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.

Many on the left will believe, quite mistakenly, that such an announcement is likely to weaken Palin’s support among “the hard-right conservative base”. But in fact, it will do no such thing — first, because the “hard-right conservative base” that liberal Democrats consistently invoke is largely a caricature that lives only in their minds and as a convenient trope in their rhetoric, from whence it can be trotted out as a foil and a boogeyman on cue[.]

I’ve seen anecdotal evidence of how a church reacts to difficult situations like this. One of the unwed pregnancies at my old church, which was pretty darn conservative culturally and theologically, was the Pastor’s daughter. Granted, she was no longer a teenager and she was living on her own, but she was still very young. Did we run the pastor out on a rail? No. We prayed for his family, especially his daughter, and rejoiced with him when the child was born.

His daughter eventually married the father. According to the leftist charicature, this also should have outraged the congregation, for the pastor’s daughter is white and the baby’s father is black. Horrors! An immediate stoning, perhaps? No, widely felt gratitude that the child now has a complete, loving family around it.

Shocking, I know.

UPDATE (9/4/08)

My wife corrects my mistake about the father.  Not black, but some minority that would make this a “mixed marriage” of sorts.

Public Domain Image via Wikipedia

Most recently, I saw this type of criticism at the blog Crime & Federalism in a post by blogger Mike titled “Pope to Jesus: Kiss Off!

There are millions of orphans currently suffering. Many of them will suffer horrible abuse at the hands of foster parents. In other countries, they will be sold into slavery. These children exist, and if someone doesn’t help them, they will suffer. That much is a constant.

Yet, according to the Catholic Church, only marriage between a man and woman is moral because it leads to a married couple having children.

Has Christianity become so perverted that not adopting (having children rather than adopting them is an conscious act) children is more moral than ending human suffering?

What has happened to the teachings of Christ?

***

Children are great. And children suffering is a horrible injustice. A church that truly taught Christ’s message would encourage adoption over procreation.

Yet the Pope is more concerned with adults entering into consensual sexual relations than he is with children being sold into sexual slavery. Yes, when you choose not to adopt, you make it more likely that a child will suffer. You are culpable.

It’s a strange world we live in, when even the Pope has missed the basic message of the New Testament. He’s more worried about gay adults than he is with suffering children.

(The omitted portion in the middle contended that having children is a selfish thing to do.)

I think that people who tend to criticize Catholics and other Christians for concentrating on abortion and same sex marriage while supposedly “ignoring” other problems fail to recognize why it appears that the Church is “preoccupied.” There are strong movements to legitimize both practices (and in the case of abortion, an already successful movement). It is natural for the Church to assemble its forces to counterattack. And given that both sides have mobilized in political and legal circles, it is natural that you would hear the most about these issues.

I suspect that for most such critics, this type of argument is not made to actually further the fight against poverty, or slavery, or whatever other “ignored” issue is pointed out, but to try to shame the Church into abandoning the battlefield on the high-profile issues so the “progressives” can proceed unopposed (good luck with that).

And just who is consumed with these issues, anyway? Stop pushing abortion and gay marriage from the left, and the Christian right will have nothing to push back against. In other words, Christian activism on these issues is largely reactive, not proactive.

Why on earth someone like blogger Mike would assume that because the Church actively fights vociferous proponents of legalizing and legitimizing practices that are immoral in the eyes of the Church, it “doesn’t care” about other injustices? Because he doesn’t see it on the news? There are millions of Christians in this country alone that give their time and money to fight poverty, homelessness, addiction, domestic violence, etc., and more overseas that fight violence, slavery, forced prostitution, and other evils.

A similar, but more thoughtful and less insulting version of the point was made by CNN’s Roland S. Martin (right). Apparently a professing Christian, he posted a column to his website last year titled “Christians: It’s time to take back the faith”:

If abortion and gay marriage are a part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.

Okay, so far, so good.

I’m looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Dr. James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, President Bush’s “Patriot Pastors,” and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver, and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy and our sorry education system.

Putting aside the question of what the hell Jackson and Sharpton would do if they couldn’t cry racism all the time — and questioning Martin’s placement of Rick Warren with more conservative figures — I’m trying to imagine the common ground Martin thinks these folks might come to.

Which brings me to the disparate treatment of the Religious Left and Religious Right. But that post is for another day.

[T]he divorce rate for Christians is about the same as for other people. These things are a total disgrace, and a clear indication that our society has abandoned marriage. Now that somebody else wants it, we grab the toy and scream, “Mine!” People rightly call us out as hypocrites for this behavior. We can’t unring this bell. It’s over. As Ed Morrissey points out, “Government stopped being in the sacrament business at the moment it offered no-fault divorces.” Whether California successfully passes legislation to undo the Court’s decision is a moot point. Same sex marriage is going to be a reality in this country in our lifetimes. And polygamous marriage will inevitably follow.

***

The rallying cry in response to this verdict will be to “Save marriage!” but we need to begin with our own. Pastors need to stop renting out churches to brides who simply want a beautiful set for their big wedding productions and reserve church weddings for Christians who have undergone counseling and understand the ramifications of what they’re doing. As Christians we need to make sure our own marriages are solid and we need to stand up with our friends whose marriages are in trouble and help fight to preserve their marriages.

Hat tip: The Anchoress.