Apparently it’s OK to breed like rabbits, so long as you’re not a Christian

Two articles in two days from two different sources on the Quiverfull Movement caught my eye.  Quiverfull is a movement within the Christian church that advocates no “family planning” — you get the children God decides to give, and that’s that.  Some would say that means automatic advocacy for large families, and to a large extent that is the practical result — a family with only 6 or 7 kids is probably small by normal Quiverfull standards. But from what I’ve read, it’s quite possible to be a childless Quiverfull couple if you have trouble conceiving or carrying to term.

I’m not an adherent, but I don’t begrudge these folks their view of scripture.

What struck me about the articles was how radically different they were despite the fact that they both came from reliably liberal sources.

NPR’s story simply let Quiverfull wives tell their stories about why they became, and remain, Quiverfull wives.  It opened with a neutral introduction to the movement:

Among some conservative Christians, a movement is giving new meaning to the biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply.”

The movement, called Quiverfull, is based on Psalm 127, which says, “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.”

Those in the Quiverfull movement shun birth control, believing that God will give them the right number of children. It turns out, that’s a lot of kids.

Compare that with the opening of the piece in the article at Salon, which focuses on women who have left the movement, and opens with this:

Vyckie Garrison wasn’t sure she wanted to use her real name in this article. Until last year, Garrison (then Vyckie Bennett), a 43-year-old single mother of seven living in Norfolk, Neb., followed a fundamentalist pronatalist theology known as Quiverfull. Shunning all forms of birth control, Quiverfull women accept as many children as God gives them as a demonstration of their radical faith and obedience as well as a means to advance his kingdom: winning the country for Christ by having more children than their adversaries. This self-proclaimed “patriarchy” movement, which likely numbers in the tens of thousands but which is growing exponentially, bases its arguments on Psalm 127: “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 shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” Quiverfull women commonly give birth to families of eight, 10 and 12 children, or more.

Also, the Salon piece appears to celebrate not just that the women it profiled left Quiverfull, but essentially left Christianity entirely:

“Me and Laura both say we hope we don’t end up as atheists,” says Garrison, with a laugh, though she can’t think of herself as anything else. This month, Laura and Garrison began a blog, cheekily named “No Longer Quivering,” to describe their experiences exiting the movement. Currently, Garrison is attending a relatively liberal Salvation Army church in Norfolk. She doesn’t go for the faith anymore, but for the people, people in “bad shape” who remind Garrison of her childhood friends. She affectionately jokes with the pastor’s wife that she’s glad they “don’t take the Bible seriously.”

The other thing that struck me — but didn’t surprise me — was the highly negative tone of many commenters, even those commenting on the more neutral NPR piece. Some complained of overpopulation, drain on the environment, etc., but a great many (and granted, this is based on a limited sampling, since there were way too many comments for me to read all of them) directed their ire at one of Quiverfull’s goals: to bring about a better world (in their eyes) by populating it with their own offspring who will be raised in their faith.

These commenters seem to think this is going to drive us to the world of The Handmaid’s Tale (which, by the way, was a decent novel and movie, though laughably paranoid about the “religious right”), but that’s sure a stretch.  One commenter claimed the movement’s “stated purpose” was to “impose a theocratic dictatorship.”  Funny, I didn’t see that stated anywhere in either article.  And many commenters — undoubtedly great advocates of “choice” — refused to believe that any woman could truly be happy as a Quiverfull wife, and thus those that are must be the victims of brainwashing.

And somehow, I doubt that any of them would hesitate to call Mark Steyn a racist for worrying about the long-term effects of Muslim immigrants to Europe dramatically out-breeding the natives of European countries.

UPDATE (4/25/09): My post headline was poorly chosen.  I have no problem with folks who have lots of kids.  (In fact, if they raise them right (i.e., with good values), I respect the heck out of ‘em!) The title was meant to point out the attititude of those who dislike large families, but will call Mark Steyn a racist for pointing out general demographic trends in Europe.

And R.S. McCain has a powerful post regarding accepting children into a Christian marriage at HotAir’s Greenroom that responds to a recent post there by Laura of Pursuing Holiness regarding the low standing Christians have earned when it comes to defending traditional marriage.