Full Quiver

[Amelia]

Full Quiver

A Growing Movement for Growing Families for God

By TED GERSTEIN and JOHN BERMAN

ABC News/Nightline

Jan. 3, 2007

In the Carpenter family's nicely decorated living room outside Nashville, Tenn., the "Nightline" team stared at a couch that couldn't possibly fit another human being.

The eight kids squished together began shouting out their names, "PEYTON! COLE! OWEN!"

Ken and Devon Carpenter are the parents of eight kids, aged 1 to 15. It might sound like a sitcom or a remake of "Eight is Enough." But this isn't a sitcom. This a movement.

The Carpenter family is part of the "Quiverfull Movement." The name comes from the Bible -- Psalm 127/128:

"Children are a heritage from the Lord / children a reward from him/ like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. Blessed is the man /whose quiver is full of them."

What does that mean? Quiverfull followers believe that all forms of contraception, all forms of birth control and any form of family planning goes against God's plan.

"As I understand, and to the extent that we are involved in it, it is just a matter of, it's a mind-set that says we will take as many children -- happily -- as God blesses us with," Ken Carpenter said.

It isn't simply about having as many kids as possible, though.

"It's not a contest," he said. "For us, it's about having as many as the Lord gives us, and being happy with that. If the Lord gives us more, great. If we are done at eight, that's fine. Whatever He gives us. "

The Birth of the Movement

Quiverfull is largely an American phenomenon, beginning with the release of the book "A Full Quiver" in 1989. There is no official organization, but in 1995, the Web site quiverfull.com went online with just 12 subscribers -- now there are more than 2,600. There are probably several thousand Quiverfull enthusiasts all over the United States right now -- and the movement is believed to be growing.

There are certainly a lot of question about the practice. Is it dangerous for a woman's body to keep having children, one after the other?

"I don't struggle in that area, I have pretty easy pregnancies and deliveries and recovery," Devon Carpenter said. "God designed us to have children, and thankfully, we do have good doctors out there for things that come up."

If there is a grandmother to this movement, it's Nancy Campbell. Her magazine has been advocating this lifestyle for decades. Campbell explained why followers even have a problem with natural family planning or the "rhythm method."

"When we really stop and think about it, it's not natural," she said. "We have to go against the way that God designed our bodies. He designed them to be fruitful, so if a couple [doesn't] want to have children…they've got to do something to their body so it doesn't work the way God planned it."

What about simply not having sex?

"What married couple is not going to do that?" Campbell asked.

Supporting a "Full Quiver"

There are other questions. How can anyone afford this? Ken Carpenter has a good business producing videos for some of Nashville's biggest names. That puts a roof over their head. And what about planning for his children's college education? He isn't sure about college, but it isn't about the money.

"There is a mindset and worldview that's taught on a college campus that is in conflict with the scripture we read this morning," he said.

The Carpenter children are home-schooled. Ken Carpenter hopes his sons find professions and that his daughters learn to be mothers. He believes that it is a woman's primary function to become a mother. And a father's primary function?

"I think a dad ought to be the primary instiller of wisdom and ought to be teaching his sons leadership," he said.

'The Biblical Model'

The role of the father as the head of the household is at the center of the Quiverfull movement.

"I know that notion is going to rile a number of people," Ken Carpenter said. "[but] I do consider myself the loving head of this family, responsible to lead them. That's the biblical model of fatherhood."

Devon Carpenter concurred, saying that her role is to be "nurturing and loving and submissive to my husband and shepherding to the children."

Both husband and wife say this is the life they want to lead, and want their kids to lead -- which means thousands more diapers, and many more chaotic mealtimes.

If there is one thing that this life guarantees, it is nonstop motion.

How about the future? Are more kids on the way?

"Yes," Ken Carpenter said. "Should the Lord bless us with more, I would be thrilled."

[Nan]

Many years ago the English novelist Anthony Trollope in his series of books called The Barchester Chronicles had a curate called Mr Quiverful who from memory had 14 children.....obviously a bit prescient of this movement!

I have this strange idea that God gave us brains to think with and to use......and I am not sure that going on producing children you cannot afford to bring up - and 'affording' is not only financial - is really using those brains. The family in the article might be doing fine, I wonder if that applies to them all. Am I just saying this because submissive wife is something I am NOT??? Maybe. :)

[Taylor]

Agreed Nan...I think we were given a brain

[bevin]

There is a name for this in economics - it is called "The Tragedy of the Commons".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

It is sad to see God's name associated with such ill-conceived behavior

/Bevin

[cricket]

Eight kids isn't really all that many. This family seems to be doing well; they are happy, the kids are fed and educated. They read the Bible and seek to serve the Lord.

That's more than I can say for hundreds of thousands of other families.

[Barbara]

For some having that may kids is fine. But for me and my husband we are happy to stay at two kids at this point we could not afford to have more.

[Nan]

And Barbara I believe that is one reason God gave us brains...you know your life situation and choose to live it the best way possible. Money is not the only thing needed to bring up children, a few little attributes like patience, persistence, tolerance, all mixed together with a lot of love, help some what. I would not condemn the family described in the first post - but I respect your ability and right to make the best choice for you.

(I have 4 children, the older two were adopted from another country. It has been an interesting journey and I love them all dearly - but I also chose not to have more than those 4 in my family. And incidentally suffered none of the supposed illeffects of making that choice, if one of the links on the Quiverfull site is to be believed....but that is another story )

[bevin]

One of the questions they teach in paramedic school to ask ourselves to decide whether a behaviour is ethical is

What if everybody did it

/Bevin

[cricket]

That question could be applied to all sorts of ethical behavior, and the conclusion drawn that even the most ethical choices be deemed unethical.

Clearly, this is another one of the choices that can only be made by the individuals involved. What is a profitable decision for them, may not be a profitable choice for others.

[Bravus]

Just the thought of it sends me into a full quiver.

[Amelia]

ROFL

[Gail]

Good one, Bravus!

[GreatLakesGramma]

Whenever I hear mention of people with this mindset, I think of how Sister White rebuked William Farnsworth for having so many children. Not only could he not afford to support them properly, his wife's health was destroyed by so many pregnancies.

Personally, I am a loner and could never handle living in the same house with a large number of inhabitants of any age. But I especially could not have survived raising so many children. The stress would have done me in. I might even have ended up killing them, like a few mothers have whom we've all heard of, once I'd reached the breaking point.

No, I definitely do not agree with these "quiverfull" people.

[cricket]

The beautiful thing is that God loves variety. Some people are Quiver Full persons, others are two-income two-kid persons, and still others are no-kids-at-all.

Praise be to God for all of us who long to do His will as He instructs in our own lives.

[bevin]

The reason this counts as a Tragedy of the Commons is simple.

There are limited capabilities in the planet to support pleasant human life - CO2 uptake, energy sources, food sources, open spaces, ...

Some people decide to that they want to try to keep the population into the range that can be supported, they limit their family sizes.

Others decide to breed like crazy - and their offspring thereby gets to consume the resources the first group were trying to conserve.

There are only three solutions to the Tragedy

(a) private ownership of everything, so there is no commons for the breeders to grab

( enforced laws against breeding

© voluntary restraint by enough of the population that the few who aren't restrained don't have a serious impact

/Bevin

[there buster]

Maybe the species is non-adaptive and should not survive.

Or maybe the "Quiverfull" people are following the Darwinian mandate and attempting to maximize the influence and survival of their DNA.

Or maybe those who limit family size are non-adaptive and will die out.

In any case, let Natural Selection sort it out.

[Bravus]

cricket's response seems eminently sensible to me: and the original article seems like just one more case of 'what's good for me is good for everyone' disease.

[bevin]

Quote:

In any case, let Natural Selection sort it out.

You might not like the outcome.

Why don't we take the same line of reasoning towards drug use, speeding, immigration, monopolies, influence-peddling, ...

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I think of how Sister White rebuked William Farnsworth for having so many children.

The only known form of birth control that was widely used during the life of Ellen White was coitus interruptus. The Rhythm Method wasn't widely known about until the 1920s. It is believed that some couples used anal sex as a means of birth control but I doubt she was encouraging that. Condoms were invented in 1855 although it was very expensive and the Comstock Act in 1873 made destribution of it difficult until 1936. In 1912 Julius Fromm invented a thinner and more affordable condom in Germany but it would still be restricted in the US until 1936. It wasn't until WW2 that condoms were promoted in a positive light in the US. So I guess Sister White was encouraging coitus interruptus.

[Toni]

The beautiful thing is that God loves variety. Some people are Quiver Full persons, others are two-income two-kid persons, and still others are no-kids-at-all.

Praise be to God for all of us who long to do His will as He instructs in our own lives.

Amen! :-)

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

In any case, let Natural Selection sort it out.

You might not like the outcome.

Why don't we take the same line of reasoning towards drug use, speeding, immigration, monopolies, influence-peddling, ...

Indeed, why not? If Evolution is this great necessary mechanism, why should we interfere at all?

Besides, scientists tell us the universe will eventually wind down, the stars will all burn out, and there will be no life at all. It's just a matter of time, anyway.

In Evolutionary terms, the Quiverfulls are making a very wise choice, attempting to maximize the chances of their DNA surviving. They have as many children as possible, Natural Selection weeds out the maladaptive ones, but some of their offspring survive.

In Evolutionary terms, "the tragedy of the Commons" is just some organisms taking advantage of a situation, to the detriment of others. But then, that's what Evolution is all about. If that leads to the destruction of all life on the planet, so what? That's just an indication that the whole Evolutionary experiment failed. Experiments fail all the time. It's not a tragedy, it's just "new data."

[bevin]

Quote:

Indeed, why not? If Evolution is this great necessary mechanism, why should we interfere at all?

Because we don't like the outcome

Quote:

scientists tell us the universe will eventually wind down, the stars will all burn out, and there will be no life at all

You need to distinquish between extrapolations and interpolations. If we take our current understanding of the laws of physics, and if we make many simplifying assumptions, and do some complex math, then the universe will eventually wind down. However it is possible that black holes will explode and create more big bangs, and it is possible that those bangs will happen inside the existing universe. This stuff has nothing to do with the origins of life on earth.

Quote:

In Evolutionary terms, the Quiverfulls are making a very wise choice, attempting to maximize the chances of their DNA surviving

Does murdering you and stealing all your property to fund my children's education seem like a wise choice? But it increases the likelyhood of my DNA surviving...

Quote:

In Evolutionary terms, "the tragedy of the Commons" is just some organisms taking advantage of a situation, to the detriment of others. But then, that's what Evolution is all about.

Nope. Intelligence and wise choices based on foresight is just as much a part of evolution as being stupid and making dumb choices.

Quote:

They have as many children as possible, Natural Selection weeds out the maladaptive ones, but some of their offspring survive

Number of Offspring Surviving = Number of Offspring * Probability of Survival

You can increase the LHS by increasing EITHER of the RHS terms

Furthermore the calculation depends a lot on the time-scale over which it is applied. Boom often leads to Bust.

Quote:

It's not a tragedy, it's just "new data."

Tragedy is a personal value-judgement, and has nothing to do with whether a theory is correct on not.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Indeed, why not? If Evolution is this great necessary mechanism, why should we interfere at all?

Because we don't like the outcome

But our "liking" has nothing to do with it. We might not like the extinction of a species, but it might be a necessary part of Natural Selection.

Quote:

This stuff has nothing to do with the origins of life on earth.

Then why bring it up? I wrote only of endings of life. According to current theory, the Sun simply has to burn out. Before that, it becomes a red dwarf, in which the Earth is actually inside the sun--for the short time it takes to vaporize the planet. So life on Earth will cease.

Quote:

Does murdering you and stealing all your property to fund my children's education seem like a wise choice? But it increases the likelyhood of my DNA surviving...

Wisdom is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. From an Evolutionary standpoint, there would be no way to condemn it, assuming that it does indeed increase the likelihood of your DNA surviving.

Quote:

Nope. Intelligence and wise choices based on foresight is just as much a part of evolution as being stupid and making dumb choices.

Yes, but as your own example shows, what's damaging to one may be benificial to another. So taking all one can from the commons is a good evolutionary strategy.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not a tragedy, it's just "new data."

Tragedy is a personal value-judgement, and has nothing to do with whether a theory is correct on not.

Precisely my point. And whether we "like the outcome" makes no difference to whether a theory is correct or not. Since Natural Selection drives Evolution forward, then whether we "like the outcome" or not, we have no scientific basis to oppose it.

[bevin]

Quote:

So taking all one can from the commons is a good evolutionary strategy.

But there are better ones - ones that further increase likelyhood of the survival of either genes or memes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Since Natural Selection drives Evolution forward, then whether we "like the outcome" or not, we have no scientific basis to oppose it.

We don't need a scientific basis to oppose something, we just need an irrational/rational fear/desire...

/Bevin