Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Does the Bible say you have to have kids?

Posted by: Kathy on: January 24, 2008

It’s kinda neat looking at the blog stats page and seeing what people searched for online to find your blog. This was one of the search terms, and it got me to thinking–what *does* the Bible say about it? I’ve not done extensive research into this question, so most of this is “off the cuff”; besides, I could have biases that blind me to some of the evidence, and I could misinterpret things. Please don’t set this up as your doctrine until you study it out for yourself.

First, the Bible is most clear that sex is to be only between a man and woman who are married to each other. All other forms of sex (premarital, extramarital, homosexual, bestiality) are clearly forbidden in both the Old and the New Testaments. It amazes me that there are people who claim to be Christians and claim to believe the Bible, who have no clue what the Bible says, or find loop-holes and exceptions where there are none, or believe that certain parts of the Bible are not accurate. (That is another subject, and I may take that up in a future post; for now, I encourage you to read Josh McDowell’s book Evidence that Demands a Verdict on the question of the authenticity of the Bible.) Now, on to the Biblical evidence.

In Gen. 1:28, God commands the newly-created man to “be fruitful and multiply.” As my dad used to say, if a man and his wife just have two kids, that’s not multiplication–that’s not even addition–that’s just replacement! (For the sake of honesty, right now, I have two children, ages 3 years and 19 months, and am not planning on more for a while.) As far as I can tell, that command has never been said to be fulfilled and no longer in force. I think the command to have children was in fact repeated to the Israelites when they were on the verge of entering into the land of Canaan to conquer it–to fill the land with their children, basically. Throughout the Old Testament, not having children was considered to be a curse, and having many children was considered to be a blessing (a few Scriptures that spring to mind are a couple of Psalms that allude to this–likening children to many arrows in the quiver, or like many olive shoots around the olive tree). One might argue that we humans have been fruitful and multiplied, and that we have filled the earth, so we don’t need to have lots of children now. Also, we are not an agrarian society, so children are a financial burden for many years more now than they were back in the old days when they might tend sheep or help in the fields.

From what I can remember of the New Testament, there is no positive directive for married couples to have children, but it is more or less understood that that would happen. One should be careful, however, when formulating one’s ideas, to make sure that a command is a command, and liberty is liberty. There are some who think that sex is only for the purpose of procreation; some who think that couples should always be trying to get pregnant; others think that one should never try not to have a child (even by periodic abstinence); and some try to have more control over their own lives. Some of these people take the line that God should be the one in charge of your family size, and to keep from conceiving a child is basically thumbing your nose at the sovereignty of God or something. My basic philosophy is, if you want to have children, go for it. If you don’t, first make sure that your reasons don’t violate commands of Scripture.

One problem I have with the philosophy that you should have no control whatsoever over how many children you have is that God did give us brains for some reason, and I think He wants us to use them. If we’re not allowed to decide how many children we want, are there any other similar decisions that we are sinning if we try to control?–who we marry, when we marry, what job we have, where we live…. The other problem I have with it is that there are some who truly cannot afford to have more children, yet intentionally try to have more (usually for religious reasons). Of course, nobody can really afford to have kids, by some estimates–that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who are on government assistance, or barely scraping by without it, perhaps even have declared bankruptcy or are contemplating it–and still planning on having more children. Now, that clearly violates the New Testament command of men providing for their families at the penalty of being “worse than an infidel” if do not.

Where does birth control fit into this? I believe that life starts at conception (numerous Scriptures speak of a woman “conceiving a son” not a blob of tissue that would become a son; also, John the Baptist was referred to as a living being when he “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb), and therefore an already-conceived baby should be allowed to live if at all possible. I don’t have a problem with contraception (that is, preventing conception from occurring), but I do have a problem with drugs or procedures that can be considered abortifacients. There are a variety of contraceptives (spermicide, condoms and diaphragms; as well as “natural family planning” methods that include periodic abstinence to prevent conception); but everything else that falls under the name of “birth control” may in fact induce an abortion.

Most methods of birth control–hormones such as pills, injections, patches, etc., and IUDs including Mirena–work in one of two ways–blocking conception (by keeping the woman from ovulating, or the sperm from entering the uterus) or by keeping the fertilized egg from implanting. Hormones keep the uterine lining too thin for adequate blood supply for the embryonic placenta, and the IUD tends to “irritate” the uterus, making it slightly contract–not enough for the woman to feel it, but enough to expel an embryo. Still, pregnancy may occur using any method of birth control or contraception (except abstinence works every time it’s tried). If you are uncomfortable with abortion, you may very well need to be uncomfortable with birth control.

I suggest you google terms such as “natural family planning” and other methods of contraception and birth control, to find out what is best for you–after you know all of the benefits and risks of every option.

15 Responses to "Does the Bible say you have to have kids?"

One might argue that we humans have been fruitful and multiplied, and that we have filled the earth, so we don’t need to have lots of children now. Also, we are not an agrarian society, so children are a financial burden for many years more now than they were back in the old days when they might tend sheep or help in the fields.

This is neglected point in the argument as is having a coherent and definitive philosophy. Genesis speaks to a couple not to a society. In a society of dependents and interdependent rather than independents as in an agrarian societies, the financial issue you speak of is of utmost importance.

numerous Scriptures speak of a woman “conceiving a son” not a blob of tissue that would become a son; also, John the Baptist was referred to as a living being when he “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb”

A great observation.

I once asked my pastor about this after getting a vasectomy and due to the fact that my wife, after having three boys had declining health AT THE TIME.

He said yes, we are to be fruitful if we can and yes children are a gift from God. But not all this is to be done by ONE woman (LOL). Putting the joke aside, he reminded me that I need not have this reversd or dig up the things already buried and that my intentions were noble and we might not have been able to handle more kids anyhow in our economic condition.

Now having said that, I DO agree that lifestyle issues get Christians some scorn sometimes and that luxury and sumptious items are the FAUX reasons given by some Christians for not have any kids at ALL or just one or two. Which statistically is not even replacement level. Julian Simon among other did a masterful job utterly demolishing the notion that kids means poverty per se, and that traditional societies were wrong for wanting more even when it SEEMED disadvantagous in an agrarian society. He reminds us in THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE that long term the environmental and demographic horrors preached by men like Paul Erlich are nonsense.

There is one place that having fewer kids leads to, more likely in Europe but hints of this going on elsewhere in America: Extinction. The good angle in this is that the world might be a more conservative place. But what KIND of conservatism>?

Could be radical fundamentalist Islam, not Christians. And without the protections of secular society and yes from liberals too in Western Society, we might all be in danger.

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/liberals-doomed-to-extinction-darwin.html

Sites like Blessed Arrows make much of having as many babes as you can, and even provide some truly interesting points to make. We Christians and indeed Western people in general need to have more little ones. Europe is now bribing some women in some cases to move about from the pure hedonist lifestyle of wine and dinner all the time and start making more babies. They have relatively empty maternity wards and very busy old folks homes and demographers are wondering several things here of concern. First only the Muslims are repopluating themselves. And this gives grave concern for Western Societal identity. Second, pension plans, government work, social programs, and retirement benefits are now in jeapordy due to the fact that Western Europeans are simply not replacing themselves. This sumptious lifestyle trend that needs social handouts paid for but refuses to repopulate is coming to Amercia. I know few people with more than one or two children. Gone are the days of the Waltons.

We better think twice also about Christian identity in a secular world with all its myriad (usually negative) influences.

Now Blessed Arrows and simliar groups can go overboard in this kind of thinking, I admit. They regard all contraception is inherently evil, and vasectomy as a form of mutilation against God’s will.

Not so sure about that.

Well Daniel that’s true too. Adam and Eve are spoken to, not all of humanity at this point in time.

–Wake

I didn’t know you had a personal blog. I am enjoying browsing through it! I had a friend who made that comment about multiplying and after she had 3 she said had multiplied by 1.5. I thought that was cute. She went on to have 3 more kids though.

I too struggle with this a bit. We feel really good about having 3 right now, but I try to stay open to the Spirit and figure the Lord will let me know if we are supposed to have more. Luckily the scriptures don’t tell us a specific number, it is left up to each couple to determine with prayer. :)

You write: “God did give us brains for some reason, and I think He wants us to use them.”

Does that argument hold true for other areas of our lives? Should we use our brains in deciding what job to have, whom to marry, which church to go to, whether to give money to our local church, whether our parents deserve our honor, whether or not lying just this once is wrong, whether or not to steal that loaf of bread because our child is hungry, etc etc. It amazes me that some will preach that we are to submit our lives to God in every area except planning our families. I fail to understand how men can pick and choose which commandments to adhere to, or which parts of their lives to submit to God.

Either He is Lord of our lives or He isn’t.

Julie,

Yes, I would say that argument holds true for other areas of our lives. There are Biblical parameters given for most if not all areas of our lives — for instance lying and stealing are given a clear negative in every instance of Scripture (except, perhaps Rahab concealing the presence of the spies in Jericho). Eph. 4:28 says “Let him that stole steal no more, but rather labor….” Likewise, there is no question about whether or not our parents deserve honor nor whether we should give money to the church–there are clear scriptures which speak to that.

But there is obvious liberty in deciding which job to have — it must be God-honoring and not illegal, such as prostitution, gambling, stripping, organized crime, etc. There are also clear mandates against loving money and “serving mammon”; so there may be some jobs which are legal and perhaps even moral, but some people should not have them because they are serving money and the world by pursuing that particular occupation, rather than serving God. However, men must have jobs in order to fulfill the Scriptural command to provide for their families. Paul wrote in Romans that they had the liberty to eat meat offered to idols, but that if a man could not do so with a clear conscience, then he was bound not to eat. Some men can hold the same job that other men cannot–in good conscience–because for some men it is not a stumbling block, but for others it is.

In I Cor. 7 he wrote that people were free to get married, but that it was probably better if they didn’t–as long as they could maintain their sexual purity. If there is liberty in whether or not to marry, then there is certainly liberty in whom to marry, as long as that person meets other Biblical qualifications — Christians must marry “in the Lord,” and be not unequally yoked.

In our day, there are many churches within easy distance to choose, but they are not all true churches — many in fact who call themselves to be Christian are anything but, because they refuse to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture, and allow blatant and unrepentant sinners to remain church members in good standing, and many even allow homosexuals and women to preach. I could not be a member of such a “church.” But if there are two churches in a close range that are similar and preach the truth equally, then there is no clear mandate from Scripture which one I should attend.

Basically, there is Christian liberty in many areas, but never to sin.

I very much appreciate seeing bloggers point to the correlations between most forms of chemical birth control being abortifacient.

I commend to you and your readers to consider getting a free copy of “Contraception: Why Not?” by Janet Smith and taking a look at the landmark Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI who reiterated what all Christians had taught until the Anglicans voted to change their position (a position that had actually re-affirmed just 10 years prior!) at the 1931 Lambeth conference that was a meeting of all the Anglican bishops of the world.

To hear an interview with Dr. Janet Smith, Fr. Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics and Professor of Moral Theology from an Australian Radio (May 2, 2006 at 8.30pm)
on the the topic will be condoms and aids:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1629283.htm

A professor of moral theology, Janet Smith is the author of Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, editor of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, and Life Issues, Medical Choices.

Contraception: Why Not? – Part 1

Contraception: Why Not? – Part 2

SOURCE: CatholiciPod

Another link I had forgotten to include with the above that I think is helpful in considering the traditional Christian view of contraception is:The Bible Against Contraception

If you highlight those texts in your Bible (I have a copy I use for underlining!) they really begin to jump off the page at you when read in context…

The Protest of a Protestant Minister Against Birth Control

I thought of this blog entry when I found this while doing some research today.

I wish more people understood the traditional, historic Christian teaching on this which is VERY biblical.

There is ample evidence in the scripture that God’s intention for sex is fertility. Fertility as a value is now being recognized by many evangelicals who are now beginning to shun contraception and have larger families. For some scriptural references as well as references to the early church fathers:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

There are many issues that need to be examined with regard to the contraceptive mentality. When a contraceptive fails, the couple now feeling the right to sex without fertile consequences, is more likely to resort to abortion. One cannot deny the connection between the practice of contraception and abortion. Also, the use of contraception develops a mental separation between sex and pregnancy. Once that happens infidelity becomes more common. Pre-marital sex also becomes more common. Hence the sexual revolution along with all its diseases, divorces and other discontents.

The dissociation of sex from pregnancy in the popular mind has led to all of the terrible consequences we are seeing in the family. Homosexuality is now on par with heterosexuality precisely because fertility is irrelevant to sex, for example.

Sex is also for bonding. Couples who were virgins at marriage and have remained faithful have the same divorce rates as the 19th Century–less than 5 percent. Once premarital sex becomes the norm, the ability to bond is severely reduced. For the couples who remained virgins each time they have sex it is a reminder of their wedding night. For those who had previous partners, it is a reminder that you are just my latest.

Perhaps one may think that he can morally permit contraception in marriage but morally condemn extramarital sex. I dont think so. The rates of fidelity drop significantly for contracepting couples. As we know, infidelity rates are now over 50% in “good” marriages.

When God’s plan is thwarted we see all the kinds of disorder we are now seeing in society. So, I would encourage faithful Christians of every strip such as yourself to really reconsider and change your minds about contraception.

God Bless,
Fr. J.

I am sorry – I don’t know if this is Providence, but I keep finding these articles I want to share with you because I think you would appreciate them…

http://www.cufblog.org/?p=304

This is a post written on one of my Catholic blogs I read that talks about contraception and the history of the sexual revolution…

A paragraph that leaped out at me was:

“The next “prophet” in my chronological list is Anglican Bishop Charles Gore. In the 1920s debate about what the Anglicans rightly called “unnatural forms of birth control,” Bishop Gore led the fight against contraception within the Anglican Communion. He and others pointed out that accepting contraception would open a Pandora’s box of all sorts of other evils that none of them would want to see—including the acceptance of homosexual sodomy. How right he was has been proved by the events within his own ecclesial community.

Our third “prophet” is an unnamed editorial writer for the Washington Post. Here’s a brief chronology to put things in perspective: On August 14, 1930, the Anglican bishops issued a statement accepting unnatural forms of birth control for hardship cases. On December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI responded with his encyclical Casti Connubii, in which he strongly reaffirmed the previously unbroken Christian teaching against marital contraception. On March 21, 1931, a committee of the Federal Council of Churches accepted the “careful and restrained use” of contraception. The very next day, an editorial in the Post strongly criticized this action. “Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.” Prophetic indeed!”

It is worth reading the whole article if you get a chance.

Here’s a post somebody else wrote that went into this more deeply, which I thought had some good points.

I agree with your perspective. A command is different from liberty. And God gives us liberty in many, many areas from an individual to a geopolitical scale. It is an un-Christian thing to destroy people’s liberty, per Paul’s remarks throughout his letters. So we need to guard that.

We also shouldn’t confuse God’s command for Adam and Eve to fill the earth as a personal commandment, although it has personal ramifications. I totally agree that most people’s choice to limit the number of children they have is today based on selfishness rather than faith. And there are compelling arguments about how many children are ideal.

But while the Bible paints a positive portrait of childbearing throughout, it is certainly clear that Scripture does not COMMAND Christians to have children. That would be interjecting works into the system for sure.

In Malachi 2:15, the Bible says that one of the purposes of marriage is godly offspring. So yeah, I think that Christian couples need to have a welcoming attitude towards children and to have a different attitude is ungodly.

Hey, thanks for the link to your personal blog. I see we have even more in common than I thought! Thank you for being out there and thank you for your out-of-the-mainstream perspective. It is refreshing!

Leave a Reply

Contact your Representatives

Fight FOCA

Blog Stats

  • 27,735 hits

Pages