1. Full Quiver, Yes — Legalism, No; What We Have in Common With the NCC Movement

I am genuinely thankful for the NCC movement

Because a good deal of this book takes on the NCC movement, I think it is important for them to understand that I have far more in common with them than I do with the ABC movement. Indeed, I have great respect for the Full Quiver movement. They rightly criticize the average Protestant who thoughtlessly engages in “birth control” without considering the Biblical issues involved. I share the NCC love for children, their long-term vision, their commitment to preparing their children for dominion through homeschooling, and their hope of “outnumbering the Egyptians” in covenant succession – may it be so, Lord Jesus!

So this chapter will in part give a hearty “Amen!” to the central passions of the Full Quiver movement, but do so in a way that will help us to move away from the legalism that has infected the movement since its beginning. If it were not for the legalism present, I would consider myself a full-fledged member of the Full Quiver movement. I have been committed to having a large family, have regularly promoted the formation of large families, and have children who desire large families. We love the “full quiver” concept. It is Biblical. I have repeatedly said that if we must err in one direction or the other, let us err on the side of NCC rather than on the side of severely limiting the size of families as most Americans have done.

The writings and sermons from the NCC camp have been a blessing to the church as they have helped Christians to think about the kingdom rather than having selfish goals. They have written very cogently against the myth of overpopulation. They have taught about the importance of covenant succession. They have shown the logic behind population shifts and demonstrated how strategically important large families can be for the growth of the kingdom. Some of their writings have been soul-stirring. I am grateful to God for my NCC friends, and it is my hope that this book will give even greater grounding to the Full Quiver concept rather than to diminish it. It is my intention to have this book be an “in-house discussion” rather than a disapproval of the Full-Quiver concept.

Let’s recognize that legalism can easily invade even the best of movements

However, there have been enough recurring issues of legalism,⁸ insensitivity,⁹ charges that BLCC advocates are guilty of murder (even though none of them uses abortifacients and most of them have very large families),¹⁰ judgmentalism,¹¹ etc. that I felt it was necessary to both “give a defense” for the BLCC advocates and to give a discussion guide where both sides can get their assumptions out on the table so that they are not talking past each other because of misunderstandings.

People might assume that when I defend conception control, that I am defending the combined oral contraceptive pill (“the pill”), IUDs, and a host of other unethical methods (see below), but I am not in favor of those things. Treat this discussion guide as a basis for trying to understand where assumptions can go wrong and to ground all we do in the Bible. It is my contention that BLCC is very grounded in the Scripture on everything that it practices.

Interacting With The Legitimate Arguments For NCC

The command to be fruitful and multiply

Let’s first look at some commonalities between NCC and BLCC. Both camps agree that God has never rescinded His moral imperative to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). The ABC camp frequently does not take seriously enough the command to be fruitful and multiply. This ethical imperative to be fruitful was repeated after the Fall (Gen. 9:1,7; 35:11; Ps. 128:3) and during the New Covenant age (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14). To ignore this command without Biblical rationale is antinomianism. The church should boldly preach the importance of the dominion mandate as it relates to conception.

There is a caveat that some NCC advocates fail to consider. Fruitfulness is a blessing only when certain conditions are met.¹² As chapter 7 will demonstrate, there are times when Scripture speaks of “Blessings of the breasts and of the womb” (Gen. 49:25) and other times when He says, “Cursed shall be the fruit of your body” (Deut. 28:18). Raising up numerous children to populate hell is hardly a blessing. It is important that the incredible blessing of children not be divorced from the context of the whole dominion mandate and God’s redemptive purposes. Paul’s promise that “childbearing” is part of God’s redemptive purpose has four conditions – that we must “continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Timothy 2:15).¹³ I would also refer the reader to chapter 2 where we demonstrate (under the heading “control”) that no part of creation is exempted from the controlling issues of subduing and taking dominion. All of creation (including conception) is part of a dominion mandate, and to allow creation to order itself is the opposite of dominion. The dominion mandate mandates conception, but it also mandates conception control. Of course, it does not mandate that every parent decide to space children as we have or that every parent must limit the number of their children to ten. The purpose of this book is not to limit the liberty of NCC advocates to have as many children as they can. Instead, it is to lay out the liberties and limits that BLCC advocates believe we Biblically have.

The call to have large families

Another area in which I agree with the NCC camp is their call to have large families. Though chapter 6 will show some of the ways in which the curse impacted conception (Genesis 3:16), and though the same chapter will demonstrate that fruitfulness can be a curse in certain situations,¹⁴ and that large families for unbelievers is almost always a curse,¹⁵ the same is not true for the Christian who is dedicated to raising his children in the fear and nurture of the Lord. God commands not just fruitfulness, but also multiplication and an attempt to “fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). It should be the desire of Christians to outnumber the Egyptians (cf. Gen. 47:27; Ex. 1:7,12,20). Genesis 17:20 considers it to be a blessing when a man is multiplied “exceedingly.” I have always appreciated this call from the NCC camp to have large families. It is a Biblical viewpoint and one which I continue to preach as being the norm, even though there are exceptions.

As we will see later in this book, obedience to other Scriptures (nurturing the wife, giving rest, protecting life, providing for the family, etc.) sometimes requires a couple to space babies, delay babies, and stop having babies.

The view of godly church fathers and Protestant Reformers

I also agree with NCC advocates that godly church fathers and Protestant Reformers were opposed to conception control.¹⁶ Later I will quote the strong opinions of some to that effect, but three things need to be said that temper this argument.

The first is that these same church fathers thought that marital sex was sinful if there was the least passion involved,¹⁷ and some thought that all sex was sinful.¹⁸ Their ideas were highly influenced by pagan Greek asceticism.¹⁹ Very little attempt was made at proving their points using sound hermeneutics. Though we should always take seriously the views of the church fathers, the church fathers themselves insisted that the Bible alone is inerrant.²⁰

Second, many of the church fathers who are quoted by NCC advocates were hardly supporters of the Full Quiver movement. David G. Hunter points out that Ambrose, Jerome, and many other Christian ascetics “believed that the time for procreation lay in the past when the earth still needed to be filled with people,” but was no longer a relevant command.²¹ Some of the ascetics argued for celibacy within marriage, which in turn severely limited the number of children.²² Tertullian even sounded like a Malthusian in his fears of overpopulation. He said,

What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.²³

Though this legalism was vigorously opposed by church fathers such as Jovinian, Epiphanius, Filastrius, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and others, it continued to flourish in the church for many centuries. It led some married couples to avoid sex within marriage, and it led many to oppose remarriage, contrary to Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 5:14.²⁴ We have already seen that Clement of Alexandria praised the Levites for having the fewest children, saying that this was evidence of Levitical holiness. So these church fathers were hardly supporters of the Quiver-full movement.

Third, their statements make it clear that they were opposed to birth control because of a faulty view of biology and Biblical conception. Unlike the ancient Jews who knew that the man and woman “both emitted seed” before a conception could take place,²⁵ and thus were not opposed to BLCC that simply prevented conception,²⁶ the church fathers who opposed birth control saw the sperm as containing the whole human being, and saw it analogously to planting seed (man’s sperm) in the land (woman’s womb).

If indeed a sperm was a “little person,” I too would be opposed to birth control in any form. However, the sperm is not a little person. In contrast, the Scripture speaks of both the “seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) and the “seed of men” (Dan. 2:43) as being essential to the formation of a human. Conception is clearly presented in the Scripture as being a product of both the man and the woman (Gen. 3:15; 25:21; 38:18; Lev. 12:2; Numb. 5:28; 1 Sam. 1:20; Luke 1:24, 31-35; 1 Cor. 11:12). Thus Jesus was “the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3) and yet that relationship to David was not through a man, but through Mary. She contributed DNA to his flesh. I am convinced that if the notable fathers had understood these Scriptures and this biology like the ancient Jews did, that they would not have been so opposed to BLCC. Since our theology should not be shaped by the opinions of man, but by the Scripture alone, we will move on to the next point of commonality.

The sufficiency of Scripture for ethics

I heartily agree with the NCC camp that the Scriptures are a sufficient guide for every ethical issue that we may face, including conception. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is quite clear that the Bible gives sufficient information to guide us “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” More to the point, every sin is clearly laid out in the Law of God (Deut. 4:2; 5:22; 12:32), to which no sin may be added without making void the law of God as the Pharisees did (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). It is because of our commitment to a Scriptural ethics that this debate is important. If we condemn what the Scripture does not condemn, we violate half of Deuteronomy 4:2, and if we add burdens and commandments that Scripture does not add, we violate the other portion of Deuteronomy 4:2.

The myth of overpopulation

I also heartily agree with the NCC camp that the fears many ABC advocates have of overpopulation are misplaced. As mentioned earlier, God has never rescinded his command to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the earth. The earth is not even remotely filled yet, and many good books have been written to debunk this myth.²⁷

There are ethical problems with many forms of “birth control.”

I agree with the NCC camp that most forms of “birth control” are unethical. We will examine the ethics that govern conception control in upcoming chapters. In the process of establishing that life begins at conception, we will show how this argues against Provan’s version of NCC as well as the ABC defenses of IUDs and other forms of abortifacient. In upcoming chapters we will also look at additional Biblical principles that limit conception even further.