A "Missiological Motivation" for Having Children

It’s an argument the reformed home schooling makes. We need to outnumber them! Mary Pride made it a primary argument in her book “The Way Home” published years ago. She did the numbers and figured if each family had 6 kids and each of those kids had 6 kids, how long it would take to “overwhelm” the public school system.

It makes for intereresting reading even if it isn’t exactly the “biblical” plan of winning the world to Christ.

Is Mary Pride Reformed?

It is weird to me to assume that one’s children will get saved just because they were raised in a Christian home, or that they will homeschool merely because they were homeschooled. I’ve also never gotten the point of counting baptisms- I think it leads to some unhealthy attitudes about evangelization.

[Susan R] It is weird to me to assume that one’s children will get saved just because they were raised in a Christian home, or that they will homeschool merely because they were homeschooled. I’ve also never gotten the point of counting baptisms- I think it leads to some unhealthy attitudes about evangelization.

To your first point, there are various theologies that tend in the direction of presuming a higher concentration of the elect within covenant families. Even disregarding those theologies, statistics have shown that most Christians grow up in Christian homes and identified with Christianity before the age of 13. [Actually, this is true of religious affiliation in general.]

To your second point, counting baptism is probably not ideal, but is much better than counting the nebulous “profession of faith.” Of course, if the article is correct that many SBC baptisms are actually adult re-baptisms of child baptisms, that indicates a measure of inflation in the counts.

Not that I espouse the notion that one of the foremost purposes for a Christian family is to have lots of kids in order to ‘overwhelm’ the world, but if I were, would it not be better to adopt? Statistically speaking of course. If all you ever do is have your own kids, you are losing a losing battle to attempt to catch up to the world. You are just cancelling out one of their kids. But if you adopt, it has the same effect of having two kids because the difference adopting would create would be two compared to no difference if you have your own kid.

And regarding this “missiological motivation”, adoption, IMO, would seem a better way to do it. Not to rub anyone the wrong way, but having more kids these days seems odd and often times irresponsible, in most peoples eyes. (not saying it is wrong, just saying what I believe to be the general idea of people) Adoption on the other hand seems to not carry that stigmatism. (again in my opinion of what I believe others think) Matter of fact, it would seem more people would think it to be an act of compassion and caring. Being compassionate and caring, IMO, would lead to more missiological encounters.
*****I just want to reiterate, I am not saying having lots of kids is wrong. Just saying that is my opinion of what I believe others to think. I personally think Christianity needs a healthy dose of both types of families. Both families can help each in ways they cannot by themselves.

Re:

Akin told a Baptist blogger, Trevin Wax, associate pastor of First Baptist Church in Shelbyville, Tenn., that he is not saying “the way we need to evangelize the world is to have more children … period,” but, “We do need to have more children and faithfully teach them the gospel and the Christian scriptures.”

Having kids and the great commission: Must be a textual variant because I don’t find it in my Bible ( Matthew 28:19-20 ) :)

Seriously: Best to separate the 2 issues. We have the Lord’s command ( Matthew 28:19-20 )! And children are a blessing from the Lord!

But to mix the two together to even make it sound like having more children is the Lord’s strategy for reaching the world; is adding to the Great Commission!

[Charlie] Is Mary Pride Reformed?

I would say “definitely” after reading her book. She was more or less one of the early pioneers of the modern home school movement—coming after the Moores from the 80’s. I believe she wrote her book in the early 90’s.

[Jim Peet]

But to mix the two together to even make it sound like having more children is the Lord’s strategy for reaching the world; is adding to the Great Commission!

And they are “arrows” to help the men win the battle. Didn’t you know this? This is a war…and children are the arms. We have lots of children in order to raise up an army for God.

:) You ought to read more about the QF movement and how to raise up an army for God.

I’m sorry when Christians think it is irresponsible to have lots of kids. I think it is great, as long as you can care for them. It is irresponsible if you haven’t the means or the patience to care for them. A mom with mental problems shouldn’t have lots of kids. A dad on welfare or SS disability can’t provide for his 10 kids. It is ignoring the obvious commands of Scripture to provide for your family/train your kids and focusing on the derived principles of “kids are a blessing” connected to the idea of “who are we to stop the Lord’s blessing?”

I also wish more Christian families would adopt! Adopt hard to place kids. Adopt sibling groups. One sibling group of 5 here in Poland was adopted out to two families in the US. Thankfully they put them in families close together so the kids can see each other. But what a blessing if someone with the finances could adopt all 5, or 3 or even 2!

Yes, it does seem like adopting would be like a 2 for 1 deal—you bring a kid from either a completely atheistic atmosphere like the Ukraine or a Catholic one like Poland into a real Christian home, the chances that they will be converted seem much higher. They are exposed to the gospel, prayed for, and taught. How come so few Christians seem wiling to adopt?

One reason may be Gothard’s teachings on it. He says, “Be careful…the sins of the fathers are on the children”. I was rejoicing one time in a family who adopted two hard-to-place kids and we kept them for a couple of days while they were working on paperwork (they adopted from the Ukraine). I had tears in my eyes telling this lady, a SBC, Gothard follower, and she put a damper on my spirit when she said, “They need ot be careful because of the sins of the fathers…” I was a bit irritated. They hadn’t even known their father and their mother was a drug user and in jail.

interesting subject.

to the initial article, i don’t necessarily read Mary Pride’s teaching (yes, i’ve read her) into the article. (And to her, I would be satisfied to reply that “be fruitful and multiply” is a blessing, not a command in the way she makes it out to be.) I think statistically, the man writing the article is right. we have less people naturally under christian influence when we have less children. Rearing children is evangelism/discipleship/teaching, so in that way, it is part of the great commission, though it’s not evangelistic in other senses.

i think there are several factors in play here that most people do not usually note:

1. The way America economically works now makes children an expensive (very expensive usually) “burden” (in the economic sense). They are no longer part of the family work force that brings in the bacon and bakes the bread, kwim. They are mostly expenditures: we pay for education (thousands and thousands all the way thru college!), high standard of health/dental/eye care (compared to the rest of the world), and there are lower death rates in general today, and other factors like that. Also, parents today don’t have children in order to have someone to live with and care for them in their old age—now they are expected to raise children plus save for retirement. (It’s insane really, if you think about it) In an agricultural (or other?) economy, kids add more to your wealth/workforce in some significant senses. Young married people in industrial societies have to understand that they will make financial sacrifices now (and for about 20+ yrs) in order to have children and more children. They have to be ready to tighten their belt and give up luxuries. What people mean by “financial responsibility” and the number of children you will have, well, that is between God and that couple. Some people will live pretty poor to have several children. Others are more wealthy and can have children while maintaining a higher standard of living. I know the Bible says “blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them,” and “children are an inheritance from the Lord,” but the *economic* place of children in the OT and in current America are two pretty different things.

I’ve just thought a lot about this b/c we want a lot of children. we want our own and to be able to adopt—which is another expense, esp for families who have no trouble having biological children.

2. About the Middle East and reproduction, i think because of the way marriages are structured in those cultures and what society values , they do have a lot more children. sure a lot of them are probably mediocre islamists, but in that area of the world, family loyaltiesand obligations go deep in a way that we do not necessarily comprehend. on the other hand, there are some glaring issues and weaknesses, but they do as a whole, have a lot more children growing up in their belief system.

So, like Akin, I could conclude: “he [Akin] is not saying “the way we need to evangelize the world is to have more children … period,” but, “We do need to have more children and faithfully teach them the gospel and the Christian scriptures.”

And we can look a lot more at how we are evangelizing others and maybe not be so scared of evangelizing islamists. their are plenty of them in most countries.

[Charlie]

[Susan R] It is weird to me to assume that one’s children will get saved just because they were raised in a Christian home, or that they will homeschool merely because they were homeschooled. I’ve also never gotten the point of counting baptisms- I think it leads to some unhealthy attitudes about evangelization.

To your first point, there are various theologies that tend in the direction of presuming a higher concentration of the elect within covenant families. Even disregarding those theologies, statistics have shown that most Christians grow up in Christian homes and identified with Christianity before the age of 13. [Actually, this is true of religious affiliation in general.]

To your second point, counting baptism is probably not ideal, but is much better than counting the nebulous “profession of faith.” Of course, if the article is correct that many SBC baptisms are actually adult re-baptisms of child baptisms, that indicates a measure of inflation in the counts.

It does seem reasonable to assume that a higher percentage of children raised in Christian homes will be converted, just as vocations tend to run in families- cops, firemen, lawyers… But salvation requires more than just ‘falling into’ a vocation because it is what you are most familiar with. I believe there are many MANY unsaved children in our Christian homes because of the assumption that their professions are genuine repentance and not just kids doing what is expected of them. I’m a prime example of someone raised in a Christian home who went to a Christian school and graduated from Bible college, proceeded to be involved in the ministry for years and led many people to the Lord- all as a lost person.

So- the idea that a major motivation for bearing more children should be raising up an evangelistic army is of concern to me. It just takes too much for granted IMO. I think that motivation should follow the birth of children, not precede it, if that makes any sense.

I do agree that counting baptisms seems more solid than counting professions, but it’s the ‘counting’ part that gives me the willies. I think it is much more valid to count those who have been properly discipled and are faithful to church, if you gotta’ count something.

As far as the counting goes, it’s probably done for a different reason than what we’re used to seeing. While many churches, especially independent baptist ones, count “professions of faith” simply for pride and bragging rights, the tone of the article leads me to believe the baptisms were being counted primarily for statistical research in order to identify and address trends.

[Norm] As far as the counting goes, it’s probably done for a different reason than what we’re used to seeing. While many churches, especially independent baptist ones, count “professions of faith” simply for pride and bragging rights, the tone of the article leads me to believe the baptisms were being counted primarily for statistical research in order to identify and address trends.

I don’t want to stray too far from the topic of the original article, but I wanted to say that I agree with you about the tone of the article being more about statistical research than bragging rights. It’s just a practice I’ve never been entirely comfortable with, probably because of my own experiences in SotL churches.

How many kids does Danny Akin have?

I have a hard time using children as pawns in a strategic game. I don’t believe in putting them into corrupting environments for the sake of outreach potential, and I don’t believe in having more of them to populate the Kingdom. And you don’t know whose kingdom you are populating. As a homeschooling dad (we home-schooled our kids the entire distance), I have seen MANY home-schooled kids turn from the Lord.

I praise the Lord that my two are walking with the Lord. But kids do have a will of their own, and election is in God’s hands.

Ed, what is your take on Titus 1:6? “if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”