Customer Reviews

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Quiverfull / 978-0-8070-1073-0

I consider myself to be a homeschooling success story, as I was homeschooled for several formative years of my education, and now happily hold two college degrees and a good job - and indeed, I am fully open to the possibility of homeschooling my own hypothetical children. Going into "Quiverfull", I held some concerns that author Kathryn Joyce might fail to clarify that the type of people her research centers on - many of whom "homeschool" (see note below) - are NOT typical examples of the homeschooling community at large. However, Joyce is an eminently fair writer, and frequently emphasizes that the movement she studies is "fringe" in most all respects - fringe Americans, fringe Christians, and fringe homeschoolers.

[[NOTE: Homeschooling families tend to be sensitive to accusations of isolationism and indoctrination, in large part because the public figures of homeschooling are often comprised of the "fringe" element - whereas the "normal" families who see homeschooling as one of many valid education options to choose from tend to be more interested in quietly getting on with teaching their children properly. In much the same way that there are educational private schools and indoctrinational private schools, such as there also educational homeschooling families to balance the indoctrinational one. The best parsing of the issue I have seen so far is the growing online meme to refer to these methods respectively as "private schooling", "private churching", "home schooling", and "home churching", to designate where the training is taking place, and what the training is focusing on.]]

Divided into three parts, "Quiverfull" carefully parses the duties and burdens on women within the Quiverfull movement - as wives, mothers, and daughters. With a predominantly respectful tone, author Joyce carefully balances the statements of the members of the movement with the cold facts, and keeps editorial comments at a perfect minimum (just enough to delight the reader, but never so much as to seem to co-opt the narrative). Joyce carefully highlights the contradictions within the movement at large, such as:

* the insistence that wives be submissive at all times to their husbands, even when the husband is wrong, but without a corresponding energy level directed into teaching the husbands to be loving, mild, and, well, not wrong. Why is so much energy directed at teaching the women to be submissive when that same energy could be directed at teaching the men to be kind, gentle, and wise representations of Christ?

* the disconnect between the fertility reasoning behind the Quiverfull movement (to allow God to direct the number of children within a family) and the actual practice of the Quiverfull movement: desperate women driven to despair because they "only" have 3-4 children, which means they measure as "less holy" than the women with larger broods - some women going so far as to use fertility pills, treatments, and schedules to attempt conception.

* the financial blinders within the movement - although God "provides" for the children, He will apparently only do so *after* the children are born (according to a divine "no backsies" rule), and in an apparent contradiction He refuses to pony up the cash for a vasectomy-reversal or tubal-reversal - those surgeries have to be paid for by charity organizations that select worthy candidates. There is probably a "pay for your own sins" analogy in there, but it breaks down quickly in light of the whole concept of Christ.

* the hypocrisy in the name of public relations - in a movement that insists that women "marry young" and neither earn money nor teach adults (usurpation of manly power), it is noteworthy that a huge amount of the books are written by Quiverfull women, and the prettiest daughters of the movement leaders are cultivated into public speakers for the movement in a blatant P.R. attempt to appeal to young women within the movement. If that means delaying the marriages of the chosen daughters, so be it - even the worst P.R. firm in the world recognizes that it takes time to build a brand, and you can't get a new spokeswoman every year without hurting your cause.

The density of information within this book is absolutely staggering, and the author has done a superb job of laying out the information clearly, succinctly, and with a rawness of tone that will scar even veteran readers of the patriarchy movement. Especially painful is the clear and open misogyny and racism of many of the proponents here - Joyce is not afraid to point out which of the leaders prefer to fear-monger about the lack of "the right kind" of babies being born, nor does she fail to point out which leaders are currently lobbying to revoke female suffrage in America. Are these fringe elements? You bet, and Joyce never pretends otherwise. But they are a fringe that we should be aware of, and "Quiverfull" provides an easy immersion into this terrifying culture.

~ Ana Mardoll

My husband and I homeschooled our children for a total of 13 years, and we are familiar with many of the names in this book. We had our first child as a result of stopping birth control to allow God to "plan our family". We attended Jonathan Lindvall's "Bold Parenting" seminar and for a time, subscribed to "Patriarch" magazine. I also have read most of Mary Pride's books. I mention this to show our familiarity with this movement. I feel that this book is extremely well written and readable, and although Joyce obviously has a bias, as mentioned in another review, she mostly allows people's words to speak for themselves without commentary.

The reason I call this book a "must read" for homeschoolers is because you may not be getting an accurate picture of what is going on in your church until it is too late to avoid being sucked in and becoming victims yourselves. The chapters on the Epstein family ("Life in the Garden") and Cheryl Lindsay ("Exiting the Movement") are heart wrenching in describing the destruction that ensued when church discipline was exercised. And in many of these churches, discussing issues of conflict with leadership is labeled "gossip", so you likely will only hear bits and pieces of what is going on...and those who leave are labeled "wolves among the sheep" to discourage people from speaking to them firsthand.

I would have liked to have the author write a chapter on the psychology of what draws people to this movement and as well as more discussion on people who have left and how they recovered and moved on. But all in all, a book worth reading even if you do not agree with the author's opinions.

The reason I am telling the story of my involvement in the Quiverfull movement, and how I got out ([...]) is because I came across an article on Alternet and read with interest about the people and the teachings which our family had followed for many years. I was kind of amazed that someone on that liberal news site knew about this movement ~ so I posted a comment on the article ~ and that's how I got in touch with Kathryn Joyce, author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

I pre-ordered the book and as I read it, I kept saying aloud, "I know these people!" All the names were familiar to me ~ Nancy Campbell, Mary Pride, Doug Phillips, Phil Lancaster, R.C. Sproul Jr., Debi Pearl, Anna Sophia Botkins, Jennie Chancey ... "Wow," I thought, "she even interviewed Charles Provan!" I used to own nearly every book mentioned in Quiverfull ~ and, yes ~ I read them all ... starting with The Way Home: Beyond Feminism and Back to Reality, the book which really started the current patriarchy movement that's becoming so popular among homeschoolers. Isn't it interesting that it has mostly been the WOMEN who are writing these books, teaching seminars, and leading other women into this life of subordination?

I really want to just encourage everyone who has been touched by the Quiverfull philosophy in any way to read this book. I wish I could quote the whole thing for you ~ and then sit back and read the comments which would sound something like, "OMFG!" and "Is this stuff for real? ~ People actually believe this and live this way?!!" Yes ~ it's true. The thing is, those of us who followed (and those who are still following) the Quiverfull / patriarchal lifestyle got into it gradually ~ just a little at a time. For us, it started with homeschooling which seemed pretty radical at the time. It was at our state's annual home school conference that I was introduced to some of the movement's books ~ mostly through Vision Forum, a supplier of Classical Education curriculum.

I started out with Nancy Campbell's "lovely" vision for godly wives and mothers ... discovered Phil Lancaster's Patriarch magazine which spread the idea to the men ... then found S.M. Davis's "Solve Family Problems" series in which the dynamic and often vehement (my kids said he just yelled a lot) preacher set us straight about what constitutes a truly godly family ~ and what dedicated Christian wouldn't want to do whatever the Lord requires to please Him and to be a "blameless" example of righteous living to our friends, family and community?

Now I will admit that when Debi Pearl came out with her book, Created to Be His Help Meet ~ even I couldn't stomach it. I guess there must have been some residual lesson I'd learned after trying to follow the bible study ladies' advice about how to be a perfect, godly wife in order to win my abusive, unfaithful first husband to the Lord ~ but I just couldn't support Pearl's book wholeheartedly the way I had Campbell's God's Vision for Families or Pride's All The Way Home: Power for Your Family To Be Its Best. I remember one Sunday morning when my friend Laura brought Created to Be His Help Meet to our home church and was raving about what an awesome book it was and how she was putting Debi Pearl's ideas into practice and could already see a change in the way her husband was treating her. Ugh. Poor Laura!

To me, the most startling part of Joyce's book Quiverfull, is the section towards the back entitled "Daughters." Actually, I am ashamed to admit that I used to look at Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkins with awe and envy ~ why couldn't my girls comprehend these Visionary Daughters' inspiring insight on godly femininity? I actually bought So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God for Angel's birthday and sent it to her in Nashville in the hopes that she would finally understand how much simpler her life would be if only she could "get" the idea that the only way to true liberation and peace is to follow her father and submit herself to his authority.

When I talked to Kathryn Joyce over the phone as she was interviewing me for an article on Salon.com, I told her I found it very affirming that for most of the book, she simply sticks to quoting the movement leaders ~ often with no commentary at all. "What that said to me," I explained, "is that to those who aren't steeped in this particular worldview, the craziness of it all is self-evident. There's no need to say, 'This is total crap!' because anyone who isn't already convinced can clearly see that it's truly insane to try and live this way."

Something else I really appreciate about this book ~ Quiverfull puts the whole movement on display all at once. The reason this is important is that for most families, getting into this lifestyle is a step-by-step process ~ a progression from "peculiar" to seriously bizarre which takes place incrementally over a period of many years.

If a family home educates their children in order to spare them from the humanistic curriculum in the public school ~ they'll soon pick up on the extra-biblical, humanistic teachings which have filtered into the church as well. And if that family recognizes the spiritual danger of allowing their kids to spend a lot of time in the company of public school peers, it's a small step to keeping the family together for church worship rather than sending the children to the age-segregated Sunday School program. Once a couple comprehends that children are precious in God's sight from the moment of conception ~ how could they possibly expect to witness to the pro-life message with any semblance of credibility when they ~ by their use of birth control ~ have accepted the "abortion mentality" ~ that babies are only a blessing when they fit into their parents' lifestyle conveniently? And once they've eschewed birth control and the babies start coming in rapid succession ~ Michael Pearl's child training advice is going to be a life-saver.

This is just a very brief example of how it all fits together into a comprehensive worldview which makes absolutely perfect sense to the family who started out simply looking for a supportive community of like-minded Believers which would uphold their family's biblical values in the eyes of their children.

Twenty years ago, if I would have read Quiverfull, I believe seeing the big picture of where we were headed would have shocked us enough to cause me to take a good, hard look ~ no doubt, I'd have gone elsewhere in my search for solutions to the everyday problems of family life. No way could you interest me in a harsh, demanding lifestyle of lots of babies (well, you still maybe could have convinced me of that part, since I do love babies), home schooling, home birth, home business, home church, no children's programs, no teenagers, no dating, parents choosing their children's spouses, husband making all the decisions and wife not daring to make the slightest commitment without first obtaining her husband's approval, no TV, only G- and some PG-rated movies, and absolutely NO Harry Potter.

Taken as a whole ~ there really is no appeal to the Quiverfull / patriarchy lifestyle ~ no matter how "biblical" it is and how "godly" a family might become by following those God-ordained family roles. It is my contention that this way of living is a package deal. Once a family takes that first step ~ if they're living it logically and consistently ~ they'll eventually find themselves living out pretty much the whole program ~ the "Vision" which, in its entirety ~ as clearly depicted in Quiverfull ~ turns out, in practicality, to be a very real, living nightmare.

My brother and his family are deep into this and so I was curious to see if anything could help me to understand what makes them all tick. I still don't get it, because to me it's just ludicrous, but the book was very well done and did explain a lot to me, even though I still can't wrap my mind around why anyone would choose such a miserable way to live. Bu I loved the book and thought it was well done. The most interesting part to me was at the back of the book, when it talked about the mothers and daughters. It's a whole different way of thinking, and this is what makes it all possible to make this lifestyle work for some. I recommend this, especially if you know someone who's in it.

I can recommend this book, with some serious reservations. Be forewarned that the author comes from the opposite side of the spectrum as her subject -- namely, a feminist writing about and offering her spin on a movement which is ardently anti-feminism and all it stands for. The truth is generally found somewhere in the middle of all topics, and there is very little middle ground presented in this book.

I am not a "Quiverfull" person, though I am a Christian and a home educator. Of the many homeschoolers I associate with, I know maybe two families that adhere to this philosophy somewhat, and they certainly don't label themselves as such. Joyce's broad and repeated use of the phrase "Christian homeschooler" within the context of the Quiverfull movement indictes, by ommission, even those Christian homeschoolers who don't adhere to the Quiverfull lifestyle or philosophy. And there are many of those, far more than the extremist viewpoint written in this book. This movement is not the threat it is presented to be.


There is a section in which she coments on how well-behaved and responsible children from a few Quiverfull families were, whom she had a chance to observe during the course of an interview. However, she doesn't seem to have to bothered to ask the parents of those kids the secret of their children's behavior. Instead she leaves it at that and cuts to a family raising their children a la the very controversial Pearl philosophy of childrearing and implies by her isolated example of this one family, that perhaps many Quiverfull kids are actually being borderline abused into their behavior via application of the Pearl's methods. Wouldn't it have made more sense to go the source? What was her reason for choosing to focus on an extreme method of childhood discipline, when the original families in question very well may not have adhered to an extremist philosophy? As an aside, homeschooled children are across the board acknowledged as exhibiting greater maturity than their public-schooled peers, whether those children come from families homeschooling for religious reasons or not.

Furthermore, since I feel I can safely assume Ms Joyce believes in women having a choice of how to live their lives, then what is the problem with these women choosing to live the Quiverfull philosophy? It is clear from the interviews presented, from women presently in the movement, that this is how they want, how they have chosen, to live. Whether we agree with it or not needn't come into the picture. They do have a right to live their lives this way, no matter how offensive the philosophy behind it may be to others.


Here is why I can haltingly recommend this book. I do personally find the attitudes, offered to the reader in direct quotes, toward women/wives presented by the men and some of the women featured in this book to be quite disturbing. And as a Christian I feel they are doing damage to our faith through their loud-mouthed, and in my opinion poisonous assertions regarding the nature of women and marital relationships. They have adopted a very black and white worldview, ignoring other biblical injunctions which would turn their opinions of women/marriage on their heads, that condemns those of us who don't agree with them. Their own words, particularly in the chapter on daughters, expose their multiple layers of deception. They are simply modern-day Pharisees whose convictions will not stand up under close scrutiny and the application of the reality of God-given human individuality.

If you are going to read this book, please bear in mind a few important points:
1) This IS a fringe movement.
2) As such, it does not represent the majority of Christians and Christian home educators, or other stay at home mothers.
3) Ms Joyce is coming from the other side of the social spectrum as her subjects. Therefore very little middle ground is opened up for consideration and the middle is where most of us are.

Deeply considered and diligently reported, "Quiverfull" reveals the complexities of women's lives under an advanced system of male headship. Joyce never inflames, and genuinely seeks to understand the women whose lives she studies. She privileges their stories, and in so doing, delivers a disturbing and entirely clear-eyed assessment of the Quiverfull lifestyle. While the Quiverfull movement may be extreme, its reverberations throughout American life are not, making the book indispensable reading.

In this book, writer and columnist Kathryn Joyce goes all out to reveal the dangerous, acidic patriarchy (better known as "patriocentricity" among those who are familiar with its evil) that has been leaking into Christianity for the past several years. This movement goes far beyond complimentarianism, the hierarchal and extra-Biblical (though comparatively mild) system that the likes of Wayne Grudem and John Piper exhort, and instead forbids women from voting, holding public office of any sort, working outside the home, attending college or public school, using abortion even to save their lives from doomed pregnancies, or using birth control. Instead, it upholds the womb as the single and most valuable part of a woman, a part that she is nevertheless forbidden to have any control or say over. There are many vile members and levels of this new wicked belief system, and author Joyce reveals nearly all of them in this shocking volume.

One of the most outlandish and domineering of these groups is that of the Vision Forum, a relatively new cult which embraces all of the afore-described "values" and pushes them, and the women who practice them, beyond the brink of sanity. Begun by Doug Phillips, a man who has proven more than once to have no Christian character, this movement has stretched beyond the borders of its own cult and now seeks to ensnare thousands across the country. Joyce spent years in the making of this book by traveling and visiting several different members of Vision Forum and its rotten branches, interviewing its victims, members and supporters, and offering fascinating descriptions of their beliefs as well as their behavorial traits; one of the treats of this book is Joyce's sharp eye for detail and description, taking you straight into this strange world and the minds of its inhabitants. It's quite an experience to hear/read the words from these strange people themselves, and how Joyce restrained herself from showing shock or revulsion is beyond me.

One of the most in-depth chapters is "Life in the Garden", in which Joyce shares the story of a couple she interviewed who were former members of Doug Phillips's own church. The story was mainly told by the wife of the couple, "Jen", who joined the church when the VF (Vision Forum) was still young and actually allowed its women to perform in the church like human beings. As she and her family's attendence progressed, the VF church tightened its reigns chokingly on the female members, until women were no longer allowed to literally speak at all in church, wear anything other than dresses, take communion for themselves, or sometimes even drive. I should mention, at this point, that Mrs. Epstein and her husband had many deep emotional problems before they joined the Phillips' church, problems which were exacerbated greatly by Doug Phillips interfering faultily in their marriage, but also made worse by Jen's fierce desire to get even with Phillips, a desire for personal vindication that matched his own. Her story has, unfortunately, proven unstable, as well as her character during the process of searching for justice. A few things are certain: Doug Phillips further contributed to the problems in the Epstein marriage by premature judgement and public embarassment and condemnation. He and his church treated their children unfairly and unkindly for their parents' faults. Jen also greatly worsened her own problems by dedicating herself to revealing Phillips' spiritual wrongs, so aggressively that it became first in her life, pursuing him long after the matter should have been left behind, and taking her family through the mire with her, sometimes throwing away the chance to better matters. She and her husband were both dedicated to revealing what was done to them, with Jen giving scathing reports of her husband as well as Phillips. One thing the warring couple still agree on is that Phillips handled his marriage counseling terribly and encouraged his church to shun their children unfairly. Here is the story as told by Jen to Kathryn Joyce:

Jen often openly disagreed with the Phillips' church treatment of women, much to the chagrin of the "pastor", Doug Phillips himself, who shut down her complaints. Her own true crucifiction, however, didn't come about until after she let the group know about her marital problems. Jen's husband had a temper that was becoming increasingly violent towards her. When she sought the help of Beaull and then Doug Phillips, she was told merely to try harder (from Beaull) and was later openly mocked by Doug. When she approached Doug, he automatically demanded whether she was submissive, obedient, gentle and quiet in her marriage. When Jen confirmed this, Doug walked right up to her husband and asked HIM whether Jen was a nag, unsubmissive or disrespectful, right in front of her. Phillips then called a conference and cruelly interrogated Jen about an affair she'd had thirteen years ago, before she was ever a member of the church, calling her a whore and a Jezebel (Phillips later denied calling her a Jezebel). Jen and her husband were then forbidden to take communion for a long while, and Jen was forbidden to ever speak badly of her husband, question or criticize him. When the temper of Jen's husband worsened and he had a bout of road rage with the children in the car, Jen strickenly told the church what happened, and was chastised for again "speaking badly" of her husband. Doug Phillips then sentenced her to submission counseling lessons.

Things came to a head once again when Jen dared send an email to Phillips, challenging the message in one of his sermons. He threw a fit and scolded her yet again, claiming that she should never criticize her pastor..though according to Phillips, the email would have been fine coming from her husband. Phillips threatened Jen that she would pay for her actions, and not long afterward, after a brief forewarning, he read a long charge against Jen and her husband to the entire church (this charge included their marital problems and, once again, Jen's old affair). Doug Phillips ended his punishment drive by excommunicating their family, telling them to fear for their souls, and ordering every member of the church to treat them like heathens (the account of the church's shunning was backed up by one of the Epstein's daughters, who mourned the loss of her former friends). After that, Jen, her husband and their children were treated like lepers: the VF church members refused to make eye contact, snubbed them, or scampered across the street like rats anytime they approached (one of the breeding Stepfords even refused a baby shower gift from Jen). This story was, perhaps, the first real public sign of the unforgiving attitudes of the Phillips' fellow wolves.

Jen's incident is sadly not an isolated one with the VF and their fellow piranah brethren, as Joyce later reveals in the book. Another woman and wife, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, well-known among the homeschooling movement for her former magazine "Gentle Spirit", was utterly butchered when her marriage ended. While she and her husband were in the process of divorce proceedings, she met her future next husband, Rick. When her current husband, an abusive man, discovered she had an attachment, he spread the word among her homeschooling colleagues, even asking them to spy on her. They happily complied, and the anti-woman movement slowly began to close in on Cheryl with newly sharpened teeth. Pretty soon she began receiving harassing interrogations as to her private life from her fellow homeschooling authors. Her soon-to-be-ex husband and pastor had even informed Michael Boutot, the organizer of the conference Cheryl had just attended, that she was guilty of unChristian behavior. Boutot proceeded to descend on her as well, demanding that she fulfill a list of ultimatums and make her "immoral" behavior known to her church and all the members of the homeschooling movement. When Cheryl refused to cave to their bullying, their intent on national slaughter became even more heated. Her pastor announced to the congregation that she was being turned over to Satan and planned to send this notice nationwide. Sue Welch, a former fellow homeschooling colleague of Cheryl's and particularly vicious harpy, eagerly offered to stamp the letters, planned to tell other homeschooling advertisers to cease business with Cheryl, and then proceeded to send the juicy news to the queen of the patriarchal homeschooling movement, Mary Pride. Pride seized the opportunity to add the news of Cheryl's public shame to her own magazine, "HELP for Growing Families". She then set up two AOL discussion folders for the sole purpose of attacking Cheryl and asked her assistant, David Ayers, to create a plan to win all of Cheryl's former readers over to her own magazine instead. Gosh, what a Christian group. The way they eagerly feed on their fallen sisters' blood puts their so-called feminist enemies and critics to shame.

Even aside from these ultra-extremists, Joyce reveals in the book that some otherwise "normal" patriarchs have shamefully downgraded women and, perhaps unwillingly, set them up for abuse. Whether they do this through downright stupid and thoughtless remarks, automatic distrust of women, or Scriptural twistings, it all leads to the spiritual and possibly physical harm and disrespect of God's daughters. Here are some of the most offensive remarks by strongly professed complimentarians, a couple of whom are otherwise well-known and respected among the Christian community:

Nancy Campbell, one of the queen enthusiasts of the breeding frenzy doctrine, tells men and women that the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply and not to wait for financial stability or security. "(God) did not say, "I want you both to work until you have enough money to purchase your own home and accumulate the material possessions you need, then I want you to be fruitful," Campbell magnanimously explains. "No, His first command was "Be fruitful and multiply." You heard that, ladies and gents: God doesn't care about your financial security, living circumstances, or state of being. When you get married, you'd better get those reproductive organs moving! That's what you're here for. And no condoms for you! Elsewhere, Campbell openly criticizes families who have only a couple of children, no doubt as being unGodly. "I've heard couples brag to me that they have two grandchildren," she laments. "When did two children ever change the world?" Indeed, whoever heard of God only using a few measly people to change history?

Martha Peace offers both bad logic and castigation of her sisters in Christ when she makes a list of different ways women are selfish (she doesn't even do this consciously; I just suddenly noticed the very high humber of times she used the word "selfish" to describe women). According to Peace, it is selfish for women to enjoy any late-night time. "Women are not 'night owls'," Peace says. "They are selfish." It is also selfish, Peace claims, for women to expect a career, equality, or romance in marriage. This last alarming, legalistic, and otherwise bogus claim is repeated by some of the patriarchal-courtship followers. One man claims that a woman's father, and not love, should determine his daughter's husband. "If you were to sum up courtship in one sentence," he says, "you could say that it gets the father in the picture and Cupid out." I was, to put it mildly, horrified and disgusted by this description. Not only does it encourage the most sinful controlling spirit in a father, but it could completely, by principle, deprive a woman of even love in her marriage! Marriage is about love, not procreation and not some sort of Christian bargaining chip. These people have no spontaneity, no imagination, and apparently no heart; to deprive a woman of love and her own natural passion for a man (which is also thwarted by these psychos in the deprivation of romance novels for their daughters, in order to keep them spiritually anesthized), is a terrible emotional crime that the Bible never exhorts, even in the OT. Only God knows for whom a woman and future wife's heart will burn, for whom it will thrive and beat, and the robbing of this natural miracle of love is the final and ultimate robbery of these women by their tyrannical and wickedly controlling fathers. And yet, women like the foolish Botkins (the home princesses that the VF upholds as models of daughterhood) actually fight for this lifestyle; their meek baby teeth and paper spine only come out in aggression when they protect their father and the emotionally incestous relationship they hold with him.

Likewise, even though women of Peace's ilk don't fight for the father/daughter sickness that the Botkins do, they too show aggression mainly when they are not fighting for Christ, but head-butting other women into the herd behind the men. Women like Peace and Jennie Chancey urge "gentle and quiet" spirits, except for when they themselves scold women about not having them. As author Joyce points out in this book, the amusing irony is how viciously these women fight for their own subordination. Nancy Leigh Demoss, usually a tough-spoken woman of Christ, similarly urges women to take a backseat. "This is a revolution that will take place on our knees," she writes. Perhaps this image was meant to make me think of women kneeling for Christ; instead, knowing as I do how these women preach about "servicing" men, the mental picture I got was that of Monica Lewinsky.

Back to the topic of errant physical abuse, though, the more chilling part of this book was when author Joyce revealed the careless and cruel remarks of men, Christian teaching men, who either indicate or outrightly claim that wives bring physical abuse on themselves. John MacAurthur allows that wives may leave abusive husbands temporarily, "while the heat is on", but should return later to make amends, being careful not to provoke abuse since wives, he claims, often cause their own injuries in their desires to rule over men. On a similar note, Bruce Ware, an abominable man, claims that women are frequently abused because of their own rebellious refusal to submit to their husbands (it should be noted here that Ware is known for his extra-Biblical claims, including the claim that Christ should not be prayed to [being inferior to God the Father] and that women are only the "indirect image of God.") The worst comment of all in this vein comes from James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Dobson makes the abhorrent claim that some wives seek abuse for the "moral advantage" that a black eye gives them as a "martyr" in the relationship. If this is the true motive of women in abusive relationships, when they deliberately dare to look at their husbands the wrong way or neglect to make their coffee, just imagine how self-righteous are the wives who get their jaws wired shut! And the rebellious women who didn't survive abuse? No doubt God gave them a huge lecture at the pearly gates for so relentlessly bugging their husbands.

On a last note, one of the things you need to watch out for with folk like the VF, besides disrespect for women, is their current hobby of revising history. And this doesn't just happen with women; when the patrios aren't claiming that feminists were the ones assaulting police officers and making bogus arrests, or claiming that female slaves actually stayed in their cabins peacefully cooking meals for their husbands all day like good little Christian girls (this last claim came from "Lady Lydia", one of the doily duchesses from the Ladies against Feminism site), they're trying to deny any and all claims that white men were ever bad. Recently, Americans cooled their celebration of Jamestown Day, after being reminded by Native Americans how exactly Jamestown was won. When Doug Phillips and his cronies heard this, they threw a collective fit, saying white Americans should take every pride and pleasure in their winning of Jamestown. He proceeded to throw a huge celebration of the white man's victory, dragging his whole cultic kit and kaboodle down to Jamestown, complete in puritanic outfits, to commemorate the "Christian" occasion. Author Joyce actually attended this event and spoke to him personally. While explaining his intentions to her, Phillips said, "If you go on the national commemoration website, you'll see that not the natives but the settlers were cannibals; that they were terrorists against the environment; that there was a holocaust; that the settlers were guilty of lynchings; that a genocide took place." In short, he concluded, you needed more than the oral tradition to defend something like that. I was blown away by this comment, the most honesty I'd ever witnessed from Mr. Phillips. But one thing nagged me: who'd WANT to defend something like that? Why are we pretending the white settlers were something they weren't? In explaining his defense of the celebration of Jamestown Day, Phillips said of the occasion, "Who wants to go to a birthday party where you're mad at the parents and lament the birth?" I can answer that quite easily: try comparing it to the birthday party of a child conceived in a rape. Do you love the child? Are you happy the child's alive? Yes and yes, but do you pretend or deny the circumstances of the child's conception and ignore the nature of one of his parents? No you don't. Celebrating the child's presence and celebrating the reason for that presence are not the same. Jamestown was won in a bloody mass rape, rape of the earth and rape-like theft from those who truly owned and loved it. We should be thanking God for His mercy on our country, not for His imaginary blessing on how all of it was gained.

Reading this book was an enlightening experience, to say the least. For the past years, Kathryn Joyce has tirelessly and faithfully visited the members of patriarchy and collected the facts straight from them, and the result is this sterling and often captivating book. As angry as parts of it made me, I could hardly put it down; Joyce's graceful writing and incredible patience with her subject revealed all the complex facts of this movement with wonderful description and painstaking accuracy. Throughout the whole book, moreover, she never really pulls a punch; I at first feared this would be an irritant to me, longing as I was to read a cutting rebuttal to the patrios' words, but Joyce does little more than state the facts and relate her own experiences. As one critic pointed out, the VF and like-minded people she cited won't be able to say much against her; they certainly can't accuse her of being mean, and she represents them better than most of their own followers do! I have nothing but praise for Kathryn Joyce and hope to see more of her well-researched and addictive writing in the future. In the meantime, I pray that all who come across her vital book heed the warning they find and beware the danger that this deadly movement presents.

Update: Oh my, this book has officially delivered its message. Not only are VF supporters throwing bad votes at my review (and other positive ones) as fast as their little fingers can punch, but the VF has issued their official and predicted mud sling at Joyce, and it's really quite hilarious. Here's an excerpt:

"In the world of Kathryn Joyce, scientists and professional demographers who warn about the serious consequence of an imminent birth dearth are really bigots with an agenda to perpetuate white Christian babies; prolific Christian homeschool mothers and their daughters are mindless doormats to domineering patriarchs; and Christian ministries like Vision Forum with a pro-family theology are dangerous subversives"

Why is this hilarious? Because I said before that Joyce never slings a real verbal punch by namecalling, true mocking, etc. That means that the VF's whine about her using the labels "brainwashing" and "doormats" is completely false; she never uses such labels. Instead, all she does is lay out the facts about the patriocentric lifestyle, many times by quoting the people who practice it, who were only too happy to share it with her. Whether or not these lifestyles sound like brainwashing and its girls sound like doormats is left up to the reader, and apparently, the VF thinks they do!! They could not possibly have done themselves in more perfectly in this matter. Say what you wish of this book, naysayers, but the simple fact remains that the nasty, truth-telling feminist in this case is not namecalling, while the small "Christian" man, on the other hand, is jumping up and down screaming obscenities.

We all know that Christian fundamentalism is patriarchal and, in general, opposed to feminism. However, Kathryn Joyce shows us that this is no mere defensive strategy against the corrosive effects of secularism and modernity. The "patriarchay movement" rather seeks to reclaim America for Christianity, as homemaker mothers produce "quiverfulls" of culture warrior children, and girls and boys learn to take on gender roles (submission and leadership, respectively) with military-like discipline for the greater good.

Joyce explores both the ideological underpinnings of the movement and the human interest side of the story, as she attends various events and meets both with women who belong to the movement, and those who have left it. She avoids writing polemically, but as she unpacks the logic of the movement's ideology, examines the attitudes of its leaders, and - inevitably - recounts some of the undoubtedly abusive and destructive situations that have arisen, a picture emerges that is not attractive. Tellingly, Doug Phillips responded to the book's publication with complaints about Joyce's background and motives, but without any corrective points to make whatsoever.

The book is divided into three sections, dealing with the three roles the movement sees for women - as wives, as mothers, and as daughters. We find that the movement is far from monolithic - some members draw on the Reformed tradition and look to the "theonomy" devised by Rousas Rushdoony, others see the need for women to accept their God-ordained role as a matter of neo-Pentecostal spiritual warfare. We meet men who have a "200 Year Plan" for their families, using Excel spreadsheets to plot thousands of as-yet imagined descendants (this seems to me more like Chinese ancestor-veneration than historic Christianity), and women who understand "submission" to their husbands as a form of liberation, even when they express private disagreement with them. There are also some eccentric characters covered - such as Charles Provan, who also promoted, and then rejected, Holocaust revisionism - and a brief comparative foray into ultra-Orthodox Jewish patriarchy, where brides-to-be take the contraceptive pill to avoid menstruation on the wedding night and not long after are dispensed fertility drugs by rabbis. The patriarchy movement, Joyce explains, has is making global links: particularly in Poland, and even, in some cases, with Muslims - whose higher birth-rates are also often seen as a cause for alarm by Christian conservatives.

Unfortunately, there are no footnotes or bibliography, but the book is obviously very well researched and Joyce shows an easy familiarity with the nuances of the movement. It's both a substantial contribution and a great read.

I read Kathryn Joyce's book with great interest and mixed emotions. On one hand, I was greatly saddened that she writes about religion but does not seem to know the Lord personally. On the other hand, I understand why she wrote about these fringe Christians, and I emphasize fringe, not mainstream.

But to clarify a few points, first of all, I will say that she refers to Raymond Moore in her book as living when in fact, he passed away July 13, 2007.

Joyce also includes Michael Pearl as a supporter of the patriarchal system in the church, when in fact, Michael Pearl is adamantly against the patriarchal system and has compassion on the many grown children in the church who have been hurt by this practice and who have been disowned by their families for "leaving". I encourage you to read Michael Pearl's writings on this subject. The fallout from grown children in patriarchal families is real.

Third, while Joyce gives a compelling look at personal conflicts between women and those in church authority, she only discloses one side of the argument. I would have liked to know what the other side has to say about these conflicts, because there are always two sides to a story, and we only get one side.

Another note that I have to add: She mentions Nancy Leigh DeMoss who has written a book about being Christian wives and mothers. I don't have a lot of respect for her book since Nancy has never been married nor had any children. Biblical principles aside, how can I listen to her when she's never been there? I feel this discredits her and she should stick to what she knows.

To the reviewers who criticized Ms. Joyce for not having a bibliography, no bibliography was needed. She cited the book titles and authors all throughout the book - which are pretty simple to look up. To say that she is not a true journalist is unfair. You are not lacking information here.

I am a Christian wife who homeschools my 3 children. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. However, I used birth control, my family doesn't believe the patriarchal system has a place in Christianity, we encourage our daughters to go to college and get jobs, and we believe in the value, intelligence, and worth of women.

And yet, as I read some of the quotes and stories, they stabbed at my heart, because I too have been hurt by abuse of authority in the church. I was once wrongly confronted with Scripture by church men in authority and felt I had no voice or say in the matter; my mother, an intelligent woman and loved by many, was ostracized and forced to leave her position in a Christian school because of a domineering male headmaster; and many women that I know of have suffered similar abuse in the church because of the all-important male headship. This is so dangerous. Stories/examples in this book sound like the Salem Witch Trials.

As long as there are sinners - and we are all sinners - there will be an imperfect church. The thing that gets me about the Epstein case is that she sought some sort of apology or closure with Doug Phillips. I could have told her that would never happen. Men like him are threatened by women and would never offer an apology of any kind to a woman. The fact Ms. Epstein was told she could not ask Doug about the sermon or theology, that it had to come from her husband - that is ludicrous and not Biblical. For a woman not allowed to discuss theology or a sermon with her pastor or any man is taking things too far. I pity that church and the women in it. Doug Phillips believes he is being "intentional" about what he teaches with his kids and family; "intentional" is code for "controlling."

The reason legalism creeps into the church is because some people feel more comfortable by a set of rules and they seek security in that. It then becomes an idol if you will - worshipping the rules and leaving common sense behind. Many men enjoy the sense of power that authority brings. They forget that the submission verse in the Bible is written TO women, not to men (as my friend used to say to her husband, "Stop reading my mail!"). And that the more important verse is written to the men: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." Do you know how much Christ loved the church? He laid down His very life for the church. He sacrificed all that He had for his bride.

God created Adam and Eve to be husband and wife and instituted the first family then. The `husband and wife' is a physical picture of a spiritual concept of Christ and his bride, the church.

As long as there are sinners, there will be abuse of authority and abuse of women in the church. Yet, this should not be the thing that Kathryn Joyce hangs on to. I encourage her to look at the person of Jesus Christ. What did He teach? Christ taught love, compassion, kindness, humility, and forgiveness. Kathryn, stop making excuses for why Christianity is not for you. You will not lose yourself or anything else by becoming a Christian. What you will gain is eternal life, the peace that passes understanding, and a heavenly Father who loves you and knows every detail of your heart.

I personally have mixed feelings about the Protestant "Quiverfull" movement. On the one hand, I admire the strength of Quiverfull families' faith in God and agree with them that children should be seen as blessings rather than burdens. On the other hand, I am deeply troubled by the misogyny that they often display. Far too often the focus is too much (or even exclusively) on the wife's duty to submit to her husband in Ephesians 5:22-24 and not enough on the husband's duty to love and serve his wife in Ephesians 25-28. Jesus wasn't domineering and controlling in His leadership but patient and self-sacrificing. Also, many of the constraints placed on women in the Quiverfull movement are extraBiblical.

As you can see, there are plenty of grounds upon which to make legitimate criticism of the Quiverfull movement. Parts of Ms. Joyce's book do this very effectively, such as the chapter on domestic violence. Unfortunately, Ms. Joyce lacks a nuanced understanding of what is actually problematic about Quiverfull beliefs & practice and what is not.

As an example, she uses the terms "patriarchal" and "complementarian" interchangeably throughout the book when they are very different things. The latter sees men and women as equal, just not identical. The former sees men as distinctly superior to women and uses that as justification to call for the denial of women's rights to vote, own property, enter into contracts, etc. It's one thing to recognize that men and women are not the same and that their strengths tend to lie in different areas. It's quite another to treat women as second-class citizens or worse, as property of their fathers or husbands.

Ms. Joyce just fundamentally can't seem to understand why any woman might prefer what she sees as an "unequal partnership", a "wearying life with no end to obligation and duty" to one with "career, sexual freedom and bodily self-determination, equitable division of housework and childcare, shared decision making,..and not feeling obliged to sacrifice desires for the sake of the union." But what she fails to realize is that she is imposing her own sense of fairness rather than leaving it up to the couple to determine what makes up an equitable marriage.

Ms. Joyce mocks the ideas of not dwelling on negative thoughts, being grateful for what one has, and choosing unconditional love. But those aren't just obligations for Christian women but for all Christians. And choosing to do these things is likely to lead to greater well-being in the long run.

The book devotes much space to rehashing two relatively well-publicized disputes between prominent Quiverfull advocates and women whose behavior came under fire. The dirty laundry of the Jennifer Epstein and Cheryl Lindsay Seelhoff controversies may provide for sensationalistic reading, but I don't think they should've been included in the book. It's not exactly news that self-righteous people can sometimes behave in a very un-Christian fashion. Jesus condemns the Pharisees over and over for the same thing. Not to mention that there was plenty of blame to go around in these matters. There's no excuse for the way these women were treated, but they were not exactly totally innocent victims.

Ms. Joyce makes many ad hominem attacks on prominent Christians (both Quiverfull and mainstream) in her book and does a lot of guilt by association. I find this a bit ironic because similar tactics could be used against the other side, such as Margaret Sanger's promotion of eugenics.

There are also two chapters in the book that struck me as tangential. One was on ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel and the other was about attempts to convince European women to have 3 or 4 kids instead of their current 1 or 2.

I was very disappointed with "Quiverfull". I felt that Ms. Joyce spent too much space in the book on off-topic discussions, attacking the character of certain individuals, and relating gossip. She also failed to distinguish between lifestyle choices that may not be right for her personally but are not inherently problematic and things that are legitimate grounds for crticism.