In my day it was never a question whether or not a married couple would have children. Oh, sure, there were a few rare ones, but it was not the norm to question whether or not to have children. Indeed, it was not even the question of when. When I was a kid, contraception was relatively new on the scene as an acceptable thing, so having children early in marriage was expected. And "Honey, the doctor says I'm pregnant" was typically not bad news.
Today? Not so much. Many still plan to have children "someday" (without an actual, definite definition of "someday"), but "We're focusing on our marriage right now." There are other things more important at the moment. Save for a house, finish school, pay off loans, establish a career, you know. "We want children eventually, but we can't afford them right now. Right now we're taking care of us." Very common. Very wise. At least in the popular perception. (But, of course, in the popular perception, "No, we don't ever want to have kids; too much demand" is equally wise.)
I started thinking about this. (It's an easy one for me. I have four kids.) Christians are (or should be) "pro-life". That is, we are convinced that we are made in the image of God and, as such, come into this world with nearly infinite worth just by being humans in the image of God. Further, Christians (any Christians who have bothered to read their Bibles) know that the Bible is uniformly positive on the topic of children. They are a blessing, a gift from God, a prime purpose for marriage, the next generation, and so on. There is not a hint in all of Scripture regarding anything like "You should wait to have children until you're ready, you know? Make sure you're financially secure and emotionally prepared." None of today's wisdom on the subject as far as holding off having kids is found in the pages of the Bible.
So, here's my "baby question". If the Bible is universally in favor of children for married people and if we believe that there is genuine and deep value in life, in human life, in the image of God found in people (including every single baby), then why would any couple wish to delay that event? In what sense is "We want to be more comfortable/capable/settled/whatever" a reasonable concept in delaying the blessing and value of children? That is, if children really are God's blessing and of such value, how could you not make every effort to have and afford them? Remember Jesus's treasure-in-the-field parable (Matt 13:44)?
Like I said, just a question. I wonder if our "We can't afford kids right now" concept isn't more of an indication of a serious problem of priorities rather than wise thinking. Sometimes it seems like we have imbibed too much of the world's "wisdom" which the Bible calls foolishness and I'm wondering if this isn't one of those times.
37 comments:
imbibed? nice.
I may have had too much to drink with that one. (You know ... "imbibed too much".) Okay, not really. Just exercising my vocabulary.
I like it.
I don't think that waiting until one can support the children one invites into this world is a negative thing at all. I would hope that having children is important to every couple looking to marry, and that they give serious thought to what that means in every way it can mean anything.
I suppose, Marshall Art, if children are a line item on a budget, that makes sense. I suppose it would make equal sense to avoid getting married until you can support a wife, avoid going to college until you have the funds for it, and to avoid giving to God's work until you have enough to spare. I would argue (I was arguing) that some things you budget for and some things you do because they are worth the cost.
Actually, I would say that, aside from "avoid giving to God's work until you have enough to spare" (because one can always give something), it indeed makes good sense to put off all of those things until such time as it can be afforded, even having kids. Indeed, there was a time when being properly situated was encouraged before tying the knot, and that would include all that went with it, including the kids. I wish more people would think that way, rather than become a burden on society by jumping into that which costs more than they have to spend.
The point of my comment and the point of my post is this. At what point does the value of the thing (in this case, children) outweigh the cost? In Jesus's parable of the treasure in the field, the man sold everything he had to buy the field to get the treasure. The kind of thinking you're suggesting is "Hey, dude, hold off there! Wait until you save up or can at least get a loan you can afford. Don't sell everything you have! That's not ... financially wise." And he would reply, "You just don't understand the value of the treasure."
Odd thing. In earlier times (like maybe 60 years ago), couples never thought, "We'd better hold off on kids until we can afford them lest we and they become a burden on society." They thought, "We'll have kids because it's what we do and it's worth it and we'll do whatever we have to to make that work." And, oddly enough, they did.
What would you say to a couple that has been unable to work for over a year and is living by the good-graces of family? Should they not consider the "cost" of having children?
Ah, you see? That's why it's "A Baby Question".
I think that in earlier times, a dollar went further. One income, usually the husband's, was enough to handle things, including the kids. But I still don't think that at that time the cost of raising a family went without consideration.
Well, I don't mean to be insulting, but I think that is naive, Marshall Art. It's not that their money went further. It's that they had a different set of priorities. Family first. They did without. Feed and clothe and house the family, then consider extras ... like a television or a car. Self-sacrifice in order to care for the family.
Fortunately for us we've managed to eliminate all that falderal and realize that we can have it all as long as we don't have to pay for those pesky little children ...
I think people have more extra money than they realize, even when they are just starting out in a marriage, etc. Kids have a wonderful effect of providing focus and clarity in way that little else does, except God. I believe that is part of the reason He calls them such a blessing. "Out of the mouths of babes" and such. There is a marvelous blessing in that reorienting of priorities. Unfortunately many people don't seem to realize that by the time they have everything 'arranged' so they can 'afford' children, they may have missed the boat to have them! That brings its own heartaches and pains.
Becoming a parent reorients your priorities in a way that you can't understand until you are one. I think a lot of young couples have plenty of 'extra' of a lot of things, which they don't realize until they find themselves with a baby.
A lot of what society deems as 'necessary' or 'prudent' is just an excuse to prolong hedonism, or selfish behaviors, or gives more power to fears about parenting than they deserve. That is not to say that every young couple ought to dive right into having kids, but that many delay far longer than they ought.
The unfortunate consequence for many of those couples these days is that they delay too long, and find that it's not so simple to have children as they thought it would be. There is a shelf life to fertility, and you don't find out if you have 'issues' until you are trying!
I think children provide so many blessings it is impossible to catalog them. "Out of the mouths of babes" is quite a phrase--you get a wonderful and continuous dose of perspective from those little mouths and eyes observing all that you say and do.
Thanks for your input, Science PhD Mom. Thou sayest truly. (I didn't know you were still reading. Nice to hear from you. Hope you and your "little perspectives" ... oh, and Mr. Science PhD Mom ... are all well.
It really is difficult to catalog and evaluate the benefits and effects of having children. I know I wouldn't trade it for more of something else.
I think you're taking things to an extreme. I started late in life, having my own child when I was 40. I was only married for about five years, and I won't say we were avoiding kids, but as we made our attempts, we were always thinking about the cost of having a child, especially since we were still caring for hers from her first marriage. We were quite aware of what it took financially and preparing as best we could was considered essential.
Let me put it this way: There is a scene in the movie "Guess Who's Coming For Dinner?", when the Sidney Poitier character is "dicussing" Sid's upcoming marriage with his father. In the heat of the discussion, with Sidney insisting the decision is his alone, the father reminds him of all that he's done for the kid. Sidney responds that the father owed Sidney all that effort for having dared bring a child into the world. I've always felt the same; that I owe any kid I father more than merely the basics. I also still owe the wife, for having given her life to me.
I like to say that if I was younger, richer, and could have kept my wife drunk long enough, I would have had a dozen kids. I well know and appreciate what they bring to me. But it ain't just about how I benefit. And because I benefit, I owe.
The simple fact, Marshall Art, is that we will always do what we think is best. We will always support what we hold most dear. And the notion that any good father, down on his luck and scrambling to clothe, feed, and house his family, might think, "I never should have had kids if I can't support them" makes me dreadfully sad. I assume that any good parent thinks, "If nothing else works out in my life, having these kids is a blessing for which I'm willing to sacrifice anything and everything."
Too extreme? Maybe. But that was the "Baby Question", wasn't it? Are children valuable enough to bring into this world at all costs, or are they only as valuable as what I can afford to spare after taking care of the other "necessities" (depending on how you define "necessities")? Most would say the latter. So would you. I wonder if that's not the current world system talking rather than Scripture.
I think I see the disconnect between us.
"...are they only as valuable as what I can afford to spare after taking care of the other "necessities" (depending on how you define "necessities")?"
This is not an accurate representation of my position, even if it fits some people somewhere. But to use your angle, I would define "necessities" as food, clothing and shelter. If I cannot provide these basics, I have no right to bring a child into this world. I don't think you're suggesting that children come into existence by complete accident. I would hope that people would recognize the purpose of that activity which is likely to bring about children and not engage in it without considering their arrival. It is far better to plan, to prepare and/or to acknowledge the consequences of sexual activity and not be caught in a situation that might negatively impact the child produced. I say this because I totally acknowledge the value of children, as well as the value of a proper upbringing that provides them with what they need so that they can, in turn, do as much for their own kids.
Having said that, I had not worried about getting "stuff" as much as how I might best support a wife and family. Sure, I like "stuff", but there is several tons of "stuff" I would certainly enjoy owning and doing except that I won't compromise the debt I owe my wife and family just to acquire "stuff". That's because I do indeed highly value my wife and family.
And now, having said that, I hope you can see that I do not hold with any who put off kids for "stuff", but if they must have it, I could foresee problems for the kids if they bring kids into the world while their focus is on other things. But this is also contingent upon the methods employed to avoid pregnancy.
"If I cannot provide these basics, I have no right to bring a child into this world."
If you cannot provide food, clothing, and shelter, they have a special classification for you. It's called "dead". (Humor ... mostly.)
Are you talking theoretically? Like, "If I were to encounter a unicorn, I would ..."? Because by this kind of thinking it would seem that the only responsible thing parents can do if they find themselves actually without any means of obtaining food, clothing, and shelter is to surrender their children to someone who can take care of them.
On the other hand, I do not know of a single couple who marries without the ability to eat, dress, and live somewhere. What I do see a lot of is "We can't afford food, clothing, and shelter" meaning "We can't afford the high end food we want, and we can only afford to get clothes at Walmart, and we're living in a small home with only one bedroom ... and only one spare room ... and only a single car garage. Now, until we're able to afford better food, better clothes, and more living space, it is only the responsible thing to do to wait."
Of course, the more reasoning guy would see the error of that kind of thinking immediately and say, "I can see that that's wrong thinking, so I'll just wait to have kids until I'm able to support my wife in the manner to which she'd like to be accustomed, because that's what a responsible, loving husband does."
Having offered examples of what I would consider seriously faulty thinking, I do accept that there are some cases in which children would be a bad idea. A guy marries a woman with cancer to support her for the last year of her life probably won't think it wise to get his dying wife pregnant. Or a Joni Earickson Tada comes to mind. Or a couple who marries and, weeks after wedding, find themselves both unemployed, unemployable, and on the street. Yeah, that might be a time not to have children. But it would seem that these would be exceptions rather than what we see today, where people put off children nearly indefinitely in order to "be able to support them" meaning "Until we have our fun, obtain the 'stuff' we want, and, as it turns out, get practically too old to even have them."
"...it would seem that the only responsible thing parents can do if they find themselves actually without any means of obtaining food, clothing, and shelter is to surrender their children to someone who can take care of them."
Actually, I've heard that this has been done, usually with the hope that it will be temporary. More commonly is the unwed young mother or even a couple that cannot see a way to handle one more child (my sister's first adopted was born to such a couple).
But the more I think on the matter, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong in any reason for putting off children. I questioned my own ability to be a good father at one point, but eventually felt I'd like to give it a go, so to speak. I've known a few people who never wanted to be a parent.
But even if the reason is due to the desire for "stuff", it is better they not have kids. I'm more concerned with the means they have chosen by which they hope to avoid pregnancy.
You would argue, then, that any reason for putting off (or putting off forever) having kids is a good reason?
Which brings me full circle to my question. Is that a biblical, Christian view? Doesn't it contradict Scripture?
By "good reason" you may mean "It's a good thing that people like that don't have kids." By "good reason" I mean "good in the eyes of God." With my definition, I'm having a hard time finding very many reasons or circumstances to put off children that are not defined as "sin". Selfishness. Greed. Laziness. Lots of reasons. But not "good reasons".
I don't believe I implied that all reasons for not having kids (or delaying having kids) are "good" reasons. Good reasons exist and of those I have in mind, some of which I listed, I don't believe God would find fault. The welfare of the children isn't to be ignored, and I don't believe "Be fruitful and multiply" should be taken to mean do so without any thought to the consequences. It is not selfish or greedy to think in terms of economic ramifications. It is good stewardship as well as concern for the welfare of the family to be. Otherwise, no line can be drawn without conflicting with your understanding, including marriage, having a job at all, or a home or a plan of any kind for the care and raising of those kids. Just multiply.
Indeed, for the sake of the kids, I would prefer that potential parents overcome their selfishness, greed or laziness before procreating. The kids will need and deserve the opposite in their parents. For some, having kids would compel such change. But it isn't uncommon to find that marriage doesn't compel change in some men and women, so why should we expect kids to compel change?
I agree with the basic premise of your point. It's just the practical application presents too many serious problems for the whole family if no planning and preparation takes place first.
Marshall Art:"Indeed, for the sake of the kids, I would prefer that potential parents overcome their selfishness, greed or laziness before procreating."
That's why I conclude that your position is "Any reason is a good reason."
"I'm too selfish."
"Then don't have kids."
"I'm too greedy."
"Then don't have kids."
"I'm too lazy."
"Then don't have kids."
All equate to "We're not ready" -- the common version. And the "right" answer is "Then don't have kids."
And if having kids is on the order of "good stewardship" and a matter of preference, then the real answer to my baby question is, "No, kids are not worth all costs." Other priorities are higher. Get yourself in a better position. Get yourself a better character. Get yourself more responsibility. Get yourself more settled. Lots of reasons for placing children lower on the value list.
Or they are near the top of the value list and the response would be, "We're not ready, but they're so important that we're going to proceed -- get ready, become the people we should be, give up what we must, submit to God fully -- while we seek to have children. And God will see to it that we don't receive them sooner than He believes to be right."
But my point is that I do indeed understand and appreciate the value of kids and thus will not compromise on that understanding. Indeed, your last paragraph seems to agree with me:
"...they're so important that we're going to proceed -- get ready, become the people we should be, give up what we must, submit to God fully -- while we seek to have children."
That's exactly the attitude I'm taking and encouraging. One that says we must get ready, become the people we should be, give up what we must and submit to God fully. All that is coming first, even in the manner you phrase it.
But for those unwilling to do those things, it is better they not seek to have children.
The only point we differ is that you believe getting ready for kids is prior to having kids and, from what I see in Scripture, the value of having children and the command to "be fruitful and multiply" so far outstrips anything else that to speak of "getting ready for kids" is like speaking of "becoming good enough to repent" or "getting ready to be an adult". You don't wait to be an adult until you're ready. And I think that the Bible indicates that the value of children is so high that you don't wait to have children until you're ready.
(Of key importance, by the way, is the fact that I'm referencing Scripture in this. None of this has any weight for nonbelievers. So "those unwilling to" submit to God would not be included in this discussion.)
So we hold in one hand "ready to have kids" and in the other hand "have kids" and ask, "Which outweighs the other? Which is more valuable? If I don't have both, which do I acquire first?" I would say "kids". You would say "be ready".
I would say "both". I don't see "be fruitful and multiply" as encouraging irresponsible multiplying, or multiplying without thought.
Okay, Marshall, you're right. There are lots of good reasons not to have kids and no one should really sweat it. Besides, having kids is so not hip ...
I think the sarcasm is a little uncalled for. Marshall isn't saying there are a plethora of reasons for not having children, but rather a very limited amount of reasons. I have been unemployed for 2 years, my wife is making about $60 a week. Would you say it would be biblically right for us to start having kids even though we can't even feed ourselves? I do agree that we give far too many reasons to not have children, but in the most strictest of scenarios, would it not be wise to hold off?
Granted, I held off having children for the same "responsible" reasons, and God could have blessed us if we'd've been obedient, or He could not have blessed us and we'd be in a far worse situation than we are now. I wish I had started earlier, but I have to be thankful God didn't change my mind until later.
I'm not saying "lots" at all. I'm saying good reasons exist along with selfish reasons. But more importantly, whatever the reason, I don't believe in putting children at risk.
The good reasons are all child-centered; care, feeding, educating the child. Do you really want to see children born to those who have no way to care for them?
The selfish reasons can also put the child at risk. Do you really want to see children born to those with no desire to have them in the first place?
No, that was just my quick way of saying, "Fine, whatever, I don't think we'll be able to hash this out any further or come to an agreement."
Marshall Art: "Do you really want to see children born to those with no desire to have them in the first place?"
Nice question ... a lot like our "friend" might ask. If I take that question to its logical conclusion, since I desire to have children born to only good, loving, two-married-parent homes, I suppose the best thing to do would be to regulate births to insure that no children can be produced by inferior homes/parents.
The question wasn't about the ideal condition for children. The question was about how much we -- as Americans, as moderns, as Christians -- value children. The modern view is that children are secondary to a whole lot of other "more important" stuff. The question was asked with the intent of having people ask themselves, "Am I valuing other things higher than God values children?" Your responses suggest that there are many good reasons not to have children and Americans/moderns/Christians ought not worry themselves unduly over it.
Just curious. Prior to, say, 1950, no one thought, "Can we afford to bring a child into this world?" Would you argue that they -- everyone prior to 1950 -- viewed the prospect of children foolishly and should have first evaluated their readiness before ever bringing any children into this world? Their thinking was, "If they come, we'll do what it takes." Would you suggest that they were unwise and we in the latter half and beginning of the 21st century are much wiser now?
You're right, David, the sarcasm is unnecessary. I've stated multiple times that 1) it was a question and 2) there are likely good reasons for individuals to delay or even not have children. The point was "I'm tired of this discussion which isn't going anywhere and will not" and, in all honesty, tired of the contention I get from friends and enemies. (You think the comment section is busy? You should see my emails.)
I've been thinking for some time now that I've been doing this since 2006 and maybe it's time to stop. What more do I have to say anyway? Maybe it's just time to quit blogging and move on. Given my traffic volume (or, rather, the lack thereof) and the repetition of themes and ideas, maybe it's time.
Bear with me here a bit longer...
"If I take that question to its logical conclusion, since I desire to have children born to only good, loving, two-married-parent homes, I suppose the best thing to do would be to regulate births to insure that no children can be produced by inferior homes/parents."
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that with those who put off kids for selfish reasons, I have no issue. I'm thankful they aren't bringing kids into the world under such circumstances.
But look, I know a couple that married with the intention of never having kids. OOPS! She became pregnant and, thank God, they had the kid. And damned if they ain't the most doting parents one could imagine. The kid's about 3 or 4 now and they are just as enamored of the kid as ever. You know it could have gone the other way. They could have aborted or had the kid and been crappy parents. This time it worked out and I couldn't be happier.
Some are simply not called for such things and have different gifts.
However, I return to your point and I'm saying my position reflects an absolute understanding of the very high value of children, such that I don't take having them lightly and wish no one did. But many do. I would pray God denies them the opportunity until they are truly ready.
"Prior to, say, 1950, no one thought, "Can we afford to bring a child into this world?""
I don't believe this is true and I don't know how it can be verified. I do know that there was indeed a different appreciation for morality and values, and that might indeed include a revulsion at the thought of doing away with a child in the womb (though I know it happened) and kids were kept. But sometimes they were treated poorly, too.
And pregnancies were avoided as well, even if it meant no sex or use of the rhythm method (or condoms, etc). Contraception is not a new concept. In short, I don't believe they dismissed thoughts of readiness as regards having children.
Finally, I do not like the notion that I may have had anything to do with your decision to stop blogging. I hope that is not the case. One thing you must keep in mind regarding traffic is that everything that you have done can be viewed by people searching topics that even only vaguely match. This is one way they might be called if they click on a post of yours to see if you have what they were seeking. I've come across a few good blogs that way myself. Also, you aren't required to post every day. Do it only when you do have something to say. If things come up every day, post every day. If nothing strikes you as worth the effort, even if a few weeks pass, then only post when something does. You're too good, even if I disagree .0001% of the time.
Just one FYI here, Marshall. I'm considering ending my seven year run in blogging not because I'm tired, too busy, wishing people were less contentious, or some other self-preservation reason. You haven't contributed to my consideration. It's just that I think I've already said it all.
A couple weeks ago I was looking through my blog archives for something and started reading some of the stuff I've written over the years. I realized that too much of it is nearly word-for-word what I'm writing today, separated not by ideas but merely by time. You know how when you've known someone for years and they are repeating stuff you've heard before? I'm becoming that person.
But I haven't decided yet.
"If I take that question to its logical conclusion, since I desire to have children born to only good, loving, two-married-parent homes, I suppose the best thing to do would be to regulate births to insure that no children can be produced by inferior homes/parents."
This sounds a lot like what we are accused of by non-believers about our stance about gay marriage.
I have to agree with Marshall about your writing. I'd hate to see you quit completely. Maybe cut back. I imagine that most blogs that have something to say every day for 7 years don't have just one author. While you've had some contributors, they didn't fill in because you didn't having something to say, you just liked what they had submitted to you. As for your argument that you have nothing new to say...in regard to theology, you've had nothing new to say from the day you started. Probably 90% of your posts have been addressed by other authors across time. So, having something brand new to say is extremely difficult when it comes to theology. You should continue writing, even if it is the same thing, because writing the same thing in a different way can be just that way that someone else needed to understand.
My only concern is not in your writing, but in your comments of late. You have become increasingly negatively sarcastic and in at least one case done the very thing you write against. I'm sure there is a toll on your patience with all the comments you don't post. I'd hate to see you stop writing, your words bring comfort and insight. But for your own stability, perhaps a cutting back is in order. Maybe a different schedule, space out the posts so that you and your readers have time to digest what you write, and also the comments would be spread out and easier for you to moderate. I cannot imagine the difficulty of moderating comments for 3-5 posts at a time. Which ever way you decide, know that your writing has touched people's lives and if you were to stop, you would be missed.
Okay, I've said this to Stan before, but I'll post it here in public. You REALLY need to write a book; even if it is the "Same" material. You have enough there, and you are quite prolific, to come up with enough material to write a GREAT book. I'd allow you to quit your blog [haha ;)] if you will spend that time writing it. PLEASE consider it. What do you others think? To me its a no brainer. Do it.
P.S. - the only reason I want you to write the book is so that when you do, I'll get to see my name in the acknowledgment section. Okay, that was a really lame joke. I really, really want you to write a book because I know you have a message from the Lord in you. You just need to find out what He wants you to proclaim, and then go proclaim it!
Post a Comment