Full Quiver Movement Proponent Supports Murder

I have just gotten done with a conversation with someone from the full quiver movement. The first thing I can say is that I wish I would have stayed with the exegesis of the text of scripture. That is the weakness of the full quiver movement. Hence, I don’t think my comments will be overly useful. However, I wanted to post some of the incredible statements I heard on this forum. The first comment came from a man whose wife has a disorder. Here was his message:

This may not fall into this argument but I think that it provides a unique perspective.

(I apologize in advance if this is too revealing, but I will proceed anyway)

My wife recently found out (about six months ago) that she had a blood clot in one of her ovaries. She was advised by her hematologist that if she were to get pregnant before it dissolved that she ran a serious risk of dislodging it and sending it either to her heart or brain. Both of which could result in serious ailment including stroke, heart attack, or death. She was placed on blood thinners and pain relievers (as it caused tremendous pain at times) and ordered to rest as much as possible.

Now, having said that, my question is this: Should we have not taken every precaution (which we did in limiting our marital activity and using prophylactics) or should we have run the risk of not taking said precautions and allowed whatever would have been?

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!

To which the full quiver advocate responded:

And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.

To which the gentleman responded:

I’m not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God’s will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn’t happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

Certainly God could have prevented it, and did for that matter, but it is very dangerous to say that He would have. That is somewhat akin to jumping off of a cliff and saying God will save me as opposed to God could save me if it is according to His will.

P.S. Don’t jump off of a cliff!

However, here is how the full quiver advocate responded by first quoting this section from the gentleman’s post:

I’m not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God’s will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn’t happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

and then responding:

If He does not, then such is His will for His people. Amen. Don’t waste it.

(See Piper’s quote on cancer in an earlier thread – sorry, can’t find it, but here is a link to the quote: Don’t Waste Your Cancer :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library)

Worse, he made this comment afterwards:

I know that my above post seems like a harsh post, but I feel uniquely qualified to make it. I have seen my wife’s life be threatened by her pregnancy, but have seen God’s hand in saving her and providing for her each time. Obey His word and the blessings will come, in one form or another.

Now, the only thing I can say to this is “amazing.” Again, these guys will not defend themselves exegetically. In that whole thread, these folks avoided exegesis like the plague. These ideas are adding to God’s word plain and simple.

However, worse than that, in the name of counterculturalism, here we have the sixth commandment being violated. For those of you who do not know, in reformed circles, we believe that there is both a positive and negative meaning to the ten commandments. For example, “You shall not steal” is not only a command to refrain from taking other people’s property, but it is also to show respect for other people’s property. Similarly, the command to not murder also means that we are commanded to take every precaution to preserve human life, as well as refrain from taking human life. One of the clearest explainations of this commandment comes in the following law:

Deuteronomy 22:8 “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.

The reason why there is bloodguilt that is brought upon the one who does not put up a railing is because he was showing negligence in the protection of human life.

In the same way, imagine a person who builds a very tall skyscraper, and does not put a railing around the roof. He may get many blessings. People may come from far and wide, since his view is unimpeded by a railing, and, therefore, is the best. However, the first time someone falls off that skyscraper, and he gets sued, is he going to respond, “Well, we should just not waste it, just as we shouldn’t waste our cancer.”?

As far as I am concerned, Biblically, this position is equal to murder. If a woman is in this man’s situation, and his wife gets pregnant because the man refuses to protect his wife, and then she promptly dies from it, I believe that the man is Biblically guilty of murder, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What is ironic is that the full quiver advocates claim to be consistently “pro-life,” and yet, here they have made children such an idol that even human life is meaningless. Also, as far as I am concerned, anyone who openly promotes murder like this is a heretic, pure and simple. As far as “obedience to God,” I think full quiver advocates need to wake up and realize that professional exegetes are not buying their arguments. They are way too reductionistic. That is the one thing I keep hitting myself about this. I wish I would have stayed with the text of scripture. Keep a full quiver advocate in the text, and he will have a hard time.

I guess this is my concern. Yes, this man is a wacko, and does not deserve any kind of serious hearing. However, my question to those who put up this “countercultural” rhetoric is simply this: how far are you willing to go? If you can read things into the text that allow you to say that delay of marriage is a sin, or that not having children is a sin, and say that they are justified in that they are “countercultural,” well, so is this guy’s arguments. This is why counterculturalism doesn’t work. We should not accept something just because it is old fashioned and countercultural. We have to go back to scripture, and engage in responsible exegesis of the text of scripture.


4 Responses to “Full Quiver Movement Proponent Supports Murder”

  1. njartist Says:

    Interesting. I see an similar argument in the Papist position against abortion to save the woman’s life: the wife should be allowed to die if it means the child will live. In this case the child is also the idol to which the wife is to be sacrificed. No regard is given to the biblical position the man and wife are one flesh; nor is any consideration given to the very real destruction of the rest of the family if there are older children.

  2. otrmin Says:

    Hey njartist,

    That situation is a little more complicated. In the situation mentioned above, the child does not yet exist. In the situation you are talking about, the child *does* exist, and so does the mother. Because of that, it makes it more complicated.

    I would say that, “Just let the mother die” is a glib solution to the problem you mentioned. I think that the best solution is to try to save the life of both the mother and the child, since they are both human beings created in the image of God.

    God Bless,

  3. Thomas Says:

    If that is true, then those who support the use of the pill must also support murder, as it can result in preventing a fertilized egg being implanted.

  4. otrmin Says:


    I agree. We should never use “contraceptives” that kill unborn children [abortifacients]. The goal is to prevent conception, not kill an already conceived child. The former is ethically acceptable; the latter is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: