I'm not sure what you mean by exception. Can you explain further?
I am holding in my hands right now the 38 volumes of church history from the time of the men who knew the apostles up until the 300's or so.
What we do find from their writings is the idea that children are a blessing and that people normally should have children.
We also find though some errors creeping in early, statements like sex is ONLY for the purpose of creating children and that sex outside of that purpose was evil, which contrasts the Judeo-Christian view that sex is both for pleasure in relations as well as for procreation, which can clearly be seen in the literal reading of the Song of Songs.
For example, Athenagorus around 175 AD made this comment "
Each of us considers her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us--and he marries ONLY for the purpose of having children . . . . to us the procreation of children is the limit our our indulgence in sexual appetite."
It is these types of ideas that begin to flourish under the gnostic ideology (material and physical matter is evil, only the soul is good). You can see also how this spread in my article in the teaching articles section on How and Why Did Polygyny Become Uncommon.
Go here:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2063
The Roman Catholic church, and then by their use of the power of the sword to stomp out any who did not agree with them (like through the Crusades and more), gravitated towards this and even went to so far to claim that Priests should not join with a woman because in doing so that was not as good as as spiritual as being celibate. Why? Because they embraced this gnostic seed that began through the teachings of Simon the Magician in Acts 8 (along with his disciples that developed from him into church history).
There is no merit to those ideas at all and even more so, there is nothing in Scripture that can be used to support the idea that having sex for pleasure is wrong or sinful. Furthermore, that thinking runs against logic because if sexual relations were designed by God ONLY for the purpose of having children then there would not be the cessation of ovulation in women. But there is that time and yet sex is still holy, pleasurable, and endorsed by God for those of those years. The RC church as a whole embraced the gnostic view, as can be seen in their views on priestly celibacy as the more spiritual way, and thus they too embraced the birth control methods to be sin as they cannot see and accept the idea of sex being but of the flesh and not really all that good to begin with. The quotes by our dear friend of the Evangelical/Protestant movement Luther are simply what we call hang overs from Rome. The Reformers did well to get what they had right in regard to a return to the gospel. Yet they left many issues untouched and they were confused in some areas because it takes years to get rid of many traditional ideas. John Calvin did not even write a commentary on the book of Revelation despite the fact he wrote 22 volumes of commentaries. Why not? Because when he got to it he was so enamored with Roman ideology that he said that in light of his new approach the Bible he could not understand what it meant.
The point I am making is that the RC church, and thus its off shoots of Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc., kept some of those ideas that developed in Rome. Even if you embrace the idea that the early church fathers from 100 to 300 were of the Roman church system, which when reading their writings themselves does not support the idea, but even so taking that perspective of history one is still left with the idea that gnostic thought was gaining ground and it gained a stronghold over many by around the time of the solidification of power after Constantine merged the church and state together under one umbrella.
And in referring back to the Quiver Full movement it took a radical form and gained ground through a woman who claimed she was against feminism but some have rightly questioned was her "warrior attitude" a feminist act itself. Mary Pride wrote a book called: "The Way Home: Beyond Feminism Back to Reality" (1985). She then got Rick and Jan Hess to write "a Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ" (1989). Then in 1989 Charles Provan wrote "The Bible and Birth Control."
Before these works many couples throughout the ages used natural family planning methods, even long before any medical means were available to be used. But with the dawn of these new novel works the movement gained an ideology base that spread through this teaching that it was sin to limit the number of children one could have, that to do so was not to trust God, and that God opens and closes the womb naturally without the need for family planning methods.
There fourfold syllogism would be:
1. All children are a blessing and because of that 2. We should thus try to have as many of those blessings as possible. 3. Any acts of intervention are sin.
4. Medicine and other methods show a lack of trust in God.
The primary verse comes from Psalm 127 where it says: "Children ARE a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward . . . . Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!"
As noted earlier they build from a descriptive verse a prescriptive command and that is terrible hermeneutics. What IS currently does not make a demand or a command as to one's actions for the future. Thus just because one has children that are a blessing does not mean the text is mandating or commanding a person to seek to have more.
Also, those who make this case are often very inconsistent. They in one sentence claim that God is in control of the whom by his sovereign hand and thus medicine is not needed to govern conception. But then the same will often use medicine for other sicknesses. Is not the same God also sovereign over sickness and can he not heal without medical means? Is Tylenol, advil, anti-biotics (which are from natural resources), and other forms of medical means (even what is so-called natural remedies) also sinful? To latch onto one position yet to ignore other positions with medical means shows there is a bias in their approach.
Many believe it was a feministic error of Mary Pride just a reverse type of feminism. She reacted so strongly to one error, possibly the disdain people had towards children and being selfish, that as a woman she read back into the Bible her own desires and made the Bible say more than it really said. This is a common problem when opposing something. People are prone to over-react and in the counter of a true problem that over-counter and create a new problem. This seems to be what Mary Pride did.
Others have reasoned that Mary Pride read into the Bible her own experiential desires for all women and then used the Bible to build her case of her own experiential desires. In other words, women naturally are geared and hardwired towards a deeper desire for children, and thus with Mary Pride's own womanly nature guiding her those presuppositions governed her as she read the Bible and thus her biases bled into her interpretive conclusions.
That are all valid critiques that one must consider when reflecting over the almost at times aggressive push that has come forth from the Quiver Full mentality advocates. Some, though not all, have argued so strongly for it it is as if anger is really driving some in the movement instead of simple biblical fidelity, as if they are indeed in reactionary mode. And history has shown us that those in reactionary mode often overstate their case because of the excess emotional element that enters into their defense.
Their third point that any intervention is an act of sin has no biblical verse anywhere in the Bible to support that. Onan's case cannot be used because it was a restricted law specifically for the Levirate situation. Thus a universal law for all people at all times can be pulled from that verse. And without that verse there is nothing in the Scriptures, even in the 613 laws of Moses, or elsewhere that places a law on someone that says intervention techniques are sinful.
And that is why I and others call the real novelty to this new idea that has been set forth by those of the Quiver Full movement. It is not per se wrong to have numerous children. Yet likewise, it is not wrong either for a family to have only one or a few children. The command to be fruitful and multiply could be fulfilled with one, two, or more children as no set number is prescribed by any text nor is there a hint of a goal or a command not to use wisdom as one governs his family in good stewardship principles.
In summary, what we can learn from the Quiver Full movement is that the total and complete rejection of wanting children conflicts with the overall biblical data. The goal ought to be to have children if possible in one way or another. This fits with both the take dominion phrase of Genesis and the Great Commission phrase by Christ for making disciples. We ought to stress to people the need to create children in order to add them to the kingdom of God through discipleship. That is a healthy attitude and balance.
Yet too we ought to stress balance and the use of wisdom as one examines his own ability, resources, and current state. Not to do this is indeed a violation of the wisdom principles as set forth in Proverbs. In Proverbs 1:22 we are told fools hate knowledge. Is it not medical knowledge that we use at times in other areas to govern our bodies? If so it might also tell us what God thinks if we fail to use the gifts of his common grace knowledge that he has give to us in the field of reproductive technology. One cannot read Proverbs 2 either without seeing the high value God places on wisdom, discretion, and knowledge. And again proverbs 3 we find the benefits of wisdom. It is "more precious than jewels, better than gold, and nothing one desires can compare with her" 3:14-15).
And it is this principle that is so often left out in the Quiver Full Movement, wisdom to use the gifts of knowledge (whether that be through natural methods or medical methods) the Lord has given to us in order to be wise stewards of our time, energy, and resources.
I think the Quiver Full movement recognized a problem among many, a selfish desire where they had no desire to procreate. They noticed that but then overreacted and created another problem too that if left unchecked can destroy the family too. it is a classic over correction to a real problem. Thus, a better and more balanced approach that affirms both the blessing of children as well as the need for wise stewardship. When those two truths are applied and taught along with the leadership of the Spirit better decisions will be made by all and the family as a whole will be stronger for it.
