Stanek weekend Q: Is it “dishonest gain” to forego having children until we think we can afford them?
Prefer loss to the wealth of dishonest gain; the former vexes you for a time;
the latter will bring you lasting remorse.
~ Chilo
Nancy Leigh DeMoss wrote in her devotional book The Quiet Place for February 11:
And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. ~ Philippians 4:19
The first fear [about relinquishing total control of our lives to God] is one of provision: “Will I have what I need?”
What if I lose my job? Can we afford to have more children? How will we pay for their education?…. What if the economy goes under?…. Will we have enough to get by?
God knew we would naturally be concerned about these things, yet His Word frequently exhorts us not to worry about how our future needs will be met. Rather, Scripture says, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added to you” (Matt 6:33)….
Trusting God in matters of practical provision is no small matter. If we are unwilling to do so, we can expect to be plagued by such things as greed, cheating, worry, covetousness, lack of generosity, and all the unsettledness that comes from centering our lives around money.
His Word, however, provides us a sure basis for anxiety-free living by promising that He will “supply every need” (though not necessarily every want). Rather than fretting, striving, or manipulating, we can simply stand on His promises and confidently ask Him to provide.
When we make a decision to forego having children – or more children – in order to be more financially secure, is it seeking financial gain dishonestly? Are we stealing from God? Are we unknowingly settling for second best?
[Graphic via desicomments.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
If the decision was merely an effort to save money, than I would say that it was a bad decision. I would characterize it as more akin to a crippling of our relationship with God. Our priorities are a good indication of what we “treasure”. In addition, fear is rarely a good motivation.
We can just as easily ask the question: Do people take childbearing and the responsibility of raising children as seriously as they should?
I’m no less troubled by reproduction for reproduction’s sake alone. People who give no thought to consequences or responsibilities. I’m deeply troubled by people who call themselves PL cheering on pregnancy, especially a high risk pregnancy, like its a day at the Kentucky Derby. I’m troubled by celebrities who glamorize illegitimacy, pregnancy, and parenthood. Pregnancy is something to be taken very, very seriously, as well as the responsibility of raising children.
its pretty simplistic to say that people will have small families or decide not to have children are doing it strictly to have extra money. We all make decisions in our lives, God gave us free will. We make these decisions knowing God may have other plans for us and our decisions may have to change down the road. But that doesn’t mean we don’t make them .having 2 children instead of 10 children meant that I had time to volunteer more,to serve more of my children’s school and the church., and that now rather than still caring for my own children, I have a large ministry that cares for women in crisis pregnancy. I’ve been able to save the lives of other women’s children I called them against abortion. That was God’s plan for my life. Had he decided I should have more children of my own, I’m pretty darn sure he could have made that happen regardless of my plans.Its presumptuous to assume what other peoples motivations are and what faith level they have based on the size of their families.
What I object to is the way people demonize those who choose to have large families. They are taking good care of their children and not expecting society to take care of them, yet people act as though they are doing something wrong. Larger families used to be the norm and now people act as though those parents are stupid or irresponsible.
I have a friend who is the mother of nine and people keep asking her when she is going to be fixed. Her answer….I am not broken. Another thoughtless comment is don’t you know what causes this?
Totally agree, Susie. Judging from either side is terrible. We all need to mind our own business and stick to working in our society to cherish ALL children, our own, the unborn, the abused and the rejected. Why waste precious time and energy judging each other.
“We all need to mind our own business and stick to working in our society to cherish ALL children, our own, the unborn, the abused and the rejected. Why waste precious time and energy judging each other.”
THIS.
Hi Susie Allen,
People had large families to increase the likelihood of children surviving to adulthood. Not something parents could always take for granted.
I have no issue with people having large families so long as the parents do the parenting. I consider it a complete dereliction of parental responsibility to dump children on their older siblings to care for. It wasn’t the choice of the older siblings to have the children. I resented how it was assumed that I would take care of my sister’s kids. I didn’t have them!!
Hi Sue,
Exactly.
Reproduction just for the sake of reproduction does not make one a parent or prove love and/or unselfishness. I wish more people would think as responsibly as you.
Hi Sue,
You make another great point. The purpose of our brains isn’t to separate our ears. There are times when it is loving and responsible to put the well being and safety of a spouse and children first and foremost and realize that another pregnancy is not a safe or sound idea. I believe a truly responsible man and/or woman of true religious conviction or of no religious conviction, does this.
I prefer to read this question as an opportunity for self-reflection, rather than judging others. I believe that is the way it was meant. Although my family size wasn’t limited by financial considerations, it was limited by plenty of other concerns.
Given that, the concept of “dishonest” doesn’t resonate with me. I now believe God intended me to have more children than I did. But that doesn’t make my mistaken fears, desire to have a life I felt I could handle, concepts about what responsible parenting entailed, etc dishonest. Nor do I believe saying “No” to a gift is stealing. I absolutely believe that I am missing out on many of the blessings God had planned for me due to my past choices and probably many of my current choices too. My desire and struggle to fully trust in the Lord will probably be a lifelong challenge. I don’t beat myself up over the past, it’s better to live the present moment as faithfully as I can and look to the future with hope. Although I’ve said No to gifts God wished to shower on me, I also know that what He has planned for me is wondrous beyond my imagining.
That photo can’t be more wrong. Anyone that has spent time with larger families know that there is so much more love there. God wants larger, loving families, because it binds us tighter together, yet at the same time distributes the load. It’s hard to be selfish/self-focused when you’re surrounded by siblings.
I also believe God provides for the faithful family. A really great example of this was the Curtis family written about by Barbara Curtis at http://mommylife.net
I’ve see this in other faithful families as well.
James and Bethany (bethany.preciousinfants.com) would probably be able to speak about God’s providence (if they can find the time to share).
I don’t think it’s a matter of truly stealing from God, but if the only debt we have is one of Love, then by not having larger families, we’re stealing from ourselves.
Hi Chris Arsenault,
Please, you absolutely cannot generalize like that. There are large happy families, there are large miserable families. A friend of mine came from a family of 7 children, all of whom spent their childhoods in foster care. Her mother’s life was a horror story.
If God wants large families so badly why are some people infertile or have difficulty carrying pregnancies to term?
Also when it comes to discussing “faithful” families, keep in mind that we never know what goes on behind closed doors, no matter how “perfect” a family may seem.
Chris, that’s never made sense to me. People have horrific things happen to them all the time, people starve, or their children die of diseases, or the husband falls off the roof while he’s fixing a shingle and is paralyzed, etc. All kindsa things, even to very faithful and adoring Christians. Am I just misunderstanding what you mean by “provide”? Because otherwise it just looks victim-blamey imo and I don’t understand how you reconcile that with reality. I’ve watched too many people, yes even Christians who were very devoted, become homeless and hungry.
“Please, you absolutely cannot generalize like that. There are large happy families, there are large miserable families”
Yup. I have five siblings. I only still speak to one of them. Large families are not necessarily happier.
I do think it’s incredibly presumptuous for other people to assume that they know what God wanted for any particular family. What if God wanted that couple to have zero biological children but dedicate their lives to charity work? What if God wanted that couple to only have two biological children and spend the rest of their time and energy in doing temporary foster care? Or anything else that requires massive amounts of energy and time that you might not be able to do with a ton of biological children. It’s obvious God calls people to different vocations, hobbies, charity, etc… but you think he wants everyone to have a large family with no variation. I think that’s just silly. For all you know the couple forgoing children because they can’t afford it, is because they feel called to charity work in Africa and don’t have the cash to do both. Or anything like that. God might have something else than ten kids in mind for that family, and I think it’s between the couple and God what that is or what is important for that family’s financial security.
And I don’t think it’s particularly moral to have so many children that you end up needing assistance for most of your life. I don’t see how that’s preferable or more trusting God than limiting your family size (prayerfully) with non-abortive means.
“And I don’t think it’s particularly moral to have so many children that you end up needing assistance for most of your life.”
I don’t think the decision is either moral or amoral–to me, simply having children is a morally neutral act– but plenty of unkind things have been said on this website about welfare recipients. The posts about the Duggars would have an entirely different tone if they relied on charity to care for their brood.
“I don’t think the decision is either moral or amoral–to me, simply having children is a morally neutral act– but plenty of unkind things have been said on this website about welfare recipients. The posts about the Duggars would have an entirely different tone if they relied on charity to care for their brood”
You know I don’t bash on welfare recipients, so you can see my point (which wasn’t that I personally think there’s anything immoral about needing assistance) I don’t see how under this idea of morality, how would it be justifiable to have a bunch of kids at you may not be able to care for, and other people will have to help you (which I’m fine with, people seem to have issues with it though). It just seems like a lose-lose thing here. If you limit your family size because of financial concerns, you’ll be judged, but if you need assistance you’ll get just as much judgement along with “shoulda kept it in your pants” type of stuff. You see the point I was trying to bring up? How can both these things be immoral and worthy or judgement? Seems like it should be mutually exclusive.
Jack, I absolutely see your point, and agree. The only solution is to just be rich in the first place.
“ The only solution is to just be rich in the first place.”
The only way to beat the game is to unlock the cheat codes! Lol.
But seriously, I realize that not everyone who is pro-big families for everyone judges if people have “too many” kids and end up on assistance, but I do think there’s some cognitive dissonance with some social and fiscal conservatives there. Fact is, if you’re in a certain socioeconomic class, more children might put you in the position of needing more help than charity can provide, possibly for years. I just recently got a job that can easily provide for me and two kids, I can’t imagine what a family of five or six would do at my income level. Personally, I think if people are going to push the big families idea, they need to be realistic about what housing, electricity, health insurance, food, and other necessities cost nowadays and how after a certain point the working class simply can’t afford it without significant help.
And my other points still stands, I think it’s weird to think that God calls people for different things except in regards to family size. I think it’s between the couple and God to decide what is wise for them. And people need to realize it’s not necessary to degrade smaller families to support big families. Big families can be awesome! I wish my family was healthier because I always liked the idea of a big happy family, and I wish my kids had cousins they could get to know too (ex is an only child unfortunately). But smaller families can be awesome too and I don’t think the parents necessarily did anything sinful or unwise, certainly not “stealing” from God or cheating anything, in limiting their family size.
Right, it’s either “you shouldn’t have had sex if you couldn’t afford more kids!” or “you can always afford more kids, just use cloth diapers, yada yada yada.” The virtue of a big family always rests on the parents’ ability to stay off public assistance.
Anyway, congrats on the job, Jack!
To forgoe or not is up to them, but to plow ahead expecting God “to provide” in all cases is a bit presumptuous. “Do not tempt the Lord your God” goes the saying.
It’s always better to have the most secure upbringing you can provide for a child. But try not to forgoe till it’s too late – at least for a biological child.
“To forgoe ore not is up to them, but to plow ahead expecting God “to provide” in all cases is a bit presumptious. “Do not tempt the Lord your God” goes the saying.”
It’s a real misuse/misquoting of scripture to compare having children and trusting God to provide as “tempting God”. Jesus was explicit repeatedly on financial matters and trusting God. He told us to not even give a thought for tomorrow and what we would eat or what we would wear. He said that as God provides for the lilies of the field so would He provide for us. If Jesus is explicit in his telling us to trust Him then it is most certainly NOT tempting God to actually trust Him!
That tempting God quote was from when Satan told Christ to throw himself off a mountain and know God would protect him. Having children is the natural result of sex inside marriage. Tempting God is throwing yourself off a mountain expecting God to work a miracle to protect you. Not even remotely comparable.
In reality most views on this matter come from the world and society at large and certainly not from scripture. But people now are just so far from that. Pretty much everyone accepts birth control now and chooses to reinterpret scripture according to a modern understanding that’s in total contradiction of the long standing teachings and practices of Christians all over the world and all through the ages. We gag and choke now at the idea of gay marriage being real marriage but will it be that way 70 years from now? Will we all ignore the writings in scripture and the understandings over this issue that are 2 millenia in practice because we now “know better”?
Scripture also explicitly says God opens and closes the womb and that children are a gift of God. How in the world can we be so presumptuous as to call it tempting God by actually not attempting to thwart or prevent Him opening and closing the womb?
Marcella,
First of all, that quote about not giving a thought to what to eat or wear tomorrow was from Jesus’ instructions to His disciples as He sent them out on a mission. We are certainly supposed to plan out tomorrow
And doesn’t say in the Old Testament – maybe Proverbs – that we should “owe not”?
Every time I read of a family that denies medical care to their children so they can depend only on God, I think of that passage about the Temptation. Satan tells Jesus to go ahead and jump off the Temple, because won’t the angels rescue Him? Of course He answered: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God!”
We shouldn’t be daring God to “pull our fat out of the fire”. There’s nothing wrong with family planning (way before the family occurs). To be fruitful and multiply doesn’t mean “as much as humanly possible”.
The article was meant for SELF reflection. Not JUDGING everyone else. I have seen so much bashing of people for large families (particularly among so called “pro-lifers”) it’s made me defensive of THEM. I would give ANYTHING to have my 10 children, but unfortunately God chose to take away 6. It’s not about how many children you have. It’s about having FAITH & not just slamming the door in God’s face when he tries to give you the incredibly awesome gift of children. It’s about having FAITH & trying to discern what GOD wants for us NOT our materialistic desires and popular culture. Popular culture right now, unfortunately views children as disposable and a burden. Popular culture right now harshly judges people with large families out of jealousy or irrational condescension. People are going to do what they are going to do, despite God’s best intentions for them. It’s really important for opportunities and guidance like this for a chance to look at ourselves and our OWN motives. Pro-lifers PLEASE look at your attitude towards large families, people on assistance, and towards contraception. It’s the CONTRACEPTIVE mentality which has snowballed into the present culture of death. It’s the CONTRACEPTIVE mentality which has given way to the logical next step of a terrible attitude toward children and seeing them as a burden instead of the BLESSING which they ARE. Every single one of them.
“In reality most views on this matter come from the world and society at large and certainly not from scripture. But people now are just so far from that. Pretty much everyone accepts birth control now and chooses to reinterpret scripture according to a modern understanding that’s in total contradiction of the long standing teachings and practices of Christians all over the world and all through the ages. We gag and choke now at the idea of gay marriage being real marriage but will it be that way 70 years from now? Will we all ignore the writings in scripture and the understandings over this issue that are 2 millenia in practice because we now “know better”?”
Yes, and people starved and died for centuries, and watched their children starve and die for centuries. Very religious people as well, which is why I think this “God will always provide for people if you trust him” thing is kinda victim blaming, it seems to be implying that people who starve and die and have other horrible things happen failed in their faith. It sounds like the “prosperity gospel” which I personally think is disgusting theology.
I think someone must be misinterpreting something if you think you don’t have to use discernment in child-bearing. I think Hans has got it right, based on reality and scripture. If you’d ever seen homelessness and deprivation any notions of God making food magically appear regardless of how many children you have or your financial circumstances would go out of your head instantly. It’s simply not reality, people die and suffer in terrible circumstances however faithful they are.
“Every time I read of a family that denies medical care to their children so they can depend only on God, I think of that passage about the Temptation. Satan tells Jesus to go ahead and jump off the Temple, because won’t the angels rescue Him? Of course He answered: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God!””
Good analogy. Obviously most people who claim that God will provide for you if you have ten children on a mechanic’s salary don’t think it’s okay to let your child die of treatable illnesses because of “trusting in God”. I don’t get where they see the difference.
Oh and thanks Blue Velvet. I enjoy not having to worry if my kids will have food or not at the end of the month. Even partial, tenuous, financial security feels great after destitution!
“The article was meant for SELF reflection. Not JUDGING everyone else. I have seen so much bashing of people for large families (particularly among so called “pro-lifers”) it’s made me defensive of THEM.”
Personally I’ve only seen pro-lifers bash on large families that rely totally or partially on public assistance. Maybe there’s the odd pro-lifer who is anti-big families in general, but most seem pro-big family. Some pro-choicers bash large families in general, but usually the pro-lifers bashing large families are the extreme fiscal conservative types who don’t care about the amount of kids unless you dip into public coffers. What I have seen is many pro-lifers bashing on people with smaller families, as if people who have one or two kids are only selfishly thinking of their daily Starbucks and their next Mercedes, instead of the more likely scenario that they are thinking of how to feed more kids and provide them health insurance. You kinda do it yourself with the “contraceptive mentality” meme.
Plenty of people use contraceptives responsibly with no intention of aborting if a pregnancy results in spite of their attempts to contracept. Contraceptives didn’t bring the “culture of death”, people were committing infanticide for millennia as well as aborting (not to the extent today, but that’s just because it’s safer for the woman nowadays). It’s an age old problem, killing off “unwanted” babies, and contraceptives were not responsible for it.
Tenuous financial security — the reality of working in America these days, I guess, though I’m definitely counting my blessings. I hope the new job is enjoyable, if paid work can ever be that!
I am pessimistic about the future of our nation, economy, and culture. The personal and public debt is a time bomb, and we have lost our cultural tradition for independence and self-reliance.
When the professional job incomes are gone and the paper wealth has disappeared…. who will survive and thrive? I propose that the folks who have large, intact families and extended family relationships will pull each other through.
The divorced and blended and isolated families will suffer. We already know that single-parent homes suffer the most poverty. Elderly adults who lose their savings in the collapse and who have to depend on one or two or no children will be another big poverty class.
“When the professional job incomes are gone and the paper wealth has disappeared…. who will survive and thrive? I propose that the folks who have large, intact families and extended family relationships will pull each other through. ”
Well, some of us have no extended family relationships through no fault of their own. Sometimes families are terrible. I realize it’s difficult for people to understand if they came from a reasonably healthy family, but there are millions of people who cannot and should not be involved with their family. This was always true, but in the past where family was the only choice, things like abuse and neglect were ignored because your family was the only thing you had to not starve. No such things as CPS and social services. I do not wish society to return to this point.
But anyway, besides that, some fear of society collapsing doesn’t help or mean anything to the couple who cannot afford to feed and clothe another child right now without assistance. This is why it’s catch-22. Yes, a big, close, family (when they become adults) does help you along in life especially during economic down times. But if you don’t have one yourself, it’s pretty hard to pop out six kids and hope for the best if you can’t provide for them. I don’t know why this is a difficult concept to grasp. Having safe and close parents and siblings is invaluable when you have your own kids. If you are missing that, it’s pretty difficult to raise a bunch of your own unless you’re already wealthy.
“Tenuous financial security — the reality of working in America these days, I guess, though I’m definitely counting my blessings. I hope the new job is enjoyable, if paid work can ever be that!”
I enjoy it, fixing up cars is easy for me and mechanic’s get paid decently for a working class job and most people will need a mechanic at some point, so it’s pretty stable once you can get in a job.
If my husband and I had waited until we could have afforded children we never would have had any. By child number three I had ALL of the clothing, and contraptions I needed. More than enough. Hand me downs after that.
As for large families HER BODY HER CHOICE right?
Why do others feel the urge to say whatever pops into their brains to mothers and fathers of large families?? In the line at Walmart. Going to the grocery store. At the park. Good grief. Zip it already. It’s rude.
Hell must have frozen over because I agreed with BV on a couple of things. :)
“Why do others feel the urge to say whatever pops into their brains to mothers and fathers of large families?? In the line at Walmart. Going to the grocery store. At the park. Good grief. Zip it already. It’s rude.”
Probably the same type of people who feel free to remark on what they think of single dads, positive or negative, when they see me with my kids and no wedding ring. Perfect strangers! People are rude. It never fails to amaze me how many people think that you’re just dying to know their unsolicited opinion on your family structure or parenting style. People do it against every family, it’s ridiculous.
“As for large families HER BODY HER CHOICE right?”
100%, yes.
Mary – I’ve personally known large families where most of the siblings were distributed across the state penal system and foster system. Everything, including families are subject to corruption on this earth. Still, God made it clear – His very first command was: be fruitful and multiply. He said that knowing sin was about to be unleashed upon the world, that Able was going to be killed by Cain, that His own innocent Son was to be hung upon a cross by his extended family – the children of Israel.
And yet, the Father still loves us – his wayward children.
I did mention loving and faithful families – that does infer a Christ-centered family. That doesn’t mean all the children are believers, but the parents are, and lead the family that way.
As for infertility – Sarai was barren until quite late in life. I’m not wise enough to understand the plans of God, but I trust He knows what he’s doing.
It’s very difficult to tell while experiencing something if it’s a blessing or a curse. I’ve grown to see prosperity be a curse to many, despite the prosperous being happy. I’ve also seen what may seem like tragedies be instrumental in profound personal changes and often deep outpourings of love. The Chinese have a tale that conveys wisdom:
An old man lived in a village with his wife and son. One day his son was careless, and left the corral gate loosely tied – their horse broke loose and ran away. His neighbors exclaimed – “what bad luck!” but the man looked at them and said “bad-luck or good luck I do not know.” They laughed as if he were a fool. The next day, the horse returned to the corral with 6 wild horses. The neighbors exclaimed “what good luck!” the man replied “good-luck or bad luck I do not know.” They laughed as if he were a fool. The next week his son fell and broke his leg while trying to ride one of the new horses. “Oh bad-luck!” the neighbors exclaimed. The old man replied the same as before, but fewer laughed. A week later, a military conscription unit came through and took all the young men of the village except for the son with the broken leg. They also took all the old man’s horses. When they all marched off – the villagers stood with the old man and his son and said ”bad-luck or good luck – we do not know.” The old man remained silent. Some months later a military messenger came back to the village to inform them all their sons died in battle. The old man stood there among the grieving and exclaimed – “this I know – this is bad.”
My personal feeling is that all families should have 4 kids. It has been studied and documented that the fourth child is always the most adorable and the smartest of all the siblings. ;-)
I guess I should add as a disclaimer that I am the youngest of 4.
Please note that most of us unfaithfuls here with less than 5 kids are not the ones rolling our eyes at large families. However, we appear to make some of the faithfuls with 5 or more kids roll their eyes at us. Not just today either.
And yes, Hans has it right. Worrying is different from planning. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish as we go about our days. If we believe God does not want us to THINK about finances, why car insurance, why savings, etc.?
My children like to count how many times I am told my hands are full.
My personal favorite is when a stranger will count ALOUD ON HER FINGERS the number of children we have and then come show me how many fingers worth of children I have.
Although the woman who wanted to argue with me about how surely these two must be twins was rather amusing as well.
I DO NOT like when people pry into my bedroom, don’t you know what causes that, what no TV? Or even squeaky bed… Just rude.
When The Lord had closed my womb for 4.5 years before opening it so very well, I had people try to convince me to have children.
While I want to be approachable and don’t want to be a society of unconnected individuals who don’t care for one another, I think a lot of people view strangers as curiosities or sounding boards without really concerning themselves with the fact that strangers are people with emotions too.
“Still, God made it clear – His very first command was: be fruitful and multiply. He said that knowing sin was about to be unleashed upon the world, that Able was going to be killed by Cain, that His own innocent Son was to be hung upon a cross by his extended family – the children of Israel. ”
How does that translate into a specific amount of kids? How do you know if anyone else has circumvented God’s will? I mean 2 times 0.5 is 1 so bam, a family with one child has multiplied lol. That’s what I don’t get about the judging of those with just two or three kids. If there are any kids the “requirement” seems to me to be fulfilled, so I don’t see how it’s anyone else’s business besides the couple and God how many kids there are or the reasons behind not having more are. I don’t mind these discussions when it’s self-reflection, but what I despise is when the conversations goes from talking about how big families can be very good to talking about how people with smaller families are not doing God’s will and how our families are obviously inferior and less-loving, because we have less kids than whatever ideal family size the speaker has in mind. It’s useless judgment and I don’t see any Biblical justification for it.
And plus I think some people are just not meant to be or called to be parents at all, even people in couples, so there’s that as well. Childless people also get harassed a lot which is not cool and still, no one’s business.
“My personal favorite is when a stranger will count ALOUD ON HER FINGERS the number of children we have and then come show me how many fingers worth of children I have.”
Lol that’s so incredibly rude. I have no idea what goes through people’s heads sometimes. I remember when I was a small child and my older siblings still lived at home, my mother (and my eldest sister if she was the one with us) would get nasty, passive-aggressive comments too for having a large family. And then I get the “how often do you babysit your kids?” comments, along with “why did you take the kid from their mother, kids that young should be with mom”, among others, which I think are invasive and rude questions from strangers. I seriously don’t understand the concept of telling strangers what you think of their families and thinking that’s appropriate. It’s absolutely foreign thinking to me.
It seems like most of the celebrities who have children out of wedlock are living together at the time, and if they do break up later, often years later, it’s pretty much just like a divorce. (or it really is a divorce, because many have gotten married by then) So anyway, even though it technically is single parenthood, they are not usually actually LIVING single parenthood when they are together with the child(ren).
I think God wants our heart to abide in Him every day. As we do that we will know precisely what direction He is leading us moment to moment. For some this will mean large families. For others this will mean small. For other this will mean single celibacy. He will use finances, health, age, location, calling, and more as factors in directing our path. He might say generally that we should multiply and fill the earth… but then when a couple finds themselves infertile they need to be plugged in for something more personalized. He might say generally that it’s better to be single and not pre-occupied with the responsibilities of spouse and children… but then how many of us get deeply caught by the love-n-marriage vision before we inquire of Him for what He plans for us personally? If we drift from Him or act without full understanding and end up other than on His original will for us, He’ll be quick to forgive us and work with where we are right then. We can intend to walk with Him but our finite minds get in our own way… and we can intend to foil His plans and play right into them. It’s about our heart belonging to Him. And He is faithful.
The whole concept of ‘waiting till you are financially capable’ is kind of a fairy tale anyway. Any and every day of your life there are children that need your financial help. Many are prepared financially but not emotionally. In any case there is always more you could to ‘prepare’ yourself to take care of your children and society’s needy. Quit waiting and get to it.
Beautiful and true, Laurie! And I certainly have tried to foil His plans, but He just keeps making rainbows! How great is our God!
Ahhhh, nothing shows support for women and families like implying that a couple who chooses to only have one or two kids made that decision only so they could have more money, or because they’re not Christian enough.
We can’t win really. If I had 6 kids, I’d be getting side-eyed for having too many. If I have 2, I’ll have people like Chris A. telling me I suck at being a Christian and I’m selfish and so on.
Its all so, so stupid and mean-spirited and unsupportive – and a HUGE waste of time – to be making this in to a debate.
Great points Amanda,
Babies entered this world in the very best, and very worst, of circumstances.
If our ancestors had dedicated this much time to this nonsensical naval gazing, the human race would have died out long ago.
Mary – indeed. Its the ultimate first world problem/symptom of too much time on our hands and need for distractions to be arguing over how many kids are “good enough” and whether our reasons for that decision are “good enough”. I’ve spent the last 3 hours (needed a lunch break) trying to track down used hearing aids to bring with me to the Congo in a couple of weeks. I wonder how productive a conversation with parents there about who had too many or too few kids would be. :P
Hi Amanda,
In the course of your charitable work you see what REAL problems are. You are to be thanked and commended for all you are doing.
Thanks Mary – but after the winter we’ve been having, I’m just as excited about being under the hot sun as I am for the work my husband and I will be doing, hehehe :)
When the professional job incomes are gone and the paper wealth has disappeared…. who will survive and thrive? – the people running the gop.
Hell must have frozen over because I agreed with BV on a couple of things. – gosh darned climate change!!!
You want 1 child? Have 1 child. You want 15 children? Have 15 children. It’s no one elses business and the number of children bears no relationship to how happy any particular family unit can be.
“When the professional job incomes are gone and the paper wealth has disappeared…. who will survive and thrive? – the people running the gop.”
How do you figure? The way I see it, the people who run the political parties would not make it very far. Most of them were born privileged brats and would have no idea how to be hungry or live with deprivation. They’d cry to the working poor and the working poor would remember years of degradation and spite, and probably ignore their whining.
I think tree hugging hippies, small farmers, and vegetarians would do best in an economic collapse lol.
I’m talking about the real power behind the gop LDPL. Some are known, some slightly known and others not really known at all. They hold such vast quantities of everything there is no downturn that has any great negative impact on them.
Oh well, at least small farmers can stay standing while they milk their cows ;-)
Did you know that the 85 richest people in the world have as much as the bottom 3.5 billion.
I did know that, but I’m not talking about money. Del mentioned economic collapse where money is worthless. All their “stuff” wouldn’t do them much good then, if they don’t have skills to grow their own food, and don’t know how to live in a crappy situation and still thrive. If there’s no electricity their gadgets wouldn’t do them any good either. But people who can grow their own food and milk their own cows, etc, they’ll be able to feed themselves.
Leave me to my post-civilization musings!
Property, gold and jewellry, resources, equipment etc. etc. do tend to help. They’d still be paying others to do stuff for them, just like has happened in almost all civilizations back through history.
Alright, back to the compost you go then :-)
Jack, food and milk won’t cut it in a true economic collapse. Guns, etc., will.
When we make a decision to forego having children – or more children – in order to be more financially secure, is it seeking financial gain dishonestly?
Do what you want, as far as number of kids, be it zero, be it two, be it ten.
“Financially secure,” is totally subjective, from the get-go.
Reality,
you want 1 child? Have 1 child. You want 15 children? Have 15 children. It’s no one elses business and the number of children bears no relationship to how happy any particular family unit can be.
Summed up very well. Maybe now we can put the kibosh to this navel gazing and concern ourselves with what is really important.
Lambasting those who have children when they can’t fully and 100% support them themselves?
Say what???
“The way I see it, the people who run the political parties would not make it very far. Most of them were born privileged brats and would have no idea how to be hungry or live with deprivation.”
Lol Jack, you remind me of a satirical show I worked on. There was a scene where a rich guy is lamenting his declining fortunes, to a poor guy who politely points out that even those declining fortunes are more than he himself has ever had. The rich guy says, “Well, it’s easier for a poor person to be poor than for a rich person to be poor. That’s like stuffing a giant into a portapotty!”
Or an episode from the surprisingly funny TV show Raising Hope, about a …downward it mobile, lower lower working class family. I’m not one for sitcoms but I got way into this one while recovering from the flu, and it’s actually quite good. Anyway, in this episode the dad’s parents have always thought their son was a failure etc, because he’s poor and “white trash” etc, but when they fall on hard times themselves they come to him for a place to crash because they don’t want to admit to their other, successful child that they’ve failed financially. After a week of living with their poor son they decide to suck it up and go stay with the rich one instead because it’s too much work being poor. His dad basically says, “Hey, son, all our lives we thought you were a lazy schlub! It turns out, it’s actually a ton of work being you, and you work hard at it, from the coupon clipping to the freezer cooking, to working long hours at a job with crappy pay to support your family. It’s way more work being poor than being rich! I have a newfound respect for you; you’re a better man than I am. And I’m going to stay with the rich kid instead! Because it really sucks being poor.” hahaha it’s such a great show.
Actually, literally “LOL”d at the idea of “the people running the GOP” being the ones to survive a collapse of our developed society. It’ll actually be the fringe – the far right and the far left – who have been anticipating it and planning for it, rather than fighting over whose fault it would be. The hippies are figuring out solar power, irrigation systems, and small-plot farming, while the far right stockpiles guns and bullets and studies defense strategies. If the S hit the fan, all of us who call them crazy will be screwed – and the ones we call crazy now will be pooling their resources and making life work.
I actually think about this sometimes when I’m in the Congo. If things ever fell apart in the world, I’d feel MUCH safer in the middle of the Congo than in the US. They’re already very well accustomed to living “off the grid”, protecting their families while dealing with civil unrest, using solar power, digging their own bore holes for fresh water, caring for livestock, and living off of the land. Americans spend so much time looking down on them that we often fail to see how much we could learn from them.
Most Americans would resort to eating each other within a month. Large family or not. Lol.
ahahaha Jack – I don’t even think we’d get that far. Humans can last weeks without food, but only a few days without the internet :P
And the Republicans would blame the Democrats for the erosion of social stigmas against cannibalism, and the Democrats would blame the Republicans for discriminating against cannibal-oriented individuals. And so it goes.
My internet was out for a week a few months ago. I was not cool with that.
Ha, Yeah that pretty much covers it. And even if it ends up being caused by some completely unpredictable cosmic event – asteroid or something – the republicans will find a way to make it Obama’s fault, and the democrats will not respond with facts, but instead with reasons why ACTUALLY, it was still Bush’s fault.
The great thing about being a moderate is that I have a good friend who has purchased a device that allows him to turn scrap metal in to bullets, and I also have a good friend who has learned how to construct a completely natural waste disposal/compost/irrigation system. When the zombies show up, I think I’ll finally be able to introduce them to each other without anyone getting all ragey (and my role will be chief bunker interior designer, and foraging for sticks and berries) hehehe
Ah, such sweet naivety.
The hippies will die of food poisoning. Or drown. Or electrocute themselves. Or something.
The gun-toters will kill each other in a battle of crazy.
Meanwhile, the mega-wealthy – the ones who really run the gop, not the talking heads you know of – will have their private armies and serfs establishing fiefdoms utilising their vast landholdings and other resources.
Vegetarians rarely get food poisoning and don’t have to depend on animals being raised for food. We’ll rule the world.
All the rich people will get kuru from their Soylent Green.
Who said there wouldn’t be animals? And if there weren’t would that not be because of a lack of….vegetation?
Actually, the original question was When the professional job incomes are gone and the paper wealth has disappeared…. who will survive and thrive? not ‘who stands the best chance in a post apocalyptic scenario.’
I stick by my original answer – “the real power behind the gop. Some are known, some slightly known and others not really known at all. They hold such vast quantities of everything there is no downturn that has any great negative impact on them.”
mmm, Soylent Green, nom nom nom :-)