Her.meneutics: What Is the Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement?

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Lynne Hybels: My Lazy Christmas Wish | Main | Nancy Pearcey: How to Respond to Doubt »

December 20, 2010

What Is the Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement?

What the branch of the Christian Patriarchy Movement believes about family and young women.

Karen Swallow Prior, guest blogger

The blogosphere has been agog recently over one feminist journal’s feature-length article, “House Proud: The Troubling Rise of Stay-at-Home Daughters.” If you are like me and hadn’t heard of the stay-at-home daughters (SAHD) movement, here’s a primer.

SAHD is connected to what detractors call the “Christian Patriarchy Movement,” a phrase popularized by Kathryn Joyce's 2009 book, Quiverfull. In it she examines the lifestyles of a group of evangelical Christians who reject birth control and adhere to rigid gender roles they believe are scripturally based. The locus of these teachings, along with the SAHD philosophy that stems from them, is Vision Forum Ministries.

When a movement is said to be "rising" yet is essentially tied to a single organization, albeit one of considerable influence in some circles, perhaps the aforementioned journal doth protest too much. It seems that reports of the Christian Patriarchy Movement are greatly exaggerated — as are the rise, “troubling” or not, of stay-at-home daughters.

Nevertheless, the concept is intriguing. In all fairness, some might argue that having a woman who is a university administrator and professor (and childless to boot) analyze stay-at-home daughters is something like asking the fox to critique the henhouse. But I’ll do my best to be fair.

Essentially, adherents of SAHD believe daughters should never leave the covering of their fathers until and unless they are married. One SAHD father writes:

While they are preparing to be keepers of their own homes one day, until our daughters are married, they should serve as keepers at home in the house of their father. They are to be helpers to their mother and blessings to our entire family, as well as to our local church and community. Our daughters are to be busy preparing themselves to be helpers to their own husbands by developing their skills, continuing their education, enhancing their talents, and glorifying God right here where He has them – at home.

The SAHD movement disdains contemporary college life, but it highly values education. Even as a college professor, I would be hard pressed to disagree with Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's assertion (SAHD pioneers since the publication of their 2005 book, So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God) that colleges “do not have the monopoly on higher learning, higher qualifications, and proper training." Rather than attend college, the Botkin sisters “encourage girls to strive for a broader, higher and more intellectually honest education than is available at most colleges today.” Not only is this a worthy aim, it is one these young women seem to have achieved admirably.

In fact, the SAHD girls, along with their fathers, take great pains to show that these young women are educated, empowered, and strong — as far from denim-jumper-wearing, hair-hung-to-the-hips stereotypes as east is from west. The Botkin sisters well represent their comrades when they list their interests as “film making, orchestral harp, history, music theory and composition, theology, the reconstruction of the West, hospitality, classical piano, the persecuted church, and home-making.” Such a list of accomplishments makes me want to stay at home, too.

But the real issue is less “to stay or not to stay” than the underlying principle for doing so. While SAHD advocates cite ample scriptural passages to support their orthopraxy (the practice of their orthodoxy), the principle underlying that practice seems to me to lack explicit scriptural support. This principle is what they claim is a clear divide between “public and private” (terms less connected to biblical language than to Enlightenment concepts) or separate “spheres of dominion” for men and women. Vision Forum Ministries states that “men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home,” and “the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home.”

It’s possible that this bipartite division is more a social construct than a biblical one. If separate spheres were extrapolated from biblical language and principles, it is more likely such realms would fall along a more complex, tripartite division like family, church, and society. Such a trinity of spheres complicates neat alignments with the God-given binary of male and female.

Perhaps this helps explain some of the problem. For while the SAHD movement calls for daughters to “be helpers to their mother and blessings to [their] entire family,” their attentions appear largely focused on the ministry and business of the fathers. (By the way, none of the fathers, apparently, work at the local automotive plant.)

A post by Douglas Phillips, president of Vision Forum, quotes a letter from a stay-at-home-daughter named Kelly. It illustrates what is confusing about the movement. The girl writes,

As I observe the convictions and the passions for the things of God in my earthly father, I begin to make myself available more, in helping him. Walking beside him in his ministry; asking for ways I can help him, and pray for him. I want to know more about what he believes. I want to know why he believes, the things he does . . .The beautiful thing is, that as I begin supporting my father in his God given ministry, I find that his convictions, are becoming my convictions, his passions, my passions . . . After ending a conversation, people began telling me how much they heard my father in me. “I can hear your Dad talking when I listen to you, Kelly!” They laugh, and inside, I feel ten inches taller. I want to sound like him. I want to be like him.

A funny thing has happened on the way to the Forum: The lives of stay-at-home daughters — their goals, desires, passions, their very identities — ultimately seem to orbit around their fathers, rather than their mothers, as might seem more in line with the movement’s stated principles.

Comments

how is this different than islam?

Very interesting post. Had not heard of this movement. As a woman who did not marry until 36, I smile and shake my head as I imagine how this would have played out to make my life look very different. It is also reminiscent of the influence of Bill Gothard in years gone by, in the Basic Institute of Youth Conflicts. I appreciate the post author's fair approach. Due to the thought-provoking nature of it, I will need to chew and muse on this a bit longer prior to responding further.

This is deeply wrong on so many levels . . .
First, "Kelly's" story is just a little creepy and weird. Second, movements like this take what might be valuable ideas and push them to extremes, making Christians laughingstocks. There IS merit in pondering younger marriage, in avoiding toxic campus life (for boys as well), in the freedom homeschooling can offer. These are all worthy topics for Christian exploration. The problem is they get hijacked by the lunatic fringe and therefore become "rejectable" and easy to distort.
When are Christians going to think seriously about our "messaging" -- about a true vision of the better life that we DO have to offer? Why can't we find something between "wackjob" and "looks just like the world" that we can show those outside our universe?

I like the idea of my daughters being helpers and "blessings to the entire family," but I want them to be a blessing to the whole world. We chose to send our daughters to public school, invest in our community here, and love our neighbors of different faiths. As a college instructor, I can see the point about college not offering the purest of environments, but maybe that's because the strongest Christians are all staying at home and not influencing that culture. I want to send out, not keep in.

I believe what is happening here is not influenced by the Spirit of God in the Bible, but an uncritical appropriation of the culture in which the New Testament was written - in other words, an attempt to replay Greco-Roman household/civilization of the first and second centuries. Unfortunately, I find no reason to believe that this is what God wanted us to do; instead, we are called to be in the world we ARE in (not of it), and thus to advance the kingdom here, in this culture, representing Jesus as he is now, here. In other words, what would Jesus do? (Do you really imagine this is what he would instruct us to do?) As the first commenter above pointed out, by adopting extreme lifestyles that constrain women, we don't so much resemble the kingdom of Jesus (who was amazingly freeing toward women) as some other religions. What is it with people that we are just sure that what God wants from us is to be as weird as possible? Let me be constrained not by gender roles but by my love for my neighbor - now that would be something!

Very interesting, well-written article. I have concerns, though, about this movement.

As a father of a son and a daughter, I'm scratching my head--somewhat--as to the purpose of this movement. I'll limit my questions to three:

1. How does this approach prepare a girl for anything other than service to a very specific, particular family?

2. And why just girls? Why aren't boys restricted to the household until they are ready for marriage? (Note: the realm of Husbands is public sphere, but it doesn't say anything about unmarried boys).

3. What, precisely, is a girl's role in this kind of family, especially since there's only one breadwinner--the father--for a family that could reach in the doubledigits rather quickly. What if a family has 6 or 7 girls in a row, who are homeschooled, and aren't ready for anything more than a short film and an evening of orchestral harp playing? What happens to them then? Is she required to stay and be a blessing, or can she go and get a job?

I said three questions, but I couldn't limit it to just that...sorry. Obviously, I have a few concerns.

I agree with some of the aspects of this movement (daughters being close to their families, pursuing genuine education, and service to others). I think it can go too far. I actually found the daughter's letter disturbing. She was becoming like her father rather than becoming her own person. I was taught by my father to question everything---even him. He never demanded me to think just like him, though I probably do in many ways because he was a brilliant, godly man. It would seem to me that these women would have difficulty finding husbands and cleaving to them if they are so focused on their immediate families. My final thought is: Shouldn't we be teaching our daughters to orbit their lives around their heavenly Father, rather than their earthly ones? It appears to have been diminished in their focus on father and family...at least as far as that daughter's letter indicates.

Although many woman who are raised in this belief/conviction may very well turn out to be "as far from denim-jumper-wearing, hair-hung-to-the-hips stereotypes as east is from west," I hesitate to agree with the belief system at its core foundations.

I see both positives and negatives. An umbrella that is painted in my mind--of safe harbor and purity/ protection foe the young women growing up beneath it, is indeed a lovely thought and worthy goal. However, I wonder what experiences (albeit difficult, possibly shocking, and *gasp* soiled by humanity and the secular world) they are "missing" and therefore will be lacking in both fortitude and hard-earned wisdom to "bring to the table" when they do become wives and mothers one day in their own homes.

Just thoughts---thanks for posting and raising these own questions to mull over Dr Prior~

You are mistaken in taking the ministry of the patriarchal SAHD or SAHM lightly. It is dangerous and sets up these daughters to be willing to be led about and controlled by men. The education they receive is for the purpose of making them something like the movie The Stepford Wives, only in formless dresses, little or no make up, and yes long hair. They are forbidden to be schooled in science, math, or seminary type courses. In the patriarchal mind women only need to be schooled in housekeeping, rearing children, and how to be good obedient wives. All schooling is aimed at those issues.

Christiandom should have many concerns about this movement.

Like other who read the article, I couldn't help but notice the apparent contradiction between what SAHD claims it wants--to raise a generation of women content to be stay-at-home wives--but then prefer to have women almost solely under the tutelage of their fathers. So SAHD shouldn't be surprised a few years from now when they end up with a generation of frustrated, Emily Bronte-types who are expected to play a role that's just the opposite of the one whose example they saw constantly. To paraphrase an old adage: "What you were spoke so loudly that we couldn't hear what you said you wanted."

It's an interesting point to make, that the girl wants to be like her dad, when you'd think the whole aim would be that she becomes like her mum. It reminds me also of Stepford Wives. It's just a new version of an old ploy for weak men to feel better about themselves by submerging the women in their lives so that they are always seen to be superior. You don't make weak men strong by making strong women weak.

I hadn't heard of SAHD, but I realized I had seen materials from Vision Forum--a catalog (www.visionforum.com) was sent to our church (which would not include many, if any, supporters of SAHD). Included are many items that might have appealed to my children--guides to building tree houses and forts, cowboy dress-up, nature exploration kits, historical dolls, etc. The girls however, are all in dresses (calf-length)--climbing trees and exploring nature seem to be the purview of boys only (and boys are exhorted to "protect your sisters"). Seeing illustrations of masses of boys bearing realistic civil war era swords or playing with WWII (dummy) grenades is a mite disturbing. (My children learned to bowhunt with their dad but marketing throwing knives and tomahawks to kids--even if adult supervision is "advised"--seems a bit much.) This really does seem to be a world where only in the past is there any good--and then, only if gender roles are strictly decreed and adhered to.

The SAHD types I've known tend to shun just about anything mainstream, including church. Thus, they become a society unto themselves. They're kinda like Amish who drive Suburbans. On the other hand, our only daughter, home-schooled for 11 years, has finished her first semester at a state university and is wildly enthusiastic about living out her faith among nonbelievers. When peers learn she was home-schooled, they say, "You don't act like a home-schooler." She (and I) take that as a compliment.

Thank you for drawing attention to this. More Christians need to be aware of it.

Another thank you for drawing attention to this. Doug Phillips and Geoffrey Botkin are playing a dangerous game with their daughters' lives, and need to be stopped.

I find my heart is thrilled when my daughter seeks to follow in my footsteps, especially in faith. But I am ecstatic to find the world open up for her as she follows her Heavenly Father's will for her. I don't want her vision in life to be limited by my ministry and interests, but by the grander vision of God who will take her farther than my vision ever will. I am so deeply disturbed by those who seek to limit young women and believe they are doing the Lord's will. Jesus honored women.

I may be biased (was homeschooled for all the wrong reasons) but I find the whole movement revolting. Sure, it has at least something to do with the fact that I think people who subscribe to the "let's keep our kids sheltered and out of the evil world at all costs" belief system are paranoid and delusional, and want nothing more than to replicate themselves through their children. My experience with people like this is that they are less interested in what God wants than they are in using religion & God's name to bolster their own ideals.

The note from Kelly that you included is poignant because even though it's supposed to endorse the goodness of this movement it reveals exactly why the whole thing is so unhealthy and disturbing.

Kelly is describing the very reason that she will wake up one day when she's thirty-something, maybe married with four or five kids, and wonder who she is. She will feel that she has been living in the shadow of her father and husband, not knowing if she's had an independent thought or belief. She may even question if she has a relationship with God at all, or if her dad and husband do.

Even though they talk about being "well educated" I've been around enough people in similar circles to know that the education they're talking about is not entirely open to criticism. It's all constantly being marinated in their own philosophies and religion. They reject new ideas without consideration. I've heard the kids who were inundated in this culture scoff at anything that sounded different from what they'd been told, "what my dad says/believes." They simply echoed their parents' ideals and it was really sickening.

There doesn't seem to be anything authentic about this kind of "Christianity." The big question for me is whether people like Doug Phillips trust God to protect, lead, and form their daughters into the women He wants them to be. It almost seems like all the sheltering, moulding, shaping, submerging they want to do with their kids is insistence on man's determinations being proclaimed as the calling of God.

Thanks for the post... clear without hostility toward a group that is has no shame in robbing a woman of a self. Jesus gave women a self in light of a religious system that denied it of them.

In reading Kelly's letter, I ask, "What exactly is the difference between this and idolatry?"

We do a lot of work on gender and rescuing the church from stereotypes, especially students. We come across many with this particular mindset who have never considered another point of view... and therein is the problem.

Are we forgetting why we had the women's movement of the 1970s? Has anbody read the Feminine Mystique?

Back in the 1950s, being at home for a lot of women meant they were financially, emotionally and intellectually trapped. The spouse abuse, cheating, divorce rates and widowhood set women up for a severe financial hardship after a marriage ended.

From what I have seen, the more educated a woman is, the less likely she is apt to throw herself after some schmuck that comes along. If she is an abusive marriage, she then has the economic power to pull both her and the kids out. A college education was seen as unnecessary waste of time for a woman because she could not use it at home. If there were boys in a family, they were the ones that were pushed to get a college education because they would be the bread winners. The thought that women had their own intellectual path that needed development was absolutely foreign at one time.

What the SAHD overlooks is the fact that most women will be single at some point in their life. They won't have a father figure or husband to lean on. Is that fair to a husband to expect him to treat you like dear old dad? In order to have a quality life it is important for a woman to be educated and financially independent. What I find disturbing is that a daughter must be the intellectual mirror of her father or husband. Are we going back to cave days of the 1950s? Let's stop glorifying the doo-wap 50s where many women got trapped in a sea of inequality.

The principles of this movement are quite Biblical. Much in conflict with the paganized society in which we live. The concept must presume an idealized Christian family, without which, difficulties would exist. For example, in a family where the father is pagan and the mother Christian, which is not uncommon; however, I give these folks a lot of credit, believing that they are not oblivious to such problems, and are able, with Christ's help, to adjust to such. I see this as a form of Christian witness to the heathen world around us. Any form of Christian witness or Christian living is mercilessly criticized, misrepresented and slandered in the unbelieving, secularized world, the goals of which are far different from the Biblical view. I laud these folks for their Christian ideals. May God bless and improve their efforts.

Do they practice arranged marriages? It would make sense to marry young as they did in BIble times.

However, we had a positive experience with a public University - the houseing is the issue and there are houses that only have christians students. I joked that they were lie monistaries without the wine. It was a positive environment for our son while attending college.

Undeniably, God may call some to practice SAHD. But there is no support in Scripture for the notion that this mode is required of all families.

We homeschooled all of our children through high school. Our daughter attended a local community college, and subsequently transferred to a nearby private university, living on campus. During her first semester there, she met the Christian man who, in God's providence, has since become her husband. I do not think she was wrong to have been there.

Indeed, one of my greatest joys in life was to walk her down the aisle to a man in whom I have complete confidence!

While I would not choose this lifestyle, I think some of you may be a bit harsh. This was how people were raised for thousands of years. And instead of "The Feminist Mystique", I'd suggest "The Feminist Mistake" If you think they should be stopped, do you think the Amish and the Hutterites and other groups should also be forcibly stopped? I wish all these controlling people who want government interference in everything would go to a communist country to live instead of trying to change this country. This country was founded on freedoms, and that includes on how you raise your children.

The type of life they are practicing was practiced all through the ages until the 1900's, and you want to remove their children? Much of the world lives this way too, India, Asia, the middle east, etc. Nobody complains when it is the muslims or hindus or whatever, though. We just can't have it here with American Bible believers, who are living as they believe God wants them to live. Should we plant a camera in every house and make sure that nobody is spanking their children or harshly yelling at them, after all, you never know what could be happening.

I was born in 1955, and I'm very thankful that I was. I was able to learn a lot from my grandmother and her friends, most of whom were born in the 1880's and 1890's. It was a wonderful time to grow up. My mom was home when I came home from school, I wasn't raised by strangers, which is the goal of fascist countries. You forget to mention what else occurred after the 1970's and the "wonderful" revolution. You forget all the bad, sad, and terrible things that happened since that revolution.

Before 1970, divorce and especially abortion were unheard of, and this was for everyone, of every racial group. The abortions, if you read about Margaret Sanger, (who started Planned Parenthood) were aimed at decreasing the African-American population. She received all kinds of awards from Adolph Hitler because of her helping the cause of attempting to eliminate their race-and it still goes on, and is often directed towards them. You can watch videos of her and Hitler as she receives her awards. The crime rate back then was very, very low compared to today. It truly was common to keep the front door unlocked. It was safe for me (a little girl) to ride my bike for miles and miles by myself. At the age of 4 I could walk blocks to a local park to play. The "bad" kids at school were the ones who chewed gum or passed a note to someone else. I am not exaggerating, this was my experience in growing up in a suburb of Chicago.

And perhaps not coincidentally, the number of natural disasters that occurred in 1955 was 25. In 1970, it was approximately 80, and in the year 2009, there were approximately 860 natural disasters. The rate of natural disasters has quadrupled in the last 20 years. If you'd like to see a chart with this tremendous, unexplainable, increase, you can check out the website called standeyo, who is a Christian. It just gives you something to think about. And yes, they could count the natural disasters in 1955, etc. The have it charted year by year. The God of the Bible has caused some rather major natural disasters, the flood comes to mind. He Himself says He causes them to occur at times. He brings rain and He brings famine. He is Lord of all. He is my my God, and I trust Him in all things.

Many who may be complaining about them, are you happy to have people live by Sharia law? THAT is something that should upset you. Read how they treat their infant daughters, and how they marry young girls, sometimes at the age of 9, give or take a couple of years. Yet there is silence from the feminists about this, total silence.

I'm amazed by the vitriolic attack in some of these comments. While there is potential for an out-of-balance situation to arise, it is ridiculous to suggest that these men should be stopped. The government interference advocated by some commenters on here does smack of Sharia much more than the protective but loving approach of many in this movement.

There seems to be an idolization of feminist ideals that is so repulsed and shocked by something that feels like it is from another time. Maybe it is. And maybe our times haven't got everything right. Perhaps those with a heated reaction should take some time to prayerfully ponder whether they have become conformed to this world and may need to be renewed by time in the Word. Whether you end up agreeing with SAHD (a conveniently negative acronym for detractors), surely it is worth an open-hearted pondering of Scripture. Sadly, I suspect many who call themselves christian would rather not look than risk discovering something different than their committed positions. And if they did discover it, I suspect many would reject it (so who is God in this kind of "christianity"?)

I suspect that this movement would suggest Titus 2 offers a key biblical support that the article suggests is lacking. I also suspect they would argue there is no inconsistency since the daughters working with and helping their fathers is practice / preparation for their role as help-mates in marriage (remember, these people understand the Bible to teach that men and women are equal but different, including in their roles.)

I watched the film made by the Botkin girls. It is a documentary of several girls who are taking this approach to life. While I find some communicators more compelling than others on the video (the African-American father is fantastic!), I am left with a blend of feelings. Isn't that true with any documentary about any group of people? I certainly have very mixed feelings whenever I look at the "in the world and like the world" approach espoused by the strongest detractors. In the case of the video by the Botkin girls, I found some families more attractive and compelling than others.

But I have to say that some of the young ladies on that film were exactly the kind of ladies that would stand out from the crowd in terms of people worth pursuing for marriage. Others would say they are doormats, wimps without life experience and strength, but rather the feminists that scream so loud on these blogs are the strong ones, the ones to build a life with. But this seems so twisted - surely there is a strength that comes from purity, protection, preparation and learning in the environment God designed (loving family), rather than the battle-scarred, compromising, broken experience of learning the world's way (unprotected in a seedy and sin-ravaged world). I certainly don't see any real strength coming from a messed up life and regrets (there is grace, but there is also abuse of grace). In fact, the so-called strength of the screaming feminists just feels so weak - so easily swayed by popular opinion, so easily conforming to majority perspective, so spineless in not risking being different, and most concerning of all, so self-referential in response to Scripture, rather than God-reverential.

I'm not a SAHD advocate, I'm just saddened by the vitriolic attack coming from others who call themselves followers of Christ.

If this SAHD movement (or call it what you will) is done in a paint-by-the-numbers fashion, that is, without real thought and imagination, but rather imposed, problems no doubt abound. However, in reading this particular article I was reminded of the biographies of St. Thomas More I've read, and the education of his daughters that occurred, it appears, simply by being part of his household. My guess is this was no education by proof-text. Different times bring differing perspectives. What St. Thomas More was doing during the reign of Henry VIII today seems positively progressive. If done today, though, it appears otherwise.

No one here has said a word about government interference, taking children from their families, spanking, the sexual revolution, abortion, Sanger, or Hitler, and I certainly haven't seen anyone advocate living a messed-up life. These things are all worthy of discussion, without a doubt, but what do they have to do with what Dr. Prior wrote?

This SAHD movement makes a mockery of the Great Commission. It is not based in Scriptures, but on Middle Eastern customs that continue to be practiced in most patriarchal societies around the world, reinforced by authoritarian religious tradition. Um, I think it's called Islam.

Comment guidelines may be found at: http://www.christianitytoday.org/help/permissionsandprivacy/termsofuse.html

Anonymous posts are removed by moderator. Comments should be directed toward article content and not as a "message board" between those who comment. Comments that are inflammatory or rude, that make direct attack toward a person are removed.

Questions regarding these guidelines may be directed to me at onlineresponse at christianitytoday.com

I am the father of only one child, a Daughter, the light of my life. We raised her to be an independent Christian "individual", who could make decisions for her self. She, having had the freedom to become what ever she wished, chose to become a Christian woman, homemaker, and Mother.
It is terrifying to let your Daughter go. To make of her self what she wishes, what she feels led to do. Her Father would never have consented to let her go Brazil as a High School exchange student and get a tattoo. Her Father was so proud and greatful to God when she went back again on a short term missonary trip to teach children. She decided to do these things on her own, led not by her parents, but by her own beliefs as a Christian woman.
I would never have agreed to the tattoo, but I am proud that she felt the freedom to get it.
If we had smothered her in the home, she would never have felt free to serve God as she continues to today.

I think this is so strict that it sounds more like extreme conservative Islam than Christianity. Yes, daughters should be protected from possible abuses by men, but I think that this is abuse in its own right. I think that both daughters and sons should be guided by their fathers, but also by their mothers, as mothers can teach both daughters and sons many good things. But both sons AND daughters should be allowed to make mistakes on their own as these mistakes can be used as a guide for them not to repeat these actions. Sons should be taught some basic cooking skills as they are going to be without their mother for awhile after they graduate from high school and before they get married as they are going to have to fend for themselves.

I found the daughter's letter disturbing and even creepy (Islam definitely comes to mind). It seems that this movement encourages daughters to lose their own identities and assume the identity of their fathers. This, in turn, could prevent these women from being able to assert themselves in marriage. As someone else indicated, we should be teaching our daughters to find their identity in Christ and not in their earthly fathers.

What does the SAHD movement say about girls who have no earthly fathers? Or who never marry? Are they just out of luck?

My father died at age 44, when I was a senior in college. If he were alive today, I believe he would be appalled by the Stay-at-Home Daughters movement and its promoters. He encouraged me to get a college education, work to develop a rewarding professional career, and NOT depend on anyone else for my livelihood and support. This was, absolutely, the most protective and loving thing he could have done for me, and I will always be grateful to him.

There is nothing "Christian" or "Biblical" about the SAHD movement. It is elitist, emotionally abusive, and psychologically unwholesome. These young women are being programmed to worship their fathers, and will have great difficulty surviving in the real world when disaster strikes -- and trust me, that time will come. Some men die young. Some become physically disabled. Some lose their jobs in tough economic times. Some lose interest in their families and cheat on their wives. While the patriarchs will no doubt respond to these points with their stock, platitudinous, "God will provide," I maintain the belief that the Lord helps those who help themselves.

This whole "movement" sounds like it comes straight from FLDS (fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) circles, not from anything in the New Testament. I find it deeply disturbing and believe that it (along with all the rest of the so-called "Christian Patriarchy"/Quiverfull system) is intrinsically abusive and damaging to young women - and to young men as well.

Please read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - I think the parallels between this "movement" and many FLDS practices are all too appallingly real - and hugely dangerous.

Central PA -

You can relax on your concerns regarding this movement and the comparison to the FLDS. I don't think it is fair to create unwarranted alarm. I will admit that they share some outward similarities in dress and in child-bearing, but their religious differences are major. From my experience with the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints not to be confused with LDS) here is how they differ from this organization:
1. All of the FLDS environment and communication is controlled by their prophet and his representatives. This includes city government, school system, and law enforcement. Control of outside media, television, Internet, and radio. Control of reading materials
Members told not to speak with Gentiles (outsiders).
This is not just for the children but for the adults, too.

2. Engineering of experiences, mystical manipulation, proposed supernatural events. Everyone manipulates everyone else for the higher purpose.

• Planned gatherings for the “Lifting Up”
• Members told they were not lifted up because of sin
3. The Demand for purity is pushed toward unattainable perfection,
4. Forced Confessions. The destruction of personal boundaries, and the expectation that every thought, feeling, or action—past or present—that does not conform to the group’s rules be shared or confessed. This information is not forgotten or forgiven but, rather, used to control.
Excommunicated members forced to list their sins and turn them in to the prophet.
5. Sacred Dogma. The belief that the group’s dogma is absolutely and morally true, with no room for questions or alternative viewpoints. Members are taught unquestioning obedience
"Perfect obedience leads to perfect faith"
Members are taught never to question the prophet, his message is absolute truth.
6. Loading the Language. The use of vocabulary to limit members’ thinking. “Thought-terminating clichés” understood only by insiders.
"Keep Sweet"
"Live the Principle"
(from "How Warren Jeffs and the FLDS Meet the Criteria of Cultic Mind Control" by J. Brown).

@ JB: Oh, I *do* think there are many similarities. (As there are similarities to other oppressive systems.)

The "No Longer Quivering" blog is the best resource I've encountered for people who are now or who have been trapped in the "Christian" patriarchy/Quiverfull/Stay At Home Daughters movements.

I fear for the young women caught in SAHD - they may think they've been given a choice, but that's an illusion. And I think some of them are going to be shattered when they have to face many of the hard realities of life. (Especially because they're being taught to fear and avoid a lot of things that are intrinsic to normal growth into adulthood.)

It all seems very much like slavery to me.

I am curious why the Christian Patriarchy Movement and SAHD supporters ignore 1 COR 7: 32-35. Paul tell the Corithians it is better not to marry because the unmarried man or woman can focus on the Lord's affairs and not on their spouses. It seems to me that this group puts way too much focus pushing their women to family service instead of the Lord's service. (Disclaimer: I am happily married and am in no way discounting marriage and family)

Those referring to Titus 2 ("workers at home") as providing biblical support for the home-daughters phenomenon might wish to consider that home-workers in Paul's day were contributing to the family's income through skills and trades. Paul wasn't telling people to stop going into the marketplace. There was no factory to "go out" to. His emphasis was probably more on the need to work hard than on the need to stop leaving home.

Also, the idea that every female needs a male "covering" is based more in nineteenth-century British and U.S.common law than in biblical precedent. Numbers 30:9 tells us that divorced and widowed women under the Law represented themselves without a male “cover.”

Central PA, Having concerns about a group and their practices is fine, but I fear that you create a false sense of alarm by comparing it with the FLDS whose prophet was on the top ten most wanted list of the FBI and who is now in prison awaiting trial. There are many Christian parents who attempt to control their children to the extreme and whose children rebel but that doesn't mean that they are practicing a cultic religion that replaces Christ with a prophet who basically encourages the rape of female children by men the age of their father and excommunicates their sons to eliminate excess males. It is better to present whatever issues or concerns you have with the Quiverful movement based truthfully on their own practices rather than compare them with the FLDS.

@ JB: I actually do believe the "Christian" patriarchy/Quiverfull/SAHD movements to be cultic.

I think further exchanges on this might not be helpful, though.

Yes, this movement is a reaction to the apparent worldliness of the contemporary Christian Church. People see all the problems of the unbelieving world present and sometimes even more prevalent in our local church. The lukewarm church gave me reason to be attracted to this movement. Thankfully, I got out before too much damage was done. It is cultic and full of bondage. Now I am appreciating my gospel-preaching church, and focusing on my own responsibilities to further God's kingdom and trusting Him to work in His church.
P.S. It is extremely hard to extricate yourselves from these churches. They try to demonize those in disagreement with them. They view leaving the church as "breaking covenant". It is a formidable battle to go up against these people. We were able to leave because a knowledgeable, mature pastor and elders gave us asylum in our current church.

Respectfully, and sympathetic with your bad church experience, I'd like to know how you define a cult. You haven't supported your claims with evidence of this group being cultic in the same way I have backed up my statements about the FLDS. And again I respectfully suggest that you are being vague and use the term "cult" loosely and freely. If you truly believe that this group is cultic then define a cult and tell me how they are one. Simply disagreeing with how they choose to live their lives and raise their children is not enough to label them as a religious cult. Do they deny the Trinity or any other fundamental of the faith? or do they simply choose to live out their faith in a way that you do not agree with?

What bothers me more than anything is the idea that some of us Christians have that huge families are God's continuing plan. We Americans consume a huge proportion of the world's energy and goods as it is - making lots more Americans can't be good for the world as a whole.

According to the US Census Bureau, the birthrate is 2.1 per woman. With deaths counted in, we would not even be maintaining our present population. It is legal and of course the huge influx of illegal aliens that is increasing our population, not large families. We do need to address the problem of food, water, and jobs for all of us due to illegal immigration. Even on 60 Minutes, they admitted that the jobless rate in California is actually 30%. Huge tent cities with thousands of people in them are around many cities in California and Arizona and elsewhere. It is not due to these small groups of people who have more than the average 2.1, they are a drop in the ocean compared to those coming here illegally.

I failed to see how this lifestyle reaches out to those around them to show the love of Jesus. Seems it is all about living a certain lifestyle and let the rest of the world go to hell. A desire to be like her father but not like Jesus bothers me. My father, a pastor, taught his 4 children to think and interpret the Bible and not be puppets of his beliefs. The desire to be just like my father, even tho I admired him just doesn't seem Biblical. I am afraid that I find this movement a bit creepy.

@ Barbara:

In the very same paragraph where you extol a decade for its safety for children, you also mention it was the era of Hitler.... The crime rate may have been low in Chicago but it was concentrated elsewhere....

Perhaps you misread my post, I said I was born in 1955, 10 years after Hitler killed himself. And yes, I was able to grow up in an innocent era. Murders were much rarer and made major news. Now they are commonplace, and not even mentioned. I was not at all kept away from other kids, and not secluded at all.

Stalin was busy killing 60 million people in the stalags. Is this fact never mentioned because we are turning pro-communist and anti-American? I don't know, just asking. With all the anti-Americanism out there, you'll have fun thinking of a communist country that allows freedom of religion. THAT is one of the reasons many Christians do love this country. Our Constitutional freedoms are being taken away from us, and nobody seems to be aware of it. And when that happens, Christians will certainly be persecuted, it is happening now, but not to the extent of course as other anti-Christian countries.

There has never been a time of peace and safety ever in the world, everywhere at the same time, and there never will be until Jesus returns.

I really appreciate how much you are aware of the complexities of issues. Neither the SAHD people nor their detractors see these at all. Both sides oversimplify matters. Defenders see life in "cardboard cutout" simplistic terms. On the other hand, it is all too easy to point to what is wrong--and overly simplistic--about an idea like that. It is far better to look at it critically and see the positive goals as well as the pitfalls of such a movement. You have done this remarkably well.

The disturbing thing that many of us see in SAHD is a what we percieve as to great a restriction on these womens' self realization and the fulfillment of their calling. You rightly recognize that this may not always be the case. (Although I will argue that a college setting really is a better place to study everything from theology and history to orchestral harp playing! Some things require us to interact with a variety of people and perspectives, and not just in books. On the other hand a life philosophy that frees young girls to study theology and harp playing if they wish, cannot be all bad!)

Let us remember that, even in these times, many women prefer the domestic life of home and family and don't want a career. That choice is as worthy of affirmation as any other.

I suspect that whether a SAHD type family restricts a young girls choices, or whether it sets her free to fulfill it depends more on the spiritual and emotional health of her parents than on the philosophy itself.

I would like to comment on the author's quote "SAHD is connected to what detractors call the “Christian Patriarchy Movement,” a phrase popularized by Kathryn Joyce's 2009 book, Quiverfull. In it she examines the lifestyles of a group of evangelical Christians who reject birth control and adhere to rigid gender roles they believe are scripturally based. The locus of these teachings, along with the SAHD philosophy that stems from them, is Vision Forum Ministries."

Is Prior implying that the entire Christian Patriarchy Movement is associated with Vision Forum or just the SAHD movement? It is much larger than Vision Forum. Granted, there aren't hundreds of thousands of Christians out there who practice this lifestyle they are associated with a number of other organization - Nancy Campbell's Above Rubies and the Quiverfull Movement are just a couple. As a doctorate student researching these issues I think this article is just skimming the surface

I was homeschooled in a home where my parents encouraged me to explore my own interests and allowed that marriage may not be God's plan for me. In our homeschooling group, however, there was a large family who - if not explicitly - tacitly followed the SAHD/Quiverfull ideology. I remember hanging out at a graduation party with their oldest daughter one day. There were four girls and we were tossing around random questions. The question, "Which superpower would you want to have?" came up. One chose laser eyes, another flying... but she chose the superpower of invisibility because, "I'm already practically invisible anyway." Not surprisingly, she was already mourning the loss of the God-given personality, dreams and calling that her parents were teaching her she was duty-bound to give up to the greater family unit.
I'm happy to say that she's since reclaimed that sense of calling and is working rather happily (and singly) with Habitat for Humanity (she completed her education to be certified in construction... what an unlady-like profession!). I hope her sisters find the same sense of voice and courage that she did.

I hope my comment isn’t too redundant here. I wanted to share a little of my perspective because I think I my exposure to this movement has been different than some of the others here: I was first exposed to many Quiverfull families—spent time in their houses playing with their little kids or attending their tea parties—and then was introduced to Phillips (and others) and the philosophy behind the movement.

I loved the time I spent in those homes, where I met some of the strongest and most intelligent women I’ve ever met, fathers who took an active--but not vested--interest in their daughters’ lives (and not because their daughters were shaving them, as occurs at Phillip’s Father-Daughter conferences--yuck!), and siblings who were really, really good friends.

There is much good in the homes of many of these Quiverfull families, for they value children and take seriously the command to impress Scripture upon their hearts. They take seriously what they believe are their roles within the family and many take seriously the command to look after widows and orphans.

I think Fred Smith hit the nail on the head: “I suspect that whether a SAHD type family restricts a young girls choices, or whether it sets her free to fulfill it depends more on the spiritual and emotional health of her parents than on the philosophy itself.”

I was very blessed to grow up in a Christian family and to receive an excellent education. (I was homeschooled part of the time—hence my familiarity with some Quiverfull-ers.) But my parents bought into much of what society was telling them (or, perhaps more accurately, were not entirely “emotionally healthy”): my mom didn’t want children but, once she had us, could not see us as other than an extension of herself. Any expression of individuality was a threat to her—including any hint that we enjoyed spending time at other peoples’ houses (especially those quiverfullers!). As a result, we lived in a lot of fear, never free to express who we were (much less make mistakes). I felt, as Sarah wrote, far more “invisible” (although I don’t think I would’ve put it in those terms) than did the young women in SAHD families with whom I spent time.

I LOVED spending time in the houses where families adhered to Quiverfull philosophies. Their children were free to express themselves—even their frustrations with their siblings or their inability to “get” the math lesson they were working on!--and their fathers made an effort to understand them and to do things with them that cultivated their interests. In my experience, the parenting styles—more than the underlying principles, although they surely contribute a great deal—determine the extent to which a philosophy or home atmosphere is unhealthy. I’ve certainly seen families where Quiverfull principles were used to stifle and belittle daughters. But it was never the explicit teachings of the movement that did so. I think, rather, a parent’s reason for buying into the principles of the movement determine a great deal how those same principles are given expression within the home. Those who are honestly pursuing what they believe they are commanded by Scripture (to value children and life at home) obviously receive children very differently than those who believe daughters exist to fulfill the needs of their fathers. The Quiverfull philosophy encourages already healthy parents to value their children, steep them in the words of Scripture, and prepare them for service to their Lord; surely it also provides a framework within which controlling or belittling fathers find justification for their actions (or, perhaps, for mothers with “victim” or “helpless” mentalities to remain in them). This is often not the case, though.

This movement IS a reaction, but it is a reaction to much in our culture that does not honor God: the breakdown of families, the murder of babies and the elderly, and young people who are leaving the church in large numbers. Surely the extremes are dangerous, but that is not unique to this movement.

One point of clarification: Kelly’s quote certainly reflects a more extreme aspect of this movement (which I would argue is the case with many of Vision Forum’s writings), but it is logical to its adherents. Kelly doesn’t sound like her mom because her mom has also adopted the convictions and passions of her husband. So in that sense, she sounds exactly as her mom should: pleased that she reflects her husband’s beliefs. And by finding her identity in her relationship to her father now, she is preparing to transfer that identity to her relationship with her husband when she is married, just as her mother has done.

The loss of identity—more than the recognition of separate realms—is what disturbs me about some stripes of this movement. There are many families that encourage daughters to find their own identity even as they honor their father. They just believe that women can best reach their God-given potential in certain capacities. I’ve been thinking about the tripartite distinction you suggest. I wonder if there are not roles in all three realms—family, church, and society—wherein men and women are each uniquely created to serve. Perhaps both can serve in all 3 areas, but the specific capacities in which they serve remain distinct. I would agree that nowhere does Scripture teach the submission of a daughter to her father (as being any different than a son to a father), but I do think Scripture suggests distinct roles for husband and wife. Perhaps a difference between this distinction and the distinction emphasized during the Enlightenment was that both realms—public and private—were not necessarily equally valued. But many in this movement try to maintain a distinction between the roles while still valuing them both equally.

I know that examining a few individual families does not address the criticism directed toward this movement as a movement. But I do think it is worth noting the strengths of some of these families, esp. since controlling and unhealthy parenting is not unique to any single movement and the existence of such within it does not necessarily undermine the movement as a whole. I think there is much to learn from it and some red flags to be aware of, too, as with most stripes of Christianity.

The family through whom I was first introduced to these ideas required the same tasks of all ten of their children: both boys and girls washed dishes, ironed, cooked, gardened, etc. In general, as the children grew up, the boys preferred to mow the lawn and the girls preferred to garden. Both continued to cook (and babysit plenty, too!), etc., but the boys left for college and the girls didn’t (although some attended local colleges while living at home; others continued to pursue interests in music, art, literature, etc.). Their dad tried to lead his family and provide all his children with plenty of opportunities to serve others. When his oldest daughter finished high school, she continued to live at home, but she took mission trips to India, continued to give music lessons, studied literature (she’s read circles around me and I have an MA in literature), cleaned houses for the elderly around her, volunteered as a counselor at the local pregnancy center, helped out new mothers, helped her siblings with their studies, learned photography, and maintained a sewing business. One day, when she was around 20, after she volunteered to come help a neighbor with a painting job, she turned around and exclaimed to a group of us, “Do you realize how many needs there are all around us? It is enough for several full-time jobs!” She did not feel invisible but rather empowered by the time she had to give to others. She was in a unique position to meet the needs of those around her: her family, her church, and those in the world around her. Because she was a member of her father’s household rather than living independently, however, she was free to serve others regardless of how able they were to repay her. So, while she made some money by working “outside the home,” her extended position as part of her father’s household freed her to serve God most fully in other areas.

Sometimes I “babysit” for my pastor’s family, a fairly large family with 8 children. They do not need a babysitter, as several sons and a daughter are old enough to babysit themselves. But my pastor’s wife refuses to take advantage of “free” babysitting, and is very conscientious to have me over and not rely on her older children (or daugher). They haven’t decided whether or not their daughters will leave home for college, but they are actively seeking opportunities to exercise the gifts of all their children. And, I’ve taught writing to children of many different ages and can say that their daughters are far ahead of most! (Their daughters are also very involved in sports—and one even won a recent race in our city—something that others in the “Quiverfull” movement often see as unfitting to daughters as it encourages team-manship outside of the home.) My pastor’s daughters (like my friends who I grew up around), although very competent at the tasks “in the home,” are far more sure of their own identity than most of the other young women I meet.

This is surely a very different way of living than most of us in contemporary America are comfortable with. But, while countercultural, I don’t see how this movement (until taken to an unhealthy extreme) is counter-biblical. The most important distinction I see is between those fathers who are honestly seeking the best way to lead their family and those who control their daughters for the wrong reasons, a distinction that does not necessarily coincide with those inside and outside of this movement.

But I do have some concerns about the movement as a whole, despite the exemplary example set by most of its adherents I’ve met. The two most important:

1. They ROMANTICIZE the past. Just look through a Vision Forum catalog (or Doug’s blog). Rather than thoughtfully examining the past and the strengths of those who walked the Christian path ahead of us and critiquing the sins of such times, they paint a perfect picture of the past. They seek to reinstate principles that were unique to other times (knights in shining armor and maidens with long hair and dresses) rather than recognizing the best way to learn from the past. My problem is that they ROMANTICIZE the past, not that they LOOK TO the past. For even in 1 Peter 3, Peter appealed to the example of women in the past, regardless of differing cultures.

2. There tends to be a fear of ideas. Although many of these children are well-educated, much of their education, as other posters have noted, does adhere very closely to the beliefs of the parents. Elsie Dinsmore is excellent reading for a young girl, but American Girl books are not allowed (because one of the girls questions a decision made by someone in authority). The distinction Milton makes in Areopagitica is relevant here, I think: in their quest to protect their daughters and keep them “innocent,” some of these fathers fail to permit them to cultivate “virtue,” which requires experience and individual choices—and, yes, sometimes mistakes.

I would suggest, however, that while these are serious weaknesses and are often exaggerated in the Quiverfull/SAHD movement, they are not by any means unique to it!

Ultimately, we all find our greatest joy in submitting to a will not our own. The SAHD movement is dangerous when a father presumes to know the Lord’s will for his daughter, not when a father seeks to cultivate her gifts and encourage her contentment within the home. When a father takes an active role in providing opportunities for his daughter to serve and encourages extensive memorization of Scripture, and, most of all, stays faithful to his wife and family and recognizes his responsibilities to them, encouraging them all to pursue their gifts, it is surely a good thing.

. . . Unless his daughters' gifts happen to be academic, or political, or of some other kind that would require them to attend college and take a job outside the home.

Then, it seems, they're out of luck. And their father has taken on the fearful responsibility of standing between them and what God wants them to do.

That said, Ambivalent, I appreciate your sharing your perspective. It's good to hear all different sides of the story.

Earlier someone asked me why I believe that Quiverfull, "Christian patriarchy (et. al.) are cultlike.

I posted a very brief reply here a few days ago with a link to a site that has in-depth resources on cult-like churches, spiritual abuse, et. al.

That comment was - afaik - deleted, and I'm not sure why.

I'm not a spammer; I was simply trying to give a brief answer and a link to a site (that has links to many other resources) where these issues are examined in great detail.

here 's the link again: http://pureprovender.blogspot.com/2010/05/resources-for-help-with-spiritual-abuse.html

I do hope that this comment is allowed to stand.

Glad to see some notoriety for this potentially dangerous viewpoint.

First I'd like to refer readers to Hillary McFarland's book and blog of the same name, www.quiveringdaughters.com. She presents at the same time the gentlest and most shocking description of the abuses often justified in the name of patriarchy.

While I was raised in a homeschooling family, my parents never advocated patriocentricity. However I read books during my growing-up years that made patriocentricity an accepted 'fact' to me. I can attest that patriocentricity can be extremely damaging to a girl's relationship with God. Grace is often mentioned but seems of far less importance than our own worthiness.

As the sole result of the books I read [and the video I watched, Return of the Daughters by the Botkin sisters], I have had an extensive fight to decide whether or not going to college is a sinful choice [I'm still working through that]. Accepting God's grace and love has also been difficult. I've struggled with everything from self-injury to low-level depression, over-ridden by what seems a true obsession with patriocentricity, egalitarianism, and related issues. I would not wish it on anyone.

Apparently the Botkins and other Vision Forum people do not have this affect on everyone! :) As many commenters have said, it probably depends mainly on the method of implementation chosen by the family in question. However my own experience makes me think that one can be deeply and negatively affected, entirely separate from one's family involvement.

This is a sad little movement that mimics the same women oppressing doctrines and teaching that most of the world finds so convenient and appealing. The teachings completely ignore the scriptual input from Genesis which clearly demonstates the domination of women as result of the fall. As Christians we should stive to live lives as re-born and as least representitive of our fallen nature as possible.

Genesis 2 says that the woman was made a "helper" for the man and to keep him company. This was of course, before the fall. I don't really see the point you're making from this, this group seems to be following this. I don't agree with what this group is doing overall, but your argument from Genesis doesn't shoot down what they're doing.

The Hebrew word for "helper," is ezer. It does not signify a subordinate. In fact, it is used several times to describe GOD. Of course the woman was made as "company" for the man. As he is also "company" for her. They are COMPanions. But, before the fall, you cannot use the work for "helper" as a justification for the subordination of women under men.

Ambivalent, the problem I have with the Christian Patriarchy movement is that it does exactly what you say. It "resumes to know the Lord’s will" for all women everywhere at every time and in every context. And it is patently wrong. God has called women to a wide variety of tasks and roles throughout history in very different cultural contexts, but they are often blocked from fulfilling those callings because those in power have predetermined that women are not "fit" for certain occupations simply by virtue of being created female. I find that nowhere in the Bible. If you do, please point it out to me with the appropriate exegesis.

The Free Methodist Feminist blog has an interesting series about this right now.

To JB:
First, I was not involved with your discussion about the FLDS, and I didn’t feel that I needed to clearly define the term “cult” when I was moved to share my horrendous experience.
Second, the fact that a person is *not allowed* to leave a place undeniably puts it in the category of a cult.
Furthermore, a cult is ultimately not defined by its doctrine. Things may look and sound good, but it’s the fruit that matters. Just because a church could sign off on orthodox doctrine does not mean that they are not a cult. Scripture teaches that it is the fruit, not the doctrinal statement, that matters.
The particular church we were in was becoming increasingly authoritarian. The leadership was exercising their authority further and further beyond the bounds of their jurisdiction (telling people where they could and could not move, when they could or couldn’t sell their home, who they need to and should not be friends with- there was even a chunk of a sermon dedicated to chastising doodling during church. Doodling.) Extra-biblical rules are defined and set as standards. Rather than teaching Biblical truths and principles, they preach almost solely on applications. If you do not follow these specific instructions (“Do as I say!”) it is either implied or said specifically that your salvation is in question (or, more directly, that you’re going to hell.) The “pastor” has become the final, unquestionable authority. They view the church as everyone’s Mother. If you do not obey, you have broken the 5th commandment. Is that not a very large, blaring red flag?

SAHD is part of the beliefs they practice. My family and I liked the idea at first. It does seem to have many Biblical roots. But when it’s turned into a set of rules and purported as “more holy,” that’s when it gets off track. My oldest daughter currently happens to be at home. She decided against college for a number of reasons. She has helped out our family immensely, and did work alongside her father in the business he used to have (all this before we had been exposed to the ideas of the Botkins and others). But she is living her own life, now has another job (outside the home, a thing which has caused the elders at the aforementioned church to contemplate excommunicating another young lady whose family are still members there), and is looking to take some classes next fall. I think the Biblical principle here is for fathers to protect and lead their daughters. That application has many faces. This movement has taken a specific application and made it law, and made the fathers kings who are often found thumping their chests, demanding total servitude.

So, to get back to your question- no, I do not define them as cultic simply because I “disagree with the way they have chosen to live their faith.” This is a classic way the men in these movements have tried to squash any opposition; discrediting anyone who challenges their belief systems by claiming that anyone who opposes it must just be bitter or not have the same holy visions.
No, it took me awhile to find the word cult. I didn’t understand what was wrong for the longest time.

Recovering in CO: It sounds like the group you were in is utilizing some destructive mind control techniques. I always try to get people to define "cult" because it is a term that becomes subjective and meaningless unless you understand how the other person is defining it. Cults can be defined religiously (a cult (or deviant from the root) of Christianity such as JW, a cult or deviance of Islam, a cult or deviance of Hinduism such as new age doctrines)but cults often in the media are sociological or psychologically based. So, that is why I was asking and I am real sorry if you were offended. In the case of religious cults, cults of Christianity will usually deny the doctrine of trinity. So, that is where I look first in trying to determine if a group is a cult of Christianity. A group can be Christian and hold to all the doctrines of the faith but still be destructive and utilizing abusive mind control tactics. It is obviously the case in the church you were entrapped by and who embraced the stay at home daughters and quiverful movement. A really good book that helped me is "Combating Cult Mind Control" by Steven Hassan. It is not a Christian book, but it is helpful as well as his follow-up book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. I was also helped and encouraged by Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, The: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church by David Johnson.

I am real sorry for all you experienced and I applaud you for finding the strength to leave and the courage to speak out. It is not easy, I know. I pray you find total healing and a church that will encourage you. I believe God will use all you have gone through and perhaps help someone else who is the victim of abusive mind manipulation.

In response to "Recovering in Colorado" and others: It concerns me that the "lead and protect" function is limited to fathers and daughters in your posts. Mothers AND fathers are responsible for leading, guiding, and protecting their sons AND daughters. Parenting is a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY.

I appreciate your fair review, and think the movement should be taken very seriously. This movement places grown daughters as equals in a relationship with the fathers in every way except sexually. It gives fathers total authority over the grown daughter as the voice of God in her life. The power men obtain in this position over a woman who is not his wife is dangerous. It can put the daughter in a compromising situation if the father loses self control. From personal experience I can tell you it's destructive when a daughter is forced to treat her father as if he were her husband.

holly said, "The power men obtain in this position over a woman who is not his wife is dangerous."

No person should have this power over any other person. Nowhere in the bible are husbands given absolute and controlling power over their wives. Husbands are told to LOVE THEIR WIVES AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH. That means humbly and sacrificially laying down his life for his wife--putting her well-being above his own desires. It absolutely DOES NOT mean having authority over her or expecting her to obey him as her boss or "superior officer". Only God has the ultimate authority over belivers. ONLY GOD.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

What Is the Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement?

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

What Is the Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement?

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives