Thanks for your reply because:
a) there is valu...

2008-09-12T16:07:00.000-06:00

Thanks for your reply because:
a) there is value in clearly evaluating what it is we believe in comparison to the scripture
b) it gives me the chance to shore up some of my arguments
c) I've been long deprived of good logical and theological debate :)

First (to note) this blog is really my only avenue of discussing these topics (usually, anyway). Due to their rather controversial nature they don't make the best of discussion starters ("So...had any new kids lately?"). However, I do believe they are important enough to be discussed, hence why I posted them here.

To respond to your comments:

1. You are most correct in that there is a tension between "being in the world, but not of it", and finding that balancing point can be difficult. However, home education is not equivalent to hiding from the world. This seems to be the common image conjured up when anyone mentions homeschooling, but I don't think it is an accurate one.

Home educated students have the same opportunities to interact with the real unbelieving world each day as public school students...perhaps even more so since they are not constrained by school schedules and age-segregated classrooms. The best education (both spiritually and scholastically) comes through life experience which can most easily be gained through direct interaction with the people and culture around us.

I think most Christians send their children to government schools with good intentions: we are to reach out to a lost world. Christian children need to be in public school to evangelize the non-christian children, right? I went along with this argument for quite some time until I stopped to look at it and realized the large gap in the logic here.

In reality what seems to be happening is our christian children are becoming unsalty salt. Instead of changing the public school for Christ, the public school changes them. Statistics back this up...75% to 88% of christian children abandon the faith shortly after leaving home (http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc02/newsroom/newspage.asp?ID=261). However, among homeschooled children this statistic is more than reversed: 90% keep the faith through adulthood (my apologies here as I can't seem to locate the source of that statistic, though I recall reading it and hearing it).

Look at Luke 6:39-40:

Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Children are highly impressionable and lack the reasoning to make wise decisions and separate truth from fiction. The problem with government schools is that these impressionable children are taught by an instructor who is either atheistic or is censored from sharing their faith, using a secular humanist curricula, and are surrounded by equally uneducated peers. It is no surprise that these impressionable christian children absorb the thinking of the culture.

Homeschooling (when approached correctly) conveniently solves these problems. Home educated children still carry the Gospel to the unbelieving world every day, but instead of facing that world alone they do so with seasoned mentors (their parents) at their side...guiding, correcting, and encouraging. Each critical influencing situation can be discussed in the light of Christ's example and the words of scripture.

I want my kids to "go and make disciples of all nations". That's part of the reasoning behind starting a missional church in our community: so I can lead them in first-hand involvement in claiming the land! But just as I wouldn't send my 5 year old out the door in the morning by herself to go tell the community about Jesus, so I am unwilling to send them off to the government school. What better way to ensure my children are sold-out followers of Christ then to lead them first-hand in that endeavor?

2. I agree that cherry-picking Old Testament commandments can be harmful and leads to legalism. Jesus didn't look to kindly upon the Pharisees. So, I see where you are coming from here.

First, let me make a defense for the OT verses I did use. Thanks to Christ's death on the cross and the New Covenant God has established, we are no longer bound by the law of the Mosaic Covenant (good thing too!). However, you will note that neither of the two OT verses I quoted from Genesis were part of the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ. They both preceded it, and in a sense were part of the Abrahamic Covenant. What's more, they are the blessing or reward part of the covenant. Check it out:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28 (NIV)

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." - Genesis 9:1 (NIV)

While the New Testament does not have a plethora of verses that directly relate to child-bearing (Though 1 Timothy 5:14 speaks of it, Romans 12:1-2 would seem to imply it, and many verses such as Matthew 19:13-15 and Mark 10:14 address the importance of children) there is a clear picture of child-bearing in the OT (leaving commandements and the law out of it):

Genesis 4:1
Genesis 16:10
Genesis 17:2
Genesis 20:17-18
Genesis 21:1-2
Genesis 29:31-30:24
Deuteronomy 28:11
Ruth 4:13
1 Samuel 1:6, 1:19
Psalm 139:13-16
Ezekiel 16:7

The above verses give a pretty clear picture of two things:
1. It is God who controls conception. Human life begins only as a result of God's will.
2. God gives children as blessings.

So, if the above are true, then why would we want to intentionally limit the amount of blessings that God wishes to bestow upon us? If god was handing out cash we wouldn't tell him "Oh, no God. You've given me too much money already. This has got to stop!"

Don't overlook Psalm 127:3-5 either. It's not a commandment but a declaration, nor is it easily interpreted metaphorically.

From my perspective, most Christians are in disagreement with this "quiverfull" viewpoint for two reasons:
1. Selfishness - Kids take time and money. We live in a "me"-centric culture, and having children takes away from our entertainment and pleasure. The sad thing is by remaining childless (or limiting your children to a "reasonable" number) you miss God's immense blessings, and the personal satisfaction and purpose that come along with.
2. Misunderstanding - Here's where I think a lot of committed Christians miss the mark. There are dozens of reasons people give:
* "I don't think I can handle more kids. The ones I have are hard enough to take care of"
* "We don't have enough money to take care of more children"
* "Having more kids would take too much time away from my job/ministry"
* "I want to invest my quality time in the children I already have. If we had more kids then each wouldn't get the love and attention they deserve."
You get the picture. The problem is that none of these misunderstandings (excuses?) fit with scripture. If children are really God's blessings, then would God bless us in this manner without giving us the necessary tools and equipment to care for his blessigs?

When you really boil it down, the issue is not that we should have a dozen kids. This issue is one of submission to God. We are to lay down our lives for Christ, bringing all areas of our being into submission to Him. So why then do we think it is ok to take charge of an area of our lives that is clearly God's domain (the creation of human life)? Do we think we can do a better job then Him?

Ok, I'll rest my case now. I appreciate your commenting on this discussion, and the chance to talk openly about difficult issues.

Roger- A couple of thoughts on both your tidbits (...

2008-09-11T12:03:00.000-06:00

Roger- A couple of thoughts on both your tidbits (boy, that's an awkward sentence).

1. You are absolutely correct in asserting that parents are responsible to teach their children to walk in the way. But you miss an important Biblical tension here. Let us not forget that Deuteronomy 6 precedes Deuteronomy 7, just as Ephesians 6 (a book structurally modeled after the Exodus narrative) is a part of Paul's instructions for living amongst the world in "the time of evil," or the land promised but not yet claimed. If we are to go into the land in the name of Jesus, calling people to a radical new way of being, how then shall we teach our kids to be missional if we keep them home? The truth is, we must consider both of these these commands carefully (teach your kids, and claim the promised land), lest we neglect one in favor of the other. You need to incorporate that tension into your thinking.

2. I'd like some more biblical clarification on your application of the OT passages on fruitful multiplication. Assuming you don't throw all your leftover yeast out every year, you don't live by Torah. Should this commandment be brought forward, if so in what way, and why? Paul had specific reasons for literally preserving the OT commandments he did, and we ought to as well. Some are preserved more metaphorically. For instance, I'm assuming you don't often club heathen neighbours, though I'd imagine you feel called to claim the land via evangelism. If this is the case, then why ought we not interpret fruitful multiplication as evangelistic as well, seeing as it has a much stronger emphasis in the NT than child bearing? I'm not saying you're wrong, but when we quote the OT as you have, there are some questions we need to answer to make sure we're not arbitrarily picking and choosing (something we're all prone to doing, I'm afraid).

Regardless of where you come down on planned parenthood, North America's aversion to kids is a sad cultural trend that followers of Jesus ought to stand against.

Keep up the good thinking and blogging.

Comments on Hicks Family Blog: You believe what?!? (part 2)

Thanks for your reply because:a) there is valu...

Roger- A couple of thoughts on both your tidbits (...

Thanks for your reply because:
a) there is valu...