thatmom

real encouragement for real homeschooling moms

three stars: book review of Quiverfull ~ Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

quiverfull

A long time ago, I was given a great piece of advice. If you pay $25.00 to attend a conference and you come home with even one $25.00 piece of information, then the conference was worth attending. Bibliophile that I am, I maintain the same policy when it comes to purchasing books and I think I got my money’s worth when I bought my copy of Quiverfull ~ Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce.

Readers of this blog know that I see the patriocentric movement much like the reckless and activated toddler in the movie Honey I Blew Up the Kid who grew bigger and more unwieldy as he came into contact with various high tension lines. Those who are giving credence to these teachers and are providing a platform from which to speak are akin to those electrified wires, adding to the power while creating a creature that is taking on a life of its own. That is why I was anxious to read Ms. Joyce’s book and to, perhaps, find some new insights into the whys of the patriocentric movement that has declared itself in charge of Christian homeschooling.

But rather than giving me a more clear picture of this fringe but influential segment of the homeschooling culture, the reason I found this book to be so valuable was more for the opportunity it gave me to understand how a secular feminist assimilates the teachings and lifestyles within the patriarchy movement and, more importantly, how an outsider perceives the nonessential lifestyles that are being passed off as essentials of the faith within the homeschooling culture.

Covering most of the significant leaders within this faction, Ms. Joyce, for the most part, accurately portrays the key differences between the crunchy crude charm of Mike and Debi Pearl, the more “noblesse” and less “oblige” of Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips, and the myriad of other players who have wandered in and out of these circles for the past 30 years. I found little to disagree with in her perspective as she mapped out the teachings and leanings of each one. Oddly, Voddie Baucham, mentioned only in passing, and Kevin Swanson, two of the more notable and current mouthpieces for the movement, weren’t given the time of day in her book and Helen Andelin, the matriarch of fascinating childish womanhood, was curiously absent.

Interviewing both the movers and shakers, as well as the followers who have been moved and shaken, made for interesting reading, not to mention a smorgasbord of patriocentric madness. Her story, for example, of attending the Jamestown Celebration last summer and watching as the crowd jumped to their feet at the singing of Dixie, shows the neo-confederate leanings that are no insignificant part of this group. The account of Geoff Botkin praying over the ovaries of his newborn daughter along with the many testimonies of exhausted mothers who were told their salvation depended upon their childbearing, gives us a hint of the near-fertility worship these groups incite. The creepiness of Andrea Yate’s pastor, Michael Woroniecki, alone, made me want to sleep with my light on.

The lack of footnotes was probably the most troubling part of the entire book for me. Given how easily patriocentrists can spin and dissemble their own teachings to make themselves agreeable to a broad audience, footnotes and quotes ought to have been a number one priority and their absence was distressing. Skeptics and seekers reading the book will need them, in order to place these teachings in context and die hard sycophants will demand it. Note to Kathryn: please, please, please publish a corresponding booklet with your resources and remember this is there is a second edition.

I also had a difficult time getting my arms around the title of the book. “Patriarchy” is such a nebulous term, as is “quiverfull,” leaving the door open for incorrect conclusions to be drawn. There are many people, such as myself, who embrace a husband’s headship in the home and his leadership of the family as well as the Biblical truth that children are a blessing from the Lord and who welcome any children the Lord would give them, but who do not agree with the militant fecundity mindset nor seek to defile the marriage bed by declaring the use of all birth control to be sin.

Ms. Joyce, and I believe it is because she is not from within this movement, is not a believer, and is not committed to the Bible as the Word of God, does not understand the subtleties in the language or the continuum along which these teachings lie. As such, she does not possess the discernment to sort truth from error, leaving her at a disadvantage. Or perhaps, in the spirit of feminist spin, she felt the need to disdain male leadership as abusive and women, who love having lots of children, as having done so under duress, either by a man or the church. I am still trying to decide who she intends her audience to be and to what end she wrote her book.

I would also hope that those who are responsible for giving energy to the leaders within this movement through homeschooling conventions and other venues will consider what Kathryn Joyce is saying and be more circumspect in providing a forum to patriocentrists. Given the current political climate and the increasing scrutiny I believe homeschooling families will come under in the future, I would recommend that homeschoolers read this book. Then, perhaps, as in the case of the blown up kid, it will be a mother who brings sanity and control to what may become an out of control situation.

Advertisements

10 Comments»

  thatmom wrote @

Since summer is coming and many moms will have a little more time to enjoy reading that isn’t required for school, I plan to offer some book reviews for consideration and I welcome any and all comments and discussion here.

  Annie C wrote @

Addressing your comment about Ms. Joyce not discerning the subtle differences of language and intent, I think you might be at least partially accurate. I know that among the more feminist groups, be they more secular or perhaps of other faiths, there is a tendency to take the “duck” approach to people. As in “if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck…”. I find it a major failing within those groups, if only because my staying at home works for our family and I happen to look good in a denim jumper. 🙂

But I think it’s important to point out that there are subtleties on the other side as well. Many, many of those groups consider any form of “headship” between the adults of a family as morally wrong, although they would not call it abusive. That said, though, what’s always concerned me is the isolation in these families, and their belief that the entire world is out to get them. As I see it, that makes this movement a breeding ground for true abuse, as the women and girls in these families have neither school nor community nor church to turn to.

If this book calls enough attention to this movement so that less-conservative Christians and true liberals can find ways to offer help to these families if/when needed, I’ll be thrilled.

  Cally Tyrol wrote @

Thatmom, great review! Mind if I link to it on WWF? I’m going to add my own thoughts to the post as well. This was an… interesting book.

  thatmom wrote @

You’re welcome to link here, Cally.

  thatmom wrote @

Annie, I appreciate your insights. You are correct, we all speak our own language, don’t we?

  Anne wrote @

Great review. Jennifer is way ahead of me, I was also going to ask to link it on WWF. I’m really looking forward to reading it now!

  thatmom wrote @

For more perspective on the concepts of militant fecundity, as taught by the Quiverfull movement, vs seeing children as a blessing from the Lord, listen to these podcasts where I share some of my own research into these teachings.

http://www.thatmom.com/podcasts/podcastsyear2008.htm

(August 8 – September 5, 2008)

  thatmom wrote @

Just a reminder that in order to post on this blog, you must have a valid e-mail address where I can contact you and that I do not give out any personal information unless I know you! My life is pretty much an open book if you read the articles here anyway! 🙂

  TG wrote @

You mentioned in passing one of my concerns about the book (not having read it yet. . .)

The title, “Quiverfull ~ Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement” seems to make an equivalency statement about two different groups/philosophies. While there are certainly overlapping ideas and practices, QF is NOT the same as Patriarchy or Patriocentrism. I’ve known QFers that were pretty. . . moderate. . . in their approaches to life, and may or may not have had husband-headship in their homes (more often did) but did not embrace patriarchy. Similar, I’ve know patriocentrists who were not QF.

I think the author made a mistake with her title implying they were the same. Those within either movement will assume she doesn’t know what she is talking about (even though you state she gives an accurate view of the major players), and those outside of the movements will have a not-wholly accurate view.

Most of the QFers I’ve known from past years, have continued to place great value upon both bearing children and nurturing children. However, most have also at some point along the way seen that living in a fallen world, our bodies and lives are impacted by sin in a way in which it is permissible — and even wise — to delay childbearing. This viewpoint would not have been considered orthodox-QF in the past. and yet I’ve seen many QFers evolve to this viewpoint over the years.

In many ways, it seems as if the QF movement now exists primarily for those who have something to gain from it — the movers and shakers, those who wish to have personal control or wider influence — and those who are naive and young and new to the QF ideas. So, I can see a power drama being played out under the guise of QF, even if the heart of the ideas are not about power.

  Paul R wrote @

My brothers home-school the children under biblical teaching. Both do not agree with 100% of what forum vision teaches ie:dancing or some other matters. Go back 200 yrs or more and just break dance, moonwalk, or robot movement by yourself and they would probably just think that you are out of your mind or worse demon possessed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: