Monday, July 25, 2005
is your quiver full?
One issue that confronts any Christian family sooner or later is that of the "quiver full" mentality (the name is taken from Psalm 127). This philosophy (to some, it's actually more of a theology), boiled down, means that any use of birth control, including natural family planning through periodic abstinence, is a sin. You can find good discussions on this topic in a lot of places, Marla Swoffer's blog and MzEllen & Co being two of them that I've found so far. My own personal position on QF has changed over the years. I went from an unthinking position of "of course people plan their family size", through something akin to QF wherein I didn't necessarily think it was a sin to use birth control, but thought it was not very nice to God, to where I am now, which is that I have no problem with people choosing not to limit their family size, but I have no problem with people choosing to limit it either. (And, hello, my husband had a vasectomy after C was born, and I had a hysterectomy four months ago, so that probably says a lot right there.)
To follow my path from there to here, let's look at that verse first.
Ps 127:3-5 3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate. (NAS)
Does the verse say "Thou shalt have many children?" No. There's no command. It says that children are a blessing, and indeed they are, and that a man who has a lot of them is a happy guy. It DOES NOT SAY that to not have a quiver full of arrows from the Lord means that you're in rebellion (and God does not mince words when it comes to rebellion). There are a lot of things described in Scripture as blessings, with or without that exact wording, that aren't for everybody. Singleness is a blessing (1 Cor 7:8). Marriage is a blessing (Genesis 2:24). Divine revelation (Matthew 16:17), mourning (Matthew 5:4), poor spirits (Matthew 5:4)... all of these are blessings or characteristics worthy of blessing, but those verses do not mean that those who do not have divine revelations or mourn or feel depressed are in sin.
Another verse that sees heavy use in QF circles is Genesis 1:28:
Gen 1:28 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it... (NAS)
Um, the earth has BEEN filled and subdued. That command has been fulfilled. I honestly think that those words were specifically for Adam and Eve, and later for Noah's sons, and for the generations after them. Thousands of years later, here we are with six billion people living in pretty much every corner of the globe. Job's done.
Now let's move on to the philosophical arguments put up for the quiver-full mindset.
Are people who practice birth control displaying a lack of trust in God?
Well, maybe. But then, so would anyone be who purposefully tried to conceive, or anyone who paid for homeowner's insurance, or anyone went to the doctor for a health problem, or anyone who did anything that God can do for us... which is, if you carry this to the extreme, well, anything. I mean, if we were going to put the ultimate trust in God we would never work a day in our lives, trusting that He would provide for us. Obviously I'm not advocating that or saying that QF folks advocate it; I'm just pointing out that the line has to be drawn somewhere between trusting in the Lord and using the brains he gave us.
Do people who plan their family size place money and ease on too high a pedestal?
Sometimes. But to paint all non-QF types as money-hungry people who can't be bothered with the hassle and expense of a large family is doing a disservice. I was raised in a household without much money. Until my mom got a good job when I was ten, and my parents got out of debt not long after, we ate a lot of beans and wore a lot of hand-me-downs and lived in some very minimalist (and not in a stylish way) houses in rather undesirable locations (undesirable to the world at large. I LOVED where we lived.) Even after that we were never wealthy, or even close. And yes, I had a very happy childhood, and I am actually a little glad that some aspects of that are similar to what my children experience, because I think it's good for kids to hear "we can't afford that", and so learn that money means work, and that its availability is limited. However. Do I think it would have been wise for my parents to bring three, or five, or ten more children into that environment? No, I don't. The most important aspect of childrearing is love, that's completely true. But kids need to wear shoes, too, and have a place to live and food to eat, and I think it's irresponsible have a family larger than its breadwinner(s) can reasonably afford to take decent care of. I'm really happy for QF people who can afford to feed, clothe, and house ten or fifteen children. I think that's fantastic, I really do. I also know that if we were to do that we would be relying on the kindness of friends or the generosity of a bloated government -- or counting on God to supernaturally provide. Which, no question, God can if He wants to. But I think in addition to His supernatural provision, God has given us intelligence and reason and the ability to take daily care of ourselves, and he expects us to use that.
What about that guy in the Bible who was chastised for using birth control?
When you hear this, people are generally talking about Onan:
Gen 38:8-10 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9 And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. (NAS)
Onan didn't get in trouble because he spilled his seed on the ground. He got in trouble because he disobeyed an order to go get his dead brother's wife pregnant as a means of continuing the family line.
Is using birth control the same as infanticide or abortion?
Well, that depends. There are forms of birth control which are actually abortefacients (the "morning after pill", the minipill, the IUD, even to a degree the ordinary birth control pill and Depo-Provera) and those, in my opinion, are the equivalent of abortion, because rather than causing conception to fail to happen, they cause a fertilized egg (which has the complete genetic structure of the adult it will become) to fail to implant and hence to die. (the Pill and DP do this as a secondary "backup" function; their primary function is to prevent conception). But to cause the sperm to fail to meet the egg -- no. Any time a woman has a period, one of her eggs has just died. Billions and billions of a man's sperm will die or simply be re-absorbed by his body over the course of his life. That's the way God made us and there's no sin in that, because the sperm and the egg are still just cells belonging to the man's or woman's body, like skin cells or bone cells. Once they join, a new entity has been created, and that's a person with his/her own DNA and destiny, who just happens to have to live inside his/her mother for the first nine months of his/her existence.
***********************
This has come out rather anti-QF, and I didn't mean for it to be that way. I have the heartiest respect for people who practice that mindset, as long as they aren't being irresponsible with the public's money or the generosity of charitable people, and as long as -- here's a key thing -- they don't set it up as A Command From God. Because I frankly do not see that it is, and their black and white interpretation tends to make them really vehemently opposed to people who, for whatever reason, don't agree with them. Our childbearing history (daughter who died at nine weeks of age due to a congenital heart defect, for those of you who may be new) was an indicator to us that perhaps we shouldn't just keep on having more and more children. The slow, agonizing death of a child tears up a person and a family in many, many ways, and while that time was one in which we drew closer to the Lord than we'd been before or since, out of simple necessity really, I don't think God would advocate putting oneself and one's family through that kind of pain over and over. When Natalie died I was in my near-QF stage, and that didn't change with her death. I clung to my position and told my husband that the fact that he wanted to stop having children because of Natalie's death and because of the very real possibility that our future children would live similarly brief, painful lives (we did have one more afterward, C, who is completely healthy) meant that he would rather Natalie had never been born, that he was negating our love for her in a way. And I can see, looking back, how I could have felt that way then, but I don't, now. It's not so black and white as that. Which is hard for me to say, as a person who sees a lot more black and white in the world than most people do, but it's true.
Maybe, as T said when I would argue this point with him, maybe some couples just have smaller quivers than others.
Comments
WOW. OK. My husband and I practice the rhythm method because A. I have taken the pill and not only do I feel it is as you said an "abortefacient" but it also does really unnatural things to your body. B. Condoms completely eliminate the sensation I am driving for, and C. Other methods just seem unsafe or uncomfortable in my opinion. I still feel that I am not necessarily disobeying God for practicing the rhythm method, however I feel we are being wasteful and unnatural by allowing "the seed to drop." I am a woman as you well know who wants children. Realistically - one, idealistically - ten. There have been many, many times in my life when I very well could have become pregnant, but I didn't. Most of me believes that it is because God doesn't feel it is time yet. Part of me believes that I'm sterile, but I digress. I feel that through the rhythm method, it is the one form of birth control that is not statistically proven to work 100%. I believe it's almost 50/50. That way I'm not taking complete control in a roll that God is supposed to play. I suppose he could break the condom or make me forget to take the pill, but I feel more comfortable with this practice. (Even though every time I still cringe, I do know deep down inside that I am not in a place that I want to bring children into).
Posted by: jenn at July 25, 2005 02:53 PM
Your post was interesting--thanks!
I believe that before the 18th century or so, most people used to die of infectious diseases, and so you were approximately as likely to die at any age between about 2 and 55. (That's probably still true in some places, despite vaccination campaigns in poor countries...) Anyway, I think that situation has religious implications. People may have felt, and pastors/other religious leaders may have taught, that God could end life or let it end at any moment. Or--if they believed that sin was the ultimate cause of illness--people may have felt more strongly than they do now that everyone, young children through the elderly, was equally likely to be sinful.
Posted by: Amy at July 25, 2005 06:35 PM
Awesome post. I like T's comment that some quivers are just smaller than others. :) I have always thought like you did -- that while children are a blessing, you do have a responsibility to take care of them yourself without relying on the charity of others or the government. Thanks for putting it out there.
Now, don't get me started on the people who have litters of children through IVF and then claim "it was God's will!" ugh.
Posted by: mary at July 26, 2005 05:29 AM
Oh Rachel, you hit the nail on the head. The line about us using the brains God gave us... I don't know how many times I've said that to my husband. I mean, we wear seatbelts, right? So why use any less common sense when "planning" or not planning your family?
I don't know that I'll have more kids. I don't know that I won't. I'm not trying, but I'm not "actively" preventing, either. I don't think it's fair for someone to tell me I'm out of God's will for not just "letting things happen".
I agree with T - some quivers are smaller than others.
Posted by: Christi at July 27, 2005 01:15 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your matter-of-fact exploration and analysis of the scripture. My husband and I have gone back and forth over the "quiver issue" and while I love my children, having three aged 3 and under is not a easy task. I think we have allowed "quiver believing" christians around us to unduly influence us and that ends TODAY. Thank you you are only the 2nd person I have ever "talked" to about this subject who was not ready to judge and condemn us because we don't want 20 kids.
Thank you.
Posted by: Alicia at August 15, 2005 07:38 AM
Rachel, this is a wonderful, well-thought out post. I'm actually a moderate in this particular philosophical camp, as we use NFP and other creative means of postponing pregnancy, but I also want to be open to life at every possibility of conception. I don't want to put creature comforts before a human's life, but I also don't want my children to hate life in a large family (they don't). This has been a struggle in my life as well as the lives of other QF moderates I know. The only caution I give is to be careful not to lump all QFers into the same pile. There are as many different kinds of mentalities on this as there are denominations and religions.
Thanks for taking the time to think this out and write it up.
Posted by: thicket dweller at August 16, 2005 08:42 PM
I have read the comments above and what stands out to me is selfishness. Peppered into the statements are found phrases like; "I think, "I believe," "I am," "I have," "I don't think," etc. What about what God thinks, what He is and what He has? I think that is where we are all missing the point, myself included. Scripture tells us that "all things are lawful but that all things are not profitable for us." So whether God commands us to have many children is not the issue for we are not under the law but under grace, instead we should be asking what is God's best for me? Maybe we are selling ourselves short by stopping the flow of creation. We are choosing to shirk the work that it entails and are losing sight of the big picture. Those of us who think we can't (again myself included) are actually the best ones for the job, remember God says, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9)
What a priveledge to be a woman with the opportunity to hold a newborn baby in our arms, a soul that God has entrusted to us. Yes, it is a lot of work, but the rewards are worth it in my opinion. I am not condemning those of you who do not hold to what I have shared, but God has been speaking to me on this issue and this is some of what I have been convicted of. I know exactly what all of you mean in your posts because I have been there. I am guilty of the "What about Me" mentality. But I want to challenge you to ask God about this, open your heart to the possibilty. Scary idea isn't it? I think we already know what He would say. Just remember that God does not give us a rock when we ask for a loaf of bread.
Posted by: Denise at September 1, 2005 05:19 AM
Denise, your comment bears reading and replying. I'll just say that God does not bless us all alike, and I'll also reiterate that on issues where he does not lay down a command one way or another, well, that's what he gave us free will and our brains for. A long line of dead babies is not a way I think God would want me to be continuing the flow of creation, in my individual case, for example.
Here's an example of "God CAN provide, but should he HAVE to?" to put alongside your comments. Yes, God is able and willing to provide for large families if it's His will for a family to be large. God's also able and willing to provide supernaturally for ANYONE in ANY circumstances, and yet He says "He who will not work, neither let him eat." (2 Thessalonians 2:10) This (alongside a host of other Scriptures depicting a culture where God's people did indeed work very hard for their livelihoods) seems to imply some level of responsibility on our parts to make decisions and live our lives in ways that don't rely entirely on the supernatural provision of God, no?
The balance point between throwing caution and the use of logic to the winds and falling back on God's provision, and plotting our lives carefully with our own earthly priorities in mind, must be found somewhere between the two extremes, because neither is apparently God's will based on what He says. God's left it open (by not putting out a command) to each individual or family to find that balance point for him/herself. Yours is leaning toward giving up control of your womb and giving it all to God; hey, more power to you. Mine isn't, and that should be OK too.
Posted by: Rachel at September 1, 2005 08:59 AM
Denise,
I think that you are reading something more into the posts than what was intended. I didn't read many people saying "what about me?" but people saying that they wanted to take the best care they could of the children they did have. Living in poverty or subjecting yourself and your family to miscarriages or the death of your babies is not in the best interest of you OR the children God has entrusted to you. There are many reasons that people do not have children, and disobeying God or being selfish isn't necessarily one of them.
I have to say that I'm in agreement with Rachel on this one. God gave us the will and the intelligence to make the best judgement we can for our lives. It is our responsibility to use what He has given us as best we can. If that means limiting our families to what we can take care of and raise properly, so be it.
All that said, if that is your conviction, good for you! I personally do not have that kind of patience. :)
Posted by: mary at September 1, 2005 10:54 AM
I think perhaps some plain Biblical principles have been overlooked by some in this discussion.
Please consider the following;
1 Cor 7:35-38
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin-this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
NIV
It can be argued that marriage is clearly taught in scripture to be God's plan for humanity. Obviously this is the proper context for a Biblically correct intimate relationship. In many cases these relations result in the blessing of children. However, if it is optional to get married at all, then would it not logical, not to mention Biblical, to believe that children would be optional also? I mean choosing not to get married is perhaps the ultimate form of birth control and yet the Holy Spirit says this is a fine, even at times preferred option for some people. Obviously God's ultimate plan is not a one-size-fits-all, as some who've figured it out for themselves seem to want to force it to be. God does not call either pathway sin, so neither should we.
Rom 14:5-10
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
NIV
Clearly the above passage cautions us against establishing standards for our brethren where God Himself permits latitude (see above for latitude about family matters)
Matt 4:5-7
5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,
6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'"
NKJV
Here is a clear example of Jesus being asked to throw caution to the wind and "depend upon God" contrary to God's plan, timing, etc. Examine Jesus' response. There is no lack of faith whatsoever on Jesus' part, rather it seems clear that it would be very wrong to presume upon God's provision and thus step out of His will.
God allows latitude, personal conviction, and can work in the lives of either set.
Perhaps we can too.
T
Posted by: T at September 1, 2005 04:36 PM
When I stated that God would strenghten us in our weakness I was not referring to monetary means I was referring to day to day mothering. Daily I presume upon God's provision, I need Him to get through the day and handle the things that come my way.
I am not at all suggesting that people should choose to lay back with ten children around them and avoid working to provide for their needs. For sure we must work diligently to care for our families and not rely on other people to do so.
My family does not live in poverty and I am not unfamiliar with the pain of losing a baby. Rachel, I am not aware of your circumstances regarding child loss and am sorry to hear that it sounds as if you've had a rough time of it.
I am simply saying that I believe and hold to the notion that God knows more than me. He knows my future and my heart even better than I do since he created me. I would rather have the blessings He chooses for me than the ones I would choose for myself. I am sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to, just wanted to voice my opinion. I will repeat that I am not condemning any of you or your choices. Just wanted to inspire you reexamine them.
P.S. Rachel, I am really enjoying your site. It is very professional and interesting. Thanks for taking the time to share with those of us who need inspiration or a laugh.
Posted by: Denise at September 3, 2005 06:46 AM
I believe God gave us the ability to see what is happening with our bodies to know if we are fertile or not and avoid pregnancy if we can't take on another child right away. If God always provides, then why are there starving children? Is it right to bring a child into the world who you can't provide for? I would love to haqve a bunch of kids, but more importantly, I need to feed and clothe and house them. Also, if you raise your kids "naturally", sleeping with them, carrying the young ones, breastfeeding until three or older, your children are likely to be three or four years apart. In our modern world, most of us don't raise our children this way. Isn't it acceptable to use other means (condoms or nfp for example) to space our children? If you start having babies at 19, and have them four years apart till you are 40, you will have 6 children. If you have them every year and a half, you would have fifteen. that is if you didn't have multiples which are more common the more times you are pregnant. Your body would be exhausted and your husband, if he didn't have a very good paying job, would be working 24/7 to support you. Or you could live on welfare. Having that many children is unnatural and unhealthy.
Posted by: Bethany at September 20, 2005 03:37 PM
