The Institute (協会)

If the fall effects us in the negative way of causing stillbirths, miscarriages, and infertility, isn't it also possible that it does the opposite and effects the rhythm causing some women to have too many too soon for their bodies and families to handle? Maybe?!? Good question.

Sember yeah, these are good things to think about. . .a few questions though now that I think about it: what lead some to believe that a woman's cycle pre-fall would be any different? Biologically speaking it would be like to conjecture that we had pre-Fall the human heart rate was different.

It seems that most people want either two or three kids. Is this all that a woman is suppose to handle. Here's something I was thinking about how many kids is too many.

I've know some happy big families and some miserable small ones (and vice versa). I dunno. . .

Considering that my mom was the 7th of 9 kids and my grandfather was the youngest of 10, it always bugs me when people act like more than 3 kids is some sort of major catastrophy that must be prevented at all costs. If either my grandparents or great grandparents decided to stop at 2 or 3 (or even 5 or 6), I wouldn't be here.

Kathryn, yeah, great point. We're glad you're here:)! Yeah, I've been trying to locate why 2 or 3 kids in the preference. I can't find that a God's desired number anywhere in the Bible.

I'm not sure where those numbers are coming from. Any ideas?

I think those numbers come from American culture and what society says a person can handle. Having 2 or 3 kids is "manageable". If a person is to live according to the standards proposed by society, then having a big family just is not feasible. How can you set up a college fund for 8 kids? How can you give 10 kids a "good" life if you can't afford to put them all on sports teams, pay for music lessons, buy them a car at 16, have a house where everyone has their own room, buy them the toys and clothes that they need, etc.? Having a big family is just not "normal" or "responsible".

Laini, brilliant. . I think you nailed it. Here's an open question for anyone then: why isn't anyone saying anything or challenging this?

I don't think they are saying anything, but they are "doing" something. I have more and more friends that are filling their quivers and going beyond the 2-3 children line. Does the census bureau have numbers on how many people now make up an "American family?" Is it still 2.5 kids?

I wasn't meaning how many children, but how soon a woman gets pregnant after having a child. Women's cycles are not all the way they should be, and breastfeeding doesn't always work as birth control the way it should. For most the heart works well, but there are some that it beats too fast in, some it beats too slow in, and a lot of people have heart attacks. The heart is not perfect. neither is a womans rhythm of menstrating, and ovulating. What disturbs me most about birth control is how controled people try to become over when they get pregnant planning it down to the week, and completely leaving conviction and intuition out of it. For everything there is a season, including birh control, as long as it is NOT an abortificant. Laini: I totally agree!

Sember, thanks for the clarification. But this raises a HUGE methodological problem. Do we really want to do down the road where we let the exceptional cases rule our general practice.

How do you know that women's cycles are not all they should be in terms of natural pre-Fall rhythms?

Many people's heart problems are a result of bad stewardship (lack of excercise, poor diets, stress, etc.). But we don't encourage people to take drugs to stop the heart from doing what God design it to do: i.e., sustain life.

Because the heart does not work well (for some people) should the mass of Christians then take drugs to stop the heart from fullfilling its design completely?

Should masses of Christian couples use artificial means to stop their bodies from doing what God designed it naturally to do: produce children as a positive consequence of sex.

I still don't see how, from a creational, covenantal, biblical standpoint we can argue that couples should inhibit the natural design of the human body pre-Fall.

Should we not have kids at all because some are born with birth defects?

Even further, since children "are not all that they should be" should we stop them from living? Some people could argue that artificial contraception and abortion are the same. Namely, since things do don't turn out like we may desire we should terminate what God has designed as a consequence of sex as he designed it--namely, to produce more of his image.

Doesn't articifial birth-control prevent women from being what God designed them to be naturally?

If it's a sin and unwise for couples not to have sex (unless during times of prayer) as this is part of God's natural design in marriage, how is it permissible for couples to then alter God's designed for the potentiality of sex within marriage, by artificial altering what God mandated?

It just seems that having children is not a "choice" within God's design for marriage, sex, and family.

Anthony, I agree with many of the points you have made on this post and the last time you posted something similar.

Reality – My wife uses birth control pills so that she does not get pregnant. We have decided that at this point in life, it would be in our best interest not to bring a child into the world in which we live. This is a narrow view lacking Biblical representation as you have expounded, I know. But that is reality.

We have several sets of friends who have prayed, cried and undergone enough medical procedures to tune up Lee Majors all to try, to force, the conception of a child. One couple in particular has had invetrofertilization (sp?). The dude had to jack to some porno and then the drs stuffed FIVE embryo’s in her womb to get the one child they now have. I don’t know how what happened to the others that would have been used for the second stuffing if the first had not worked.

It’s difficult beyond belief to take this all in - to attempt to live a life worthy of the calling of God as his son; to make choices between tools at our disposal to try to perpetuate the Body of Christ. You know it’s not black and white…there is so much gray…

We want three children. Two that come from us and one that we take in (God willing on everyone). We want three because we think that is what we can handle (emotionally, financially, spatially, etc).

I pray for God’s will to be done. I understand your arguments, I agree with many. But for the practical reality of the life God allows me to live, these are the choices I make; these are the choices of beloved friends I support.

Anthony: That is a lot to place on me. NOTHING-is done without discernment. Even watching a tv commercial. I know that the fall effects EVERYTHING. Everyone is different, and when I said that birth control might perhaps be good in this one context, I never meant box it up like candy and give it to everyone that has breasts. Yes, I think there can be a trickle effect of choices about control, I do see how birth control can lead to the morning after pill, and then early abortion, and so on.... This is possible with all things. I am not going to stop enjoying an occasional glass of wine just because some people out there are alcoholics, and I am not going to encourage everyone I know to get heart defibulators just because they have hearts. (btw, two of my closest friends have defibulators solely because of something passed down to them by their mothers.) I have four children, just so you know, and am not on any form of birth control, not because I think it is wrong, not because I want to get pregnant, but because for my husband and I, that is what we feel called to. How many children do you have, and what is your wife doing or not doing about it? How much time have you spent with women with many children? and I mean with the women? Part of the reason not as many women die younger and die while birthing, is because they aren't getting married at thirteen and having children every year to year and half, until their bodies give out. The fall effects everything! I try not to make heaven on earth, or to perfect things, but to push the fall back a little at a time.

Sember, whoa, my last comments were not really directed at you personally. . .I still thinking out loud about this issue as I continue to be fascinated that there's exist no firm teaching on it from any where. So I wasn't trying to place a lot on you personally but the issue.

The real problem with having lots of kids is that families live isolated lives outside of community more so than ever in human history.

Christian families were meant to live in close communities where the raising of children (Hello, BAPTISM) is not just the responsibility of two parents. It's shared and dispersed. Because of friends, grandparents, uncle, aunts, cousins, siblings, etc. parents get a break often. If we were living in such isolated communities having lots of kids would be as big of an issue.

The biblical paradigm is the covenant COMMUNITY that provides cooperative nurture for children. Without extended community parents get worn out. It was not meant to be this way.

American individualism has so infected the church that families are individualistic and fail misreably at honoring baptism vows.

Women in community with other women cooperatiing and dispersing many duties removes much of the burdern to do it all. This continues to be the case in agrarian societies in the developing world. And it was like that more in the US up until the 1950's with the middle class exploded.

Hm, I think American individualism *is* a problem, but not just with choosing smaller families. No offense, etal, but I have seen countless 'Christian' couples who want a child that is genetically yours so badly that they squander all their savings on fertilization techniques. Then, when they give birth to quintuplets, half of whom are blind or brain damaged, they blab about how it's God's blessing, and then become beggars so they can afford diapers and clothing. A great life these kids are going to have. I think it's sinful to need to pass on your specific genetic material this way...especially when there are so many unwanted children they could adopt.

It comes down to more than this, though. Are *all* women required to bear children? Just because you have hands doesn't mean you'd be a good piano player, and just because you have a uterus doesn't mean you'd be a good mother. So many people get married and then have kids, without even thinking about it, just because 'that's what you do'. 'You get married, and have kids'. No foresight whatsoever. When you are bringing a human life into the world, one which will be your responsibility for at least the next 18 years, it might be good to plan it out a little. You don't just marry the first girl or guy you meet on the street, do you? You don't just randomly pick a job or college, with no forethought at all....so why do people have children that way? They're so selfish! 'I want another baby,' as if it was a kitten, and no thought about what happens to that baby when it grows up. I'm not saying each kid has to have their own room...but yes, you *do* have a responsibility to provide financially for your children....and so many Christians just smile serenely, with not a thought in their bubble brains, and say how 'God will provide'. Hmm, yes, God does provide, but does that mean you can lie on the couch and play video games all day waiting for money to fall out of the sky? Nope. And it doesn't mean you can pop out 7 babies on a poor man's salary and expect the same. Selfishness and arrogance, in my mind.

Anyway, I'm sorry for going off like this...but as you can probably tell...it's a hot issue for me!

Lia, no need to apologize at all. It's good to see that someone's passionate about something.

Your question about women being required to bear children reveals exactly how culture has hijacked the Bible. The hands/uterus comparison does not work. If you're asking if God designed women's bodies to bear children? The answer is YES!

Will all women have children? No.

Is bearing children separated as a natural consequence of God's desire for sex? No. If yes, where does the bible teach this?

The assumption in Scripture is that one aspect of God's design for women is to demonstrate the beauty of his image by being mothers. Motherhood teaches us a lot about God.

Only with the Christians embracing the presuppositions of Western culture about motherhood has motherhood become an optional design for married women. Only with cultural presuppositions has childbearing been seperated from sex within the context of marriage as God designed it.

Some would say that if women do not want to have children they should not get married. NO WHERE in the Bible does God provide a design for marriage without children (or a pre-determined number of children) being the natural, pre-Fall consequence of sex. This is why infertility in the biblical world was such an issue. It's not what God designed or originally intended.

There is no biblical picture of marriage without children representing God's intention for the institution (I think, at least I haven't seen one).

You are very right that people don't think things through. This is why I'm amazed that NO ONE has a biblical argument for why having children is optional and why couples determing the number of children is up to the couple and not God.

Does it seem strange that the argumentation generally comes from a place outside of Scripture? If you're going to do something that is that radically in opposition of something God mandated, designed, and institute when everything in the world was good, should you haven't come up with a biblical defense of a such a brand new practice?

I think etal provided the most honest explanation. It's the "practical reality" that drives people's decisions on this issue. He's right and at least he's honest. It's not Scripture. It's not the biblical teaching of the covenant family and the sovereign providence of God. Christian couples aren't necessarily making biblical decisions about children but they are making practical cultural ones.

I could easily see someone arguing that maybe Christians should start trusting God to take care of his Covenant children like he's done for centuries in their practical realities which have been MUCH worse.

American Christians are the wealthiest Christians EVER. I'm confused that how poorer Christians embrace having more kids and wealthier ones don't. What's up with that. The more money people have the less kids they'll have. This is true for pagans and Christians alike. Hmm. . .

Will God take care of the needs of his children? For the Covenant family you and all of your kids are HIS and God is able to provide what is needed to do the things that he has designed for us to do. Right?

Could people say that it's complete hypocrisy for Christians to complain about lack of a Christian presence in the various spheres of culture and those with the means to do something about it choose keep the numbers of covenant kids low.