depravity and a fallen world mean there will be abuse. we want to think there could be an ‘umbrella’ of some sort under which, if we allign ourselves, there is a sort of ‘garantee’ that there will be no abuse. heaven is the only place i know of that will guarantee no abuse.

Yes, I also know of many quiverfull advocates who are not abusive. I would also add that there are many quiverfull advocates who are concerned about the abuse that is found within their walls.

My biggest concern is that the movement does not nuance its position very well, and that opens the door for these kinds of abuses, as it will attract every kind of misogynist under the sun. The differences are paper thin. That is why I would like to see the leaders in the movement nuance their position so that these things can be avoided, rather than simply deriving their position from trying to be countercultural.

God Bless,
Adam

Russ – i have to completely disagree with you. i lived in a family for 20 years that took authoritarianism (sp?) to the degree of abuse. she points out that there are those who use balance. but for those who do not, they turn it into a dictatorship not unlike hitler. i have lived in it. i have experienced it. and i have seen it first hand. if you support what i have lived through, then i totally oppose what you believe in. i actually do endorse her and support her and her ministry to reach out to those who have been abused in the name of God and authority or whatever else you choose to call it. those who “peed in her flowers and kicked her dog” were those who were supposed to protect her, but they did not; rather, they injured and abused her. if you support that, then i completely and totally and absolutely oppose you.

reform is one thing. abuse and manipulation and fear should not be used at all to achieve that goal.

I don’t know who peed in her flowers or kicked her dog, but this isn’t a good site.

I have been dealing with Quiverfull for quite a while now. It is hard to know what to say when you hear about authoritarian examples such as the one you have shown in the link provided. I think I would first of all say that I do not believe that this is what Quiverfull advocates intend. The problems with Quiverfull are related to a gross reductionism in terms of problems in society, and in terms of the reading of scripture itself.

You need to understand that the book that got this movement started, Mary Pride’s book The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, was written by a woman who was a former feminist. Also, remember that many of the precursors to the feminist movement [Eugenics, Thomas Malfus, Margaret Sanger] were involved in a racist use of contraception. In other words, they wanted to root out certain races by giving them contraception in order to root out the “human weeds” as they called them.

Also, remember that the feminist movement is a very selfish movement. They believe that children are inherently bad because it keeps them back from their carriers. One feminist author called the home a “Comfortable Concentration Camp.” Home and family are basically considered evil in feminism, because having children denies women the “right” to work outside the home. That is where “abortion rights” come from, as well as the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.”

You have to understand that it is out of this ideology that Quiverfull comes. While it is somewhat simplistic, you can generally say that if you negate what feminism believes, you get Quiverfull. At very least, you can see the reactionary nature of Quiverfull to the ideas mentioned above.

However, the problem is that it is not as simple as just taking the negative of the above ideas, and making that your truth. For example, it is true that using contraception for racist ends is evil, but what if it is used for the glory of God instead? What if it is used in order to protect the life of the wife after she has a physically traumatic pregnancy? Does not the Bible tell us that we are to protect life? You see, the issues are much more complex than this.

Likewise, children are a blessing, but the Biblical conception of a blessing is that blessings are to be enjoyed in moderation [Proverbs 25:16-17;27-28]. That doesn’t mean that large families are bad, but it does mean that, as Proverbs 25:16 says, you must consider what you are capable of taking [i.e., "what you need"]. That means that limiting the size of your family to what you can afford is not viewing children as a “financial burden” [as they say], but it is understanding the dangers of excesses in any blessing, one such danger being financial.

The problem is that these reductionisms which are inherent in Quiverfull, are the driving force behind the kind of behavior that you are describing. When you don’t think through all of the different angles in which the Bible presents terms like “blessing” or even terms like “patriarchy,” you end up in oversimplifications which, because they are vague and overly simplistic, can be abused by evil people for their own ends.

Also, I should point out that [especially with the excesses and the inherent individualism of quiverfull, as well as its reactions to feminism] these reductionisms make the movement intensely American. That is why Quiverfull is not very popular outside the United States.

I say all of these things mostly because you have to understand that the abuse that you see is not something that Quiverfull advocates intend. There intent is actually very good: to combat the cultural evils of our day by going to scripture. The problem is the inherently simplistic and reactionary way they are looking at scripture that can lead to abuse.

I know that this is turning into a long comment, but I just want to add that, although I disagree with his methods of preaching, Mark Driscoll did an excellent sermon on the topic of contraception where he addressed Quiverfull:

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/birth-control

God Bless,
Adam

*smug dance*

Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is.

All human procreation and farming must cease!

NO MORE BABIES!

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

That sounds even crazier than Planned Parenthood’s views.

If the gunman’s views were on the right side of the spectrum, the so-called “mainstream media” would likely blame Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for inciting him. But don’t expect then to blame Al Gore in a similar fashion.