Spiritual Abuse & Recovery

NLQ FAQ: The Bible and Male Headship – Part 2

October 13, 2010

by Kristen Rosser ~ aka: KR Wordgazer

The question being asked in Part 1 was:

Doesn’t the Bible say the man is the head of the woman and that the husband is the head of the house, the instrument of God for directing the family? Isn’t he God’s designated authority, the one God holds responsible for all decision-making on behalf of the couple and their children?

With the understanding from Part 1, of how the covenant community of the church fits into the Bible’s Great Story as a redeemed spiritual family– a family in which all Christians are brothers and sisters and God is our Father– let’s begin now to examine some of the passages that refer to men as “head.” As discussed in “Quiverfull and the Bible,” we will look at the cultural assumptions that would have been shared between a writer of a New Testament Epistle and the original audience, in order to see how the message might have been heard differently by them than it sounds to us today.. Hand-in-hand with this, we must look carefully at what the original audience would have understood the Greek word translated as “head” to actually mean.

Beginning, then, with the most frequently cited “headship” passage, Ephesians 5:21-22:

“Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.”

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul’s big theme is who the church is “in Christ.” The first three chapters are about the church’s salvation, adoption, spiritual position and unity. In the fourth and fifth chapters he goes on to speak of how unity is to be maintained in the way individual members relate to one another. It is into this context that he places the section on how members of individual households are to relate to one another. This type of teaching has come to be known as a “household code.” The passage on husbands and wives is part of this code. (See Michael Kruse, “Household of God” online series, “Household: The Household Code,” http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/07/household-the-h.html )

NLQ FAQ: The Bible and Male Headship – Part 1

October 11, 2010

by Kristen Rosser ~ aka: KR Wordgazer

Doesn’t the Bible say the man is the head of the woman and that the husband is the head of the house, the instrument of God for directing the family? Isn’t he God’s designated authority, the one God holds responsible for all decision-making on behalf of the couple and their children?

In “The Bible and the Nature of Women,” the first two chapters of Genesis were explored, making the point that God’s initial plan was not that the man should have “headship” over the woman, but that the man and woman together would have dominion over the Creation. That unity and mutuality was shattered by the Fall. Part of the curse of the Fall, as God told the woman, was “he shall rule over you.”

In “Quiverfull and the Bible” we discussed reading the Bible as a Great Story of creation, fall and redemption. We have seen God’s purpose for male and female in the creation, and what the fall did to their relationship. What does the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ do to the relationship between males and females, husbands and wives?

Reflections on what went wrong

October 7, 2010

by Jo @ Woman Reclaimed

We’re rapidly approaching the anniversary of when I lost my life as I knew it. I’m finally to a point where I feel strong enough to boldly face where we went, what went wrong and what we messed up so very badly. We fell down the rabbit hole of Patriarchal matrimony. We didn’t necessarily mean to do so. Certainly, we never thought we were down so far as we truly were. We thought we didn’t fully believe in wife-only submission. We thought we never believed that the wife’s salvation is based upon the Husband’s favor. In more ways than I ever understood until the journey of this last year, we did fall into the trap.


Just in case anyone is wondering what my opinion on Patriarchal marriage is now, let me make it VERY clear what my opinion is and why.

Patriarchal marriage is dangerous. First, there is NO accountability to the husband. If the husband is ungodly or inappropriate, then you are to wait for God to deal with him. So basically, a husband can tell his wife to do ANYTHING he wants. The potential to abuse this authority with NO consequences is massive and scary. Only a very few men would not become abusive in some manner or another. There is no safety for a wife if her husband becomes abusive. There is no real accountability for men.

Patriarchal leaders are very open that a wife should never, ever concern herself with what accountability or oversight might exist for a husband, because that would be dishonoring his godhead in her life to do so.

10 things that happen when you leave the Quiverful/Patriarchal movement

October 4, 2010

by Ima Wakenow

The following is a list of things that come to your awareness about the QF/P life once you are out of it for quite sometime.  This is just a partial list of realizations that most of the women who escaped have had in the years following their liberation.

1. You realize you weren’t the only one.
This one is huge and that is why I list it first.  Inside the QF/P movement you are told you are wrong for having doubts.  Wrong for being disgruntled.  Wrong for having desires.  Eventually you find that you can not sustain a life of self sacrifice never attending to your own essential needs.  You may question everything you feel since you were told you can not trust your own perceptions.  When you walk away from the QF/P bondage you meet other people that have similar stories.  The shock you experience can be intense.  There are many many women out there just like you that have been duped.  They, too, were sucked into a movement with an ideal that can not work.  It can be disheartening but also very liberating to realize you are not alone.  There are others that have been there.  Others who understand.  Many others that can support you.  The QF/P system is broken.  And the problem is not you.

Time Heals All Wounds ~ Part 10: It’s in the Lord’s Hands

September 30, 2010

All beautiful the march of days, as seasons come and go; The Hand that shaped the rose hath wrought the crystal of the snow

by Shelly Cruz

I walked over to the phone, and dialed Cecilia’s number. My first thought was that it would possibly be disconnected, but who knows, maybe they finally moved. Cecilia always talked about how the time would come, and their house would be demolished, and then they would have to move. They were living rent-free in an old farmhouse. Someone had blessed them years ago with a property. They had to care for it, and in return they could live there for free, but once the owner passed away, they’d have to move.

They were even given a 15-passenger van as a blessing too! Regardless of their ways, the Lord always saw fit to bless them, in abundance, too. Oftentimes, I wonder why all the big families always get so many blessings? If being Quiverfull, is an Old Testament mandate, why does it seem like extra-large families always get extra-large blessings?

I have seen this in church many times, the family with the 8+ kids, receive box loads of children’s clothing for their children. They get free food dropped to their doorsteps, their mortgage paid for them, or they get a blessing of not having any mortgage at all. Do people feel sorry for them, or are they really the “chosen ones”? I know I should not be questioning these things, but sometimes I do. It seems, to me, like the most legalistic people I know are the ones who get enormous blessings.

Anyway, the phone rang three times, and then someone picked up, ”Hello, whom may you wish to correspond with please?”

Justice is No Lady: Chapter 2 ~ First Prison Break

September 27, 2010

Warning: This story series contains descriptions of physical abuse.

by Defendant Rising

1993 was a rough year. It was the year that Nate was fired from his engineering job in Tazewell, Virginia, and first started thinking about studying the law. It was the year when we went to a conference and met a pastor who advocated corporal punishment for wives, and Nate took to his teachings like a duck to water. It was the year I had Jack, who was conceived a few months after Daniel’s birth. Most notably, 1993 marked my first attempt at a separation from Nate.

Daniel had been born at home. Nate and I were part of the Christian separatist movement of the late ’80s and early ’90s, rooted in the belief that liberals and “secular humanists” would destroy the moral fiber of America. Christian separatists— right-wing religious splinter groups including white supremacists, Y2K survivalists, secessionists, reconstructionists, and so on—believed that the upstanding patriotic Christian Americans needed to separate themselves and create a fortress of Christian homes where the true leaders of tomorrow would be raised.

We were associated with the Quiverfull movement too, which meant that we rejected birth control so that we could physically produce a lot of the leaders of tomorrow: God’s Army. Home birth, home schooling, even home church were big trends. Anything that kept the faithful tucked away in their righteous enclaves and away from the godless masses. Whole communities sprang up where Christian right-wingers could turn on (Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy), tune out (the liberal media establishment—many of us even tossed out our television sets), and drop out of mainstream American life.

We were the counter-counterculture. We were fanatics. We were darned proud of it. Quiverfull, in particular, was a philosophy that any married couple in the Christian Right could buy right into. It was so easy: Exercise Dominion! Please Jesus! Take over America! Using Tools You Probably Have Around the House!

Daughter of the Patriarchy: “Why do you look that cow in the face?”

September 20, 2010

By Sierra

Courtship took my church by storm in the 1990s. While I never read I Kissed Dating Goodbye, I was given a number of books about marriage and intimacy and taught explicitly that dating was preparation for divorce. Having never dated, I was not in a position to protest. I listened patiently to the story of the couple in my church who had married without so much as holding hands. They were the happiest couple after Eamon and Pearl, so clearly they’d done something right. I learned that smitten young Message couples would walk around holding each end of a shared stick, in order to express their affection without risking finger-to-finger contact. I thought to myself that it sounded a bit contrived.

I was sure, however, that the first man to touch me would take away something of my purity: a commodity I was given at birth and must guard throughout my life. I was spiritually dressed in a sparkling white wedding gown, which I must constantly defend against the oil of someone else’s hands. Kissing was out of the question. Branham taught that there were “sex glands” in the lips of men and women, and that the two sets should never meet except for marital procreation. But it wasn’t just physical contact to be avoided: broken hearts came, too, from loosely guarded emotions. I must never say the words, “I love you,” to anyone until I was engaged. True love could only happen to the pure.

And so it was with dread that I, at age 15, received and read an email from my friend Karl. I’d known him online for a couple of years – we had joined a message board and discussed our shared love of Japanese anime there. He had been left hanging when I purged my life of secular influences – indeed, I had also purged my life of him, along with the anime and my other very close friends. But on a whim I had logged into AIM, we’d talked, and he’d got my email address. He wrote to me about a dream he’d had where everything was right and beautiful, where I’d come back from my strange and sudden disappearance and told him that it was all okay, now I could finally be with him. He said he loved me. I stared at the email in helpless frustration. There was nothing I could do. I couldn’t date! Especially not an unbeliever. With my cheeks burning in the shame of hypocrisy, I clattered out a terrified reply. “It’s not me you need,” I wrote through gritted teeth and tears. “It’s Jesus.” I never felt like such a liar.

Feeling sure that God would bless my efforts to fully commit myself to Him, I deliberately cast Karl out of my mind and immersed myself in a mythology of my own making: a story running from the time I entered the Message to the present. I rejected the name I’d used online, telling myself all that was “Sierra” was sinful and rebellious. “I will not be Sierra again,” I wrote in my journal furiously. I would rededicate my life to Christ, and revert to my childhood nickname, Tara. And onto the set of my little drama waltzed Sven.

NLQ FAQ: Is No Longer Quivering an Atheist Website?

September 16, 2010

by Vyckie

I recently received an email from “Henrietta” who asked:

If I choose to get involved here, contribute etc, am I part of a Christian but anti QFP group; or an anti Christian and esp anti QFP group?

It is ironic that NLQ seems to be perceived quite differently depending on the perspective of the reader. We have several new readers who are commenting here on the blog ~ conservative, Quiverfull Christians who are convinced that NLQ is nothing but angry, pro-abortion, Feminazi Atheists. On the other hand, MoJoey at “Deep Thoughts” recently promoted NLQ with the caveat: Now granted, No Longer Quivering is a Christian site and I don’t normally pimp out the opposition but the woman who runs the site is a loving and tireless worker fighting to free others from a cult. Over at Free Jinger, someone was asking, What’s with all the bible quoting at NLQ?

Considering that No Longer Quivering was recently added to the official Atheist Blogroll ~ Henrietta asks a legitimate question!

I hope it won’t be too frustrating for readers if I don’t answer with a simple “Yes,” or “No.”

Since its beginning in March of 2009, NLQ has grown into a community ~ “a gathering place for women escaping and healing from spiritual abuse.” Most of us have spent years, even decades, twisting and contorting ourselves to fit the narrowly-defined, sharply delineated dogma of whatever particular brand of cult we were caught up in. Although we are a diverse group representing a variety of backgrounds, cultures and beliefs ~ we hold in common the shared experience of being conformed to a rigid system of thought which controlled every aspect of our lives and defined us as women and as (sub)human beings.

We’re here now, regaining our sanity, our sense of self ~ on the path of recovery from deep wounds and spiritual trauma ~ and every one of us is at a different place on that path. That makes us hard to peg ~ and indeed, we resist labels and categories ~ we want to be known for our unique perspectives ~ so it’s not uncommon for NLQ members to write in their introductions, “I am a Christian, but …” or “I believe in God, but …” or “I am an Atheist, but…” ~ this is our way of avoiding being stereotyped as though what we now believe can be labeled, neatly summarized and tied up into a nice, tidy Creedal package.