I believe in general that there are arguments are biblically correct but they’re almost always completely and totally misunderstood. I have a quiver full post on my site.
I wouldn’t quite call us a group per se. But no, I mean by people outside of it. When I wrote my post which you can read called always open one of my big goals was to very carefully explain what I meant. You do a little bit of it in your post as well when you talk about the fact that it doesn’t mean, that you have to have sex only when you’re possibly going to create a child or something, but a lot of people who understand the quiver movement think that you need to go to every possible extreme in order to make sure that you have the maximum number of children possible.
As opposed to a perfectly normal and happy and healthy and routine sex life where you don’t do anything to prevent having children. The words I use instead of quill tend to be always open. That you should be always open to having children. And with that I condemn both the general protestant , pension to our birth control, and I also condemn the Catholic idea of natural family planning.
My biggest problem with the quiverful movement is that it seems awfully hard on the marriage, particularly the woman. I don't have a verse I can pull out of my back pocket on this that makes it crystal clear, but it seems to be to be within St. Paul's understanding of marriage ("love your wives as Christ loved the Church") to decide not to have sex for a time because your wife is overwhelmed, exhausted, or grieving. The Scriptures are pretty clear that fertility is an important part of the sexual act and should never be actively thwarted, we agree there. I think that in full context, abstaining from sex for a time for the good of your marriage and family isn't forbidden by any of the verses you cite.
Anyway. Thank you for contributing to the conversation.
Excellent, Von! It is a great first statement. I appreciate the light hand on the commentary and exposition. I can't think of anything that you missed. You highlighted areas that I would have missed. This is a keeper.
I know how you value it, and so I always try and comment on your essays. Because I appreciate your writing (and I, too, generally have something to say).
I really liked seeing the Onan/not wasting seed conversation batting second. I think this is intentionally misunderstood in English-based cultures. The very word "onanism" as a synonym for male masturbation is wrong. Onan was struck dead because (drawing on another English cultural piece), "every sperm is sacred." The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and we've gotten away with ignoring this for a very long time. I think that a very strong case can be made that the destruction in Western culture in the past 60 years stems largely from birth control. It has rotted so much, both without and within families. I look at my own family. 17 cousins, over half of whom went to Catholic universities. Not a one of us has more than three kids. And two (both of whom went to Catholic university) are proud of their homosexual children.
I received a comment by email, which seems to have been deleted. The commentor made two points:
1) He asked why I didn't post any of the words of the Church Fathers. And
2) He said that the Catholic Church has 'good reasons' for flatly denying the Biblical qualifications for elders (not exactly the words he used).
To which I reply:
1) If someone else wishes to make a post with the Church Fathers, or Reformers, or Puritans, or even the Amish and what they right about Christian sex, tag me and I will link to it. Cheerfully. I might even respond. This post was written specifically to demonstrate with the Scripture said, using Scripture.
2) If someone wishes to have a discussion on unmarried priests, feel free to make your case and tag me. I will almost certainly respond.
I will point out that under "continual" you have made a logical leap from what the text says ("rejoice always") to a prohibition on any sort of natural family planning.
I wholly agree that there needs to be a dispositional openness towards having children, indeed, a pursuit of faithful multiplication. However, that is a distinct argument from careful consideration of when it would be best to pause the growth of the family. There are texts beyond Psalm 127 that speak to the blessing - or curse - of children. Growing up in a "quiverful" family, I watched parents who, if I might extend the metaphor of Psalm 127, stuffed their quiver past full and then, rather than wisely firing arrows, dumped them all on the ground and tripped over them. This simply is one of those issues where the principles are clearly obvious, and application of those clear principles requires some wisdom beyond "children good, have lots."
That warning, or course, is not the primary one needed in 2025 with our below-replacement level birth rates. But it still, I think, remains important. Again, enjoyed your piece.
Well, no, I haven’t made any logical leap. So called ‘natural family planning’ is directly prohibited in I Cor 7. You can see my post “Always Open” for a fuller treatment of the subject.
I received another comment by email, which again seems to have been deleted:
>>So how can I be “required” to “have many children”? Like, my body is literally incapable of this. Doesn’t matter how much sex I have, there ain’t any more babies than this one. So I am clearly not “doing my duty”. And that makes me think that perhaps I’m headed for perdition, and dragging my husband along with me.
from @Readstoomuchprays to little.
I would encourage her to re-read the post, because the words 'required' and 'have many children' are not in it. I would also encourage her to read my post 'Always Open'.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the quiverful movement? Your arguments seem very similar to theirs.
I believe in general that there are arguments are biblically correct but they’re almost always completely and totally misunderstood. I have a quiver full post on my site.
Misunderstood by them or by others outside the group?
I wouldn’t quite call us a group per se. But no, I mean by people outside of it. When I wrote my post which you can read called always open one of my big goals was to very carefully explain what I meant. You do a little bit of it in your post as well when you talk about the fact that it doesn’t mean, that you have to have sex only when you’re possibly going to create a child or something, but a lot of people who understand the quiver movement think that you need to go to every possible extreme in order to make sure that you have the maximum number of children possible.
As opposed to a perfectly normal and happy and healthy and routine sex life where you don’t do anything to prevent having children. The words I use instead of quill tend to be always open. That you should be always open to having children. And with that I condemn both the general protestant , pension to our birth control, and I also condemn the Catholic idea of natural family planning.
My biggest problem with the quiverful movement is that it seems awfully hard on the marriage, particularly the woman. I don't have a verse I can pull out of my back pocket on this that makes it crystal clear, but it seems to be to be within St. Paul's understanding of marriage ("love your wives as Christ loved the Church") to decide not to have sex for a time because your wife is overwhelmed, exhausted, or grieving. The Scriptures are pretty clear that fertility is an important part of the sexual act and should never be actively thwarted, we agree there. I think that in full context, abstaining from sex for a time for the good of your marriage and family isn't forbidden by any of the verses you cite.
Anyway. Thank you for contributing to the conversation.
Yeah, I think if all you are looking for is ‘isn’t forbidden’ then you have a case. That is not the case I was making.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/always-open
And thus we run straight into the real difference I think you and I have here-- whether or not Sola Scriptura is a valid position.
If Scripture alone is enough, or if you need more context.
Full confession, both of which I used to agree with.
You're more aligned with the radical traditionalist Catholics on this. They also have very similar arguments.
Excellent, Von! It is a great first statement. I appreciate the light hand on the commentary and exposition. I can't think of anything that you missed. You highlighted areas that I would have missed. This is a keeper.
What would you like to see as a second statement?
There you go, trying to get the conversation started. :)
That's what I do.
And, seriously, I think a huge part of my audience has come from conversations.
Me, too. I could relate, as I know how hard it is to get conversations going on my substack.
Not anymore. All you have to do is start a letter exchange with me. Cause I don't give up, I don't stop, I keep writing :)
I know how you value it, and so I always try and comment on your essays. Because I appreciate your writing (and I, too, generally have something to say).
I really liked seeing the Onan/not wasting seed conversation batting second. I think this is intentionally misunderstood in English-based cultures. The very word "onanism" as a synonym for male masturbation is wrong. Onan was struck dead because (drawing on another English cultural piece), "every sperm is sacred." The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and we've gotten away with ignoring this for a very long time. I think that a very strong case can be made that the destruction in Western culture in the past 60 years stems largely from birth control. It has rotted so much, both without and within families. I look at my own family. 17 cousins, over half of whom went to Catholic universities. Not a one of us has more than three kids. And two (both of whom went to Catholic university) are proud of their homosexual children.
Did you read my ‘Always Open’ posts?
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/always-open
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/contraception-is-immoral
I received a comment by email, which seems to have been deleted. The commentor made two points:
1) He asked why I didn't post any of the words of the Church Fathers. And
2) He said that the Catholic Church has 'good reasons' for flatly denying the Biblical qualifications for elders (not exactly the words he used).
To which I reply:
1) If someone else wishes to make a post with the Church Fathers, or Reformers, or Puritans, or even the Amish and what they right about Christian sex, tag me and I will link to it. Cheerfully. I might even respond. This post was written specifically to demonstrate with the Scripture said, using Scripture.
2) If someone wishes to have a discussion on unmarried priests, feel free to make your case and tag me. I will almost certainly respond.
I wonder if " be fruitful and multiply" was aimed at increasing the numerical strength of a certain tribal grouping ?
That command is given several times in Scripture:
1) To Adam and Eve before they sinned
2) To Noah after the flood
3) To the Jews
4) In a slightly different form, to the church.
5) In its blessing form, to the Godly man.
So, overall, no :)
This is a nice collection of relevant texts.
I will point out that under "continual" you have made a logical leap from what the text says ("rejoice always") to a prohibition on any sort of natural family planning.
I wholly agree that there needs to be a dispositional openness towards having children, indeed, a pursuit of faithful multiplication. However, that is a distinct argument from careful consideration of when it would be best to pause the growth of the family. There are texts beyond Psalm 127 that speak to the blessing - or curse - of children. Growing up in a "quiverful" family, I watched parents who, if I might extend the metaphor of Psalm 127, stuffed their quiver past full and then, rather than wisely firing arrows, dumped them all on the ground and tripped over them. This simply is one of those issues where the principles are clearly obvious, and application of those clear principles requires some wisdom beyond "children good, have lots."
That warning, or course, is not the primary one needed in 2025 with our below-replacement level birth rates. But it still, I think, remains important. Again, enjoyed your piece.
Well, no, I haven’t made any logical leap. So called ‘natural family planning’ is directly prohibited in I Cor 7. You can see my post “Always Open” for a fuller treatment of the subject.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/always-open
I received another comment by email, which again seems to have been deleted:
>>So how can I be “required” to “have many children”? Like, my body is literally incapable of this. Doesn’t matter how much sex I have, there ain’t any more babies than this one. So I am clearly not “doing my duty”. And that makes me think that perhaps I’m headed for perdition, and dragging my husband along with me.
from @Readstoomuchprays to little.
I would encourage her to re-read the post, because the words 'required' and 'have many children' are not in it. I would also encourage her to read my post 'Always Open'.
What is forbidden is trying not to have children.
Given what is being taught in public schools (https://www.amazon.com/X-second-All-You-Need-Know-Sexuality/dp/0738218847), this is an important conversation. The biblical perspective needs to be heard. Thanks for your volley.