Hermenuetics

Comments

For anyone who is even remotely concerned about population, I always encourage them to look at how they can help improve the quality of life for women in developing countries. Countries with the highest birth rates tend to be some of the most impoverished countries.

Instead of offering incentives for their own citizens not to have children, maybe the General Synod of Australia should be encouraging its members to support education, economic, and health care access efforts for women around the world (I hope they already are).

This is not primarily a personal choice issue but a global justice issue about education and health care for women. If we are serious about caring for "the least of these" and genuinely showing concern for ALL human beings, then our planet may also benefit.

Posted By: Hannah | September 3, 2010 10:58 AM

Both James Lee and this article misses the point. In obedience and faithfulness to God, we must be good stewards of this world, taking care of all things, living or not, as God created man for in the beginning. With that said, both assume that humans have the ability to control anything in this world. This is an erroneous assumption. In Genesis, God said, be fruitful and multiply. I can't recall where in the Bible, God told us to limit the children we have. God will take care of everything. We don't need to worry about these things. We just need to worry about being obedient, faithful and good stewards of Earth.

Posted By: Jaemis | September 3, 2010 11:27 AM

Thank you for bringing this conversation to our attention! Lately, I'm wondering if Christians should more deeply consider adoption because of the astonishing number of orphans in the world. The call to care for "widows and orphans" might become part of the discussion regarding population and family size. My husband and I have only 2 children because we wonder if God wants us to expand our family through adoption.

Posted By: LivewithFlair | September 3, 2010 12:32 PM

"Australia is on its way to overpopulation". Says who? I just looked up the article "List of countries by population density" on Wikipedia, and Australia's population density is listed as 233 out of 239 sovereign states tracked.

Just wondering, did the Anglican General Synod of Australia made that absolutely wrong statement before or after some Anglicans started conducting same-sex marriages and ordaining openly homosexual individuals as priests and bishops?

Posted By: James | September 3, 2010 2:49 PM

Thank you for a very thoughtful commentary about the important topics of overpopulation and overshoot. I believe it is quite virtuous to suggest that couples voluntarily make responsible family size decisions based on the knowledge that current population levels cannot be sustained. Adopting or limiting family size to one or two children is an act of love for those children and all future generations.

Dave Gardner
Producing the non-profit documentary
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.org

Posted By: Dave Gardner | September 3, 2010 3:05 PM

Looking at any one country's population misses the point. The conversation requires that we look beyond our national citizenship and see that we also belong to a global community that shares one planet. Over-population crosses national boundaries as it bumps into the use of natural resources, global trade, secure food supplies, etc. Once our gaze gets large enough to consider how our choices affect other countries it may also grow large enough to consider how they affect future generations. The General Synod of Australia was likely considering this larger view.

Posted By: Lisa McMinn | September 3, 2010 3:18 PM

Wow. So, the argument here goes something like this: "Yeah, human children are filthy and all, but they're not THAT filthy. We shouldn't go around offing them for the greater good of the planet like this (ahem) extremist wanted to do, but parents definitely should consider voluntarily ceasing to bring the filthy vermin into the world." Ms. McMinn's position is nothing short of repulsive. At least James Lee didn't purport to base his lonely diatribe on the Bible.

Posted By: Shawn | September 3, 2010 6:01 PM

Even setting aside Lee's extremely extreme (for lack of a better term!) views, when it comes to Christians discussing family size, we too often fall into one of two extremes. Both extremes are limited and both encompass serious ethical questions.

One extreme is the "be fruitful and multiply" viewpoint. While this is certainly Biblical in origin, it's not the last word on the subject. Many respected theologians and Christian bioethicists have argued that, based on everything we know about God in the Bible, not just a single verse, it can be moral and reasonable for Christians to limit family size for many reasons--to honor the Earth's limited resources, but also to respond to one's other callings besides parenthood or respect our God-given bodies' physical limitations. Some even say that "be fruitful and multiply" is an Old Testament command given in part to remind parents of their duty to have children because the "One" who would save them had not yet been born. As Christians, we believe the One has been born, and therefore have real options in fulfilling our Christian vocation (including celibacy and childlessness) because that mandate doesn't hold the same power any more.

The other extreme are those who say that those who care about the Earth have a bounden duty to limit childbearing to one or two children, and those who surpass that number are being selfish destroyers of God's bounty. I have found that some of the most tolerant, live-and-let-live type people can get very strident on this topic. What bothers me most about this attitude is that it reduces children to one thing: consumers. Children are no longer perceived as gifts, but as great suckers-up of resources. It's a pervasive view in our consumer society. Just think of all those articles on how much it costs to raise a child, all of the pressure on parents to limit family size so they can give their kids "quality" time and make sure they can afford to send them to college.

For me, it comes down to vocation and call. I believe parenthood is a vocation to be discerned through prayer, conversation, study, etc. This is not the same as saying parenthood is a "choice," which is how secular society perceives it.

I could go on...much of a chapter in my upcoming book on reproductive technology looks at this question of the vocation to parenthood and how we decide whether/how to have children in response. But this comment is too long already! I appreciated this post and think it's an important topic.

Posted By: Ellen | September 3, 2010 6:06 PM

As a parent of both biological and adopted children, this article appears to elevate human reason beyond God's commands in the scripture. Children are NOT a commodity, but loved individuals belonging to (and recognized) by Him, even as they grow in the womb. Perhaps this is what's wrong with this discussion; if we try hard enough, we believe we can out-guess God's will for the human race and solve the "problem" with our finite minds...very dangerous! Or God's earth and all that is in it, cannot be entrusted to only His ways and care.

Posted By: Stan | September 3, 2010 6:26 PM

not that what i think matters but God knows how many people are having children, the fault lies in humans that don't manage his resources well. Having children isn't the issue, God doesn't allow every human to make it through the birth canal so if He wants there to be less people, i mean he'd allow a famine or whatever. but PEOPLE don't do what they are supposed to so there's lack only because of people, the duggars have the resources they need cuz God provided them. So the arguement that people should stop having childen is moot. He is the one that opens and closes the womb. peace.

Posted By: allison | September 5, 2010 3:48 PM

It was the creatures of the sea and the birds of the air that God first told to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:22). We humans need to be sure that we do not interfere with that.

Posted By: Dianne | September 6, 2010 2:23 AM

Fast Check Muslim demographics an article by Amanda Read at awakengeneration.com

http://www.awakengeneration.com/thoughts/beheard/998

Godly parents produce godly children who spread the good news of Jesus Christ to a lost and spiritually dying world. Godly parents who do not produce children out of concern for the environment contribute to what? the demise of Christianity?

Posted By: JEB | September 6, 2010 12:56 PM

I haven't read all of the comments so if someone else has responded with this info, so be it - but all of this "overpopulation" talk is a smoke screen.

Birth Rate:
United States of America - .977%
Australia - 1.195 %
Saudi Arabia - 1.848 %
United Arab Emirates - 3.69
China - .66

Check out the fertility rates - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=126#us

In America on average each woman is giving birth to 2.05 children -that means we are barely producing enough children to have the same population a generation from now.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=126#us

Australia's fertility rate is 1.20 per woman- which means a generation from now they will have half the amount of citizens in their country.

Unless I completely misunderstand these statistics - these are all smoke screens.

Posted By: Leslie | September 7, 2010 10:34 AM

Thank you for your comment, Shawn. Can you indicate a place in the post where Lisa Graham McMinn implied that children were "filthy vermin," that she in any sense de-emphasizes or questions the value and worth of human life?

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | September 7, 2010 3:32 PM

Doesnt anyone use the Bible anymore to support thier views.

A few verses come to mind when thinking about children...

Psalm 127:3-5 ESV
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

Deuteronomy 7:14
You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock.

These are but two of many verses that deal with children and how we should see them as. Indeed the actions of this man, James Lee, do not line up with Scripture. Even Christians can be led astray to think that children are just a burden that need to be dealt with until they become of somewhat good use in thier mid teen years. This is a concept developed by secular society in order to promote laziness and irresponsibility( which is the root of birth control and other such devices.)

Instead our biblically founded response should NOT be to limit how many kids we have in order to conserve the environment. Yes, we are given responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation, but if we have to worry about whether global warming is going to kill us tomorrow because we had a baby today, we risk underminig the supremacy of Christ in holding all things together, including life on this planet.

To sum it all up, all children are a blessing from God, which brings along responsibility for training them as well. Stewardship, a part of this training, but also realizing that God has given us dominance over all creation, and the ability to use it as we please, hopefully pointing parents and children alike to promote the glory of God, and His fierce pursuit of it.

Posted By: A Deude | September 7, 2010 11:43 PM

Leslie, you seem to be misunderstanding the statistics, perhaps because you are taking them out of context. You need to also look at:
Niger - 7.75
Uganda - 6.77
Somalia - 6.52
Congos - 6.20 & 5.84
Afghanistan - 5.60
Rwanda - 5.12
Gaza Strip - 5.03
Israel - 2.75
Mexico - 2.34
Is it any wonder that many of these countries are, or have recently been, engaged in wars over land.

What you really need to look at is world population. The current population growth rate is estimated at 1.133%. While that may not seem high, remember that it is working on a very large base and that it compounds.

Here is a chart of world population growth since the year 1, with estimates to 2050.
[geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm]
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion
Notice the decreasing amount of time it takes to add a billion people or even double the population.

Birth rate is not the only factor in population growth. Life expectancy is another major factor. If a country has a birth rate of 2.0, but life expectancy increases, the population will increase. Rapidly increasing life expectancy was a factor in China’s population crisis. Life expectancy is increasing in much of the world.

A third factor is immigration. With a growing population across an uncontrolled, and seemingly uncontrollable border, I don’t think the U.S. needs to worry about a shrinking population.

Here is a chart of U.S. population growth since the first census in 1790. The geographic size of the country was also growing during the early years.
[www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm]
Year Population
1790 3,929,000
1800 5,308,000
1810 7,240,000
1820 9,638,000
1830 12,866,000
1840 17,069,000
1850 23,192,000
1860 31,443,000
1870 38,558,000
1880 50,189,000
1890 62,980,000
1900 76,212,000
1910 92,228,000
1920 106,022,000
1930 123,203,000
1940 132,164,000
1950 151,325,000
1960 179,323,000
1970 203,302,000
1980 226,542,000
1990 248,710,000
2000 281,422,000
2010 299,862,000 - Estimate

Posted By: Dianne | September 13, 2010 2:34 AM