-- SJ
Lots of us have lots more to say on the subject of family size. It's an interesting subject in and of itself. But for those of us who have wrestled to reconcile the Quiverfull ideal with the reality of our own motherhood, it's a subject fraught with conflicting emotions and ideas.
I loved y'all's comments on the blog and on Facebook. I probably won't reference them individually, but have taken all of them into consideration as I worked out what else to write on the subject. Everything I say is up for discussion, of course. Unlike many people who write and teach in this area, I don't assume I know all the right answers.
That said, there's a great deal I want to say. So much that I've decided to move the whole discussion off my main blog. So much that I'll post in parts. So much that I actually sat down and outlined what I wanted to write.
Of course, then I lost the outline. So here's a facsimile, complete with subheads and stuff for ease of commenting.
Here's Part One.
Note: I'd like to thank my mother and mother-in-law for never pressuring us either to have more children, or not to have any more. Coming from the primary mothers in our lives, that has meant a great deal to us.
The Truth About children
Children are blessings. Children are burdens.
It's a mistake to assume that the two -- blessing and burden -- are mutually exclusive. Many burdens are good. Ask a backpacker why he puts up with that burden on his back, and you'll get a funny look. Ask a couple why they want to take on the burden of a child, however, and they feel they need to justify it.
It's important to acknowledge both aspects of children. It's not all trial and tribulation, just like it's not all sweetness and light. And then it's important to emphasize that their burdensomness doesn't invalidate their blessedness.
Family Size and the Bible
The Bible presents a God who loves children. But as for family size, it says nothing definitive. Large families are portrayed as positive and good. But so are small families. And neither one is a sure path to righteousness. Ever actually paid attention to families in the Bible? Do, and you'll be less enthusiastic over the idea of a "Biblical family."
In fact, if you stop to count, you realize that most women in the Bible had three or four children at most. (That is, the children who lived.) Jacob was the patriarch of twelve children -- but he had two wives and two concubines! Heck, anybody could have twelve children if there are four women chipping in.
You can drag out a few verses as proof-texts, but the fact is, the Bible doesn't say whether you should have lots of children or only a few. It doesn't say, "Trust in the Lord with your womb, and decide not on your own family size." Even the original command to Adam and Eve, to "be fruitful and multiply," is fulfilled as soon as you have a child. Or if you want to be technical about it, two children (2 x 1 = 2).
You're welcome to have a large family if that's what God has called you to. But don't try to point to the Bible and say it's a universal principle.
Family Size and Today's Society
Children have always been viewed with mixed emotions. There wasn't a time "back then" when people received every child with joy and welcome. That's one of my irritations with the Quiverfull crowd: they complain that society today doesn't like children, unlike in the past when people were more God-honoring (by which they seem to mean Victorian times, when large families were due more to ignorance of the fertility cycle than to love of children).
Most of today's society hasn't lost sight of the blessedness of children -- as long as it's the first or second one. It does seem that three or more children lose their blessedness and appear only burdensome. Plus, I think that "accidental" children aren't as accepted as they used to be because it's possible to control much more precisely how many children are actually brought into being. When something is no longer considered inevitable, people don't have to try to accept it.
But the fact is, societies in general are notoriously unstable on many issues. So if your stance on family size is in reaction to your society, you aren't really standing on firm ground. "Being countercultural" isn't one of the Fruits of the Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First: I really enjoyed your post. I like what you have to say on the subject.
ReplyDeleteSecond: I'm only 16 so this may not count, but I really believe that you should only have as many children as you feel comfortable with. You should only have as many as you think you can provide for. Yeah, yeah...I know that God will provide, but why push your budget to straining point just because you believe that God will keep you off the streets?
Some people really enjoy large families. Some people want a large family of their own. I'm one of those people. Six or seven would be wonderful! But some people would rather just have two, or even one. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.
There are MANY advantages to both small and large families. Large families promote group corporation, strong family ties, and there is always someone to play with. There are downsides too. Some kids feel like they get lost among the crowd. The older ones may feel pressure to care for the younger ones and grow up too fast. The younger ones can feel like they get the blame for the older one's mistakes.
In smaller families the parents may have more time to spend with each child, more patience at the end of the day, and the children (child) may gain confidence from being one of the only (or the only) child in the house. But, on the other hand, the child could be overly dependent on the parents, never feel the joy of being attached and loved by so many, or could be selfish.
There are SO many different ways to look at this. But I believe it come down to one thing: The parenting. If you have loved your child and raised them to be the best person they can be then you've done your job, regardless of the number of children you've had.
Love from,
Kate
Well said. I could make all sorts of comments on this subject, but in relation to those covered in this post, I couldn't have said it better. Looking forward to the next installment. :-)
ReplyDeleteWhen people told me not to have my baby because of money and the fact I was a single parent I decided those were not options to consider when deciding if I should give birth to my own flesh and blood.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still believe the same thing 8+ years later, I understand the concept behind the comments, money is not always available, being a single mom means you do everything on your own, with little or no help from someone else (especially the other biological parent), and you will never have your life the same again.
Being these concepts were not un-understood at the time, they seem to resonate more now than when I was 26 and "with child". While I never think twice about my beautiful little boy, I do believe that there is a time when one should say to themselves..."the is only enough money, time, and enegry to go around, and while spending most of one's time with child/ren, it should come with the price of completion, not ongoing recycling of being a parent".
This comes with a double standard as being 35 and wanting another baby to raise and care for, the fact that I see some independence in the near future as my son becomes a pre-teenager is a relief and a blessing in it's own way. I did it being a single mom, without much money, and all of my enegry. That doesn't mean I wouldn't give it all up again for another chance to say "my baby", but that time money and energy does allow itself to be designed for ME, and I am not feeling selfish to aknowledge that.
While everyone can have an opinion of whether to, or not to, increase their family size, I can't say I believe it's left up to a higher power, but that's my personal opinion. I believe it's more on a conscious choice, but then you could argue, what makes it a conscious choice.
In all, it's not how many children you do or don't have, it's how much you love them, and not a day goes by that I don't tell my baby - er - young man that I love him. Paying for him is another story, so I am off to find a magic tree that blooms presidents on paper so I can make my minimum payments on my credit card.
On Today's (and Yesterday's) society: Yes, let's not forget those large idealized (upper middle class) Victorian families farmed their children out to wet nurses in the countryside until they were old enough to participate in family life, and then kept them with nannies and governesses thereafter. Day care is not a novel invention of the feminist movement--caring for small children has always been hard, difficult work (for most people) and most who have been able to afford hired help have done so.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the logistics of caring for a large family really are quite different in modern society. If you are relying on primitive agriculture for your primary subsistence, your children can be earning their keep by seven or eight, and doing it alongside you, learning from you. The more mouths to feed, the more hands to work, and you are still raising your children while you're feeding them.
Now unless everybody *SHOULD* live that way (and some of us just plain can't), the logistics of a large family are very different in a modern society. Child labor laws and the complexity of most lucrative tasks require a child to be 18-22 before they can be self-supporting, at which point they're unlikely to want to contribute it to you any more. Supporting them in the meanwhile requires at least one parent to spend longer and longer hours away from them. Yes, we may be "richer" than other places and times, but requirements on us are also much higher: safe transportation, adequate housing (in some states it is illegal to have more than two persons per bedroom in a rental), medical care, etc.
Very thought provoking and I'm glad you have the courage to tackle this subject. I don't want to have a lot of children, as in more than three or mayyybe four, mostly because my husband and I are not "high energy" people...(We have one child right now, and some days I wonder how people survive with two so maybe I should rethink the whole "three or maybe four" thing.) And I don't think there's anything wrong with that - it's just reality. He knows our frame, He remembers that we're dust - he knows our particular brand of dust and so our quiver is probably -hopefully - going to be a smaller one.
ReplyDeleteYour line at the end about being countercultural not being a fruit of the spirit...I had to disagree with that, sort of. I just immediately thought of the 12th chapter of Romans: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind..." That is - it's not what the world says about having kids, and it's not even what other well intentioned "Christian people" are saying - because even within Christendom, there are such conflicting views. Your mind has to be transformed, in this issue, and in every issue, by a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit - because He is ultimately the one to whom we are accountable. I hate to sound relativistic, but I really think in this case, what is right for one, may not be right for another. I just wish people wouldn't feel so free to pass judgment - on either small families or large ones.
But, having said that, one thing I would like to say is that having kids is not a holiness contest! The biggest family doesn't win a prize! I'm not condemning large families in that comment; I just feel like some people think bigger = holier, and it's just a flat out lie.
To me, the main point missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment that God is the One who gives life. It is sometimes easy to believe that because we better understand the science of our bodies, we are in control of those bodies. Has anyone known a couple who tried diligently to have children and had no diagnosed physical problems? Has anyone know someone who had one child right away and was never able to have more? Has anyone known someone who had a 5 year plan that God turned into a 25 year plan? Is not God in charge of opening and closing the womb? (see Genesis 11 for Sarai/Sarah's example, Luke 1 for Elizabeth's example, Genesis 29 for Rachel and Leah's examples). The Bible plainly teaches that God opens and closes the womb. I agree, the Bible does not state how many children to have. I have one child. God waited until we had been married 21 years to give us that one child. Please let us not forget to give God the glory for all the children (many or few) with which God may bless us.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that children are a blessing. I have never used the word burden with respect to childrearing, but it's more like a growing awareness of needing God's help. When I had one child, it was relatively easy to be a mother. Of course, Leah was the perfect child. Rose was an ideal daughter, too, but then God gave me boys after years of praying for more children! I would never have dreamed of having a large family, but I married a man of great faith. It IS too hard for us, but we are so grateful for each child. The early years are so challenging, but now we are seeing fruit in their lives, and it is worth the extraordinary effort. Our children will advance God's Kingdom far further than I ever could. I realize that you have had cesarian births, so it's not a trivial matter to think about pregnancy and delivery. Of course, to most people your four already constitute a large family!
ReplyDeleteI can agree that we are not to be conformed to this world and that in that sense being countercultural is a good thing. Unfortunately, I think there is a large segment of the "Christian world" that simply conforms to itself rather than being led by the Spirit. And all the proof verses I know of that suggest we shouldn't limit our families come from the O.T. patriarchs. I always wonder why the Quiverful movement hasn't fully embraced that model and bought into polygamy. Maybe that's next.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the emphasis here is on what's good for us (as parents). I believe God intends for us to use wisdom to make these decisions. But we also have those blessings to consider. (Kate, you are RIGHT ON.) I tell my children they are my "treasures." As such, I want to give them the best instruction, care, and LOVE. My physical resources are in short supply, some days my emotional resources are pretty slim too. I rely on God to give me grace and to stretch me beyond my own capacity. He has.
But He also gave us governance over the earth. No one suggests that we should take our hands off the wheel of our car so we can see where God wants us to go. He did give us minds.
Birth control is fraught with troubles. Obviously, without restraint we end up justifying abortion and more. But having lived a little and knowing the complications...isn't it sometimes worth thinking about?
"bought into polygamy"
ReplyDeleteBelieve me...BTDT, had that debate. Unbelievable. I'm not tarring the QF movement with this, but there are Christians, believe it or not, who say polygamy is hunky dory with God.
Marriage for example is a sacrament, but not all are called to be married. Likewise we should be seeking God's will in all aspects of our lives, including children, and not assume that we are called to having any or a "quiver full". Being a parent is a missions field and when someone goes on the field as a missionary they must be called. Why in the world should we not take parenting that seriously?
ReplyDelete