Quiverfull?

[Tanys]

DISCLAIMER: It is not my intention to bash anyone, whether pro- or anti-quiverfull, in this post. I'm merely asking for other views on a controversial issue.

I am from a family of six; some people would consider us a large family. I know my mom would have had more children if she hadn't had complications with my youngest sister's pregnancy. She's always admired these "quiverfull" families with huge families (the Duggars, Jon & Kate before they split, etc).

Personally, I'm kind of on the fence about quiverfull. While I do not agree with abortion, I also don't think certain types of contraceptives are sinful either. I don't think there is anything wrong with family planning, not because it's merely inconvenient to have a child now but because I cannot think of a way to provide for a child right now.

But is that selfish of me? Is it less about me trying to plan and prepare to be a good mom and more about trying to control God so that he's no longer the one who opens and closes my womb? Yeah, in the time the Bible was written it was considered normal to have a huge family, but was that more a question of holiness or one of cultural norms?

Sorry for rambling. Whether you're in a quiverful family or not I'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

 

[JaneFW]

I was the youngest of a family of three, and I have three kids. So, no quiverfuls, but I know that some people consider three kids to be "greedy" or otherwise out of sync, because, as my dear MIL says "the children should never outnumber the adults." I think that's ridiculous, but that's just me. I have an acquaintance who has 12 children. I have never met her or her husband, but have known them online for a long time. They are very decent people, Christians, and have raised their children with no government help, and the mom was able to stay home and homeschool and raise the kids. They are far from rich but they made do. They have good kids. However, none of those kids seems interested in quiverful and just have a few kids each.

It's my opinion that God will "open the womb" no matter what the circumstances, if He so desires. I know quite a lot of people who thought they were done after vasectomy, only to find that there was another baby on the way. Sure, medical "mistakes" are made, but you think, is that really a mistake, or was that child intended to be here? So, I believe that using BC is commonsense. Using BC is NOT the same as aborting a baby, btw. Some fundamental Christians will tell you that, and it's just not true, because no conception takes place when a person is correctly using BC i.e. same time of day every day, or whatever the requirement of the BC is. It makes sense to wait until you are in a good financial position, and that your marriage is kind of settled before you make the decision to have a child/ren. Also, that both spouses are on the same page and really understand what this commitment will entail. Having kids is hard, hard work.

As to whether it is holy to have a large family - I would say that if prayer and mutual agreement between spouses brings a couple to that conclusion, and they can afford to raise a large family, go for it! But, like with the Duggars, also be open that God might tell you to stop at some point. When a woman gets older and carrying a baby and birthing one is becoming complicated, it's time to STOP and not disregard what your body is telling you. IMO, the Duggars needed to stop after the baby that was delivered early and was sickly. That's a warning sign imo. Not that I think it was their "fault" that the next baby didn't make it, but you know, heed the warning signs that your body is getting older - go back and ask God - don't rest on your own understanding or pride or on NUMBERS i.e. we're even holier if we have 13 children .. uh uh. You're holy anyway, so pay heed that your body IS aging and it's probably time to stop.

My rant .. FWIW.

 

[JRSut1000]

I'm all for those families who desire to have large families. If they are raising their children to be good people and the kids arent abused or neglected, then why not? I really respect the Duggers, they seem to be doing a great job and it makes me think if anyone should be having tons of kids its people like them.

But that's not necessarily the desire of my husband and I. We do desire 3 children (the 2nd is on the way) because 1) My husband saw that in a vision and 2) we believe that 3+ fulfills the command to 'multiply'. My husband comes from a family of 4 kids and I'm an only child.

 

[JRSut1000]

I think wisdom is something to keep in mind for any family thinking about children. It's my personal desire that if possible, all married couples should shoot for at least 1 kid if they are able. But when it comes to quiverfull, we as believers musnt forget that 'to whom much is given, much is required'. A lot of times people want to be blessed blessed blessed but then they cant handle the blessings they got whether its money, leadership, or children.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

As a father working full time, sometimes 60-70 hours per week, doing repairs and maintenance around the house, helping with household chores, having some amount of R&R, and attending various quasi-obligatory events such as weddings, funerals, reunions, birthday parties, etc, I figure I had at best, an average of 8-10 hours per week that were disposable/elective "free" time, at best. Out of that came everything else, things that I wanted to do, such as hobbies, church involvement, and spending quality time with my wife and kids.

It seemed like there was actually no time, and we only had 3 children. Quality time available for each child individually may have averaged an hour, if that time was made a priority.

As one of 8 siblings growing up there was even less individual time. My father worked long hours, 2-3 jobs most of the time, and had pretty much nothing left when he got home. I recall as a little guy, the few times he showed me individual affection, it embarrassed me, over-stimulated me, and made me extremely self-conscious. I just wasn't used to it.

Unless the only thing a couple, (both of them, not just the SAHM), can think about is kids, dividing what little there is between 6, 8, 10 or more kids, the parents may feel somehow blessed by having a quiver full, but what about the arrows?

Not one of us have large families. Of course, this is just one story, but I grew up among some other large families, and not one of them reminded me of the Waltons.

 

[Tamara224]

The Quiverfull movement weirds me out, tbh.

I figure it's soooo none of my business how many children other people have. As long as the kids aren't being abused or neglected, it's no one else's business.

What weirds me out is they claim that not having a quiver full of kids is displeasing to God. It makes me sad that there are a lot of people who have more kids than they want or can handle because they are coerced by a controlling belief system into thinking it's God's will for them.

And that's not even addressing the heavily patriarchal and controlling uber-authoritarian doctrines that go along with the movement. It's scary.

 

[JRSut1000]

It's not all bad, its just not for everyone I guess.

 

[Athene]

The thing I dislike about the Duggars is that it falls on the older children - well the older sisters to do most of the housework and raising of younger siblings. I'm all for older siblings helping out and all children doing chores around the house, but I have serious issues with 14,15 year old girls being - in effect - mothers.

 

[Tamara224]

I disagree, JR. I've had too many real life experiences with spiritual abuse not to know it when I see it.

No Longer Quivering —

People suffer abuse because they're deceived and coerced into believing it is God's will. It's exactly the same dynamics that explain why an abused spouse will remain with the abuser, even defend the abuser. Although some people will claim that it works for them.....IMHO, most of them are in denial about how much harm it is actually doing. They blame themselves instead of the doctrine.

Indeed, part of spiritual abuse is convincing the abused that they deserve it, that their feelings shouldn't be considered, that it's their own fault they are unhappy and if they were better Christians they wouldn't struggle so much with sacrificing their happiness and autonomy. They are told "this will make you happy because this is God's perfect will for you." But when they admit "this isn't making me happy, peaceful, content or satisfied" they are told that it's not about happiness, suffering is God's will, too. They are told "you're just not doing it right," not being submissive enough, being too proud, too selfish, too worldly. It's always the person's own fault that the promise of pleasing God is never fulfilled.

I think it is actually so harmful of a movement that saying "it's not for everyone" (implying that it IS for some people) is like saying that domestic violence "isn't for everyone."

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but, having been the victim of spiritual abuse - along with my whole family and lots of friends - I can't not call it out when I see it.

 

[JaneFW]

There have been some pretty creepy examples of quiverful families, where there has been abuse for sure. Because it is linked so closely so often to very fundamental Christianity, all that gender role stuff is forced upon children, sometimes to the point where girls are actively disencouraged - even forbidden - to go to college, but instead she is limited to the home and bringing up younger children so that she can be handed over to some man that suits her parents, and part of the great deal is that she will never be a challenge to him intellectually, and she knows her "place". Just ugh.

 

[Puptart]

I was an only child, and when I became an adult I recognized that I do not like children in the least. Thusly I made the responsible decision to be child-free-by-choice. I'm sure if God had wanted me to have some children, he'd have given me a desire to do so.

Are you being selfish? No, of course not. It's not about "controlling" what God wants, but rather being responsible with what he's given you. That just doesn't mean your own body or finances, but also the resources we've been provided with on our planet.

The earth's population is growing by leaps and bounds. In Biblical times, populations were tiny. Reproduction was necessary. This makes perfect sense. But in today's world? We have thousands and thousands and thousands of children in poverty, going hungry, being abused, and so on.. to the point where you have to ask yourself why every single person who wants children doesn't consider adoption first and natural procreation second (if they procreate at all). [For the record, the adoption systems need major overhaul to make them more accessible to parents who want to use it, too.. because at current those systems are very difficult to navigate. Still, my point stands.] We also have a planet that is one day going to run out of resources to support us because we've sucked it dry, unless we get our global population under control.

Anyway, I'm rambling.. back to the point: Are you being selfish by recognizing you currently don't have the means to support a child, and therefor would prefer to put that off until a better time? NO. You are not being selfish.

You are using your head, being logical, being responsible and being honest with yourself. All good traits that many people lack. Keep it up

 

[JRSut1000]

Yeah Pearl's and Vision Forum, I'm familiar with it. Loosely I enjoy some of the stuff presented but to strictly go along with it is kinda scary and puts God in a box.

 

[Sailor_A]

I'd worry about a couple having the resources to provide for many many children. It is my personal belief that children need more than watering, feeding and clothing. Can both parents spend enough time with each child? Can they encourage the talents of each child while also helping each child with their difficulties?

Also I have my concerns that girls are not treated so well in such situations. Are they used as substitute mothers? Are they educated as well as their brothers, allowed working opportunities or simply used as free household labour? Are they denied the right to follow their dreams?

Overall it depends on the effort both parents are willing to put into it.

 

[JaneFW]

I agree with you Sailor. The couple that I know of, I saw them as very, very good parents. The mom - who I knew better than the dad, and in fact she is on my FB page and I still chat to her - she said that their kids didn't get any less time with her and their dad than she thought kids ever did in a family. Also, that dynamic of the older looking after the younger, that happened also in my family of birth, and in my current family, where we expect the oldest to have an eye on the youngest. That's just I think a natural dynamic.

But yes, there have been quite a few of those families on tv, and there were families where the girls were like servants as they were "trained" to be wives and moms. It's good to teach your kids how to look after themselves, just like my brother was taught to cook and clean alongside my sister and myself (and it stood him in good stead!) but to teach them that the only option for a girl is to be a wife and mom - I don't agree with that.

Just musing - I wonder what happens to the females in these families when they are trained this way, and sold to the highest bidder, and then they turn out to be infertile!

 

[dallasapple]

The thing I dislike about the Duggars is that it falls on the older children - well the older sisters to do most of the housework and raising of younger siblings. I'm all for older siblings helping out and all children doing chores around the house, but I have serious issues with 14,15 year old girls being - in effect - mothers.

That freaks me out too and its true..the mother Im sure works hard but enlists the older children to help raise the younger ones..

THE only thing Im thinkign is "they seem happy"..IOW ..they dont feel "put out" its a "lifestyle" they feel is thier "purpose" they feel "directed and purposeful"..WE may feel sorry for them but they don't feel sorry for themselves if that makes sense..they are "happy" that way.So I dont know..

Im not sayign I agree or DISAGREE just they seem happy and driven with a purpose..

Dallas

 

[mkgal1]

I'm sure if God had wanted me to have some children, he'd have given me a desire to do so.

Are you being selfish? No, of course not. It's not about "controlling" what God wants, but rather being responsible with what he's given you. That just doesn't mean your own body or finances, but also the resources we've been provided with on our planet.

You are using your head, being logical, being responsible and being honest with yourself. All good traits that many people lack. Keep it up

I so agree. We all have our OWN path. God has a plan for each of us, and it's not going to be the same---*we* aren't the same. For Abraham---faith meant leaving---for Joseph, it meant enduring. For Moses---faith meant returning; for Joshua....fighting. It's up to you to seek what God's plan is for you, and it sounds like you're doing that.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Being a child of what many would call a "quiverfull" family, I think I can add something of value with my personal experience.

Just like in most any family situation, large families have their upsides and their downsides. Some of the upsides from my personal experience include more responsible individuals, maturity beyond an individual's years, hard-working individuals, and financially prudent individuals. In a large family, EVERYONE is expected to help out. A couple of posters in this thread seem altogether concerned about the female experience and concerned about the rights of the daughters, but while doing so you are completely ignoring the sons. Sons in a large family aren't just sitting around while daughters do all the work--to believe so is ignorant. Contrary to those with that mindset, I think children regardless of sex helping out around the house with the younger children, household chores, building projects, heavy labor, farm work, yard work, etc is a very good thing that instills a strong work ethic and a well-rounded, hard-working individual. Children in larger families tend to be more involved in day to day household chores and activities much more so than they would be in smaller families. Large families tend to be thriftier and better with finances than smaller families which is passed down to the children in the form of financial responsibility a step above their peer group. This thriftiness and lower amount of funds per individual also means larger families tend to do most of their own work including but not limited to construction, remodeling, building projects, whole house renovations, housework, cooking, cleaning, lawn maintenance, farm work, etc which contributes to the better work ethic instilled in children from larger families (especially the older children). I knew/know many one or two child households where the kids haven't lifted a finger as far as household chores in their whole lives, and this is largely a factor of the parents doing all the work for the child. In large families, it is not possible for the parents to do all the work for the children so the children are expected to help out. This is a good thing and children from large families (especially the older children) tend to be a step above their peers as far as maturity and personal responsibility is concerned later in life.

The downsides are related to the upsides. Instead of watching tv and hanging out with friends all the time, I was expected to work. You bet I would have rather watched tv and played all day but that wasn't going to happen. My first and foremost responsibilities were to my family and then only afterwards could I go out and have fun. So at times it can feel like I missed out on the irresponsibilities of childhood. But then again, that's probably overrated.

 

[JRSut1000]

Thanks for your personal experience dsrohe, very informative and I agree on a lot of those points. It's hard to balance out family responsibility while at the same time letting kids be kids and experience a true 'childhood'. As an only child, yeah my parents did just about everything for me and it really stunted my growth and maturity. I really want to instill good family values in my children including good work ethic and helping others. I feel I missed out on some childhood experience because I always wanted brother or sister to play with and that didnt happen. It doesnt make me want a huge family, but I do want a few children.

 

[JaneFW]

Sons in a large family aren't just sitting around while daughters do all the work--to believe so is ignorant.

It was specifically stated that in the families that *I* had seen, the boys were let off the housework while the girls did it all. That's all that was said. That's not ignorance, it's based upon what I saw with my own eyes.

 

[JRSut1000]

Boys dont have to be left-out. There's yardwork, cleaning out the garage, and even vacuuming if its heavy, etc. They can learn how to use tools, how to take care of cars (obviously not as a 5 year old, but they can watch and learn), etc.