Nightline Report on the “Quiver Full” Movement
Some of you will have seen this already:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2769639
Observations:
A. Beautiful family. And knowing the media, you know they were trying very hard to find a bad example to feature in this report. It speaks a lot about the people involved that this family was the “worst” the media was able to find.
B. I assume the pastor featured was not the pastor of this family- and the report I believe makes that pretty clear. Dan Scott, the local pastor interviewed, is clearly in “damage contol” mode- as in, “how can I reassure these nice media people that we Christians aren’t weirdos like this family?” And, under pressure, he spills his worldview, referencing “overpopulation” and “limited resources” for reasons not to have lots of children.
Now, in fairness, Scott is merely parroting the received wisdom of our age- but there’s not an “overpopulation” problem with this couple’s children. In contrast, the Western world is going to have a serious underpopulation problem in the next 100 years. Children like these don’t result in “limited resources”, but rather are priceless human capital who will add to the total resources available to the rest of humanity.
Scott, you’ll be interested to know, is pastor of a megachurch in Nashville, and his humanist educational background probably betrays the source of his bias:
Pastor Scott holds a BA in Sociology/History, a Masters of Arts in Humanities, a Master of Arts in Psychology and a post graduate certificate in Trauma and Abuse. Pastor Scott is fluent in Spanish and French and is dedicated to racial reconciliation.
Something tells me Scott would not support politically incorrect solutions to true overpopulation, like mandatory birth control for welfare recipients, but is nevertheless very eager to distance himself from a family populating the world with beautiful, well-adjusted children on their own dime.
C. Depending on which of the offered definitions you take, “quiver full” does not necessarily mean absolutely no birth control (I’ve read somewhere that a quiver in OT times held five arrows, but of course because of high infant mortality they would have had many more than that to ensure 5 survived). The point is to have at least 5 or 6 kids. That’s achievable- what worries me about an absolutist worldview is rolling 1/30 odds for Down Syndrome (and other developmental issues that increase exponentially with maternal age) at age 45. Unless a parent is financially independent enough to provide for a special needs child for life (even past the parent’s death), it would seem irresponsible to intentionally take such a large risk that, if such an outcome occurred, would ultimately put a burden on the taxpayer- not to mention the time and resources that would be taken from the other children. I’m not advocating abortion of course, but I just mean using non-abortive birth control to manage the risk after a certain age. A reasonable inflection point before the risk starts accelerating seems to be age 39 or so. Statistics below:
I’m sure very few people will take this middle position- it seems as if we are wired up for ideology.
And if people must choose an ideology, then the full-on “Quiver Full” philosophy is infinitely preferable for our people to the Culture of Death and its below-replacement birth rates we have now.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I think the quiver-full movement is great ideally. However, it becomes a problem when we start ramming it down other Chrisitans throats and saying God has commanded them to start popping out the babies. I know some people will freak out when I bring up Andrea Yates, but there it is. That is what could happen when a lower to lower middle class family tries to compete with the obviously wealthy families. Sure it would be easy to have a quiverfull with unlimited resources financially- babysitters, no struggles with food and clothing etc… Not to mention the father not having to work 16 hours a day to support these many mouths. Most of the large families I have seen on TV like this family and the Duggers have self-employed fathers who have the time and financial resources to take this on. It also is apparent these strong fathers are God-lead to this purpose. I think it is a wonderful thing, but I do not think most men are open to this. Not to mention the women.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Becki,
I don’t think it’s fair to throw out the Yateses when discussing this issue. This woman was — is — deeply disturbed, a situation that was exacerbated, not caused, by her family situation. And her husband was a tyrant, a tin-pot dictator, who in my estimation had little if anything to do with God, except using His name as a club with which to beat her into submission.
I would further comment that this is a calling, like homeschooling, and I haven’t heard any serious Christian proponents of either claim that anyone who doesn’t follow suit is bound for hell. But I have noticed that people who do not feel called to either often react as though this accusation had been made; I can only assume that reaction is based on some level of guilt in the person having it. I am not saying that’s where you’re coming from, just that this is the only logical explanation I can come up with for people who act that way.
As far as how affordable it is, it comess down to a question of — and again, there is no accusation in this — whether you think children (i.e., blessing from God) are worth cutting your lifestyle, and whether you truly trust God to provide for your - and your kids’ - needs.
I have two cousins that have 15 or 16 kids between them. My own family deride them because the one cousin’s husband is unable to sufficiently cover all their expenses, for their nine kids, all the time, and he is self-employed. They have to rely many months on the charity of their church family to make ends meet. Go figure: Christians relying on Christian charity. Sounds like what Jesus said to do. But every time I see them or hear about/from them, everyone is happy — and all the kids are well-adjusted and God-fearing. And my cousin, Lori, is one of the more intelligent and articulate people I know (in case you were wondering).
My point in all this is that you don’t have to be loaded to answer this calling. Sure, it would help to be financially self-sufficient (make that “God-sufficient” with little or no human help), but it would help to be self-sufficient if you were single with no kids.
It’s kind of like what I told some friend of ours a few weeks ago, only writ large: If you wait ’til you can afford it to have more kids, you’ll never have more.
I think the world would be a better place if more Christians had this level of trust in God. Including me.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I think it’s important in this discussion, and something I don’t often think to do (likely due to our own good luck in this regard), is to make disclaimers to be sensitive to people struggling with infertility or other health issues that prevent them from having more children.
It sickens me how many good, loving couples I know who struggle with infertility, while every miscreant in the ghetto is on child #6 with daddy-baby #4.
Even something as routine as a c-section essentially puts an upper limit on the number of children (4 or 5, depending on the doc). We need to be careful about spiritualizing away financial and medical realities. God is not our fairy godmother who will magically exempt us from the natural consequences of unwise behavior, even if we find a Bible verse to back up the behavior in the abstract.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Well said, Tom; I agree whole-heartedly.
My point was not “the more the better.” I am simply a proponent of a high degree of trust in God, which, as I understand it, is supposed to be inherently beneficial to us.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Becki,
I agree that finances play a role. I see this as a positive to the extent that it might encourage a correlation between family size and wealth.
What a wonderful change for our culture if the new status symbol, pace Dave Ramsey, was a large brood of kids and a paid off house…
February 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Brian,
I totally agree that Andrea Yates had mental issues; however, it does not change the fact that she was pressured by her “Christian” husband and church to procreate ad nauseum.
I DO feel that SOME Christians feel that other Christians are “turning down” God’s blessings. This is not a reference to me or any guilty feelings on my part. I am just trying to give another side to this debate.
I think your cousins are very brave. I know from my standpoint it would be very hard to keep having children and depending on charity. My husband would feel less than a man and would put undo stress on our marriage.
Thanks Tom for the interesting debates and info.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I think we have to be careful about asymmetrical intolerance. Often, we’re very tolerant of someone who has a more liberal position than ourselves, while condemning as legalists or judgers those who have a more conservative position. I imagine this might be because someone with a more conservative position makes us question our own, and may trigger unpleasant feelings of guilt that are projected as a judgmental attitude onto the person holding the different view.
I’ve never gotten the feeling from anyone that this is a sin issue. But if children are blessings, and we refuse them out of short-term selfishness, i.e. with no other mitigating factor, then logically that would be turning down God’s blessing, right?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I feel that if both parents are not wanting more children, then the couple should not have more. If God wills it to be, then He will work on that person’s spirit. I would not strong arm my husband into having more children, nor would he do that to me. For instance, before Ken and I got married, we agreed that I would work after having children. After Kendall was born, we prayed and God lead us to sacrifice our new home and “big city” lifestyle. We bought an ittey-bitty fixer upper and a cheaper used car. It was the best decision for our family at that time, but it was huge sacrifice for us. If Ken was not in agreement with that, I was prepared to go back to work. I feel our marriage comes before our children, present or future. I do not see how having more children, against a spouse’s wishes, is accepting God’s blessing.
I agree with you Tom on the issue of intolerance. All the debates we have had on homeschooling, homechurching, and this have made me question my beliefs and faith. Let’s face it, we all think we are right. Now we can get all huffy and ticked off at each other, or we can discuss it like we are doing. I think it is better to hear all sides, and then perhaps, learn something.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Tom, you are cracking me up with the “daddy-baby” comment!
February 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I agree that a couple has to agree on this- that trumps all other considerations. The hope is both would see additional children as blessings, assuming they were able and there aren’t any serious medical reasons not to have more.
One observation I’ll make from my experience as a father: I understand now why people stop at two children. The first child was relatively easy, as you had two parents to one child. It’s only difficult because you’re having to learn so much. The second child, though, is exponentially more difficult, as you still have a very needy toddler with an extremely needy infant, and the parent to child ratio is now even.
However, I believe that’s as bad as it’s gonna be, for a few reasons. First is the learning curve: I have learned about as much with the second as I did with the first. Only with a third child will I go into it feeling truly experienced. Second, the oldest will be able to help an incredible amount with a third child, and the first two can entertain themselves by playing together, whereas with the second there was more of a demand for parent-led entertainment.
So, I think it’s a mistake to quit at two, if one is basing that decision on assuming the difficulty will increase with every child- as I think it should get easier with a third child. I’ll let you know when I test that hypothesis
Finally, I think some of us have to let go of the martyr complex of feeling like we have to change every diaper and serve every meal to be a good parent; this is selfishness masquerading as selflessness- the secret pride and vanity of every martyr-type person. Quality child care (in your home or a non-daycare option like Mothers’ Day Out) a few hours a week is an incredible bargain, allowing you to trade mere money for sanity; I’d do what it takes to find the money, driving an old used car if I had to. And no child is going to be emotionally wounded by having someone else care for them 10-15 hours a week. I’m talking about during the really difficult diaper stage of life, before you have older siblings who can help out. I love my children, they are the joy of my life, but parents need time alone as well.
If extra help makes us more willing to have a larger family, then no child would choose not to exist over having outside child care a few hours a week. Throughout history, people have had help in this area, so why not us? I somehow don’t think Sarah, wife of Abraham with hundreds of slaves, was changing every poopie diaper.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I’ll have to say I was shocked to see Dan Scott. He pastored a fairly large non-denominational charistmatic church in Phx. Doug and I attended for a year or so before moving here. I can’t say I got a whole lot out of his leadership, other than he liked to hear himself sing.
I do have friends in Phx who eventually left his church, (I thought Scott was still in Phx) who would probably be considered part of the “quiver-full” movement seeing as they are on their sixth at this time. They had mentioned that Scott took a turn towards the Episcopalian church several years ago. It wasn’t clear to me in the video what or who he’s pastoring now, but it sounds like he hasn’t changed much. Oh your hypothesis on things getting easier after the third child kind of made me laugh, b/c I usually hear just the opppsite, but the Duggers (isn’t that the family of 16…or is it 17 now?)mentioned it gets easier after the fifth!! I’m not sure if that’s comforting or not. 
February 10th, 2007 at 12:49 am
For us the third was hard! We could no longer divide and conquer so to speak. The fourth was no big deal especially with Carissa being able to do so much. The fifth one I am slightly nervous about but only because we will have a 1, 2, and 3 year old (our new daughter is 2 today! We hope to receive travel approval to go get her in the coming weeks.) Anyway, I do understand what Becki is talking about - some quiver-full minded families do push others to agree with their position. However, the families that I know that have 7+ children will quickly tell you that children are a blessing BUT it is a personal decision. The church we are in now has several large families and it has been such a blessing to us to see how that looks up close. We also have been able to see what that looks like as the kids get older. The fruit is sweet! Also, they have told me that it does indeed get easier, the more siblings the less work for mom. I was surprised that Aaron is so passionate about this subject but he is. He is all for as many children as the Lord will bless us with (I still hyperventilate when I think too long on that topic!) Most people mistakenly believe that without birth control everybody would have 10+ kids - that’s just not true. I know many couples that have never used birth control and they never had more than 6 etc. I think that God already knows how many children a couple will have and that looks different for every family according to what God’s purpose is for them. The thought that keeps convicting me is, if I don’t have anymore children, have I helped or hindered God’s plan for our lives? Meaning, would the next baby cure cancer, be a great preacher etc. If He already knows how many children He has chosen for our family, I sure don’t want to be the one to say, no thanks. Again, this is just what the Lord has put on my heart. I do not judge anyone for their personal decisions. As far as birth defects the older the mother gets, my take on that is, God is sovereign. I know that is somewhat controversial but again that’s just MY outlook. I figure if God wants me to have a baby with down syndrome etc. then he/she is supposed to be part of our family and God will give us the grace and wisdom to parent that child (btw, DS children are wonderful! I’ve had the opportunity to work with several when I used to teach.) Tom, I have the dvd, The Way Home from Franklin Springs, it is heartwarming. It’s about a high up executive with FedEx that quit it all to pack up his family and start a farm! They have 11 children (i think) at the time of the video. It is wonderful - exactly what Aaron and I would love to do in the next 10 years. Anyone is welcome to borrow it. Cathy
January 16th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I am a “victim” of this quiverfull movement. I literally had it rammed down my throat (pardon the pun).
During the first year of my marriage my spouse was exposed to Mary Pride and other such literature. Having been saved out of an immoral lifestyle we moved from “one extreme to the other” and adopted the quiverfull approach (I never chose this path but my spouse was so quilty over past sins that any sex with birth control was viewed as “ungodly”). Since it “takes two to tango” I had no choice but to go along with my spouse’s conviction.
What made matters worse is that we were young, impressionable, well-intentioned Christians who become part of a extremely dogmatic/legalistic church. The leaders of this pseudo-cult would rebuke anyone who missed a Sunday service (even if you were going to visit your family out of town you were encouraged to leave after Sunday service and return before the next one).
We were extremely fertile and had baby after baby with never more than a 6 month break between pregnancies. By our 7th anniversary we had 6 children on a very limited income. We could have “lived on welfare” but chose to struggle through– we have never accepted any government money except for tax returns and state health insurance for our kids.
It has taken me many years to overcome the bitterness and hurt caused by being forced to have a “quiverfull” that I never wanted. I love all of my children and my spouse with all my heart, but our entire household was cheated by this vain philosophy and the poor exegesis of Scripture that “justifies” these beliefs. We all suffer to this day because of this heretical teaching.
I have no problem with any couple making their own decision if they want zero kids or as many as they can possibly have, but I have no tolerance any longer for anyone who wishes to force THEIR personal convictions on others. Having a “quiverfull mentality” is a personal choice that a couple is entitled to but how dare anyone force it upon someone else!
I hope someone out there can learn from my mistakes!
January 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Dave, I am sorry that someone was able to guilt you into a legalistic approach to this. A couple of points to ponder:
1. As recently as 50 years ago “the pill” did not exist. As recently as the early 1970’s every major denomination considered any sort of birth control to be a sin. Nearly all the church father, early church and Reformed, though the same thing.
2. In the long run, people who have more children for whatever reason will tend to displace those who do not. So I think the world is inevitably moving in a legalist direction, probably a natural correction to the antinomian bias of modern self-indulgent religion.
The future consists of those too stupid (i.e. impulsive, short-sighted, thrill-seeking, or irresponsible) to use birth control and those who deliberately choose not to use it. The intro to Idiocracy sums it up well (warning: R-rated content):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA
Given the incredible investment required in parenting a large family (I only have two and if not for my conviction that it is my duty I might be tempted to stop), it would seem that only a religious prohibition (i.e. believing it is a sin) would be able to overcome the human temptation to rationalize comfort over sacrifice.
I’m not taking a side on the issue morally and I don’t have to, for I can appeal to a higher law, that of survival itself. If I want my progeny to survive and have their fair share of the future, I must teach them that large families are an imperative.
One thing I try to keep in perspective is that the productive element of society will never be able to out-breed the non-productive element that reproduces like cats or dogs without regard for the children. The goal is not to out-breed them but to make sure that there is a positive growth in the productive element.
I think a rule I will teach my kids is “four or more”. If you’re able to have them, then “four or more” is your fair share and how you “pay back” the investment your parents put into you. A woman who starts having children at 25 can easily have four to six children without overtaxing her body, as you said, by having more children before the infant is even weaned.
But I can’t bring myself to be legalistic about it, which probably means my rule will have less sticking power than otherwise.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I think that Idiocracy was hilarious, and Mike Judge is the king of modern American pop culture satire. Does that make me a bad person?
Tom, about this:
You may want to peruse the recent musings of my lovely bride before dying on that hill. Just a friendly word of warning.
Ever tried to herd kittens?
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Giving birth to a disabled child may indeed be God’s will but the statistics bear witness to the incredible stress this puts on families. For example in my country 80% of parents with autisic children divorce. Very sad. I hope a cure for autism SOON is Gods will too.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Ok, I have to weigh in on the “2 is as hard as it gets” comment. First, I want to say that I agree with your ultimate point - couples quit at the hardest stage of parenting, not realizing that easier days are just around the corner. The years filled with diapers, tantrums, intelligible babblings, food throwing, etc. seem like the longest of your life, but they pass very quickly in the grand scheme of things.
However, the transition from 2 to 3 kids does seem to be the most difficult. In my experience, having TWO little ones in diapers, with neither one really old enough to help (even though they think they are) combined with a needy infant can be very taxing and overwhelming. Of course, that’s not everyone’s experience, and the age of the older children plays a significant factor.
Bottom Line: its not easy. I’d love to have more kids, but part of me would be a little hesitant, too - we don’t have unlimited resources, and it is already financially challenging. I also think 4+ drastically changes your lifestyle. You can pretty much live a “normal” life with three kids - eating out, traveling at will, and participating in all the other activities that are considered normal - are all, if not “easy”, at least doable. 4 - and especially MORE than 4 - makes even average tasks incredibly harder. If each kid has one extracurricular activity (at the same time) the hours spent just traveling from one activity to another are considerable.
That said, I’d totally be ready in a heartbeat to make the sacrifices necessary. But it takes a little more dedication at this stage of the game, and I do have to say its been a lot harder than I expected.
As far as taking a moral position, for the sake of the unborn children, I’d hesitate to counsel anyone in this regard. Who would want to a mother or father who had you just because “they were supposed to” and resented you your whole life? I can’t imagine the upbringing that child would have. On the flip side, would you rather have a miserable life or no life at all…?
January 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Excuses,excuses, too much money, car too small, too many diapers for the dustbin. Repent and follow God’s command: Be fruitfull and multiply.[Genesis ch 3] In Exodus ch 2, they multiplied so much that seventy in four hundred years became millions of Jews. Judah’s sons were destroyed by God partly for depleting the “worlds population” through birth control.
Mary the mother of Jesus had seven sons and daughters and was called “highly favoured”, as Daniel was favoured.
Father of nine under thirteen here in the U.K. AND ALL HOME SCHOOLED.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Tim, I am in agreement with your advocacy of a high-fertility lifestyle, but the engineer in me must do the math.
Over four hundred years, if we assume that’s twenty generations (i.e. the average birth is at 20 years of age for the mother- this is the AVERAGE birth, not the first birth) then to go from seventy people to ten million it would only take an average of 1.81 surviving fertile children per person, or 3.67 or so per woman.
This is simply ten million divided seventy taken to the 20th root.
So my prescription of “four or more” looks to be a reasonable non-legalistic guideline. If we tell people they must have the maximum or else they’re outside the will of God, we lose the opportunity to make a more reasoned argument of “above replacement fertility, beyond that is your liberty” in line, as I note, with actual history in the Bible.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I have to say that I both agree and disagree with Lindsay. EVERY KID more than 2 is exponentially more difficult. (We had 6 in 7 years as I explained above). So more than once we had 3 in diapers at a time.
The fact that I totally opposed “full quiver” but had it forced upon me only adds to the difficulties.
Where I disagree with Lindsay is that younger children are MUCH easier than teens. Changing diapers 15-20 times a day was a breeze compared to parenting 5 teenagers! When they are little you stay at home and are together as a family. As they get older they develop their own interests (sports, music, etc) and want to be involved in those outside activities (as well as part time jobs).
As a direct result of having so many kids our “home school” is hardly ever home. Even though my spouse and I greatly restrict the number of activities the kids can be involved in each semester, there is RARELY a 24 hour period that we don’t have at least one commitment/activity.
If I had it all to do over again I would have done it totally differently. Not just because I disagree with the full quiver teaching, but because I have lived it first hand and seen how detrimental it is to both the parents and children. Each couple is free to make their own choices and I encourage people to choose whatever works for me, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that full quiver is not for everybody and how dare anyone force it upon another brother or sister in Christ!
Before you judge me too harshly, come and stand in my shoes for a little while. YOU can take the reins of these 5 teenagers and try to pay all your expenses on a income that has been as low as $20K per year and never higher than $40K in a year since we were married. You can try to figure out how to give of them all the individual attention that they desperately need while still giving attention to your spouse and managing to get a few hours sleep each night.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I think that there is an argument for both sides. We have 4, and it was a serious health risk for me each time. I had c-sections for each, plus gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. With our last, I had to have my uterus removed due to problems. When you get to this stage, you have to believe that God is telling you “that’s enough”. It is difficult with 4, financially, time-wise, relationship-wise, and marriage-wise. There is never any “down time”. Ypu have to fight for your marriage and for time with each child. But I have seen many people with 4 or more do it beautifully. I have also seen them do it awfully, because it wasn’t really their choice. It comes down to this-if you have a relationship with Christ, and you visit with Him about what you should do as a family, He can give you the answer that is right for you. If you are looking to your pastor, your neighbor, your extended family, a blog, tv, or anywhere else, you aren’t going to find it. You can argue this to death, and guilt people over it, and condemn those on both sides. But in the end, it is between you and God. Who are we to get in between Him and his children?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I forgot to make it clear that “four or more” in my view is of course conditional upon the ability to have that many children, or to do so without unreasonable health risks. Obviously people who struggle with infertility or dangerous health risks associated with pregnancy have legitimate reasons for not having four or more. That’s why “four or more” is necessary: the third child brings the positive return on parental investment and the fourth child is there to fill in societally for people who can’t have as many as they’d like.
The problem with legalism (and this is not to say that all “quiver full” people are legalistic) is that it can’t deal with legitimate situational differences in trying to apply one-size-fits-all prescriptions.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:34 am
Shannon, AMEN! Very well said. I have known a few quiver full families who do quite well with accommodating large numbers of children (all that I have known that do well are financially well off — either through extended family support or a husband who is a doctor/lawyer/or other professional with high income). I have known many more families like my own who never got themselves financially established before getting pregnant (I accept responsibility for that) and then got caught up into this “super-spiritual” legalistic view that homeschool, homebirth, homebusiness, and tons of kids is the ONE and ONLY God ordained way to run a family. It is a reactionary movement against the “double income no kids” couples of modern feminist America — and reactionary movements tend to go to the opposite extreme of what they oppose (witness the disaster of Prohibition in this country nearly a century ago).
My anger is directed at people who force this kind of view on others. I have “quiver full” acquaintances who are financially well off who beat with a club ANY homeschool family who doesn’t follow their personal choices (even when the couple is like yourself and has serious medical issues they are regarded as “not having enough faith”!)
You state it very well and I agree with you that these are grave spiritual matters and each couple must weigh them together prayerfully and do what the Lord leads them to do. I wish I had been given the opportunity to do that.
I am living testimony to the fact that you can’t live out other people’s convictions. I, my spouse and my children all benefit from knowing and loving each other as a family, but we all suffer because we have never had enough money, time or energy to give each member what they need. I have to answer to God for those failures and I will do so.
Oh yeah, and all the people in my earlier years who compelled my spouse and I to have so many children…. they have never given us one dime to help with the support of those children!
My family and I cannot go anywhere TOGETHER — we have to drive at least two vehicles. My children RARELY get individual attention because our home is so small it is difficult to be alone anywhere. My spouse and I have to either leave the house or speak in a whisper in order to have a private conversation in our own home. We have never been able to afford a family vacation (occasionally friends or family have let us use a cottage for a weekend but that’s it). We have to miss participating in many things that we would have liked our children to enjoy (music, sports, etc) either because we can’t afford it or there simply is not time because we have so many to look after.
Because I was forced to have a quiverfull I never had the pleasure of joy over a pregnancy. I have friends who rejoice greatly with their spouse whenever they got pregnant. For us there was never a time when we were “ready” and “planning” to get pregnant it was always just one more burden to be added to the pile. I feel robbed of the joy of trusting God and rejoicing in His blessings because I feared man (the legalists that I was under at that time) more than I trusted God to follow my convictions about family planning.
Someone out there, PLEASE learn from my mistakes. Children are a blessing, but WISDOM is a great blessing too. Being a parent is the HARDEST job in the world — it is not to be entered into flippantly or because someone else is telling you to do it. Our convictions must come from the Scripture and prayer — not from other people!