December 16, 2005
Double Income No Kids: How do Christians Justify Living Like This?
Now that Christians embrace sexuality in the way American culture does by introducing foreign separations of what God designed for the act of sex and the possibility of God blessing the world through more covenant children, I've been struck by the number of DINKS in the church.
You know, Dual Income No Kids (DINKS). And I mean for years and years and years as if God's design for marriage and sex is divorced from the blessing of children. I'm really beginning to wonder if some Christians even like kids anymore. Especially parents of teens since they try to keep them out of the house and away from them as much as possible. [And I'm not talking about infertility either, that's a separate issue).
The Bible speaks of children being a blessing but Americans and DINK Christians seem to see them as getting in the way of them doing what the parents want to accomplish. I thought sex was about God but I guess it's really about the American dream and being a Christian is not enough to trump that. What's the biblical justification for maintaining life as a DINK? Do people really believe that the "we're being financially responsible" argument actually has anything to do with God's design and promises of Jesus? I need help understanding this?
How do this work? "The Bible teaches us to wait to have kids because. . ."
Psalm 127:3-5
3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
Well, your Biblical supports don't really speak to the issue of children in general, just to having sons. So, apparently, daughters must not be a blessing; perhaps the acronym should be updated to DINS: Double Income No Sons. Also, your third question isn't really a question, it's more a statement, or maybe a request in disguise. Furthermore, it should be "How does this work?" Finally, I can quote toss scripture references around, too: Matthew 7:3-5.
Posted by: gosey at December 16, 2005 12:18 PMIf you think sex is about god, you're not doing it right.
Posted by: di2k at December 16, 2005 12:40 PMHow do you justify calling yourself a Christian and still be so shockingly arrogant and judgemental? It's because of christians like you that I left the church. I haven't missed it or your type one little bit.
Posted by: Jessica at December 16, 2005 01:00 PM"arrogant and judgemental"? Perhaps you know something about Anthony that I don't (which is likely, since I've never met him, just read his blog). He calls Christians out on many things, but overall, I'd say he's probably one of the more compassionate people I've read. I don't always agree wtih him, but I would hardly call him arrogent.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out sin in fellow Christians' lives anyway. That's what we're supposed to do, or haven't you heard? We help each other become more godly. Without the correction of our fellow believers, we would always be wallowing around in the same old sins, year after year. What do you think sermons are? I've heard sermons that have had me depressed for a week, but later, I realize just how good it was for me to hear that. I'm a sinner, and I need help.
Posted by: Vida at December 16, 2005 02:10 PMThere's a lot more to life than having children. Marriages are about partnership -- doing things together that one person might not be able to do alone, supporting one another through tough times, challenging and inspiring each other to greatness, sharing wonderful moments and successes, emotional support and intimacy, pooling resources and helping each other to live efficiently and morally, and so on. That partnership may be enhanced by procreation or not. Children are certainly not necessary for a good marriage (or, in the case of some couples, even all that good an idea). Those couples that choose to be childless do so for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with a fear that children might be "in the way" or avoiding financial responsiblity. Some people simply have a different calling.
Posted by: alice at December 16, 2005 04:33 PM
My Husband and I were definitely considered DINKS until I got pregnant four months ago. We're both oldest kids from big families and both had a lot of responsibilities. I think for a long time the answer for us was a world of professionalism and independence. We also didn't get married until our mid-30s so we've been used to doing what we want, when we want. That's difficult to think of losing when you've been adults for essentially 20 years and not responsible to anyone. I live in a city where there are more dogs than kids (statistically), second only to San Francisco. If I'm to fit in the culture around me....I don't have kids, right? Well, I'm bucking the system......
Posted by: Beth at December 16, 2005 06:13 PM[quote]Children are certainly not necessary for a good marriage[/quote]
But Anthony isn't talking about having a "good" marriage, rather a godly one. Sex is ultimately about God--He is the one who gave it to us, it is an avatar of our relationship with Him--therefore, if He says that children are a blessing and an heritage and to be fruitful (whatever number that might mean--zero not being part of fruitful) then He pretty much knows what He's talking about, I'd think. The problem is that American Christians are far to blinded by the culture around them--tied to self-reliance and independence rather than seeking the hand and path of God, even/especially in their marriages.
Posted by: dramatuge at December 16, 2005 11:13 PMJessica, this is a blog, understand the purpose:)
It raises questions and we discuss. Get it?
If a thing as simple as a blogspot or someone in the church that is judgemental makes you leave the church (something Christ set up and wed) then so be it. Plus you are being judgemental in your criticism of this blogpost. So FYI, I am leaving the church b/c of judgemental people like you and i won't miss it...dang
re-freaking-lax
Posted by: SANJAY at December 17, 2005 02:34 AMI'm from a family of 12 kids, soon to be 13. My mother firmly believes that couples at our church don't have enough sex and don't have enough kids and considers it part of her ministry to encourage both with the women she knows.
Sure, it might be a matter of a different calling for some couples, but if one were to interview 100 fertile childless Christian couples, the number that firmly believed that God's call to them was childlessness and that there wasn't a sinful motivation involved would be rather low, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: foolishyetwise at December 17, 2005 03:48 PMAlice, the question really is what is God's calling for sex, right?
Posted by: Anthony at December 17, 2005 05:06 PMI think that God's calling for sex is oneness. As the popular book title says, it is intended for pleasure. Marriage is the primary relationship and something that needs to endure long after the kids are grown and gone. I think children are part of what it means to be a married couple, but it isn't the end goal.
That said, I also lament the fact that Christians aren't eager to have kids--if only for the fact that it teaches them so much about their own selfishness to have to care for and raise a dependent child.
Posted by: Scott at December 17, 2005 06:09 PMI've heard sex compared to eating, and I think it's a good analogy. Rarely do we eat because it's nutritious, and it keeps us healthy. Instead, we eat because we're hungry, and we enjoy eating (it's one of the greater pleasures in my life, at least:). The knowledge that the primary purpose of food is pure survival doesn't ruin the experience at all. Furthermore, we should eat food that is nutritious, and we should eat in moderation. Again, this doesn't ruin the pleasure of eating (although, I think most artificially "fat-free" foods are abominations unto myself).
Likewise, the purpose of sex is procreation, but we do it because we enjoy it. Knowing what the purpose is doesn't ruin our enjoyment of it. Furthermore, we ought to do it properly, in the context of marriage. I know it seems a bit vulgar to compare sex to eating, but I think it's a good analogy.
That being said, I don't believe there is anything wrong with delaying parenthood for a while after marrying, as long as children aren't completely ruled out. My husband and I got married as college students, knowing that children would make things very difficult for us (and for the kids) if we had them immediately. However, we didn't get married until we had worked out a plan just in case. We do plan to have kids as soon as possible, and I cannot wait.
Posted by: Vida at December 18, 2005 11:29 AMi think you're being judgemental. how do you know that the people in your picture on this post don't have kids? did YOU take the picture? did YOU follow them home to see if there was a babysitter there??
sheesh.
wait...actually, i don't know what judgemental means.
i think there needs to be some discussion somewhere (and it might end up making its way onto my blog) about what 'judgementalism' is...it needs a bit of defining, but it sure isn't equal to 'criticism', contrary to current popular 'tolerance-speak'.
criticism is necessary and warranted in certain occaisions (many occasions?), and the question, it seems, should not be 'whether' to criticize, but *how* to criticize. that's the real issue, and i think, in this case, that anthony's tone and demeanor are warranted and not prideful, haughty, or demeaning.
Shawn,
In Anthony's defense, this reaction is an example of my main criticism of the blogosphere. You cannot have a true dialogue because: 1) The communication is so delayed that it is essentially one way, 2) tone cannot be appropriately measured, 3) the length of a post is a Catch-22 because if you are too brief you might not adequately convey your thoughts but if you say too much then people won't read it all; 4) because of #2 and #3 it is easy to misconstrue what someone means, and 5) given the opportunity to respond immediately in a face to face dialogue one could head off the problem with #4.
I do not think any of us discussing this topic are intending to be judgemental. Hey, I'm a Christian and my wife and I waited several years before we had kids. In hindsight I wish we had tried sooner. I can tell you that the reasons we waited were not necessarily right ones and if I had known then what a blessing it was to have children then I may have acted differently. Though it does not remove my individual accountability, I am thankful that ultimately it is God who opens and closes the womb.
The fact of the matter is that Anthony's judgement (if you want to call it that) is right; but I do not have to be afraid, I do not have to fearful that I have lost my salvation; but I can acknowledge that 1) his observation is right, 2) you and he do not know the half of it, and 3) we can all rejoice in the historical fact that even siners like you and me are being made new in Jesus Christ.
Vida,
Back to the topic...these are just scattered and rambling thoughts...but I'm not so sure about saying that the purpose of sex is procreation. The analogy makes it sound like God just made it feel good so that we would all have babies and fill the earth. He does want us to be fruitful and mulitply. He did make sex feel good. But if the purpose behind the pleasure is simply procreation, then what is the point of having sex past child rearing years?
Looking back at Genesis 2 I think that God places a high importance on sexual union in the context of marriage. The commandment given to Adam and Eve was to leave and cleave and become one flesh. The command to multiply came much later in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve knew each other--as they really were--and were not ashamed. Their relationship was marked with companionship, unity and delight.
In Ephesians 5 Paul talks about this union as a great mystery and parallels it with Christ's relationship with His Church...that Jesus gave himself for us and is intimately involved with and loves the Church. Isn't that an awesome picture of fellowship and delight for sex in marriage?
Also, if you say that sex was created primarily for procreation, then you are likening man to the animals in that it is just a biological function. And yet unlike the beasts we use reason in our relationships--not pure instinct. As I alluded to before, sex between a man and a woman enables spiritual unity and a deeper knowledge of one another. It is not just a coming together to satisfy one's needs, which is all the more reason why it should happen in the context of the marriage covenant.
Therefore, I think God places a higher priority on sex than procreation. Through the marriage union a man and a woman can truly enjoy the riches that God has planned for them, of which having children is but a part.
Posted by: Scott at December 18, 2005 02:42 PMI didn't say it was the only purpose. I said it was the primary purpose. Big difference.
Posted by: Vida at December 18, 2005 03:55 PMBut, perhaps I should amend that to say, "The most important purpose". I don't that reduces humans to the level of animals at all. Christians procreate to raise godly children. I think half the reason the church is in such trouble in so many areas is that Christians aren't doing this. Procreating simply to reproduce oneself IS on the level of animals, but doing so to raise one's children to be members of God's kingdom isn't.
Posted by: Vida at December 18, 2005 04:05 PMscott....and....you forgot #5.
5) sarcasm is easily missed.
Shawn, I love sarcasm (maybe too much), but you're right in that it does not work on a blog. We could adopt the sarcastic font, but that would take away the subtlety that makes sarcasm so great.
http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/index.htm
Vida, You are stating a commonly held opinion. I won't take the time to rehash my previous comments, except to say that I think that procreation is an important part of being married, but that it is not the primary purpose of sex in marriage.
And while we're starting to get off topic, I think the reason the church is in so much trouble isn't because folks aren't having babies. Problems with the church have more to do with 1) the Word isn't preached, 2) people aren't being discipled and 3) worship has become entertainment. If churches aren't living up to what they are charged with, then I do not see how a birth rate is going to help.
Anthony, We've never been properly introduced, but I've been reading your blog for a while now. You may know my pastor, Dan Gilchrist, who worked up at CTS for a while in the Access Program.
Posted by: Scott at December 18, 2005 11:01 PMSorry, I'm given to hyperbole. I shouldn't have said that was "half" the reason, as I don't believe that at all. But definitely a reason, and an important one.
Posted by: Vida at December 19, 2005 02:02 AMI'm continue to be amazed by the threads that garner attention verse those that do not. . .I was I could predict. . .
Scott, thanks for the intro. I want to respond to something your wrote earlier.
The premise that sex is "intended for pleasure" is precisely how evangelicals have adopted a secular way of thinking. The "oneness" emphasis is in fact an overemphasis that has no real basis in artificially separating sex and procreation.
It's sad. So kids freely think of sex NOT in terms of kids but in terms of Western romanticism. The act is then viewed as 'ok' as long as we love each instead of seeing the act oneness PLUS a desire to have kids which only fits rightfully in one context: marriage.
"Be fruitful and multiply" is seen by many as God's determined intent for marriage in addition to romantic love and union. Conjugal love is ordered by God toward procreation and union.
A better title for the book should be "Intend For God's Design." Those who choose to separate the command to "be fruitful and mulitply" from the creation of marriage, pre-fall that is, are burdened to describe the biblical rationale for closing off the possibility of fertility.
One could state it this way, "there is no such thing a marriage not called to always being open to fertility as designed by God."
{again, this has nothing to do with infertility}
In other words, if you don't want kids some would say then don't get married. The openness to the production of new covenantal life is part of the definition of marriage.
Again, I'm still thinking about this one and I'm looking for a biblical defense of couples choosing to NOT be open to fertility. "Multiply" is a command. How do we biblically get around that? Where are the texts that relate to delaying children within the context of marriage?
Posted by: Anthony at December 19, 2005 01:08 PM"Where are the texts that relate to delaying children within the context of marriage?"
My question is, where are the texts that say one must have children immediately upon getting married? For my husband and me, it was either get married now and finish school or wait until we finish school, then get married. For a variety of reasons, we decided to get married right away. What says that we must have children immediately? What is wrong with delaying parenthood a couple of years? We plan to have children, and we plan to have them while we are still quite young (within the next couple years). We do not delay it for the sake of romping around the globe a couple times or continuing our irresponsible teenage years. We delay because we are finishing college (well, my husband more specifically; I don't really care if I finish or not).
I suppose it could be argued that we should have married AFTER college. That may be true, but that's what might have been. Is it wrong to wait two or three years, now that we are married? I really don't think so.
I seem to straddle two viewpoints here. On the one hand, I believe it's wrong to get married and plan to never have children; on the other, I see nothing wrong with delaying that for a little while. I desperately want kids now, but I know that it's not a great idea until my husband is out of college and has a steady job. So we wait, and hopefully that waiting will pay off both for us and for our future children.
Posted by: Vida at December 19, 2005 01:36 PMvida...kathy keller (tim keller's wife, redeemer pres, nyc) had some good stuff to say on that (don't want to rule out kids, but want to wait) in a recent series on marriage that tim and kathy did at a seminar.
http://www.redeemer3.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=18428
to sum up, as best i can remember, she said marriage is just as anything else is; a natural process that can be planned and modified (loosely like cutting your hair)...all she saw was that it would be a problem to say "not ever", but saying "not now" was not problematic.
incidentally...i think those two sermons are really good...they're both on my ipod (along with alot of other keller stuff, but those are top notch) and i've listened to them several times in preparation for my upcoming married life.
Posted by: shawn at December 19, 2005 03:11 PMAnthony, sorry for taking so long to respond (another problem I see with blogs as dialogue). Anyway, you said that...
The premise that sex is "intended for pleasure" is precisely how evangelicals have adopted a secular way of thinking. The "oneness" emphasis is in fact an overemphasis that has no real basis in artificially separating sex and procreation.The "Intended for Pleasure" crowd would probably counter by saying that the "Letting God Plan Your Family" approach leads to evangelicals having a distorted view of sex. I like how you restated the title of the book and agree with you that you can't divorce procreation from marriage. Just for the record, my understanding of sex as oneness came long after I was married and started having kids, so it didn't play into any considerations to delay children. Perhaps we are closer on this issue as is apparent on the surface, although I think you need to get married and have kids to gain a better perspective... ;-)
The thought that I'll leave you with is one of keeping the pendulum from swinging too far from one side to the other. If we plug a procreation platform while denying the dynamic that sex builds intimacy and oneness, then the world will continue to see it as something that can occur casually outside of marriage and without unmanagable consequences. They're thinking, sex feels great but the only negative consequence is pregnancy. Too bad that you can't take a pill or wear a sleeve to protect you from the emotional costs.
Posted by: Scott at December 23, 2005 11:34 AMAl Mohler raised this issue a few months ago and also received a hostile backlash, which I think indicates how important the issue is in the church today.
The worst of the DINKS, btw, are the DINKWADS - Double-income no-kids, with a dog. They're the ones who sent out Christmas pictures of "the whole family," with husband and wife hugging their golden retriever.
Posted by: Russ at December 27, 2005 04:13 AMLOLOLOLOL.....ya gotta love it....that's hilarious, russ....I FREAKING KNOW THOSE PEOPLE!! i didn't realize they were sending cards out to everyone ELSE. :)
Posted by: shawn at December 27, 2005 08:35 AM"How do you justify calling yourself a Christian and still be so shockingly arrogant and judgemental? It's because of christians like you that I left the church. I haven't missed it or your type one little bit."
Your were offended, so you quit. Like it or not, being a Christian means that one must take stands and, those stands are likely to offend folk. It doesn't necessarilly mean they're being "judgemental" anymore than the justified criticism you lob on people that do things you feel strongly against. Good Bye!
Posted by: Zrazys at January 3, 2006 09:48 PMTypical Chistian additude of telling everyone else how to live their lives... First, America is a FREE COUNTRY. That means everyone has the RIGHT to do what they want with their life. You Christians need to STOP thinking it's your place to go around telling everyone HOW TO LIVE!!! Learn to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!! My wife and I have been happily married for almost 2 years now and we do not have any kids, nor do we plan to have any kids in the future. I dont feel one bit bad about it either!! I'm HAPPY and FREE!! My wife and I can buy anything we want, go anywhere we want and do just about anything we want any time we want. Now WHY would I screw that up with a bunch of screaming kids running around eating up all my money? All you Church people always act like if you PRAY hard enough everything will work out fine in the end. Well, Praying to God does NOT put food on the table or pay the bills!! You CHRISTIANS need to STOP sticking your noses in everyone's business. Why do so many church people feel it's their place to tell everyone else what to do?? I just dont get it. If you want to go beat yourself every Sunday morning and listen to all that crap about burning in hell well go Knock Yourself out but let the rest of us have a good time with our lives!! Amen!!
Posted by: Tom Hughes at February 12, 2006 03:13 PMOn Valentine's Day, here is an article that addresses many of the themes of this discussion. It comes from Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity, which is written principally by conservative Catholics and Anglicans and Orthodox believers, as far as I can tell, so you can likely guess the tack it will take. The section pertinent to this discussion really begins about half way down. The archives of this mag have other similar articles:
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f
Posted by: Neil E. Das at February 14, 2006 05:50 PMFirst off please take the Bible with a grain of salt (plenty of biblical scholars, priests divinity students etc do) and I am not questiioning there being a God. However, it was written during a time when survival of the human species was precarauis (starvation, disease,barbarian hoards) and remained so up untilt he last 100 years at least for those of us in the western world. (My wife served with the Army Reserve in Afghanistan so I am well aware of how bad things are still out there). We are DINKS, even "Finks" (four incomes counting our side jobs) who lve our dog and our lifestyle. Who have we harmed? How many illegitamate, abused (even in the bounds of marriage)screwed up goign to need years of therapy and be candidates for a Jerry Springer Dr. Phil episode children have we placed on this earth? ZIP! We also afford our family members the comfort of knowing if something should happen to them we are ready and able to raise their children if necessary. We have no demands for social ervices but yet also have a greater disposable income, and yet some self-righteous Bible-Thumper ( I have lived in Texas and Oklahoma and know them well) has the gaull to label us anti-Christian/family? I think that all would be best served if " Christians" focused on the buffoons out there that have produced offspring but yet are not capable of rearing their children appropriatley.
Posted by: Chris at April 28, 2006 01:27 PMSo really haivng NO kids is a SIN to you people? Wow you make me sick... You will deffinitely burn in hell... That is was is so funny about christians.. they THINK they are going to heaven.. but in reality they are the MOST evil, hateful, uncaring, jugmental and sinful people on Earth. Hide behind your false religion... But reality is... you Will goto hell...
Posted by: anti-christ at March 6, 2007 12:33 PMAs followers of Christ, we live by a different ethic, economy, worldview, etc. I am always amazed at the "reversed" intolerance from people who say that "we should all be able to live however we want." the Christian, however says, "in order to live consistent with 'who i say i am' , i am going to live biblically," and everyone freaks out. we will be hated b/c christ was hated...that's biblical. children are a blessing from the lord. my husband and i adopted 2 kids last year...through CPS...we had 2 bio kids and people's responses were shocking. and to the individual who said, "Praying to God does NOT put food on the table or pay the bills!!" You are wrong...it does.
Listen, if you don't want children-don't have them...but if you call your self a Christian...evaluate your decision making through the bible. that's the point. seek to be shaped by the bigger Story.
I am beside myself that you feel sex and marriage is only to create babies. If God felt this way than explain a married Christian couple that can't have children or have gone through miscarriage. If marriage was all about creating babies, explain with scripture why God would allow a Christian woman to miscarry or to be infertile.
I think it is easy to judge anyone's life. Instead of judging anyone for their life, take a look at your own and ensure every step you take is Godly. We don't answer for anyone at the end other than for ourselves. You have no idea if your attitude will turn someone away from God and it is scripture that you WILL answer for that!
Posted by: heartbroken at March 22, 2007 06:18 PMWow. Anthony, I am amazed. I can't decide if I wish that I could write a post that caused comments to be made 2 years after it was written or glad that I don't!
What is judgment? Why is it so feared in the world today? Christians are called not to judge, but be discerning of the source of thought, word and deed. We are to judge the act, but not the perpetrator, as that is Christ’s job alone. “Hate the sin and not the sinner” comes to mind. However, how does that come across in society?
To speak condemnation on acts and still love the perpetrator absolutely requires the humility in that we too are sinners.
Christians err. Christians judge. But why does the "Christian" label make it popular to judge in return?
*sigh* Before making judgments of your own, please just read the original post. It was not made to criticize non-Christians, condemn Christians, or categorically label an entire group. It was simply questioning some possible motivations married couples may have in avoiding parenting. It seems some are in need of an rectal-cranial ectomy.
Chew on that.
Posted by: Brad at March 23, 2007 01:15 PMHi, you would call me and my wife a DINK. we live in the UK evangelical christians and both have a massive heart for the Lord. We have chosen not to have children because we are both wanting to be in the mission field. I have been on the field and worked with many missionaries who have had kids and raised many children very well and others it has been a disaster, the fact is its not these factors that bring us to make a decision as there are always good and negative points but there are so many children with out parents who need love already. So we would rather adopt at some point. So why are christians giving birth to so many kids when there are so many poor (in all senses of the word) who have no parents, can you not love them like your own? We plan to be fully involved in kids ministries, kids centres in asian, purhaps adopt and even if we do not our 5 DINK years have enabled us to pay off our home and now leave our jobs in the spring and serve full time without taking resources form our church family, although they would support us. Our whole DINK life has been about looking to leave our jobs now at the age 31 and be avalible to the ministry full time, all the rest is as cow pat (in the words of paul). Our focus is not money, house, car we are freeing ourself to be avalible while DINK to outreach and run ministries and go on short term mission. Purhaps some DINK you look at are thinking deep down the same. I feel all DINK should be very very involved in the ministry, or if work is so busy you can not work hard a few years, pay off your morage and then work in starbucks part time and do as much time for God as your can. There is nothing wrong with DINK with purpose or ministry. Nothing wrong with Married with Children, or married with no children it is your choice. Its what you do with your life, time and money that matters, where is your focus. Remember how scripture goes, paul said if you do not marry you do better not wrong or right but better. I beleive this is because your time and concerns are more avalible for the ministry, then if you do not have children purhaps you also do better. Its anyones choice. I guess your question comes out of the inability to understand how someone could not want kids when you have kids you love so much, well you don't know until your in that boat. Or the question is a little tarred with jelous eyes at a DINK's free time or car. Oh, I missed one other reason for us not having kids. Working life in the UK is very stressful many people drop there kids off, pick them up from day car which runs from 4pm to 6pm after school or preschool and then the parents cook them a meal and to bed. House prices are so expenses for many to run a family both partners work full time, so we don't see in this country and the financial climate how we could bring a child up with the attention and time they should have.
Posted by: Andy at June 23, 2007 07:07 PM