Her.meneutics: How Many Kids Should We Have?

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Multitasking: Bad for the Soul | Main | Why I Can't Boycott Mel Gibson »

July 19, 2010

How Many Kids Should We Have?

To answer the question, Christian couples need more than a few select Bible verses.

Amy Julia Becker

"One and Done," Lauren Sandler's Time cover story this week, offers a series of reasons why many parents in the West are choosing to have only one child. First, the economic strain: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the average child in the U.S. costs his or her parents about $286,050 — before college,” reports Sandler. There’s also the happiness and freedom that apparently come to parents with only one child. Sandler says the vast majority of married couples understand marriage as primarily about happiness and fulfillment, rather than an institution designed to facilitate the “bearing and raising of children.” And if marriage is about personal happiness, as one sociologist writes, “You should say that you’ll stop at one child to maximize your subjective well-being.” And, on a related note, “Parents who intend to have only one say they can manage the drudgery with an eye on the light at the end of the tunnel.”

Sandler also addresses some of the reasons parents traditionally have chosen to have two or more children. There’s the concern that only children will grow up to be selfish and spoiled. But current research suggests that even if only children are “highly indulged and highly protected,” they also tend to “score higher in measures of intelligence and achievement” than children from larger families. There’s also the concern that only children face an untenable burden in caring for aging parents, and will be lonely.

As the mother of two children with a third on the way, I found myself bristling at Sandler’s reporting. Her data about academic achievement seem insignificant. I want to value our children not for what they can produce but for who they are becoming. Furthermore, the data suggest that only children’s achievements are the same as first-born children and people who have only one sibling — which is to say, the majority of children in the U.S. And the concerns about aging parents and loneliness outweigh, in my mind, the economic and social freedom parents experience with only one child.

But it doesn’t really matter what I think. For Christians who are considering starting a family, what matters is what God thinks. And, on this and many other related matters, it isn’t always easy to figure God’s perspective out. Sandler herself writes, “As much as family size is a deeply personal issue, for many people it is also a spiritual one.” God’s word on families comes early on in the Scriptures: “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28). The biblical writers generally assume that children are a gift from God desired, in large numbers, by every married couple.

Yet it’s not hard to look at current population statistics (the global population has more than doubled in the past 50 years) and conclude that we’ve fulfilled the Genesis mandate. Also, as stewards of the earth’s resources, might there be a Christian argument for limiting family size? Even if we weren’t concerned about the global population, there’s also the question of personal stewardship. Biblical writers counsel wisdom in economic concerns, and family size certainly impacts family economics. If having another child means it will be hard to put food on the table, perhaps the wisest choice for some families is to have one child. Finally, there are personal health concerns. Some women's lives will be endangered by having more children. Again, perhaps the responsible, godly choice is to accept those physical limitations and keep the family small.

The Bible is not our only resource when we face these types of questions; it’s too easy to find the Scripture passage that supports whatever position we already have. For questions like these, accountability relationships and Christian community play a crucial role.

For a long time after marrying, my husband and I considered never having kids. We could justify our desires according to our Christian beliefs. We worked with students as full-time Christian ministers. For us, having a family seemed to detract from our ability to spread the Good News. It may well be the case that there are Christian missionaries called to limit their family size for the sake of the gospel. But in our case, those arguments were a façade, covering up the fear and ambivalence we had about limiting our lives by the presence of children. It took the gentle questions and witness of other Christians to convince us that we were using Christian-sounding arguments to cover up a selfish and fearful motive.

Now, every other Thursday morning, my husband talks on the phone with his friend Jon. They’ve given each other permission to ask the hard questions: “How are you treating your wife? How’s it going with your kids?” They admit their weaknesses — impatience, pride, self-centeredness. And they challenge each other, with love, to address those weaknesses with the strength that comes from a relationship with Jesus.

We need to consult the Bible whenever we face a major life decision. We need to pray on our own. But we also need to be in relationships with other believers who will challenge us and help us to see the ways we deceive ourselves, even with Christian arguments.

One, two, three children or more, we need one another to help us do all we do to the glory of God.

Comments

Very interesting response to the TIME article and great questions to consider. Amy, thanks for sharing your personal story about choosing childlessness and then motherhood, and for highlighting the importance of accountability in our lives. But are you suggesting that abstaining from parenthood is *always* a selfish decision on the part of Christian married couples? Are there situations in which choosing to remain childless is okay? There are many believers who feel that childlessness is fundamentally selfish and against the will of God (and thus a sin), but I am not one of them. I would add "or none" to your final sentence! Nevertheless, this is a great reminder that fulfillment from obeying God is so much richer than the pallid "subjective well-being" of the world around us.

Since children are made by God, if He thinks you have enough kids, He will stop sending them your way. As for resources, if you believe that God will provide for your children, like He provides for you, then you will know that no matter how many kids are in the house, there will be enough for everyone.

Unless, of course, you don't believe in the God who is the creator of human beings, and who loves and cares for those He created.

@ Andrew

Please explain why God doesn't send children to infertile couples - He doesn't think they can handle them?

And why He sends children couples who will murder those children? He doesn't know the future so He didn't know they'd do that, is that it?

Andrew, we trust God with other medical things. People get sick, and we heal them. We don't say that God sent the illness and that therefore we should not treat the person. Trusting God with our fertility does not mean we have to keep having kids until we don't anymore. Trusting God and using the brains are not mutually exclusive. God gave us the ability to discover new medical knowledge, so it is not unChristian to use that.

I believe that couples should pray about having children or not having them. They should do what they believe that God is calling them to do. For some, that will mean many kids. For others, that will mean a few. For some, that will mean none. For some couples who are infertile, that will mean using science to become pregnant. For other couples, that will mean adopting. I don't think we have the right to tell people what God wants for their lives.

Ann wrote:

"Please explain why God doesn't send children to infertile couples - He doesn't think they can handle them?"

Perhaps. But you need to ask God about this. Reading the book of Job in the Bible, beginning from chapter 38, may provide insights.

"And why He sends children couples who will murder those children? He doesn't know the future so He didn't know they'd do that, is that it?"

God never intended for anyone to be murdered. If someone murders their own children, God will hold them to account on the final judgement day.

Anna wrote:

"Andrew, we trust God with other medical things."

Children are not "medical things". The creation of a human being is not a disease. In fact, the rise in popularity of having a midwife-assisted birth, as opposed to a hospitalized one, in cases of routine childbirth, highlights the growing rejection of the medicalization of childbirth.

"I don't think we have the right to tell people what God wants for their lives."

Of course not. Only God can tell people what He wants for their lives.

And yes, for some couples, God has prepared them to be adoptive parents, so orphans can be taken care of. It is yet another example of what I meant when I said that God loves and cares for those He created.

I'm always puzzled by why the decision to have children or not have children is framed as one of selfishness versus selflessness. Children demand many sacrifices and bring many rewards, just as remaining childless demands certain sacrifices and brings certain rewards.

I don't think God's general directive to mankind to populate the world should be taken as an individual mandate for everyone. Couples who choose not to have children aren't necessarily being "selfish" just because they don't feel called to serve God as parents. In fact, childless couples have more freedom to serve the body and minister outside of it since they're not so tied to the family unit.

Some people just don't deal well with kids. Instead, they have other gifts and talents. Let's stop presuming that everyone should live in exactly the same way.

I find it interesting that we've overlooked a very important part of that article: subjective happiness. Could it be because the idea that God wants us to be happy has so thoroughly invaded the church?

Clearly, the world would have us believe that being happy is our chief aim (after life and the freedom to live that life). But God did not promise me I'd be happy. He didn't call me to be happy and being happy is not His chief desire for me.

His chief desire for me is to be like His Son. For most of us, that translates into parenthood. It's been a handy tool for God to use as the crucible in which we become more Christlike. It's not the only one, but it's been a good one.

This is such a difficult topic, but I agree with Tami M that it is a mistake to assume that our marriage and our life is about being "happy and fullfilled." Men are walking away from their wives; women are walking away from their husbands; and both are walking away from their children based on this notion that has invaded our Christian churches that we are entitled to be happy. If you study the whole of Scripture you will not find this concept anywhere.

What we ARE promised is the joy that comes from worship and obedience to God and His grace in our lives. I have to say that joy is so much more potent and lasting than mere "happiness."

@ Andrew:

Yes, Andrew, God does have a plan for human lives. God works his purposes through murderers, criminals, homosexuals, dictators, schizophrenics, cult leaders, and babies who die at 3 months of age. Someday, when we stand in Heaven marveling at the full view of God's sovereignty, we'll see how all these things weave together. For now, however, we who "see through a glass darkly" manage our lives through reason and sound judgment - which God himself uses for his purposes. Your idea that we should breed like animals and let God put food on the table (and more oil in the ground, more land on earth, etc.) is not God-honoring or Scriptural.

The decision to have children is not "selfless" in all cases. So many people have children to complete their "perfect life," and they parade their children like trophies in their competition with their neighbors over who has the best house, best family, etc. There is also a certain egotism to replicating one's physical body - as if your traits and characteristics are the most beautiful and precious qualities in existence. Each child you sire is in competition with other people's kids for food, jobs, mates, housing, etc. Bearing 5 children is an act of war against other people's children. No, your children are NOT going to figure out nuclear fusion, terraform Mars, or figure out some way to feed 12 billion people on this planet. Statistically speaking, they will all be quite average and consume far more than they contribute. Each job they have will be a job they take away from someone else - same with mates, housing, money, etc. Let's not kid ourselves (pardon the pun) - having children is ANYTHING but "selfless." It is one of the most profoundly selfish things people can do. Jesus had none and Paul went as far as to say that sanctification was far more difficult for those with families.

I don't think that choosing to remain childless is always selfish, as in the case of missionaries in a dangerous place, or in the case of someone with medical problems. I also don't think that this is what Amy Julia was saying. I think that her response is in the light of the selfishness she saw in her own life and that exudes from articles like the one in Time: that children will mess up my happiness, and my happiness is the most important thing ever.

Furthermore, I think you get into really hot water when you enter conversations like this and start slinging "God's will" around in areas like infertility or infant death. We live in a broken world, bad things happen. People who are meant to be able to have children face broken bodies that cannot, for whatever reason, create a child. This has nothing to do with their ability to handle parenthood, and I have yet to find a good comments section of a blog that can handle this topic maturely.

But back to childlessness by choice: Amy Julia, I think it's interesting that you say that your motives were based out of selfishness and fear. No one really talks about the fear, but I think that undergirds a majority of the decision to put off/not have children. Fear that your life/marriage/body/financial security will change. It might be more helpful to look at it from that perspective than to reduce it to selfishness (not that I think you are).

Finally, congrats on the third baby! He/she has a great family!

In reviewing the comments, I see a lot of "I think" and "You think." What does God think? This is paramount. Let Him lead us. If indeed children are gifts from Him, we'd do well not to reject them.

I am the proud and thankful father of 13 (2 adopted, 3 step and eight of my own), all of whom know the Lord. They are spread over 37 years. After the first four, the Lord saw fit to provide a 9 year gap into which He brought a two year old from Nepal and four years ago He chose to bring an 11 year old off the streets of a nearby city into our empty nest.

Life hasn't been easy but every step in sending these children into the world has been worth it!

What other "gifts" are we rejecting?

God gave me a brain. He gave me a modicum of wisdom. And he expects me to use both. My body cannot handle bearing any more children, nor can I reasonably expect to care for more than the two I have, due to a medical condition. So, my husband and I prayerfully have decided to remove the possibility of pregnancy. Would it be more "godly" for us to have children for whom we will not be able to care or for whom I would not be alive to raise? I don't think so. Andrew may judge me as he will. I really don't care a fig. Only God's judgement matters.

The elaboration of the commandment to be fruitful and multiply in the Old Testament is found in the New Testament commandment to go out and make disciples of all nations. For some, these mandates will be fulfilled through parenthood. For others, it will be in evangelism and outward Christian witness. Instead of assuming one way is better (or more selfish) than the next, why not celebrate that God is passionate about all people and gifts different Christians to do different ministries? Let's support all singles, DINKs and parents who strive to do God's word and not assume the worst about our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I find remarks about "trusting God to provide for us and our kids," as Andrew says, to be a bit troubling once you look beneath the piety. American society is a hostile place to families, with banks and corporate interests dismantling the social safety net and financial security for families. That's why people have fewer kids. Remarks about "trusting God to provide" sound pious, but they let the rich off the hook for their wanton pursuit of obscene wealth at the expense of most of their fellow citizens. And it also puts us in a place where we turn to prayer for more money and food, but never think about our responsibility as Christians to "speak the truth to power" about what has been happening in our nation and to our families, and who is really to blame. (And, of course, we have a whole counterfeit Christian media - like World Magazine - devoted to blaming everyone except those who are really responsible.)

I also have issues with the "selfish" argument on both sides. You don't have to look around too far to find a mother than has had a child because she was lonely. I have a friend that said she and her husband were not really feeling like they needed children, but eventually decided to adopt two because they thought they might need someone to care for them when they get older. (This is a great couple that loves their kids, but she was being honest about the deciding factor.)

On the other hand I know tons of people that have decided not to have kids in order to devote their time to serving God in other ways. As I have said before when this has come up here, Paul says it is better not to be married, but if you want to get married go ahead. He expressly connects marriage to distraction away from God's work. So if marriage can be a distraction, then children certainly can. And if Paul thinks that remaining single to serve God is a good idea, then remaining childless to serve God would seem to also be a good idea.

Yet more justification for female selfishness. Children are a gift from God- end of story. But both Christian and secular women are more concerned with their figures, their leisure time, their stupid jobs, etc. than with living Biblically. The only thing women are good for is bearing children, yet they don't even want to do that. Just another reason that patriarchy is the only sustainable form of human organization.

And another thing- the supposition here seems to be that using artificial birth control is perfectly fine. The fact is that until the 1930s, every single Christian denomination condemned it as a sin. I think a single man or woman has the right to decide whether or not they want to have children, but if not, that means staying single. getting married implies being open to God's will.

Wow, Johann, is your post for real?

That was some Epic Snark, Johann!

Everyone knows the real reason to have children:

You can't train a cat to get you a beer from the fridge while the big game is on.

Going off birth control and assuming that God will perform a miracle to prevent conception is like when the Devil told Jesus to jump off a cliff, trusting angels to catch him. There is no biblical promise that God will use miracles to decide how many babies we have. So when someone who is fertile goes off birth control, THEY are deciding to have more children, not God.

Andrew, the only reason to get married is to have children. Seriously?!! And that staying single is 'not being open to God's will'? WHOA.

ALL actions have consequences. Some good, some bad. Sex is an action - pregnancy is a probable consequence.

Maybe some of us who are married and using contraception are doing the right thing for us. And maybe that is God's will FOR US. Who is anyone else to tell us differently? In this issue, I don't really care what 'the church' thought in the 1930s. Or what some still think. That is not what we base our life decisions on.

Sometimes 'the church' should butt out about this. I can't tell you how many times I'm asked the children question, or told that I'll never be a real woman until I have children (this was also told to a friend who ended up having an emergency c-section - she still wasn't a real woman as she hadn't experienced natural childbirth), that I'm selfish, the list goes on. I'm in my 20s, give it a rest! It's like the church has a mission to ensure that all couples have children straight away, regardless of whether it is good for their relationship, the right timing for them, etc. And if you resist, as you are sure that it is not right FOR YOU, you're labelled as not being a good enough Christian. Of being selfish.

That's not true.

*GASP - we don't really want our own children *SHUDDER of horror*

Yes, we love our life. We don't feel the urgent need to procreate. I don't feel I was only put on this earth to become pregnant and have children. You do? Fantastic! I really hope that, if it's right for you, between you, your spouse and God, you do so and that you love it. In the meantime, we'll continue to do what's right for us.

I think Phoebe has a very valid point. Expecting the naturally occurring consequence from an action to suddenly stop (when it doesn't in other instances) isn't the best for everyone.

We raised one lovely daughter and were probably able to invest more time and yes, resources, in her than we otherwise would have been able to. I knew myself well enough as a mom to know that I would have been frazzled by too many kids. And it is okay to feel that way, people. It does not make me unbiblical or disobedient. If anything . . . some of these comments feel like evangelical culture masquerading as gospel. There's tremendous subcultural pressure to have babies and love being a mom. I remember a guy I worked with years ago saying of his church, "If you have three, you're in the club." This is a very personal issue, to be approached with honesty and compassion, not judgment.

I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of what other people do. Who cares if someone doesn't have children? Does it really matter? Is it going to prevent someone from getting into heaven? No, so let people make their own decisions without passing judgment on them.

I'm Catholic. And God created the sacrament of marriage for the benefit of the husband and wife(sexual pleasure, etc) AND procreation. The second has never been a choice until the introduction of birth control and abortion. Does anyone else realize that both went hand in hand until less than a century ago?
And somehow I doubt that St. Paul would blame the spiritual state of the parents on children, since St. Paul always mentioned husbands and wives AND children when he depicted a family. St. Paul said that it is easier to become closer to God by being single, yes but does not say that that same level could not be achieved through matrimony. And did not Jesus say that the kingdom of Heaven belonged to children? And that we must all have a childlike faith to enter the kingdom.

I believe the subject of having more children will remain controversial in the Pentecostalism,You will find the pastors having faith for big things in the kingdom, but when it comes to the family, he can settle for only one child or two yet the bible says Be fruitful and Multiply.

I agree with most of the comments given that the size of a family has direct impact to it economically, and that if having another child means it will be hard to put food on the table,then the wisest choice is to have a manageable family.

Yes there are personal health concerns and we need to accept these physical limitations.

I am responsible for the Couples Ministry in our church and I enjoyed this topic. Couples should justify their desires according to their christian beliefs.

Sipho Moyo
GLADTIDINGS INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS CENTER ZIMBABWE

Something that I've kind of noticed while scrolling through the comments is that no one seems to be recognizing marriage in the way it is described in Scripture: not just a vehicle for procreation, not just a vehicle for happiness and personal fulfillment, though it is both of those things as well - but also as a ministry team. When God set about creating the first woman, he didn't say, "Well, everything looks great with just this one guy, but I need some sort of incubator for all the rest of 'em..." or "Ah, I need to figure out some sort of new toy to make this human happy." He said, "It's not good for him to be alone - he needs a helper." The first marriage was designed by God to be a dynamic husband-and-wife team. Adam needed help, not just a tool for personal happiness and not just a tool with which to breed.

The healthiest marriages I've had the pleasure of observing are the ones in which the two folks sharpen each other like iron sharpens iron, sanding away at each other's less-than-perfect qualities in order to help one another become more like Jesus, and working together as a team in order to show Christ to those around them, whether it's serving in the church in various ministries, working as professional missionaries, by raising godly children, or simply by trying to live out Christ in every step in their daily lives (people are always watching). It seems to me that the Scriptural view is that marriages are so much more than just vehicles for children or happiness: they're extremely useful ministry teams in which both individuals help each other to accomplish the will of God.

Phoebe and KP, you've got it backwards. One of the natural consequences of "sexual intercourse" is procreation and having children. Thus, when a child is born, it is God who intends the child and we as human beings act as co-creators with Him. That's what "Be fruitful and multiply" means. To say that someone who does not use contraception is tempting God is a little weird. And that in that case, its not God's fault, but the couples is even more weird. God created sex and marriage. And God creates every child that is born (even despite contraception). God never created contraception, and neither did He ever say "use something to prevent the birth of children". So it's actually the other way round.... And by the way, no child or human being is ever an accident...

Johann, you need psychiatric care, or you're just a guy trying to get people riled up.

I have been debating a 4th child, contemplating what God wants me to do. I have come to the conclusion that:

I will not be judged by anyone else or even swayed in one way or another by someone's opinion. Including my own mom, lol.

A child IS a gift from God, but that doesn't mean we must overwhelm ourselves and take on every single gift that may possibly be available to us. We MUST know our limits. And that is different for everyone. There needs to be a balance of being responsible and accepting God's blessings. If God wanted to give me 4 cars, that doesn't mean I should accept them all if I don't have a garage or money for gasoline. (NO, a car is not the same as a child for those of you anxious to jump down someone's throat)
I believe that if I chose to have 10 kids, He would provide for every one of them, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to have 10 kids.

I DO believe that God knows, plans, and creates every single life, but He also gave us a brain and the liberty to make our own choices.

We CANNOT take the Bible verse "Be fruitful and multiply" so extremely literal. It is in the old testament, and many verses in the old testatment no longer apply to us. I honestly believe that now that our society is well populated, God may very well have allowed birth control, and gifted the individuals who have helped to create it.

At the end of the day, let's remember our one and only calling as a Christian is to LOVE!!! So if you'd like to voice YOUR OPINION, do so with love, respect, and a non-judgemental attitude.

Also, thank you Amy Julia Becker for this article. :)

Has anyone thought about what Paul said, that it is better for man to remain single? Paul never married and had children...does that mean he was disobeying God?

It's extremely unlikely that Paul had any children and he was not married when he wrote the epistles. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1Cor 7:1-7. And that is followed by him stating that he was unmarried.

Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

From:GotQuestions

FREE WILL

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

How Many Kids Should We Have?

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

How Many Kids Should We Have?

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives