Are Children Always a Blessing?

Regardless of how many kids u have, should another be viewed as a blessing from God?


  • Total voters
    63
Status
Not open for further replies.

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
Just to answer the reductio ad Hitlerum - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.

Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this.

Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
:2cents: I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.
I have friends who have never had children. They even wanted to adopt but were prohibited providentially. They wanted children. I have friends who have adopted. I think it is a terrible thing to judge the providence of God in and absolute manner by declaring someone cursed or blessed based upon what the Lord has done.

St. Paul didn't have any physical children as far as I know. But he has a whole world filled with his spiritual children.

I love the movie Goodbye Mr. Chips. It is a movie about an old school teacher who never had children but raised a generation of young men.

T'was a pitty he never had any children.. But he did... Thousands of them.

[video=youtube;9Lau_ROXbog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lau_ROXbog[/video]
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
Amen. Ol' Mr Chips never even got to the fertility issue - the Lord simply never sent him a wife. There's no doubt that the Lord can use the gifts that He gives us for His service, even when it is not the 'norm'. We should always utilize the gifts we're given. Like fertility...right? ;)
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I corrected it.. He did marry but his wife passed and he never had any children.... I love this movie.

BTW, My fertility was used. LOL. :p
 

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
:2cents: I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.
I can't be sure what exactly was distressing to you, but I hope you don't think that any of the pro-adoption people here judge those families that don't adopt. I am so incredibly glad that my family went that route and my adopted brother is a blessing to all of us - BUT adoption is a huge undertaking and its not for every family. Some families really shouldn't adopt and some families that would like to have been providentially hindered. I know I've been a strong advocate for adoption on this board in the past and I hope I've never given the impression that I think adoption is a "holier" choice.
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
:2cents: I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.
I can't be sure what exactly was distressing to you, but I hope you don't think that any of the pro-adoption people here judge those families that don't adopt. I am so incredibly glad that my family went that route and my adopted brother is a blessing to all of us - BUT adoption is a huge undertaking and its not for every family. Some families really shouldn't adopt and some families that would like to have been providentially hindered. I know I've been a strong advocate for adoption on this board in the past and I hope I've never given the impression that I think adoption is a "holier" choice.
No. In my humble opinion some of the posts were uncharitable. I thought I was tough in the P&G forum :wink:
 

Hunn

Puritan Board Freshman
Just to answer the reductio ad Hitlerum - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.

Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this.

Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?
You can also look to the history of the church and find christians avoiding marriage and family all together in order to pursue God without hindrances. If Paul regarded it better not to marry, I wonder if sometimes it could be better to not have many children.

The question isn't whether we are preventing children because of culture (which you haven't really explained); the question is whether it is a sin to prevent children. If it isn't then I think this really doesn't need to be debated.

After all this discussion, I'm still failing to see biblically why we SHOULD avoid birth control. Should we mandate upon Christians a complete avoidance of all forms of birth control, even natural forms? Help me understand where you are coming from.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

One thing I do have to correct you on is your understanding of biology and fertility. Most people are not going to have 14 children, even if they stopped using birth control altogether. A woman's fertility begins to decrease at age 27. A huge percentage of couples struggle with infertility. Breast feeding is typically an effective form of natural birth control for at least six months after a child is born. With the age that most people get married being pushed back further and further, it becomes increasingly unlikely that a couple will have a large family of 10 or more. Is is possible? Sometimes, yes. But very unlikely. The exception doesn't justify the rule.

Additionally, regarding the welfare comment. 1. How many large families are on the "roles of welfare" as you put it? (Also, I don't consider octomom a good example since she is a non-Christian who is unmarried and intentionally sought to be inseminated with a large number of children to garner media attention). I know of none personally, but perhaps you do. The large families I know of have been blessed by God with enough to provide for their family without going on welfare. 2. Even if a family were on welfare, why would that be immoral? If taking help from the state to help provide for your family is wrong, then none of us should take tax deductions and tax credits since I'm assuming that pretty much everyone subsequently uses the money to support their family. I suppose if they used that savings to support others, then it would be okay, but I doubt that is your practice (though I am certainly willing to be corrected). Both of these points fail to support argumentation for using birth control.
I am wondering whether you would lay it upon the conscience of a young twenty year old couple that it is wrong to use any means of birth control. Whether most families would end up with large amounts of children is really irrelevant.

Regarding the welfare comment, that is an entirely different topic, and I haven't really made an attempt to think through whether it is ethical. I do think there is a difference between welfare and tax credits though. Paying less in taxes from your earnings is different than receiving money that you did not earn to begin with. Again, different topic, and I'll leave it at that.
 

he beholds

Puritan Board Doctor
I do think there is a difference between welfare and tax credits though. Paying less in taxes from your earnings is different than receiving money that you did not earn to begin with. Again, different topic, and I'll leave it at that.
But some receive MORE than they pay in taxes. And they keep it. But they never earned it. So while I wouldn't set up a government that spread the wealth around like that, I'd certainly accept anything the gov't wants to give me. Maybe there are others more principled than I am, but I see no ethical reason to turn down what the law allows. If you aren't lying or cheating and this is what your gov't offers, take it.

OK, tangent over : )
 

jpfrench81

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am wondering whether you would lay it upon the conscience of a young twenty year old couple that it is wrong to use any means of birth control. Whether most families would end up with large amounts of children is really irrelevant.
Nick,

Just to be clear, I haven't laid such a burden for any couple. I am still studying through the issue. I agree with you that the number of children a person has is irrelevant to whether birth control is permissible. My response was to your statement, "Should we all have a child every year for our entire 20's and 30's and live off of the welfare roles?" My point was that the concern is biologically unlikely and a poor argument for why birth control is permissible.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
So, how do you find my posts despicable? Did you prevent your wife from having her own kids? If so, I would call you the insensitive lout. If not, then what's your problem with what I've said? I'm honestly curious.
 

JoyFullMom

Puritan Board Junior
Fertility decreases at 27? HA! I have six children (and no, I'm not *quiverfull* and YES, they are a BLESSING), my first was born at age 25, my second at age 30 and then so on until my last son was born two days after my 40th birthday. So....yeah. LOL!
 

Grimmson

Puritan Board Sophomore
The issue regarding welfare should be a concern with Christians, especially when considering the involvement of the government in the homes. The purpose of government is not to care for children nor should we want them to. The sole responsibility of care is given by God in the family structure, or sphere if you like. The primary provider must be the man as head of the household. If he cannot provide for his family in the manner that he needs to, food or otherwise then he is acting in a sinful manner based on 1 Timothy 5:8. Therefore making this issue also an issue of church discipline if the man is acting against the mandate purposely without wisdom.

Welfare is different then a tax credit. Tax credits are given to everyone based on meeting the proactive criteria for receiving the tax credit. A few examples are such as updating your exhaust system of your car or placing solar panels up. Everyone who has children receives the tax credit for children, but the question is whether or not it is moral for a government to give tax money to a group that has not earned it? Is it the role of government to be so involved in a person’s life that they provide, and not the parents alone, support for raising children? I cannot speak for everyone here but that is a scary thought, particularly when strings may be attached. Such strings being attached can quickly turn into a knot and take away rights of parents as government grows in our homes. Strings such as social worker visits to the home to check how your raising the children, mandatory health checks, and checking of individual educational standards. The law allows some to receive welfare support, however this does not make the law lawful. I am using lawful in two sense, the first as a derivative coming from the law of God as instituted from God to government, such as natural law. The second sense is whether or not it is a good law for the common good, which is what government was set up to maintain; such as protection of citizens from invading armies, murder, theft, assault, and so on. Abortion laws allowing for abortions is a perfect example of a unlawful law. Now if welfare is for children then how is that bad? Simple, there is a deliberate shift and taking away of responsibility that would be given to the parents by God. The government would be more involved in the lives of the children; whereby they are turned more into investments of property for the government to be controlled mentally or physically instead under the care of parents. The government then starts to take the legacy of blessing that would have been the parents, for the government starts to turn into the parent. The money that is spent is the tax money of the people. It is money that we must all pay by April 15. We are not generally speaking in covenant of raising the children of people we do not even personally know, so why should are money be used for such? I think it would be better if money were to be given to such folks that something is in place whereby they must earn the money from the government. It would be a better use of tax payers money. If that money cannot be earned because the husband or father is already working a couple of jobs and still cannot provide then one must admit there is something wrong with that picture, not only physically but also spiritually because the father should also be providing religious instruction as well (at least in the Christian context). And within the Christian context I think it is not the State responsibility, but instead the church responsibility to take care of our own. We have given as a church the ministry of care to the state. I would much rather have my ties and offerings go to poor family in need then have the state give taxes that I pay to someone raising children through the state. The reason why I prefer the church more involved is because to some degree, especially if one is Presbyterian with the covenant children language and baptismal promise employed, we are in covenant with helping with the spiritual development of the children which should not be divorced form the physical and mental needs of children that our in our churches. These children are just as much a blessing on the church as they can be to parents.

I have known of Christian parents that were on welfare with a large number of children and I will leave it at that though.

I am going to stay away from the issue of contraception since I have already written my opinion on the issue with the link provided at an earlier post in this thread.

Many of you know here that I use to be a public high school, and for a time middle school, math teacher. Sometimes, from personal experience of teaching kids, parents are not qualified to teach their child reading, math, and/or science. They can fall behind the standards of education required by the state at the fault of parents. So if one is going to homeschool their children they need some level of wisdom on how many of their children could they manage to teach productively and if they could provide to bring resources in to fill in the missing gaps in their children education. Therefore to give as a standard rule that large families provide more time with discipleship and education could be a bit misleading at least based on my own experience. There are other factors to consider such as what the father does for a living, how much he makes financially, his cultural and religious background, and the current level of education of the parents.

I think that deals with the issues that I saw in the thread so far, with the exception from Tim below.

Disclaimer: If anyone was offended, such was not my intent. I am in no way against large families or homeschooling.

Personal thought: I do think that prior to the process of siring children wisdom in considering what resources one has for the sake of any future children.

Major issue to consider:
So, how do you find my posts despicable? Did you prevent your wife from having her own kids? If so, I would call you the insensitive lout. If not, then what's your problem with what I've said? I'm honestly curious.
Are you saying that the adoptive child should not be considered his wife’s child as well, that is the interperation I recieved from your last post? Do you hold Tim that adoptive children are inferior to children born into a family? Would you not accept that adoptive children are as equal the husband and the wife as natural children are? Besides that point that any natural children that are born are not just her's but also belongs to her husband as well equally?
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
You can also look to the history of the church and find christians avoiding marriage and family all together in order to pursue God without hindrances. If Paul regarded it better not to marry, I wonder if sometimes it could be better to not have many children.
This is a red herring. If they are unmarried, this is not an issue. If they are married, then 1 Cor 7 (among other things) comes into play.

The question isn't whether we are preventing children because of culture (which you haven't really explained); the question is whether it is a sin to prevent children. If it isn't then I think this really doesn't need to be debated.
What I am saying is that there are so many practical arguments against having as many children as God will allow. So many. And none of them really hold water in view of scripture or the historical church practises. They are modern contrivances, mostly come about since the ability to regulate fertility has been made a reality. I do think it is wrong to prevent children, especially when it is about convenience. I am less convicted when we are talking about physical issues that make it dangerous (for example, if a woman is pregnant with her 12th child, the previous 11 having been C-sections and medical professionals have raised several serious red flags about her imminant death if she is made pregnant again). However, I am fairly certain that this waffling on my part is due to a lack of faith more than its correctness. Thing is, I can steal a train full of gold, I can hijack a vehicle for gain, I can kidnap and ransom at will, but no matter how many times I lay with my wife, I cannot produce a human without God's spark of life (while in all the other examples, I may not succeed in my attempts to do those things, but the attempt itself is sin as well). Backing this are a several Bible verses that speak to the blessing that children are and the heritage and legacy they are and how the Lord opens and closes the womb. Are there any verses which specifically say "you may not use birth control?" No. First, because looking at the way scripture points to it being a blessing, it takes some hoop-jumping to get to the point where we can make a scriptural case for not allowing God's sovereignty to regin over our reproductivity (and in a way where we would not say 'well, then we don't need hospitals, God will take care of me and heal me' since you'd be hard pressed to find a verse that describes a car wreck as a blessing). Secondly, it only recently has become an issue. I see it as the next step in the narcissism our culture feeds us - my convenience trumping what God has laid out Biblically. But we are so far off track on this that going back to the alternative (where everyone was not so long ago) seems like a radical departure from what we practise as the norm, even in the church!

After all this discussion, I'm still failing to see biblically why we SHOULD avoid birth control. Should we mandate upon Christians a complete avoidance of all forms of birth control, even natural forms? Help me understand where you are coming from.
This I have a hard time with, but again, more because of my preconcieved notions (because of what I've grown up with) than because of what scripture says. Children are a blessing. God opens and closes the womb. God knows what is best for me better than I. Husband and wife are not to defraud one another of their marital 'company'. I don't see much room in there for birth control. We are not rabbits, able to produce litter upon litter of children. God does not grant that fertility to many - in fact He grants it to very, very few. But those He does, are generally also built with the physical means to handle it. While my wife was not granted the physical ability to deliver easily, we have been provided with first class health care. And a good job. And a good-sized house. And money enough to feed them all. I don't see the Lord providing this many children without a means to care for them. And, furthermore, it is a calling to adopt, it is not a 'Christian thing to do'. We are also to spread the gospel, but we are not all called to live in the deepest jungle to bring the Word to the lost there. Some are, and they are called to it The rest of us witness where we are. But when it comes to birthing children, it is a natural consequence of marriage (and where it is not, He makes that plain).
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Are you saying that the adoptive child should not be considered his wife’s child as well, that is the interperation I recieved from your last post? Do you hold Tim that adoptive children are inferior to children born into a family? Would you not accept that adoptive children are as equal the husband and the wife as natural children are? Besides that point that any natural children that are born are not just her's but also belongs to her husband as well equally?
Yawn. No. It's not that difficult. Read Lawrence's post if you haven't already.
 

jpfrench81

Puritan Board Sophomore
Fertility decreases at 27? HA! I have six children (and no, I'm not *quiverfull* and YES, they are a BLESSING), my first was born at age 25, my second at age 30 and then so on until my last son was born two days after my 40th birthday. So....yeah. LOL!
Congratulations! Of course, decreasing fertility doesn't mean that you aren't still fertile. Michelle Duggar would be a good example of that! An interesting book with a lot of facts about fertility is Start Your Family by Steve and Candice Watters. It's mostly a book about encouraging people to start their family sooner rather than later. My wife and I learned a lot.
 

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
While I realize that the focus is on birth itself, and the opportunity afforded in the fruit God provides, there is much more to this than the birth of a child. The words "children are a blessing" are not found in Scripture. The womb is blessed. We see where men are blessed with many children. Much of this has to do with the fact that many hands make light work... or more productive work. And, more importantly, children are a blessing in so far as they bless their parents. We make a terrible mistake in assuming that children are inherent blessings in simply being born. No, they're a heritage. They're an opportunity. For someone who loves Christ this means they are a blessing because they are someone we can pass down a godly heritage and legacy to and through. But a rebellious child is not a blessing. Obedient children are a blessing. Disobedient children are a curse.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.​

May our children truly be a blessing to us and all who know them.




Proverbs 30:11-17

There is a generation that curses its father,
And does not bless its mother.
There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes,
Yet is not washed from its filthiness.
There is a generation—oh, how lofty are their eyes!
And their eyelids are lifted up.
There is a generation whose teeth are like swords,
And whose fangs are like knives,
To devour the poor from off the earth,
And the needy from among men.
The leech has two daughters—
Give and Give!
There are three things that are never satisfied,
Four never say, “Enough!”:
The grave,
The barren womb,
The earth that is not satisfied with water—
And the fire never says, “Enough!”
The eye that mocks his father,
And scorns obedience to his mother,
The ravens of the valley will pick it out,
And the young eagles will eat it.
:up::up:
 

JennyG

Puritan Board Graduate
Just to answer the reductio ad Hitlerum - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.

Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this.

Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?
thank you, Kevin, the reductio was mine and when I stopped to think, I was seriously puzzled about it. Richard added the example of Absalom too.
I suppose it's all in what makes a "blessing", and whether you allow hindsight to confuse an issue that would have been perfectly simple, humanly speaking, at the time of his arrival in the world.
Do we know for sure those three were Noah's only ones? I'm not really attacking the point you made, i'm just interested :)
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
A few points and I will shut my infertile mouth
1. Calvin had no living children, Machen never married. Neither did Jesus or the Apostles. Hmmmmm.
2.OTOH on the fertile side of things I know quite a few federal and state prisoners who have multiple kiddies (with multiple partners: I am not being gender specific here for a reason).
3. Bill Gothard is a never married man who lived with his mommy. Bill Gothard hates adoption and encourages fertility at any cost.
4. Anna the Priestess was one of the first people God showed the Baby Jesus to (in fact she was waiting for Him). Anna was not a mommy and she worked as a temple priestess (gasp!)
5. Family can be (and all too often is) an idol.
6.The last time i heard the words "families can be together forever, through heavenly father's plan" was when I was LDS. And family idolators are so very very familiar, they might as well be wearing garments and calling Thomas S Monson a Prophet.
7. Jesus did say He came to tear families apart
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
1. Calvin had no living children, Machen never married. Neither did Jesus or the Apostles. Hmmmmm.
And the point is?? Calvin did not practise birth control, and was very much against it in every and any form. Some of the apostles were actually married (Peter was married for certain, and I found this on a Catholic website: "Early writings of the Church suggest that all the apostles were married when chosen by Jesus except John. However, from the Bible we only know of the marriage of Peter (there is mention of his mother-in-law)." Machen, since he was not married, is not relevant. I would say this discussion does not apply to those who serve the Lord as a singleton.
2.OTOH on the fertile side of things I know quite a few federal and state prisoners who have multiple kiddies (with multiple partners: I am not being gender specific here for a reason).
I know of a couple of serial killers who were single. They were not believers.
3. Bill Gothard is a never married man who lived with his mommy. Bill Gothard hates adoption and encourages fertility at any cost.
And who here loves Bill Gothard?
4. Anna the Priestess was one of the first people God showed the Baby Jesus to (in fact she was waiting for Him). Anna was not a mommy and she worked as a temple priestess (gasp!)
But I can pretty much guarantee that she did not use birth control.
5. Family can be (and all too often is) an idol.
True enough - that is stand alone sin. The ability to play golf well is not a sin. Making it an idol is. Golf is not sinning, the person who has elevated it is.
6.The last time i heard the words "families can be together forever, through heavenly father's plan" was when I was LDS. And family idolators are so very very familiar, they might as well be wearing garments and calling Thomas S Monson a Prophet.
Then, again, they are in sin. But it is their theology at issue, not them having lots of kids.
7. Jesus did say He came to tear families apart
Huh?

---------- Post added at 01:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

Do we know for sure those three were Noah's only ones? I'm not really attacking the point you made, i'm just interested
Jenny, since it says that "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." I am assuming that those were the only ones. They mention Noah's wife, and sons' wives, but there's no mention of daughters. Or maybe he had more sons and daughters that were wicked and left to drown (though I think that's unlikely).
 
Last edited:

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

God has a family, by adoption. Jesus is the only begotten son.

I would venture to say that a case could be made that adoption is a more godlike and blessed way to have children than by natural means, and certainly it is at least equal in blessing to natural means.

Spend a day reading up on street children and the plight of foreign orphans. There are probably links if you google Randy Alcorn, Piper, etc. One thing we can be sure we are commanded to do, is to go and make disciples. No debate on that one. I can't think of a better way to make disciples of the lost than to bring a cast off child into your home.
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
But I think making adoption more 'holy' than by birth is also not right. These children are not a ministry or an outreach project, they are my flesh and blood as I am Christ's flesh and blood. I never want people to think that we did a 'good' thing by adopting - it is a calling, a very specific and special calling. A missionary in the field is no more holy than you are, it is that he was called to that place.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
To those I have offended, please be aware that I am very pro adoption. I thought that was clear. Evidently it was not. My comments were purely addressed to the very modern practice of preventing babies and adopting. And even in those cases I can see reasons, like when the woman's health is in danger.

I'm sorry that my posts came across harshly.
 

he beholds

Puritan Board Doctor
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

God has a family, by adoption. Jesus is the only begotten son.

I would venture to say that a case could be made that adoption is a more godlike and blessed way to have children than by natural means, and certainly it is at least equal in blessing to natural means.

Spend a day reading up on street children and the plight of foreign orphans. There are probably links if you google Randy Alcorn, Piper, etc. One thing we can be sure we are commanded to do, is to go and make disciples. No debate on that one. I can't think of a better way to make disciples of the lost than to bring a cast off child into your home.
I have absolutely no issue with adopting, and I would love to adopt someday. BUT, I think the natural way to make disciples (birth them) is at least equal to adopting, if we are really going to try to hash out what's the best way to make disciples. (Which I really don't want to do.)
I really think adoption is great and it is a God-designed means to grow families. And I think that there is no discrepancy between your natural-born children and your adopted ones, especially in the eyes of God. But being someone who is slightly persecuted (in the very lightest sense of the word) for having small children very close in age, and who understands that there are people who think it is wrong for us to have children when there are so many who already need parents, I have to take issue with the thought that it is more godlike to adopt than to birth children. I cannot imagine a world where it is wrong to have children. And so I cannot imagine a world where it is less-right to do so.
We may not understand/agree upon birth control, but we can all agree that it is completely right for a husband a wife to have $ex. And there is NEVER a commandment or even advice for husbands and wives to prevent the natural consequence of that $ex. So it is impossible that, as a rule, it be better for husbands and wives to not get pregnant, regardless of adoption capabilities.
I think adoption is godly. I think birthing babies is godly. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, as a rule. Sure, as we've seen here, there are cases where they overlap--some prevent pregnancy to adopt and some don't adopt because they are in the midst of birthing babies (hi, there), but as far as holiness goes, the two are not in competition and aren't even related. They are both god-glorifying in and of themselves--not because of what it means regarding the other.
 

Dwimble

Puritan Board Freshman
These children are not a ministry or an outreach project, they are my flesh and blood as I am Christ's flesh and blood. I never want people to think that we did a 'good' thing by adopting - it is a calling, a very specific and special calling. A missionary in the field is no more holy than you are, it is that he was called to that place.
I wasn't going to comment again on this topic, but since it has continued I'll chime in here to add my agreement to much of what you said. MANY people have told us what a "great thing" we did by adopting our first child and again by adopting our second child (which will be completed in about a month). We've never really seen it quite like that. They are our children and nothing more. Adoption is simply the way God has added to our family. From our perspective it is essentially the same as having them by birth.

We never viewed them as some sort of ministry or something unusual for us to do. Neither did we view them as some sort of "calling." When the time came that we desired to have children we immediately chose to adopt. There was never even a consideration of anything else. My wife has never had the slightest desire to "birth" children...it is just something that is not in her. Similarly, I've never felt any desire or need to pass on my seed or live on through my children. My child is my child regardless of whether or not she shares any DNA with me. The need or desire to have biological children is a concept and desire kind of foreign to me. It simply doesn't matter to me or my wife. We had the desire for children, the financial means to become parents to a child who desparately needed some, and therefore we prayerfully considered the adoption location and method to use and then did so.

Our second adoption has been essentially the same story, except that this child has some special physical needs. We desired to have another child and therefore adopted again, but thought it would be good this time to have a child who might be in more serious and immediate need due to her special challenges, which other parents might have a more difficult time dealing with. Again, we had the desire, financial means, and the disposition to deal with the issues and accept and love the child completely. From our perspective it is as normal as can be and we can't imagine feeling any differently.

Intellectually I can see that, yes, God has called us to adopt and sovereignly chosen to give us children this way, and we feel priviledged every day that he has done so. However, we never "felt" called or viewed it specifically as a calling. It has always seemed so normal to us. In the same way that the typical person desires to have biological children we have always desired to adopt children.
 

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
think adoption is godly. I think birthing babies is godly. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, as a rule. Sure, as we've seen here, there are cases where they overlap--some prevent pregnancy to adopt and some don't adopt because they are in the midst of birthing babies (hi, there), but as far as holiness goes, the two are not in competition and aren't even related. They are both god-glorifying in and of themselves--not because of what it means regarding the other.
Agreed - you said it so well!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top