"We're Having a Baby!!! And We Want YOU To Foot The Bill."

[gypsygirl]

like others have said, we should support missionaries, out of obedience and a desire to serve and give. for those who feel led to support missionaries, they should support missions as they are called, not based upon whether they have a family or not, or whether they are "nervy" enough to have a third or fourth child and require additional support.

i don't have a problem with supporting the needs of any missionary that i am called to support whether they add to their family or not. i don't think anyone serving as a missionary should be deprived of adding to their family, whether it be natural/bio children, foster, or adoptive kids.

for the foster/adoptive: they're born, they're in the world. i am grateful for them going to christian homes, rather than aging out of the system, and lacking a family. if am already supporting a family, i'm happy to pitch in a bit more to support greater need caused by this expense.

for natural children: i believe that each child is a blessing from God, and i don't expect families to be forced to limit their family because they are missionaries. i look at those who sacrifice to serve in missions as holding a job that i am not called to do, but grateful they are serving, and thus, i'm happy to support those who i am called to support.

for me, i look at missionaries as my brothers and sisters, serving the same cause i belong to, and my sacrifice is made for the "home team". if i only heard from the missions that i supported when they needed additional support, it'd be indication that perhaps they're the wrong missionaries to support.

also, i don't believe my faithfulness ever goes unnoticed or unrewarded, and therefore, any of my sacrifices for my sisters/brothers are done in view of my Heavenly Father--which makes me a lot less concerned about "fairness" and who deserves what.

my money is God's money. i try my best not to forget that. : )

 

[Nick01]

I honestly question whether anyone is ever genuinely called by God to increase the size of their family biological, if only for the very simple reason that most people, at some stage in their life, will probably experience some deep, primal otherwise unbidden desire to have children anyway.

At the very least, I would personally have so much trouble distinguishing between an inherent hardwired biological urge to reproduce and 'God's calling' that I wouldn't dream of invoking the language of calling in that situation. Exceptions would include a distinct verbal instruction from God to me and spouse that we both hear at the same time or otherwise hear separately and then verify, or even better, a hand written note.

Aside from that, I think our primary calling is to make disciples from those already alive, not to give literal birth to (only potential) disciples. The fill and subdue mandate is not far from being full, IMHO, apart from the whole "we-screwed-it-up-by-sinning' bit. Not knocking anyone for having children, or wanting a large family, far from it, but not entirely sure that the church should be expected to finance that, ESPECIALLY when you already have several children, and ESPECIALLY when you're already working in a foreign country and relying almost entirely on donations from individuals on the other side of the planet, and not in your local context. Having said that, these things happen, children come along unexpectedly, etc. On the other hand, we don't generally finance other Christian families when they have children. Most full time ministers in Western churches aren't paid an extra per-child pay rise. So why does that apply in this case?

In this specific case, I think if you want to give, give. However, the fact that you've even posted this thread would lead me to suggest that you should not feel under any compulsion to give, and indeed should not do so. A midroad might be to increase giving towards specifically their ministry expenses, and if other people give extra general giving, they can use that to subside their family costs.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

I don't think we can really view missionary work the same as other jobs. They typically don't ask for more than they need, they RARELY get more than they absolutely need, and they don't get raises or bonuses based on work performance. They aren't paid a wage... they are "supported" by their sending churches. This is how I think of it, anyway. They are, literally, being supported by the Church just as spoken of in 1 Cor 9:

[SUP]3 [/SUP]This is my defense to those who would examine me. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Do we not have the right to eat and drink? [SUP]5 [/SUP]Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[SUP][a][/SUP] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? [SUP]6 [/SUP]Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? [SUP]7 [/SUP]Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?


[SUP]9 [/SUP]For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? [SUP]10 [/SUP]Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. [SUP]11 [/SUP]If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? [SUP]12 [/SUP]If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?


[SUP]13 [/SUP]Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? [SUP]14 [/SUP]In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

It's complicated with missionaries. They can't really "accept" a job that promises this much pay, raises every other year, holidays off and 10 paid sick days. If that were the case, I would definitely say "this is what you earn and you need to consider your budget before having more kids you can't afford". The only thing is that they literally live on faith that their next contributions will be enough to cover the bills. So in order for them to support even just themselves, they need to accept money from contributing churches. However, a sense of entitlement is a very real possibility, and I know it happens. And that isn't good at all. It can sour an entire ministry.

Good subject for discussion! I've really enjoyed reading the different views on this. It's something I've never thought about before. Thanks Kim!

 

[JustAnotherUser]

Well, I would agree on the claim that people are biologically wired to reproduce. Whether if that's 'God's calling' or not would be put into such perspective of those who are having the child(ren). I would say that if it's truly God's calling then I would question as to why there's so many unfit parents popping out baby after baby and meanwhile those who have the means and good structure to raise a child cannot have one for health reasons. I know adoption is also an option, but some people want a child that they know is their own which is understandable to a degree.

I would compare it to the welfare system. There are, unfortunately, people who take advantage of having children who may not have the same biological father for any of them and/or children who are disabled and the mother would find it as an opportunity to take what money they are 'entitled' from such children and use it as their own paycheck. I know this would be unfair judgment to place on all who have children with fathers not present in the house and those who have disabled children, but there are undoubtedly people who are described out there that are a far cry from being unfit parents since they take such money and neglect the kids to the point that you wouldn't be able to tell who's genuine and who isn't. Same should be said for those in ministry if they're expecting their congregation to pay up for the child's expense and then some. Do they see it as a pass for them to stay in their own position and not progress for the child's expense or are they holding onto such biological terms so they can stay where they are comfortable while the congregation works for their money to be put for their use?

 

[JustAnotherUser]

*far cry from being fit parents

Should read what I type before submitting and forgetting about the post...

 

[seoulsearch]

Congratulations, Kim!!!! I didn't even know you were expecting!

I read this thread around 7.00am in the morning when I had just woken up. The first thing that came into mind was "Okay? Why did Kim have a baby outside wedlock?"

Nice to see you guys have such an overwhelming amount of faith in me!

 

[AAAPlus]

I am always hard-pressed to support missionary couples with children. They are pretty much dead as especially little kids haven't made a sentient decision to follow Christ yet, nor did they have any say in the decision to be missionaries.

I guess that could be one of the reasons Paul said it's better to not marry.

But it's all but a fact of life these days that full-time missionaries tend to be married couples with kids. There certainly isn't a surplus of people willing to uproot their comfortable life and become a missionary. So it's kind of a necisarry thing to support those people and accept that they have a family too.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

I am always hard-pressed to support missionary couples with children. They are pretty much dead as especially little kids haven't made a sentient decision to follow Christ yet, nor did they have any say in the decision to be missionaries.

I feel like I might not be understanding what you are saying with that statement. Could you elaborate?

 

[Braylay]

I don't think children belong on the mission field. Also, i'm a firm believer in not having/adopting children if you can't afford them.
However, i would be more likely to support a family that has no children and wants to adopt one vs supporting a family that has 10 kids already and wants to pro create again.

I'm curious for those people who would financially support these missionary's having lot's of children. Is there ever a line that's drawn? Or would you financially support them even if they're having child after child after child?

Point blank though... I think it's irresponsible to start having kids while you're working as a missionary.

 

[AAAPlus]

I feel like I might not be understanding what you are saying with that statement. Could you elaborate?

Rofl I meant to put "dead weight"

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

I feel like I may be in the minority here on feeling like missionaries should be able to have children if they want to while in the field. (This is just addressing the "should they" aspect and not the "should we support them" aspect.) I am kind of wondering what responses this would get in the family forum, and if they would be any different. I dunno... missionary work is a way of life. You go to this other place, you live there among it's people long-term, you love them and share lives with them and INVEST in them. Raising children in that place seems natural to me. It's like saying "We are building lives with you (the local people) and we care about you enough to raise families alongside you."

Of course, I wouldn't agree with taking children into dangerous areas where they could be harmed, or putting them in situations that are traumatic or damaging. But in MOST cases, how is a missionary couple raising a child in the field any different than the local people there raising their own children? How would the ministry be impacted any more than a local pastor and his wife having children?

 

[seoulsearch]

Hi Grace,

Just to clarify, I definitely believe in missionaries expanding their families... But the people who have brought up the point about dangerous situations (in which arrest, prison, and death could be faced) is definitely a good point.

However, God never told people to stop having children. Even during the Pharoah's degree, God never said, "Ok, you all need to do what you can to stop having babies because Pharoah is out to kill all the boys anyway."

I've found the replies here to be very thought-provoking and interesting.

I guess I just might be in the minority in thinking that families in the missions might want to consider how their decision to expand their families are going to impact the families who support them, because the families who provide for them need their own support as well. Just my opinion.

 

[gypsygirl]

I feel like I may be in the minority here on feeling like missionaries should be able to have children if they want to while in the field. (This is just addressing the "should they" aspect and not the "should we support them" aspect.) I am kind of wondering what responses this would get in the family forum, and if they would be any different. I dunno... missionary work is a way of life. You go to this other place, you live there among it's people long-term, you love them and share lives with them and INVEST in them. Raising children in that place seems natural to me. It's like saying "We are building lives with you (the local people) and we care about you enough to raise families alongside you."

Of course, I wouldn't agree with taking children into dangerous areas where they could be harmed, or putting them in situations that are traumatic or damaging. But in MOST cases, how is a missionary couple raising a child in the field any different than the local people there raising their own children? How would the ministry be impacted any more than a local pastor and his wife having children?

i couldn't agree more with this.

i am really kind of surprised by the reaction as well.

i have known some missionary families. also, my grandfather's parents were missionaries to china and his parents had three sons, all in the field, born in china. i think part of their testimony is not only the "job" but the manner in which they lived their lives, including raising children.

further, i am really kind of surprised that folks would expect families to forgo to children because they've chosen to be missionaries. so often, people spend their entire "biologically capable" serving as missionaries, which means they have no other choice.

i also think it's VERY important to not compare ourselves (or our friends/family) to others, including missionaries. if you are comparing their "right" to reproduce with yourself or anyone else, you're using a fairly skewed means of viewing children and families. part of supporting others is placing your trust or faith in their choices or lives.

to me, a big part of choosing to support missions isn't just supporting them conditionally, or part way. it's trusting that they are serving an annointed calling that is usually full of sacrifice. it means that i trust all of their (reasonable) support needs, up to, and including a need to support their growing family. if they appear to be doing their job, fulfilling their role, and doing what they were sent to do, i won't begrudge the fact they have kids or a family.

if we really believe that children are a blessing, that means that ALL children are a blessing, including those borne to your missionaries that you support. : )

finally, this question started by asking whether this is "fair". maybe why i feel so strongly about this issue is that i don't think much of life is "fair" on the terms that we compare ourselves to others. but to worry about this unfairness would really interfere with a lot of the generosity/giving if we get caught up in. but obedience to a Savior who rewards us for our obedience is something we can count on, and even if you were to give to the needs of a missionary who "doesn't deserve it" with a cheerful or right attitude is seen by our Savior.

this is a really interesting question. but i think it's another scenario where we can in our human, flawed heart find ways to "talk ourselves out of" being trusting and generous because we want to qualify and "make behave" the very scenarios that we find it challenging to be obedient. i'm not accusing anyone of not being obedient, by the way.

but here's a thought. how many of you would be a lot more supportive of a missionaries with kids (or having kids) if you had gotten married, and had several kids? i am inclined to think the response would be different. most people i know who have kids say that it was something that was a highlight or great joy in their life.

and just because my life doesn't include children doesn't mean i can't be happy or supportive of those who do. because at the end of the day, i want to believe that we can be happy and joyful for the blessings of those who are on the "home team". which i think is also part of what we are called to do. : )

p.s. i too have enjoyed the discussion in this thread. i'm glad you raised the topic, kim. : )

 

[cinder]

I honestly question whether anyone is ever genuinely called by God to increase the size of their family biological, if only for the very simple reason that most people, at some stage in their life, will probably experience some deep, primal otherwise unbidden desire to have children anyway.

At the very least, I would personally have so much trouble distinguishing between an inherent hardwired biological urge to reproduce and 'God's calling' that I wouldn't dream of invoking the language of calling in that situation. Exceptions would include a distinct verbal instruction from God to me and spouse that we both hear at the same time or otherwise hear separately and then verify, or even better, a hand written note.

Aside from that, I think our primary calling is to make disciples from those already alive, not to give literal birth to (only potential) disciples. The fill and subdue mandate is not far from being full, IMHO, apart from the whole "we-screwed-it-up-by-sinning' bit. Not knocking anyone for having children, or wanting a large family, far from it, but not entirely sure that the church should be expected to finance that, ESPECIALLY when you already have several children, and ESPECIALLY when you're already working in a foreign country and relying almost entirely on donations from individuals on the other side of the planet, and not in your local context.

I agree that often people (especially people in ministry) throw around the phrase God's calling me far too often and there are many who use that to make what they want seem unarguable. I'm definitely more and more feeling the urge to be the one to ask the hard questions and not rubber stamp with the whole, "well if God's calling you then do it" christianese. But umm, spend a few years living in a crowded Asian city and you'll see how far the rest of the world is from being overcrowded. And while I agree that those living off of support should never come to expect it as their right from anyone, you tone sounds like you look down on those who live off of support as if they are lazy mooches (try it sometime, it's not easy).

I don't think children belong on the mission field. Also, i'm a firm believer in not having/adopting children if you can't afford them.

Point blank though... I think it's irresponsible to start having kids while you're working as a missionary.

Where in the Bible do you find support for such opinions? Or would you also say that it's irresponsible to start following Jesus if it could put you or your children or family in danger (a reality in many parts of the world)? Is it irresponsible for the local people who live in that situation to have children as well? Should people not have children until circumstances are perfect? Having sacrificed the comforts of home and familiarity with their surroundings, how many other parts of normal life do you expect missionaries to sacrifice as well while you sit in your comfortable home?

And exactly what impression of Christianity will it give if all the Christian workers are childless and so focused on ministry activities that they don't seem to be experiencing the things that are part of the normal everyday lives of the people?

 

[Braylay]

I agree that often people (especially people in ministry) throw around the phrase God's calling me far too often and there are many who use that to make what they want seem unarguable. I'm definitely more and more feeling the urge to be the one to ask the hard questions and not rubber stamp with the whole, "well if God's calling you then do it" christianese. But umm, spend a few years living in a crowded Asian city and you'll see how far the rest of the world is from being overcrowded. And while I agree that those living off of support should never come to expect it as their right from anyone, you tone sounds like you look down on those who live off of support as if they are lazy mooches (try it sometime, it's not easy).



Where in the Bible do you find support for such opinions? Or would you also say that it's irresponsible to start following Jesus if it could put you or your children or family in danger (a reality in many parts of the world)? Is it irresponsible for the local people who live in that situation to have children as well? Should people not have children until circumstances are perfect? Having sacrificed the comforts of home and familiarity with their surroundings, how many other parts of normal life do you expect missionaries to sacrifice as well while you sit in your comfortable home?

And exactly what impression of Christianity will it give if all the Christian workers are childless and so focused on ministry activities that they don't seem to be experiencing the things that are part of the normal everyday lives of the people?

When i put such things as i think, that generally means... i think. Not, here it is in scripture, let me link all the bible verses and paragraphs I've gotten my opinion from.

I appreciate your view point though, i just happen to disagree.

 

[Nick01]

As an addendum to what I wrote before, I think a lot of it is how you ask. I know a couple who currently work in Europe, who recently gave both to twins (they weren't planning to have more children, they are in their early 40s, I believe). They are supported by a local group and have other support (the wife is a local, and has family connections in the vicinity), but I would not hesitate to give them some extra money if they asked, mostly because I know them quite well and know their character, but also because they are the kinds of people who would a) not normally ask even if they needed the money, and b) would not talk about having extra children as a 'calling'.

I tend to think calling language is often abused in Christian circles (for the most part not intentionally or maliciously), and perhaps unsurprisingly, often language of calling works itself out in a way that benefits the person who uses it.

And no, Cinder believe me, I am not one to knock welfare, or those who need welfare. Really, I don't. I personally am extremely thankful for the public welfare systems we have in place here in Australia. I'd be careful to read tone into text.

But the present issue (missionaries travelling overseas to evangelise) is not, in my opinion, quite in the same ballpark as welfare generally. We're talking about people who are usually relatively comfortable financially in their home countries (and with most missionary agencies, you have to be financially stable) going to another country to evangelise. Not directly comparable, IMO.

But, as I've pointed out, the main problem is with how it is asked and the expectation, than the principle itself. Nothing per se against giving money to couples with children, although I do think misso couples need to think, perhaps more so than other people, how new young children may impact their ministry, on a case by case basis.

 

[Misty77]

Missionaries have no more or less "right" to have children than anyone else. However, like all families, they need to be conscientious in making that decision. While there are missionaries that have jobs in the field, most of them rely on the support of others. There is only so much money to go around.

There is also only so much time to go around. When the house is full with toddlers, it's all that many couples can do to keep them all fed, clean, and alive. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but there has to be a happy medium between childless and Duggarville.

I'm close to several missionary families. One of them had NINE children when they were on the field in West Germany. It actually increased there support with KinderGild (sp?), the monthly stipend that legal residents get per child. Sure, the older help with the younger; but it's also an insane load to bear that cost the mother her health and very nearly her life. Her husband was worn ragged with building and sustaining the congregation while she bore the weight of her over-sized family almost alone.

I'm not passing judgment on them (I think over all they are great!), but there are a lot--I mean A LOT--of ways that having a family of 11 was hard on them personally as well as on the effectiveness of their ministry.

Another missionary friend of mine just popped out baby number four, and her oldest is five. Though God provides, the people who sacrifice to support them don't have the same liberty of just making more babies all the time. Instead of being in the trenches alongside her husband, she is making organic baby food, sewing cloth diapers, and homeschooling. And they don't seem to have any plans to slow down their rate of procreation. Those are all good things, but is that really the focus of the ministry? I guess it would be more accurate to say that she is married to a missionary, rather than one herself.

Mission life isn't like the "reality" of the Duggars with their herd being paid for by 60-second commercial spots and book deals. Absolutely have faith in God and trust Him to provide, but show some responsibility.

Yet another missionary friend of mine raised $30,000 through crowd-sourcing and other funding methods to move to the field right after raising $30,000 to adopt a child. I have to confess a bit of jealousy here because she is living the life that I dreamed about, and people are just handing her money to follow her dreams. My preacher ex-husband screwed me over and defrauded me of well over $100,000, but I wouldn't be able to raise money because of that.

I think it's great when people follow their paths and if others want to give to them. But it would be wrong for them to expect that they get to make life choices (the same ones that their donors don't get to make) and that it's someone else's duty to pay for it.

 

[seoulsearch]

Yet another missionary friend of mine raised $30,000 through crowd-sourcing and other funding methods to move to the field right after raising $30,000 to adopt a child. I have to confess a bit of jealousy here because she is living the life that I dreamed about, and people are just handing her money to follow her dreams.

Misty, I always love the raw honesty of your posts. Your point above is something I share very much as well.

When I'm completely honest, I get jealous that some people are living their dreams and doing what they want to do while having the rest of us fund it. Which I know isn't always the case. Life in the ministry certainly isn't easy.

But essentially, what I really want to write back when I receive all these letters asking for support is, "Won't you start supporting me too, so I can quit my job and go do something I actually want to do, all while asking others to pay for it?"

However, to be completely honest, I try to tame myself because 1. I'm pretty sure I'd never cut it in the full-time ministry field, so I always feel guilty for being critical in any way, and 2. the life I have now probably isn't nearly as tough as what they go through.

I know that if I show up for work and do my job, I can at least calculate what I'll have at the end of the week to pay my bills. Missionary families, even more so than many people, often never know.

 

[Lynx]

And, as a single person with no kids, I often ask God, "Is that my purpose? To cut back and save as much money as possible... to support other people's dream?" (Yup, this whole thread also has to do with the fact that I seem to have received a record number of requests for "support" lately... even when it seems I always get them as it is.)

I find myself agreeing with others here who said they will give under certain conditions... and, like Grace, I am someone who totally hates asking for help myself. Among my siblings and myself, I'm the only one who hasn't asked to borrow money, simply because I'd rather go without than ask! Which I know is a problem in and of itself at times.

Ah, I THOUGHT that's where you might be going with this thread. But I didn't want to post this until I was sure.

Sometimes it's good to do good. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth it. Mostly because there's always someone standing around waiting to point out that you really ought to be doing gooder.

 

[Nick01]

Always appreciate seeing xkcd quoted in any forum

I think, though, the complexion of the question is more "should I give more money to a missionary couple to fund their baby, or should I get everyone to fund me having a baby (and preaching the gospel) instead?"

It's an overly reductionist way of phrasing it, but I think that's more the dynamic (or one of the dynamics) we're trying to grapple with here.