Another disturbing and controversial issue is the one of militant fecundity, or extreme childbearing. First let me state that I am not against large families, even VERY large families. We are family with six children, considered a large family by mainstream America. Not that we care what mainstream America thinks of our family. However, I have huge problem with any person, group, or “movement” stating that to use any form of birth control or planning your family is to be in sin. That is where I draw the line! Oh my, I am delving wayyy further into this than I ever intended.
Where many of the patriarchy folks push childbearing so as not to be in sin, others think is a solution to the culture problems in America. I found this article this morning, by D1 Hart. I have never heard of him, but what he has to say is disturbing enough to warrant at least a comment. His article is discussing the decline in our moral culture in America, and how to reclaim it.
“This is not to say that there are no practical measures for those who wish in earnest for the battle to be joined: homeschooling or private “trivium” academies; the disposal or locking away of televisions; prohibitions on video games and popular music; Greek and Latin; great books; remote places; archaic enthusiasms. It is generally wise to seek to be separate, to be in the world but not of it, to be no more engaged with modernity than were the ancient Christians with the culture of pagan antiquity; and wise also to cultivate in our hearts a generous hatred toward the secular order, and a charitable contempt. Probably the most subversive and effective strategy we might undertake would be one of militant fecundity: abundant, relentless, exuberant, and defiant childbearing. Given the reluctance of modern men and women to be fruitful and multiply, it would not be difficult, surely, for the devout to accomplish — in no more than a generation or two — a demographic revolution.” from Freedom and Decency by D1 Hart, First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life.
Mr. Hart makes some valid points in his article about today’s culture, however his solution to the problem just doesn’t sit well with me. According to this, in order to reclaim our culture back to the moral standard upheld in Biblical times, we must produce as many children as we possibly can, and thereby take over the country? Get rid of our TVs and avoid contact with anyone who lives in the world, and hate them? He says that in just a generation or two we can accomplish this! Where is the grace here?? So what does this say about families who, for one reason or another, cannot bear more children (I mean physically, not emotionally)? Would that be putting the woman in the position of being a failure? Not upholding her spiritual duty? Or worse?
What about women like me, who had complications with her only two pregnancies and lived with polycystic ovarian syndrome (read lots of cysts and pain) for 15 years, until it was finally resolved with a hysterectomy… the only treatment possible? Would that put me in the category of a rebellious woman, because I ended any possibility for myself to conceive another child?
Yes, I had a total hysterectomy at 30. I also was blessed with two more children after that. Ending childbearing does NOT end family growth! The key here is that it was our CHOICE to have the children we did, and to adopt the second round. We are pro-life, and we homeschool, limit television, and my husband IS the head of our household. We do not hide away from the world and it’s evilness, but seek to embrace others and serve, and lead them to Christ. But to command childbearing is just unthinkable to me. More in another post later.
I’ve been wondering something about these “extreme” families called here “militant fecundity” — I wonder if you’d have some insight.
I’ll also start with saying that I have no problem with large families, my dad was one of seven, my first husband was 5th of 6, and if my life had gone in a different path I would have loved to have had a “quiverfull” myself.
What I sometimes see in these “militant” families — and please correct me if my impression is incorrect — is that the children are not just numerous, but very closely spaced together.
If one is to completely follow the “natural” way that God made us, biologically, then we would breastfeed our children until they wean on their own. This is not the standard norm in our modern society — but it is the “natural” way, how women and young children are designed to function. And there is certainly encouragement to these families to not follow what our modern society does anyway.
Full-term breastfeeding does inhibit fertility. It’s not 100%, of course. Some women’s fertility returns within the first year, others not until the third. You could very well observe that this is just because God is in control of when our fertility returns, when He knows that the time for our next child is right. But on average, women who practice full-term, natural breastfeeding, have a minimum of 2 years between children and often more.
I’ve heard of families who deliberately stopped breastfeeding at, say, 6 months, specifically in order to regain their fertility to have another baby.
Since stopping this early would require using an artificial milk replacement (formula), this is hardly being “apart” from the modern culture. In fact, it is USING the technology of that culture in order to increase their own culture against it… which is hypocrisy.
It also seems to me that the cessation of breastfeeding before its natural end, solely for the reason of regaining fertility, is JUST AS MUCH a form of controlling your own fertility as are methods of trying to NOT conceive.
In other words, it’s saying to God “I don’t trust You to allow me to get pregnant if it’s Your will while I’m still breastfeeding, so I’m taking extraordinary measures to do it myself.”
I would think that handing your fertility over to God would mean that He controls both when you conceive and when you do NOT conceive. And that if He made women so that our natural cycle spaces 2-3 years between children, then we should respect that.
I confess again that this is just my impression about these so-called “militant” families and I don’t know if it’s close to the reality of the situation or not. So I’d appreciate any insight into it. Thanks!! Loving this series.
I have closely spaced children but I have had problems with being able to nurse for more than 8 months or so. It does cause one to become pregnant again way to soon (in my opinion) and it is not what God intended (my opinion again). But… when you are surrounded by people and books and organizations that tell you over and over it is a sin to use any kind of birth control, one can feel “convicted” that you should “trust” God. I have not ever met anyone who purposefully wanted to get pregnant really soon. Only women who are trying to do what they think God wants them to do and most of them are exhausted and frustrated but put on a happy smile in public.
This is the part that truly grieves me. I believe there are couples that are able to say, “this is going to be hard, but this is what we believe,” and rejoice with each pregnancy. I believe that there are far more couples who resent the fact that their babies came close together, who become confused when they thought that “trusting God” in this area meant that He would only give them what they could handle, and whose marriages become all consumed with a kind of duty bound childbearing which (IMO) does not bring glory to God.
Yes, I believe children are a blessing. Yes, I think that it’s sad that most American Christian families have very few children. And at the same time I think it’s even sadder that a group of Christians promotes righteousness and holiness through childbearing. The propaganda behind this is works oriented, no matter how they frame the debate. (I have heard that if a Christian “truly understands the Gospel,” then he or she will trust God to give them as many children as He wishes.)
Sigh.
I think I am rambling at this point. That Mom’s podcasts about loving children vs. militant fecundity are an excellent source for clarifying between the legalism of militant fecundity and the graciousness of opening our hearts to “one more soul.”
Oh – I would also like to respond to Heather’s breastfeeding comment. I love the design that is built into our bodies – that the hormones which cause menstruation are suppressed when women breastfeed. And certainly there are more “ecological” (to use Sheila Kippley’s term) ways of doing this: no night time weaning, no scheduled feedings, delayed introduction of solids, etc. However, I can think of several women I know personally who tell me that they do all these things and their cycles return within 3 months.
There must be another answer for these women besides “you must not be nursing the right way.” I feel that they need as much encouragement as they can get during these exhausting years with several little ones underfoot. I have tried to be open with these women that natural family planning is a great alternative if they feel uncomfortable with any other preventative method.
What has your experience been, trying to encourage moms of many little ones?
Here again, while I agree wholeheartedly with those who stand against the materialistic child-hatred in liberalism, I don’t see a moral law in Scripture commanding us how many children to have, or commanding wives to have as many children as they potentially can. As a pastor, I’d focus on motives rather than laws.
There are couples (including Christian couples) who won’t have children because it would interfere with their annual vacation to Aspen, or with their ability make payments on the Lexus. I see that as a reprehensible motive. Vacation in Pigeon Forge and buy a used Saturn, dude. Others refrain from having children out of unbelieving fear (“how can I bring any child into such a wicked world?”), or some sort of eco-idolatry (“I’ll do my part for Gaeia by keeping the population down”). Godless fears, or running your reproduction according to some political agenda, are both wtong.
But some Christians avoid pregnancy out of legitimate health concerns for the mother, such as the health damage that a prolapse uterus can inflict. I know one couple where the mother became deathly ill — accent on the word “deathly” — with each of her three pregnancies. The husband was still griping years later about only having three kids, but I didn’t sympathize with him. Sometimes a couple knows that now would not be a wise time to get pregnant — putting the decision into the Proverbs area of wisdom rather than law. E.g., when the husband is unemployed.
If we bring God’s Word to bear on problematic heart motives — excessive fear of parenthood, self-centeredness, unbelief about Christ’s promise to take care of our physical needs — conscience questions about birth control and what size family to have tend to settle down. The Lord has a different plan for everyone. It was God’s will that Hannah only have one child. It was God’s will that Jesse have a passel of boys (I like the word “passel”). Both families produced two very important people — Samuel and David.
Momma Knows,
you have mentioned many things I have thought about over the last several years. what really hit home to me when I was struggling with guilt (not the good kind but man made pressure kind) was this: The command to “be fruitful and multiply” is fulfilled when a woman has even just ONE child. There is nothing that says there is a certain “right” number.
I also have really struggled when people say the idea of taking advantage of modern medical technology for other things is fine but it is sinful to address physical issues when it pertains to having children. I have come to think that if you commit to allowing God to determine your family size, you should be allowing God to determine all of your health issues. No medical intervention at all. That sounds crazy but that is the conclusion you would need to come to if you follow their line of thinking.
I’ve just stumbled across your blog and I think it’s just the blessing I’ve been looking for. I grew up in a very patriarchal church structure, but left the church as a teenager, because I couldn’t bare the thought of being subserviant! I’ve since married an amazing man and we have 1 son. We’ve chosen to homeschool him for various social and spiritual reasons. I’ve been having trouble with the idea that he may be exposed to people who think that a woman should serve her man…which is something I never want him to learn and my husband is highly against our son ever thinking that way.
We’ve also been in a situation where it is expressly dangerous for me to “bare” more children and my husband has chosen to have a vasectomy. It was his choice! He decided that I’d been through enough and to ensure that I do not leave him alone to raise our son this is the measure he decided to take to protect our family. Thank you so much for sharing you experiences and talking about the mindset of others. I truely thought we were alone in our Christian walk by thinking this way and taking the steps we’ve taken in our family planning. I don’t believe that it’s a sin to ensure I don’t die from childbirth, because I believe that God gave us the options we had to protect ourselves.
It’s just so wonderful to find a person who shares similar ideas about the patriarchal doctrine that others are preaching. Thank you for letting me know that I’m not alone in my desire to have my kids grow up to respect their partners as equals!!! Thank you!
Beth: I don’t know the situation where you live, but really the patriarchal/Reformed teachings are NOT all that common… yet. In recent years I have noticed my local homeschool group is really heading that direction. I just choose not to participate when they have a function that promotes that twisted way of thinking. There are many more “normal” Christian homeschooling families out there than there are of the others. You just have to branch out a bit and actively seek others who are of the same mindset as you. A couple’s decision to have children, or not, or only however many, is a very personal choice and should never be subject to anyone’s scrutiny! I, like you, cannot have more children. We did become foster parents and adopted six years after I gave birth to my second child, and have been absolutely BLESSED by the decision… so we did it twice!
Just live your lives, follow Christ, and find others who are like minded. The Lord will make the rest fall into place. Thanks for the visit and the kind comments.
Heather: You have a point. I hadn’t really noticed the closely spaced issue, but you’re right. I hadn’t thought about HOW they became so closely spaced. I read when I was pregnant that it takes nine months for your body to fully recover from the previous nine months of pregnancy. Breastfeeding helps you do just that. Breastfeeding also inhibits the hormones which enable you to become pregnant. Many women do become pregnant while breastfeeding, but not usually before around 9 months, anyway. Right when their bodies are about ready to do it all again. (I successfully nursed my youngest adopted son for 14 months, so I’m right with you on the breastfeeding is best issue as well!) Anyway, good points, thank you for joining in the discussion!
Exactly. Having even an 8 month old who is most likely becoming mobile, and being possibly 2-4 months pregnant at the same time would be EXHAUSTING. As for me, I think I slept through my first three months of pregnancy, both times! I don’t think I could chase around a crawling infant who possibly still wakes in the night for feedings too, while in that stage of pregnancy. It’s seeing the smile and wondering if she is truly happy, or if she is putting it on. Even with children spaced a bit, it can be tiring. I have a friend who, when she found out she was pregnant with her 7th child told me she desperately wanted to have her tubes tied after she delivered. She told me “If I get pregnant again, I think I’ll die of exhaustion.” No happy smile there, at least not to me. As far as everyone else was concerned, they were having the family she AND her husband wanted. She is now widowed with 8 children ages 2-18.
Yes, I think that motives are extremely important.
Also – I think that Hannah did go on to bear several (5?) more children, but offered Samuel to the Lord to fulfill her vow.
Jack: Oh I know it! I have a friend who went back to work when her son was 6 weeks old “because we need a new car.” They wouldn’t have needed a new car at all if she wasn’t commuting 40 minutes each direction to work! The $300 van payment didn’t justify the $700 monthly daycare expense… not to MENTION all of the lost time with her precious little baby. It was a personal choice, just as having a child or childREN is a personal choice. God said Be fruitful and multiply, but he didn’t say to have X number of children, or to have so many that your uterus falls out! (Which, literally CAN happen.) A couple who decides they really just don’t want to raise children is a different situation than one who doesn’t want children because they will cut into their luxury budget. That’s just plain sad.
According to the patrio’s, isn’t a mother who has her tubes tied because of a situation like you illustrated (severe risk during pregnancy) considered sinful? That is what I ran into when I had my hyst; certain women who learned of it were perturbed that I would “do that to yourself” and not allow God to determine how many children I would have. The thing is, as I stated, I had TWO MORE CHILDREN after that. There is more than one way to add to your family. And I ask again: Is a woman who is unable to conceive or has such health risks as to make pregnancy unwise…. are they considered to be in SIN because they aren’t creating a quiverfull?