “biblical examples of courtship and marriage” department, Michael Pearl counseled his daughter, Shoshanna, to forego a state-issued marriage license:
None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state of Tennessee for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever—until death. So when the sodomites have come to share in the state marriage licenses, which will eventually be the law, James and Shoshanna will not be in league with those perverts. And, while I am on the subject, there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together with perverts. The sooner there is such a movement, the sooner we will have a voice in government. Some of you attorneys and statesmen reading this should get together and come up with an approach that will have credibility and help to impact the political process.
Yeah … that’s “bible-believing” extremism for you – and it’s not enough to practice these ideals for themselves and their children, “biblical family values” must become the law of the land.
As a former Quiverfull believer, I used to get excited at the prospect of searching the Word and discovering greater “truths” and biblical principles – the implementation of which would bring my family increasingly closer to a truly God-honoring model of marriage and Christian home life. At the same time, I secretly dreaded what the Lord might reveal to me next through Lindvall’s Bold Christian Living, Pearl’s No Greater Joy, and other “biblical family living” ministries. Already I was obediently and faithfully having baby after baby to the obvious detriment of my health, submitting to my abusive husband, homeschooling, homebirthing, home churching, foregoing all government assistance including potentially life-saving health insurance and food stamps, cutting off all outside relationships with family and friends who were not like-minded Quiverfull Believers …. honestly, the regimentation and isolation made for a harsh and demanding life.
“What’s next?” I frequently wondered to myself … ‘cuz my practice of Quiverfull was not “peculiar” enough already, I guess.
I am so grateful that I got out before I had a chance to “discover” the biblical principle of a man selecting and taking a wife for himself. I am afraid, since the idea comes straight from scripture, I very well may have gone along with my daughters’ father coming to an “unbreakable arrangement” for a “godly” young man to “take them” in marriage.
Ugh. It is a trap – a life-sucking quagmire – to attempt to order one’s family life according to a worldview which teaches that whatever is in the bible is necessarily “biblical” and normative for all times and all cultures. I dread the thought that today’s Quiverfull daughters are now being taught that a young Christian woman “has no right to select a husband for herself, but that she is to be chosen by a man” and given no decision in the convenant agreement between her father and the man who will be taking her.
Related Posts :
Michelle Bachmann has endorsed "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY" ...
Born to Breed: The Quiverfull Movement and its impact on patriarchal policies and right wing politics; a ...
There has been much debate about the definition of marriage and the threat the Fundamental Christian Rep ...
On his radio show today Glenn Beck wove a new conspiracy theory into his latest attack on healthcare reform, ...
There is a new hate group in Maryland – Protect Marriage Maryland. These folks claim that gays and lesbi ...
60 Responses to “Taking Her Myself” A New Trend in Quiverfull Courtship/Betrothal
DannyEastVillage
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
wonder how Bachmann and the rest of that menagerie called the republican party get around this version of biblical marriage.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Welcome back Vyckie
This sounds like power play for men stuff. This jesus supposedly threw out the old testament when he showed up, I doubt he will want to come back to a 2500 year old modern civilization.
The arranged marriages are wrong. Eventually it will be determined on who has enough worldly goods and then people will be left out of the breeding program. And out of the quiver. I hope to heck that none of these types of laws ever come to pass. There are many of us who say screw your religion, its not christian nor is it viable.
Reynardine
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
One fundamental that the fundamentalists of all faiths seem to have in common is keeping women down. Here is an example: the girl “is taken” as a wife regardless of her will; the “marriage” is consummated before the “token” ceremony if the “bridegroom” so chooses; there is no legal proof of this marriage. There is little to distinguish this from capture- rape- and own, except the father’s complicity. I don’t doubt the next step is the Biblical discovery that only women are bound to lifelong fidelity and monogamy; after all, that’s how they did things in the Old Testament.
GreenEyedLilo
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Sometimes people can become addicted to separatism and extremism. It’s not just Quiverfull–I’ve seen it happen with environmentalists and atheists. If you define your morality by rules and all the things you don’t do, it makes sense that you’ll keep looking for new “Thou shalt nots.” Of course, good is much more than the absence of bad, and looking for new teachings misses the point. Your dread of “what’s next?” was so poignantly written.
GreenEyedLilo
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Sometimes people can become addicted to separatism and extremism. It’s not just Quiverfull–I’ve seen it happen with environmentalists and atheists. If you define your morality by rules and all the things you don’t do, it makes sense that you’ll keep looking for new “Thou shalt nots.” Of course, good is much more than the absence of bad, and looking for new teachings misses the point. Your dread of “what’s next?” was so poignantly written.
I feel terrible for the young women being “taken”–I thought Joshua Harris’ ideas were extreme when my cousin showed me books by him, but they seem downright feminist compared to this. It raises a question. Do the men advocating these practices still think their own marriages, with state licenses and assenting brides, “count”?
AFM
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Only thing is once these young people get wise you will see divorce.
Kate
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Baptists? Really?
Those loons would be laughed out of the majority of established Baptist churches.
They must be Baptist the same way the Westboro Baptist Church is Baptist: just riding on the name to try and get even a shred of respect under a known religious banner.
Splinter sects. Tsk tsk tsk *shakes head*
And considering the source (Reddit)…there’s a good change it was a troll, anyways.
There’s “loony and crazy” and then there’s “so loony and crazy, I doubt whether it’s actually true”.
The part that REALLY amuses me is the bit about not getting legally married, so as to have a “holier” union, free of the eebils of the damned guberments.
Wait, just wait a minute. My boyfriend and I declare our devotion before God in a spiritual marriage, and you deem that we are living in sin because we’re not “actually” or “legally” married. And yet YOU do it and it’s holy, binding matrimony? Give me a fuggin’ break, Fundies! What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Y’all be crazy!
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 1:20 am
Well, I’ve heard a LOT of stories of “marriage by necessity” connected with both Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God, especially with their ministers/ministry students. I hear even more of women being beaten and abused and the church condoning the abuse and even punishing any woman who tries to get out of it. It’s a fairly common thing.
Some guy (“minister” or “ministry student”) decides that he wants to marry some girl who catches his eye, “dates her”, rapes her, she gets pregnant, and the church forces them (her) into marriage. I found out a few weeks ago that the Assemblies of God schools actually tell their ministry students to marry as soon as they can, because it gets them in the door of churches and earning money faster. They’re more acceptable to congregations when they have a “young family”. This is not even the Quiverful movement… “mainstream dominionists” as it were.
Then there is the case of Tina Anderson, who was raped by Ernest Willis (according to the AP news story). He got her pregnant, and the church punished her for her “immorality” – she was forced to go before the church and confess to immorality. The men in those churches (especially church leaders) seem to think they have the right to invade any woman’s privacy (and body) they want. The church was an “Independent Fundamentalist Baptist” church, and it was obvious that the church covered it up. Just as they will cover up the rapes that are what this new “idea” really is.
This isn’t too different from any of the cases I’ve been aware of (people do tend to talk with me), and doesn’t surprise me in the least. It DOES mean more people with butchered souls who will need help, however.
Personally, if we start hearing of dominionist men having certain items trimmed off, I will put it down to poetic justice and laugh (and feel bad for their victims – and hope they escape their tormentors).
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:14 am
” I found out a few weeks ago that the Assemblies of God schools actually tell their ministry students to marry as soon as they can, because it gets them in the door of churches and earning money faster. They’re more acceptable to congregations when they have a “young family”.”
Sounds like the Mormons. The girls are raised to have very specific goals: go to school, study hard, get into a Mormon-run college, stay there long enough to find a husband, then graduate, go on a Convert All The People mission, and come back and start breeding.
Sad, really. My best friend’s goal in life is to have a whole armful of kids and then write about it. And she’s got the notion that until I do the same, there’s something wrong with me. (And she currently thinks there’s something HORRIBLY wrong with herself as she’s 22, not yet married, still childless, and about to go on her first mission.)
And far be it from her to be a social, personable girl who develops a circle of both male and female friends. She’s got her girls, and just keeps praying that God will drop a boyfriend in her lap. I thiiiiink God helps those who actually talk to men instead of making sheep eyes at them, sweetheart!
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Yeah, and decent single guys who are lonely usually get a pass from her type.
I know them well. They want, no NEED a “Boyfriend”, but it’s got to be “someone special”, like the handsomest kid in the school. Or the richest. Or the “most promising”. NEVER the most honest, or most willing to help others, or most friendly. And especially never the boy who is a bit overweight, or isn’t all that good looking.
Of course, the church could be doing to her what they did to me – keeping all available men away from her until she learns some sort of lesson (or maybe, like for me, they got a “prophesy” that she was meant to be single all of her life). That turns out to be a lot more common than I used to think… I’ve encountered others who had that happen to them. I know I saw the church intervene with a couple of girls who were lonely. They had to “Get Right With GOD!” first, before they could be allowed to date. (I don’t have the time or space to relate a sad story of one such girl, who I believe eventually ended up with a real looser who beat her to death.)
I hope that she doesn’t go on a “mission”. God save us from Missionaries!!! (I am DEAD SERIOUS!!!) She needs to find out what people REALLY think about missionaries, and the hellish damage they do. If I had my say, missions would be banned. Missionaries wouldn’t be permitted. Indeed, unless they keep their mouths shut, LISTEN to people, and then try to help them by doing the things they want done, missionaries are only harmful. ONLY HARMFUL. There isn’t the space here to relate all of the stories or documents that relate how bad they really are and how rare the really good ones are (and how stupid missionaries can be), but I’d suggest to her that she read Zane Gray’s “Vanishing American”, and realize that he was trying to report what the mission field is REALLY like to those unlucky to be a target. Many of his (admittedly fiction) books discuss how bad missionaries really are. He had first-hand experience AND was actually listening to the people under the missionaries’ control. The stories he tells? They have basis in fact, even though they are in fictional books.
Baptists have an especially nasty reputation with many in my tribe (and most of the Native Americans I know) because of “missionaries” and the way they treated us. Next to the Pentecostals, they were the most abusive and most violent against our regaining our freedom of religion (and right to exist) in 1979/1980. Now, I admit that I’m talking about the SBC Baptists, and I have heard that some are not so bad (even a bit liberal – a very good thing). However, even so – beware going to the mission field… you’re far more likely to do harm than good.
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
I’ve always wondered why certain religious groups are all about conversion missions that are for the sole purpose of “spreading the Word”. They don’t even ATTEMPT to throw in humanitarian aid or do anything useful! Take my friend for example…she’s going on a mission to a fairly wealthy area of California, just to go door to door and hope someone won’t shut the door in her face and will actually let her do her religious sales pitch.
Thanks but no thanks. I’ll stick with the Peace Corp and Doctors Without Borders. Or even a mission sponsored by an aid/relief-focused church group. At least they do something besides lip service.
A Walkaway
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 12:55 am
Look up Dr. Paul Farmer’s “Partners in Health”. Another organization I would very highly recommend. They’ve made some real differences around the world – I’ve met him and one of my colleagues is a friend of his. “Good people!”
Indeed, he was instrumental in getting affordable AIDS drugs into Africa, and breaking the profit stranglehold the drug companies had over the people there.
On Missions…
I’ve known of several disastrous “Missions” where they went to “help” the people. One was a medical mission, but they were spreading lies about the government (liberal) and about the medical care in that country (socialized medicine). From what I heard, they had people in isolated regions too scared to go to the government for medical care, so they provided “care” (along with preaching and “witnessing” – proselytizing). I’ll have to check on which country it was… it’s one where several colleagues work and do their research. (Honduras, I think.)
I’ve heard of churches building unwanted and unneeded buildings in areas (such as orphanages where there were almost no orphans) and ignoring the pleas of the people for schools… or for clean water. What is really offensive is when they send “missions” into places that are already very heavily Christian, for instance the AoG sending missionaries to the Miskito Indians and trying to convert them. (They were also instrumental for the attempted genocide of that tribe.)
When I was Assemblies myself, I remember about a missionary coming back and bragging about all the conversions and good work they were doing in this one area. Then the next Sunday, another Missionary wannabe came to the church and said that God had told him that the people (from the same area the first missionary had been working) didn’t have or know the “Gospel”, and that “God” had “Called him to go to _________”. I forget where it was.
I’ve been told by several reliable people that a lot of the more fundamentalist “Mission” work is a known scam overseas… they get money, get to live overseas in a fairly comfortable way, and then come back and tell lies so they can do it again. This is also a major complaint about the “Prove the Bible ‘Archaeologists’”, who are despised by the real ones… because they solicit money, go over and start destroying stuff and creating major problems (even destroying artifacts that don’t support their ideas and faking ones that do – unforgivable “sins” to archaeologists). That’s why it’s so hard to get permits to excavate in Israel and some other places.
RockyMissouri
Sep. 22nd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I agree!
dmx
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Take almost any religion. Throw it in a big pot. Let it boil until there’s just a little liquid left in the bottom. Let cool. Pour the liquid into the sink and take a look at it. What’s left is a fantasy created by males to gain and hold power, supress human sexuality, opress and enslave women, and justify the continuous violence that is necessary for them maintain their dominance.
(And kids, remember, make sure you have an adult help you with this activity. Religions can be dangerous when they’re heated.)
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Uh… you do know that there are matriarchal cultures around the world, which are also highly religious??? That some of them even have their own form of Christianity (not introduced by missionaries, BTW)?
(And I know what I mean when I say matriarchal – not matrifocal or matrilineal. As in “The women make the rules”.)
I might add that the things you describe were pretty much unknown until the introduction of “white man’s Christianity”.
dmx
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:33 am
I doubt that more than a fraction of a percent of the world’s population has ever lived in a society where women had full political and social power. It’s ridiculous to claim that this started with “white man’s Christianity”. Tell that to the women who lived under Judaism for 2,000 years before JC’s birth (just as one example).
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:23 am
If you actually look at truly ancient Judaism, it had more of a male-female dynamic than the Bible actually let on about (and of course it didn’t make it into the standard Christian Bible, it would paint women in a whole other light). There was YHWH, and there was His female counterpart Shekinah. The Kabbalah still makes mention of them, and it’s speculated that the female personification of Wisdom is actually a remnant of the earliest versions of Judaism. (And while today it is assumed that God used the “royal we” when saying “we will make man in our own image”, it does make more sense that there was another deity being spoken to, thus further enforcing the male AND female sexes as godly creations, women being made in the image of the Shekinah.)
You’re right that it was lost somewhere along the way, though. Some misogynist got it into his head to take out every mention of the Shekinah and leave just the masculine God with which to set up a male-dominated society.
(And no, I didn’t get this from Dan Brown’s books. One of my friends is a Reform Jew who also practices Kabbalistic magics and studies the texts.)
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I’ve read that from other authorities. It’s not just a couple of people (or people who aren’t scholars) who say that.
Indeed, I’ve read that it was only after a couple of centuries of existence of Christianity, that the misogynists started forcing the stupidity on Christianity as a whole (one person says Jerome was largely responsible for that starting – but he was no authority).
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Well, that’s our experience. We were doing fine until that came.
I think that as time goes on, and researchers re-examine data and do primary work, that we will find that a lot more cultures exist where women have full political and social power. It certainly was true in a lot of tribes (it was expressed in subtle ways), and I’m aware of cultures like that around the globe. Shoot, not that long ago I learned of a couple of Muslim cultures where women actually were the boss… it caused a lot of headaches and conflict with the Islamic missionaries and non-native Imams (and still does)!
Lysana
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Actually, the pagan Greeks and Romans were heavily misogynistic. Rome in particular honored virginity before marriage and widows not remarrying barring fiscal reasons for the man to take her as a wife. A fair bit of what people think of as “Christian” misogyny and patriarchy started there. It was absorbed into the religion as Rome took on a more Christian tone and enhanced from there.
A Walkaway
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
That kind of goes along with things I’ve read.
Liadan
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Me too. Compare ‘Roman’ Christianity with Celtic Christianity. Much different. Celtic C
hristianity was far more respectful of women and the environment.
Christian C
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Uh….You are WAAYYYY off base there! These “things” being spoken of were and are, part and parcel of both Hinuism and Islam, neither of which is “white man’s christianity”. Not sure where you are getting your information. Can you point to ANY major religion or for that matter even a minor one that is matriarchal in nature?
A Walkaway
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
My own. I do know what I’m talking about. At least I’m not repeating “Good Christian” lies and deceptions.
Think about what I wrote and maybe you’ll have a clue.
dmx
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Your opinion that “as time goes on we’ll find more societies where women had power” is wishful thinking and nothing more than a reflexive defense of religion (yours or someone else’s). Religion is not the only institution that men have used in their relentless opression of women, and there’s no need for you to continually come to its defense. There are far too many people out there who already do that.
A Walkaway
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
dmx… I think you need to READ what I’ve written before you start writing. And I find your description of “men have used in their relentless oppression of women” to be highly inaccurate in our case, except where white man “Christianity” has infected individuals (and it’s on a case-by-case basis). It’s demonstratively not a cultural universal, which your language implies.
In the case of finding more societies, I’m speaking as an anthropologist (I can legally claim to be an anthropologist and have the “papers” to prove it) and not because of religious thinking.
Angela
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:40 am
These made-up rules directly contradict with Jesus’s life here on earth and his teachings. God believes in free will, that’s clear from numerous scriptures. Sounds like they are one step away from marrying away underage girls like that creep in Texas. Why is it that whenever men are given free reign in these religious groups it always leads to the exploitation and oppression of women and girls? Proof positive that God intended women to have an equal voice at home and at church. People need to read the description of God’s ideal woman in Proverbs chapter 31. She was a business woman, a community leader, and her husband relied on HER judgment and was blessed because of it. Plus, she didn’t try to do all of the cooking and cleaning herself. She had domestic help!
So glad you got out. I know it couldn’t have been easy.
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
When you take into account that good research shows that things were added to the Bible that “just ain’t so” and that many of the books were written as much for political as religious reasons (“modified” to get along with the Roman authorities, for instance), what you say becomes even more true.
The “Bible Scholarship” of groups who promote that sort of cr*p is non-existent. True Bible Scholarship is hard, demanding, and multi-disciplinary. Theologians have to get information and input from linguists, archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, and other sources in order to really begin studying the Bible.
Just reading it isn’t enough. That is where all of the stupidity and error comes in. Errors like “Biblical Inerrency” and “Creationism” and denial of evolution.
I consider myself to be just a dilettante when it comes to Bible Scholarship, and most of my sources are secondary. My wife, who has far more education in the subject than most (far more than any fundamentalist preacher and even mainstream preachers/priests) doesn’t consider herself a scholar, although she knows far more than I do. She’s trying to learn Hebrew, and we both think that in order to be a real scholar, you need not only to bring in information from multiple sources, you also need to understand the language and thinking of the time (Aramaic, Hebrew, old Greek, and even maybe a little Latin).
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
“She’s trying to learn Hebrew, and we both think that in order to be a real scholar, you need not only to bring in information from multiple sources, you also need to understand the language and thinking of the time (Aramaic, Hebrew, old Greek, and even maybe a little Latin).”
Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, a fantastic idea.
There are linguistic and cultural phrases that may mean one thing to us silly Western folk, but mean something entirely different to the culture the text was actually written in.
(Take the word “huevos” for example. In literal, high formal Spanish, it means “eggs”. But in street Spanish, it can mean “testicles”! And there are various, seemingly innocuous words that all end up being a gross insult to someone’s mother.)
Who knows what we got wrong, translating all those languages!
A Walkaway
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 1:15 am
That’s almost a joke among Linguistic Anthropologists! I’ve heard that about huevos before, and other examples.
(Sigh) Word use and context… and it changes so over time. Gets really interesting!
Imagine the confusion of translating ideas from Spanish, where inherent gender is so important, to my ancestor’s language – which has no inherent gender whatsoever, and where only if (as example) an animal’s sex is critically important, then it’s specified. As an example, Eco Hokte- literally “Woman Deer” – a doe. Eco – deer. Hokte – Woman. A buck would be Eco Hunenwv (Man-Deer).
(My dream is to learn our language… I only know a little about it. A few words and phrases, and a little about the technical aspects.)
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Tell me, how do they feed all those kids who grow up in this cult? All these little blessings take money to feed, clothe, and educate; kids make a carbon foot print, too.(taking them to soccer, piano lessons, back and forth to school, etc).But, since these folks do little to nothing with these kids, but home school them until they are big enough (the girls) to start doing the chores, they aren’t really making much of a foot print, let alone productive citizenry…
So, who actually goes to work in order to supports all these mouths to feed with an economy like we have right now? Just the father? The sperminator? This is a “choice?” Sounds like bare knuckle survival, inevitable destitution…like the old story of the priest who ask the poor Irish mother of 8 what she’s giving up for Lent–she replies, “Lent? That’s for the rich. We live through Lent everyday!”
This sort of reminds me of the Palin’s; the two oldest are high school drop outs while the 7 year old admitted to being way behind in school while she was on the campaign trail with mummy-dearest who, BTW, bought the girl a Gucci handbags to lug around! School didn’t seem matter very much but, a 7 with an expensive purse for show, very much so…of course, she’s a…what was that, no, not shit-disturber…oh going “rouge”. I digress…
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:51 am
I could certainly be wrong about this., But I am getting the feeling that there is some elitist action going on here. I find that arranged marriages would usually go for the people with the most money. But maybe I am laboring under information from countries like India and it’s quite possibly the poor people arrange marriages amongst themselves. Maybe they are doing it for religious fervor and not just to make sure all those kids are fed
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 10:57 am
The modern Indian culture still follows traditions;
arranging a marriage within any Indian family is a different deal alllll together than the fundamentalist Christian approach. In India, the whole family/community is involved! It’s sort of like, if you were single and your friends wanted to fix you up and arranged all kinds of “potentials” for you to meet, date.
They’ve been doing this in India a long time and the system/tradition has changed with the time and culture. They don’t base it on any strict interpretation of a holy book of which there are many in their culture.
I believe the these fundamentalist Quiverful men arrange marriages for multiple reasons, but what I was presenting is the basic fact of life–lots of little mouths to feed. I wasn’t holding any “elitist” action, but, that was a good snark.
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I’ve heard of “Christian” arranged marriages, and they were exactly as you describe – the richest guys got the prettiest/most desirable girls and vice-versa (sometimes the richest girl/richest guy would get together). However, it was second-hand (or even third-hand) information so not reliable.
I do remember that the pairings I saw when I was pentecostal, it was the preacher’s son (or son of an important elder) who had the girls all after him and he ended up with the prettiest.
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I’m still trying to link (mentally–I’m still fuzzy), posit that there is a connection between fundamentalist and “pageantry”, as in anything from the spectacle of the Tuesday night teabagger-rethug debate to the “toddlers in tiaras” pageant.
There appears to be some unspoken message that this “pageantry” thing is part of a “be the best christian-american you can be” by displaying oneself as “talented” through a “dramatic pageant”, and, tied to Christian Capitalism. This is not an “expression” of oneself as an individual, but a “display” as a part of something “bigger”…this works along with the anecdotal evidence that the “alpha christian” (male/female) has ownership, privilege, superior over others in matched pairing.
Does this make any sense or am I on a fishing expedition?
Anyone?
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Dominionism is certainly tied to Christian capitalism. See the seven mountains routine. however I’m not sure you can tie this to the toddlers in toddlers in tiaras pageant. That’s pretty much of a stretch.
I think the fundamentalist are just happy as heck that they have Michelle and perry up on stage spitting out their religion wherever they are. Perry made a huge thing of his religion at liberty University and then the same day went to supper with Donald Trump and hung around with a bunch of models for the evening.
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:26 am
They’re raised on the donation money. Such churches are run like cults, and members are expected to give all their material wealth to the community (or, more realistically, their leader).
Or they’re like the Westboro folks. Got a lot of slimeball lawyers who sue people and make that their main source of income.
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I just want to add an interesting fact that is used by many of these fundamentalist human subjugation/slavery/trafficking of girls in the Quiverful cult, is, many of these girls are never issued birth certificates. Think about that for a moment…
I can easily see the “leap of faith” of a teen mom in one of these “families” who is told that god doesn’t “require” a birth certificate. That is, if the teen mom was even educated enough to know that each live birth is required, by law, to be registered with the county where they are born. Thing about that for a moment…
Think about the child who is forever “unknown” to society, to the human race except for her captor(s). She is a “nobody”, non-existent; if she doesn’t follow the will of her master, the family patriarch, she can be “disappeared” via ye’ ole family wood chipper. Or she can be “disappeared” to a new master into a bondage marriage, similar to what the Colorado City women are subjected.
Reynardine
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Both pathological families and pathological cults tend to ensure that only the most dominant members of their group ever have contact with the outside world, or even (eventually) that they are known to exist. All the subordinates know from either their induction or the age of reason that not only the quality of life, but its very continuation, depends on the will and pleasure of the overlord. We have seen both from past dictatorships and certain modern- day ones (the Kim Jong Il regime being the most successful at it) that pathological nations behave in the same way. It goes with what social psychologists call the RWA/SDO double- high factor. It follows, too, that the resentment towards this kind of control, which can never be directed upward, even in thought, gets taken out on whoever is below, so there must, by definition, be a disposable scapegoat class at thee bottom, whose members can be eliminated without remark when they can’t take it any more. In the classic caste system, it was the Untouchables; in the pre- Sixties South, it was black people; in the Quiverfull schema, it can only be little girls.
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Bravo! Great job of presenting!
I’ll get back’to’ya and up’ya’ a Festinger or an Zimbardo…
Josh
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Let them marry without a state licence. And then lets see them try to file their income taxes as a married couple.
Reynardine
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
What taxes? They don’t believe in those either.
Alex
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
They’ll enjoy a nice stretch in prison for tax evasion, then, where they can no doubt refine their relationship with God and His Divine Plan.
Anne
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 10:44 am
This puts me in mind of something in 1 Corinthians 11:9 “…And man was not made for woman but woman was made for man.” The attitude reflected in this summarizes what your experience was really about. It was obviously not about what you wanted but about your subservience to your husband. It’s absolutely sickening that anyone would want to force this paradigm of marriage on an entire society, but it’s not surprising.
Sean Russell
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Mutual foot-washing, huh?
Sounds like some kind of weird fetish.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
not really, it’s a custom that is practiced the world over. In Thailand many kids who are Buddhists wash their parents feet and hands at New Year’s to get rid of last year sentence or karma. of course in Thailand on New Year’s Eve they go out in the streets and spray each other down with hoses to get the bad spirits off of themselves. Washing peoples feet is an old Arabic and Jewish custom as well. It is mentioned several times in the Bible which is probably where these nitwits get it from
A Walkaway
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Considering the environment and foot-wear, I imagine it felt pretty good too.
It’s an old custom… I believe predating the existence of the Jewish people, and fairly common for the area.
(I don’t remember anything specific, just a vague memory of reading of it being practiced in other old cultures.)
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
It was practiced all over the Middle East, you’re right. It was considered an act of hospitality, mutual trust, and basic hygiene to offer to wash the feet of a guest as they enter your house. It was also a way of showing deference and respect to the guest if the guest was socially or religiously important.
What most Christians take from it is the deference and respect aspect. A husband and wife washing each other’s feet (or hey, showering together? *wink wink*) shows that they care about the cleanliness of the other, and that they are willing to stoop to such a menial task for the sake of the other.
Don’t know where this bunch is going with it, though…kinda contradicts the blatant lack of respect they have for women.
laingirl
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Doesn’t the Pope occasionally wash the feet of some Catholics? I seem to remember that happening.
A Walkaway
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
laingirl, yes, every year as I remember.
If the Pope (and other religious leaders) would act more like servants and not dictators, I’d believe that they were actually trying to do something humble.
However, I’ve seen it done even in the Assemblies… but somehow you knew that it was an act of “I’m the boss and don’t ever forget it!”. By attitude, they took something that was the act of a servant and turned it upside down.
Very subtle, but that was what came across.
Dana
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Even a lot of mainstream and liberal Christian churches practice foot washing, often in the week leading up to Easter. In Christian tradition it stems from Jesus washing his disciples’ feet after the Last Supper.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I was not aware that it was still done here by mainstream churchs, than you
SinghX
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
The Sikh religion has made this “ritual” a part of entering their Temples for centuries. Washing dust off the feet of the “saints” is considered a humbling act, the “lowest of the lowest”; and it’s considered an honor to sit at the door on a Sunday morning and do the duty (which is usually the person dipping their foot in a plastic tube and the “lowest of the lowest” drying them off. It’s a “ritual”).
Abigail
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
And these are the same kind of people who are scared shitless of Sharia Law? How is this any different than the most fundamentalist islamist interpretation of Sharia?
Kate
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Because them’s MUSLIM TERRORISTS, duh! We gots ta protect Christian Amurica! Mah pastor says so!
Or, in other words, it’s not any different. They’re just morons.
RockyMissouri
Sep. 22nd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I believe in same sex marriage…and equality for all….but NOT fundamental evangelical Christianity…!
Valerie Belew
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Sounds like middle east hatred of women to me. Where does this need to control and punish come from? I guess whose a pervert depends on how you look at it. This interpretation of the Bible sounds a lot like bondage and discipline to me.
Gio Bellini
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I doubt BDSM would exist were it not for Christianity.
RockyMissouri
Sep. 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Exactly!
Terry
Sep. 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 am
this is fascinating. May I ask… how many children did you contribute to God’s Army? Are they still members of the home church? Do any go to regular school? How do they feel about this?
:)Thanks