The Large Family Trend – Bad or Good?

Our most troll-like comments come when we talk of the blessing of children. I’m not sure why folks who think so differently from us visit our site. Is our message of Family, Children, Love and Jesus really that offensive? Perhaps for some. Here’s a recent comment:

“Not everyone is into kids and not all are meant to be parents. No one should be looked down on for their choices. IMO the pressure is to have kids from society and family. And who do the parents think support their child tax credits? They really should think of the financial burden placed on others… This large family trend will soon pass when reality hits.”

Gee, where do I begin? The issues brought up are not new (we’ve heard them all before). Behind these loose arguments are really blatant fallacies, incorrect assumptions largely from a culture that runs contrary to our lifestyle. Allow me to explain.

“Not everyone is into kids and not all are meant to be parents. No one should be looked down on for their choices.”

Wendy and I try very hard to make this clear to others: We are not condemning any parent for responding to God’s calling. We have talked with people who are sincere in their restricting of children, but we have met countless others who regret their past resistance to have children. We speak to those who are meant to be parents but, for a myriad of reasons, are looked down on for their convictions.

And we assume that those who aren’t “into kids” or aren’t “meant to be parents” aren’t hunky-dory about the Jeub Family website. We’re not looking down on them. We are challenging those who are into kids and are meant to be parents, but they’ve fallen for the societal argument that they should restrict their blessings. Which leads to the next line…

“IMO the pressure is to have kids from society and family.”

I’ll grant you this: Couples, especially newlyweds, get the pressure. But I’d argue that the pressure is to have just one or two, no more. Encouragement to continue having children is rare. Think about this for a moment: Is the pressure to raise a bountiful family a negative thing? It obviously is to adversaries of the life and love we discuss on this blog. No matter, though. We resist the pressure we experience to resist children, and we encourage other couples with what we have learned along the way. And what we’ve learned is quite liberating and true: children are blessings. The life that follows couldn’t be more fulfilling.

“And who do the parents think support their child tax credits? They really should think of the financial burden placed on others.”

The assumption is that families can’t afford their children. On the surface, or at least at the onset of the first child, they can’t. We say that’s okay. Families are the most stable socioeconomic unit in the world. Every other family structure falls far short of a Dad, Mom and Children. When that first child comes, I have a tremendous amount of confidence that those parents will do all they can to make sure that child is raised in an economically sound home.

But I find it interesting that child tax credits are considered, from the likes of this comment, on the lines of welfare. Because we receive a tax credit for every child, this is somehow placing a burden on others? What a convoluted way of looking at this. See, children are blessings to not only us, but to the greater economy. The measly $2000 credit we receive is chump change compared to the value the child will bring to others. We’re not just feeding children; we’re raising tax payers. And the fact that we’re raising many under one roof is much more economical than the tax credit justifies. If you do the math, we’re saving the State so much money that we should get a larger tax credit for every addition we bring.

“This large family trend will soon pass when reality hits.”

This assumption is so in the face of the opening assumption that it is rather silly. It’s as if this commenter is saying, “No one should be looked down on for their choices, unless the choice is to have a lot of children.” Anyway, let’s take this concluding statement seriously for a moment.

Wendy and I hope this is a trend that lasts. The reality is that children are blessings (just as God intended) and having more than the societal norm is quite pleasant. The assumption that too many would not be pleasant are assumptions made by folks who really don’t know any better. These couples follow their dreamt-up assumptions, the time passes and the children don’t come. Their reality becomes something without children, and for some this is alright.

Our books and this website attempt to remove those assumptions and replace them with reality: Family, Children, Love and Jesus. Now these are assumptions worth following! A reality to desire.

If the trend is to bring couples back to this reality – to remove the barriers they or others put there about the blessings of children – and love another child, then I say great. Let the trend live on!

About Chris Jeub

Chris is the father of 16 children, busily running the family businesses and learning the depths of love along the way.

  • Katiejacobsen23

    I think your so right about the encouragement only being to have a few children. I am days away from giving birth to our fouth child and last night my MIL who is a christian counselor, suggested to my husband that he have a vasectomy. good grief!

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      Reminds me of a doctor who advised me the same when I was getting a cut stitched up in the emergency room. Had only 5 kids at the time. I laughed at him and said, “One stitch at a time, doc!” Tuck that response away for the future, Katie!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1160853318 Tammie Page Ewert

    I felt encouragement until our 3rd was born. We had a son and daughter already, so we used to get asked why would we even want more. “We already had a ‘perfect’ family and that should be enough. What the commenters failed to realize though was just because my family felt perfect to them it didn’t to us.  Our dream at the time was to have more and it shouldnt have been thier choice to matter.

    I will never understand why people say the things they say, or do the things they do trying to make or insist others feel just as they do. It isn’t thier family so why should it be of thier concern ?

    As our family grew, so did the comments. When we announced we were expecting child number 8, instead of rejoicing, they ridiculed and said hatfeul horrible words. By this time however they weren’t uncommon for us to hear and at times thinks we actually had thought ourselves.

    September 24th howver brought change to our lives that we didnt want to see. At 24 weeks, we lost our son. Everything I believed or had trusted in had been taken when his life passed inside of me.The Nay sayers had a field day and gloated with the feelings of they had gotten thier way. Ever such smug comments and lude reaction came to the death of a child we very much wanted.

    The doubt then churned deep inside of us and despair took hold. How could I ever trust again or not think that in some way … they were in deed right ? Generations ago large families were not uncommon. . my grandparents all had one.. and the dutch side of my family has the hhugest record as far as families go on our side. Large familes are not some new fangled idea or a passing fad.. it has been happening for generations, so why now do they meet such opposition ?? Money, time ?? Either are quite selfish reasons actually.

    Far be it from me though to mind others buisness. Though we have decided that we are now done adding to our family, would never mean I would sit and tell someone else what to do with thiers. I am quite certain that if I looked I could find weeds in my own back yard to pull before I went and pulled someone else’s. 

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      People say things to people not knowing the full story behind them. Sorry to hear of your struggles, Tammie.

    • Amrodd

      Large families were comon then because they were economic assets and there was no birth control.It was almost unavoidable unless the couple was infertile.  I should mention maternal death and infant death rates were much higher. So while a family may have had  6 kids, there may have been 8-11 pregnancies to get that many. Even if the wife wanted to stop she probably couldn’t. What worked 100 yrs ago does not mean it works now.

      • Sheila

        God’s view of children is the same as it ever was.

        • someoneinTN

          G-d loves everyone not just kids. Age is a mute point to Him.

  • http://thepassionatehomeschooler.blogspot.com/ Pam

    Very well put.
    A few other things that came to mind–

    If someone has a problem with the child tax credit burdening others, do they also have a problem with all other tax credits out there? Wouldn’t those also be draining?? Do they, themselves take part in any type of ‘tax credit”. It goes both ways, right?

    And second, do people realize that many larger families homeschool, so we still support the local schools with our tax money, but don’t use them. So we are supporting our community. Further, we spend quite a large out of pocket cost for the things needed to home educate, yet we help the school drives when they need backpacks and supplies, etc. for public school. Do we get any brownie points for that? lol!


    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      That first point about other tax credits are what debaters call “zingers.” Yeah, why not complain about other tax credits? There are hundreds: http://www.jamesdance.com/deductions.htm

    • Nineonthevine

      How about the tax money that Planned Parenthood receives for abortions?

      • Emmie

        Planned Parenthood does not receive funds for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a federal law preventing it. Or as Jeub says, Zinger!

      • Snurgle

        They don’t receive any federal funding for abortions.  That comes from donations.  Don’t believe everything that the right wing press tells you.  The federal money pays for women’s healthcare such as cancer screening and other health checks.  Would you rather poor women died from cervical or breast cancer?

  • Sheila

    Hi Chris,
                 Most of the arguments against having children that I have ever heard stem from one thing and one thing only – selfishness!
                 People would rather have two incomes, spend time travelling or pursuing hobbies and having what they perceive as a good lifestyle. What they don’t realise is that the blessing that comes with having a family cannot be compared to material things. Just to hold a newborn baby, feel a small hand hold yours and to hear your chiild say “I love you” cannot be described to someone who has not experienced it.
                Many people who have opted for the childless lifestyle will almost certainly regret it as it goes against God’s purpose for the family.
                I hope and pray that the large family trend continues. When people fully embrace this trend it will change lives and nations.
                I have been researching my family tree and many of my ancestors had 12 children or more. Both my grandfathers came from families with more than 12 children. I have a friend with 17 children who has had many negative comments from about child number 7. I don’t know why people think they have the right to judge others  for having large families or why it seems to annoy people so much. I thank God for you and Wendy and other families such as the Dugggars who are showing others that there is a tremendous blessing to be had from children.

    • Nineonthevine

      You have raised a good point, one I have heard plenty, about selfishness being an argument against large families.
      “Traveling and pursuing hobbies”….I have always considered myself to be more selfish if I take too much time for MY THINGS.
      Parenting is just the opposite of selfish!  I cannot tell you how many things I have gone w/o just so my children can have their needs met first.
      I don’t consider large families a trend at all…but a calling.  And most of us with more that four children had no clue we would be called.  And if I had known 20 years ago that I would have 9 children I suppose I would have turned and ran.  But you bet I am so glad for each one.  So glad that the Lord gives us what we need as the need arises.

    • Amrodd

      Parenting and selflessness are not related Kate Gosselin ,Casey Anthony anyone?

    • Effie

      Having many children is not unselfish. Not having children is not selfish.

    • Mary Therese

      Did God call you to have many children, and let children in
      Africa starve to death each second? Okay I understand, that’s the just and loving God I read about in the Bible…

      You are making God’s words seem to be something they are not. Do you really honestly believe God wants some of his children to die, while your privileged white ass poop out new ones?

      Don’t hide your primitive desire to have children for God’s will. God has not called you to have many children. You know what an unselfish Christian would do? She would not have any children of her own. She would take care of the starving and poor children out there and bring some of them into her home.

  • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

    Your blog looks awesome. Your family looks beautiful!

  • Ronaldstauffer

    “And who do the parents think support their child tax credits? They really should think of the financial burden placed on others… This large family trend will soon pass when reality hits.”
    Excellent question.  Let’s look at this fairly.  Rather than picking out a single aspect of the “tax impact” of a child, let’s look at the whole person over a whole lifetime.  As you said Chris the most stable economic unit of society is the intact family Dad+Mom+children.  These intact families tend to consume less in tax-supported services than other families, less police, less aid, less Social Security before retirement, less Medicaid, less Welfare, etc

    (Working from memory here… numbers may be off a little, but the trend is correct.)

    These critics should thank God that some of us are having larger families, because we are paying for their Social Security.  The Social Security (SSI) system was founded under FDR with 42 taxpayers per SSI beneficiary in a “pay-as-you-go” system.  In other words the person on SSI today is not consuming the tax money he “paid in” over his lifetime, but the money that the working person next door is paying in SSI taxes this month.  This means that we do not actually pay “money” for our own SSI retirement, but our children and grandchildren do. The entire SSI system is a pyramid scheme.  Last guy in loses.  It is only viable if every American keeps three promises.

    1.  I promise to create at LEAST 4 new taxpayers to pay for my retirement.  I.e. I promise to have at least 4 children.
    2.  I promise to only consume 6 years of SSI retirement.  Which means that…
    3.  I promise to die before I reach age 68-71, or to not start my retirement until I’m about 80-85 years old.

    And it only gets worse as this society ages.  Today there are only about 4 taxpayers supporting each retiree (instead of the original 42).  Soon it will be closer to 2:1!!

    Everybody seems to want the best SSI benefits that they can get the children next door to pay for.  Chris and Wendy, the way I see it you are creating the taxpayers who will pay for the SSI benefits of many families who only have 2 children.

    So let’s turn the above quoted critic’s accusation back on him “Who do you think is paying for your SSI retirement anyway?  Certainly not you, if you have fewer than 4 working/taxpayer children.” Chris and Wendy, next time you see that critic, tell him/her “You are welcome!!”  :-)

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      Zinger…BAM! You should turn this into a guest blog post.

      • Snurgle

        However, if every child from a large family such as yours, turns out like you ie; earning only a very low income and relying on the generosity of others, then those children will pay very little in taxes and social security when they are adults.  If anything these children will receive money from the government in the form of tax credits, tax refunds and the benefit of living in a tax funded first world society while paying very little for it.

        Chris, you yourself have stated you will not be looking for employment despite your family struggling on a low income at present.  This means that you will be contributing very little in taxes and SS.

        The future tax payer thing only works if those children ARE future tax payers.

    • Amrodd

      You are presuming that all your children will have jobs.Two, social security is a forced savings. Have you ever received a paycheck?  Lay off the childless. We pay the most taxes childless by choice or not. And what about the parents who haven’t worked at all and earned nothing? Who is paying for them?  BTW SSI is extra income for the disabled on limited income.

  • Mollie

    I hate this being called a “trend” Trends do come and go,but seeking God’s desire for the family should always stay. I know your hearts Chris and Wendy and I know what you  mean,but I had to share my two cents! NO trend, no movement. Just being after God’s own heart.  Love this blog! And I deeply appreciate that the two of you do not waiver :)

  • AshBarnes

    What some people do not seem to understand is that it’s okay to be selfish.
    If you do not want children & would rather live a life focused around yourself, your friends, your family, etc. then it’s perfectly fine to do that.
    Some people may view children as a wonderful blessing, but some may view them as more of a hinderance (which is fine).
    The point is I think that all choices, all view points should be tolerated. Don’t judge someone for having 18 kids, don’t judge someone who would rather travel the world then raise children.

    • Sheila

      It’s not okay to be selfish or to see children as hindrances. If your parents had thought the same thing you would not be here!

      • AshBarnes

        People are way too judgmental.


        Let people make their own choices.

        I for one don’t care if you have 20 kids. Do whatever you want. Just don’t hate.

        • Sheila

          I don’t hate anyone!
          The only way to view children is as God views them and that is as a blessing and a reward (Psalm 127) not a hindrance.
          If you are a Christian that is the only way to view it. Of cours if you are not, then you are free to lead a selfish, self serving life.

          • Guest

            Yes, you do. If you are condemning an innocent child to a life with a mentally unstable parent just because you believe God wants people to have children regardless of the environment they come in, you do. A person with mental illness or a genetic disease who decides not to have a child is kinder than you. They see children as individuals with lives, not as trophies or the need to pass on their DNA to validate their existence. That is not a selfish, self serving life. You on the other hand seem like one of those matyr child collector women, regardless of the health or individuality of those children.

            • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

              “Guest,” you are getting pretty riled up, and offensive. Settle down. No need to call people haters, or go off on a rabbit trail about mentally disabled people.

              • Guest

                “If someone has mental health issues God can help to heal them of that so I don’t think that is a reason not to have children.”If this is the same Sheila that said the above in a previous reply on this post. I don’t think I am on the one on a rabbit trail. If she believes that I do stand by everything I said in the previous post and think she is a child collector with no respect to the environment or the future of the child. This would create an Andrea Yates situation at its worst. So you bet I am riled up because of people who twist the name of the Lord to suit their narrow ideas. You can ban me and delete this comment Chris, but I  stand by it.

          • SomeonefromTN

            Children are not rewards! They are not trophies! If that  is the case, how  come drug addicts have babies? Why would G-d reward them with children and not infertile people who would make great parents? So Britney Spears was selfish before she had kids?  Jesus is selfish for not settling down?

            • Sheila(UK)

              Psalm 127:3
              Lo,children are an heritage from the LORD;and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

              Your first mistake is disagreeing with the word of God!

              • someoneinTN

                Men often had several wives to fill their Quiver.Jesus came to free us from Mosaic laws.

              • Sheila(UK)

                Yes they did and it was lawful in that society.
                Jesus did not come to free us from Mosaic laws. Unless you are Jewish you were never bound by them.
                Jesus came to fulfill the law.

              • Carla

                I think you can agree with this, without having to give birth to a child. 

            • Sheila(UK)

              Jesus was not called by God to be a husband or a father so it does not apply. He did, however, have a lot to say about children.
              As for Britney Spears, she is not an example of a Godly woman. I would not use her as a role model.
              We can only expect  people to view children as God views them if the people involved ARE ACTUALLY LIVING A CHRISTIAN LIFE!!!

              • someoneinTN

                It does apply.We all serve different purposes. Not everyone is called to be parents or married. If  that was so important, why didn’t G-d use His own son as an example? He visited Mary and Martha and they had no kids or husband.Furthermore, Jesus came to free us from Mosaic laws no longer relevant.

              • Sheila(UK)

                I agree that not everyone is called to be married but if you are married  then it is God’s design and purpose for a Christian marriage to bring forth children.
                God’s plan was for a man and a woman to marry and have children, not single people or  people of the same gender.
                Martha and Mary were single as was Jesus and the apostle Paul and this is a calling for some but not the majority.
                I am surprised that people on here thought that I was saying that someone with mental health issues should have children regardless of their state of mind. I meant that they should seek help and then it should not stop them from having children.
                Just because you have a depression or any other type of mental health issue it doen’t mean that you cannot be a parent, even if you are taking medication.

                As for some of the other comments such as “Why would a drug addict be given a child?”, well there are a number of reasons. Firstly the child may be the trigger that gets someone off the drugs or that child may be adopted by a childless couple and be a blessing to them. We don’t always know God’s purpose in everything but children are always a blessing.

              • Guest

                Again, if being a parent is giving birth, then go ahead keep giving birth even in the case of mental illness. If we are talking being a responsible parent who is mentally ill, that person will not keep bringing child after innocent child into this world. The best case scenario is the non-ill parent taking care of the children or grandparents. Worse case scenario, the child inherits mental illness, jail time for the parent, foster care for the children. Not every child is adopted, if not we will not be having a foster care system filled with innocent children. 
                Again I say Andrea Yates, a Quiverfull woman. She was a nurse and the wife of a NASA engineer. Their beliefs led to them having childrenone after another even after she was diagnosed with Post Partum depression. Andrea was overwhelmed and despite having help killed her children. I will never forget the pictures of those precious children lined up in age, smiling and full of life and then the row of coffins.
                Children are not toys or trophies or extensions of ourselves. They are individuals with hopes, dreams, thoughts and deserve to be cherished, not collected. If you are not sure you cannot be a good parent, don’t be. Don’t use God’s name or your interpretation of His will or one verse as an excuse for your selfishness. I assume the God I worship has given me the compassion to know when to stop or not be a parent if I cannot be a good one despite the fact that I can.

              • Sheila

                Many children are killed by their parents each year. How many are part of the Quiverfull movement? Stop using the Andrea Yates case as an argument against God’s design for the family.
                Am I to assume that the God you worship could not give you the strength,faith and grace to look after another child if He saw fit to bless you with one?
                Philippians 4:13

              • Guest1

                The Bible tells me the God I worship raised Lazarus from the dead and healed the sick. Does that mean I sit around and pray if someone dies to be raised from the dead or not go to the doctor if someone is sick ? God has given us brains to make decisions. If any Quiverful family or any family for that matter is ina position of not being able to handle things because of mental illness, being overwhelmed, not having enough it is better to care for the children that are there or stop having children until the parents sort themselves out. Breeding and ignorning the warning signs for a movement, twisting the  bible is what got 6 innocent children killed. There is no reason to justify that, none at all.

              • someoneinTN

                If G-d’s purpose for marriage procreation, why then are there infertile couples? If that was the case they could not marry. Marriage for  and procreation is mainly society driven.

              • Sheila(UK)

                Sickness, disease and infertility are the result of sin entering the world.
                In a perfect world It would not exist.

              • Anonymous

                Sheila, your responses on this topic have been such a blessing to me, as is Chris for being brave enough to brooch the subject. The vitriol toward Christian large families is so prevalent, but I shouldn’t be surprised. We are not called to comfortable, worldly lives but to stand on God’s truth and face persecution to bring him glory. This is just a very mild taste of that and attacks on the family are one of Satan’s favorite tools.

                I am so grateful for the Jeubs continuing to preach the message of serving the Lord through the calling of marriage and children and for all the wonderful commenters on here who reaffirm that.

              • Snurgle

                I guess when women hit menopause their husbands should divorce them then, going by your logic.

              • Sheila(UK)

                Obviously not!
                God closes the womb naturally at menopause.

          • Zlatoluna

            No, that is the only way YOU see there is to view children. 

            You prove that there is a god and maybe we’ll talk. Until then you have pretty much said ‘The only way to view children is as flibbitygibbert views them’.

            • Sheila(UK)

              Psalm 14:1

      • Snurgle

        Of course it is OK to see possible children as a hindrance.  What about the woman with severe mental health issues?  Having children might well be a hindrance to her mental health recovery.  Or are you saying that for a woman with severe schizophrenia and psychosis for example, having children whilst on a downward spiral would be a benefit to her?

      • Zlatoluna

        And AshBarnes wouldn’t know the difference so your point is pretty much moot.

  • Karenreekie

    I don’t see why it’s anyone else’s business how many children anyone has? If you want to have “as many as God sends” then fine. If I choose to only have 3, then fine. If I’m raising my family, not relying on state hand out’s (which incidentally we don’t get, nor would we ever ask for) educating my children how I see fit, and doing the best job I can, and you’re doing the same, then what does it matter? It’s not selfish to not want dozen’s of children. It’s not selfish for someone who has a history of mental health issues, who know’s they would be an appalling parent, and damage any children they had to not have children. It’s not selfish to say “right, we live within a budget, we don’t buy expensive item’s, we don’t drive a posh car, go on holidays we can’t afford,we don’t eat expensive food, or buy expensive toys, or gadgets, we’re living in the cheapest place we can, on a single income so Mum can be at home, we don’t have the budget to feed, clothe, etc more than 3, so 3 is where we stop”. It’s sensible, it’s cutting our cloth to fit. It means our 3 children have a chance in life. If we had more children, we’d end up in financial trouble. Where we live in the UK, and in general, houses aren’t built for big families. It’s a tight fit with 3 children in a 2 bedroom house as it is. We cannot afford a bigger house, no matter what we do, where do we put extra children? In the shed? In a tent in our tiny garden? How is that right? I don’t have family to help me, when I’m hospitalised with HEG during pregnancy, I don’t have family to help me as I struggle with an auto immune disease that cripples me with pain, which worsens every time I get pregnant, and I can’t take medication for while pregnant or breastfeeding, I don’t have anyone but my husband and I to bear the brunt of the PPD I suffered. To add more children, would be selfish. Technically, we could have 6 or 7 by now, but I’d be on medication for depression, it would be highly likely that social services would be involved, and we’d need counselling and marriage help. How is that Godly?
    We go to church, we pray, we’re faithful, we serve, we give, we teach our children about God, but it would be utter insanity and irresponsible of us to just have as many children as possibe until my body packs up. God says children are blessing’s, and indeed they are, mine are wonderful, but for the large family movement to push it’s agenda on everyone is not fair. We all do what’s best for our own families. 3 works for us, 12 works for the next person, 1 or 2 for another. I wouldn’t be a good parent to more than 3, I know that, I’ve always known that. Why is that wrong? Why is that selfish? Surely to concentrate on being the best mother (and father, obviously) we can be to our 3, is what’s important, not continually having babies we can’t afford and can’t cope with?

    • Sheila

      It takes a step of faith to have more children but I believe God will help us in every situation if we take that step.
      I live in the UK and know people with large families who manage just fine. Children can share bedrooms instead of having their own room  and most houses with even three bedrooms are big enough if you use the space wisely.
      We don’t need as much space as we are led to believe.
      It’s not wrong to take tax credits if you or your husband have paid tax out and that helps with the cost of a family.
      If someone has mental health issues God can help to heal them of that so I don’t think that is a reason not to have children.

      • Guest

        “If someone has mental health issues God can help to heal them of that so I don’t think that is a reason not to have children.”There is so much wrong in this statement I cannot believe. For the record, yes I am a christian. But I also believe in being responsible and taking medication in case of mental illness. And most especially not having children in that case or more. Want to know the worst case scenario of what will happen in case of untreated mental illness and your attitude ?  Andrea Yates, that is what. I cannot believe the ignorance of this statement. People like you are what give God a bad name.  

        • jungefrau1

          I am 45 and the mother of 2 sons, 18 and 23.  My husband and I wanted more than 2 kids, but mental illness runs in my family and we figured even 2 kids was risking it.  I’ve watched cousins, uncles, and my mother struggle with horrible mental problems they did not bring on themselves.  There have been suicides, jail time, etc.  Mental illness is not cured by prayer, but it is passed on through genes. 

          • Sheila

            Do you really believe that the God who created everything could not heal mental illness? That is sad!

            • Crackthewhipnow

              Maybe who is sad is people like you that think God will fix everything and heal everyone until something happens in your life or family and then you change your thoughts. If God was supposed to heal everyone  then there wouldn’t be any disabled children or adults or is that their own fault and God just chose to leave them disabled because they or their parents didn’t pray enough. If God was supposed to fix everything than why did God give you a will to know the difference between right and wrong and to make proper decisions, which you haven’t by continuing to get pregnant over and over so soon, which possibly is the cause of your miscarriage. I guess it was ok for you to possibly cause a baby in the womb to have to die because you just couldn’t wait a little longer to get pregnant and you couldn’t be satisfied with the children you have. Stop acting like your way is the right way, you don’t have a clue about Christianity or you wouldn’t be putting babies at risk by trying to keep giving birth to sell more books and get on tv shows for money. Who is the hipocrite now! God knows you and your husband are only continuing to have child after child for your own selfish benefits and that you are too lazy to work for a living in this world. You both are very selfish people expecting the rest of the people in the world to support your family. Get out and work for a living.

              • Sheila

                Who do you think you are talking to here – Michelle Duggar?
                I don’t know what on earth you are going on about!

      • Kate

        I volunteer in a nursing home where many mentally challenged people live. They have free will and many continue having kids with other residents. They cannot take care of themselves and they unfortunately cannot take care of the children they have while living there.  The children are almost always taken away or the parents go to live independently and find themselves back in the care facility with a severely mal nourished and non taken care of child. Most say they did not want the child to begin with. Usually the children go into foster care or a group home. They are not put up for adoption because they still have a parent. I love the kids they have and they are a great blessing to me, but if you saw the horrible things these children have to go through, you might think twice about encouraging people to have children who have severe mental health issues. Or, encourage them and help out their children and provide a safe place for them to live.

        • Sheila

          Are you talking about mentally ill people here or mentally retarded people? There is a difference.

  • Razingruth

    Mr. Jeub,
    As a QF/ATI-Pilot family daughter, I have often wondered if you truly appreciate the lack of choices you’re preparing your children for? Homeschooling can be a wonderful experience. However, in my experience, when paired with Christian legalism and patriarchy, it was limiting. I was prepared to be little more than a mother and wife. For some women, that might be all they desire to be. I desired to be something different.
    I know you’re asking “how is this relevant?” to your current post. It is relevant because you don’t seem to be setting your children up to succeed financially and pay into the system. You don’t, according to your own words, have a career. You depend on likeminded people to buy your books with money they’ve made off of selling their own books or ministries which encourage people to adopt this lifestyle. Can you not see the circular nature of this? I suspect you see it because I know it’s something that’s lauded- the flock raising the flock. However, that flock-raising-flock mentality fails as soon as your kids step outside your umbrella of protection. Unless they choose the same life, they find it hard to get out. My mother was a math teacher before becoming a wfie and mother. I still had to spend two years in remedial education before I could apply for an accredited university. I had to leave, much like your eldest daughter, in shame because I didn’t want to be married at 18. You say that you don’t condemn others for not choosing your life, but you haven’t walked the walk. I am unmarried, and in my twenties, with no children because I don’t have the means or the man to raise a child with. Should I have accepted the boy my parents had chosen for me so I can be where you are? Should I get pregnant out of wedlock, now, so that I can be “unselfish” and have kids I can’t afford? What if I was married and financially ready, but not emotionally or spiritually ready? Should I get pregnant and hope that the Lord prepares me spiritually and emotionally before that baby is born? Responsibility for another life is too precious to leave to the odds. Faith is fine! But, God also told us to provide and be responsible.

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      Good thoughts, Ruth. You throw a lot on the table here, too much to address fairly in the comments section. I kinda see where you’re coming from, but I think you have an opinion of the Jeubs that isn’t quite right. Please subscribe to the site, I’d like to continue dialoging with you.

      • Razingruth

        Thank you for your response.  I very well may have the wrong opinion of the Jeubs.  To be honest, most of my opinion has been formed by what I’ve seen on television and what I’ve read in your own books.  Also, in all fairness, my opinon of your family is biased because of my upbringing- just as we all carry some bias over.  Our experiences shape who we are. 
        I would be happy to continue a dialogue with you.   We can do that here or at my blog- it doesn’t matter to me.  Just be patient with me as I have classes starting again.

      • Razingruth

        Posted before finishing my last comment…

        I’m sure there is a lot of love in your family.  I’m also sure there’s happiness and faith and good intentions.  What concerns me are the ramifications of prescribing a QF vision for everyone.  You’ve had people comment here who say, bottom line, children are never anything but a blessing and everyone should have as many kids as possible.  You’ve had people suggest that God will handle everything.  Questioning the reasonability of that position is met with suggestions that the person doesn’t have enough faith in God.  I don’t think that’s fair or reasonable.

  • Nicola


    I’m sure that individually you are all very nice but don’t you recognise the burden you are adding to a fragile earth?

    Ever more people need ever more stuff. Humankind’s relentless consumption of resources such as timber, oil and minerals is continuing to destroy natural habitats around the globe. We are also putting enormous pressure on populations of wild species, both by hunting in the developing world and by large-scale industrial fishing in our seas.
    UrbanisationEver more people need ever more homes. In most industrialised countries and a growing number of developing ones over half the population live in cities. Properly designed cities and agricultural systems can sometimes support people with a lower impact on biodiversity than can a more evenly spread population. But as our numbers rise, cities and industrial areas are growing and merging into each other, fragmenting the remaining habitat leaving isolated “islands” of natural populations of plants and animals too small to survive.
    Intensive agricultureEver more people need ever more food. In order to feed the numbers of people living on the earth today, humanity has developed agricultural systems which rely on monocultures, artificial fertilisers and pesticides. Monocultures are increasingly susceptible to disease, pesticide use destroys insect populations indiscriminately, whilst fertiliser runoff pollutes water courses. In addition, the growing pressure on food supplies means an increasing proportion of agricultural land is farmed intensively, with fewer off seasons or fallow years in which to recover.
    PollutionEver more people produce ever more waste and pollution. As well as affecting the lives of humans, noise, light and chemical pollution can disrupt wildlife behaviour. Light from human activities makes it harder for predator species to catch their prey. Noise pollution interrupts both hunting and mating signals in many species, disturbing natural behaviour.
    The build-up of phosphates and nitrates from agricultural fertilisers and sewage effluent is creating long-term algal blooms in freshwater lakes and inland water systems, causing fish stocks to decline, with serious implications for food security in many developing countries.
    As populations increase, the disposal of waste becomes an increasing issue. Pollution will always be a consequence, whether we use land fill, incinerators or disposal at sea and in watercourses. The disposal of toxic materials poses additional hazards and problems.
    Invasive speciesAs a consequence of the introduction of non-native species to some areas, such as rabbits in Australia or goats on St. Helena, we have put many vulnerable ecosystems at risk, threatening native ecologies and diminishing biodiversity.
    Read more about our impact on biodiversity.


    Real sustainability means that activity can continue indefinitely. This was theorised in 1968 by American biologist and educator Paul R. Ehrlich.in his book, The Population Bomb.
    The impact of humanity on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT Equation, I=PAT.
    I = impact on the environment or demand for resources.
    P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology.
    Though this isn’t an exact equation in a mathematical sense, it does give an insight into how these factors combine together to define the limits of sustainability.
    The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that:
    the Earth can support only a limited number of people in a sustainable manner; and humanity has a clear choice: between more people with poorer lifestyles and fewer people with a better quality of life.
    Read more about sustainability and the Ehrlich Equation.



    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      Oh my, Nicola. This is really dumb. No offense, but it is.

      1) Don’t copy-n-paste from another website and make it appear as your own thoughts. See the article you pirated here.
      2) The Ehrlich Equation? Relying on Ehrlich for predictions is like relying on Harold Camping.
      3) This is such wasteful and hideous propaganda. So much of it has been proven false, yet people like you insist on believing it. And you insist on “educating” the rest of us. 

      Sorry, bad night sleep last night, and I should be nicer. What you cut-n-pasted is really dumb stuff, but maybe you’re not dumb. Just deceived, ignorant, and a thief of intellectual property. All I could think of this morning was “dumb.”

      • Marita

        I think Mr. Jeub *needs* to believe it’s “dumb.” If there was overpopulation, then he’d be doing something wrong.

  • Carrie

    Hi:) My husband and I have been married for 11 years and have four children ages 10,8,6,and3. We plan on more, God willing. That’s just it though, we plan. We use natural family planning, but recently my heart has been convicted to hand this “planning” over to our God. Now, we do have a television but no channels. We have not had internet until very recently and getting it for the purpose of staying in touch with our homeschool group. So, imagine the excitement and joy I have had finding out there are others with the same heart songs! My husband said he thinks that he has always thought in the back of his mind that this is how God intended. He comes from a large family- his grandmother being 1 of 18. Now for the glitch. He doesn’t know if he wants to surrenders to this now though:( He said he felt ok about us abstaining while in prayer over this. We are military, and he is about to deploy for an extended time. I feel sad not being physically intimate with him before he leaves. What do we do though if his heart is not moved? Long term abstinence in a marriage? I want to please God over man, and I also want to please my husband as my earthly authority and lover. Any advice and prayer would be appreciated. Thanks:)

  • Maria

    Hello Chris & Wendy,

    I’m typing my question here, because I don’t quite know where to put it, but I’ve been thinking for a couple of days and would really like an opinon. Children are blessings, yes indeed and God uses children to make us grow spiritually and as a person – I can testify to that for sure :-)

    Sometimes a couple cannot have children even when they try. We don’t know why. But the opposite can also happen today. An aquiantance of mine is a single mother of 4. She had twins a couple of years ago, obviously either by medical intervention or  some kind of a “one night thing”. She told me casually one day that she stil had some “eggs waiting”, I was flabbergasted that she just shared that information with me, but anyhow. She is now expecting again….twins again, and told me that “she had only planned for one though” she is happy about two again though.

    She cried when congratulated her. Saying that she was happy I understood, since people usually only had negative comments (why on EARTH would she want another child, how will she cope, space, finances etc etc etc).

    Well, I am happy for her. She obviously loves children too. And i would never, ever start to meddle into the hows and whys. I wish her all the best! But I am puzzled as to what role God has in all this. I mean, she is out of wedlock and I don’t even know how she conveives – maybe a sperm bank? maybe the same father the other kids has? maybe it’s all even in vitro and she has the embryos implanted later on? all but questions – and I don’t really care, BUT I do wonder. I mean – this is so obviously NOT the way God intended for children to be created. So what might be His part here? Is He knitting these babies together in the womb as well? Or is this situation an example of putting God on the sideline? Can God be put on the sideline?

    Pfew, it is really mind boggling to me – I’d love any perspective on this!!!


    • Sheila

      Just because babies can be created this way it is not what  God intended for the family.
      IVF is wrong when some embryos are selected and others are destroyed.
      Single women should not be keeping eggs to be fertilised by  an anonymous sperm donor.
      If you are unable to have children then that is God’s will for you and it should be accepted.
      This is wrong on so many levels.

      • Maria

        Thanks Sheila, but you are not really answering my question about whether or not God is still the one knitting together these babies in the womb? If he is, then I suppose it can’t be that wrong since He does not decide to terminate the “project”? And if he is not (if He has been “sidelined”) then where does that leave us in terms of “babies are God’s blessing/reward”?

        Please do not take this up as agressive, it is not – I am truely wondering about these things these days. Thanks for any other input,

        in Christ,

        • Sheila

          God is always ultimately responsible for the creation of life. Obviously if certain biological steps are taken then a child is created but it is the circumstances that are wrong. It is not God’s plan for the family. It is God’s will that children are born to a man and a woman within the context of a Christian marriage. However, it goes without saying that many children are conceived and born in totally different circumstances to this.
          That doesn’t mean that these children are not blessings from God or that He had no hand in their creation.
          I don’t believe God is ever sidelined, He is present in every situation and has a plan for all human beings, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

          • Maria

            see, I tend to think like you, that God is not, cannot, by definition, be sidelined. My husband would disagree, but that’s another discussion 😉

            But I admit, that I am confused as to how much and in what ways we can intervene. If a married couple have trouble conceiving, I believe it is ok for them to seek medical help no? It would be like someone with a strong disability undergoing an operation or taking medication or whatever to improve or even cure the situation. So are we saying that “helping” the biological process on the way in some form is ok, as long it is within the God-intended context (marriage)?

            • Sheila

              I believe some treatments are OK such as increasing progesterone levels to help conception. But I don’t believe in using donor eggs or sperm.
              I am also against selective reduction of embryos in the case of multiple pregnancies which is often the result of IVF.
               As long as treatment does not involve killing babies in the womb (selective reduction) ,or any other morally unacceptable treatment, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it.

              • Maria

                Thanks for your viewpoint, Sheila. Have a blessed day :)

  • Maria

    Oh, and something else along the same lines though; this whole thing with my neighbour also got me thinking – I would so love another one myself and have been “trying” but for some reason it does not “work”….I am impatient and have been contemplating trying to use fertility-tests (the ones that tell when your egg releases) but I have hesitated because I have felt that it is the same as using contraception: trying to second-guess God.

    To me, the whole open-to-life mindset is about welcoming any child God may bless you with – not trying to prevent it. So far so good. But if I try to “push” the thing by using diverse “methods” to try to get pregnant faster or whatever, am I not also messing with Gods affairs??? We’re not talking fertility-treatments trying to be able to conceive at ALL, I am thinking when you can conceive and you are just impatient.

    Well, I’m babbling. Bottom line; any opinions on this aspect? Thanks!
    Maria again 😉

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      You ask a very good question, Maria, one that Wendy and I have an entire blog post nearly ready with an answer. Real quick:
      1. Is it “second-guessing” God to desire more children even if not able to conceive? Absolutely not! We attended a Dave Ramsey seminar to figure out how to make more money. Is that wrong? No.
      2. Are there choices that inevitably lead to the taking of unborn lives? Today, unfortunately, there are, and those should never be entertained. It’s sad that those choices are even available. Sort of like encouraging theft to make more money. It is never justified.
      3. There are a few other “choices” than conception that are just as much a blessing. Foster care and adoption are awesome blessings, too.

      • Maria

        Thanks Chris, I’ll be looking forward to the blog post – meanwhile, if you don’t mind, I’m still confused about the “pro-active” part.

        We agree that it is of course ok to desire more children, even when they are not coming. This may also be called hope!
        But I was talking about taking active steps (in whatever form those could be) to try to “make” those children come, biologically. To me, this is different from simply desiring or hoping for 😉

        Do you have a perspective on this?

        in Christ,

  • Laire @ LightnerCrew.com

    Thank you so much for your encouragement Chris. :) We have 4 babies so far, we homeschool etc. For those that want to look into the issue of birth control from a biblical standpoint I posted this on my site. Blessings! :)http://lightnercrew.com/2011/12/28/is-birth-control-biblical/