These days, the Duggars are the most well known family to have participated in the Advanced Training Institute (ATI). For those not familiar with ATI or the Quiverfull movement, the prospect of a family having 19 (going on 20) children is just mind boggling. Yet for those of us
who grew up in ATI, having many children seems quite normal. Or, at least it used to.
I was finishing my sophomore year in public high school when my family enrolled in ATI. I had been to one Basic Seminar and didn’t care for it, but I was in for complete culture shock when my family attended our first Knoxville (ATI’s yearly conference) a few months later. I had never in my life seen so many families who had so many children–often in matching patterns (this was before the days where navy blue and white was mandatory Knoxville dress).
I soon learned why. ATI families had a lot of children because that was “God’s best.” I learned that birth control was self-centered, if not utter defiance against the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We were exhorted to “love children as Jesus loved children” and at the end of that week, they paraded a bunch of mothers and their reversal babies up on stage, to a thunderous standing ovation from a multitude of faces streaked with tears of gratefulness. I wasn’t sure what a reversal baby was, so my mom explained that these mothers had their tubes tied (or in some cases, the dads had vasectomies) but had undergone operations to “reverse” that procedure and have more babies.
I thought that was cool. I had a slew of younger cousins who were a lot of fun. I guess in some respects, having a reversal sibling was kind of like the ATI version of Paris Hilton carrying a Chihuahua in her purse. All the cool kids in ATI had one. Some had several. Admittedly, I was a little bit disappointed when my mom said there’d be no point in her having a reversal surgery since she was undergoing the change. Oh well.
The more time I spent in ATI and away from “normal” people, the more normal having a lot of children seemed. As I thought about marriage down the road, I thought about it in terms of having a lot of children. At some point, a wife who was willing to have a lot of children quickly rose to my “wife-picking-criteria” list. And my parents were thrilled that my brother ran around bragging that some day he and his wife would have at least a dozen kids.
Fast-forward some years: Having left ATI very disillusioned, I nevertheless found myself engaged to a young woman whom I had met while serving at the Indianapolis Training Center. We met with my pastor for pre-marital counseling. My pastor, who had probably never heard of Bill Gothard, the Basic Seminar, or ATI, asked us to sit down and answer some questions together. They were tough, but necessary questions dealing with all sorts of things like finances, sexual activity, gender roles and expectations. Not surprising, there was also a question about family planning. My fiancée Katie (now my wife) and I talked and concluded that we wanted “as many children as God saw fit to give us, whenever He wanted to give them to us.” Of all the IBLP-influenced beliefs and standards we’d jettisoned since leaving, for some strange reason we continued to cling to the mindset that God was opposed to any sort of family planning and wanted everyone to have a very large family.
We soon married, and took absolutely no precautions to avoid pregnancy. Fast forward a few more years, and if you’ve read my other articles, you’ll know that we found ourselves wrestling with years of infertility. The words we’d proudly announced to my pastor “as many kids as God sees fit to give us as soon as He wants to give them to us” haunted us. Maybe that was no kids? Could it really be?
Eventually, after 7 years of marriage, for no explainable reason, Katie finally conceived. By that time I was 33 years old. Much, much older than I ever anticipated I’d be when my first child was born. And while we had no particular number of children in mind, we wondered how many we’d be able to have before our bodies “aged out of the system.” Our son was born and the first few nights were a lot of fun. I didn’t mind that he cried all night long. We had waited so long. However as those nights turned into weeks, and then into months, I was left with two thoughts: I am exhausted. And, why had we wanted this so badly? Parenting was much harder than I assumed it would be, though we loved our son with all our hearts.
Perhaps because we assumed we would continue to have fertility struggles, and perhaps because, on some level, we were still uneasy with the concept of using birth control, we took no precautions. So when our son was four months old, and we were utterly exhausted, we found out we were expecting again. Katie cried, but I’m not sure they were tears of joy.
Eventually, we grew excited about having a second child and even more-so when we learned this one was a girl. We gave each other pep talks about all of the storms we’d weathered together in 8 years of marriage. We would survive this. When our daughter was born, the first few nights were a lot of fun. We didn’t mind that she cried all night long. We’d waited so many years to have a family (rather than just a baby) and here we were. However, unlike our son who learned to sleep through the night after a few months, it took nearly a year for our daughter to master this concept. To complicate things, I was in the process of completing my MBA when she was born, and she had some worrisome health issues that required concentrated attention.
For a number of months, I told Katie that I was done. I didn’t want any more children. I begged her to give me her blessing to get a vasectomy. I no longer cared what my ATI friends would think. I didn’t care whether our parents would be unhappy with the number of grandchildren we’d provided to them. I just wanted to sleep; no I needed to sleep and the thought of more children sounded like a death sentence. We were both totally stressed out and easily angered with one another and sometimes with our children. As a compromise, we utilized birth control. Eventually, our daughter began sleeping through the night and as she did, life began to feel a little more normal. My impulse to prevent conception of any more children quieted down. We began to talk about whether we were up for trying again. Sixteen months after our daughter was born, we learned we were expecting again.
At some point along the way we started watching the Duggars’ show, “19 Kids and Counting.” While Katie found them fascinating, I was irritated. By this point in time my children were toddlers and I was doing everything I could to invest in their lives. I thought about what it would be like to have 19 children and I thought if I were to provide each one of my children just one half hour of my time each day that was reserved for them, that would be 9.5 hours! Who has 9.5 hours? I certainly don’t. And that’s when I began to SERIOUSLY question all that I had been taught about family planning.
Bill Gothard likes to use the verses from Psalm 127:4-5 “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate” to teach that God’s best is to have a lot of children. He also resorts to reading into several Biblical accounts as a basis for encouraging large families:
-Jacob had 12 sons and 1 daughter. If he hadn’t had all the children God intended for him to have, we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament since Paul was a descendant of Benjamin who was Jacob’s 12th son.
-Jesse had 8 sons, but if he didn’t have all the children God intended him to have, we would not have had a significant portion of the Old Testament, since Psalms were primarily written by David (Jesse’s 8th son) while Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written by Solomon, David’s son.
There were probably a few more examples, but those are the ones I remember. As I began to critically examine the logic of these statements, I began to have my doubts. For starters, there is quite a bit of reading into these passages. For example, how many wives did Jesse have? Since David and Solomon both had many, it’s possible he had a few and if so, each wife probably had a few children to care for, and not necessarily one wife with eight children. We know that Jacob had a number of wives. While Leah had 7 children, each of his other wives only had 2. If we want to read into things, Moses’s parents only had 3 children. Maybe they stopped after that? What about James and John? Maybe their parents only had 2 sons? Perhaps Jonah or Daniel were each an only child? The reality is we don’t know the answer to any of these questions. All we can do is speculate, and in my experience when you speculate, you typically bring your own preferences/opinions/presuppositions into the mix.
And then, there is the issue of the biggest proponent of all of these large families. Bill Gothard has no children himself. Sure, it’s easy to be an armchair referee, but I have to wonder whether he’d be so gung-ho about the issue if he had endured nearly 2 years of sleeplessness like I had.
So what about the full quiver? I think the best summary of the issue I ever heard was from an acquaintance who said he’d rather have a quiver with a few well-crafted, functional arrows, then a bunch of shoddy ones, incapable of hitting any mark.
So where does that leave us? By all means, each one should be convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5). For me, I think that I can love children like Jesus loves children without needing them all to be MY children!
Thanks for sharing your journey with us, Ryan. I'm glad you guys have been so blessed outside of the suffocating one-size-fits-all box that is ATI. =)
Thank you so much Ryan for addressing this issue. So much guilt was spent trying to figure this answer out for myself during my first few years of marriage. I love each of my children dearly but the clinical depression I experienced with pregnancy left me void of emotions and energy. After my last child we knew that if we were going to raise our "Quiver" to the best of our ability, it was not best to add to it. In light of how life has taken twits in and turns I am so grateful for the wisdom of this decision.
Also, when BG states that we would not have most of the New Testament had Benjamin not been born...I wonder, is this not very limiting God? Is God not able to bring to pass His perfect will? Very faulty thinking! It is the same thinking that produces the thought that it is our duty to raise up a vast Army for God by having many children.
The concept of us having a responsibility to "raise up a vast army for God" seems to ignore Biblical accounts such as the one in Judges where God 32,000 were available, but God whittled it down to just 300 that He wanted to use to accomplish His purpose. If Jesus could take five loaves and two fishes to feed 5,000 people, I'm not going to worry about whether the three children I have are "enough."
Sorry if this come across as overly sarcastic, but were you not motivated to stop having children by a purely selfish reason? Proper sleep and an MBA were more important than the joy that children could bring? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for extreme reproduction, and I think the Duggars take this principle way out of context. But your friends remark just rubbed me the wrong way. Assuming that by having more arrows the quality of workmanship will be compromised.
=(
This kind of mentality is reminiscent of birth control adds I saw in South America that showed two distict families. One was a poor looking rural family with a passel of kids, an old woman in a shoe kind of depiction, and everyone looked unhappy/frowny faces. The other was an urban family with the requisite 2.5 kids(aka two kids and a pet/child)beeming from ear to ear and well dressed. Get the picture? I think that more and more of my generation of young adults are buying into the worlds philosophy that 'reproduction is evil, and large families are stupid' sort of mentality. I admit that I am biased. I have nothing against smaller families, and there are people that limit their family size for sensible reasons. I grew up in a larger ATI brood, and a lot of the time I loved it. I "only" have two children but would have had more if God and my health had allowed it. I had difficulty concieving and a miscarriage,(after a waiting period because of health problems) and it seems clear that God has other plans, or that this is a "Wait on the Lord" type situation. It's sad to see that many
ex-ati-ers have thrown this principle by the wayside because of the extremes that ATI took it to. But it also angers me that the idea of "family planning" has so permeated society, that so many Christians have swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker. I'm not saying that any form of birth control for any reason is wrong, but there is a fine line between being sensible and being selfish or shallow. I will get off my soapbox now.
My intent in writing this article had nothing to do with denouncing large families and everything to do with speaking out about a teaching that basically said limiting your family size was defying God.
In my humble opinion, Bill Gothard's use of spotty Scriptural "proofs" can burden SOME believers into thinking that they MUST have scores of children in order to be pleasing to God. I was simply trying to point out that I don't buy these Scriptural "proofs" anymore.
I think one sensible (to use your word) reason to limit the size of your family is taking an honest look at your abilities, resources, energy, etc. and determining how many children you can raise well. That number will differ from family to family. For some families that may be 1 child and for others it may be 20. The illustrations within the article were simply intended to illuminate some of the factors that a couple might consider when making that determination. I regret that that this concept was evidently lost on many a reader.
And for the record, I never stated that my wife and I were done having children. The chronic sleep deprivation and stress of trying to finish my MBA (which incidentally has allowed me to better provide for my family so I don't consider it selfish) really tested our limits, and caused us to question what Bill Gothard had taught.
While we have no particular number of children in mind, I am certain that we are one of those families who could not raise 20 children well.
The poor woman in S. African with the passel of kids may have had reason to look sad...she was probably wondering where the next meal for her family was coming from and the family with the 2.5 kids were smiling because they were well fed and had their needs met.
You state that "ATI families had a lot of children because that was “God’s best.” How is it God's best for the poor woman in S. Africa to have more kids when it was so hard to feed the ones she already had? What would be God's best for her is birth control...(don't cringe, I did not say a dirty word!)
God's best varies from person to person. Joni Eareckson, paralyzed in a diving accident decided that being in a wheel chair is God's best for her. (she is closer to God because of it and she does not have any children.)
For one man or belief system to state what God's best is for every christian (unless he says Jesus is God's best) is going waaaaay out of his realm of authority.
You stated "Proper sleep and an MBA were more important than the joy that children could bring?"
Who says children bring joy all the time? Some children bring disappointment and dismay. How many ATI parents are less than joyful because one of their brood left home early, a daughter wore pants or cut her hair, went to college, was gay, comitted suicide, or a crime or just had some independent thoughts apart from Gothard's so called wisdom?
Needing sleep is not selfish, it is a serious health concern. Those little joy bringers will not get a parent's best when the parents is needing rest and sleep. And getting a degree is not selfish. It is a choice in this life in the country we live in. I cannot find a bible verse that says it is wrong. If going to college was unbiblical why are there christian colleges that allow both sexes to attend that allow them to earn degrees? They must not be providing God's best for those students by giving them a higher degree.
"There is a fine line between being sensible and being selfish or shallow. "
and I guess Gothard/QF/patriarchy can certainly tell us where that line is. But the key word is "selfish", often used by patriarchy, QF, Gothardites to put those who make choices different from them into guilt and false conviction about what God's word really says.
"I have nothing against smaller families"....
except that those parents might be selfish and bought into the world lie of using birth control. How do they stop at 1 or 2, or is that not the right size for you?
Mellie, I do not wish to come across as mean, and I certainly wish God's best for you and me me and I guarantee you they are not the same thing. And it is up to me to find that out from God, not rely on Gothard because what if I accept and follow EVERYTHING Gothard says is God's best for me and something goes wrong, will Gothard take the blame? Of curse not, because he already has an out...if things go wrong it must be something I have done wrong.
So what if his decision was based on two years without sleep and an MBA. It is NOT selfish to base your decision on whether to have more on how much time, energy, and enthusiasm you have to share with your children. It is love and concern for those potential children, and unhappy, stressed-out parents are not good parents. I was one of eight and I know d*** well that I did not get enough personal attention from my parents. I love them dearly and I know they did the best they could, but I know I would have been a stronger, more successful person if they could have given me more of their time and attention.
And it is equally unfair to deprive older children of their childhoods to care for younger siblings. Look at the Duggars, the mother hands the baby over to the older girls to raise as soon as it's weaned. The older girls had no childhood of their own and the younger ones get no attention from Mom and Dad.
Parents who truly care about their family will make a rational choice about the number of children based on physical, emotional and financial resources and limitations.
Thank you, thank you for this article! This is something that I have struggled with thru my marriage as well. I didn't marry someone from ATI and our goal was to have 4 (although secretly I thought I wanted more). After having our first one in our first year of marriage, I knew there was no way we could have another right away. Now 10 years into marriage we are blessed with 3 girls, 9 and 3 yr old twins. I am so blessed with what God has given to me, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I believe that I am a better mother by having the extra time to invest in the lives of the ones I have instead of hoping or wondering when God will send another one. I am sure the Duggers are a wonderful family and have good intentions, but they are not ones that I choose to follow or imitate.
This is an excellent take on the issue; thanks for addressing it.
For those who have grown up with this mindset and could do with some encouragement as they get out of it, I wholeheartedly recommend the excellent website and book, http://www.quiveringdaughters.com .
Oh, wow! My husband and I still struggle with this so much!! And I loved your statement: "...in some respects, having a reversal sibling was kind of like the ATI version of Paris Hilton carrying a Chihuahua in her purse." LOL! Too true!! I had two "reversal siblings".
But the best biblical argument I've heard yet on the wisdom of family planning is the sowing and reaping principle. Reading those verses throughout scripture on the importance of stewardship with your crops and harvest really hit home for me. We need to be responsible with the "seeds" we "sow"! The analogy seems so straightforward to me!!
I struggled with this question so much I wrote a whole bloglet on it. When can you say, "I'm done!"? For me, it was with my fourth child, when I realized that I really don't long for any more children. We'd welcome a fifth if that's what happened, but meanwhile we take steps to prevent it.
I'm in my mid-thirties and I've had three c-sections. My family is far away so I don't have a lot of readily available help. Those are other factors in my decision. But according to the Quiverfull teaching, none of those objections have any weight. And it was surprisingly hard to get past that mindset.
Thanks for another clear and articulate article on an important topic.
Ryan, Thank you for once again sharing from your heart. Raising children is an awesome privilege and an enormous responsibility. Add to that the fact that it is just plain difficult at times. You alluded to that fact when you talked about not getting the sleep that you needed because of your children keeping you awake at night for long periods of time. I, too am one who requires a good nights rest. It doesn't take long for me to get really irritable and frustrated without adequate rest.
My first son was born early in my marriage and then 22 months later my second son was born. My husband and I decided to wait awhile before having another child. We just figured since I was able to have both of my sons so close together that getting pregnant again would be easy. Not to awfully long after the birth of our second son we were introduced to the basic seminar and then the advanced seminar. As you know, it's at the advanced seminar where all of the info is taught on how we are to let God determine the number of children we have since He is the one who will open and close our wombs when He decides we have had enough. My husband and I accepted those teachings and began once again to try and have another child. Much to our surprize we were not able to conceive for many years. I remember feeling so guilty for not wanting more kids right away. When we were able to attend a parents homeschooling conference I also felt much guilt and pain when they would parade the reversal Mom's and kids in front of us. I couldn't understand why God wouldn't forgive me and allow me to have another child. I even had other ATI friends asking why we weren't having more children. I figured that my husband and/or I must have had some unconfessed sin in our lives. Again, there was so much guilt and pain. I had a lot of people praying for us. Our family would pray daily for more children.
Seven years later, God blessed us with a baby girl which we named Grace. She has been a joy to have in our family. God has not allowed us to have anymore children. I do not know why God only gave us three, but I have to trust Him that He does know best. I no longer feel the guilt and pain that I once did while under Gothard's indoctrination. I am enjoying this new season of my life of being a grammy to four of the most beautiful grandkids that I could have ever imagined and the fifth one is in the oven :) due to make his or her debut in April.
I do want to end my comment by touching on a very sensitive and controversial subject. I do believe as christians that we are to seek God's will in every area of our lives. I believe child-bearing is one of them. Birth control is a widely accepted practice in our society. I believe each couple should pray about whether to have a child or not and then to be informed about what their options are. Not all birth control methods are safe and or ethical to the christian. I just wanted to mention this because there are some birth control methods that do cause abortions and some that can cause an abortion. I think it would be safe to assume that most of the Recovering Grace contributors believe that life begins at conception and believes in the sanctity of life. It is not my intent to judge anyone but to inform.
Hi tammy id be interested to know where you heard this - again not to judge but to inform. I've been doing a lot of research into birth control because of the personhood amendment which would have made many forms of birth control illegal because they prevent the plantation of a fertilized egg. Many of the more extreme anti birth control lobbies have been pushing the idea that these medications dislodge fetuses, because they think all family planning is immoral.
Helen,
I do not claim to be an expert on the subject of birth control and probably haven't researched it as much as you. I'm sure one would be able to find supporting arguments on both sides of the issue.
My first remembrance of hearing that there are some forms of birth control that might inhibit a fertilized egg from attaching in the uterus was during my schooling to become a registered nurse. Since that time, I have had a few doctors confirm that info to me as well as reading some of the drug inserts telling how the drug prevents pregnancy. I just googled "How birth control pills work?" and pulled up the planned parenthood site which I went to. They list several birth control options.
There appear to be some such as the IUD and/or Morning after pill that appear to work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Also, upon reading once again about birth control pills this is what was they had written on their web page:
The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.
The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus."
The first two ways that the pill prevents a pregnancy doesn't usually present a problem. But if, and that is "if" a pregnancy does occur, then there is the third way that keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
Birth control ultimately is a personal issue between the individual and God. None of us have all of the answers. It is God who we will all one day stand before and have to give an account of all that we have done in this life good or bad and be rewarded accordingly. Just for clarification sake. I don't believe this has anything to do with my salvation. All of my sins past, present and future are covered by the blood of Jesus. One thing is certain; there are things that we must learn "to agree to disagree on." There is no one who is going to agree wholehearted about everything. Whatever we do and say in this life, including our post on this website must be done with the love of Jesus Christ. I think when we stand before God we are all going to be ashamed at how little we really know and understand about Him.
Recovering Grace has been used to help many in so many different ways the past few months that it has been up and running. Satan would love nothing more than to get in the middle of it and bring it down. I'm sure Bill would be pretty happy too. We need to pray for the writers and editors of this site daily and for those who share their stories. It's an awesome responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly. We have all been dealt the teachings of heresy and therefore we need to make sure everything is as accurate and Scriptural as possible.
Thanks Tammy, I am sorry if I offended you in any way!
As a healthcare professional, I concur that hormonal methods can have the effect of creating an inhospitable uterine environment. This information is found in the drug inserts. Although I really hate to bring the abortion debate here. Of course it is also debatable whether that feature really makes the hormone abortifacient. So not wanting to debate it, just to confirm that the mechanism exists with hormonal contraceptives, and the info is readily available in the drug information inserts. That aside, I don't use hormonal contraceptives b/c they make me feel awful and I prefer to limit my use of medications, but you'd better believe I'm using some form of birth control.
Thanks Hannah, I might corner my GP and hae a proper chat about it soon. I don't use hormonal contraception for the same reason, but with one family income (mine) and a mountain of debt, me and hubby not using birth control atm would be pretty irresponsible.
Helen,
You did not offend me.
What good does it do to criticize Bill Gothard’s legalistic views on raising a quiverfull if we open the door for murder?
While the number of children one has is matter of personal Christian choice, the method of controlling it is not. It is a FACT that the majority of birth control used in America hinder the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. ( http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.cfm#b )
Life begins at conception. Once that sperm has fertilized the egg, it is a LIFE. To use a form of birth control which fails to allow it to grow and thrive in the womb is tantamount to murder. From the earliest of time, Jews and Christians have been pro-life. Many Christians are rightfully stand against abortion, but to condone hormonal methods of birth control (the most popular being “The Pill”) is a hypocritical stance which the church needs to repent of.
Ryan, I do not know which method of birth control you and your wife use, but your choice to leave the statement ambiguous is an unwise one – which could lead others to make mournful choices which they will answer to God for.
Brian, it seems to me that if you're going to go down that road (telling Ryan he wasn't specific enough) then maybe you should go there, too. All those descriptions in the link you gave *clearly* state that the point of the [hormonal] BC is to prevent ovulation & conception... only two of them [both IUD's] say anything about preventing implantation.
Lora, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. I quote, "Hormonal methods — Prevent pregnancy by interfering with ovulation, fertilization, and/or implantation of the fertilized egg"
Brian, I took that "and/or" as a signal to refer to the detailed descriptions below for more specifics.
There are other forms of birth control besides a Pill. No need to jump to the conclusion that a couple using birth control automatically means hormonal birth control, and are therefore doing violence to fertilized eggs. My husband and I practice birth control, and I've never taken a Pill in my life.
well stated.
SaraJ, It IS logical to jump to that conclusion. Here’s why. The abortive forms of birth control are the easiest to use and the most effective at preventing pregnancy. This is why they are the most commonly used. Thus, it is logical to jump to the conclusion that the phrase “birth control” commonly refers to the abortive kind.
No, it isn't logical, it's lazy. You should consider all the options before rebuking a fellow Believer of sin, or of leading others to sin.
Thanks for playing 'Holy Spirit', Brian. Preventing ovulation isn't abortive in any way, shape or form.
Brian I find your tone rude and frankly offensive. I do not appreciate the insinuation that 1. we have committed murder and 2. that by not disclosing private information, we are somehow accomplices to future murders. My husband did not and will not disclose the method of birth control we used . . . because frankly its none of your business. Perhaps the concept of "recovering grace" is one you are still struggling with.
Katie, I am sorry that I my tone came across as rude. I did not intend to solicit information as to which kind of birth control you used. I now realize that the wording of my article could lead to that conclusion. What I should have clarified was that I thought it was an unwise choice to leave the “issue” of birth control unaddressed - especially since the ethical implications of birth control are much greater than that of the quiverfull doctrine.
The phrase, “birth control” covers wide variety of meaning, the majority of which cause an abortion if the egg does reach fertilization. In that light, I was not insinuating that you (specifically) were murderers, but that to use the unqualified phrase “birth control” as a viable Christian option is misleading and could influence others to use a form of birth control which (in effect) murders their child.
I just don't think the types of birth control and their ethicalness or lack thereof were within the scope of this article, nor intended to be. The article was about whether God gives us a choice to do ANY family planning. Would it have been less triggering for you had it been worded as "family planning" vs "birth control"? When I hear the words, "birth control", I hear the entire range, and I think most other women do as well. Not trying to make this a male-female thing, but obviously I can't speak for what the typical male will hear.
As my husband suggested below, I too look forward to reading your article and seeing your scriptural support for your stance on the issue.
Brian & Tammy,
It certainly was not my intent in the article to suggest that all forms of birth control are A-OK.
While the form of birth control my wife and I choose to use is nobody's business but ours (and God's), your point is well taken.
Ryan, I did not intend to solicit information as to which kind of birth control you and your wife use – I should have worded my comment differently and I apologize for the confusion. I know that your article did not intend to condone any and all forms of birth control. However, your choice to use the unqualified phrase, “birth control” implies a wide variety of meaning, the majority of which cause an abortion if the egg does reach fertilization. Thus, my critique was centered on the wisdom of leaving the phrase “birth control” open to possible unbiblical interpretations and applications by your readers. While my opening statement could be perceived as harsh, I simply intended to point out the foolishness of tearing down a “little” bad thing (legalism about the number of children) only to open the door for a “large” bad thing (using a form of birth control which causes abortion).
I understand your position, but I'm still of the persuasion that sin is sin and that there aren't little and large sins.
With respect to not elaborating on the issue of birth control in the article, it was not an intentional omission. As an author of articles on RG yourself, I'm sure you're aware of the pressure to keep your pieces as brief as possible while still covering their intended topic.
Maybe you could pen a piece for RG specifically focusing on forms birth control? You are a skilled writer and I for one would be interested in reading your elaborated thoughts on the matter.
Yes Brian! Actually that would be wonderful! I'm looking for a birth control that is none abortive and I need to start on it ASAP since I get pregnant very easy! Everytime a Dr. says one is non abortive I find out differently in my own research! so ya Brian you really should right a paper on it please!
Rebekah, the simple answer is to avoid any hormonal contraceptive, if you indeed believe that the mechanism Brian refers to is abortifacient. All hormonal contraceptives contain this feature. The options you are left with are barrier methods and spermicides (usually used in combination), rhythm methods, and surgical sterilization. That's the short answer.
Ok so your decision for a vasectomy, was not motivated by sin? And if it was so very personal why disclose it in your article? I think that the point that Ryan was trying to make was that some forms of birth control do prevent implantation. Which if you believe that life begins at conception, equates to murder. And for someone who professes to follow Christ it's pretty serious. It IS this concept/belief that the quiverfull movement uses to justify the argument that "birth control is evil", but there are other forms of birth control, as you were quick to point out.
Natural Family Planning is an option, too. I've known folks who used it very sucessfully. You can probably find The Couple to Couple League online.
Ryan, let me start by saying that as a parent of small children, I understand the tiredness, the chaos, and the fact that parenting is a lot harder than anticipated! However, I think that tearing down families who want to have more children than you do is just as hypocritical as those who would mock you for not having a "full quiver." Different families have different parenting methods, babies with different personalities and needs, different support structures, different abilities, etc. Just because you or I can't fathom raising 10 or 20 children well doesn't mean another family will fail when they try. As you said, "Each one should be conviced in his own mind."
As far as having enough time for each child, choosing a random amount of time that you think each child must have alone with you is random at best. Believe me, I understand the pressure to make sure I'm properly connected to my children and their needs. However, you overlook the multiplying support structure that children have with siblings, and also the time several children can have with a parent at once. My best and fondest memories as a child weren't alone with a parent, but as a group with my siblings and parents! Again, different families will have different abilities and needs and they will need to take that into account when raising well-adjusted children. But please don't assume the worst in large families.
Finally, I understand your friend's comment about not wanting "a bunch of shoddy arrows." Who does? Parents of small families and parents of large ones should desire to do their best for their children before God. I dislike the assumption that many/most large families will have shoddy arrows. Some will. Some small families will as well! The quality of one's children is dependent on the parents' raising, and as the children grow to adulthood, the children's responding to that training (Plus a good dose of God's grace!). Many ATI families have large families, and many ATI families ended up broken and warped. This is a reflection on the teachings of Bill Gothard and not on the size of the family. A large family may magnify problems, but it does not cause them.
These are good points and I noticed them, too. I'm glad you clarified them. But Ryan's point didn't seem to be "large families are undesirable." It was, "Here's how I realized that I don't have to have a large family."
Some people are called to having large families. I know several (eight to ten kids) that are fantastic to be around. But the Quiverfull movement holds up these families as *models* to *imitate*, instead of acknowledging that not everyone is cut out to have several children.
I love being around large families. But I'm glad I no longer feel obligated to produce one myself.
MamaK,
I apologize if my article offended you. My intention was not to knock big families; rather it was to knock the ATI teaching that basically said if you did anything to prohibit conception you were resisting God's will. I fundamentally disagree with that concept.
With respect to the Duggars, I understand how you could interpret what I wrote as knocking them. It wasn't intended to be so; rather they are simply the most well-known ATI family and thus provide a context for readers who may not otherwise be familiar with the large family in ATI model.
Ryan, no you didn't offend me. :) I just wanted to be sure the "other side" was fairly represented. And I agree that Christians are free to be good stewards of their fertility... (Though hopefully using an ethical form of birth control, as mentioned by Brian above)
That's what I got from your article, too Ryan. I understood it as you intended it :)
Amen!
What a well thought out article! Thank you so much for sharing this Ryan!
Shoddy arrows. That really hurts.
I was an ATI mom for quite a few years and embraced the Quiverfull teachings. After a number of children we had a close call. A home birth and heavy hemorrhaging nearly claimed my life. I was ready to end the child bearing and focus on the children we had, but my husband didn't agree. Within nine months I was pregnant again. We actually had insurance and I wanted to have the next birth in a hospital, but it was more important to my husband to have a home birth and "prove" his faith. I asked him, "What are you going to do if I bleed to death?" His answer amazed me. "Get a new one."
We did go to the hospital because his father intervened. We did finally end up with our quiverfull, but somewhere along the way, my husband lost interest in being a father. I weep for my younger children. They saw the difference in the way their father had been involved much more in the lives of their older siblings and how he just didn't seem to care as much for them. But even though they got the short end of the stick, they are not shoddy arrows. No , it is the parent who neglects his children who is the shoddy one. I think it would be better to state,"I'd rather have a few children I feel I can parent well, than a large number of children whom I am failing.
I love all my children and none are shoddy arrows.
Your point is incredibly well made. I was quoting something someone else had said and agree with you that it could have been better phrased. And I should not have been so quick to praise the quote, though I still heartily believe in its underlying message that quality rather than quantity needs to be a parent's focus.
Not that one cannot have quantity too, but if you do, please, for your children's sake, make sure you don't neglect the quality part.
I didn't see this as a post on which methods of birth control are acceptable or not. I saw this as questioning the very root: is it acceptable to try to control your reproductive life? The first question can go round in circles forever but the second is the heart of the quiverful issue. Regardless of method, either it is OK to "take charge" and make the choice to have kids or not, or it is not OK. THAT I see as the point of this. (Although, I'd argue that doing nothing to prevent is also "taking charge" and making a choice.)
Exactly. It's a *very* personal issue, and a decision that ought to be made with lots of prayer and discussion. But to make an ultimatum of "you're rejecting God's best" because a couple chooses to prevent pregnancy does NOT take into account the other myriad of factors that NEED to be considered in the decision-making process. It is not a decision that should be made out of guilt or pressure to measure up.
Pingback : Son of Quiverfull asks “Quiverfull or Full of it? « A Quiver Full of Information
I've a question as an outsider looking in. Is there an element of competition between ATI families around how many children they have?
I know one ATI family quite well and it seems they were always trying to regain the post pregnancy fertility early by cutting short breast feeding. I always thought privately that she should have delayed fertility as long as possible so her body would have time to recover from the nutrient drain of pregnancy. I also heard comments that suggested competition between families regarding the number of children they had and how many possible children they could have before menopause arrived. There seems to be an element of gloating (pride) surrounding how many children you have (at least with the family I know).
Louise,
Yes! I observed a lot of competiton between families whether it was intentional or not. Several families that I knew seemed very prideful about the number of kids that they had. I remember someone asking me once if having lots of kids made one more spiritual because she got that impression because of the attitudes of some in ATI that she had been around. She was not in ATI. I have 3 grown children. When I was in ATI I was asked "why I wasn't having more children?" That was very judgemental and hurtful to me. It wasn't that my husband and I weren't trying. It apparently just wasn't God's will for us.
Louise, heck yes! I think about 80% of ATI families, it turned into a competition, and little more than that. I can remember my dad gloating about how we had (at the time) 8 kids, and then to walk into a seminar and meet families of 11-15 kids, and literally seeing his face fall, and he wasn't very happy about it. Fast forward about 15 years, and I'm positive my dad is beyond grateful that he didn't have any more after number 9 was born. He's next door to being an old man now, and still has a 14 and 17 year old in the house. It's draining, and personally I think he's tired of parenting, and just wants to live his old age in peace and quiet. Can't blame him for that..
I appreciate your blog, but I struggle with contentment in this area. If God has blessed the Duggar's with many children (as exhausting and hard on the mom as I think it would be, and stressful on the marriage), they can deal with Him about it. I, for one, do not believe we should artificially prevent (or in Brian's words, of which I agree) killing and/or stopping life. But that's just my opinion on the matter. As I work with many custody and placement issues, I am saddened by the circumstances many children are in, and I wish I could help all of them. I became a mother later in life after having a miscarriage. My husband and I did nothing to prevent pregnancy, except natural family planning. Its not that hard. However, God has only blessed me with one child. I would love another one, and I struggle daily with the circumstances in my life that prevent another child (my husband's sterility from cancer treatments). I grew up in a big family, and now, through the challenges in my life, I am so very very grateful to God for giving my parents (though totally unperfect) the grace and mercy to raise 6 children who are hard-working, kind and loving siblings. I wish (and struggle daily) that I could have had more children. As much work as my 3 year old son is, I am blessed by the graciousness of God to give me, for whatever time I have, a son to train, love, bring up in the ways of God. And what a challenge it is. As a full time working mother, it is hard, but by the grace of God. And children are just that, a gift from God for as long as He wants.
I get what you are saying, Ryan. I don't believe it is wise nor God ordained to act like bunnies and indiscriminately pop out child after child. But I also think Christians are becoming far too much like the world. Where is the dividing line between those who truly love Christ and those who do not. It is not in what we wear (i.e. all blue and white, only skirts, both of which I revolted against even while in ATI), it is not what we eat or drink, whether we play cards or go to movies (none of which I have a problem with), but all of that is a reflection of what is inside, how we cherish Christ, how we love Him who has called us. It can only be a personal decision, examining scripture in context (something I find IBLP/ATI had a problem with) and following what God has lead YOU to do.
Alanna, my old friend! I know where you're coming from with respect to contentment. For a very long time, Katie and I didn't think we'd ever be able to have kids (and we weren't using ANY family planning).
And I understand your sentiments about wanting to be set apart from the world in a meaningful way. Deep down, at the heart of Katie's and my decision to limit the number of children we'll have (and I never stated that we were finished) is the desire that all of our children grow up feeling important and treasured.
And while I'm certain that some families can do that well even with 6 or 9 or 12 children, I don't believe that Katie and I are one of those families. Some days it's a real struggle with just three.
In dissecting the Duggars above, I didn't mean to criticize the choices they've made. It's just that in our case, we would not be happy being able to devote ONLY 1/2 hour a day to each of our children. Sure some days that will happen, but our intention is that each child we have will have frequent one on one time with mom and with dad, which obviously is much, much harder to do when there are more children in your family (and thus the illustration about 9.5 hours).
My intention in writing this article was primarily to challenge the ATI stance that deciding to limit the size of your family was an act of defiance against God. Judging by the first few comments to this article, I gather that many people who came up through ATI were incredibly burdened by this teaching, perhaps detrimentally so, and I wanted to offer a different perspective.
Praying for you and your family and waiting to see what God has planned for you!
Alanna, there are many forms of birth control which have nothing to do w/killing/murder?
Alanna, I will have to disagree with you that "natural" family planning is easy, at least for some. There are, presumably, those who have completely predictable ovulation, but that has not been the case for us - particularly after pregnancy.
Without some additional or alternative method, we would have had a child every 15 months. Given our ages, this probably would have meant 20+ children as a genuine possibility.
Honestly, the "natural" method, to be completely effective would have meant complete abstinence for a very extended period of time. (15 years?)
This is why it is annoying to find in quiverfull and anti-birth control literature statements like, "it's easy and effective". Or worse, the suggestion that if you don't want more kids, just give up sexual relations all together - a sure way to have a functional marriage, I'm sure.
I am reminded of a Victorian era pamphlet on how to wean a husband off of sex. "You can count on his sense of morality and obligation to his children to keep him from straying."
In that respect, I agree with Ryan that this has become yet another area where externals become badges of spirituality. It's a visible way of showing others how committed you allegedly are to life and to God.
I'll end this with the analogy that makes sense to me. God has enabled me to afford abundant food. Should I eat all that I can, or use my judgment and the information available to me to determine how much of this blessing is actually appropriate.
There are many natural methods that don't involve abstinence. I would suggest researching the subject.
I also disagree that natural family planning is "easy" for everyone. My cycles have been irregular since I was a teen. I could go anywhere from 6 weeks to 9 months without a period. When I was TRYING to get pregnant, I did all I could to figure out when I was ovulating. Tracking temperature, mood, mucus (ew), I read all that I could and it did me no good. We begged and pleaded with God, and after 4 years, we were blessed with a boy and then again 2 1/2 years later TWIN boys. After having twins, I knew that if I had another child in the next few years, I might go AWOL!!!
So, just as natural family planning did not work for me, it would not have been a good method of birth control for us, since I was not able to track my cycle like many people are able to.
Blanket statements are really not fair. I think that we should not judge other people for their personal decisions. That's fine if you think I'm wrong for using birth control. My husband and I are comfortable and happy with our decision. We have to answer to each other and God. And that's that for me.
as my husband and I like to say to bystanders, "it's not a contest." to each their own conscience! thanks for the article.
Ryan,
Thank you so much for writing this!!! I also grew up in a family that drilled the same mindset of "Children are a gift" and that any form of birth control was considered as "abortion." I'm sorry, but I never agreed, and always wondered why it was "evil" to think otherwise. My husband and I while dating had already decided we didn't want any children and had a vasectomy. I've had several and many phsical problems to the point of almost dying, (and most of the birth control I had taken in the past my body rejected) and my husband said he wasn't willing to take the chance of losing his wife. My fmaily then said that my sickness was punishment or "chastisement" from me believing differently, and for taking it. Sad to say, a lot of these ATI families are like this. My husband and I are doing and living what we believe, and guess what?? God still hasn't left us or "turned away his blessings" all because we choose not to have children. Neither one of us regret the vasectomy, but if anything are glad to not have to worry about kids. My family happen to be really close friends with the Duggers, and they all are nice and all, but I don't see how having 20 something kids can make you more spiritual, or closer to God. at least the Dugger Dad can afford I too, but I always struggled with the families who kept having kids because "it as right" and the Dad half of the time didn't even have a real job. Ugh. I just don't understand these people, honestly!!
Don't get me wrong. I love all of my siblings and wouldn't be the same without them, and def wouldn't have it any other way, but I and my husband just aren't doing the same!
Thamk you once again for your story. In my opinion, it's something that should have been pointed out long ago! :)
Growing up in ATI and coming from a large family myself I always questioned the logic of QuiverFull. I heard it said over and over, "If you were going off into battle would you only want to take 2 arrows?" Being from a family of 9 kids, I wrestled with this because I kept sitting there thinking, "Well, no, but I sure wouldn't want to only take 9 either! So now what?" I kept thinking about all the families I knew with tons of kids in them. The moms and dads were burnt out, kids didn't get quality time with their parents, older daughters were being "mom" through cooking, cleaning and taking care of babies. (I was one of them. I even taught my baby brother to read and potty trained my little sister.) and I just thought to myself, this isn't what parenting should look like. I came to the conclusion that I would rather have time to invest in 2-3 "arrows" and do my best to craft them as straight and sharp as I could then to have a whole handful of ones that I just never had time to properly prepare.
I agree with you Rebecca. I am not opposed to having a large amount of kids, or a small amount of kids, but what I AM opposed to is the families where the oldest children essentially raise the youngest children. This is NOT God's plan - children should not be raising children. I am OK with families that want a lot of kids as long as THEY the parents are raising them, not passing of their responsibilities of parenting onto their own children.
Hi sis! Took the words right out of my mouth, esp about the older sisters being the mom.. and you did 1000 times more work 'raising' the little ones than I ever did! btw, thank you for being there for me during my times of misery and despair.. I'm so grateful for you!
Thinking it over, with the Duggars' belief system (I have first hand knowledge it's ATI, I know them personally), they really didn't have a choice. From various things they've said, there was an impression that they thought they were done. Considering the trauma of Michelle's health problems with the last pregnancy, and the ongoing struggles of the micropreemie baby, the Duggars could well be terrified. They know the risks, but they are boxed into a belief system, and they can't just ditch it- look at the scrutiny they are already under from both sides. I feel sorry for them.
So question: based on this mindset that any type of birth control is "cutting off life", are those who abstain prior to marriage and then don't marry until their mid-30s, not guilty of the same? I hope you see my point, that we do have choices to make in life, and we are responsible for actually making some, and not just letting all of life "happen" to us and calling it "God's will". I'm not knocking abstinence or singleness or anyone else's reproductive choices. Neither do I find it responsible to be passive about life choices that are within your control. God knows there are plenty of things not within our control, but I think we ask for trouble when we take a passive stance on life in general.
"I think that I can love children like Jesus loves children without needing them all to be MY children!"
I love it!!! HAHA
I have to say that I did feel the guilt big time. After having two children, we used birth control and I felt like I was "killing babies" just because of the mass hysteria in my circle of fundy's. My mom especially was, under no circumstances, allowed to know.
We got off for only 2 months to see if that was what was causing my energy loss and were surprised to find that that's all it took to get us Jeremy. It was my hardest pregnancy yet. With the other two, the ordeal took everything I had, with the third, I had nothing left. There were times when I couldn't leave the couch. Everything about it was impossible.
For me to get my surgery after him was huge! I felt like I was crossing some kind of line and once there, I could never be "good" enough again. But I simply couldn't go through another pregnancy again. I felt that sacrificing myself was saving myself for the three that I had. I know my mom was upset when she found out.
Today, I am very thankful that I did!!! God knew the future... He knew that I was going to get cancer and that I needed to focus on myself and the kids that I had; He knew that my oldest was going to suffer with ADHD symptoms and that educating him was going to take all that I had; He knew each of their needs. Now that I look back, He was guiding my ship and I was simply following His lead. He knew my heart and that I wanted to do the right thing.
Sometimes, it is selfishness to say that the ones God has given us aren't enough. For me, they ARE!!! And sometimes too much. heehee
What a beautiful testimony to God's leading in your life!
Thank you so much for your post, it was very helpful and insightful! I am 21 and have been pregnant 6 times, 4 times ending in miscarriages, and I have a 2 year old daughter and a newborn daughter. My husband is looking for work in a different state and so I have had to take care of them on my own. I'm exhausted and at my wits end!My husband and I have agreed I should get on birth control since I get pregnant so easily but we want one that isn't just another form of abortion! Please help me ! do you have any suggestions? what did you guys use?
I use NFP. If used properly it is very effective. It's the only form of BC that I know of that doesn't have abortion type qualities other than barrier methods.
I just commented on this above, Rebekah. Barrier methods, rhythm methods, surgical sterilization
While I haven't been exposed to the ATI program (except to watch the Duggars) I agree with their way of life. Because, I believe all things happen for a reason. Some people are made to have big families, some are not. God will only give you the number of children He intends for you to have. My inlaws had 11 children. They are Catholic and at the time the Catholic church didn't give any options for birth control. They didn't have 20 kids. Some aunts and unlces never used birth control and they only ever had 1 or 2 children. I'd say their quiver was full at that amount because that's where God stopped giving them children.
IDK, I didn't grow up with the same situations you did, but I sure do hope I have a quiverful! Of course my quiverful is going to be different than anyone else, because the Lord intends me to have a set amount of children just like he intends you to.
Katie L.
I think it is wonderful that you want a large family. As I've stated in other responses, the intention of the article was not to criticize large families so much as it was to criticize the ATI teaching that God wants everyone to have a large family. The Duggars were referenced simply because they are the most well known ATI family and thus provide a context for readers, such as yourself, who are not familiar with the ATI experience.
One perspective to consider: the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth
In Jesus day, there were 170 million people on this planet. Today there are 7 billion. Perhaps we do not need to multiply so much now because the earth is filled?
Michelle, this made me laugh. Point well made. :)
You know, just the other day, it occurred to me that when God gave the command, 'Be fruitful and multiply', He was talking to the only two humans on the planet, so it was EXTREMELY necessary to give that command at that time. No, I'm not suggesting that it is no longer God's will for us to multiply, by any means, but think about this: even if you only have one child, you HAVE multiplied yourself. And those who are unable to have children, are they sinning? I think not. Hannah, Sarah, and Elizabeth were barren according to God's perfect will until the proper time. I personally would not recommend having more than you know you can take, i.e. if every day is a near crisis of a struggle and you only have four kids, maybe it's just not meant for you to have more. Just a suggestion, of course each should consult the Lord's will in this. My 2 cents.
I was just reading the article and comments, as I was trying to figure out what ATI stood for and ended up reading here, and had no intention of commenting, but Michelle, that was brilliant and made me giggle.
Ryan, thank you for sharing your journey with this issue. Before I read the comments I had no idea that I was reading anything that would offend anyone or cause such a stir. We had our reversal babies, as well as our before reversal babies. We've shared much of the same observations and experiences as you. I enjoyed reading your piece and actually enjoyed the humor in it as well. I think you wrote from your heart and from your personal experience and that you shuld stand by what you wrote with no apologies. You were obviously sharing your own experience and not trying to persuade anyone to change their opinions or making fun of anyone. Again, thank you for sharing, Ryan.
~Sally : )
Brian, you don't seem to be objecting against the CONCEPT of "family planning", only the use of hormonal birth control. Am I correct that this accurately portrays your position? Is your issue with hormonal birth control or the idea of a couple "controlling" the amount of children they have through non-abortive means?
Darcy, you are absolutely right. I don't have a problem with the concept of "birth control" itself, simply the forms which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. As far as I can tell, there is not enough scriptural evidence to claim (as Bill Gothard does) that hindering pregnancy is a sin against God.
Ah. Well in that case, I'm pretty sure that getting on a bunny trail about which methods are OK and which are not is side-tracking from the important issues brought up in this article. I really don't think the way you jumped on the author (and a few commentors)about METHODS was helpful in the discussion on the CONCEPT nor was it necessary. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave the debate on methods for another time and place and stick to the conversation on concepts. I think this was Ryan's intention when righting this.
Darcy, I respectfully disagree. When it comes to an order of importance, the ethical implications of the METHODS of birth control are more important than the ethical implications of the CONCEPT of birth control. (The former deals with life/death/murder, the latter with Christian liberty/guilt/scripture interpretation.)
In light of that, a simple statement from Ryan addressing the ethical considerations which must be considered in the choice of birth control would be an important qualifier, not a “sidetrack” or a “bunny trail”.
I feel that this could/should have been done either through a footnote or a statement in parentheses. A whole paragraph didn’t need to be written about it, but it did need to be addressed in some way as to not accidentally condone (or as I put it, “open the door for”) the use of birth control in all its forms.
Plus, the dealing with the issue of METHODS of birth control would not really be an article which falls in line with RG’s mission – to deal with the false teachings of Bill Gothard. Since Gothard doesn’t believe in the CONCEPT of birth control, there is no need to rebut his teachings on the matter of METHODS. However, since Ryan does believe in the CONCEPT of birth control (as do I), then by necessity, we must address the ethical nature (in some way) of the METHODS of birth control.
Except that Ryan doesn't necessarily agree with your beliefs on methods. You want him to qualify his statements to fit your beliefs when he may not even agree with them. You and I are both writers for this website. We both know that no two people here agree perfectly with each other, yet we are all given the freedom to express what we believe in our articles. Getting on the comments and demanding that the writer change their writing according to your beliefs is wrong. I'm pretty sure no other writer here has disrespected your beliefs in that way. If you had a problem with something I've written, I would expect you to privately address it with me, not get on my article and demand I fix it in the comments. We're all on the same side here and I feel like your comments were unhelpful and rather arrogant. Which is why you got the reaction you did from other people commenting.
Brian, I'm a flabbergasted at your remarks. The whole point of "Recovering Grace" is exactly that - recovering grace. In my opinion, part of that be not jumping to conclusions about what one couple may or may not be doing. Even if it doesn't line up with your belief system, a little grace would go a long way. Funny the article touched on judging people based on the size of his/her family, and it dissolved into a discussion where people decided to judge a family for the type of birth control they use. And said judgment was based on inferences and hair-splitting. Hrmph.
On a happier note, Ryan, thanks for putting your story out there! You give us tentative ones courage to maybe one day do the same.
Brian - "Birth Control" as defined on Wikipedia includes in it's definitions "Barrier Methods" such as condoms and diaphrams. People do not automatically conclude that "Birth Control" is meant to convey a hormonal method. In fact most women that I have conversed with regarding pregnancy prevention use the same term "Birth Control" in reference to the "Barrier Methods".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control
But birth control could also convey abortion, or morning after pill as a method, which is something that a Christian should never consider. Excuse me for standing by my beliefs/convictions. The author may not have intended the tone of his article to be offensive or condescending, but some (including myself) felt so. He did however apologize. Case closed on that. However, I noticed a lot of people taking offense to Brian's stance on the birth control isssue. While the author did not need to clarify the methods of birth control, there is certainly nothing wrong with Brian stating his belief on the topic.
In regards to this website, I love it and am grateful for it. What I am finding though is that if anyone disagrees with what is said whether it comes from someone who is supportive of Bill's teachings or not, then the tone in the comments changes drastically.
I am being reminded myself of how important it is that everything that we do brings honor to our Lord. It matters not how much we know and what we say if we don't communicate the truth with love in our hearts. (1 Cor. 13)
I should have added that my comment was not intended for anyone in particular or even limited to this one story. These attitudes have been observed on several stories.
I gathered, from the general tone of his article, that he is a conscientious man who would do everything possible to keep from sinning, and if it had occurred to me to consider what kind of birth control he used/uses, I would not have jumped to the conclusion that he must be using abortive methods. I understand that it's a hot issue with you, and for good reason, (I think we all agree that abortive methods are wrong), but I think that most of the comments regarding his use of b/c have been very ungracious and judgmental. To the pure, all things are pure.
"Excuse me for standing by my beliefs/convictions." Pardon me for saying, MellieJ, but EVERY person who has commented has done the exact same thing, standing up for what they believe in. That particular expression makes anyone who says it, sound arrogant and puffed up. It bugs me to no end.
And for heaven's sake, we're not offended by Brian's 'stance' on birth control, (most likely everyone on here agrees that it's wrong to use abortive methods,) we're offended by his arrogance, condecension, and rudeness.
Nothing wrong with him stating his belief at all, I agree with you, it was just completely unneccessary for him to act as if Ryan, (and everyone else) might be blatantly using abortive methods without a further thought. Way to treat your brothers and sister's honorably. A simple comment or question would have sufficed, and wouldn't have stirred up trouble. But, I digress...
Personally, the point in all this that bothers me the most (and I say this because I have seen several articles and discussions, both from Christian and non-Christians since the Duggars announced the upcoming birth of their 20th child this week. It's sparked the issue anew it seems.) is that Christians, in attempt to combat a world that is generally hostile to having a family of more than two children, have embraced a fallen man/people group's definition of "Letting God choose the size of your family." (I don't necessarily mean Bill Gothard and ATI with that statement. I'm sure the idea was around somewhere before it was pushed so much there.) Letting God control the size of your family should mean much more than having as many kids as you can, whenever you can. God's ways are not our ways, and our ways are not His. Prov. 3:5&6 comes to mind quite poignantly.
Because of embracing this popular definition, couples experiencing the deep pain of infertility -such as the writer of this article and MANY close and personal friends of mine- are subject to judgement. Other couples with physical limitations, both obvious limitations and those that are just too personal to share, also become an object of judgement and misunderstanding when they either don't have more children or any children. Those are just a few examples, not meant to be an exhaustive list.
In defense of larger families, I really do believe that God does call some to have large families and that they will do a wonderful job raising those children to the glory of God. I just really wish that those that have either grown up in ATI or embraced the popular definition of letting God control the size of the family are really sure that this is what God wants for them, not just because it *sounds* pleasing to God.
What is interesting to me about the whole "let God decide" how many children have is that it is very deterministic. I have heard it called Non-Medical Interventionalism and I would have to agree. This same line of reasoning should lead us to advocate no medical intervention when we are sick. If we are going to say no to all forms of conception control (I am talking about everything, barrier and NFP- not abortive types like the "Pill" etc.) then why not do the same when we are sick? The Bible gives illustrations of people being sickened and healed by God. Why have any medical intervention in these circumstances either, if we are truly 'trusting' God with his Will for our lives- to live or die, in the same way.
If my parents had continued to have children my mother would not be alive today. They used barrier methods to ensure they didn't become pregnant again. A blood clot gene runs in our family and she had many clots with her last pregnancy (me).
I also want to say I am so thankful I found this website. I grew pretty close friends with a large 'ATI' family and they are still very much involved. I never truly understood the specifics of their upbringing until now. As a matter of fact, I thought perhaps the IBLP would be something we could join....leaving the bad and taking the good. A little research on the internet helped me realize that would not be the case. I am not sure if my friends are following in the 'ATI way' but I am interested. I wouldn't be shocked to discover a few of them are not. I wish I knew what to say to be helpful. Looking back now I realize what a 'BAD' influence I must have been on them! ;o) I also understand the strange looks their father gave me a few times. I really appreciate this website.
Thanks for sharing this insightful essay. :-)
Here's the point I gathered: While it is true that children are a wonderful blessing from the Lord, believing that choosing to have more or less children results in more or less righteousness or privileged status (i.e. "blessed") before God is contrary to the Gospel of grace and contrary to God's character.
[There is a subtle yet very present attitude of this in certain highly-conservative evangelical groups]
If it were true that having more children necessarily resulted in more of God's blessing upon your life or an increase in the pleasure He finds in you - then what of those who are unable to have any children or very few children due to physical difficulties? Are they forever less blessed or less righteous? I hardly think so.
Therefore, our attitude needs to be one of humility and grace toward all, regardless of how many car seats they have in their conversion van. :-D
Or of all the unmarried mothers who pop 'em out back to back and seem to be the most fertile creatures on the planet.. What's up with that? Surely God would not 'reward' immorality? So it must be that there's something a little deeper to this teaching, than a mere, surface level issue of having a zillion little rugrats to make you holy.. :) (As for the unmarried mothers and their offspring, God doesn't love them ANY less because they sinned, though we know the sin displeases Him.)
This comment thread makes me feel quite sad. It seems to go against the very fabric of what Recovering Grace stands for. We are trying to break free from the chains of legalism and judgement. Some of the opinions expressed here were presented in a manner that seemed to condemn other people's personal reproductive decisions. Bill Gothard dictated this subject. Jesus did not. Not directly anyway. I'm sure there are many people who could make a Scripture "fit" through their interpretation.
We need to believe that people are on a journey AWAY from legalistic rules and TOWARDS a relationship with the Lord. That, in my opinion, should give us each the free thinking ability to discern what God intends for our own family. I think it's wrong for any one of us to ascertain that our opinion is the only "right" one. Please have respect. We can agree to disagree on these things without tearing down other people's opinions no matter how you feel about it.
I think a simple re-wording would eliminate a lot of confusion.
I don't believe in birth control, but I do believe in conception control.
~K
Hi, I have been looking into ATI and the IBLP after seeing several seasons of the Duggars. I just wanted to say to those who say they would go crazy if they had more kids, that maybe if they had not practiced birth control they would have seen the hand of God work in their fertility. It is funny how for me when I did not want kids I got pregnant ( I married never wanting to have kids because I thought they would take too much work. Thankfully I decided to let God control my womb and he opened it to my amazement, and I knew as soon as it happened. God has really changed my mind about kids since and I really love my son. I am glad he was given to me), and since then I have really wanted to have another child, but have not been able to conceive at all for four years. I believe God knows what he is doing and he is the one who creates life and he will use the life he gives or doesn't give you for your good because he knows it is best for you. I have considered using barrier methods of contraception, but after really thinking about it it just doesn't seem right to me deep down after I have discovered from not using birth control that he really does know what he is doing and even though even having one child is stretching and very difficult at times it is for my good. I would not be the same person I am today if I had not allowed God to open and close my womb. ( BTW- This was a personal conviction; I have never been involved with ATI).
Jessica, I understand what you are saying, and you seem to be doing just fine following God's will for your life, and that's wonderful for you! Please let me tell you that you do NOT need ATI, in order to continue pursuing/receiving God's will, or to be holy/holier. Please consider that. You have Christ, you have the Bible, most likely you have a good church, you do not need a legalistic program.
Please hear my heart, and stay away from this program. The bit of good that is in ATI can be found in your copy of God's word, so really the program isn't necessary for you. There is too much dirt, deceit, and pure misery to balance out the bit of good in it.
Jessica, I think you comment was beautifully put!! My husband and I also have the same conviction. God has used my children to teach me so much, so that as I am the teacher I am also being taught. My husband and I would like to have more, they have been such a blessing!!!
But, I fully believe it has to be between that couple and the Lord. I also believe that as Christians if you do decided to use some form of birth control,(and I want to clarify that i'm not looking down on anyone for using it...my sister and her husband use it) that it is your responsibly to check it out and make sure that it is preventing pregnancy (fertilization) not in anyway terminating it.
Yes, Jessica, but God is not confined to working around any right or wrong decision Mr. and Mrs. Duggar may have made. As for the 'crazy' comment, I guess none of us knows for sure unless you have 10+ kids whether more would drive you crazy. Coming from a large family, (and growing up around other large families) I have a very educated guess and personal experience that yes, it COULD be a serious issue to have more.
On another note, someone's earlier comment made mention of how the Duggars might actually feel trapped because of their beliefs, and terrified that the next pregnancy could end in more than just a miscarriage. I want to thank whoever made that comment. It helped me see how judgmental I was of the whole family (because I do not agree with their choice of lifestyle), and never bothered to see what misery could be just behind those tired, smiling eyes... I am humbled.
A wise lady whose husband survived 12 bullets in a store robbery told me God does not make "cookie cutter Christians", meaning each Christian has to follow the individual path God has laid out for them....It is a personal relationship and we do not always follow closely, sometimes not at all. The problem is that sometimes Christians think that what God wants in their life is what He wants for every other Christian, then they mistakenly try to put those ways of living on others as being the only way. There was only one Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt and witnessed the one and only parting of the Red Sea, one Noah who rode out the flood with all the animals on the one and only ark, one Abraham who by faith believed God's promise to make him a nation, one David who faced a giant with only one little slingshot, and one Mary who was visited by the Holy Spirit to become pregnant with Jesus. None of them attended any Gothard seminars or heard Billy Graham speak and large families were their way of life because there was no birth-control. Nor were there cars nor electric lights back then but we use them now without feeling sinful. And God has made only one YOU and one ME...we are an incredible distinct personality found lost and wandering that He will paint and frame into a masterpiece! He is the author and finisher of our faith in Him.
Peter Marshall, chaplain to US Senate and very godly preacher, had only one son. Was he disobedient to God?
In the 1950′s, missionaries had few children and left them in the care of others while they went to missionary fields. Back in that day, it was considered truly following God to leave your child to go into dangerous places to spread the message. Were those missionaries disobeying God by not having umteen kids then leaving them for someone else to raise?
Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children. She and her husband were quiverful adherents. Her doctor told her to slow down, give her body rest and time for hormones to normalize. But the Yates thought to do so was to disobey God. Look what happened- 5 innocents are dead, she is is prison and the husband has divorced her, remarried and has more children. And the bible talks against divorce, making it a sin. Who sinned in this case?
What I have found that if a principle of God is true, it is true all over the world and works in any climate, time or culture.
FYI, I chose not to have any children...never wanted any. Chose to work full time instead as a teacher. Been married over 37 years. I have horses and many cats and dogs....all things that are almost considered no-no in the world of Gothard. God does not make cookie cutter christians.
Wow, I have never heard of ATI before this article.
I have Gothards Character Sketches books that I grew up on... had an interesting discussion w/ a Gothard follower (see below)... and I've seen the Duggar's life on TV, and that's about it.
I find it interesting that an entire movement was based on a poetic, descriptive passage written by Solomon, who was fully inspired by God, no doubt, who had about a 100 quivers full of wives, and concubines, and who knows how many quivers full of children. But if we were to take this passage literally and prescriptively, I think we can safely assume Solomon's quiver is at least filled with 500 arrows/ kiddos... and that's being conservative... assuming that not all his women conceived. His quiver also required more wives that scripture allows. Not sure it's humanly possible to match the quiver Solomon was most likely envisioning. I am unaware of any part of scripture that reveals whether or not Solomon or his wives allowed God to choose the # of children they bore, but I do find it VERY selfish that he had so many wives and concubines, and cared more about sewing oats in beautiful women than having a relationship w/ his children and passing on the wisdom and truth that God had given him.
I also find it selfish that adoption would be so despised by ATI: http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/adoption-the-ultimate-act-of-grace/
A man/woman is blessed with even 1 arrow in his/her quiver. We have received quite a bit of criticism from Gothard followers for adopting and "forcing" God's hand in how many children we should have. In fact, I've been confronted by a family in Costco seeing my 1 white child in a shopping cart surrounded by my 4 black children. We have struggled for years w/ fertility over 8 years w/ no planning have 1.5 biological children. God used that struggle and our love for children to lead us to adoption... which has rocked our world and really cemented our faith and understanding of God's adoption of us through the work of Christ. We have 6 children (one still cooking)... 2 biological and 4 through adoption and EACH of them has been miraculously given to us by God and each one of the was fore-ordained to be our children, equally. We have allowed our sovereign God build our family and choose for us each child in HIS timing. Not every Christian family should adopt, especially if God has not given them a desire, a passion and a provision but to close the door simply b/c of some bad biblical teaching is a shame. Adoption can be very difficult and YES many adopted children have more pain and "issues" than those raised by loving biological parents... and the reasons for this should be obvious. My kids experienced more pain than I can ever imagine... and one of them had 7 years of abuse and starvation before joining our family... another one was abandoned and left to die b/c she has cerebral palsy...but that's what's SO beautiful about redemption and GRACE... the kind of redemption that ONLY Christ can offer.
We have a "large" family for the type of work we do (we live overseas and work w/ UPGs) and I am not offended by this article at all... all our arrows are growing up, at this point, sharp and well crafted, they are a blessing to us. And, we see ourselves adopting again in the future, if God provides. Conversely, I can't honestly believe that all of Solomon's arrows were all sharply crafted, and some of them did bring shame to him and were themselves shamed, as he, himself chose to marry outside of God's desire for His people, not setting the right example
Thank you for an insightful article! I have finally come to the same realization as you after many years of guilt and waffling. I thank God that he is GRACIOUS! I thank Him that I have found the daily grace not to live under the lies and heavy oppression of guilt! Amazing Grace!
I have no personal connection with the "Quiverfull" movement or "ATI," but I have heard bits and pieces of the Duggar family and their Reality TV show. I'm one of those people who's faintly horrified by it, but not inclined to make overtly derogatory remarks about large families, having come from one myself. (Albeit about half that size.)
Two things occur to me in this discussion.
One is how hard it is to break away from the fear of man, believing it is the fear of God. I say--Teddy Roosevelt might have given you great credit for having a dozen children and building up "the race", but I don't think it makes any difference to God. Fifty children or none--biological, adopted, relatives, whatever. Not all children are born into safety and home, after all.
The other is the issue of how unevenly the burdens of this lifestyle fall on girls and women. I know from experience in my own family that the Matriarch, the older sisters, the grandmother, have their lives earmarked for the home and the family from the day they're born. Motherhood represents a tremendous body of work. It is an honorable profession. But "Quiverfull" seeks to make WOMANHOOD itself a profession, to the exclusion of all else, stretching motherhood over all the stages of a woman's life so that it is the meaning of her existence rather than one part of her life.
All this is practical fallout of this making-a-choice-by-not-making-a-choice attitude toward fertility awareness. The simple fact is that women's lives can be very limited by frequent pregnancy/subsequent breastfeeding/taking care of infants and toddlers, etc.
But this is not a CHOICE you make, this is what it's like to be a true woman!
Reading through the Quiverfull website, it would seem that the desire for autonomy, security, personal space, marital happiness, etc., are indications of appalling selfishness.
In praise of the Duggars, they are neat, clean, pleasant people whose children are well-dressed, well-mannered, and give every appearance of being well cared for. If they were just a family who happen to have a lot of kids I might not think anything about it, but their association with this anti-contraceptive group turns me off. The most troubling thing to me is the underlying misogyny that props the whole thing up, and the use of scriptural authority to support it.
Thanks for reading my semi-rant.
Your semi-rant is a point well taken!!! God put in motion the natural things of earth- The world turns, gravity makes things fall down, not up. Wind blows. Varying temperatures can make water into ice or melt it. A whole litany of scientific principle that gives us our earth. Living things also have reproductive methods that make the next generation. So it is with man. I would think that if God gave us a thinking, reasoning brain, then He allows us to use it and come to conclusions about situations. Like, gee, dear, another baby would be fine but then we'd have to give up the car because we will not be able to make the payment, then we will not be able to go to the store to buy groceries for the (insert # here) kids we already have.
The notion of raising a mighty army for God to have godly children to change our world is not a scriptural edict. That is where Judas and the jews missed the point of the savior coming to earth. They wanted Jesus to change the political scene (Roman rule) where as Jesus came to change the heart of men, individually.
God does not have grandchildren. (forgot to add that to my previous comment.) I read that somewhere years ago, meaning that any child born to a christian is not automatically a christian. That child will have to make a decision somewhere down the line to accept christ as savior. From what I read about QF/patriarchy/gothard, they are doing a great job of raising a whole generation of atheists.
I just found your website and have enjoyed the articles greatly - including the comments. As I have read this, two things have run through my head.
First, many of the commenters have stated that God creates each new life. They might want to know that this is only one strand of the theological debate on this issue. The other two strands is that a man and wife create the life as part of the dominion they were given in the garden of Eden. The other strand is that God has already created all of the children and they are just waiting to be born. The most common theological position of evangelicals is the first one - that God has granted unto us the ability to create life. Choosing a different position means that God has to intentionally create each new life flawed by injecting sin into them instead of inheriting it from their parents.
The other though I had was if people who though that it was entirely up to God on the number of children they had and also believed that God wanted large families were giving God plenty of chances by having sex as often as possible. It seems to me that there is more scriptural evidence for having a lot of sex then there is for having a lot of children.
I will leave it at that. God bless all who strive to follow him through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What an interesting comment. Thanks!
John, where is this "scriptural evidence" for Having a lot of sex?
I find it interesting that whenever a Christian has a child, the statement, "What a blessing [from God]", is accepted as truth. Everyone considers their children to be a blessing from God. I have yet to meet a Christian parent who does not consider all of their children to be blessings from God. In fact, I have yet to meet a Christian parent who does not consider it the will of God that their children were born (especially when one takes time to reflect upon one's life). Yet, most posts here seem to feel that 1. if they had another child not according to their own human timing, but merely according to God's timing, it would be a curse (from God?) rather than a blessing and 2. Somehow, even though every child that is born to married Christians is indeed considered God's will (upon reflection), if one deliberately takes physical/medical action to prevent a child from being conceived and born which God would have otherwise given the breath of life, somehow that action is not contrary to God's will, even though the Bible is full of passages like "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 28:3, 35:11, 48:4), calling many children a blessing (Psalm 127, 128), stating that he has made husband and wife one for the purpose of godly offspring (Mal 2:15), and "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14, Matt 19:14, Luke 18:16)?
Kevin,
You raise interesting points, but have you considered the context of each of those passages you reference? In Genesis, mankind had just been created so of course God instructed the people to be fruitful and multiply (and then the population was significantly depleted with the flood so a second admonition made sense).
Psalms is a book of poetry (songs to be exact). . . like any poem or song figurative language speaks to us in a way that literal language typically does not (i.e., God isn't a literal Mighty Fortress and people typically don't actually have have Lower Lights burning, etc.).
Malachi seems to have been written post-exile and in context that verse seems to be addressing spiritually mixed marriages and/or marital unfaithfulness, rather than procreation in general.
Finally, the gospel passages were Jesus addressing those who assumed He was too busy to make time for children. Which is ironic because one of the reasons some choose to limit the size of their family is SO that they can make time for their children.
Indeed all children are a blessing from the Lord - I consider mine to be. But I do disagree with your theological premise that seems to suggest inaction = will of God = blessing.
If you applied that logic consistently, you might feel guilty for washing your hands, cooking your food, etc. because contracting communicable diseases would be considered God's will (upon reflection) and washing with antibacterial soap and/or properly cooking food would interrupt the contraction of bacteria which God otherwise might have allowed to live.
Just to be clear, though, I'm not suggesting children are like diseases or are not infinitely more valuable than bacteria.
Contrary to popular perception, proving that "children are a blessing from the Lord" does not prove every other teaching associated with it!
It's a far jump from "children are a blessing from the Lord" to "therefore have as many children as you possibly can." In that same Genesis passage, God told Adam and Eve to treat the Earth; property and agriculture is a blessing also, yet does that mean we're to seek as much land as possible?
The true Epic Story of Scripture shows us, instead, that the Great Commission informs our view of that original commission. Sin is now in the world. Our prime directive is to raise spiritual children -- regardless of whether they are also our physical children. And this prime directive applies to all believers, whether married or single. (And by the way, the latter group, which includes my widowed mother-in-law, is one that many "quiverfull" folks have no idea how to deal with).
What a great comment, sir! Love that thought about spiritual children, regardless of whether we are married or not.
I am thankful for my hair, yet I don't choose to let it grow however long God desires to let it grow. I do not like paying bills, yet it is up to me rely on God while I work in order to be able to do so (I don't just turn them over to God and walk away, expecting him to mail the payment for me).
I think the analogy to working the land is apt. A field and crops were blessings from the Lord. It does not follow that if someone knew their limitations, they were in some way spitting in God's eye not to keep taking on more and more and more. In fact, at some point, in some cases, certainly not all, it could become an issue of humility in knowing ones limitations versus pride in overreaching. It seems to me this touches on the issue of stewardship, that we live in God's presence and we trust him even as we work to be the best stewards we can of all his blessings. And let it be said that some large families truly are blessed with many children who thrive and do well.
Not trying to hijack or reinterpret your comment :-)
That's exactly what I was getting at, MatthewS.
I must, however, concede that the "care for the land" example is from Matt Perman's birth-control article at DesiringGod.org. More wisdom is there, including the following:
Later the author also uses this familiar comparison. Perhaps we've been reading the same material, MatthewS? :-D
I couldn't remember where I had read that, but it's probably the same place. Great minds!
It is a sad commentary on the state of Christianity when to justify one's inability to believe the scripture, "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus," (Phil 4:19) one must use ad hoc analogies that compare the children of God to bacteria, hair, or land. These items will not witness to the unsaved and be used by the Lord to bring one to Christ. These items will not bring forth future Godly generations and advance the kingdom of God. These items will not reign in heaven for eternity. It is clear that there is unlikely to be an argument or scripture that anyone could bring forth to change the mind of one who has firmly entrenched himself in the world's way of bearing children, not due to lack of valid argument or valid scripture but because of hardness of heart to the Holy Spirit's leading. If one prays to God and tells him, "Lead me in this, show me what your will is - I am honestly willing to throw away the world's philosophy on children and bear however many children you choose if you tell me that is what you want me to do", I am convinced He will respond. With that spirit of submission, I ask you to ponder the following:
-How does one explain away the fact that the writer of Hebrews tells us that Levi was "in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him." If Levi was in the loins of his great grandfather Abraham, why aren't our great grandchildren in our loins, by God's reckoning?
-Why, for the history of Christianity up until approximately 1930, did Christianity at large reject as worldly the concept of birth control, but now, suddenly Christianity is so "enlightened" that we willingly embrace that which the world tells us is "good"?
-Why did all early church leaders reject birth control:
John Calvin declared in the 1500's that birth control was the murder of future persons.
-John Wesley declared in the 1700's that taking "preventative measures" was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it.
-Martin Luther declared that birth control was sodomy.
-The Pilgrims ruled in the 1600's that a church official found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his position.
Have you better insight into the scriptures than the aformentioned? Have we "evolved" as Christians to the point where that which was once evil is now "good"? Do you think it would have been good and acceptable if your own parents used birth control so that you were never allowed the breath of life?
I have to take issue with Calvin calling BC the murder of future persons.
Murder is taking a life. Not concieving at a particular moment just because it was possible is *not* murder.
If it were, breastfeeding could be murder. Breastfeeding, for many women (though not all) delays or completely prevents ovulation (which is what some hormonal BC pills do).
So, breastfeeding for many people, myself included, prevents the conception of some "possible" people. In fact, pregnancy itself prevents the conception of other "possible" people.
There is no way that anyone can possibly have all the children theoretically possible for them to conceive or bear.
Scripture does not explicitly forbid every form of child spacing (or there would be rules about breastfeeding.) It does share with us God's view of children. We can't really base our doctrine on Wesley and Calvin when they are speaking where the Bible doesn't.
"It is a sad commentary on the state of Christianity when to justify one's inability to believe the scripture, "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus," (Phil 4:19) one must use ad hoc analogies that compare the children of God to bacteria, hair, or land."
What about a wife (as mentioned above)? And the "ad hoc analogies" you mention are perfectly logical in the context of your original post, in which you made no such distinction (although I haven't checked all the passages).
"if one deliberately takes physical/medical action to prevent a child from being conceived and born which God would have otherwise given the breath of life, somehow that action is not contrary to God's will"
Abstinence falls under that type of action, as an abstaining couple prevents children from being conceived, or at least conceives fewer children than otherwise. Thus, following your logic, a couple must attempt to conceive every time it is theoretically possible to do so, and as many times as possible. After all, any time they don't is a time when you can ask them, "Do you think it would have been good and acceptable if your own parents used birth control so that you were never allowed the breath of life?"
With a logical mind, I ask you to ponder the following:
Do you agree with my paragraph above? Do you think that each woman should at least attempt to have dozens of children (depending on when she got married)?
Of course Levi was in the loins of Melchizedek . . . that's kind of how it works (and incidentally, I don't recall Scripture specifying Melchizedek's birth order . . . he could have been an only child).
Appealing to the example of church history is a double-edged sword. Church history is also full of shameful things like racism, murder, abuse, genocide, etc. (some of it at the hands of people you mentioned above). So I typically take church history with a grain of salt because it's not infallible.
Finally, it's presumptuous to suggest that those who do not agree with the quiverfull mindset have not prayed about it and asked God to show them what He wants THEM to do in this regard. I think we talk about a "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ because the way He leads one of us may differ from the way He leads another. Because of that, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
And just to be clear, the purpose of this article was never to criticize those God has led to have an unlimited number of children; it was simply a critique of IBLP's stance that such is the only correct viewpoint.
Ryan, you have really received a lot of heat for simply sharing in a vulnerable and transparent way from your heart!
You have emphasized this fact repeatedly: "And just to be clear, the purpose of this article was never to criticize those God has led to have an unlimited number of children; it was simply a critique of IBLP’s stance that such is the only correct viewpoint." And yet people jump on you because it must be the case that if you critique IBLP's stance, you must therefore think that all God's blessings are in fact curses. I appreciate your courage and your heart in sharing, brother.
THANK YOU. You said what I couldn't figure out how to say, esp about the church history part.
Ileata - As you take issue with Calvin, let me quote Calvin's commentary on Gen 38:8-10 --
"Besides, he [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother's name.
v. 10: The Jews quite immodestly gabble concerning this thing. It will suffice for me briefly to have touched upon this as much as modestly in speaking permits. The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses' mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of this brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth."
You said, "Murder is taking a life. Not concieving at a particular moment just because it was possible is *not* murder."
It depends on your definition of murder. The Oxford dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another". Abortionists argue that abortion is not murder because they choose not to define as human the unborn child, plus it is lawful as defined by the laws of the land, even though it is clearly premeditated. If one realizes that God would have and wanted to bless a Christian couple with a child but that couple chooses to copulate yet takes deliberate, premeditated action to prevent God from giving them a child, the end result is the same for the child as if they had conceived and aborted - failure to see the light of day.
"Not concieving at a particular moment just because it was possible" is not the issue; Deliberately breaking the natural intention of God's creation - the institute of marriage - by copulating but rejecting God's natural intention for that marriage - children - is. Romans 1:24-26 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves; Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" Certainly the above can apply to homosexuality, but how does it not also apply to ones who have discarded God's natural intention for procreation by committing an entirely unnatural act - copulation mixed with utilization of pharmaceuticals, barriers, or withdrawal which all act contrary to God's design?
Regarding breastfeeding; Clearly breastfeeding is God's natural, designed way of providing nourishment to a child, and yes it does act as a contraceptive. However, if one was to abuse this gift from God by using it beyond its natural usefulness for the sole purpose of deliberately standing in the way of God's provision of children, than surely one would sin.
You said, "Scripture does not explicitly forbid every form of child spacing (or there would be rules about breastfeeding.)" There are many things God doesn't explicitly forbid, such as abortion, polygamy, illegal narcotics, self-mutilation, viewing pornography etc., though if one carefully reads the Bible and understands it as a whole, one can see that they are not God's intention for his children. Birth control is one of these -look up the verses expounded upon in Calvin's commentary and then answer the question, "Do I want to put myself in the precarious position of emulating the only man in the Bible who practiced birth control and was subsequently specially killed by God for it?"
Ji - You said "What about a wife," alluding to the above quoted:
"In response, it can be pointed out that the Scriptures also say that a wife is a gift from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22), but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to stay single (1 Corinthians 7:8)."
The reason it is not wrong to stay single is because the apostle Paul recommends staying single, though he gives concession to being married (1 Cor 7). Thus if one wants to avoid marriage [and thus also children] to serve the Lord, Paul thinks this is a good thing. Paul gives no concession regarding the avoidance of children to the married believer. Christ also indirectly confirms this in Matt 19:7 - note He doesn't speak of a married man making himself a eunuch but a single man for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
Regarding abstinence of the married person, Paul gives us clear instruction in 1 Cor 7:5, "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Thus, the married couple may abstain from sexual relations for the purpose of fasting and prayer - no other exceptions are given.
You ask me, "Do you think that each woman should at least attempt to have dozens of children (depending on when she got married)?"
I think that we should have the same mindset as all married believers in the Bible; that we should gladly accept each child God mercifully blesses us with. If God chooses to bless us with "dozens" of children, then we shall praise God; if God chooses not to bless us with any children, we shall praise God. And husbands and wives should have normal, natural relations with one another as much as either the husband desires or as much as the wife desires (not as little - 1 Cor 7:3,4).
Ryan - not sure if that was a typo or what but Levi was in the loins of Abraham, not Melchisedec.
You said, "Appealing to the example of church history is a double-edged sword. Church history is also full of shameful things like racism, murder, abuse, genocide, etc. (some of it at the hands of people you mentioned above). So I typically take church history with a grain of salt because it's not infallible."
You are going far beyond taking church history "with a grain of salt" - you are taking the exact opposite stance of the very reformers who we have to thank, by the grace of God, for the the churches we worship in today. Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
You said, "Finally, it's presumptuous to suggest that those who do not agree with the quiverfull mindset have not prayed about it and asked God to show them what He wants THEM to do in this regard. I think we talk about a "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ because the way He leads one of us may differ from the way He leads another. Because of that, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue."
In my experience, the vast majority of Christians have not humbled themselves to the point where they would be even willing to consider the notion that God may desire them to have many, many children, let alone earnestly prayed about it. Most Christians have simply blindly followed the world's ways of doing things; they do not practice birth control in order to bring glory to God or to further His kingdom, but for the same reasons non-believers do.
You said, "And just to be clear, the purpose of this article was never to criticize those God has led to have an unlimited number of children..."
Interesting, considering the title of your article, along with the following: "So what about the full quiver? I think the best summary of the issue I ever heard was from an acquaintance who said he’d rather have a quiver with a few well-crafted, functional arrows, then a bunch of shoddy ones, incapable of hitting any mark."
"In my experience, the vast majority of Christians have not humbled themselves to the point where they would be even willing to consider the notion that God may desire them to have many, many children, let alone earnestly prayed about it. Most Christians have simply blindly followed the world's ways of doing things; they do not practice birth control in order to bring glory to God or to further His kingdom, but for the same reasons non-believers do."
That probably doesn't apply to most of us. Certainly doesn't apply to me.
You might want to be careful about throwing out that sort of judgement.
And just for the record, I've spent years on your side of this argument...going through church history to find people like Calvin who stood against any birth control, proof-texting Scripture to find a principle that forbid any family planning.
And though I still hold that children are a blessing of the Lord and completely agree that family planning shouldn't be something that we just do because it's done, I will not accuse someone of sinning who uses some non-abortive means of spacing children. I realize that I do it with breastfeeding. I know what breastfeeding pattern will supress ovulation for longer for me. I work at keeping it going to give myself a little more space. But, God is free to overide and I conceived much more quickly than I thought I would this last time. If I breastfeed the way I do while still giving the reigns to God and knowing that He can "mess" it up if He wants to, how is that different in any way from someone using FAM or NFP while trusting that God will over-ride if they are missing His will?
The key is faith. And relationship.
"Interesting, considering the title of your article, along with the following: 'So what about the full quiver? I think the best summary of the issue I ever heard was from an acquaintance who said he’d rather have a quiver with a few well-crafted, functional arrows, then a bunch of shoddy ones, incapable of hitting any mark.'"
I think you are reading more into both than I intended. But I will absolutely take responsibility for writing what I did and giving you that opportunity.
I absolutely think that there are families who can raise 8, 10, 12, etc. well-crafted, functional "arrows" . . . I've met a few. I know that I cannot. And my intention in quoting this gentleman was not to suggest that those who have only a few arrows are necessarily going to raise better children than those in large families. It was to call into question the seeming focus in ATI on having large families when perhaps the focus should have been more toward pouring into the children a couple already had.
You would not believe the number of adults I have encountered who grew up in ATI and received a substandard education or felt like they had to raise their younger siblings simply because their parents ran out of energy along the way. Many do not walk with the Lord because their parents modeled "testimony" and not relationship.
I don't want that to happen with my children. Some may not care as strongly about that prospect as I do; others may have more stamina to pour themselves into more children. Yet, as the Scripture says, For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost?"(Luke 14:28) (and yes I realize that is not the point of that particular passage). I have counted the cost and I know my limits.
As for the "full of it" part, that was supposed to be jab at the way IBLP seemed to posit the issue: love God and you will have a lot of children; love yourself and you will not.
I do not agree with IBLP's stance and seemingly you do. As I stated before, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Pingback : The Danger and Damage of Gothard’s Principles | Recovering Grace
I've read through all of the comments. These points need to be made - not for nor against family planning but hopefully to clarify:
1. Pregnancy is a state of health (although the current ACOG doesn't seem to think so). It is not a state of ill health (although many women experience ill health while pregnant).
2. The issue isn't really whether or not a family is large or small, or even whether or not family planning methods are employed but the attitudes of the heart. It is important to be sure, when contemplating any course of action, that as much self-deceit is identified and avoided as humanly possible. This cuts both ways - in having a large family or in avoiding conception.
3. Christians are never really free of the influence of the cultures in which they were raised and in which they reside.
Very good points Mary.
A very interesting point that gets lost in the pressure of the quiverful movement is the actual facts about quivers.
The fact is that a quiver is designed to carry arrows for a hunter. The size of the quiver, and corresponding number of arrows in this quiver is dependent upon the TYPE of hunter using them.
For some hunters, who have to go long distances to hunt... they will have a small quiver, with very well made arrows, designed for repetitive use. They will look for every arrow they shoot. They are too far from home to get more.
For some hunters, who hunt close to home, they will have a larger arrow made with lesser quality arrows because they will never reuse them. If they miss, they will not hunt down that arrow because they have more in their quiver, and are close enough to home to go back for more if need be.
Pingback : Finding My “No”! | Recovering Grace
I have to say that of everything I've read on this site, this is the one article I've read that I disagree with more than I agree with it. I *do* agree that the goal should not be a "large family." However, I also believe wholeheartedly that intentionally limiting the size of one's family - at least in relatively ordinary circumstances - runs counter to a number of biblical teachings.
(As someone so eloquently once pointed out, how many of us would say, "No thanks, God, please don't give me any more money?" Do we believe He was telling the truth when He said children are a blessing, or not?)
But our pursuit should be TRUST IN GOD, not in a given number of children, one way or the other. In 13 years of marriage, with NO use of "family planning," and no fertility "issues" that we're aware of, we have four children. My sister, in three years of marriage, has three. Clearly, God's plan for each of us is different.
It is not holier to have 13 kids than 3. But it is holier to trust in God than to trust in our own wisdom - however that plays out.
Rachel,
Children are A blessing, but not THE blessing. Meaning, how many blessings does God have for us in this life? Do you think that every blessing is meant for every Christian? Or does God perhaps bless each individual in different ways?
I think people turn a blessing into a command, and their own prejudices play into how they interpret these Scriptures. God blesses the barren woman with children. That's because the woman WANTS children, like Hannah. The Bible does not say that holier women get more children. In fact, many holy women had no children or only one. From this we might infer that these women had many other blessings from God in other areas of their life.
Many people in the Bible were blessed with livestock. Should everyone have livestock? We are blessed with the sun, rain, crops, clothes, food, money, the wonders of creation, etc., etc. Blessings are not commands. They are gifts. God has blessed me with the desire to have animals. If He hasn't given you that desire, should I believe you are less holy because you should accept the blessing of His handiwork?
Gifts are individualized for each person. You might not wish to be blessed with my livestock, so God has not blessed you in that way. Does that mean you are not trusting God for livestock? Surely if you trusted Him rather than your own wisdom, you would buy livestock since people were blessed with livestock in the Bible.
Some blessings require a decision on our part. God said "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." That was a blessing. He didn't command us that every human must procreate. Many blessings come to us based on our personality (which God has given us) and our interests. If I never plant crops, then God cannot bless me with them. If I never work, it's unlikely God will bless me with money.
I hope you might see another perspective from a very blessed and intentionally childless believer.
DITTO THAT 10 TIME OVER! I never wanted children (for many reasons.) I went to college for my teacher's degree and taught 27 years until retirement last year.
God has blessed me with many cats, dogs and horses and a long-suffering husband of 38 years. I recently lost a wonderful mare that died day after Thanksgiving at age 32. I owned her for 30 years. Today we are taking a cat to be put down due to extreme old age (19). He was my husband's little buddy.
God does not make cookie cutter Christians. When a certain group, claiming they are led by God, starts to look alike, talk alike, dress alike and do EVERYTHING exactly alike I start to suspect that only one of them is following God. All the rest are following the one person who actually heard from God (or thinks he did).
I am an artist. I would love to paint a picture of what a Christian looks like. That would be an impossible thing because around the world, what they look and dress like, what they do for work, how they travel, what they eat, it would all be different.
Anyone who has to surround himself with little clones is missing out on the variety of God's desire and power to be him or herself as God made them to be. That ain't grace, that's creativity to the NTH degree!
Pingback : Home Birth and Social Control | human with uterus
Hi, I know this thread hasn't been commented on in a while, but I wanted to add my two cents.
I love Toni Weschler's book: Taking Charge of Your Fertility, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health
and I would give it to any ATI/homeschool graduate/raised in a quiverfull household newly married couple, as a great resource in understanding their own bodies, sexuality and appropriate ways of spacing children in their marriage.
Growing up, I was sure that I'd have double digit numbers of children. I loved having lots of aunts and uncles, and was happy to have babies in the house when I was a teenager. But when you become the co-head of a household and consider education, parenting, paying bills etc. the reality is sobering. Children are a privilege and a responsibility, which lasts more than 18 years, parents must be ready to be in for the long haul.
Thanks Ryan for sharing, I have appreciated Recovering Grace so very much.
In fairness to the Duggar family, I'd like to point out that they are not part of the quiverfull movement:
Q: Are the Duggars part of the QuiverFull movement?
A: The Duggars write in their second book, A Love That Multiplies: "Even though Wikipedia and some Internet blogs report that we are part of a QuiverFull movement, we are not. We are simply Bible-believing Christians who desire to follow God's Word and apply it to our lives" (page 92).
http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/p/faqs.html
Just in the interest of accuracy, and people making decisions based on what they see in the Duggars...
Your point is duly noted, though I personally believe their claim is one of semantics.
I read last week that their recently engaged daughter and her fiance wanted to have as many children as God saw fit to give them. I'd find it hard to believe that her parents didn't have some hand in shaping her worldview, though I do not know any of the Duggars personally and have nothing more than speculation upon which to base my belief.
Look, I don't think the Duggars are evil people (granted I wrote this article about 2.5 years ago and I've mellowed a lot in the meantime). I simply see them as people who've chose differently for their family than we've chosen for ours.
They will answer to God for their choices; we will answer to God for ours. And I'm ok with that and am not ashamed of the choices we've made.
It is written, "A brother is born for adversity." And adversity seems to be one of the ways God shapes our character. First, I reject the notion that many arrows = lesser quality arrows. Read any birth order book. Adversity comes when there are differences of personalities and a large family has many personalities and thus, many opportunities to grow in character! Second, we think that God gives us children to raise, when, in fact, God also uses the children to raise us! The crucible of the difficulty of raising children is a mean of ferreting out the last vestiges of selfishness in us. Isn't the whole philosophy behind Christianity self-sacrifice for others?
Just think of all the personality types missing from our world due to people refusing to obey God's first command, even His first words to humankind: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth!"
Obviously, there are ditches on both sides of the road to life. The ditch on the one side is refusing God's blessings for children. The other ditch would be having a ton of children without appropriating the grace of God and falling into an abuse/neglect situation. I don't know how anyone could raise a big family without God's grace and covering that comes from being in His family, the church!
Ryan, I just read this and hate to jump into a conversation so late, but while your essay is still on Recovering Grace, I am motivated to contribute two more cents. I too am nervous by the Duggars and others who seem to be about "as many as possible". I find that attitude similar in quality to those who desire "as few as possible". Both seem self-willed.
But your essay displays a great focus on you from the point where your heart clearly chilled after your second child. I don't read much attentiveness then to your wife's heart or desires, to her interests or changing(?) values. I see little unifying in your shared experience of barrenness followed by three sudden blessings. I see that you were, reasonably, inconvenienced. Your growing rejection of fruitfulness reflects a true danger of Gothard's and others' utilitarian view toward having children: once the cost appears, the utility becomes most diminished!
There is, however, a completely different perspective about fertility, expounded on by John Paul II in his Theology of the Body. This view is selfless and God-honoring without the utilitarianism of raising up an army or the expectations of "as many as possible". This view centers on our Genesis 2 design to image the Triune God. Adam's creation was "not good" until he entered into a Godly spousal communion of persons: Ish with Isha. God's love is full and fruitful. The Three Persons in the Godhead have given and received love, fruitfully, for all eternity. John 15 expresses the fruitfulness of God's loving Nature. Spousal (marital) fruitfulness images and reveals this Nature to the created world and to every child ever born.
In our culture, artificial contraception places sexual satisfaction over God's design. It has separated sex from marriage. And it has transformed "marriage" into something that the world cannot distinguish from homosexual union or "outercourse".
But Catholic teaching (and that of all Biblical churches before about 1920), is exemplified by the self-sacrifice that the Christian husband is called to in Ephesians 5, the glory of God and the sanctification of the wife comes infinitely before male sexual satisfaction. ("As Christ loves the Church": He died for her and has patiently purified his bride for 2000 years while waiting for the wedding and consummation!) Ephesians famously quotes Genesis 2, just as Jesus did when he was asked about marriage.
If a wife is unable or unwilling to become pregnant, it may be more covenental to lovingly abstain from sex, or at least abstain during the most fertile periods of her cycle, rather than slap on the latex or pump her with hormones. Would infrequency be too high a price to pay for love? But if she is open to children, it seems indeed selfish and unloving to refuse her the possibility. I Cor. 7 teaches clearly that neither spouse has any right over their own body (is there then a right to sleep, or to an MBA?). If one is not "ready" for children, if one is unwilling to be fruitful, one may not be called to spousal union.
Obviously I cannot addressed all circumstances in a comment. My only desire is to share a glimpse of a pro-Life viewpoint different from Gothard's repressive/utilitarian teachings about sexuality. Sex is not about us, it is about God's Nature and it has always been the point of sin's attack because of its power to disclose God's loving nature.
I have eight children by one wife and I have yet to scratch the surface of what it means to love her as Jesus does. I have not loved as I should. But these eight are wonderful brothers and sisters with whom we will joyfully share Jesus forever. Because she has loved freely, my wife has eight loving admirers who hold her in highest honor and, so far, 3 grandchildren to multiply the love in her life; while we remember the times calling for patience when she was afraid that she might not have "enough" love. Perfect love casts out fear.
Fruitfulness is not logic, my brother. It is faith, hope and love. It is a blessing, not a burden. I commend all who are interested to read the Theology of the Body and anything Christopher West has written about it.
We all miss far too much by focusing on us and not on our faithful Jesus. The Lord of Life is present in every conception. May He be welcome in every embrace.
I'm confused as to how having less children is considered 'fruitlessness'. I have no children right now, therefore I am physically 'fruitless'. My sister had her first baby a year ago. She is now no longer fruitless. She has fruit. She has reproduced/multiplied herself, and if she has no more children, she still has brought forth fruit and has multiplied herself.
Pingback : Twelve Characteristics of Fundamentalist Societies that Shelter Sexual Abuse | Recovering Grace
Wow. An incredibly interesting array of comments following this article.
I homeschool. I do not use birth control. I (will soon) have four children in six years. I had a homebirth and plan another one. And I did not make any of those choices based on anything to do with ATI or IBPL. Really, our decisions were all based on secular reading I have done. I live in CA and know a large community of non-Christian women who make similar choices. So while I see that this Quiverfull movement is very strange and forces people through shame to make these decisions, I also feel it is important to say that some people make those choices for totally different reasons.
I have no idea what God's plan for birth control is. I know he doesn't specify "use this method, period." I do know that all this judgment is not of Him. God wants us to be wary, to search out the Scriptures for truth, to point out wolves. But he also wants us to be compassionate. I am so tired of everyone pointing fingers at each other. (In fact, I have given up so much of my judgmental spirit but I still struggle not to judge the judgmental!) Such as, 'Some people are stupid because they believe they should have lots of children. People who have lots of children are bad because they're not giving appropriate time to each kid. People who give birth at home are idiots ignoring the scientific facts. People who give birth in hospitals with drugs are irrevocably harming their babies.' It goes on and on.
Humans love to hate each other. We love taking sides and pointing fingers.I have had many crises of faith over the way Christians act. I've been in a (different) cult, I've been in regular churches...it is the same all over. It seems like people just can't wait to start pointing fingers and making accusations about the other side. I want to run far, far away from all of it...but I keep being compelled by Jesus. He was different and surely He is a safe harbor. My husband pointed out to me last night that Jesus sought out the woman at the well, the paralytic, the blind. He often said "go and sin no more" but he didn't hand them a pamphlet on the 49 ways to be sure they are sinless (and then go and beat others over the head with it).
I don't know. I'm still sorting through all of this. Like I said, I was never ATI but I had plenty of cultish teaching and I identify with the experiences on this site. So much wrong teaching. So much to draw our eyes from the simplest truth, resting in Jesus.