No Opinion
by Ted Slater on 12/15/2008 at 11:08 AM
When it comes to what others choose to do, I often have no opinion. I may be concerned about their motivations, about the reasons behind a particular decision, but in the end their decision is exactly that: theirs. And I think no less of them for it.
Case in point: How many children they choose to have.
A couple of the pastors at my church have seven children. And a couple of pastors have only one child. Are some of the pastors less in touch with the biblical principle of "filling the earth" with children? Are they less aware of the biblical truth that children are a blessing? Are those pastors with but one child sinning by withholding blessing from the earth?
You know, I don't know. And it's not my place to say.
Maybe the women who only had one child had rough pregnancies, or had miscarriages, or suffered extreme postpartum depression and just could not take on another child. Or maybe the couple has infertility issues. Or maybe they're planning to adopt, and felt it would be best to stop having biological children at this point. Or perhaps circumstances called for a small family: Maybe they just sensed that the Lord was directing them to limit their family to three members, the three-family-member lifestyle freeing them up to better engage in a particular ministry.
There are so many variables that factor in to a family's decision in this regard. Since I don't have all those facts, it's best that I withhold opinion.
That said, I do think it's important that we all consider why we choose to have or choose not to have children.
Am I limiting the number of kids I have out of fear that I might not be able to handle another one? But such fear is not of God; He is able to encourage the fearful. Conversely, do I think that having a child will bring someone into the world who will finally and fully love me? The truth is that that child, in his sin, will at times reject me; the truth is that the Lord's love is sufficient.
Or am I limiting the number of kids I have because I'm concerned they'll be burdensome? Such an attitude may betray a belief that children are more of a curse than a blessing; God's Word clearly says that kids are a blessing. Conversely, am I wanting to have more kids to prove to the world that I, and not they, am more obedient to God's Word? The truth is that my worth is found in Christ, not in the number of offspring I produce.
Am I limiting the number of kids I have because they'll inhibit my liberated lifestyle? That may betray a selfish heart, a heart that wants to do things its way and in its time. Among other things, the arrival of children helps soften that heart, turning it outward so it can better serve others.
Real concerns. Tough questions.
So when the Duggar family has 18 kids, I think no less of them. When the parents of Boundless author Rachel Starr Thomson have 12 kids, I think no less of them. When the Patriarch Jacob had more than a dozen kids, I think no less of him.
And when friends stop at just one child, I think no less of them.
When we don't have the full story, when we aren't fully aware of someone's motivations, in the face of such everyday ambiguity sometimes it's a virtue to have the firm conviction of "no opinion."
1. Natalie Jost said the following at 11:26 AM on Dec 15:
Thank you for writing this. You've encouraged me. We have a 6-year-old girl and we just had twin girls last year. I quickly found out how common the attitude is with people who have multiples, that it's crazy for any of us to have more, as though having just one more baby would be harder than two at a time! :)
But I HAVE been telling myself I could never go through it again (it was a life-threatening pregnancy), but as terrified as I am, you're right, that fear is not from God, nor fear OF God.
My prayer now is that if God wants us to have more children that he'll find some for us to adopt!
2. Rebekah said the following at 11:37 AM on Dec 15:
Thank you for this article! As the best friend of the newest Mrs. Duggar (Josh's wife) it has been a challenge interacting, and I have been praying and thinking about how to explain my position on things. You got it right! It's a personal thing between us and God, and having tons of kids for the wrong reason is bad, as is not having kids (or many) for the wrong reason.
3. Liz said the following at 11:40 AM on Dec 15:
You read my mind Ted, especially in light of the "Mommy Wars" posts that have generated a lot of jugment and emotion from posters.
I think its important for couples to examine their motivations for the choices they make, including choices about how many children they should have. For us on "the outside," I just think it matters that we show the love of God to children brought into the world, no matter how many siblings their parents decide it's best to give them.
4. Jonathan said the following at 11:44 AM on Dec 15:
Hey, great post Ted! There are some really good points that you brought up, but mainly that it is the underlying reason that each person needs to examine in his/her heart. The same goes for birth control...castigating someone because they're using birth control can be a dangerous idea. You never know if there is some medical reason or even a sanity reason behind it (why force your wife to have more kids when she honestly admits that she is maxed out with the amount already running around? That's not very loving!). Anyway, thanks for the reminder that we are not defined by the number of kids we do or do not have, but rather by our obedience to the Father.
5. Saidahwk said the following at 11:58 AM on Dec 15:
Good post. Children are amazing in any and every number. There's nothing like 10 children and there's nothing like 1.
6. obewan said the following at 12:30 PM on Dec 15:
364 days a year, I have no opinion on this, but whenever I file my taxes it comes up. I usually have a fleeting moment of jealously when I calculate my non-existent deductions for married with children. Since I already pay more than twice the average tax rate of the typical family, I am inclined to cry "unfair". But, then I suppose I could always get married and adopt 12 children if I really wanted tax deductions. To a certain extent, we do pay for other's children when it comes to taxes. That includes property tax too. I mean, I pay for the "school system", but I don't have kids. More kids, means bigger taxes.
7. dana111 said the following at 12:33 PM on Dec 15:
This is an awesome post, Ted. Though I a single woman, I believe that I will be a wife and a mother one day. How many children God desires to bless me with is really none of my concern. My concern is doing His will, no matter how "burdensome" it may be. Also, I agree that we should not judge the motives of Christian couples who choose not to have children. This, however, is hard for me because one of my best "couples" have decided not to have children, and the wife appears to have become a slave to the birth control pill. Sinfully, I do sometimes judge her actions and her motivations for not wanting to have children. However, I humbly acknowledge that it is not my place to question, and I have to repent when I arrogantly judge her decision. It is God's job to change hearts, not mine. As for me, however, I am open to having as many children as God blesses me with :)
Again, thanks for the post!!!
8. Jenny said the following at 12:39 PM on Dec 15:
I appreciate the reminder to not form negative opinions about people without knowing all the facts. I have seen many times my feelings about someone change once I knew the reasons behind their circumstances.
I am the oldest of 11 children, and I grew up knowing why my parents chose to have a lot more children than the families around me. I knew that God's first command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. I knew that children are a gift from the Lord and that a man with many children is blessed like a warrior with a quiver full of arrows. I knew that Jesus loved children and welcomed them to His side when He lived on earth.
In contrast to that, the only reasons I ever heard people give for why they didn't want more children (or children right now or children at all) were selfish reasons, not principles from Scripture. So, unfortunately, I did tend to look down on smaller families a bit. Of course it didn't help that most of the smaller families I saw were not as happy and didn't love each other the way my family did. (We certainly weren't perfect, let me assure you.)
But I came to understand that the size of the family was often related to the same reason the families didn't get along as well--because Christ wasn't the head of the family. What it really came down to was whether the parents chose to let the Bible guide their lives and relationships and family decisions. And with that came a compassion for families who weren't experiencing all the blessings the Lord would have loved to give them. It's like the Lord is offering them a gift (more children, good relationships between parents and children, etc.) and they're not interested, or simply have no idea what they're missing out on.
I feel that is part of my family's ministry--letting people see what a God-honoring family looks like. We are not better than other people, but we have the joy of experiencing more of His blessings because we're following His Word.
I know there are families that the Lord has decided to give only one child (e.g. Abraham and Isaac) or none, for His good purpose. And like you said, because of that, I can't look down on anyone because of the size of their family. And I do realize there are large families out there who are not filled with God's love, either (e.g. the sons of Israel). But for the most part, I think parents of a few kids are ones with a house full of blessings just waiting for them, if they are only willing to take God at His word.
My mom had a very hard pregnancy with me, and my parents had to seriously consider whether they wanted to put her through that again. Finally they decided to just trust the Lord, and He blessed them with easier pregnancies and ten more precious, unique, delightful children. I absolutely love my family. Each one brings something special into my life and I can't imagine not having even one of my siblings. I can't wait to spend a whole week with them at Christmas!
In the mean time, for anyone who is married, or headed that way, I encourage you to consider what the Lord says about children, trust and obey, and watch out for what blessings are headed your way! I'll still love you if you decide to decline His gifts, but I will be thrilled to rejoice with you if you accept His offer!
9. Dr. Ransom said the following at 12:46 PM on Dec 15:
What's notable about this passage is what it also does not say -- that a lack of children is a sign of the Lord's disfavor, just as children are a blessing. Other Scriptures talk about the blessing of marriage, yet that doesn't automatically mean that those who aren't married are not blessed, or else somehow selfish.
I've seen both extreme views of the "large family" concept.
One side, of course, is formed by those who subtly blanch, or openly sneer, when they find out your parents have six children. It's sometimes based on guilt of their own ("I could never do that"), or outdated notions of "the population bomb" that have been floating around since the '70s.
The other side, though -- especially those among the "patriarchalist" factions -- takes the concept having a large family too far, to the point of legalistically dismissing (often without recognizing it) those who haven't decided the same as secular or selfish. Such people, while often starting out with good intentions, end up placing idolatry-level attention on The Family, Family Togetherness, or Our Home Business, at the expense of making God and Himself -- not just His good gifts -- the basis of our lives.
Scripture presents a perfect balance, as usual, in passages such as this one. It specifically relates to "Christian liberty" issues such as food, drink and the celebration of holidays, yet it can be easily applied to family lifestyle decisions as well.
Romans 14: 1-12 (ESV)
10. Bethany D. said the following at 1:07 PM on Dec 15:
Thank you for posting this Ted. It's been hard for me reading some of the previous discussions on # of kids and feeling like no matter what my husband and I decide, someone will think we're wrong. It's nice to be validated that this is our (& God's) decision, and that what's most important is seeking HIS will, not the Christian community's!
11. Josh C said the following at 1:31 PM on Dec 15:
You might want to question the means by which Jacob had his 12 kids. I'm sure Boundless wouldn't be promoting polygamy and sleeping with the help. :)
Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that number, as your post makes a good point about.
12. nikki said the following at 1:51 PM on Dec 15:
Good thoughts - but I'd take exception with your implication that those without large numbers of kids are potentially in need of some explanation. The default Christian position shouldn't be large families with any dissenters needing to cite their reasons. I kind of felt like that was the background to what you were saying. But I think you are right that it's not something we can really judge. I also agree that many of the reasons people don't have kids are lousy reasons. But really I think when it comes down to it, every family is different. You don't need to have a full time/time consuming ministry to excuse yourself from not having more than two kids.
I thought the command to fill the earth was given to people who lived...before the earth was filled? Are you saying you take that as a universal timeless command to everyone?
13. John said the following at 2:20 PM on Dec 15:
I'm nowhere near facing this decision, but when I think about it my logical side immediately starts wondering about the effects the decision has on the world - specifically population. Has Boundless ever directly addressed this? The closest I can find is "The Baby Dilemma for Environmentalists": http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/09/the-baby-dilemm.html
Technology will continue to create larger chickens, corncobs, and skyscrapers, but we may eventually get crowded and hungry on this planet. A quick trip to wikipedia reveals that there are 6.7 billion of us on about 25 million inhabitable square miles, with a growth rate far above linear.
It somehow feels like having a big batch of kids is taking "more than your share" of the planet's resources.
On the other hand, if evangelical Christians have disproportionately large families, more souls might be saved =]
14. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 2:40 PM on Dec 15:
Ted: how is this not relativism?
Could we not apply this moral calculus to other subjects? Such as, say, homosexual practice?
To illustrate:
"Case in point: How some people choose to express their sexuality.
A couple of the men at my church are attracted to other men. And a couple of men like men and women. Are some of those men less in touch with the biblical principle of "the two becoming one flesh" in male-female marriage? Are they less aware of the biblical truth that natural marriage is blessing? Are those men with same-sex attractions sinning by withholding blessing from the earth?
You know, I don't know. And it's not my place to say."
Now... of course I have blatantly distorted your words to make a point, but is the distortion that inconsistent with the mode of argumentation you are using?
Of course, one could rebound with the response that homosexuality is unequivocally condemned by biblical principles so we can't disagree about it. But again, those of us who oppose contraception out of principle could say the same thing to those who support its use.
Genesis 38: 9,10: "Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too."
So, it seems to me that the issue of how many children are produced by a union is purely circumstantial and tangent to the real controversy implicitly brought out in your post: whether contraceptive intercourse or direct sterilization can ever be licit and since we can't agree its better to remain silent about it.
Nevertheless, the Christian religion has very unequivocally condemned the practice of contraception for nearly two-thousand years.
Ted, you write: "When we don't have the full story, when we aren't fully aware of someone's motivations, in the face of such everyday ambiguity sometimes it's a virtue to have the firm conviction of "no opinion."
That is not virtue, it is a refusal to address the issue. Yet, a sure sign of virtue is the refusal to allow complexities to turn into excuses. With respect, I think your attempt to dismiss the importance of the subject as something Christians can have legitimate disagreement over is profoundly misguided.
15. Texas Craig said the following at 2:45 PM on Dec 15:
I can't wait to see all the opinions people have about having no opinion....
:-)
16. Jennifer DuBois said the following at 2:57 PM on Dec 15:
While I agree that perhaps there is no point or benefit in your expressing your "opinion" on such matters, don't you think that as a church we are called to hold each other accountable according to Scriptural guidelines and principles?
If, for instance, someone does decide not to have children out of some selfish desire or from a lack of trust that God can and will provide as needed, shouldn't we as a church call them to account for that?
I'm not saying that we have any room to judge each other, but I do believe that we should hold each other accountable. Whether or not to have a child is not a mere personal preference. There are Scriptural standards, and we have every duty as fellow believers to proclaim those standards in love.
17. Helkias said the following at 2:57 PM on Dec 15:
Well said.
18. Kellie said the following at 3:01 PM on Dec 15:
Agreed! People love to share their opinions, but sharing your opinion of how many children a family should have (and how they have those children) is just too much. (Besides I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "no kids" crowd changes their minds when they meet the right person and the "as many kids as possible" crowd changes their minds after a kid or two!)
19. DP said the following at 3:18 PM on Dec 15:
One of your best articles.
20. BDB said the following at 3:28 PM on Dec 15:
I don't have strong opinions about it, either. I admire the faith of those who place it entirely in God's hands. It seems similar to the faith of those who place their finances, including generous giving, entirely in God's hands.
A week or so ago there was one couple in my small group expressing frustration at their two children, saying two was absolutely enough. Then the guy with six kids said, "Slacker..."
It was really funny...
While I've seen some big families be overwhelmed with poverty, I've also seen some who turn out very godly children. The Latino wing of my family has a lot of brothers and sisters, and I think it turned out wonderfully. Meanwhile, I know some only children that grow up quite lonely and selfish.
As long as people obey what God is telling them to do, I think it works out fine!
21. Ted Slater said the following at 3:40 PM on Dec 15:
Jeffrey Whiting (#14) -- in your final paragraph you write that it is not a virtue to withhold opinion on some things:
"That is not virtue, it is a refusal to address the issue. Yet, a sure sign of virtue is the refusal to allow complexities to turn into excuses. With respect, I think your attempt to dismiss the importance of the subject as something Christians can have legitimate disagreement over is profoundly misguided."
Is my co-worker Motte wrong to have only two children? Is my friend Fletch and his wife wrong to have none, though they've been married for a few years now? Are my pastors with only one child wrong to not have more?
I say: "I don't know."
It seems like you would like to say, one way or the other. So, judge these people for me: Are Motte, Fletch, and my pastors in the wrong?
22. DannieA said the following at 3:51 PM on Dec 15:
People will sometimes comment with the most believable line when questioned about their decision not to have children.
What you might not know is the real story behind it. Yes it may be for 'selfish' reasons....but it may just be to get people off their backs due to this being a sensitive subjects for personal reasons they can't talk about.
As Ted says, NO OPINION.
Raise the kids you have the best way you know how. That's what God expects from us. No more, no less.
And BDB, here is a generality I personally don't fit into....as an only child, I'm not lonely and sad....I feel very fulfilled with my family ;)
23. Jo said the following at 4:06 PM on Dec 15:
Jeffrey Whiting (#14):
You clearly have strong opinions about contraception, I'm wondering what you'd say to me.
I have an illness which means that there will be various implications for me having children in the future:
1) Pregnancy will present more health complications and potentially could be dangerous for me.
2) Depending on my husbands genes, the chance of passing on my illness to any child I might have could be as high as 50%.
3) If my child was born with the illness, there would be a danger of cross-infection between me and my child, presenting health risks to both of us.
I'm genuinely interested in your view, because I don't have it all figured out. (Of course, I'm still single so I don't need to know it all quite yet...)
I think my response to those issues, if I end up facing them, will probably be something like, "God, I'm going to take 'precautions', but if you want me to have a child, please override my efforts to prevent it." Because the truth is I would LOVE to have a child, and I sincerely hope that there is a way for that to happen safely - but to discount the significant risks that might be involved would be, I think, foolish. What do you think?
24. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 4:42 PM on Dec 15:
As a Christian, I wouldn't necessarily say that all artificial contraception is morally wrong. I do have grave concerns about the Pill and the possibility of it causing "accidental" abortions (which I learned about from Randy Alcorn's writing on the subject). Still though, I cannot say that the use of all artificial contraception is morally wrong for Christians.
However, from the 1st century until 1938 (at the Anglican Church's conference of that year), all of Christendom, Catholic and Protestant, *did* take a strong stance against the use of artificial contraception for Christians. Something to consider-- have we, in the last seventy years, gained the wisdom on this subject that all of Christendom lacked for over 1,900 years? As a Christian who accepts the use of *some* forms of artificial contraception, the question makes me wonder...
25. Rachael said the following at 4:59 PM on Dec 15:
"When we don't have the full story, when we aren't fully aware of someone's motivations, in the face of such everyday ambiguity sometimes it's a virtue to have the firm conviction of "no opinion."
--> VERY nice. There is quite a bit of ambiguity that we don't see. We should remember this when we hear or are tempted to share negative opinions.
26. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 5:35 PM on Dec 15:
Sigh. Thanks for the post Ted.
I've been reading the responses and now I have to admit I'm wondering if people are judging me.
I am likely to be childless. Any child I have is going to, thanks to my genes, be given a serious illness. It's not something I usually talk about, but I've been pondering it a lot. 2007 to 2008-ish was very bad for me. I'm thankful I'm alive now, but the other outcome was a strong possibility .
I'm completely recovered, but now I'm left with two questions.
1) Who is going to romantically want me? Why would anyone want someone who could get debiliattingly ill? Sometimes I feel like a time bomb.
2) I wouldn't wish the previous year on anyone. How can I, in good conscious, have a child knowing that I'm likely giving them the disease?
I feel a bit judged for this. I am doing my best to respond to non-ideal circumstances and lead a good life. I'm happy with my life and I believe God is too. I don't think my decision not probably not have children is selfish. Maybe if I got the go-ahead from a doctor things would change.
Overall, the whole Mommy War thing is leaving me feeling a bit inadequate.
27. BDB said the following at 6:05 PM on Dec 15:
DannieA (#22) wrote:
>>And BDB, here is a generality I personally don't fit into....<<
But you have a large extended family that lives nearby, right?
I've noticed more that some only children can be very selfish, because it's all about them. But they also don't have the blessing of walking through life with siblings who will have their back when things get tough.
Not all family relationships are perfect, of course. But sometimes I think people are thinking inside the box. For example, the cost of college per child. Well, two generations ago, the various siblings in my family took turns putting each other through college - both boys and girls went to college in the 1930's. It's a whole different paradigm.
My aunt is one of nine brothers and sisters, and I love getting together with the Latino wing of the family. Of course, periodically, the comment that the German wing of the family results in fewer, more independent cousins. Kind of interesting.
I do have family members who, for medical reasons, cannot have their own children. They eventually had to tell the family because it was so painful when people kept asking when they were going to have children. They both wanted a big family and were quite upset when they discovered that both of them had medical things preventing children. They were able to adopt, which is a blessing!
28. Hannah C. said the following at 6:07 PM on Dec 15:
Interesting blog.
On the one side, I'm very glad it was posted. I'm the oldest of 9...and have gotten very interesting comments, let's just say that.
I think the big issue here, though, isn't so much judging people's reasons for having so many children as assuming that the reasons are any of our business, or that just because a family has only one child means that they are selfish and have bad reasons for only having one. In most cases, we don't know the circumstances, and if we don't know the circumstances we can't judge. It is possible for people to use no birth control and still only have one child.
I may have an opinion about the various "positions" on how many children to have, but that doesn't mean I get to assume anything about anyone.
29. k. said the following at 6:34 PM on Dec 15:
I operate on a similar -- although more colloquial -- view: it ain't none of my business! However many children a couple has (or doesn't have), it's not my concern. Neither is their method of birth control, their medical histories, whether they decide to adopt, etc.
And Jeffrey: there are varying opinions about how to interpret Onan's story. One is that God was angered because Onan married his brother's widow, while deliberately refusing to allow her the social status and financial security that motherhood conferred in that culture. (As noted in the text, he would have been required to treat any offspring as his brother's, not his own...and Onan was not an altruistic guy.) This would make Onan's sin specific to the time, place, and situation. The focus was on Onan's selfishness, not on his rudimentary birth control.
30. Jade said the following at 6:47 PM on Dec 15:
I really appreciate this post and I totally agree. I come from a larger than normal but not huge family and I look forward to having kids even though I don't have any yet. A couple months ago my brother, who attends a "Christian" high school told me that his biology teacher told the class that I was living in sin because I am married but don't have any children. Unfortunately, this attitude is common in the church. Nobody on this earth, except my husband, knows me well enough to say that I am sinning by not having any children (yet).
31. DannieA said the following at 7:01 PM on Dec 15:
BDB...you nailed it right in the head. No one has a perfect family. I LOVE mine to the ends of the earth, but we do have our faults as well...
32. Lynn said the following at 7:09 PM on Dec 15:
Mr. Whiting (#14)
You quoted:
Genesis 38: 9,10: "Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too."
But the question is was the LORD displeased about the spilling or about the greed, selfishness, pride etc. that were made up the decision to spill.
Just a thought.
33. Natalia said the following at 7:09 PM on Dec 15:
Kate (#26):
My heart goes out to you. Don't feel like you're being selfish for wondering if a man will ever want to marry you. You probably realize that it's a legitimate desire. Unlike you, I don't have any real reason preventing a man from pursuing me for marriage (other than being a bit quirky and awkward and not being gorgeous, ha, ha ;-) ) yet at my age (early 20's) even having attended a Christian college, I have never, and I repeat NEVER, been asked out on a date! It's really easy for me to start thinking that there is something *wrong* with me, and I am imagining those feelings come even more easily to you because of your illness.
Well, I'm in the *fortunate* (I guess??) position of not having any strong romantic desires at this particular moment, partly because I am headed for the mission field. Of course, I want to love and be loved, but that seems to be being fulfilled in other ways at this particular moment: through my friends, my family, an older Christian couple who are like my second parents, the children I work with, and the people I pray for. I Having said that, I know that I do want to get married one day & I know that many single women have very, very strong (and good) desires for marriage. Maybe one day I will have a very, very strong desire for marriage, too. I imagine you might also be able to relate to my feelings.
You probably realize that in God's eyes nothing is wrong with you, but people's attitudes and words can sometimes be harsh, even when they don't mean to be. I guess that's probably the reason why any one-size-fits-all approach to these issues is, for lack of a better word, stupid. ;-) I hope that you have people in your life who speak positively into you and don't judge you.
Have you ever thought about what you have in your less-than-ideal life that nobody else has to offer the kingdom of God? I believe we all have very special deposits that God has put in our hearts that are there so that he can use them to touch others' lives. Maybe that sounds cliche, but it's true that his power is made perfect in our weaknesses.
Blessings,
Natalia.
34. Kyle said the following at 7:32 PM on Dec 15:
Jeffrey (#14),
I hear where you are coming from, but I wouldn't necessarily cite Onan's story as an argument against contraception. Taken in context, the story of Onan has more to do with his violation of Hebrew law (the mandate to perpetuate the brother's lineage) than with early withdrawal (interpreted by extension as contraceptive intercourse).
I don't believe Ted is advocating the excuse of complexities. Rather, I believe he sheds light on the fact that we must carefully consider how fruitful or possible it is to tease out every nuance of other people's situations, particularly since our personal opinion may not be wholly relevant to those situations. There is a fine line between urging one another towards Scriptural accountability and examining each other's lives with fine-tooth combs. We often blur that line, seeing motes when our own beams are yet obscuring our spiritual vision.
There have long been differences of opinion among true, committed believers who cite the Bible as the basis of their views. The issue, to me, is less about being silent on difficult issues and more about considering what meaning and purpose my expressed words would have. After all, even a fool is considered wise when he holds his tongue.
At the end of the day, opinions are not God's Word. Therefore, we must be careful with their expression. Opinions are often best applied to our personal liberty to live as we choose within God's dictates.
35. kyra said the following at 8:00 PM on Dec 15:
I think the article makes some great points. As an Irish-Catholic living in an area dominated by "2.5 kids and a dog" type families, my friends and I constantly hear nagative comments toward big families.
If a family has more than three or four kids everyone seems to assume 1) It must be some sort of religious mandate and they must be miserable, 2)the wife must just be following her husband's command to be barefoot and pregnant (and she must be miserable) or, 3) The parents are too stupid to know how to regulate the number of children in their own family, either through NFP or whatever acceptable method.
As someone who wants a large family someday this aggravates me to no end. It's possible there are lots of smart people out there who happen to want lots of kids!
On the flip side, I really appreciated the insights on families with one child. As much as I get annoyed by negative comments toward large families, I find myself having negative opinions of families with only one child. I know, what a hypocrite. But hopefully I'll learn to be less judgmental and more sympathetic. As the mother of a child with special needs, just in the last couple years I've encountered various situations:
A mother who gave birth very prematurely and the labor was so traumatizing she was afraid to get pregnant again; a couple whose first child died of severe birth defects and they have yet to have another; many couples experiencing "secondary infertility"; many situations in which the child with the special needs requires so much time and energy the parents make the decision not to have any more children.
So I guess it's true that you never just never know what's going on in a family, and it's not really our business to know.
36. kyra said the following at 8:49 PM on Dec 15:
I wanted to respond to Kate (#26). I think it was very courageous of you to share a little bit of your story and worries, because you don't know how many women there are who may be in a similar situation and will read this. I feel a little bit like walking on eggshells in response because of course I couldn't possibly know what it's like to be you or to have had your year. But I did want to share some experiences that might give you insight into your situation.
My own son was premature and is severely delayed. Although he is now on a path of progressing milestones, in the first year of his life I was told by his neurologist that he almost certainly had a progressive, degenerative genetic disorder. It was crushing to have to hear a doctor tell me that I should do everything in my power not to have any more children because they'd likely be born with and suffer from the same thing.
My son is a happy, giggly little boy and the joy of my life. He has progressed and though they still feel he has a genetic disorder, his symptoms do not at this time appear to be degenerative. Yes, he is handicapped and yes, we are at the hospital all of the time and yes, I wonder if I have future children, if they will have the same thing.
But rather than make me more afraid, this experience of being his mother has made me more trusting of God and given me more faith in Him. At the Children's Hospital my son frequents (all too often...) they have just opened a maternity ward for expectant mothers of children with known birth defects. Many of the children will die in the first year and so people may wonder, "why bother" but all I can say is that I am shocked and awed by the miracle of life and humanity I see every day in my son. The world needs ten more just like him, whatever the cost in time or money.
Whatever your circumstances the last year, can you honestly say you wish you hadn't even been born? I'm glad you were! I shared your questions with a friend of mine who has an auto-immune disorder that has left her infertile, and she often talks to me about wondering how to explain her situation to men, and who would want her given the situation? There is little I can say to help her, but knowing there are other women like her helped a lot.
Don't let fears of future situations prevent you from living your full life. That's just Satan trying to overwhelm you. You don't need 90% of men to understand your situation, just the one man who is going to love you and marry you. Once you do marry (notice I didn't say "if") God will give you the grace you need to care for a possibly ill child in the midst of your own illness. Or, God will give you the grace to care for your adopted children. Or, God will give you the grace to minister in some other way.
At any rate I am praying for you as I pray for all of my single friends, that Satan will back away from you, that you will be free of fear and despair, and instead have hope in your wonderful future!
37. Lisa said the following at 9:10 PM on Dec 15:
One thing no one here has mentioned so far is that the age at which one marries does influence how many children you may be able to have. I married at 37, and had a child at 40. I feel very lucky and grateful for the child I have. While my husband and I are open to having more, one must be realistic. I can't imagine anything more stupid than someone judging me for the amount of children I have or don't have. I refuse to associate with people who would do that kind of thing.
38. Lauren T. said the following at 9:51 PM on Dec 15:
I'm also the oldest of a large family (9, 8 living) and we didn't get that way through "large family" convictions on the part of my parents. There was just always room for another and we all loved everyone as they came along. Losing my second sister at the age of 3 months to Brittle Bones Disease had a pretty big impact on how we view healthy new babies in our family and I'm pretty sure that has something to do with why there are so many of us.
The constant remarks made about our family size being too large have probably made it hard for me to see the small-family perspective, since I've constantly had to defend my parents ("No, I'm not angry - yes, I love having all my brothers and sisters - well, I don't know if they're done or not [!!!What a question to ask a 13 yo daughter!!!] but I'd be thrilled if we had more") and I really do love my family and the fact it's grown so large. I've always been of the mindset that I'd have plenty of children myself, given the chance; but it's only been lately that I've come to recognize a couple's decision to have many children or not is not as black and white an issue as I thought. For one thing, it finally went through my thick skull that it really was nobody's business but a husband and wife's, God's, and maybe a trusted adviser being asked for assistance how many children a family has. There is nothing innately Godly about having many just as there is nothing innately evil about having few. I don't believe God has necessarily withheld blessing because a family has only a few or even none. It all comes down to the attitude of the people involved.
Onan is a classic example of this. Onan did not sin by denying children in general: he sinned by not giving a child to his DEAD BROTHER, thereby carrying on the brother's name and inheritance and providing for the widow. This wasn't Hebrew written law at the time, because God hadn't given the law yet; but it does seem to have been the understood and honored practice for a man to marry his brother's childless widow and provide her with a child in his brother's name. In this case, Onan was willing to have the pleasure of sleeping with his dead brother's wife, but not in providing for her safety and well-being and his dead brother's property as best he could. It was a very wicked and selfish thing he did.
I think many times selfishness does play a big part in our current culture of "only two!" But I don't know every story, every piece to the puzzle, every reason why a husband and wife might choose not to have many children. I suppose in the end, like lots of other things, this is something to do with the hearts of the people involved: and like God told Samuel, He doesn't see things the way men do because He looks at a person's heart.
39. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 10:27 PM on Dec 15:
Natalia,
Thank you for the kind words. My friends and family (especially my family) have been an amazing source of support. Like you, romance isn't big on the radar for me either right now. I always remind myself that God isn't going to give me anything I can't handle. I handled my illness, I can handle it again if needed. And when/if I meet someone, than I'll handle the issue of children.
And if I don't have kids myself, I'm sure I'll find a way to do something. I'm applying to law school, and I would love to do something with juvenile justice. My ultimate goal is to be a judge in juvenile court and really work at reforming how we treat minors who offend. So my new immediate goal: not worry about things that haven't happened.
Besides, what better place to find a like-minded person to marry than at law school? We can bond over our mutual Scalia fascination. (my alternative dream is to write a book that explains Supreme Court cases by translating them into 'teenage girl.')
40. Han said the following at 12:03 AM on Dec 16:
Ted,
Based on your post, I take that you have "sensed" a few cases where people who advocate having a large family are "judging" those who do not. You started your post by stating that "When it comes to what others choose to do, I often have no opinion." But in reality, all your posts are about your opinions on something you and/or others choose to do, e.g., voting, dating, etc. Writing about your opinions is what it means to be blogging. With that said, may I suggest you do not "judge" who you think are "judging" you or someone else?
You said you are more concerned about the motivation of an action taken rather than the action itself. Those who advocate having a large family, like myself, are also more concerned about the motivation to limit the number of children, rather than the actual number of children itself. It should be noted that in most cases the motivation to limit the family size results in a smaller family size (well, duh, this is not a rocket science statement).
I think it is best to question your (implicit) presupposition first: the use of artificial birth control falls under the category of gray area and that it is up to each couple to decide whether they can use it or not. Can you tell us any biblical passages that positively allow artificial birth control (ABC)? Keep in mind that the absense of positive evidences for your argument does not automatically mean your position is valid. Why do you think ABC is permitted despite the biblical passages and the 1900+ years of Christian history against it? Do you think people got biblically wiser and gracious and less judgmental after 1930s until when ABC was considered wrong doctrinally by all Christian communities, both Protestants and Catholics? Don't you see that we live in an age where fertility is treated like a disease? People today use birth control pills to intentionally de-functionalize a perfectly normal organ. Bear in mind that being pregnent is not a life-threatening problem in the vast majority of cases, nor having a large family put them in poverty in this country for most families. I suggest talking to your fellow contributor Dr. J. Budziszewski on this topic.
Han
41. Caroline said the following at 1:40 AM on Dec 16:
Ted,
Thanks for your excellent and well-written post. It's saddening to see vitrol on both sides, from those who belittle large families, and from those who think childless couples are horrible heathens.
It's quite complicated. While I do hope to one day be married and have children, (and quite a few) I still haven't figured out how I feel about contraceptive use even in a marriage context. There's some time to ponder over that, but it's still something I haven't fully researched yet.
42. Jo said the following at 4:25 AM on Dec 16:
Kate (#26) -
"1) Who is going to romantically want me? Why would anyone want someone who could get debiliattingly ill? Sometimes I feel like a time bomb."
I'm in a similar position, and I hear you - I wonder that for myself too. More and more I'm realising that it's gonna have to be a pretty amazing guy who takes me on... and my priorities are shifting a little in response to that realisation. But, God has made some pretty amazing guys, so I don't think either of us should lose hope.
The reality is that illness can happen to anyone. The difference is that you and I *know* about our time bombs. We have to live with that knowledge in a way that other people don't, but at the same time understand that our future is no more certain than theirs is. Fact is though, lots of people with serious illnesses do get married - and their husbands are probably far better prepared for problems down the line than most people's husbands, and better at dealing with them when they come. The type of guy that will voluntarily take us on will be the type who will stick around when the going gets tough.
So, we'll end up with good ones. :P
43. obewan said the following at 6:01 AM on Dec 16:
Kate & Jo:
I too have a genetic disease with a 50% chance of passing it on. I also am familiar with feeling like a time bomb in terms of its potential manifestations, so I know where you are both coming from.
All I can say is that as the years go by it gets easier for me. Now that I have lived with it for so long, I worry less because the worst has not happened yet, and I now have hope that it may never happen. Also, the women in their 40's that I am meeting are not interested in having any/more children, so my desire to not have a child has become a non-issue. Plus, there is always the possibility of adoption. It did cause a problem with my last (serious) girlfriend. She was turning 30, and her biological clock was ticking loudly. She could not accept my position and insisted on having her own biological children, so we broke up.
44. Jon said the following at 6:25 AM on Dec 16:
May God give more of us Christians the grace to have "no opinion" on more secondary issues.
45. kaj said the following at 6:48 AM on Dec 16:
Re: the concern how some oral contraceptives may inadvertently cause an abortion:
Is there gynecologist in the house who would like to expound on this?
46. P&P said the following at 7:45 AM on Dec 16:
I almost agree with Ted, which is a rarity for me.
Here's where I dissent: it still seems as though the opinion is skewed towards large family = better for both family and faith.
When I see the Duggars, I see people who put their lives on display in exchange for $$. That's idolatry at its finest.
I also don't see how the decision to have a small family = selfish. If a family realizes that the don't have the physical, financial or emotional resources to have another child (or any at all), I respect them more than people who put no thought into the demands of a large family and then find themselves unable to create a safe and loving home.
Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who killed her three children was quoted as saying she was going "to have as many children as G-d would give her," despite the best advice of the psychaitrist who was treating her post partum depression, which morphed into post partum psychosis.
Granted, that's an extreme case, but I always become concerned when I hear people use G-d's will as a reason for having a large family, regardless of the circumstances. Do it because you love kids, do it because you're a great parent or do it because you love every (other) minute of the chaos, but make sure that you're doing it with the knowledge that you're doing right by the children you're bringing into the world.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 8:51 AM on Dec 16:
P&P (#46) -- You know, you don't always have to find something in my blog posts with which to disagree.
On their website, the Duggars make it clear that they are using their platform to promote the gospel.
I believe them.
You, it seems, do not. Rather, you denounce this family as idolatrous, believing that their primary motivation is to make money. I find such cynicism to be sad.
On to your fourth paragraph. If you re-read my OP, you'll see that I'm not judging small families. Please don't mischaracterize what I clearly said. You'll even note that I used the term "extreme postpartum depression" as a legitimate reason for limiting the number of children a family has.
I'm hoping to challenge couples to evaluate their motivations as they consider how many children they want to have. I also want to challenge those who are quick to judge families for those decisions they've made. Are you personally open to re-evaluating your motives vis a vis your children, P&P?
48. Zusanne said the following at 9:16 AM on Dec 16:
Thank you for this post! I heard a message preached on this once (from a visiting pastor with seven children of his own), and my heart went out to one of our pastors--sitting on the platform during the entire message--with only one child (medical reasons).
We don't know why people make the choices they do--or whether the choice is made for them--but I certainly don't understand why people feel that they need to question such a personal issue. True, a close friend (mature believer) may choose to have such a conversation, but why is it a stranger's business to ask such questions? Fewer things are more personal and fewer things are so emotional than having/not having children.
In response to John (#13),
"when I think about it my logical side immediately starts wondering about the effects the decision has on the world - specifically . . . but we may eventually get crowded and hungry on this planet. A quick trip to wikipedia reveals that there are 6.7 billion of us on about 25 million inhabitable square miles, with a growth rate far above linear. It somehow feels like having a big batch of kids is taking 'more than your share' of the planet's resources."
what?! logical?
If God can provide the children, He can provide the resources (including ingenuity to create more resources!). For hundreds of years, politicians (and, by the way, check out who they were and their political philosophy!--usually comes out of athiesm) wanting to limit the population have asked this question--hasn't happened yet!
The opposite is actually the case. In some European countries, the population is decreasing (death rate higher than birth rate). Other countries like Japan, China and even the US are feeling the pinch--smaller families, fewer taxpayers, heavier financial burden on those who are producing.
China, especially, is learning its lesson the hard way. The one-child law passed in 1978 has been recently changed; now couples who are both only children are able to have two children without penalty. Their strict control over the population (except in rural areas where people are able to get away with it) has taught them that human resources are necessary as well.
49. Matthew said the following at 9:32 AM on Dec 16:
kaj (#45),
I'm not a doctor (yet), but I am a medical student who almost got married this past year, so I've done my research. The two clearest summaries of the different positions are:
Randy Alcorn and some other Christian physicians think that oral contraceptives could possibly cause abortions.
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks that they can't.
The science is certainly complicated and uncertain, but I'm inclined to say from my (albeit limited) understanding of the subject that it is highly unlikely that oral contraceptives would ever cause an abortion.
50. Matthew said the following at 9:34 AM on Dec 16:
Also, on the OT: Right on! A lot of Christians have decided that being saved somehow allows them to spout their opinion about everything, when oftentimes we ought to quietly let God be the judge and save our appraisal of other peoples' lives and fruits for people we actually know.
51. Carrie (the original) said the following at 9:51 AM on Dec 16:
kaj - I'm no gynecologist, but I am a woman who has been told to take birth control by her gynecologist and refuses. (I'm not sexually active, so it's not to prevent pregnancy.)
Birth control, in a nutshell, does mess with your reproductive system. It is a drug and therefore contains chemicals that mess with the current chemical make-up of the body.
Birth control can and does cause "spontaneous abortions"/miscarriages. Once someone stops taking the chemicals/drug, doesn't mean the chemicals leave the body right away. Like alcohol or any other drug (legal or illegal), the more you consume the more it stays with you.
The chemicals that prevented the egg from fertilizing in the first place, are still there. They may subside for a bit and allow to the egg to fertilize, but the "leftovers" could still mess with the reproductive system in the early stages of pregnancy and cause a miscarriage.
This is why I refuse to take birth control.
There are a million and one reasons for a miscarriage. If I thought for a second it was because I took birth control for years and years on end, thinking that I would never marry (and therefore lacking in faith), I would have a hard time not blaming self for the miscarriage.
Are all miscarriage caused by birth control? Not by any means, but birth control is a cause.
52. Matt from DC said the following at 10:13 AM on Dec 16:
Josh C. in #11,
The Bible does not include one verse indicating that "Jacob slept with the help" where "the help" was not his wife. Your view is popularly taught, but incorrect. Read Genesis 30:1-9 and take note that Jacob married Bilhah and Zilpah first.
Also, polygamy wasn't God's original intent, but it also isn't condemned by God. In fact, he included it in His laws for kings. If polygamy was immoral God wouldn't have allowed it. However, it is immoral now because it is illegal (here in America at least). In this short defense of Jacob having four wives don't misunderstand me. First and foremost a man should be married to one woman.
Jacob had his faults, but these don't make the list.
53. IMO said the following at 10:28 AM on Dec 16:
"Fact is though, lots of people with serious illnesses do get married - and their husbands are probably far better prepared for problems down the line than most people's husbands, and better at dealing with them when they come. The type of guy that will voluntarily take us on will be the type who will stick around when the going gets tough."
A couple of days ago, I watched a prgram (from 2006) called, "Paralyzed and Pregnant" on TLC.
It warmed my heart to know that there are men like that out there!
54. IMO said the following at 10:37 AM on Dec 16:
"When I see the Duggars, I see people who put their lives on display in exchange for $$. That's idolatry at its finest."
I seriously don't think it's appropriate to make such a judgement against the Duggars.
55. Jonathan said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 16:
I don't know how many other people out there listen to Mark Driscoll, but I found his sermon on fertility and birth control to be really enlightening. This is a topic that you rarely hear spoken about, so it was refreshing to hear an in-depth examination of the subject. Anyone curious can find the link at http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/feed/audio. It's the last link on the page.
No doubt we need to make sure we are accountable within the Christian community, but there always needs to be grace extended...especially concerning a subject like this where we honestly cannot know the thoughts and motivations of the other person.
56. Rachael said the following at 11:26 AM on Dec 16:
re: the possibility of oral contraceptives causing abortions
--This is one area I need to settle in my mind very soon. Yikes! Haven't done tons of research, though a long time ago I starred the following link to a post that contains various links on the subject:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-pill-kill.html
I think my sister said someone else did research and came to the conclusion that it was okay to take birth control pills. I've not done extensive research, but I do feel I need to reflect upon it.
57. Kellie said the following at 11:29 AM on Dec 16:
#51 said: "Birth control can and does cause "spontaneous abortions"/miscarriages."
First off, you mean hormonal BC.
Second, There is no research to confirm this (and in reality no way to do the research). One can find whatever information they like on the internet. I think the FOTF position on hormonal BC is well written and I agree with it.
58. April L. said the following at 11:44 AM on Dec 16:
Matthew (and kaj): I have been researching this as well, (and first let me say that I have absolutely no medical background or anything, just a strong interest in natural, nutritional, & women's health) and what I have found in my research tends to show that the use of contraceptives has deleterious effects on a woman's emotional and physical health and future fertility, even if abortion is not caused by its use. This is why, except in cases of serious health conditions, etc., I prefer to promote the use of NFP if a couple feels they must limit the number of children. I personally believe that it is a husband's responsibility to protect his wife's health and that if any permanent form of birth control is needed should not be her responsibility.
59. BDB said the following at 11:56 AM on Dec 16:
Kate (#39) wrote:
>>(my alternative dream is to write a book that explains Supreme Court cases by translating them into 'teenage girl.') <<
Ha ha! Last night I got an e-mail from a guy we worked with on a mission trip to Cambodia. He's in college for Political Science, and sent me an e-mail asking me to help him understand an Economist article on the Supreme Court decisions regarding Guantanomo Bay detainees.
OK, how do I translate that into Khmer...specifically, how do I explain how a military jury decided to release Osama's driver...and explain it to someone living in a country without trial-by-jury?
60. BDB said the following at 12:15 PM on Dec 16:
Kate & Jo:
Let me relate this story:
I worked for a guy whose daughter started dating a guy 10 years older. He was not OK with this, and came to me to find out where young people were meeting each other, complained about life expectancy, etc. etc.
However...both had mothers who experienced cancer. She had dropped out of college for a year due to serious illness; he had been building his business/taking care of his mom.
Today, they are married with three children. But I have no doubt that the fact that they both were touched by significant medical issues that they had grace to handle it.
61. P&P said the following at 12:18 PM on Dec 16:
Ted, et. al.:
1. I made the decision to not become a parent a number of years ago. It's a personal decision and I have never felt the need to question it. In fact, speaking for myself and other childfree individuals, the decision is not one that we came to lightly.
2. My opinion of the Duggars will go unchanged. Once you hire an agent and get a deal with a cable channel to film your every move for money, you're not in it for the gospel; you're in it for the cash.
[Editor's note: I've deleted the rest of P&P's comment, as it builds on her point #2. See my comment below for my reasons for doing so.]
62. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:38 PM on Dec 16:
The most effective means of birth control is the rhythm method. It keeps the babies spaced about 12 months apart...
63. kaj said the following at 12:57 PM on Dec 16:
Carrie (the original) @ #51
Since you are no gynecologist, can you please cite where you got your facts from? Are they indeed from a medical expert?
64. Loris said the following at 1:07 PM on Dec 16:
Carrie (the original) #51, you're right that birth control takes a while to work out of one's system. I've been on birth control for roughly six years; first for acne and cycle regulation, then I got married 3 years ago and stayed on the pill.
Now my husband and I feel called to start a family and there is definitely a nasty withdrawal. I took the last pill five days ago and I feel awful!
65. Ted Slater said the following at 1:36 PM on Dec 16:
P&P (#61) -- Boundless has hired people to help us promote our website, and we'd LOVE to get a deal with a cable channel to film our every move. What a platform from which to express the gospel! Does that make us idolatrous?
No, it does not. Take a quick look at 1 Cor. 9. Paul affirms that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." In other words, it's fine to accept payment for work done to proclaim the gospel. Being editor of Boundless is as legitimate an occupation as being an on-TV family that wants to share good news with viewers.
Further down in that chapter, you'll see Paul doing whatever he can to get the gospel out there. I think the Duggers have adopted this same mentality, thinking outside the box on how they might bring the peculiar truth of God to those who otherwise might not come across it.
P&P, I really think you've got underlying issues with the Duggars that are best explored offline. I'm inclined to publish no more negative comments about this godly family. I admire them too much to let someone demean them.
Regarding your point #1 -- that's fine. I have no comment. ;-)
66. BDB said the following at 1:46 PM on Dec 16:
Gosh, with so many people posting their birth-control choices...this really isn't a youth group blog, is it?
67. Lisa said the following at 2:07 PM on Dec 16:
I have read the Duggar's website. I read the section that detailed their history, about how they had used birth control, then went off birth control and tried to conceive. They had a miscarriage, and their Christian medical doctor told them to read the fine print on their birth control pills. They were convinced that they had caused the death of their unborn child, and resolved to have as many children as God would give them. The only thing that bothers me about the Duggar's is that I believe they are misguided in their conclusion that somehow, they caused the miscarriage of their first pregnancy. It MIGHT have been caused by birth control, but then again, it MIGHT NOT have. There is no way to know, and they are wrong to put a guilt trip on themselves. A miscarriage is the body's way of dealing with a pregnancy that is not viable. They are actually quite common. It worries me that people will read their testimony and maybe feel guilty if they've had miscarriages. A miscarriage is not a sin, and couples who blame themselves in such circumstances make their healing process more difficult.
I don't mean this in a negative way, the Duggar's have a beautiful family.
68. Mrs. Spit said the following at 2:54 PM on Dec 16:
You know, I think Ted hit a nail on the head and it's this:
Christians are extremely quick to judge other Christians. We are always looking out of the corner of our eye, judging and measuring.
We are called perhaps to discern, more than judge. Clearly, we need to be able to look at a set of behaviour, apply biblical standards and get an answer. Perhaps more than that, we need to pray, and approach the situation with love and kindness. Perhaps we need to be much more humble and gentle, remembering that we don't always know the whole story.
Whatever the story, we are called to love and care and hold up in prayer. I can't help but think the church would be a stronger place if we all made a concerted effort to stop judging and start praying. I know my Christian life would be better.
In the 5 years that Mr. Spit and I struggled with infertility, we were often accused of being to selfish to have kids.
We didn't want to discuss what we considered a private matter between husband and wife with complete strangers. We'd rather be told we were selfish than discuss intimate and complex medical requirements to conceive a baby, but oh my, those comments were extraordinarily painful.
When we did finally get pregnant, and I suffered a life threatening disease that necessitated the delivery of our son 15 weeks early. We've been told what terrible people we were for not believing in God's providence. By people who were not there, who have never been in those circumstances, but were quite willing to tell us what the Godly thing to do was.
Yes Ted, yes. There is much ambiguity about everyday decisions.
Grace and compassion and above all, silence.
69. DannieA said the following at 3:35 PM on Dec 16:
wow so many comments about children...have a lot, don't have a lot...
Aren't we forgetting that God is in control and lends His guiding hand in every situation?
Families that have only children shouldn't feel the need to put a "but this is why" statement (such as medical needs etc) and families that have more than a few and can take care of them shouldn't have to explain themselves either.
if God's plan includes children for you, it will happen. A friend of mine married and both her and her husband decided to minister around the country and not have children so they could dedicate themselves to the ministry. She conceived on the pill and she believes with all her heart that God wanted to give her a boy in order so she may experience the love God has for us. They are no longer doing road ministry...but I think that was something God intended.
Every situation is different and I think it's best to appreciate all families whether they follow the 2.5 kids/dog and a white picket fence or 18 like the Duggers...
I personally like the Gosselins 'better on tv' because they argue more which to me seems more normal but that's just preference...I have co-workers that watch 17 and counting with much more interest.
peace to all!
70. Morghan said the following at 3:58 PM on Dec 16:
I come from a large family and from that experience I decided I want a "medium" family myself. I absolutely believe God would provide if I had 20 children, but growing up in poverty is not fun...no matter how much family love you have. BUT, in the end, it is all in God's will. I know couples who have never used contraceptives and have no children and I have a friend who got pregnant twice WHILE using birth control.
71. Morghan said the following at 4:09 PM on Dec 16:
A comment on the hormonal birth control issue - Do all the research you want, but if you've never used it, you can't say for sure if it has horrible effects or good ones. When I was a teen I had an incredibly difficult time with a hormone imbalance. The Pill was a life saver through my early twenties. I would literally fall apart 1 1/2 to 2 weeks BEFORE I "started" and would go through severe pain and other symptoms for 6 - 8 days once I did start. I am no longer on the Pill because my hormones have calmed down and balanced out. I think this, too, should be a "none of my business" topic. Perhaps the best thing to do is simply to ask someone if they've prayed about their decision and then leave it in His hands to answer them.
72. Elizabeth said the following at 4:39 PM on Dec 16:
My parents never used birth control, and they only had two kids, anyway. After I'd been around for a few years with no siblings in sight, they thought about adopting but ended up deciding to foster. My sister came along after a while, but they never quit. Now my much-prayed-for baby sister is in college, and our parents are still providing a home for other people's children, who they love like their own. My mom views it as a ministry, but I'm pretty sure they mostly just love kids. Maybe they weren't blessed with more of their own specifically so they would be able to do that, and I'm sure there are other reasons for other people. I'm single right now, but I can see myself taking in others' kids someday if I have trouble having my own. Since my own family varied over the years from just two of us kids to six or seven, depending on current circumstances, I don't think much about the size of anybody else's family.
73. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 7:05 PM on Dec 16:
In regards to the pill causing abortions, if you check the detailed insert in the package (which I did some 15 years ago when I first heard about it), in medical parlance it is explained that hormonal birth control works by one of three mechanisms, one of which is to create an unsuitable environment in the womb for implantation. My doctor insisted this did not mean that it was ending a pregnancy, and after further questioning, she told me that a pregnancy doesn't begin until the fertilized egg implants. So, it is really semantics. If you believe life begins at conception, then there is a possibility of a pregnancy ending due to side effects of the pill in the event that the other two mechanisms fail and conception occurs. It does vary from pill to pill, and the exact balance of hormones in each.
Not a doctor, just a nerd who reads the package inserts.
:-)
74. P&P said the following at 7:48 PM on Dec 16:
"Boundless has hired people to help us promote our website, and we'd LOVE to get a deal with a cable channel to film our every move. What a platform from which to express the gospel! Does that make us idolatrous?"
1. Boundless is a registered non-profit ministry. There is a distinct mission and your books are audited.
2. If Boundless and the rest of FOTF is anything like the last religious publisher I worked for, watching C-SPAN hearings on dog catchers would be more scintillating. Seriously, do you really think water cooler conversations about the new season of Lost are a good way to spread the gospel?
75. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 10:22 PM on Dec 16:
To BDB, this is just off the top of my head and from what I've gleaned from the Washington Post.
USA= head of the mean girls
Hamdan (Bin Laden's driver)= angsty girl who mocked mean girls for having spray tans
The USA has two options. It can ruin angsty girl's life and 'lose' angsty girl's invitation to the biggest party of the year and inflict other kinds of social punishment (ie:being indefinitely held at Gitmo).
Or . . . it can basically tell angsty girl that they aren't even worth negative attention. The mean girls have bigger fish to fry, like that crazy girl who stole number two mean girl's boyfriend (ie: the Iraq insurgency). Also, the mean girls have to consider that senior superlatives (Bush's legacy) are quickly approaching. Do they want to be embroiled in a huge bratfest (ie: Supreme Court issues) right now? The mean girls decide to go with the second option and pursue social dominance (ie: remaining a global power) through just swatting the angsty girl back to stage crew in drama club (ie: send him to prison in Yemen, where he won't get any more media attention).
I have no idea if this makes sense to anyone else, but it's how I helped friends with their Constitutional Law classes.
(and now we have gone completely off topic)
But on a serious note, thanks to everyone who was so kind. You guys rock.
76. Jeremy said the following at 11:45 PM on Dec 16:
Morghan (#71): "I would literally fall apart 1 1/2 to 2 weeks BEFORE I "started"" (emphasis added)
No, you would figuratively fall apart. I am not trying to be mean, but come on now, everyone. Words have meanings. "Literally" is not a generic term of emphasis, and I will not stand for people using it when they mean the exact opposite!
77. Texas Craig said the following at 11:46 PM on Dec 16:
Well, I am sure I will ruffle some feathers with my post, so let me apologize in advance! :-)
I guess I see this as much ado about nothing. I agree wholeheartedly with Ted's original post, but I also find it amusing that it is even a topic of conversation. To me, it is much like people saying "I will not judge my brother for getting a red car."
Honestly, how many kids (if any) a family chooses to have is just not high on my list of things to address with my brothers and sisters in Christ. And, I don't really hang out with those Christians who do have this high on their list of issues.
For what its worth, I just got back from a mission trip to China and spent time at two orphanages with disabled children. If any of you want to talk about family size, I would happily discuss it if we are talking about adopting orphans...
Peace and grace!
78. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:44 AM on Dec 17:
Morghan (#71),
I would literally fall apart 1 1/2 to 2 weeks BEFORE I "started" and would go through severe pain and other symptoms for 6 - 8 days once I did start.
That was definitly me. Well...for the most part, it still is. I'm horribly sensitive to any change in my hormones.
However, exact opposite for me than you. I didn't like the idea of hormonal BC...and I did a lot of research on it to see if the benefits of balancing more hormones were worth the long term consequences that could occur. Twice, I decided they were. Twice, I didn't last past the first week on BC because they made me so sick. Like I said, horribly sensitive to any change in my hormones.
I prefer research being done to temporarily remove the uterus for the "unused" portion of life and then re-implanting it when your ready for having kids. (That was 100% sarcasm...for those with broken sarcasm detectors)
79. Matthew said the following at 8:45 AM on Dec 17:
On the medical side of hormonal BC:
#51 Carrie (the original)-- I'd also like to see some citations here, like kaj says. All hormonal BC uses identical (or nearly identical) versions of the hormones your own body produces, so it's not like they are totally foreign compounds that will never leave. I'm aware that there are some side effects from hormonal BC, but I'm pretty sure that (a) we accept some of them and (b) considering that these are just larger amounts of the hormones that your body produces, in time your body will regulate itself when you are not taking them in again.
#73 Kimberly Eddy-- yes, that mechanism you mention is one of the possible mechanisms of "preventing" pregnancy. However, *if* it happens at all (and we're still not sure that it does), it's entirely possible that it wouldn't be totally effective at preventing pregnancy. That is, if you got to the stage where there was already a fertilized egg, the hormones in the pill might be more helpful to gestation. The link from the AAPLOG (in my post #49) has a more detailed explanation of this.
Also, I really appreciated Mrs. Spit's comment (#68)-- I think it underscores the importance of what Ted posted.
80. anon said the following at 8:48 AM on Dec 17:
I agree with your pro-family stance and I appreciate your sentiment of having no opinion on other's childbearing. It is very easy to judge people, families, on that basis and it really can be so hurtful. Very few people in my life know about my miscarriage and struggles to get pregnant again and I am very senstive to comments made. Many people with children do not understand the huge loss felt in these circumstances and may judge me but these they are very hard to talk about and I just shouldn't have to do that. I'm surprised how unsupportive some can be. Even comments about children being a blessing are hurtful becauase I don't understand why I'm not so blessed. I did hope for 4-6 children, now it would be a miracle to have one. We are open to adoption but it is not easy and it's expensive, but we're thinking about it more and more. I know God must have a plan for our family but this is devastating to me thus far. All of this is very personal and not something those with small families should have to explain. If you are close to them, you may find reasons for things that you would never have dreamed of.
Anyways, I appreciate your biblical, pro family and children perspective. There is not enough support for that today!
81. Beth said the following at 7:44 PM on Dec 17:
I find it troubling that some Christians are having as many children as they possibly can. Not that children aren't a blessing. God allows farmers the ability to grow crops. But do farmers plant crops everywhere they possibly can? No, it would be more than they can handle. I feel the same goes for children. I see these Christians who are having children back to back, and I wonder what it is doing to the woman's body. Isn't the husband supposed to love his wive like is own body? It seems pretty selfish to me.
82. Leah said the following at 8:23 PM on Dec 17:
John (13) - let me assure you, we are not going to get "crowded" on this planet any time soon. 90% of Australia's land is uninhabited. It is true that a lot of it would be difficult to inhabit, but definitely not impossible, and like you said, with time comes new technologies. In fact, in Australia, our population is declining and we rely on immigrants to sustain our workforce. Because of our declining population, our government brought in the "baby bonus"; a $3000 grant for each new baby born. People are encouraged to "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" (just a tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting people aim for 3 rather than the average 1.8 or whatever it is). I even heard one person suggest the baby bonus was "irresponsible" for exactly the same reasons- that people are a drain on the world's resources. How ridiculous. God provides us with children, and he provides us with the resources necessary. Or are you forgetting he who feeds the sparrow and dresses the lily in the field?
Regarding kaj (45) and Matthew (49)- Matthew does not give a very good summary of the effects of oral contraceptives. You can't just say "oral contraceptives do this" or "oral contraceptives don't do this". There are LOTS of different oral contraceptives, and they all work differently. Some work to stop a potential foetus from attaching to the uterus wall. A lot of people view this as abortive, because the child has already been conceived but is unable to attach to the uterus and grow, and so gets deposited via menstruation. But then you get oral contraceptives which work to stop the egg being released at all, which means that the intention is for fertilisation to not happen at all. (I say "intention" because of course these are not fail-proof; sometimes sperm can get a long way into the fallopian tubes and fertilise an egg there, [which is often the cause of ectopic pregnancies] and sometimes the contraceptive just might not work and the egg will be released anyway).
Oral contraceptives are supposed to say on the packaging that there is risk of abortification, if there is. Like I said, some are at risk of it, others much less so (if at all). The Duggars decided to ditch oral contraceptives when they accidentally aborted their first pregnancy with the contraceptive Michelle was taking. It is definitely possible and does happen. Of course, I will repeat, it depends on the contraceptive you are using.
83. Hannah C. said the following at 8:28 PM on Dec 17:
Just a note:
the rhythm method is not the most reliable form of birth control. It's very unreliable.
NFP is extremely reliable, more reliable than many types of artificial birth control, and is NOT the rhythm method. :)
84. BDB said the following at 10:27 PM on Dec 17:
>>"I will not judge my brother for getting a red car."<<
My judgement will be based on whether it's a red Prius or a red Escalade...
(Sorry - couldn't resist...)
85. BDB said the following at 10:27 PM on Dec 17:
Kate (#75) wrote:
>>I have no idea if this makes sense to anyone else, but it's how I helped friends with their Constitutional Law classes.<<
Oh my...that is a frightening power you have there...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to need to send it to one of my younger Facebook friends to translate it back for me...well, maybe the kid of one of my friends...
86. Rachael said the following at 10:44 AM on Dec 18:
Leah,
You wrote: "But then you get oral contraceptives which work to stop the egg being released at all, which means that the intention is for fertilisation to not happen at all."
Do you know types of this or how we can find types of this? I've not done tons of research, so maybe it's easy to find, but just in case I thought I'd ask. If there's a type that even prevents conception I wonder if that would make my mind more at ease than use a type that prevented the attaching to the uterus wall. And I'm not a doctor nor have the desire to wade through a bunch of difficult to understand stuff, but I'm just curious.
Thanks!
87. Texas Craig said the following at 10:45 AM on Dec 18:
BDB, I like your style.
Of course, if we are talking about the kind of car, I will certainly judge with all my might. I mean, really, who would dare buy an Escalade when there are so many cows farting in our country. With all that global warming from the cows, how could any self-respecting person buy an Escalade nowadays. Plus, if you are going to go that route, just go all the way and get a Hummer!
(for the facetiousness-impaired, I am obviously kidding..... I just want to avoid any misguided flames!)
88. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:53 AM on Dec 18:
Beth (#81),
I see these Christians who are having children back to back, and I wonder what it is doing to the woman's body.
Some women's bodies actually handle child birth better than not...
No one knows a woman's body better than that woman (if she pays attention to it).
I know some women who prefer pregnancy over not being pregnant. Others, where pregnancy was pure torture for them the entire 9 months.
To each, completely different.
89. Kellie said the following at 10:54 AM on Dec 18:
To add further to #84's note:
FAM (Fertility Awareness Method) is another method of natural birth control similiar to NFP. If used correctly (which does take some practice) it is very reliable and can also help in acheiveing pregnancy when a couple so desires.
90. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:20 AM on Dec 18:
I just want to avoid any misguided flames!
Why did I find this soooo funny?
91. Matthew said the following at 11:57 AM on Dec 18:
Leah #82,
You're right, and I'm sorry: I did oversimplify things to try to make my posts brief. There are a few oral BC pills (specifically the progestin-only pills) that are more likely to be abortifacient, and there are other methods (like IUDs) that are definitely abortifacient. It varies very much from pill to pill, and every woman will react different to every pill.
Rachael #86,
Most combined oral contraceptive pills work to prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place, and this is their primary mechanism of action. You'd want to avoid progestin-only pills and you're safer with pills that have slightly higher doses of hormones.
This statement that I posted before from the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs is a good resource and helps to explain some of these things. It's a bit heavy on scientific jargon, but unfortunately I can't find anything simpler to look at right now. Sorry! Back when I was engaged, this is the resource my wife-to-be and I relied on the most in our decision-making.
92. Matt from DC said the following at 10:58 AM on Dec 19:
Jeremy #76,
In Morghan's defense how do you know that she meant it figuratively? There is a chance that she literally falls apart when taking these pills and that there is another latent hormone that is released during this process that reconsititutes her makeup. Women go through a lot of trouble for birth control and I for one support them in this. I am sure that it is problematic to be in a disassembled state very long. Try to imagine what is like to be in her shoes. You're getting ready to head out the door to work and you break in to pieces like the T1000 in Terminator 2. How does that feel? What do you think about while you're laying there? Can you think? How do you explain being late to your boss at work? What if you have a maid and she arrives and sweeps you up? What if your roommate spills orange juice on the kitchen floor and when you reconstitute you never get sick?
I'm just saying. Relax man, she could have been like totally completely serious.
Happy Friday!
93. Rachael said the following at 11:06 AM on Dec 19:
Matt (91),
Thanks for the comment. I did do a little research (though I didn't linger much over medical terminology) and I found what you mentioned in your first paragraph. Thanks for the 2 links you posted.
I hate that there is controversy on the matter, but perhaps it also does try a person's trust in God.
94. Jo said the following at 12:34 PM on Dec 19:
Jeremy #76:
Do you hate it too when people say "I'm 110% committed to this" or 200% or 1000%..?
That annoys me SO much.
My old flatmate hates it when people call living people 'legends'. I do that all the time, she used to tut at me.