... when we left Midland we had a mess of theories about how to raise children. We still have a mess of children, but no theories.

Parenting can be a humbling endeavor and it's not for cowards, though a rewarding privilege.

I've been encouraged by what I hope is a trend whereby families are having more children, especially families in the church. Children are indeed a blessing and a gift from God. (Ps 127:3), and the apprehension of that truth may play a part.

However, this is a good quote to remind us that we don't have big families (i.e., more children) merely for the sake of having big families.

"Marriage is for making children into disciples of Jesus. Here the focus shifts. This purpose of marriage is not merely to add more bodies to the planet. The point is to increase the number of followers of Jesus on the planet… God’s purpose in making marriage the place to have children was never merely to fill the earth with people, but to fill the earth with worshipers of the true God… When the focus of marriage becomes 'Make children disciples of Jesus,' the meaning of marriage in relation to children is not mainly 'Make them,' but 'Make them disciples.' And the latter can happen even where the former doesn’t."
~John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

I had previously addressed the topic of the number of children required to meet biblical expectations (Three Shall Be the Number Counted and the Number Counted Shall Be Three, April 3, 2006).

If you missed it, you may want to read it for context, but I thought I would respond to a comment made on that post last week, particularly since my view has changed somewhat.

The (9/10/2008) comment:

"I really hope that this entire blog was meant humorously and not to offer spiritual advice of any kind. The idea of "net increase" is especially bizarre. You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3

The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more! You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

My response ...

Well, my original post starts with:

"Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it."

That being said, I will interact with the above criticisms.

"You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3"

Actually, that's not so, per very simple math. Take 8 couples, each producing one child. 16 people just produced 8. Those 8 pair up and produce 4 kids. Those 4 pair up and produce 2 kids. Those 2 pair up and produce 1 child.

So, in "successive generations" of having only 1 child the population decreases dramatically, as is seen in the above example where the population went from 16 to 1 in just 4 generations.

"The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more!"

Well, the golf analogy works because a birdie is ONE BETTER than par.

"You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

It had been quite a while since I read this piece, but reading it again, I think that's either an unfair accusation or misunderstanding of the post.

The children are themselves the reward, according to the post and according to Scripture (e.g., Ps 127:3-5).

Continuing with the trend of seriousness, I would be interested in hearing a biblical argument in favor of being able to have many children, but choosing instead to have 0, 1 or 2. Or really, one might say to limit the number at all.

Since this post, I have actually become more convinced that even the church has bought into the cultural perception of children as things to be avoided or minimized lest they cramp our style.

This is often voiced as, "We can't afford X number of children."

But is that really true?

I'll close with this, if the biblical command is to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”, then the burden of proof lies on those taking measures to prevent that from happening.

I'm not saying the only legitimate reason to have woo-hoo is for procreation, but when people mock a mother who has a 5th child, considering her irresponsibile, the church should at least be ready to enter the conversation with the biblical value on children.

Remember, it's "Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!" (Ps 127:5) and not cursed or punished.

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it.

QUESTIONS:

• If you want to be a godly follower of the Lord Jesus, how many children should you have? As many as possible? None? As many as you can financially support?
  
• Is family size necessarily an indication of spirituality, a way to keep score, so to speak?
  

This is a topic of great discussion among Christians, but one typically done in the circles in which one already knows the environment. That is, those with large families get together and bash/belittle and carry on with regard to smaller ones and vice versa.

What do the Scriptures have to say about parenting and the number of children?

(Let me give what would have been obvious in the past, my assumptions. I'm assuming in this discussion biological children from a husband (male) & wife (female) legally married and all that good stuff.)

Biblically, God gave people a responsibility to populate the planet. In fact, you will note almost the exact same language, pre & post fall of Genesis 3. In other words, this wasn't merely an obligation prior to sin's entrance.

• In the beginning, after God “blessed them,” humanity was told to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen 1:28)
  
• Following the flood, after God “blessed” Noah & his sons, humanity was told to be “fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Gen 9:1)

After each of the above, God commands dominion of the animal kingdom.

Increase … With two parents, two children would merely replace the parents and, of course not produce a net increase. Thus, it would seem to me that three would be the minimum for the above such commands to be carried out.

Let me put it like this for all of you golfers out there, though I’ll confess my ignorance of such a silly sport and its appeal. (Incidentally, I’ve been told that if I actually went I would enjoy it and probably be hooked, but I can assure you that one of the last things I need in my life is another hobby about which to obsess.)

Think of fulfillment of biblical obligation as par (i.e., what you should get or are supposed to get). So, God’s is a par three course (i.e., three kids). Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

If one has 4 kids, that is one better than par, that is, a birdie. 5 kids, consequently, would be an eagle (the extent of my golf knowledge in that direction). Conversely, to have only 2 kids would be one worse than par, that is, a bogey. One kid would be a double bogey and, I assume, zero kids would be a ... triple bogey?

Now, although my par theory of childbirth is somewhat lighthearted, on a serious note ...

I do want to issue the caveat that my game scenario assumes people are enabled to have children. A miscarriage is the death of your child, and should be mourned as such. God understands and knows who can and who cannot biologically produce offspring.

Those decisions lie with God, for He is the Lord of the womb and children are a blessing and heritage from Him (Ps 127:3-5). He opens and closes wombs as He sovereignly pleases for His purposes and good pleasure (cf. Deut 7:13-14; Ps 113:9; Gen 20:17-18; 25:21; 29:31; 30:22; Ex 1:21; Judges 13:2-3; Ruth 4:13; 1 Sam 1:5, 20; 2:21; 2 Sam 6:23; 2 Kings 4:14-17; Lk 1:7, 13).

I do find it interesting, however, that you don't typically see the patriarchs (particularly these two given the command, Adam & Noah) going crazy in the kids department. We're not really sure how many Adam had, but only three are listed by name. Noah apparently had three sons only - not all that impressive considering the length of his life. There's the obvious exception of Jacob, but that was with multiple moms.

At times I wonder if some interpret God's command to be such that Christians should have as many children as humanly possible. However, if so, you don't see anyone in Scripture who clearly set out to do that.

Interesting, eh? It's also interesting that Scripture does not look favorably on those who condescendingly condemn the barren woman. Now, we're not talking about those able, but unwilling to have children, for that's a different species. But, keep that in mind before you boast about your birdie or eagle and condemn the sub-par, for it may be more a situation of not being able versus not being willing.

Also, it would seem to me that in light of what transpires in the gestation, nursing, and raising of children that the men folk don't have near the latitude for boasting that they might think. In other words, I might suggest that the wives/moms are the true golfers and the husbands/daddys are more the caddies.

Anyway, thanks for enduring the back nine of speculation.

Gunny, eagle