Global Christianity
“The womb is such a powerful weapon; it’s a weapon against the enemy,”
by Clay Staggs
I must confess that I’ve never heard of the Quiverfull movement. That is, until I read a story from NPR on this faction of modern-day evangelicalism. As indicated by the quotation above, from Nancy Campbell, one of the founders of this movement, the idea is that Christians should reproduce with reckless abandon to repopulate the world with believers. Here’s another great line, also from Campbell, who stopped at a mere six children:
“I think, help! Imagine if we had had more of these children!” Campbell says, adding, “My greatest impact is through my children. The more children I have, the more ability I have to impact the world for God.”
[I pause here for one of my grammar Nazi moments; impact, contrary to every self-help guru and corporate consultant, is NOT A VERB!!! This drives me absolutely nuts. Impact is a noun. The verb is “affect.” GRRR!!!] Now what fascinates me about this notion is that these folks profess reliance on the sovereignty of God to determine their family size, yet seem to believe that it’s going to take their efforts at reproduction to take back the country for Christ. Consider:
Still, Quiverfull is a small group, probably 10,000 fast-growing families, mainly in the Midwest and South. But they have large ambitions, says Kathryn Joyce, who has written about the movement in her book Quiverfull: Inside The Christian Patriarchy Movement.
“They speak about, ‘If everyone starts having eight children or 12 children, imagine in three generations what we’ll be able to do,’ ” Joyce says. ” ‘We’ll be able to take over both halls of Congress, we’ll be able to reclaim sinful cities like San Francisco for the faithful, and we’ll be able to wage very effective massive boycotts against companies that are going against God’s will.’ “
If they believe in the sovereignty of God, then won’t He reclaim SF with or without their efforts, if that be His will? After all, who will thwart the will of God?
I don’t want anyone to hear what I’m not saying. If you really want lots of kids, then go for it. However, procreating in order to take over Congress one day seems to me a completely misguided motivation.
Posted by Clay Staggs at March 26, 2009 08:46 AM
Have to say I think Mrs. Campbell IS using impact as a noun in this sentence, as in “I think my greatest achievement will be…” Though this particular group may be fairly new, the concept has been rolling around a long time…and while there are many valid arguments to be made against their philosophy (especially, for example, reclaiming SF or Congress), I do think they have one valid point…and that is that Christians often accept the world’s notion that children are more a nuisance than a blessing,or, on the other hand, something like a nice ornament….to go along with the two-car garage, and that responsible people should only have their 2.3 or whatever.
It’s kind of funny. The group’s name comes from one of my favorite Psalms, Psalm 127. It begins, “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” (supporting your argument.) Verses 3 and 4 go on to say, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! (or, an alternate reading, “blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” The argument goes that in a battle, no warrior would want just one or two arrows in his quiver. It’s an interesting argument, at any rate. While I don’t think this is a mandate to have 12 (or 18…as in Duggers) children, I do think it challenges us to check out our viewpoint on having children and question if we are more influenced in our perspectives by the surrounding culture or the Word.
Peggy,
True enough, the first occurrence of “impact” in the quotation was a noun. The second occurrence - “to impact the world” - was a verb, though. That is the one I protest.
I agree with your point about not seeing kids as a nuisance wholeheartedly.
I think my mom must have been reading Quiverfull literature in the 70’s. My older sister once asked her why she (and my dad by necessary inference)had so many kids. Her reply: “The liberals yuppies aren’t having any.”
My siblings and I don’t necesarrily object to large families— we think they are wonderful training grounds for kindness, sharing, learning, consideration, maturing, etc., but we did object to familes with little means relying heavily on others to provide for a family that seemed little prepared to care such a large number. I like large families, if there seems to be a readiness to bear the responsibility in providing for the child. I have seen postive examples of large familes, but I have also seen some sad cases of charitable pity.
I would love to see a study depicting the correlation to those with 6 kids or more and their religious affiliation, education, finances.