The quiverfull movement has been portrayed as holding the belief that families should have as many children as possible.
In the book "
Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement," by Kathryn Joyce, we do indeed find that this has been and is a strongly held view of many in the movement.
The key hinges upon how one defines "as possible." As you noted they do try and insert the sovereignty of God principle into the equation. Yet that alone does not relieve them of casting that mantra as their confessional standard. In totality the affirmation of an absolute standard of no birth control while also at the same time affirming that one should not try and avoid being blessed by children is the logical conclusion that "as many as possible" means have sex freely at any time without any plans to methodologically regulate the outcomes, and thus we are left with families purposefully placing themselves in such a position that it is an effort to make no plans of regulation in order to have as many as either humanly or divinely possible.
What many people do not realize is that the ideology behind the "sovereignty of God to open and close the womb" is in reality a spin off of a theology known as Keswick theology. One key part of Keswick theology is the idea of abandoning oneself to let God rule without being active in the process. Often the mantra of this group is "let go and let God."
That is the mental perspective taken into the Quiverfull movement just applied to the conception process. As a word of praise for the Keswick movement they do indeed stress holy living and they also normally have a solid view of God's sovereignty.
But what I find backwards is the mixture ratio of the Quiverfull movement and this Keswick idea applied to the womb. It is almost as if they have embraced a hyper-Calvinist model of the Keswick sanctification model. By that I mean they take the Keswick's doctrine of sanctification (let go and let God) and the sovereignty of God with the womb view and then translate that into a practical day to day doctrine of "have sex with your mate without any plan or purpose for or not for children." In other words, in reading the Quiverfull movement they have indeed abandoned the stewardship, or proper self-discipline aspect of purposeful family planning in order to embrace a passive attitude and act of sexual relations. I mean passive in the sense of the rejection of purposeful planning (not the act itself which is of course active).
Therefore, by doing this the movement has indeed squarely placed itself by default in a position where they have a presentation of a doctrine that pragmatically does lead to a "have as many as humanly and divinely possible" because inside of their doctrine they have no active or purposeful family planning or stewardship or self-control emphasis to the entire subject.
To date I have not seen nor do I recall any work by a Quiverfull advocate discussing self-control, stewardship, or active and purposeful planning for children in wisdom. Indeed this is not part of the theological package and thus we are left with an abandonment of purposeful planning under the theological guise and banner of it is righteous because of our total trust in God. And to extend that further, when you embrace the Psalm 127 interpretation that not to want another child is to reject God's blessing then indeed it does drive the movement in that exact direction. We can say all day in words "oh no this Corvette I am driving with the petal to to the floor is not me trying to speed as I'm just trusting God to get me me safely to my next destination," but the reality is still the same, a car driving and all in it at a fast speed that is at times in some places dangerous and reckless. I say at times because some can handle a drive like that, out in the autobahn, on a race track, a close course, or with a driver skilled for that type of driving. But the point is just that, this doctrine is a personal passion that has elevated itself to a universal demand upon all people and it is not biblical nor safe for all people to drive the Vette in that way.
In what other doctrine do we do this when the actions have consequences attached to it?
In evangelism we claim to trust God in his sovereignty yet we actively plan to pursue the lost and share the gospel with them.
In money we recognize that God does not need our money or finances yet we still actively plan to give and be good stewards of the income we have.
In general we believe that God is omnipotent and in control of the universe yet we still pray and plan even though we know God already has the future planned or known and thus set in his own mind.
We believe that God already knows if we will live or die when we get a sickness yet we still do something active in order to try and get rid of the sickness through some sort of medicinal means if available.
I could list more but the point is the Quiverfull movement has not been a stable theological presentation as it has bifurcated
God's sovereignty from also the doctrine of human responsibility. In exalting the doctrine of transcendence above that of immanence we have a distorted and unbalanced presentation in regard to family growth.
When embraced in its fullest sense it has hurt some families deeply and left them at times even destitute and even for some divided and destroyed, certainly something that had the doctrine been balanced would not have happened.
Granted, some who have been under this mindset have by mere grace escaped the dangers. Unto those they normally never see the harm, destruction, and chaos that this doctrine has caused in many many homes and families. Some have not experienced the high numerical numbers of children to such a degree that the resources are depleted and even to where the home is ruined because the man or parents were not ready or capable of handling what they embraced. To those who have not experienced it I can see why it would be seen in the positive light. Not having experienced the danger and destruction of this doctrine has left some to still support it as so far in their own personal lives they have not suffered the consequences of it which often leads to an objective critique of the views held.
But indeed the doctrine as originally presented does harm people and can cause major hardships on people that if only balanced out with the additional doctrine of human responsibility in stewardship and wisdom things could be much better on the whole.
We have to keep in mind that when we elevate a personal position into a universal doctrinal position that is something the enemy will use to hurt others and destroy them. It would be like us saying, "everyone has to drink alcohol," since we know that God is to be praised because he gives the "wine to gladden the heart of man" (Psalm 104:15). Just because wine is a good thing that can bless men does not mean we ought to require everyone to drink it and those that do still need to be good stewards and responsible in wisdom as they drink.
It is the same principle with family planning. God is indeed sovereign over the womb, but as I have said so often to the Quciverfull movement people that if they really do believe God is just as sovereign as they think then they should not be opposed to birth control because God will surely and regularly overrule that, right? I mean it makes no sense for a person to be upset with one or to teach against someone who is on birth control methods if you really believe sovereignty as presented because nothing can hinder or stop God from implanting and opening the womb. So why oppose those who use such plans if God really really really is just as sovereign as claimed and presented?
Normally when I go down this road I get in return a bunch of answers that expose the real heart and essence of the movement. The sovereignty of God doctrine is more a cover for the real issue and heart of the movement, an emotional reaction that has driven the people to embrace a doctrine that if consistently lived normally produces more and more children without any purposefully regulation (the Keswick abandonment doctrine applied to the conception process). Then from that position they move to the Bible to try and build a case to justify the position and to demean those who do not share their ideas. They will often even try and make those who do use methods for family planning to feel as if they really are not walking in trust with God and that they really are not as spiritual as those who do fully trust God (an issue of pride on their part). Yet I've seen some reach over and take some Advil for their headache all the while telling the woman on birth control that she really does not trust God to take care of her body and to govern her physiological systems because she is using some type of artificial means to alter the chemical state of the body. :roll:
Now, SolaScriptura knowing you and your family I don't sense that from you all but indeed I have from many others. I'm not even sure you all would fit into the exact Quiverfull mold. But indeed some do and for those that have embraced the ideology and spirit of the movement the description above often fits those from that theological persuasion.
The movement's underlying theological foundations seem to me to be skewed and lacking in both consistency and balance while at the same time in error for elevating what is a personal issue to a universal issue for all people to heed and obey.
