As for your religious and faith commitments. I say… Those are entirely up to you. Don’t put any pressure on yourself. Certainly, my experiences ruined all evangelical Christianity for me–and maybe ruined Christianity altogether.

I still resonate with various strands of Christian liberation theology–whether rooted in anti-capitalist, anti-racist, feminist, queer, and/or disability-related liberation struggles. As a woman who is both physically disabled and queer, those continue to have meaning for me. I still consider myself a “nominal Christian” because I still “do” spiritual practice in the ritual of political struggle. And, to be honest, I still find the images of Jesus as both servant to and champion of the suffering to be really powerful.

I don’t know Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I mean… The most damaging thing for me in evangelicalism was the emphasis on Personal Relationship. I never felt anything. I heard a local singer-songwriter in my hometown once perform a song called “Love Never Came to Me.” And that’s how I felt. This deep and profound love that we were supposed to feel? I never felt anything at all. I never understood what people meant about “having Jesus in their hearts.” And it always made me feel that there must be something wrong with me.

So, I stopped putting pressure on myself about the personal lord and savior business. And I’ve decided… For myself… Nothing that is even remotely similar to what I grew up in is likely to feel very safe to me. I don’t go to church now, but *if* one day I do, I’ve decided that I’ll stick with something High Church–say, Episcopalian. A denomination that, in the form of liturgical prayer and other ritualistic discipline, practices spiritual reverence instead of “personal relationship.” Where I can sit back and relax without being forced to demonstrate my love for Jesus through a show of personal emotion.

The jury’s out for me on whether or not I’m a Christian. Some days, I say yes, and some days… I’m not entirely sure. I know for one thing that I’m much more enamored with the person of Jesus than I am with, say, Paul’s misogyny or the Wrathful God of the Old Testament. I’m on board with “proclaiming liberty to the captives” and the Beattitudes, but beyond that…? Meh.

Kristin

Hi Jemand,

I'm sorry you felt slighted and you are right it was not meant to make anyone feel bad. My point was that to a Christian going to total unbelief is extreme for them. Many times when people are hurt and or betrayed their anger is intense and broadly focused.
Not all members of any particular groups: Christians, Atheists, Priests, Mormons, etc are abusers. So please don't feel that I was calling atheists abusers.

Vyckie & Laura: I, in no way feel that either of you were not truly Christians and I believe that both of you were sincerly trying to follow Him.

Take care all!
Elizabeth C.

-Jesnicole-

I’m a big fan of Phillip Yancey, actually– I don’t know if you’ve read any of his things. He asks the hard questions without feeling like he always needs to find the answers. That’s refreshing to me.

I agree that it is intensely difficult for those caught up in movements like Quiverful to “break the chain of authority” as you said– and start looking at other ways to live. But I do believe the Quiverful’s ways of looking at Christianity are fundamental misunderstandings of what Christianity is meant to be– and yes, I do think they misinterpret the Bible. I’m not sure what frustrates you so much about saying so?
KR Wordgazer

And I wouldn’t even go so far as you and say that I “respect others rights to hold” views on god and motherhood or whatever that I don’t agree with. I’m just frustrated with the good christians who show up here to explain that the quiverful lifestyle is “wrong” or “a misinterpretation” of the bible as though Vyckie and Laura and all the women currently enmeshed in it could have known better. Based on the social circle they were living in, the local authorities, and the scriptures they were reading they simply *couldn’t* have known it. Inside the cage you can’t get outside to see another way.

Of course there are multiple interpretations of the same texts, and of course there are better and worse translations and interpretations. I think you, like me, are an admirer of Bart Ehrmann’s work (Misquoting Jesus and the other book on the gnostic gospels). The central point of his own history is that he loved the idea of the inerrant bible so much that he put himself out to learn the original languages and eventually found what he was being taught by american biblical literalists so false to the actual texts that he had to step out of the religion entirely. That’s why the quiverful movement within christianity is radically anti education and anti engagement with the larger world, with science and with history and travel. Because they know for a fact that the more contact young people and women have with the outer world the more people will start to criticize and examine what they are being taught as true and texturally accurate.

But its a total social institution in which texts and interpretations depend on local authorities (mommy, daddy, pastor) and its hard to sucessfully break the chain of authority without dropping the whole thing. As I think Vyckie and Laura found.

aimai

But I think I’m still going to rely on certain basic premises, like “love shouldn’t hurt,” and “control/abuse isn’t love,” and “Faith is about loving and trusting a loving God, and therefore shouldn’t hurt and shouldn’t be abusive/controlling.” Also, “if something doesn’t work (doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do), it’s probably incorrect.”

I think at some point we (or at least, I) have to have some criteria for deciding what to think about things, or just flounder around– and these basic, almost instinctive premises have proven reliable in my life time and time again. So I’m not going to back down from my stance that abusive, controlling versions of Christianity are wrong. Doesn’t mean I don’t respect others’ rights to hold those beliefs, but it also doesn’t mean I have to treat all beliefs as if they were all of equal validity. I think white supremacism’s just plain wrong, too. (grin)

KR Wordgazer

Epistemologically there’s not all that much difference between reading and studying the texts and cultures and getting some help with your interpretation from any teacher or set of teachers. We all come to every text with a set of ideas, and leave with a set of arguments, even though we come from different places and we go different places. The category “thinking for myself” and “letting other people tell me what to think” is, to my mind, pretty meaningless. The very selection of the texts to be considered as meaningful is a cultural act in that some texts are pre-selected to be meaningful and some are ruled out. And that goes not just for specific bible texts–ones approved by the council of nicea and ones thrown out among the gnostic gospels–but the very category sacred texts itself. In other words except for traditions which include midrash, storytelling, fiction, poetry, new and old texts as equally potentially sacred and illuminating by studying “ancient texts and cultures” you are already engaging in a very particular kind of study which limits the conclusions you can come to. Nothing wrong with that. But your kind of independent thinking doesn’t exist in opposition to what is going on among hard core christianist women. I know for a fact that the various quiverful women who I have read who are deep in the movement are quite deep into their scholarship as well. I disagree with their conclusions and their premises but I don’t disagree with their scholarship or their interpretation on the level of interpretation.

aimai

And its a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the texts as given. You can’t brush it away by insisting that your version of god told you differently.

With all respect– are you insisting that your “perfectly reasonable interpretation” is the only one I’m allowed, and that therefore I have to throw God out too? In what way is that different from what you say I’m doing?

My interpretation comes from study and research into the ancient texts and cultures. I am thinking for myself; no one is telling me what to think.

KR Wordgazer

I think many, many versions, denominations, and experiences of Christianity are valid. I don’t trust the ones that are about “let me oppress you in the name of the Lord.” I don’t think those are about God at all. But– believe it or not– I also think it’s possible to come to God through other religions. I’m not an exclusivist.

Nor was I advocating “trust your gut” in the sense of “throw out all reasoning or understanding.” I strongly believe we have minds and were meant to use them. Obviously there have to be checks and balances on “gut feelings.” All I meant with regards to reason/understanding was that if one is going to believe in God, it makes sense to believe that God is wiser than we are and that it’s ok to trust God and not worry. If you don’t want to believe that, I have no problem with that. But there are other versions of faith than the isolationist, I’ve-got-the-corner-on-truth kind. And they really can bring help and comfort to people.

In any case, “Don’t trust your gut, trust your all-powerful leader’s” is certainly not the kind of faith that’s going to bring help or comfort.

KR Wordgazer

KR Wordgazer

Vyckie, I just hope you get things ironed out. Regardless of what anybody tells you about anything, be it Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, or whatever, you have to find out the truth for yourself and for your children. Just remember that these ideas you followed, this controlling, abusive man, and the ideas those people taught you for so long are not what the Jesus I know teaches. I am confident in Him, and I know He both lived and was raised for us. Without that hope for myself, the future is indefinitely hopeless.

-Jesnicole-