Escape From Duggarville

[CaffeineDiary]

Thought this one was interesting:

 

Escape from Duggarville: an ex-Quiverfull mom tells her story of escape from emotional abuse.

[Crimson Wife]

"The reason you can find Quiverfull families in nearly every type of Christian congregation is because Quiverfull beliefs are not actually a radical departure from traditional Christian teachings regarding marriage and family."

 

 

Umm, sorry, QF is *VERY* much outside the mainstream of Christianity. Even the traditional/orthodox Catholics who don't use artificial contraception don't hold to a "women must bear as many biological children as they physically can no matter what the cost to their health" attitude like the QF folks do.

 

I feel awful for Vyckie Garrison and other victims of the QF movement, but blaming Christianity as a whole for the spiritual abuse she suffered as a result of being part of a cult-like movement is unfair. I can understand why she has lashed out in anger, but she is demonstrating the same kind of rigid, black-and-white thinking only now it's in an anti-Christian POV rather than a pro-QF one.

[Scarlett]

Yeah I had never heard of QF or even the concept until this board. The closest to it was that Catholics don't believe in using bc.....but even then they clearly were limiting their family size.

[happi duck]

The Duggar show wasn't on my radar until recently. Now that the girls are marrying and getting pregnant it is coming up on social media more among teen girls I know.

 

It seems presented almost fairy tale-ish and it concerns me.

[Catwoman]

Thought this one was interesting:

 

Escape from Duggarville: an ex-Quiverfull mom tells her story of escape from emotional abuse.

I know she seems to think her belief in Jesus was to blame for her horrible life, but she sounds like a former cult member, not just a formerly religious person. I don't think the vast majority of Christian women are living lives even remotely like the life she lived.

 

She is free to blame whomever or whatever she likes if it makes her feel better, but nowhere in that article did I detect the slightest bit of personal responsibility for her own actions during her marriage. Everything was someone else's fault.

[HS Mom in NC]

"The reason you can find Quiverfull families in nearly every type of Christian congregation is because Quiverfull beliefs are not actually a radical departure from traditional Christian teachings regarding marriage and family. It is my contention that Quiverfull IS regular Christianity writ large … lived out to its logical conclusion."

 

That's complete and total nonsense.  The isolated have no ability to evaluate what's going on in Christianity at large.  I attend very conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist and Bible churches and have for 41 years.  I've only ever met 2 quilverfull families in them. Quverfulls are essentially their own denomination. This woman is clearly unfamiliar with the greater world around her.  She's wrong.  Very very wrong. It IS the rare exception in Christianity when you look at all Christian denominations.  If however, your definition of Christian in this circumstance doesn't include everyone who attends all the different Christian denominations, then you need to say so up front and explain what you really mean by it.

Not only does this woman have no idea about the world outside of her clearly horrible experience, she obviously has no idea about general Christian doctrines like  Dispensationalism where we don't put as much weight on the OT as we do the NT because we're a subset of those who don't buy into the doctrine of the The Church replacing literal, physical Israel (Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology does)  so we aren't, as Christians, obliged the legalism and commands in the OT unless they match the NT.  (Granted, that was really over simplified, but most readers don't want details.)

 

Are the standards for journalism and social commentators so low that we let what ever someone says in an interview go without the slightest thought of questioning it or checking out other sources and seeing what the norm really is?

 

[gardenmom5]

:iagree: what she is saying is akin to all parents are bad because some abuse their kids. 

 

Umm, sorry, QF is *VERY* much outside the mainstream of Christianity. Even the traditional/orthodox Catholics who don't use artificial contraception don't hold to a "women must bear as many biological children as they physically can no matter what the cost to their health" attitude like the QF folks do.

 

I feel awful for Vyckie Garrison and other victims of the QF movement, but blaming Christianity as a whole for the spiritual abuse she suffered as a result of being part of a cult-like movement is unfair. I can understand why she has lashed out in anger, but she is demonstrating the same kind of rigid, black-and-white thinking only now it's in an anti-Christian POV rather than a pro-QF one.

 

[marbel]

If quiver-full families were so prevalent, wouldn't we see more of them out and about?  If it is mainstream Christian,  why are families with more than 3 kids still asked stupid questions like "Are they all yours??!"   

 

I too am sorry for anyone who is abused.  

[aggieamy]

I feel bad for her but I agree that QF is in no way mainstream Christianity.  Until this board I had never heard of it.  (Says the Catholic gal with six siblings whose best friend is also Catholic and has seven siblings.)  

[FaithManor]

I feel very bad for her. Clear!ly she is pretty messed up from the abuse and isolation, the fear, self loathing, and cultish programming of the narrow world she lived in for so much of her adult life. But, she needs to go out and educate herself. Dominionism which is what she was a part of, is not mainstream theological thought amongst Christians period, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox..just nope!

 

While there is a current trend for QF and Dominionism to be running hand and hand at homeschool conventions across the states, there are qf families that are not dominionist, and the movement only represents an itty bitty tiny percentage of Christians and an even smaller percentage of homeschool families. The danger is that it is very cultish in practice, abusive and isolating, and they have been adept at manipulating the convention circuit such that they appear to be the new face of homeschooling. Sigh....The leaders of the movement make the lifestyle sound so idyllic, so pleasant, so scrumptious, and frankly, easy if not formulaic. For couples looking for the magic bullet cure for what ails your faith, your kids, your culture, whatever, it sounds good. But at thr heart, it' a really unhealthy dynamic

[Mimm]

Vyckie Garrison's grudge against all of Christianity for what she went through is rather tiresome.

[justasque]

...Are the standards for journalism and social commentators so low that we let what ever someone says in an interview go without the slightest thought of questioning it or checking out other sources and seeing what the norm really is?

This piece was not an interview.

 

The intro to the piece says: "Vyckie Garrison was once a minor celebrity in the Quiverfull Movement, made famous by TV’s Duggar family. As a devout, Bible-believing Christian and the mother of seven homeschooled children, Garrison spent 16 years, with her husband, publishing a newspaper for families on a similar path. Today, via a website called No Longer Quivering, she publishes resources for women leaving the movement. Recently she addressed American Atheists about her experience. This article is an abridged version of her remarks."

 

So this is an abridged version of a speech she gave to an atheist organization; reading it with that in mind gives some context to her remarks.

 

 

[Guest]

Vyckie Garrison's grudge against all of Christianity for what she went through is rather tiresome.

 

:iagree:

 

 

[coralloyd]

Wow! nothing like taking Scripture out of context. Her view of Christian doctrine is bazar.

[Justified]

This is typical of so many people in Christian religion whether they are in QF movement or tithe or follow the law or any rule to bring about righteousness. They operate out of the law and that is oppressive. It's called the wretched man syndrome described by Paul in Romans 7. Instead of operating out of grace and who they are in Christ, many Christians ride the self righteous roller coaster of the law. They hit a self righteous high and the next, they are twirling out of control by all the oppression and failure. They pat themselves on the back for following laws of no birth control, ten percent tithe, etc. Then the oppression kicks in. It is the nature of the flesh and the law.

 

For law is good but it operates out of the flesh and the flesh is weak. The law was given to condemn man and that's it. It has no ability to bring about righteousness let alone godly living. Most Christians think that God will bless them when they tithe and perform other rituals. Tithe is enforced by the church as a form of control and manipulation. It is never done honestly. Churches don't rightly divide the bible because they would lose the law and lose their control over people. We are under grace and that is scary to control freaks and religious people. How to live godly without the law well that is a whole other conversation but most pastors have no clue how this works.

 

Also, the term bride of Christ is a term many religious people use and it's completely made up and not biblical doctrine. She used this term a lot and you can see how one bad doctrine can just build upon another creating very confused and easily manipulated people. From the article, you can also see that her oppression came mostly out of Old Testament and NT that was not written by Paul and was written to Israel. The verse from Paul about children is often abused. It's say "in the Lord" for a reason. The other verse from Romans is taken out of context and doesn't mean what pastors have told people it means.

 

I feel for this poor woman. The god she believed in was created by controlling self righteous people. I am sure most Christians don't have some evil intent to control and manipulate people. Most do it out of ignorance. I came out of that world and it's a miracle I found the truth. The churches fed me a gospel of oppression instead of a gospel of grace and peace. So many people are getting frustrated by it and leave the bible all together. I too left the bible and went looking for truth. I found out all religions are the same in that they have the same self righteous roller coaster. Eventually I did come back to the bible after doing my own unbiased (as much as one can be) historical research but this time I know how the bible is abused and how the word of God has always been abused and manipulated from the beginning.

 

Most Christians don't even know why they are saved. They think that eternity of strumming on harps and singing is what awaits them. I shudder to think that is what eternity would be like. The mind of God and all He has created is way too fascinating to end it with an eternity of harps and singing or even sipping margaritas on an exotic island. No thank you. It's no wonder people are caught up with the things of the world. Who really can look forward to an eternity of only singing in the clouds? I guess some can. Certainly He is due praise but that is not why we were saved. If you have an understanding of the historical meaning of adoption of sons, Galatians 4:5 will begin to take on a whole new meaning.

 

Well, that is my two cents.

[Guest]

. I don't think I'm going to take her indictments seriously.

 

She's been around since before the old Women's Space boards went down, when Heart (Cheryl Seelhoff) was still talking about the lawsuit if that means anything to you.

[blondeviolin]

Wow! nothing like taking Scripture out of context. Her view of Christian doctrine is bazar.

Um, this.

 

I imagine there are some QF families who aren't abusive and everyone is happy. Or I'd like to imagine that.

 

To be honest, some of my deeply-held beliefs align to what QF teaches. I feel like children are a blessing. I believe it's in my children's best interest to stay at home and teach them. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe it is EVER okay for one person to have dominion over another in a marriage. Helpmeet, companion, friends. Yes. Complete submission? No.

 

And I resent that people in cults like that taint others' views of happily functioning families who choose "old-fashioned" family values. Just because I have tons of kids and stay at home doesn't mean I'm under-valued or dominated. It means both my husband and I both have come to the decision and understanding that raising and properly educating our kids is a job in and of itself, and one we want done correctly.

[FaithManor]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their family size do NOT believe children are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. I desperately love my four and am immeasurably blessed by them. I do not see how having a fifth child would have made the four I have more blessed to me nor how not having a fifth makes me less blessed.

 

It is a phrase I do not understand. My friend L, who endured eight pregnancies in 16 years in order to finally have one live birth, does not view her daughter as less of a blessing because she is an only child. She does not believe she is demeaning the value of children to not put her body through another pregnancy. My mom had three and adored, absolutely adored motherhood but never felt she devalued children for not having more.

 

My nephew and his wife will never have any. They adore their own niece and nephew and are amazing aunt and uncle, but are choosing not to have children for the sake of a greater ministry they are involved in. I fail to see how this indicates they view children as anti-blessing.

 

I guess I don't understand the meaning and implication of the phrase. I see people who view children as a wonderful blessing whether they have a large number of them or any at all. My husband's cousin who has taught kindergaten for 26 years comes to mind. She finds children to be very precious and loves her role in their lives. She simply does not have any of her own.

 

Can someone enlighten me because the phrase seems to imply judgmentalism and certain assumptions about those that limit family size, but I am not certain if that is how it meant.

[abba12]

The sad thing is that people are blaming something else instead of addressing the issue itself. I used to read no longer quivering every day, and came to one simple conclusion. These people all had abusive husbands who used the term quiverfull to justify themselves. Quiverfull ideas are not inherently evil, patriarchy, if you choose to live in it, is not inherently abusive. But people do usee those labels to justify actions well outside the scope of quiverfull and patriarchy. The issue here is not quiverfull or patriarchy, it is abuse. Stop blaming patriarchy for your abusive, deadbeat husband. Plenty of marriages live happily and healthily with a basis of patriarchy or an idea of having lots of kids. That is not the problem, abuse is. And yes, ideas like quiverfull are easily used by abusive people to find people to abuse, just like paedophiles find certain places and situations better for targets than others. That doesn't make the situation evil, just the person. 

 

I actually engaged some of these ex quiverful women in a discussion about patriarchy once. I live happily within what most people would call patriarchy, and it looks nothing like what they experienced. Instead of seeing that perhaps what they experienced was not a biblical version of patriarchy, they absolutely insisted that I had an egalitarian marriage which was not patriarchal in any way (the feminists on this board would definitely NOT agree!). Instead of seeing that their husbands might have been wrong, everyone else is wrong instead. There's no arguing when they set the definitions. Of course, if their definition of patriarchy is correct then patriarchy is always bad, but their definition simply isn't correct to most people. There are valid arguments against the version of patriarchy I live within as well, but these women aren't making them, they're arguing against something totally different.

 

So add me to the list of people who refuse to associate in any way with the term quiverful, despite following many of the beliefs in some form, because of the social stuff that goes with it now.

[blondeviolin]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their familky size do NOT believe chikdren are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. I desperately love my four and am immeasurabky bkessed by them. I do not see how having a fifth child would have made the four I have more blessed to me nor how not having a fifth makes me less blessed.

 

It is a pohase I do not understand. My friend L, who endured eight pregnancies in 16 years in order to finally have one live birth, does not view her daughter as less of a blessing because she is an only child. She does not believe she is demeaning the value of children to not put her body through another pregnancy. My mom had three and adored, absolutely badored motherhood but never felt she devalued children for not having more.

 

My nephew and his wife will never have any. They adore their own niece and nephew and are amazing aunt and uncle, but are choosing not to have children for the sake of a greater ministry they are involved in. I fail to see how this indicates they view chikdren as anti-blessing.

 

I guess I don't understand the meaning and implication of the phrase. I see people who view children as a wonderful blessing whether they have a large number of them or any at all. My husband's cousin who has taught kindergaten for 26 years comes to mind. She finds children to be very precious and loves her role in their lives. She simplky does not have any of her own.

 

Can someone enlighten me because the phrase seems to imply judgmentalism and certain assumptions about those that limit family size, but I am not certain if that is how it meant.

Personally, I believe "children are blessings," but I think nearly everyone believes that. Unless you hate kids, I guess? I don't believe choosing to stop having kids means you don't believe that. It means you have decided that you shouldn't have another child for a variety of reasons that are between you and your partner.

 

I probably will be flamed for this... But I do believe SOME people refuse to have children for selfish reasons. There are things I do that are selfish too.

 

I don't see people without kids and immediately think they're selfish, though. There are reasons people DON'T have kids that aren't selfish. I don't know why people choose to have 0 or 12 kids. It's not my place to even ask. I'm too busy with my own junk to care why people make their reproductive choices. I don't have to live with those choices. They do.

[Justified]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their familky size do NOT believe chikdren are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. I desperately love my four and am immeasurabky bkessed by them. I do not see how having a fifth child would have made the four I have more blessed to me nor how not having a fifth makes me less blessed.

 

It is a pohase I do not understand. My friend L, who endured eight pregnancies in 16 years in order to finally have one live birth, does not view her daughter as less of a blessing because she is an only child. She does not believe she is demeaning the value of children to not put her body through another pregnancy. My mom had three and adored, absolutely badored motherhood but never felt she devalued children for not having more.

 

My nephew and his wife will never have any. They adore their own niece and nephew and are amazing aunt and uncle, but are choosing not to have children for the sake of a greater ministry they are involved in. I fail to see how this indicates they view chikdren as anti-blessing.

 

I guess I don't understand the meaning and implication of the phrase. I see people who view children as a wonderful blessing whether they have a large number of them or any at all. My husband's cousin who has taught kindergaten for 26 years comes to mind. She finds children to be very precious and loves her role in their lives. She simplky does not have any of her own.

 

Can someone enlighten me because the phrase seems to imply judgmentalism and certain assumptions about those that limit family size, but I am not certain if that is how it meant.

This phrase comes out of the Old Testament and frankly you are right to be confused. It is a term for Israel during that time they were under the law. Under grace through Jesus, you have that ability to determine if you want to marry, have children or no children. It's okay to think that having lots of children is a blessing but it's not a blessing specifically from God to a specific person. Instead it's a blessing of sex that was set in motion from the beginning. The blessings given to Israel were performance based. If they did well under the law, one of their blessings were having lots of children. The context of the time points to why this was a blessing.

 

Under our current dispensation, our blessings from God are spiritual and as offensive as it sounds to some, your fertility isn't something that God blesses to some and not to others. Instead it's about of the sufferings of this world that we are called to deal with as it is apart of the grace package. I am not saying having children is a suffering but certainly to those not able to bare children would find this a suffering. In some countries and sects, having a bunch of children is a suffering because of the financial burden. Hopefully that helps you.

[abba12]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their family size do NOT believe children are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. I desperately love my four and am immeasurably blessed by them. I do not see how having a fifth child would have made the four I have more blessed to me nor how not having a fifth makes me less blessed.

 

It is a phrase I do not understand. My friend L, who endured eight pregnancies in 16 years in order to finally have one live birth, does not view her daughter as less of a blessing because she is an only child. She does not believe she is demeaning the value of children to not put her body through another pregnancy. My mom had three and adored, absolutely adored motherhood but never felt she devalued children for not having more.

 

My nephew and his wife will never have any. They adore their own niece and nephew and are amazing aunt and uncle, but are choosing not to have children for the sake of a greater ministry they are involved in. I fail to see how this indicates they view children as anti-blessing.

 

I guess I don't understand the meaning and implication of the phrase. I see people who view children as a wonderful blessing whether they have a large number of them or any at all. My husband's cousin who has taught kindergaten for 26 years comes to mind. She finds children to be very precious and loves her role in their lives. She simply does not have any of her own.

 

Can someone enlighten me because the phrase seems to imply judgmentalism and certain assumptions about those that limit family size, but I am not certain if that is how it meant.

 

Alright, I'll tackle this one. But I want to make very clear up front that I am not criticising anyone personally, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't love their kids, I am just trying to explain why people who believe 'children are a blessing' might make different choices. I am friends with many many people who choose to limit the number of children they have, it's a non-issue for me. So there is no offence meant, ok? 

 

You love your children, they cannot be more of a blessing to you than they are now. What can be a blessing is another child. That other child does not in any way effect your previous children and how much they bless you, having another child is a new, added blessing. If children are a blessing then don't we want as many blessings as we can? That doesn't value or devalue previous blessings, it just adds more. A new child would bring new personality, new joys the other 4 do not, it multiplies. So no one is saying you don't love your children, just that another child would, in their opinion, add to that even more. 

 

Again with your friend, the issue of another child bears no relevance to the amount of blessing the first is. It feels strange to talk about it in a mathematical way but that's the only way I can think to explain it. It's also a misconception that quiverfull is about having as many kids as possible, it is about trusting God with the number. In your friends case, God obviously did not plan for her to have 10 kids, and that's ok, that is Gods plan for her and he knows what he's doing. Maybe this child needs the single child enviroment for what she will do in the future, maybe God has a purpose for the mother that requires her to have less commitments on her time than a mum of 8 would. 

 

Your nephew, in the minds of QF families, is valuing his ministry above children. In their minds, if he truly believed children were a blessing he would want his own children, and he is choosing not to have them for the sake of something else. To QF people there is nothing, not even ministry, that is more important than the children God blesses us with. If a ministry cannot be done with children then it should be left for the young, the older, or the infertile, who, in their minds, God chooses for those roles. (even the infertile have a role in quiverfull beliefs, and it's not that they did something wrong to deserve not having kids as some extremists claim). Whatever he may say, your nephew sees his ministry as being of higher value than children because he has chosen one over the other. To a QF person, that is wrong, though to him in his own beliefs that may be perfectly ok. 

 

I wonder if that helps to explain it any

[Orthodox6]

I, too, had not heard of "QF" until these boards. What I would comment is that accepting however many children that God chooses to send a family (and this sometimes works out to zero children) (and this also can work out to adopting one or more) (or could work out to being foster parents) -- This does NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) equate to striving to "manufacture" babies as fast and as forever as the "factory" can churn them out.

 

I have begun to notice that families who choose not to use birth control get lumped in with QF mindset when such is quite alien to their worldview.

[Dory]

Alright, I'll tackle this one. But I want to make very clear up front that I am not criticising anyone personally, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't love their kids, I am just trying to explain why people who believe 'children are a blessing' might make different choices. I am friends with many many people who choose to limit the number of children they have, it's a non-issue for me. So there is no offence meant, ok? 

 

You love your children, they cannot be more of a blessing to you than they are now. What can be a blessing is another child. That other child does not in any way effect your previous children and how much they bless you, having another child is a new, added blessing. If children are a blessing then don't we want as many blessings as we can? That doesn't value or devalue previous blessings, it just adds more. A new child would bring new personality, new joys the other 4 do not, it multiplies. So no one is saying you don't love your children, just that another child would, in their opinion, add to that even more. 

 

Again with your friend, the issue of another child bears no relevance to the amount of blessing the first is. It feels strange to talk about it in a mathematical way but that's the only way I can think to explain it. It's also a misconception that quiverfull is about having as many kids as possible, it is about trusting God with the number. In your friends case, God obviously did not plan for her to have 10 kids, and that's ok, that is Gods plan for her and he knows what he's doing. Maybe this child needs the single child enviroment for what she will do in the future, maybe God has a purpose for the mother that requires her to have less commitments on her time than a mum of 8 would. 

 

Your nephew, in the minds of QF families, is valuing his ministry above children. In their minds, if he truly believed children were a blessing he would want his own children, and he is choosing not to have them for the sake of something else. To QF people there is nothing, not even ministry, that is more important than the children God blesses us with. If a ministry cannot be done with children then it should be left for the young, the older, or the infertile, who, in their minds, God chooses for those roles. (even the infertile have a role in quiverfull beliefs, and it's not that they did something wrong to deserve not having kids as some extremists claim). Whatever he may say, your nephew sees his ministry as being of higher value than children because he has chosen one over the other. To a QF person, that is wrong, though to him in his own beliefs that may be perfectly ok. 

 

I wonder if that helps to explain it any

 

So then to them, it's all about them. They only want to have as many blessings as they can have with no concern about whether they, in turn will be able to be a blessing to these children? Some people can only handle so much on their plate. Their personality style doesn't handle a dozen kids well. But to a QF person that would still be ok if they were mentally not able to care for the children well? Or poor health, if a person chooses to stop having children for health reasons so that they can be healthy enough to bless their children instead of having more children so that they are 'blessed' that's wrong? Or someone that is serving God in ways that he knows God called him into and realizes that he will not be able to invest the time necessary into the lives of his children if he has a large family, it's wrong for him to think about the needs of his possible children that way? Or he is supposed to give us the service that He feels God called him into in order to be as 'blessed' as possible by lots of children? So being blessed is more important than service to God?

 

Seems a little selfish

 

 

ETA: Sorry that sounds a little attacking. That's not my intent at all.

 

[FaithManor]

Alright, I'll tackle this one. But I want to make very clear up front that I am not criticising anyone personally, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't love their kids, I am just trying to explain why people who believe 'children are a blessing' might make different choices. I am friends with many many people who choose to limit the number of children they have, it's a non-issue for me. So there is no offence meant, ok? 

 

You love your children, they cannot be more of a blessing to you than they are now. What can be a blessing is another child. That other child does not in any way effect your previous children and how much they bless you, having another child is a new, added blessing. If children are a blessing then don't we want as many blessings as we can? That doesn't value or devalue previous blessings, it just adds more. A new child would bring new personality, new joys the other 4 do not, it multiplies. So no one is saying you don't love your children, just that another child would, in their opinion, add to that even more. 

 

Again with your friend, the issue of another child bears no relevance to the amount of blessing the first is. It feels strange to talk about it in a mathematical way but that's the only way I can think to explain it. It's also a misconception that quiverfull is about having as many kids as possible, it is about trusting God with the number. In your friends case, God obviously did not plan for her to have 10 kids, and that's ok, that is Gods plan for her and he knows what he's doing. Maybe this child needs the single child enviroment for what she will do in the future, maybe God has a purpose for the mother that requires her to have less commitments on her time than a mum of 8 would. 

 

Your nephew, in the minds of QF families, is valuing his ministry above children. In their minds, if he truly believed @children were a blessing he would want his own children, and he is choosing not to have them for the sake of something else. To QF people there is nothing, not even ministry, that is more important than the children God blesses us with. If a ministry cannot be done with children then it should be left for the young, the older, or the infertile, who, in their minds, God chooses for those roles. (even the infertile have a role in quiverfull beliefs, and it's not that they did something wrong to deserve not having kids as some extremists claim). Whatever he may say, your nephew sees his ministry as being of higher value than children because he has chosen one over the other. To a QF person, that is wrong, though to him in his own beliefs that may be perfectly ok. 

 

I wonder if that helps to explain it any

Thank you for your explanation. According to this, I would assume that the writings of Apostles known to not have children for the sake of ministry, Paul comes to mind but he was not the only one, are to be disregarded for engaging in ministry that was placed above getting married and having children. Would that be correct? Paul specifically speaks to singleness and lack of family as a positive as it allows the adult to serve the Lord without distraction. So I am wondering how this is reconciled.

 

Just seeking to understand. I have a different belief due to seeing the birth, life, death, resurrection of Christ as having liberated the beliver from living under judgment of the law. So again, I fail to see how qf belief  is reconciled with Paul's singleness and instruction on the topic.

[JumpyTheFrog]

It's also a misconception that quiverfull is about having as many kids as possible, it is about trusting God with the number. In your friends case, God obviously did not plan for her to have 10 kids, and that's ok, that is Gods plan for her and he knows what he's doing.

I know QF families talk about God "planning their families" except that I see no biblical evidence that he decides which sperm make it to the egg and which don't. I don't agree with telling people to "leave the decision to God" when the Bible makes no claim that God chooses the timing of each conception. Did he sometimes cause someone infertile to get pregnant, like Elizabeth or Sarah? Yes. But that is not a promise to all believers for all time any more than feeding the Israelites manna in the desert is a promise to make food appear for us today.

[SKL]

To the "children are a blessing" part of the discussion:  I think children are a blessing.  I have been blessed with 2 via adoption.  I have no plans to be blessed with more, by birth or by adoption.  I think God is OK with that.  I think if God was not OK with that, he would tell me personally that I need to do something differently.  God chose to bless some important, God-fearing people with only 1 kid, and I don't remember the Bible saying anything about this not being quite as good.  I don't remember the Bible saying that Jacob was better than Isaac who was better than Abraham based on the number of kids they had.

[abba12]

So then to them, it's all about them. They only want to have as many blessings as they can have with no concern about whether they, in turn will be able to be a blessing to these children? Some people can only handle so much on their plate. Their personality style doesn't handle a dozen kids well. But to a QF person that would still be ok if they were mentally not able to care for the children well? Or poor health, if a person chooses to stop having children for health reasons so that they can be healthy enough to bless their children instead of having more children so that they are 'blessed' that's wrong? Or someone that is serving God in ways that he knows God called him into and realizes that he will not be able to invest the time necessary into the lives of his children if he has a large family, it's wrong for him to think about the needs of his possible children that way? Or he is supposed to give us the service that He feels God called him into in order to be as 'blessed' as possible by lots of children? So being blessed is more important than service to God?

 

Seems a little selfish

 

 

On the extreme end of quiverful women will get pregnant knowing they could die, or keep an ectopic pregnancy, because they so truly believe that children are the ultimate blessing and to be valued above even their own lives. Women HAVE died for this, my grandmother knew one personally who knew she would die if she fell pregnant again, and chose to anyway, because they believed if God wanted her to not be pregnant he would prevent the pregnancy, and it was not her place to choose to use birth control

 

As for being in a ministry God called them to and then being unable to have kids, they would either say that God will take care of it and have them anyway, or God didn't really call you to that ministry because he would not ask you to do two things which contradict like that. You'll find many QF men actually do choose careers or lives that allow them to be fairly involved with their children.

 

But, yes, having the kids is the most important thing to QF people, and they believe that God will provide the patience, the resources, the help, etc after you step out in faith and allow him to bless you with another child. If your personality doesn't match 12 kids then, in their minds, your personality is wrong and you need to let God help you change it.

 

 

 

Thank you for your explanation. According to this, I would assume that the writings of Apostles known to not have children for the sake of ministry, Paul comes to mind but he was not the only one, are to be disregarded for engaging in ministry that was placed above getting married and having children. Would that be correct? Paul specifically speaks to singleness and lack of family as a positive as it allows the adultnot serve the Lord without distraction. So I am wondering how this is reconciled.

 

Just seeking to understand. I have a different belief due to seeing the birth, life, death, resurrection of Christ as having liberated the beliver from living under judgment of the law. So again, I fail to see how qf belief  is reconciled with Paul's singleness and instruction on the topic.

 

The extremists are not logical. For the rest of QF, choosing not to marry is a valid option. God does not always send the 'right' person for you when you're in your 20s, and God does intend for some people to remain unmarried their whole lives. It would be put forward that Paul was one of these. 

[abba12]

Just as a disclaimer, I do not believe totally in the QF beliefs I am explaining here anymore. Due to various reasons that I am happy to talk about, but not on this public forum, we have changed our beliefs somewhat and not everything I am saying is what I think anymore. But I was quiverful to start with and I still want a large family etc so I don't think I am too far removed to talk about it.

[FaithManor]

Thanks Abba, I appreciate your contribution.

[marbel]

To the "children are a blessing" part of the discussion:  I think children are a blessing.  I have been blessed with 2 via adoption.  I have no plans to be blessed with more, by birth or by adoption.  I think God is OK with that.  I think if God was not OK with that, he would tell me personally that I need to do something differently.  God chose to bless some important, God-fearing people with only 1 kid, and I don't remember the Bible saying anything about this not being quite as good.  I don't remember the Bible saying that Jacob was better than Isaac who was better than Abraham based on the number of kids they had.

 

Love this. 

 

There are lots of people who believe children are a blessing but still take steps to limit their family size, including Christian pastors and their wives.   (ETA: should have said spouses, not wives. Forgot for a minute that there are female pastors.)

 

[Peaceful Isle]

I feel bad for her. :( My husband would NEVER tell me the devil could be using me to decieve him! He is a preacher and has actually said from the pulpit how much he values me and my thoughts. The kids joke about how if mommy really wants something, she gets it...meaning stuff like clothes etc.., I am spoiled.

 

Blaming Christ and Christianity is just so wrong, though. My family is a very conservative Christian family. I have my degree, have worked, have stayed home, taught , homeschooled, what have you in the last 13 years of our marriage. We decided together on how many children we should have, and I have conservative friends with one child up to nine children.

 

I hope this article does not cause others to go away from the one who loves them, The Lord. It is a free gift. Not by works.

[Anne in CA]

The woman in the article is clearly very unhappy with God, there is no help for her to be happy because, Christian or not, she has not mental flexibility required to redirect her thinking toward happiness. She could not imagine any other interpretation to the scriptures she referenced, nor could she put them in context with other scriptures that would contradict the points she was trying to make. Now that she is tired of those beliefs she does not have the energy to explore the ideas that would make her less bitter. Not that I have any judgement toward that. After all those kids and all the time she spent gluing herself to extremely limiting ideas I would be shocked if she could find energy to understand that God is not limited by any theology man comes up with. She is bitter, and rightly so, she wasted a big chunk of her life for a family she raised in a manner she no longer values. That is really sad.

 

What is even more sad is that her Black/ White thinking has not changed, and she will become disillusioned with her new beliefs before 20 more years are up. 

 

But I don't have to own her theology, or give credibility to her view of Christianity in general. The fact that she never read a scripture about being her husband's help even though she claims to have studied the Bible and she only read scriptures that could be misconstrued to believe she could not trust her own thoughts is her own problem. It does not alter my beliefs. I read the Bible a whole different way than she did, I'm forty-four with a loving family and a solid marriage to a Christian man who values my opinion and I am reaping the rewards of my relationship with God. Is my life perfect? NO!!! But the things that are not right are not God's fault, other than He has not fixed the world yet, and since He is God I can let him do that on His own time. 

[Mimm]

I had an online run in with some extreme quiverfull types early in my marriage. I got kicked off their email list pretty quickly. They practically worshipped the womb. They praised women who died in childbirth as if they were actual martyrs. They would not agree that there were any allowable reasons to limit family size, even through abstinence. So yeah there are some pretty extreme people out there. I've never met one in real life that I know of.

[Ravin]

On the extreme end of quiverful women will get pregnant knowing they could die, or keep an ectopic pregnancy, because they so truly believe that children are the ultimate blessing and to be valued above even their own lives. Women HAVE died for this, my grandmother knew one personally who knew she would die if she fell pregnant again, and chose to anyway, because they believed if God wanted her to not be pregnant he would prevent the pregnancy, and it was not her place to choose to use birth control

 

 

This reminds me of a story. A man is trapped on the roof of his house by flood waters after a hurricane. A neighbor evacuating in a canoe offers to take him with, and he replies, "No thanks, I have faith that Jesus will save me." The local police come by in a boat a few hours later, and offer to take him with them, but he declines. "No thanks," he says. "Jesus will save me." As it's getting dark, a helicopter comes, and they lower a harness to him, but he refuses to go, convinced that Jesus would save him.

 

That night, the waters rise and engulf the house, and the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he's very upset. " Jesus, my Lord, why didn't you save me? Did I not have enough faith?"

And Jesus replies, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

 

If you truly believe that an omnipotent God works miracles in people's lives, the starting point has to be that He gave us brains and free will. Refusing to use them isn't trusting in God, it's an act of defiance.

 

And the woman mentioned in the OP would hardly be the first person to throw the baby out with the bathwater when abandoning a faith used by others to hurt them.

[Justified]

This reminds me of a story. A man is trapped on the roof of his house by flood waters after a hurricane. A neighbor evacuating in a canoe offers to take him with, and he replies, "No thanks, I have faith that Jesus will save me." The local police come by in a boat a few hours later, and offer to take him with them, but he declines. "No thanks," he says. "Jesus will save me." As it's getting dark, a helicopter comes, and they lower a harness to him, but he refuses to go, convinced that Jesus would save him.

 

That night, the waters rise and engulf the house, and the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he's very upset. " Jesus, my Lord, why didn't you save me? Did I not have enough faith?"

And Jesus replies, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

 

If you truly believe that an omnipotent God works miracles in people's lives, the starting point has to be that He gave us brains and free will. Refusing to use them isn't trusting in God, it's an act of defiance.

 

And the woman mentioned in the OP would hardly be the first person to throw the baby out with the bathwater when abandoning a faith used by others to hurt them.

Not to be picky but what about the story of the man who no one came to save and drowned. The reality is either God is doing miracles for all people or he isn't. God is never dependent on man to perform his miracles. The truth isn't what some people want to here but for some it's exactly what they need to hear. That girl that didn't get rescued from rape, the abused child, the father who watches his child starve to death, the person dying for cancer who's miracle never came...maybe what people need to hear is how God is really operating in this dispensation so they can find out how God has made a way to deal with the sufferings of this present time. For I reckon the sufferings of this present time can not be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

 

I am not saying this for your benefit but for the benefit of those dealing with the sufferings of this present time. Those hurting people have those very real and painful questions. There are people all over Christian and non Christian helping people with the sufferings of this world but many fall through the cracks waiting for that miracle that never came. God has given us a hope that is greater than any miracle that saves us from the sufferings of this world. Grace and peace to you.

[Dory]

Not to be picky but what about the story of the man who no one came to save and drowned. The reality is either God is doing miracles for all people or he isn't. God is never dependent on man to perform his miracles. The truth isn't what some people want to here but for some it's exactly what they need to hear. That girl that didn't get rescued from rape, the abused child, the father who watches his child starve to death, the person dying for cancer who's miracle never came...maybe what people need to hear is how God is really operating in this dispensation so they can find out how God has made a way to deal with the sufferings of this present time. For I reckon the sufferings of this present time can not be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

 

I am not saying this for your benefit but for the benefit of those dealing with the sufferings of this present time. Those hurting people have those very real and painful questions. There are people all over Christian and non Christian helping people with the sufferings of this world but many fall through the cracks waiting for that miracle that never came. God has given us a hope that is greater than any miracle that saves us from the sufferings of this world. Grace and peace to you.

 

People need to stop expecting miracles. They don't happen. If someone wants things in life to happen, they need to make it happen. If they want to believe in God, then they should believe that God gave them a mind and He expects them to use it. Think through things and make things happen in a way that works for you and stop expecting God to make everything in your life perfect. Including the amount of children you may or may not have.

 

And that 'hope' doesn't carry much weight in the here and now when it comes to pain.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Personally, I believe "children are blessings," but I think nearly everyone believes that. Unless you hate kids, I guess? 

 

No, there are LOTS of people today who don't hate kids per se but consider it horribly irresponsible to have more than a single biological child. They are environmental doomsayers who think we are running out of natural resources, blah, blah, blah. It's really tiresome to listen to them.

[Rosie_0801]

I probably will be flamed for this... But I do believe SOME people refuse to have children for selfish reasons. 

 

 

What does it matter?

 

(When people say things like this, it always sounds as though this selfishness is some sort of offence committed against someone. Against who?)

[Mimm]

What does it matter?

 

(When people say things like this, it always sounds as though this selfishness is some sort of offence committed against someone. Against who?)

 

Exactly. Sure, some people are choosing to limit family size so they can go on fancy vacations, afford to live in a nicer house, drive nicer cars, eat out more often and sleep in on weekends. So? I mean, I didn't make that choice, but I do understand it.

[LucyStoner]

I probably will be flamed for this... But I do believe SOME people refuse to have children for selfish reasons. There are things I do that are selfish too.

 

I don't see people without kids and immediately think they're selfish, though. There are reasons people DON'T have kids that aren't selfish. I don't know why people choose to have 0 or 12 kids. It's not my place to even ask. I'm too busy with my own junk to care why people make their reproductive choices. I don't have to live with those choices. They do.

Honestly I see more people having children for selfish reasons than I see people not having children.

 

By and large, most anyone can have a child. Unfortunately though, not everyone can be the parent a child deserves.

 

For reasons unfathomable to me, I have a relative who really thinks he needs to have more kids. At some point he probably will. He's an addict, a neglectful to abusive parent to the kids he has and claims, an absentee "baby daddy" to several other kids.

 

That's selfish. Choosing to not have kids you don't think you can handle though? That can actually be a selfless decision IMO.

[Catwoman]

Personally, I believe "children are blessings," but I think nearly everyone believes that. Unless you hate kids, I guess? I don't believe choosing to stop having kids means you don't believe that. It means you have decided that you shouldn't have another child for a variety of reasons that are between you and your partner.

I probably will be flamed for this... But I do believe SOME people refuse to have children for selfish reasons. There are things I do that are selfish too.

I don't see people without kids and immediately think they're selfish, though. There are reasons people DON'T have kids that aren't selfish. I don't know why people choose to have 0 or 12 kids. It's not my place to even ask. I'm too busy with my own junk to care why people make their reproductive choices. I don't have to live with those choices. They do.

Exactly. Sure, some people are choosing to limit family size so they can go on fancy vacations, afford to live in a nicer house, drive nicer cars, eat out more often and sleep in on weekends. So? I mean, I didn't make that choice, but I do understand it.

Personally, I think it's entirely unselfish to remain childless if you don't want children or if you don't believe you will be a good parent or be able to provide a happy home environment for a child.

 

I think it's a whole lot more selfish to go ahead and have kids and then be a lousy parent.

 

Children are a lifelong commitment and a huge responsibility. Having kids isn't something to enter into lightly.

[VeritasMama]

What does it matter?

 

(When people say things like this, it always sounds as though this selfishness is some sort of offence committed against someone. Against who?)

Christians are supposed to "die to themselves," they are supposed to be willing to sacrifice their own desires (not their needs) if it will accomplish good for others. Christians are especially supposed to follow the example of self sacrifice in their marriages. But this unselfish sacrifice is supposed to be done by the husband and the wife. In the context of this conversation we are speaking of Christians, and so selfishness should be something they are trying to avoid.

 

Avoiding selfishness does not mean you don't love yourself , or take care of yourself. God wants us to love all his children and take care of them, including ourselves. The concept of selflessness does NOT mean you should be a doormat or put up with abuse, anyone who can should stand up to abuse.

 

The problem is that fringe groups like many QF families twist the meaning of selfishness, along with many other teachings. It isn't selfish to limit family size because of finances, health, etc. but many QF families will claim that it is. In the case of abusive men, they hold the concepts of pride and selfishness over their spouses head in order to control them. It is sad that so many women are abused in the name of religion, but the religion is being twisted and abused by these people as well.

[gardenmom5]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their family size do NOT believe children are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. 

 

I don't know how other's interpret that saying  - but while we do believe "children are a blessing" - how many children a couple choose to have is between them and God. the only religious guidance we have is "no selfish BC."  it's up to the couple to take it to the Lord to decide what is right for them. (and in some cases - the woman's dr.)

 

 I know people with children in the double digits - and another with one child who was adopted after nearly 20 years of marriage. and in between. each child is a blessing - and a treasure, and should be treated as such.

 

I'm personally offended (among other things) by the QF refusal to take into account a) mom's health and well-being, and b.) - babies need to be allowed to be the baby before being replaced by an even smaller baby. 

 

actually - it makes me think of the 'earth-mother' who is very conscientious (sanctimoniously so) during her pregnancy and delivery - and puts the kid in daycare.

 

eta: I've done a lot of family history in the 18th & 19th centuries - and very few families popped one out every year.  most were spaced.  oh - and most weren't huge.

[umsami]

It is not unusual for women who are in domestic violence situations….where religion is used as part of the justification for the abuse…. to leave that religion or to blame that religion for the abuse.  Even though they may acknowledge that not all adherents practice those beliefs..or believe them… it can be really hard to separate the two.

 

She's a survivor.  She had the strength to leave, in spite of being so financially dependent, in spite of having numerous young children, in spite of having a husband with "all the resources" to battle against.  .  She is trying to rebuild her life.  She's trying to help others.

 

I pray for peace for her.  I hope that she can find her way back to a spiritual relationship with Jesus and God because I think that would be wonderfully healing for her.  If not, though, I just wish her peace.

[SKL]

I don't understand the need to label another person's choice to get pregnant or not as "selfish" or "unselfish."  I can't think of too many things that impact me less than whether some other person wants a kid.

[SKL]

I'm personally offended (among other things) by the QF refusal to take into account a) mom's health and well-being, and b.) - babies need to be allowed to be the baby before being replaced by an even smaller baby. 

 

 

It is very reasonable to plan a family with kids close in age, so they can be close siblings and have a built-in buddy.

 

My kids were adopted at the same time, so neither was ever "the" baby.  Twins, triplets, etc. don't get to be "the" baby.  I think maybe being "the" baby is overrated.

 

I agree with you on the mom's health.  Another valid consideration (even if you think "more is better" in general) is issues the existing kids have - e.g., genetic conditions, high needs, etc.

 

[gardenmom5]

It is very reasonable to plan a family with kids close in age, so they can be close siblings and have a built-in buddy.

 

 

 

close in age for a buddy is actually irrelevant once they're past preschool.  of my kids, they've paired off with quite a few years (and even siblings) between them.

[SKL]

close in age for a buddy is actually irrelevant once they're past preschool.  of my kids, they've paired off with quite a few years (and even siblings) between them.

 

That's your opinion, but reasonable people can (and do) disagree.  We can also disagree on whether it's really better to be the baby of the family for more than x months/years.  The owner of the womb gets to weigh those and other questions, preferably without outsiders' judgment.

 

[Dory]

close in age for a buddy is actually irrelevant once they're past preschool.  of my kids, they've paired off with quite a few years (and even siblings) between them.

 

And many would disagree with that.