Quoting Quiverfull: Have Babies Right Away!?

Quoting Quiverfull: Have Babies Right Away!? October 25, 2016

quotingquiverfullby Nancy Campbell of Above Rubies – The Cornerstone of the Home

Editor’s Note: Dear Nancy, you know what else is ‘immature and irresponsible’? Bringing children into a home that is not financially, emotionally or physically prepared to cope with the additional mouths to feed, large workload and the unique financial challenges of raising children. It’s wisdom to make a plan, save money and make sure you are ready before you start shooting out babies.

They fall in love and “eventually “get married, but have no thought of having children. That’s something in the far distant future. This is not God’s plan. The first words He spoke to the first married couple were “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.” If a couple are not ready to embrace children, they are not ready for marriage. They are still immature and irresponsible.

They think they are responsible by waiting until they have “all their ducks in a row” and are financially successfully before they could have children. But that depends whether you are depending upon yourself or upon God. That depends whether you have a humanistic worldview or a biblical worldview.

The Bible tells us that when He sends a child, that He will provide. Of course, we don’t know when God will give us a baby. It’s not a given that it will happen right away. We don’t know whether God will give us only one or two or maybe ten, but that’s His prerogative. If we walk with the Lord, we walk by faith and trust in His absolute sovereignty. It comes down to this fact: we either trust in our own resources or in God’s sovereignty and His resources which never fail.

Plus, there is nothing like the addition of children to mature a young man and woman. They grow up overnight (unless they are steeped in deception and demanding their own way rather than yielding to the will of God).

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, cultural enforcers and those that seek to keep women submitted to men and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully.

moreRead more by Nancy Campbell:
Nancy Campbell’s ‘Vision’ for Her Children and Grandchildren


Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Allison the Great

    The Bible tells us that when He sends a child, that He will provide.

    Bullshit. Why isn’t he providing for all the kids in the world who are starving.

    The people in Nancy’s subculture are dirt poor with very few exceptions. They are unskilled, uneducated and only the men can work which leaves very few options for employment. To pop out a baby as soon as you put a ring on regardless of whether or not you will be able to provide for it is immature and irresponsible. Nancy’s own daughter can attest to this. None of us have forgotten that she’s and her overlarge brood have had to run around the house to stay warm because she and her husband could not provide heat for those kids. Debi Pearl’s children have had to eat animal feed because Michael could not (or probably would not, the man is a sociopath ) provide for the family . Debi Pearl’s daughters (and their children) are living in near third world conditions because they can’t provide for those kids. So no, God’s not providing a damn thing. If Yahweh isn’t providing for all of the other kids in the world, he ain’t gonna provide for yours.

    So I think that Nancy and the rest of the fundamentalist crowd live in some sort of alternate universe, where putting children on this planet that you cannot feed or care for is mature and responsible while being smart about reproduction is the opposite.

  • Nea

    Seriously, 99.9999% of their own “wonderful” testimonies are stories about how they managed to survive when their own philosophy left them in dire straits!

  • Saraquill

    Radio silence regarding couples in which one or more are barren or post menopausal.

  • guest

    These people would make more sense if they lead by example and started investing in the cause of the poor, the orphan, (not by importing them into the US) and the destitute. Jesus did say we should care for the less fortunate.
    Instead, they are teaching things that aren’t mandated in the Bible. Yes, God did tell the first couple to be fruitful and multiply, and the Bible does call children a blessing. But it never commands couples to go out and have as many children as possible and it never condemns couples for preventing pregnancies.
    The Bible is silent when it comes to how many children one should have. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it was written when the earth was largely unpopulated? At times when infant mortality was much higher?

    You can support the teaching that sex belongs in marriage. You can even
    support early marriage for that reason. But please, don’t teach those
    young people that they may not prevent pregnancies!

  • guest

    Interesting point.

  • guest

    “The Bible tells us that when He sends a child, that He will provide.”

    Go tell the widowed mother of many, living in abject poverty in Bangladesh or India, or Africa, or South America…. Or in one of the many poverty-stricken areas in your very own country.

  • Melody

    “The first words He spoke to the first married couple were “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.”

    Exactly. Notice that the command is given only to the first couple on a, supposedly -Cain’s flight to a far off city suggests otherwise-empty earth. There is nothing to suggest the same command goes for anyone else in this day and age. So, Adam and Eve were told to multiply, let’s say they did, and that’s the end of it. It has nothing to do with people living in 2016.

  • Nightshade

    Have a kid and ‘grow up overnight’. Except that doesn’t happen. I think Nancy needs to grow up and accept reality!

  • Julia Childress

    Their philosophy is quite twisted. They are often poor because of lack of education and too many children, so in other words, they cause their own poverty. Then they attribute the fact that they can (barely) feed the family to the beneficence of God. They create suffering for their families, then use the suffering to prove the existence of a loving God. Sick.

  • texassa

    “The Bible tells us that when He sends a child, that He will provide.”

    This line of thinking is why I have friends who start Go Fund Me campaigns to finance their adoptions and why the Duggars need a television show to support the large family they opted to have.

  • AuntKaylea

    The obvious question for Nancy here: If everyone had to get married and have kids right away, then why didn’t Jesus do exactly that?

    I thought as Christians, we were supposed to become like Christ. Not like Adam and Eve. . .

  • Mel

    That was my thought as well. I’ve known a few students who really did grow up after they had a child – but those kids also had the capacity to grow up. Some people never grow up and having a child is about the worst thing possible for the person and the child.

  • Mel

    That’s an ongoing objection many Christians have towards CP/QF theology: it’s not grounded in the Gospels at all. The more correct name for it would be something like “literal interpretation of selected portion of the Old Testament and some of the Pauline Epistles”.

  • guest

    Leaving out Paul’s recommendation that the single remain single. Go figure.

  • Nightshade

    I put probably way too much thought into this when I was in the midst of all this crap, but I came to the conclusion that encouraging or urging “selfish” people to have kids was a bad idea. If a person truly is selfish (at that time I was accepting the QF definition, so take it for what it’s worth…) then whyever would it be a good idea for that person to have babies that would then be dependent on a selfish mother/father? Even then it seemed like a bad idea, and now that my definitions have changed it seems worse.

  • Friend

    Agreed! But Nancy misses the point that God said “be fruitful and multiply” twice in Genesis 1: first on day 5 (fish, sea monsters,* birds) and again on day 6 (wild animals, cattle, creeping things, people). To me this whole chapter simply gives credit to God for the great bounty of nature. I just don’t see it as a set of marching orders.

    * “Whales” in the King James Version. Thank you, scholars of the New Revised Standard Version, for putting “sea monsters” in Genesis 1. 🙂

  • Friend

    And go tell the scorned children of the scorned mothers who give birth outside marriage! Reproduction is God’s big rule, except when it’s not.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Sea Monsters!?! I wish there were real Krakens

  • Melody

    There’s this tv series (that got cancelled) called Surface where sea-monsters did in fact multiply. Doesn’t make for much fun 😉 Not much space left for humans and all that.

  • Joy

    I’m still waiting to hear a pastor preach a message about that.

  • pagankitty

    She sounds like the priest at my marriage prep class.

  • guest

    Francis Chan goes into that a little. He doesn’t believe in QF, he believes in evangelism, in reaching out to as many people as he possibly can, and not just preaching, but helping.
    I’m not saying I agree with everything Chan teaches, but his views are refreshing. Instead of telling couples to have as many kids as possible, he’s telling them to invest in the kingdom by helping people who are already there. The man (and his wife, but they are very “complementarian”, so it was his decision) gives away 90% of his income and regularly gets involved with the less fortunate, be it in the US or overseas.
    I don’t think Paul was against marriage. The man wrote the letter to the Ephesians, after all. But Paul didn’t spend all his time talking about marriage or how we should try to outbreed the unbelievers. Jesus didn’t tell us to outbreed the unbelievers either. Both Jesus and Paul were single. They lived lives of service, teaching others how to live “for the kingdom”
    I could go on and on… just to say, yes, some people are becoming aware that perhaps our life is not meant to be spent in the pursuit of “the most Godly marriage” or “the most dominion-focused family”. That’s not what the Gospel is about and that focus distracts from the Gospel, as Mel pointed out above.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Those don’t count in Nancy’s mind, because they aren’t True Christians™. Nancy knows they aren’t, because if they were, they’d have plenty of money to provide for however many kids they had. See? Seamless logic! /sarc

  • Mrs. Sunshine

    Exactly!