He will change poopy diapers. -- Does he have to use the word "poopy"?

Children are a blessing, a great gift from God. However, that doesn't mean that every aspect of every stage of their life feels like a blessing.

As my children get older, I am enjoying the blessing of certain things no longer being a part of our lives.

The following are the top 5 things I'm glad are no longer part of our lives and I hope to never revisit them ever again:

1. Diapers
2. Runny noses that need to be wiped by someone else
3. Sippy cups
4. Teletubbies
5. The Wiggles

There are more those 5 beat me down like nobody's business and I'm glad they're in my rear view mirror. Any you might suggest?

I don't shut up, I grow up, and when I look at you, I throw up.

"John Quincy Adams was an ambassador by the age of fourteen. Today we consider men adolescents for whom living at home and being taken care of by their parents is acceptable well into their twenties. Men used to marry in their teens; now they wonder if they are ready in their thirties. We have an epidemic of immature men in our culture. We are simply taking too long to turn boys into men. Our forefathers may have died younger, but they lived longer in the process."
~ Voddie Baucham, Jr, What He Must Be ... if he wants to marry my daughter, 203. (emphasis mine)

Part of the problem is a lack of intentionality on training boys to become men. Let's try to make some more of them.

Part of the problem is a lack of quality roles models for men. So, we ask ...

• Q: What should a man look like?
• A: Isn't that what makes a man?

cf. Voddie's characteristics of an eligible man.

You call this a happy family?! Why do we have to have all these kids?!

Different churches have different thoughts on children in the worship service. For some, the kids up through and including high school are never in the main worship service. For others, at birth the kids are there from opening to closing prayer. You will likely also be able to find everything in between.

[Personally, I think whatever a church's approach is, it better not be motivated by any idea of children being "unwelcome" or inconvenient distractions. Even though they are not always easy, children are a blessing, the more the merrier. But, of course, they will, at times act like children. We train them, but we shouldn't be surprised when they don't act like adults.]

Regardless of what your thoughts* are on when it will be, at some point the kids will need to be assimilated into "big church." I found the following, which I think has some helpful tips on having your children with you in church (adapted from Ruth Hale's booklet, "Calm Or Chaos").

I'd welcome your suggestions as well.

1. 0-2 yrs sit near back. 2+ yrs sit near the front of the auditorium, next to aisle.

2. Expect your child to sit quietly.

3. Do not pass children from pew to pew during worship service.

4. Be certain that your child uses the washroom and gets a drink before worship begins.

5. Talk to the child about being quiet before services begin.

6. Use sign language. A parent’s correction is often more disturbing than the child’s behavior.

7. Attend every service, gospel meetings, ladies classes & use as opportunities to train your child.

8. It may be helpful to give a child a soft toy (i.e. cloth rubber or plastic toy) to occupy him.

9. Learn to overlook small annoyances.

10. Make trips out unpleasant enough that they will be few and far between.

11. Do not leave your child in the care of other children.

12. Avoid allowing the child to become excited immediately before worship.

13. Be an example. Don’t "visit" with those sitting near you during worship.

14. Do not allow your child to play on the floor of the auditorium.

15. Criticism will come whether or not you discipline your child. Do what has to be done.

16. Don’t make excuses for your child or yourself.

*At Providence Church, we offer the option of a more kid-friendly version of the sermon for kids 3-2nd grade, but the kids only miss the sermon. In other words they were there until the sermon and they come back when the sermon is finished. However, children's church is optional, not mandatory.

... 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

That's amazing, so much love, and also so much information.

From the other room, I heard my four year old ask her older sister, "Why do people close their eyes when they get a hug?"

Interesting little person question, I thought.

So, I called her in to ensure I transcribed the question correctly. She then offered a potential answer for her own question:

"Maybe 'cause they love each other. Maybe that's why."

Hmm. I'm gonna be on hug watching patrol now to see whether or not its really love.

(See also Brothers don't shake hands; brothers gotta hug.)

You got to be the dumbest smart kid I know.

On Facebook Anthony Bradley asked the following question:

If every one's little toddler is so "smart" then what happens when the "smart" kid hits middle school, high school, college, or jail, and so on when they magically become mediocre and/or do really, really stupid things, get a "D" on a math test, get college rejection letters, get an STD, etc? What happens?

Everyone seems to have the smartest kid, way beyond grade level or the aptitude of his/her peers. Some of us may have even been guilty of this borderline child-idolatry.

He got some interesting answers, some of which I'll share below, but I thought my answer noteworthy as well. I immediately thought of the heredity vs. environment argument.

"I'm sure most parents will switch from seeing smarts as hereditary to being a product of environment as their children age and are impacted by the environment."

In other words, they attribute their toddlers' intelligence to their good genetics, but it must be the environment that sucks away their inherited smarts. Surely, it can't be that they are average, like everybody else.

Some other responses Anthony Bradley got:

1. "Isn't a lot of it how we do schooling in the west?"
2. "Then they are like the rest of us, normal."
3. "Then hopefully they will finally embrace the reality that they missed when their child was born. They are a depraved sinner, an enemy of God who needs the saving grace of God through Christ."
4. "The vaccinations suck the intelligence right out of them, once the government chip is implanted and activated."
5. "I'm not sure I understand the question. I haven't really known that many smart toddlers, except mine."
6. "Clearly, this is a side effect of all the hormones we put in our food these days. Kids are actually smarter at the age of 2 than they are at the age of 22; somethings we may never know."
7. "What happens is that it is all becomes 'somebody else's fault' ... and usually somebody dumb."

How would you respond to Dr. Bradley's question?


See also:

• If Everyone’s Kids Are the Smart Ones, Then Whose Are the Not So Smart Ones?
• when everyone's super ... no one will be.

I do ... but I don't know why.

My son was recently the student of the week where you bring a poster about yourself with pictures, etc. He also shared about his favorite things and what he wanted to be when he grows up.

I noticed it said he wanted to be a pastor when he grows up. We then had the following conversation:

Gunny: "Do you want to be a pastor when you grow up?"

Jet: "Yes, sir."

Gunny: "Do you think it would be fun to stand up and tell people about Jesus and about the Bible?"

Jet: "No sir, I don't think that would be fun."

Gunny: [now puzzled] "Well, what is it about being a pastor that you think you would like?"

Jet: "Hmm. I don't know."

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess he wants to be a pastor merely because his dad is one. I thought to myself, "It's a good thing I'm not a hatchet murderer."

Well, it was just another reminder of how important our example can be to our children, good or bad.

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