Climate change and population control

At the Copenhagen global warming conclave, the Chinese are pushing another approach to cutting down carbon emissions: population control. As you read this, keep in mind what China does, enforcing the “one child” policy by forced abortions:

Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

Could the climate panic mindset lead to the same policy here?

UPDATE: A Canadian journalist is already advocating that all the world’s governments emulate China in imposing by law a one child limit.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-27802-Televangelism--Pop-Christianity-Examiner Bob Hunter

    A glance at the comments shows that reporter isn’t receiving any support for her outrageous idea.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-27802-Televangelism--Pop-Christianity-Examiner Bob Hunter

    A glance at the comments shows that reporter isn’t receiving any support for her outrageous idea.

  • Jonathan

    Maybe it’s a good policy not only for the environment, but also for other social and economic concerns, like healthcare and government pensions.

    I wonder whether we creatures have fulfilled God’s order in Genesis 1 to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” and now we are just being greedy.

    It’s not a policy that makes marriages intentionally childless–everyone would be allowed 1 child. Would that be an affront to God if He still wants to give blessings of additional children? Why would stopping at one child be anti-Lutheran?

  • Jonathan

    Maybe it’s a good policy not only for the environment, but also for other social and economic concerns, like healthcare and government pensions.

    I wonder whether we creatures have fulfilled God’s order in Genesis 1 to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” and now we are just being greedy.

    It’s not a policy that makes marriages intentionally childless–everyone would be allowed 1 child. Would that be an affront to God if He still wants to give blessings of additional children? Why would stopping at one child be anti-Lutheran?

  • Jonathan

    About #2, of course I wouldn’t support enforcement that includes forced abortion. But what about forced sterilization? That could include allowing parents to cryo-freeze their personal gametes as insurance for the 1 child limit, just in case.

  • Jonathan

    About #2, of course I wouldn’t support enforcement that includes forced abortion. But what about forced sterilization? That could include allowing parents to cryo-freeze their personal gametes as insurance for the 1 child limit, just in case.

  • Mary Jack

    I heard an American author suggesting a one-child policy in the US on NPR this past year. He did not have much caller support and in the end even he admitted he’d prefer “good parents” to have multiples and “bad parents” to have none at all. Ironically, I think he was the author of a book about population explosion that was revamped after twenty years because all of its dire threats had come to nothing.

    I think one-child policies show how little people look toward human ingenuity. And how little they see or trust God hidden in vocation.

    Jonathan, I understand your questions as “Haven’t we done enough for God after one child?” And “God surely didn’t mean our reproductive systems to function in the ways that they do.”

  • Mary Jack

    I heard an American author suggesting a one-child policy in the US on NPR this past year. He did not have much caller support and in the end even he admitted he’d prefer “good parents” to have multiples and “bad parents” to have none at all. Ironically, I think he was the author of a book about population explosion that was revamped after twenty years because all of its dire threats had come to nothing.

    I think one-child policies show how little people look toward human ingenuity. And how little they see or trust God hidden in vocation.

    Jonathan, I understand your questions as “Haven’t we done enough for God after one child?” And “God surely didn’t mean our reproductive systems to function in the ways that they do.”

  • Jonathan

    We have no qualms about doing population control for animals whose God-given repro systems would just keep on cranking. So, why not for humans? God also told the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and told us to “subdue” animals and the rest of creation. So, what does it mean then to be fruitful and multiply and *fill* the earth? I wonder if we haven’t moved past subduing the earth and on to unduly burdening it.

  • Jonathan

    We have no qualms about doing population control for animals whose God-given repro systems would just keep on cranking. So, why not for humans? God also told the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and told us to “subdue” animals and the rest of creation. So, what does it mean then to be fruitful and multiply and *fill* the earth? I wonder if we haven’t moved past subduing the earth and on to unduly burdening it.

  • http://dizzysound.net Christopher Gillespie

    Jonathan,

    To answer your last pondering, I think you’d have a hard time establishing from the Scriptures that man is ever placed under creation. Rather, its clear from Genesis to Jesus that man is the steward of creation, that is, set over it.

    What you are suggesting is the old saw of Malthus that continually grinds despite his predictions being incorrect.

  • http://dizzysound.net Christopher Gillespie

    Jonathan,

    To answer your last pondering, I think you’d have a hard time establishing from the Scriptures that man is ever placed under creation. Rather, its clear from Genesis to Jesus that man is the steward of creation, that is, set over it.

    What you are suggesting is the old saw of Malthus that continually grinds despite his predictions being incorrect.

  • http://tilling.tumblr.com Tickletext

    It not people in general that make the earth feel claustrophobic; it’s the Malthusians.

    Too many Malthusians.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7723/

  • http://tilling.tumblr.com Tickletext

    It not people in general that make the earth feel claustrophobic; it’s the Malthusians.

    Too many Malthusians.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7723/

  • Cincinnatus

    I think, Jonathan, you’d also have a hard time establishing that state-managed population control is at all compatible with a free society, human dignity, and individual volitional choices.

  • Cincinnatus

    I think, Jonathan, you’d also have a hard time establishing that state-managed population control is at all compatible with a free society, human dignity, and individual volitional choices.

  • Jonathan

    What’s the Biblical directive to have as many children as you can, other than Gen 1 *fill* the earth? So, are we there yet? Stewards of creation, sure, I see that also as vocation. But we are still creatures, too, no? Simul creature et son/daughter (by baptism) perhaps. So, is it good stewardship to keep on cranking out kids in the face of the directive?

  • Jonathan

    What’s the Biblical directive to have as many children as you can, other than Gen 1 *fill* the earth? So, are we there yet? Stewards of creation, sure, I see that also as vocation. But we are still creatures, too, no? Simul creature et son/daughter (by baptism) perhaps. So, is it good stewardship to keep on cranking out kids in the face of the directive?

  • Jonathan

    Cinci #8,

    Right, I’d have to leave that to the rest of the Malthusian scientists to prove/convince that it’s harmful. But, even our free society regulates a lot of “personal liberty” activities and choices that are otherwise deemed to be harmful, so it could be done.

  • Jonathan

    Cinci #8,

    Right, I’d have to leave that to the rest of the Malthusian scientists to prove/convince that it’s harmful. But, even our free society regulates a lot of “personal liberty” activities and choices that are otherwise deemed to be harmful, so it could be done.

  • Quinn M

    Heya, the Journalist, I am pretty sure, is using satire.

  • Quinn M

    Heya, the Journalist, I am pretty sure, is using satire.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan@10, I’m making a normative argument: human dignity, individual volition, and a free society are objective goods. The fact that our society regulates so many “personal liberties” is, depending upon how you define “personal liberty,” a bad thing. It is certainly a piss-poor excuse for regulating more personal liberties. “The government regulates statutory rape (as it should), so it might as well regulate people’s reproductive capabilities” is a terrible, terrible argument. Once the government gets its hands upon the family, it’s more or less over as far as a constitutional, limited government is concerned.

    And, as to your remarks @9, who is arguing that we should all have as many children as we can? The average American woman has 2.1 children. I know very few families who have more than four children (but most of those who do have are very serious about raising them in a proper way, so they may carry on). Where is this population crisis of which you speak? If anywhere, it’s in India, Bangladesh, and sub-Saharan Africa–and even then, I wouldn’t advocate forced sterilization for their populations.

    I may be assuming too much in assuming you hail from the Left, but I will assume it anyway for the purposes of argumentation: your contentions prove that the twin goals of statism and personal liberty as espoused by the Left are entirely incompatible. How can the progressive elements of political discourse proclaim themselves the harbingers of liberty and human rights and yet also advocate mandatory state sterilization programs, family size limitations, etc.? If anyone finds such programs appealing, I suggest they move to China or another land more amenable to their methods and political proclivities.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jonathan@10, I’m making a normative argument: human dignity, individual volition, and a free society are objective goods. The fact that our society regulates so many “personal liberties” is, depending upon how you define “personal liberty,” a bad thing. It is certainly a piss-poor excuse for regulating more personal liberties. “The government regulates statutory rape (as it should), so it might as well regulate people’s reproductive capabilities” is a terrible, terrible argument. Once the government gets its hands upon the family, it’s more or less over as far as a constitutional, limited government is concerned.

    And, as to your remarks @9, who is arguing that we should all have as many children as we can? The average American woman has 2.1 children. I know very few families who have more than four children (but most of those who do have are very serious about raising them in a proper way, so they may carry on). Where is this population crisis of which you speak? If anywhere, it’s in India, Bangladesh, and sub-Saharan Africa–and even then, I wouldn’t advocate forced sterilization for their populations.

    I may be assuming too much in assuming you hail from the Left, but I will assume it anyway for the purposes of argumentation: your contentions prove that the twin goals of statism and personal liberty as espoused by the Left are entirely incompatible. How can the progressive elements of political discourse proclaim themselves the harbingers of liberty and human rights and yet also advocate mandatory state sterilization programs, family size limitations, etc.? If anyone finds such programs appealing, I suggest they move to China or another land more amenable to their methods and political proclivities.

  • Jonathan

    Quinn M @ 11

    I think you’re right about that article. I’m just wondering if there’s a corollary to those who hold that it’s God’s plan for you to crank out as many as you can and stewardship need not apply there, that’s all.

  • Jonathan

    Quinn M @ 11

    I think you’re right about that article. I’m just wondering if there’s a corollary to those who hold that it’s God’s plan for you to crank out as many as you can and stewardship need not apply there, that’s all.

  • Bruce Gee

    Wait a minute. Portugal, Japan, Spain, Italy, France, the Netherlands: all have negative population growth. They are all looking for ways for MORE reproduction from their native populations. The Japanese government has been sponsoring speed dating clubs in hopes that young people will hook up and have children. Portugal is considering fining married couples who do not have children. If it weren’t for the hispanic population, the US would be undergoing negative pop growth as well. One child per family just can’t be sustained for more than a few generations.

    Here’s what I think: The Chi-coms are looking for some respect in the world’s eyes, and since they are, along with the US, “the worst polluters”, they probably figure this is an angle they can take to cut back on the number of blaming fingers pointed their way. In other words, it is purely a political suggestion on their part. Wouldn’t that be more in character with those characters?

  • Bruce Gee

    Wait a minute. Portugal, Japan, Spain, Italy, France, the Netherlands: all have negative population growth. They are all looking for ways for MORE reproduction from their native populations. The Japanese government has been sponsoring speed dating clubs in hopes that young people will hook up and have children. Portugal is considering fining married couples who do not have children. If it weren’t for the hispanic population, the US would be undergoing negative pop growth as well. One child per family just can’t be sustained for more than a few generations.

    Here’s what I think: The Chi-coms are looking for some respect in the world’s eyes, and since they are, along with the US, “the worst polluters”, they probably figure this is an angle they can take to cut back on the number of blaming fingers pointed their way. In other words, it is purely a political suggestion on their part. Wouldn’t that be more in character with those characters?

  • DonS

    I posted these articles yesterday on the earlier climate change thread. This is a major goal of the environmental community, as true believer environmentalists despise the presence of humans on the earth. They don’t consider us to be part of nature.

    Obviously, in the short term, these types of appeals are not going to gain much political traction. But we still need to expose this movement for what it really is, and shine a light on their true motivations. Because, over time, the drumbeat will continue, and converts will be won over. Who would have thought in 1980 that those opposed to officially sanctioned gay marriage would be labeled as the neanderthal far right wing?

  • DonS

    I posted these articles yesterday on the earlier climate change thread. This is a major goal of the environmental community, as true believer environmentalists despise the presence of humans on the earth. They don’t consider us to be part of nature.

    Obviously, in the short term, these types of appeals are not going to gain much political traction. But we still need to expose this movement for what it really is, and shine a light on their true motivations. Because, over time, the drumbeat will continue, and converts will be won over. Who would have thought in 1980 that those opposed to officially sanctioned gay marriage would be labeled as the neanderthal far right wing?

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    The family is a more basic institution than the government, and any state that would presume to exercise this kind of control over a family, as well as over individuals, forcibly sterilizing them, is tyrannical.

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    The family is a more basic institution than the government, and any state that would presume to exercise this kind of control over a family, as well as over individuals, forcibly sterilizing them, is tyrannical.

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    Quinn, no sign of satire in the buzz the article is having. (See Drudge Report.) Also, National Review notes that the journalist, Dianne Francis, while wanting the state to limit all families to one child, herself has two children.

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    Quinn, no sign of satire in the buzz the article is having. (See Drudge Report.) Also, National Review notes that the journalist, Dianne Francis, while wanting the state to limit all families to one child, herself has two children.

  • GL

    Jonathan asks: “Why would stopping at one child be anti-Lutheran?”

    Well, it would definitely be anti-Luther, who declared that God’s words in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” were more than a blessing, even more than a command, but, in his 1521 treatise on The Estate of Marriage, these words are “a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.”

    And later Lutherans agreed with his condemnation of contraception, such as:

    John H.C. Fritz, who, citing Gen. 1:28; Ps. 127:3-6; Ps. 128:3-4 and Gen. 38:9-10, wrote: “The Jews had large families; so did our German forefathers. The one-, two-, or three-children family system is contrary to Scripture; for man has no right arbitrarily or definitely to limit the number of his offspring.”

    Johann Gerhard, who, commenting on Gen. 38:7-10, wrote: “Most Hebrew and Christian interpreters conclude that the sin of Er was of the same type as the sin of Onan, which they call effeminacy. Augustine in book 22, Against Faust Chap. 84, concluded that this Er had sinned in this offense severely, because that sin impedes conception.”

    Paul E. Kretzman, also commenting on Gen. 38:9, wrote, “Such works of the flesh, all too prevalent in our day, when children are no longer desired, are an abomination before the Lord.”

    Theodore F.K. Laetsch, condemned birth control with many cites to Scripture, because, among other reasons” “It is despising His promises and is depriving oneself of a blessing” and “It is usurping for oneself an exclusive privilege of God, that of giving or withholding children.”

    and

    Walter A. Maier, Sr. who, in opposition to those who asserted Scripture was silent on the matter, wrote:

    This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.” The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

    I could cite other Lutherans of the past, but that should suffice.

  • GL

    Jonathan asks: “Why would stopping at one child be anti-Lutheran?”

    Well, it would definitely be anti-Luther, who declared that God’s words in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” were more than a blessing, even more than a command, but, in his 1521 treatise on The Estate of Marriage, these words are “a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.”

    And later Lutherans agreed with his condemnation of contraception, such as:

    John H.C. Fritz, who, citing Gen. 1:28; Ps. 127:3-6; Ps. 128:3-4 and Gen. 38:9-10, wrote: “The Jews had large families; so did our German forefathers. The one-, two-, or three-children family system is contrary to Scripture; for man has no right arbitrarily or definitely to limit the number of his offspring.”

    Johann Gerhard, who, commenting on Gen. 38:7-10, wrote: “Most Hebrew and Christian interpreters conclude that the sin of Er was of the same type as the sin of Onan, which they call effeminacy. Augustine in book 22, Against Faust Chap. 84, concluded that this Er had sinned in this offense severely, because that sin impedes conception.”

    Paul E. Kretzman, also commenting on Gen. 38:9, wrote, “Such works of the flesh, all too prevalent in our day, when children are no longer desired, are an abomination before the Lord.”

    Theodore F.K. Laetsch, condemned birth control with many cites to Scripture, because, among other reasons” “It is despising His promises and is depriving oneself of a blessing” and “It is usurping for oneself an exclusive privilege of God, that of giving or withholding children.”

    and

    Walter A. Maier, Sr. who, in opposition to those who asserted Scripture was silent on the matter, wrote:

    This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.” The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

    I could cite other Lutherans of the past, but that should suffice.

  • Kelly

    Also common in these circles is the idea of punishing nations that do not comply with compulsory population control by withholding foreign aid such as food and medical supplies. So I suppose the population ends up “controlled” one way or another.

  • Kelly

    Also common in these circles is the idea of punishing nations that do not comply with compulsory population control by withholding foreign aid such as food and medical supplies. So I suppose the population ends up “controlled” one way or another.

  • Kimett N Geist

    Poor Jonathan, you seek the attention you don not deserve and unfortunately, too many of us give it to you. Sad soul

  • Kimett N Geist

    Poor Jonathan, you seek the attention you don not deserve and unfortunately, too many of us give it to you. Sad soul

  • Booklover

    I have heard many Americans espousing this same 1-child plan. In fact, some of our children are being taught it in school.

    In fact, I know many families with 10 kids who use far fewer resources than families with 1 or 0 children.

    I have four children. Every Tuesday I put my garbage out for the collector. The bin is always half-full. The neighbor lady with two children always fills two bins to overflowing with at least four other teeming bags besides. Never can we properly guess carbon emissions or any other emissions based on numbers alone. Some people just watch their refuse, others don’t.

  • Booklover

    I have heard many Americans espousing this same 1-child plan. In fact, some of our children are being taught it in school.

    In fact, I know many families with 10 kids who use far fewer resources than families with 1 or 0 children.

    I have four children. Every Tuesday I put my garbage out for the collector. The bin is always half-full. The neighbor lady with two children always fills two bins to overflowing with at least four other teeming bags besides. Never can we properly guess carbon emissions or any other emissions based on numbers alone. Some people just watch their refuse, others don’t.

  • DonS

    Jonathan:

    Leaving aside the issues related to Scripture, statism, government interference with family hierarchy, self-determination, and all of those other very important issues which are well addressed above, I am intrigued by your statement:

    “Maybe it’s a good policy not only for the environment, but also for other social and economic concerns, like healthcare and government pensions.”

    Now, sure, you could argue that the long-term resulting reduction in population would create less stress on world resources, thus helping the environment. But, once the reduced population of young people reaches working age, you are going to have a situation where fewer than one worker is supporting the health care and pension for each retiree. How does that work, in your view? The health care and pension systems (particularly Social Security) would completely collapse.

  • DonS

    Jonathan:

    Leaving aside the issues related to Scripture, statism, government interference with family hierarchy, self-determination, and all of those other very important issues which are well addressed above, I am intrigued by your statement:

    “Maybe it’s a good policy not only for the environment, but also for other social and economic concerns, like healthcare and government pensions.”

    Now, sure, you could argue that the long-term resulting reduction in population would create less stress on world resources, thus helping the environment. But, once the reduced population of young people reaches working age, you are going to have a situation where fewer than one worker is supporting the health care and pension for each retiree. How does that work, in your view? The health care and pension systems (particularly Social Security) would completely collapse.

  • Booklover

    Immediately after we limit everyone on earth to the birth of one child, we can start building a tower to heaven. Yah. That would be cool.

  • Booklover

    Immediately after we limit everyone on earth to the birth of one child, we can start building a tower to heaven. Yah. That would be cool.

  • Booklover

    Many studies also link wealth with emissions and the effect of climate change.
    (I suppose that the wealthy take more airplane trips, buy bigger vehicles, vacation more, and over-all buy more and consume more.) Shall we also look at legislation stripping the wealthy’s cash??

  • Booklover

    Many studies also link wealth with emissions and the effect of climate change.
    (I suppose that the wealthy take more airplane trips, buy bigger vehicles, vacation more, and over-all buy more and consume more.) Shall we also look at legislation stripping the wealthy’s cash??

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    T Sherman had a comment and had trouble getting it through, for some unknown reason. (Any of the rest of you having trouble?) I post it manually:

    We should let our perspective as Christians who believe in the bodily resurrection shape our view of this issue. We believe that all lives are sacred, because humanity has a special, central place in creation. We are not just creatures, but we are children of God, and God seeks to bring as many of these children to himself as possible. We should not view the bringing of children into the world in terms of “cranking [them] out,” which makes it sound like they are pollution-machines akin to SUVs rolling off the production line, or comparing human procreation to animal-breeding. Christ came and became one of us, and one day will return to take us to live with him in heaven. How can we view bringing more souls into the world as poor stewardship?

    We seem to view God as the cosmic-clockmaker, who has built his creation, set it up and let it go, and has now stepped back to watch it. In this scheme, it is up to us not to screw it up too badly.

    We must remember that our God is the God who has made us and all people, given us our body and soul, eyes, ears, and all our members, and still takes care of them. He gives us food and drink, house and home, wife and children, all we have. He richly and daily provides me with all that I need.

    We ought to pray that God would daily give us everything that has to do with the support and needs of the body, including food, drink, clothing, shoes, money, goods, devout spouse, devout children, devout and faithful rulers, good government, good weather, faithful neighbors and the like, and trust that God does indeed do all this and more.

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    T Sherman had a comment and had trouble getting it through, for some unknown reason. (Any of the rest of you having trouble?) I post it manually:

    We should let our perspective as Christians who believe in the bodily resurrection shape our view of this issue. We believe that all lives are sacred, because humanity has a special, central place in creation. We are not just creatures, but we are children of God, and God seeks to bring as many of these children to himself as possible. We should not view the bringing of children into the world in terms of “cranking [them] out,” which makes it sound like they are pollution-machines akin to SUVs rolling off the production line, or comparing human procreation to animal-breeding. Christ came and became one of us, and one day will return to take us to live with him in heaven. How can we view bringing more souls into the world as poor stewardship?

    We seem to view God as the cosmic-clockmaker, who has built his creation, set it up and let it go, and has now stepped back to watch it. In this scheme, it is up to us not to screw it up too badly.

    We must remember that our God is the God who has made us and all people, given us our body and soul, eyes, ears, and all our members, and still takes care of them. He gives us food and drink, house and home, wife and children, all we have. He richly and daily provides me with all that I need.

    We ought to pray that God would daily give us everything that has to do with the support and needs of the body, including food, drink, clothing, shoes, money, goods, devout spouse, devout children, devout and faithful rulers, good government, good weather, faithful neighbors and the like, and trust that God does indeed do all this and more.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X