On Being Quiverful, Part 2

While surfing the net a couple of days ago I came across several news stories about the Amish population boom.  According to those news reports the Amish are growing so fast that a new Amish community is established every 3 1/2 weeks.  These Plain People are now the fastest growing religious group in America, and virtually all of their growth is due to natural increase, not conversion.  Although they almost certainly didn't plan to, the Amish are demonstrating the potent power of being quiverful.

There's a lesson here for mainstream Christians.

I opined once before on the "quiverful" doctrine, which asserts that believers should forego contraception and let God determine the size of their families.  In that post I expressed some reservations about the teaching and I stand by them.  However, the surging Amish population highlights how "quiverfullness" can be a potent weapon to combat the Church's decline.

Let's face it.  Christianity is under siege in modern America.  Not only is the faith being attacked from without, but it is also collapsing from within.  It's been reported numerous times that 70% of today's Christian kids leave the faith after high school and never return.  Some have questioned that number, but if the actual apostasy level is "only" 40-50%  it's still catastrophic because mainstream Christians, even conservative ones, are not reproducing enough to replace the defectors.  The Amish have defectors too, but their high birth rate means they more than replace them.

Most modern believers seem to think of church growth only in terms of increasing membership in individual congregations.  They also seem to believe that such growth comes, and should come, exclusively through conversion of unbelievers.  The role that birth rate plays in growing the Church is lost on most believers today even though natural increase was one reason for the early church's rapid growth.  Unlike their pagan neighbors, the early Christians rejected abortion and infanticide--both very common in the Greco-Roman world--as murder.  Thus, they grew in numbers.  Just like the Amish are today.

As I said above, I have some problems with the "quiverful" doctrine but I'm coming to believe it can be the salvation of American Christianity.  Converting unbelievers is a duty for Christians and, I believe, will always be the primary way to expand the faith. However, natural increase also has a vital role to play in growing the Church, and it doesn't mean that every Christian woman must be constantly pregnant.  The early Christians' higher "birth" rate consisted not only of having more biological children, but also of taking in orphans and rescuing exposed babies.  Modern quiverful Christians should follow their example and eagerly take in the unwanted children of  the world.  They should build their large families, and thereby build the Church, through natural reproduction and adoption.  If God wants us to be quiverful I believe He wants us to be so by emptying out the orphanages, foster homes, and embryo freezers where children languish and die.

The Amish are doubling their population every twenty years.  They're growing their faith community exponentially.  That's the power of having a full quiver.  We can't deny it.  The evidence is right before our eyes.  The only question is whether the faltering mainstream Church will accept reality and change its ways.  Evangelizing the lost doesn't seem to be working.  If the Church can't convert new believers then it must grow new believers.  The Amish are showing how to do just that, if we will but have the eyes to see.

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day, friends!

THAT'S Manhood?!

While shopping at Wal-Mart the other day I took a look at one of those celebrity magazines.  I think it was In Touch.  One of the short articles was about how Zac Efron (you know, of High School Musical fame) shed his "squeaky clean image"  to show he's now a man.  And how did he do that?  By dropping a condom on the red carpet at a movie premiere.  Yep, you read that right.   Zac Efron established his manhood by letting the world know he's sexually active, and not just with one girl, either.  A friend of Efron's was quoted in the article as saying that the actor has been seen "taking girls to his room".  When I read that it just really hit me how screwed up secular culture really is.

The way a boy becomes a man, says the world, is by sleeping around with multiple women and letting everybody know it.  That's it.  No need for responsibility, commitment, duty, honor, respect for women, or doing what's right.  And certainly no need for faith in God.  Nope, casual sex is all that's required to cross the threshold from child to adult.  Now I understand this was a very short filler article and was most likely meant to be lighthearted, but even in "jest" this message about masculinity is disturbingly shallow.  It reminds me of an article I read a few years ago about the maturing of kid hip hop artist Li'l Bow Wow.  The article featured photos of the grown up Bow Wow--he'd dropped the "Li'l" from his stage name--outside of his mansion and posing with his four ultra expensive cars.  I was instantly put off by that article's association of maturity with brazen materialism.  Fast forward to 2012 and pop culture's message hasn't gotten any better, as evidenced by the In Touch article.  The Church must do more to counter the world's empty vision of manliness.

God's Word has definite teachings on the meaning of manhood, although many believers appear oblivious to them, perhaps because Scripture doesn't neatly package those teachings in a single volume entitled, "God's Rules for Men".   Rather, the Bible's portrait of Godly manhood--what it is and what it is not--is scattered throughout its pages, being revealed in the lives of the Bible's famous characters and in the Wisdom sayings.  Here are a couple of examples.

We all know the famous saying of Joshua (the leader of the Israelites after Moses) recorded in Joshua 24:15,  "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."  Joshua made that statement after telling the Israelites to choose between serving the gods of their ancestors, the gods of the Amorites, or the true God, Yahweh.  Most believers think of Joshua's statement as a confession of commitment to God, and that's true.  But this little snippet of a verse also teaches us something about Godly manliness.  Look at the verse again, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."  Did you get that?  Joshua didn't just make a personal confession of commitment to God, he made a familial confession of commitment to God.  Not just him, but his house, would serve the Lord.

What does this teach us about manhood?

This passage teaches us that a real man leads his family to worship God.  Joshua was the head of his household and made sure that "his house" followed him in serving the Lord.  We see this also in Cornelius in the New Testament.  Acts 10:2 describes him as a gentile "who feared God with all his household".  Like Joshua, Cornelius also made sure his family followed his devout ways.  We aren't told in these passage just how Joshua and Cornelius led their families in practicing true faith but the fact that they did sends a clear message to believers.  Real men are the priests of their households and multi-generational fealty to God is a fruit of true manhood.  What a different message from the world!

We believers need to stop acting like biblical manhood is something to be ashamed of.  It's the world that needs to be ashamed of its shallow, libertine, materialistic, self-centered, misogynistic, and family-destroying vision of masculinity.  Believers need to boldly proclaim the Bible's powerful, uplifting, life-changing, family-saving, faith-producing, chivalrous, and civilizing message of real manliness.

Dropping condoms on the red carpet?  Kid stuff.  Leading a people to victory over their enemies and a household to faith in God?  Now that's manhood!

On Being Quiverful

This post was prompted by the news that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, America's most famous big family parents, were expecting their 20th, yes 20th, child. Sadly, Duggar #20 didn't make it. During a doctor visit to discover the sex of their baby, Jim-Bob and Michelle learned that their little one had died in utero.

When I heard of the Duggars' miscarriage I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was sad for Jim-Bob and Michelle who so clearly view every child as a joyful blessing. But I also wondered that maybe this miscarriage was God's way of telling them it was time to stop having children. Not, understand me, God's way of stopping the Duggars' fertility but, rather, God's way of telling them to stop their marathon procreation. In short, telling them it's time to use birth control. And therein lies the problem.

The Duggars are followers of something known as the quiverful movement, which is popular among a small segment of ultraconservative Christians. The stated aim of the movement is not for Christians to have many children, but for Christians to trust God to decide the size of their families. Therefore, the movement is strongly anti-contraception, seeing it not only as anti-child but also as evidence of distrusting God. So, it's highly unlikely that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar will interpret their miscarriage as a divine message to stop reproducing.

I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible, and the Bible, especially the Old Testament, encourages fruitfulness and repeatedly describes children as a blessing and a reward. Because of that I think most Bible-believing Christians will and should have more children than unbelievers (and nominal Christians). However, I do NOT believe that means family planning has no place what so ever in the life of Christians. I've read no Biblical commandment to that affect, and I've read no commandment asserting that contraception denies children are a blessing and/or indicates a lack of trust in God.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not endorsing the anti-child/anti-family sentiment that prevails in our feminism-dominated culture, and I'm not denying that attitude's destructiveness and incompatibility with Biblical teaching. Christians who believe the Bible won't be anti-child or anti-family, and most of them will have more children than the feminist-controlled majority. However, having more children than the majority doesn't mean Bible-believing Christians must engage in uncontrolled, irresponsible reproduction.

There are legitimate reasons for limiting procreation, at least in certain situations. Financial difficulties, health issues, and pathologies like addiction and abuse are all legitimate reasons for delaying childbearing. Christians who use contraception in such circumstances are showing neither anti-child prejudice nor a lack of trust in God. On the contrary, they are using the common sense God gave them to make responsible decisions in trying situations. Such believers need support and understanding, not condemnation, from their brothers and sisters in Christ.

I believe the quiverful movement means well. I admire its commitment to following the Bible's standards rather than the world's. On that score, I think the movement can teach something to the larger Christian community which is plagued by worldliness. I also believe, however, that the quiverful movement has the potential to do more harm than good. Runaway reproduction can have serious consequences for families, consequences which are NOT God's will. If the quiverful movement can accept that fact then it can be a positive force in the Church. If it can't, the movement will undermine itself by judging Christians who use family planning in tough circumstances. That, not using birth control, is the real sin.

Jesus Defined Marriage

The issue of gay marriage is quite contentious in our country. This contentiousness was highlighted by the recent controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean's support for traditional marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Miss Prejean's commitment to traditional marriage is believed by some to have cost her the Miss USA title. It has also made her the object of rabid scorn. Miss Prejean's courage and grace in the face of vitriolic condemnation is an inspiration but it might leave some people wondering if she's right to base her stand on the Bible. She is.

There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.

Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:


The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.


There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.

Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?

The Polygamy Question

Below is a reprint of a post I originally wrote on my first blog, PoorGrrl Zone, on October 2, 2005. In light of the recent addition of fugitive Mormon polygamist Warren Jeffs to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List I thought it would be timely to add this post to my "Christian" blog and see what my readers might think of it. Enjoy (and think!).


In the emotional debate over [legalizing] gay marriage traditionalists often base most of their objection to it on the fear that such a move will lead to the legalization of other non-traditional sexual unions, most notably polygamous unions. Of course, traditionalists have a very strong point; if society says yes to gay marriage, how can it say no to any other non-traditional marriage? However, tradtitionalists are on shaky ground placing polygamy under the same immorality umbrella as homosexuality, and the very Bible they use to oppose homosexuality proves it.

Traditionalists are right when they say that the Bible has given Western civilization its definition of marriage. And they are right to defend that definition. What they don't realize, [though], is that their definition of "traditional" marriage isn't as Biblical as they think. To put it bluntly, the Bible does NOT oppose polygamy, and the defenders of Biblical marriage need to know that.

Most people just assume that the Bible condemns polygamy. They base their view of polygamy almost exclusively on media reports of abusive polygamous Mormons and conclude, rightly, that the Bible is against such abuse. But being against abusive polygamous marriage isn't the same thing as being being against polygamy itself. There are abusive monogamous marriages, but opposing...such marriages doesn't mean opposing monogamy. So, traditionalists and others who think the Bible teaches that polygamy is immoral need to stop making media-based assumptions and read what the Bible actually says.

And what does the Bible say?

Even a cursory glance at the Good Book reveals that polygamy was alright with God. Some of the Patriarchs, for instance, had multiple wives. Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine, Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, had two wives and two concubines. God didn't object to these arrangements. Later, Moses had two wives, the Midianite woman Zipporah, and a Cushite woman. In the Mosaic Law God had ample opportunity to condemn polygamy, but He didn't. He regulated polygamy instead, forbiding men to marry sisters or a woman and her daughter.

Perhaps the best proof that the God of the Bible accepts polygamy is King David. We all know that David killed Goliath, but most people don't know that David was a lusty fellow. He had at least three wives before he became king of Israel and a lot more after he became king, all given to him by God! That's right. God gave David multiple wives. Nathan the prophet reminds David of that when he condemns him for murdering Uriah to take his wife, Bathsheba. So, if polygamy is a sin, as most traditionalists believe, then God committed sin by giving David many wives.

But what about Solomon? Didn't God condemn him for taking many wives? No. God condemned Solomon for taking many foreign wives, women who worshipped idols and led Solomon to worship them, too. It was idolatry, not polygamy, that drove God away from Solomon.

There are other examples of God accepting polygamy. Gideon, whom God used to defeat the Midianites in the time of the Judges, had 70 sons with his wives and concubines. The prophet Samuel, whose mother was Hannah, was born into a polygamous family. All of these men--Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samuel, David, Solomon--were considered righteous by God, even though they practiced polygamy or were born into it. And they weren't the only ones.

So, what are traditionalists to do? Almost their whole argument against [legalizing] gay marriage is that it violates the Biblical standard of marriage that America, and Western civilization, has always followed. But now we know that the Biblical standard of marriage includes polygamy. Traditionalists have some hard thinking to do. They have to admit that, when it comes to marriage, the "traditional values" they stand for are NOT the Bible's values. They then have to ask themselves if they're prepared to do the only honest thing: change their morality to conform to the Bible, or reject the Bible and cling to their tradition. If they really love God and His Word, the choice is obvious.

Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother?

I was watching the 700 Club last night and Pat Robertson answered a question from a woman who's mother had abandoned her and her siblings when they were children. The mother was now popping in and out of her children's lives every few years, usually to ask for money. The woman's question was did she have to honor such a mother; Mr. Robertson said yes. I'm not comfortable with that answer.

I know that the Bible commands us to honor our parents. I understand the need for that commandment, but sometimes I think people think that gives parents the right to treat their children any way they chose without consequence. Pat Robertson seems to fall into that category. No, Mr. Robertson has never advocated child abuse, and he has strongly counselled abuse victims not to have any contact with unrepentant parents. Still, he seems to believe that children generally don't have the right to hold their parents accountable for any negative or even destructive thing the parents have done to them. Mr. Robertson's answers always seem to include the mantra, "She/he is the only mother/father you've got", the implication being that any wrong they've done or are still doing needs to be overlooked by the child(ren). I think that's going too far.

The commandment to honor one's parents isn't given in a vacuum. There are many other commandments people are to obey, and no where in His Word does God say that these commandments don't apply between parent and child. Yes, parents are due a certain amout of respect simply by being parents. None of us would be here if our parents hadn't decided to have us and care for us in our youngest years. Yet, parents also owe respect to their children because the children are not just their children but also their fellow human beings. Thus, all the commandments governing how we must treat our fellow man apply to parents as they bring up their children.

For example, the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. In the New Testament Jesus showed that "neighbor" meant any human being, especially one in need. Doesn't "neighbor", then, include one's children? And if parents abuse their children, abandon them, manipulate them, use them for selfish gain, haven't they violated the second commandent? And shouldn't such parents expect a dip in the honor they receive from their children?

Or what about the commandment not to have any gods before God? If we tell children to give their parents blind, unquestioning honor, and the obedience that goes along with it, are we not telling them to treat their parents like little gods? Are we not making them guilty of idolatry?

We are told in the Bible to honor and obey governmental authority, but that commandment isn't absolute, even in the New Testament. Cruel, unjust governments or laws are disobeyed with God's approval several times in the Bible. Why do we think it's any different with cruel, unjust parents? It's not. Children are not obligated to honor or obey abusive, cruel parents. And for the parents who aren't abusive, children do have the right to hold them accountable for the wrong things they may have done in the process of bringing them up. After all, the consequences that destructive or negligent acts can have on a person don't vanish just because the perpetrators of the acts were his parents.

Parents must realize that they are accoutable before God to treat their children as the fellow human beings they are. If they do that, they will reap a bounty of honor in this life and the next. That's how Mr. Robertson should answer the next question he gets about what's due deadbeat parents.