I have a morbid fascination with fundamentalism. I went to a "Fundamental Bible Church" in high school that was largely responsible for me avoiding church like the plague for most of my adult years. My younger siblings have all been homeschooled; I'm the only one out of the bunch to have graduated from a public high school.
Having lived amongst all of that for a few years, there are varying degrees of fundamentalists. There are those who live a relatively normal life that are just more conservative in their theology and their politics, there are those that my family has called the "long skirt brigade", and every shade in between. The "long skirt brigade" tends to be the ones in the ankle-length skirts or jumpers, long hair, no makeup, and frumpy tops. They adhere to a strict patriarchal world view. Many of them practice courtship, with some groups going so far as to say that single adult children should remain under their parent's authority until marriage. A semi-famous preacher of that school of thought is Bill Gothard of the Institute for Basic Life Principles (http://www.iblp.com/).
If you've heard of the Duggars, you've heard of a "Gothardite" family. The Duggars link to IBLP materials on their website, and are also a part of the Quiverfull movement. The Quiverfull movement (http://www.quiverfull.com/) is of the belief that children are a blessing from God, so therefore a couple should have as many or as few as God decides to give them. The name of the movement comes from Psalm 127 3-5, which says "Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them..." Birth control and fertility treatments are not to be practiced by a Quiverfull family, because to do so would take control of family size out of God's hands according to Quiverfull teachings.
Knowing about all of this, I decided to do some Googling tonight on the subject. It's very interesting to read the point of view of Quiverfull practitioners. They believe that a couple should be open to as many children as God chooses to give them. Sounds great on a surface level, doesn't it? Give control of your family size over to God, and show the ultimate faith. The Quiverfull movement neglects to address the very real spectre that until recently hung over every pregnancy and birth: that of complications, the death of mother and/or child, or birth defects.
I have strong feelings about a movement that would declare a couple sinful for choosing to stop bearing children because the health of the mother was at stake. I wonder about a theological position that would have a couple continue to concieve children even after they know that they have a high risk for repeatedly giving birth to children with fatal birth defects or degenerative diseases. I would never, ever tell a couple that they should avoid having children for those reasons, but to tell a couple that they are sinful because they choose NOT to continue having children for those reasons is reprehensible.
I have to wonder what a member of the Quiverfull movement would have to say to Jacob and I. We've decided that the next baby will most likely be our last, unless we end up with an "oopsie". Our reasoning has less to do with the number of children we want or don't want and more to do with our risk of having another heart baby. Recent studies have shown that HLHS is highly heritable; our risk of having another HLHS baby is 8%, while our risk of having another baby with an HLHS-related heart defect is a staggering 22% (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/11/31066.aspx). We've chosen to take the risk one more time so that Grant can grow up with a sibling, but we feel that more than that is like playing Russian Roulette with a four cylander revolver. After watching Kenneth go through everything he went through, the thought of doing it all over again is simply terrifying.
What would the people of the Quiverfull movement have to say to us, I wonder? Would they understand our decision, or would it be met with judgement and prayerful derision?
It would be interesting to find out.
Having lived amongst all of that for a few years, there are varying degrees of fundamentalists. There are those who live a relatively normal life that are just more conservative in their theology and their politics, there are those that my family has called the "long skirt brigade", and every shade in between. The "long skirt brigade" tends to be the ones in the ankle-length skirts or jumpers, long hair, no makeup, and frumpy tops. They adhere to a strict patriarchal world view. Many of them practice courtship, with some groups going so far as to say that single adult children should remain under their parent's authority until marriage. A semi-famous preacher of that school of thought is Bill Gothard of the Institute for Basic Life Principles (http://www.iblp.com/).
If you've heard of the Duggars, you've heard of a "Gothardite" family. The Duggars link to IBLP materials on their website, and are also a part of the Quiverfull movement. The Quiverfull movement (http://www.quiverfull.com/) is of the belief that children are a blessing from God, so therefore a couple should have as many or as few as God decides to give them. The name of the movement comes from Psalm 127 3-5, which says "Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them..." Birth control and fertility treatments are not to be practiced by a Quiverfull family, because to do so would take control of family size out of God's hands according to Quiverfull teachings.
Knowing about all of this, I decided to do some Googling tonight on the subject. It's very interesting to read the point of view of Quiverfull practitioners. They believe that a couple should be open to as many children as God chooses to give them. Sounds great on a surface level, doesn't it? Give control of your family size over to God, and show the ultimate faith. The Quiverfull movement neglects to address the very real spectre that until recently hung over every pregnancy and birth: that of complications, the death of mother and/or child, or birth defects.
I have strong feelings about a movement that would declare a couple sinful for choosing to stop bearing children because the health of the mother was at stake. I wonder about a theological position that would have a couple continue to concieve children even after they know that they have a high risk for repeatedly giving birth to children with fatal birth defects or degenerative diseases. I would never, ever tell a couple that they should avoid having children for those reasons, but to tell a couple that they are sinful because they choose NOT to continue having children for those reasons is reprehensible.
I have to wonder what a member of the Quiverfull movement would have to say to Jacob and I. We've decided that the next baby will most likely be our last, unless we end up with an "oopsie". Our reasoning has less to do with the number of children we want or don't want and more to do with our risk of having another heart baby. Recent studies have shown that HLHS is highly heritable; our risk of having another HLHS baby is 8%, while our risk of having another baby with an HLHS-related heart defect is a staggering 22% (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/11/31066.aspx). We've chosen to take the risk one more time so that Grant can grow up with a sibling, but we feel that more than that is like playing Russian Roulette with a four cylander revolver. After watching Kenneth go through everything he went through, the thought of doing it all over again is simply terrifying.
What would the people of the Quiverfull movement have to say to us, I wonder? Would they understand our decision, or would it be met with judgement and prayerful derision?
It would be interesting to find out.