The so-called "Quiverfull" movement is one that encourages Christians to have unlimited offspring. Most readers will be familiar with the television program featuring the Duggar family, which at last report has 19 children. The Duggars are perhaps the best known Quiverfull proponents in the nation.
How sound, though, are the Biblical arguments of the Quiverfull movement? In this article we will examine those presented by Nancy Campbell in Be Fruitful and Multiply (hereinafter “BFM”). Campbell's arguments can be grouped into several categories, none of which offers much in the way of persuasion for the Quiverfull position.
Before proceeding, I should issue the necessary caveat that none of what is offered below is intended to encourage or condemn those who wish for a large family. What is being addressed is the insinuations from Campbell that ONLY those who have large families are acting in obedience to Biblical principles.
Such arguments may have a persuasive emotional component, but they are all too easily turned around to say something like, "Who knows which of them will be an Al Capone, or a Ted Bundy, or an Osama bin Laden!" While this may seem over the top, Campbell's example is as well. Potentiality, therefore, simply isn't a viable argument. Again, this doesn't mean that those who choose to have large families are in the wrong, only that this isn't a viable argument for having a large family.
In particular, Campbell carefully selects stories of people who filled their quiver with children and "trusted the Lord" to provide what they needed. In this, Campbell is no better positioned than the televangelist who tells stories of "seed faith" where donors ended up getting money, while ignoring any stories of people who never received anything. Rather disturbingly on this account, Campbell illicitly reasons that those who are poor should desire more children, because "with children come all sorts of blessings including economic blessings." [129] Then she adds, "Faith simply obeys -- and trusts God!" [130] We will refer more to this below.
"The church could take over!" Campbell argues that if godly Christians had quivers full of children, the church could become more numerous and take over society. This is flawed, initially, as a potentiality argument, and one that can be readily turned around. Campbell prefers anecdotes? I know of a Christian family with four children, and all four committed apostasies. I also know of a family with four children where all four remain Christians. So, this argument fails the same way as potentiality arguments. (Campbell, however, thinks it is part of Satan's plan (!) to limit Christian children.)
Old Testament figures. Campbell points again and again to accounts of Old Testament figures who had numerous children. These people are, BFM says, "considered blessed to have many children" (4), which leads us to the most serious problem in Campbell's presentation, a lack of contextual considerations.
In the OT world, infant and child mortality was exceptionally high. In addition, the average human lifespan was around 35 years. In contrast, infant and child mortality in the modern West is extremely low, with such persons living well into their 80s and 90s.
In this light, to have Campbell -- who lives nestled comfortably in the modern West -- give ALL Christians advice (if not implicitly, a command from God) to fill their quivers with children, is in many ways not only misguided, but also insensitive. Big families were a survival necessity in the ancient world, but in the modern world they are not. Ancient people had big families so that they could survive. Modern Quiverfulls, like Campbell, have big families so that they can indulge themselves with what they think is a "blessing" from God.
The reader will note here that I have not engaged any arguments regarding overpopulation. Nor will I do so to any real extent, since it requires sociological expertise that I do not possess. That said, I cannot help but feel disturbed by some of Campbell's attempts to answer such arguments.
For example, Campbell argues that if one drives from coast to coast, one will see that there is plenty of empty land to put people in (26). Indeed? How much naiveté does it take to suppose that one could fill a place like the Sonoran desert with people, and support it as a population? How about Antarctica? Campbell points out that if every person on Earth were grouped together, we'd all fit into Texas and have 2000 square feet apiece, and she supposes that with proper management of resources, we'd be able to take care of forty billion people (26-29).
Realy? Again, I am not an expert on this matter, but Campbell does refer to one expert -- and only one worthy of the name -- as saying that 40 billion is not out of the question. She refers to Roger Revelle, of the Harvard Center for Population Studies, as affirming this. Campbell gives no note for this point, and it is not hard to see why: Revelle's "40 billion" number was based on an exercise intended to estimate how much the world could feed, not establish a practical and sustainable population level -- and certainly not a level of population that would allow someone like Campbell to continue in her own current lifestyle. What Campbell neglects to mention is that Revelle's scenario permits each person 2500 kilocalories a day, on a strictly vegetarian diet.
Again, I am not expert on this matter, so I do not claim to have any definitive answer to Campbell on what some call the Earth's "carrying capacity." What I can note is that Campbell doesn't tell the whole story when she appeals to such numbers -- and from what can be found, is not currently living the sort of lifestyle Revelle suggested was necessary for that 40 billion level to become a reality. Among her anecdotes are those of multi-children families whose children happily sleep on the floor, since they have no room for beds (132). Of course, in this, they live as simply as people in Bible times did. To that extent, Campbell does well to question the excesses of Western materialism. Yet, she also enjoys the modern convenience of a website and publishing an occasional magazine. So there is clearly a certain inconsistency between what Campbell practices and what she preaches. I can only hope it is because of naiveté rather than deception or indifference.
Other claims used by Campbell seem questionable on other grounds. As a remark on the benefits of breastfeeding, she quotes Renneker's Understanding Cancer as referring to the "Tania women of Hong Kong" who only breastfeed with the right breast, and tend to have more cancer on the left. But a Google search of Renneker's book reveals no reference to the "Tania women of Hong Kong."
Later, Campbell also claims it is "the strategy of Satan to minimize the holy seed" and keep Christians from having children (38). Finally, for good measure, she quotes 1 Samuel 15:22-23 as saying that obedience is better than sacrifice -- so make sure you obey God and have a lot of babies! Such threatening points are not the tactic of those who have sound arguments.
However, this is a tendentious reading of male that is not justified. The same word is used to describe the filling of the seas with marine life (Gen. 1:22), and the density of the undersea animal population is not even close to the point that they are "overflowing" the ocean -- nor could it ever have been. In another context the word is used to refer to the fulfilling of the time of pregnancy (Gen. 25:24) and Jacob's term of servitude under Laban (29:21). The word clearly indicates simply filling to a certain level, not "overflowing."
Campbell also notes several other passages where Israel is commanded to "increase," "multiply," be "plenteous," etc.; however, none of these offers any specific mandate or timetable to reach a certain population goal, much less do they impose a mandate on individuals to procreate, as they are given only as directions to Israel as a collective and not to individuals.
The rub of this is that by this reasoning, any couple that is not able to conceive for some reason -- whether because of illness or some other cause beyond their control -- is therefore constrained to avoid sexual intercourse altogether, since they are not able to use their bodies, as she puts it, for anything but the "gratification" aspect of sex!
Another such misuse is Matthew 18:5, where Jesus welcomes a child into the midst of his disciples. Campbell "misdrashes" this passage into a directive to have babies so that we can welcome them into our households!
It seems clear that Campbell, at least, relies more on sentiment than she does on fact and/or well exegesis of Scripture.
This is our second and, for now, final look at the Quiverfull movement, with my subject being the book A Full Quiver (FQ) by Rick and Jan Hess. In this, I will be looking in the main for anything new compared to our prior essay that was in the last issue. I did not find much that was new.
For the record, we should briefly cover the points which are mirrored in our prior essay.
Once again offered, are statements by Jesus praising children, and a claim that Satan is deceiving Christians into not wanting as many children as they really could have. With that, of course, we have the admonition that if Christians would have more babies, we could take over [167] the White House and most of the Senate, House, and governor's mansions by 2088. Really? What if unbelievers get wind of this idea and start having large families to counter Christians? What then is the plan from the Hesses, to have 16 children instead of 8?
Not that Scriptural support for this view is any better; we find the Hesses pressing into service Psalm 37:25-26, in which David says that he has never seen the righteous begging bread. This the Hesses take as meaning: "you can predict that believers with large families will be taken care of." [144] We need not comment again on the irresponsibility of using a poetic passage for support of literalist doctrine, but we can no doubt add that if this doesn't bear out from statistics, the Hesses will surely have some ready pious explanation such as, "You're not faithful as believers" or "God has a plan for your suffering."
Potentiality is also extended into the realm of stating that we should avoid vasectomies because "we wouldn't be at all surprised to discover all sorts of unexpected ill effects from this attempt to thwart God's design for the male body." [127] By the same logic, why not say, "we wouldn't be at all surprised to discover all sorts of unexpected health benefits" from the same procedure?
With that…let us now turn to what is unique in FQ.
In line with this radical view, the Hesses go as far as indicating that sexual intercourse between married couples is off limits unless there is at least an option for procreation. Thus, in reply to someone who says that they have health problems (which would mean pregnancy could literally kill them), the Hesses legalistically say, "If you're too sick to have babies, you're too sick to have sex." [102] Apparently, the Hesses have no conception (pun not intended) of there being any difference in how particular acts may affect particular conditions. For them, it is "all or nothing" – representing an appalling lack of logic.
Adding to the self-centered character of their response, the Hesses add that "God has a way of miraculously healing people, too -- sometimes through the very pregnancies that were supposed to kill them." [102] In support of this view, they offer a single, undocumented anecdote of such a thing happening -- certainly an excellent data pool on which to base such a critical decision!
Even more outlandishly, the Hesses put God directly in charge of genetics, asking, "does God decide eye color or does Mendel's Law?" [183] and, quoting a source as saying: "God individually chose and gave each child his or her blue eyes. We have to keep in mind that God can modify or abolish genetic or reproductive trends as He wills." [184]
The Hesses only reply source is a booklet from a group called "Basic Life Principles", which contains no documentation for its claims, and some points that are outlandish on their face. One is a point we have seen prior, about how the world's population (back then, 4.5 billion) could fit into an area the same as Jacksonville, Florida, with each person being given 2.6 square feet. I would very much like to see the Hesses and other Quiverfull advocates live within such a space for as little as a few months just to actually see how they like it and just how that works out (i.e., the typical prison cell, in contrast, holds two inmates within a space of about 50-100 square feet)! A little later they allow for some expansion, of up to the area of Nebraska, Kansas, and a bit of South Dakota, allowing 1000 square feet per person. It is very considerate of the Hesses to declare that each of us can have a space equal to ten prison cells so that they can have as many children as "God" leads them to have.
Another section relates how the Hesses respond to someone who asks why they have so many children. A response they say "never fails to stop them in their tracks" is, "to pay for your Social Security." My retort would be: "Good, because I will need it to pay for groceries when everyone has as many children as you do, causing the food supply to be short, which in turn will raise food prices to astronomical levels." While that's rather simplistic, so is the Hesses retort. The Quiverfull movement doesn't seem too keen on basic economic principles of supply and demand.
This closes our look at Quiverfull literature, at least for now. The nicest thing I can say is that FQ is no better in terms of having anything to commend it as a reasoned and Scripturally valid expression of the movement. We'll close with a reminder that in our last issue, we affirmed that none of this is intended to condemn those who choose to have large families; however, if one wishes to do so, FQ will not provide any formal sanction for it from Scripture over and above those who select to do otherwise.