Why do believers have more children?

Sociologist Peter Berger (an ELCA Lutheran), after surveying the overwhelming data that religious people have more children than the non-religious do, offers this explanation:

Religion has always given its adherents a sense of living in a meaningful universe. This protects individuals from what sociologists call anomie—a condition of disorder and meaninglessness. Religion, by the same token, gives a strong sense of identity and confidence in the future. More than anything else that human beings may do, the willingness of becoming a parent requires a good measure of confidence in the future. Mind you, this is not an argument for the truth of religion. Illusions may also bestow meaning and confidence. But my hypothesis offers an explanation for the ubiquity and persistence of religion.

via Why do Godders have so many kids? | Religion and Other Curiosities.

He’s probably right in what he says, but I’m not sure that’s the whole story.  What else plays into it?

(And note the new word in his title:  “Godders.”  Should we embrace that word for those who believe in God or proclaim ourselves  offended?)

HT: Joe Carter

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.

  • Eric Brown

    I sort of like the term “Godder” – simply because I find the word itself amusing – and that way when people try to insult me with it I’ll have a bit of amusement to help beat down any resentment that my old Adam would want to stir up.

  • Eric Brown

    I sort of like the term “Godder” – simply because I find the word itself amusing – and that way when people try to insult me with it I’ll have a bit of amusement to help beat down any resentment that my old Adam would want to stir up.

  • SKPeterson

    ‘Godder’ seems to be a simple anglicization of ‘Deist’ or ‘Theist’, tow standard terms for those believing in God or a God. The quibbles are in the details and differentiation between the Godders. I wonder what Berger has to say about the impulse to celibate monasticism or other celibacy movements like the Shakers. It would appear on the surface that their appeal is not only self-limiting, but also holds little long-term attraction for most people.

  • SKPeterson

    ‘Godder’ seems to be a simple anglicization of ‘Deist’ or ‘Theist’, tow standard terms for those believing in God or a God. The quibbles are in the details and differentiation between the Godders. I wonder what Berger has to say about the impulse to celibate monasticism or other celibacy movements like the Shakers. It would appear on the surface that their appeal is not only self-limiting, but also holds little long-term attraction for most people.

  • WebMonk

    About “godder” – I really don’t think we need yet another term for something that there are already numerous terms. Like SK said – deist and theist work just fine.

    As to more kids, there are probably a lot of different factors, varying by the local issues. I haven’t tracked down the study mentioned above (at least not a free version) but I appreciate that the author being interviewed in the story admitted the uncertainties. Hinduism is heavily prevalent in India which is extremely poor, which correlates to lots of kids. Much of the Middle East is also very poor, which would put the kids-per-household for Muslims pretty high.

    In comparison, where are the strongly atheist areas? Europe, US, Canada, China, Japan (sort of), etc. Japan would be an interesting study on the topic – not exactly deist, but high level of “meaningfulness”, and yet very few children. China has an artificial control on the number of children.

    Within a single society, it probably varies. One that he alluded to, and which I would tend to agree quickly, is that some religions or sectors of religions have theology which requires/encourages lots of kids. (some Mormons, parts of Catholic, “quiver-full” in modern evangelical, Mennonite, Quakers, etc) Those sub-groups would tend to crank up the overall numbers for the religion as a whole.

  • WebMonk

    About “godder” – I really don’t think we need yet another term for something that there are already numerous terms. Like SK said – deist and theist work just fine.

    As to more kids, there are probably a lot of different factors, varying by the local issues. I haven’t tracked down the study mentioned above (at least not a free version) but I appreciate that the author being interviewed in the story admitted the uncertainties. Hinduism is heavily prevalent in India which is extremely poor, which correlates to lots of kids. Much of the Middle East is also very poor, which would put the kids-per-household for Muslims pretty high.

    In comparison, where are the strongly atheist areas? Europe, US, Canada, China, Japan (sort of), etc. Japan would be an interesting study on the topic – not exactly deist, but high level of “meaningfulness”, and yet very few children. China has an artificial control on the number of children.

    Within a single society, it probably varies. One that he alluded to, and which I would tend to agree quickly, is that some religions or sectors of religions have theology which requires/encourages lots of kids. (some Mormons, parts of Catholic, “quiver-full” in modern evangelical, Mennonite, Quakers, etc) Those sub-groups would tend to crank up the overall numbers for the religion as a whole.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    “Godder”? Well, it looks like at least someone at ELCA has attained to a marvelous degree of rhetorical clumsiness, as the word sounds like that part that would make my grand-dad’s snowblower work, but hasn’t been manufactured since 1952, and is now banned by both OSHA and the EPA–and rightly so.

    No offense, except I presume on the part of Dr. Berger if he reads my comment. :^)

    OK, seriously, I’d dare suggest that even non-Christian religious people tend to have some degree of Biblical morality in marriage, and hence they enjoy things more in marriage. Hence more children. This simply goes along with the fact that more religious people get married, and a larger portion of the religious who get married stay married.

    As people tell me when they find out my wife is expecting, “you know, they’ve learned what causes these things,” and it’s not in general from the kind of relationships the non-religious create. Duh.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    “Godder”? Well, it looks like at least someone at ELCA has attained to a marvelous degree of rhetorical clumsiness, as the word sounds like that part that would make my grand-dad’s snowblower work, but hasn’t been manufactured since 1952, and is now banned by both OSHA and the EPA–and rightly so.

    No offense, except I presume on the part of Dr. Berger if he reads my comment. :^)

    OK, seriously, I’d dare suggest that even non-Christian religious people tend to have some degree of Biblical morality in marriage, and hence they enjoy things more in marriage. Hence more children. This simply goes along with the fact that more religious people get married, and a larger portion of the religious who get married stay married.

    As people tell me when they find out my wife is expecting, “you know, they’ve learned what causes these things,” and it’s not in general from the kind of relationships the non-religious create. Duh.

  • Jeremy

    Correlation is not equal to causation, and we should look for characteristics that religious people who have lots of kids have in common with non-religious people who have lots of kids. For most people I know who had kids early and often, they all had one common characteristic, and that was a kind of detached, worry-free attitude. I remember several boys and girls having kids while they were in high school, and whereas me and my wife would have been freaking out and calculating every possible choice and consequence, they all had this kind of nonchalant “go with it” demeanor. It was as if they were saying, “what is there to worry about?”.

  • Jeremy

    Correlation is not equal to causation, and we should look for characteristics that religious people who have lots of kids have in common with non-religious people who have lots of kids. For most people I know who had kids early and often, they all had one common characteristic, and that was a kind of detached, worry-free attitude. I remember several boys and girls having kids while they were in high school, and whereas me and my wife would have been freaking out and calculating every possible choice and consequence, they all had this kind of nonchalant “go with it” demeanor. It was as if they were saying, “what is there to worry about?”.

  • Michael Z.

    I think that the author has some ground to stand on.
    Webmonk @3 pointed out that both hindus and muslims also have lots of children, but he ties it to income for some reason.
    I think that religion, and not Christianity specifically, creates a moral groundwork on which to build a family. Most religions place a strong male figure at the head of a family where everyone knows their place. This leads to stable families, which last longer and can produce more offspring. (yes, this can lead to abuse, but that is Off Topic, I wasn’t justifying strong paternalism, just observing)

  • Michael Z.

    I think that the author has some ground to stand on.
    Webmonk @3 pointed out that both hindus and muslims also have lots of children, but he ties it to income for some reason.
    I think that religion, and not Christianity specifically, creates a moral groundwork on which to build a family. Most religions place a strong male figure at the head of a family where everyone knows their place. This leads to stable families, which last longer and can produce more offspring. (yes, this can lead to abuse, but that is Off Topic, I wasn’t justifying strong paternalism, just observing)

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Somebody needs to get a $million government grant to to do a double-blind, peer reviewed study of this phenomenon. Common sense speculation just won’t do in the modern scientific world.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Somebody needs to get a $million government grant to to do a double-blind, peer reviewed study of this phenomenon. Common sense speculation just won’t do in the modern scientific world.

  • GL

    It’s not merely religious folks, its orthodox believers who are truly committed. Episcopalians, ECLA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, etc. don’t have more children. And why is that? I think that it is because people who actually READ the Bible cover-to-cover and actually BELIEVE what they read recognize that God’s Word repeatedly and unequivocally teaches that children are a BLESSING from GOD and that those to whom HE gives many children are particularly blessed. If you truly believe God’s Word on this, why wouldn’t you want His blessings.

    Just read Jeremy’s comment. He doesn’t believe that many children are a blessing from God. He is not to be blamed for this. Our entire society teaches that children are a great burden and not at all a blessing, or if a blessing, only to those who wait until they are ready and then have only one or two. Yet Psalm 127 tells us specifically that the children of ones youth are a particular blessing.

    My wife and I used contraception early in our married life and, even after that, due to some fertility problems, we did not have our first child until we had been married ten years. We now have four blessings from God for which we are profoundly grateful. But we rejected the blessing of children from our youth and, so, we will not have the blessings that they might have provided.

    We both attended church weekly as children and our parents were devout Christians, but they never taught us nor demonstrated to us (we each have only one sibling) their belief in God’s Word on this matter. I’m sure that they accepted the wisdom of their age in this, not intended to reject God’s Word. We intend to teach our children otherwise.

  • GL

    It’s not merely religious folks, its orthodox believers who are truly committed. Episcopalians, ECLA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, etc. don’t have more children. And why is that? I think that it is because people who actually READ the Bible cover-to-cover and actually BELIEVE what they read recognize that God’s Word repeatedly and unequivocally teaches that children are a BLESSING from GOD and that those to whom HE gives many children are particularly blessed. If you truly believe God’s Word on this, why wouldn’t you want His blessings.

    Just read Jeremy’s comment. He doesn’t believe that many children are a blessing from God. He is not to be blamed for this. Our entire society teaches that children are a great burden and not at all a blessing, or if a blessing, only to those who wait until they are ready and then have only one or two. Yet Psalm 127 tells us specifically that the children of ones youth are a particular blessing.

    My wife and I used contraception early in our married life and, even after that, due to some fertility problems, we did not have our first child until we had been married ten years. We now have four blessings from God for which we are profoundly grateful. But we rejected the blessing of children from our youth and, so, we will not have the blessings that they might have provided.

    We both attended church weekly as children and our parents were devout Christians, but they never taught us nor demonstrated to us (we each have only one sibling) their belief in God’s Word on this matter. I’m sure that they accepted the wisdom of their age in this, not intended to reject God’s Word. We intend to teach our children otherwise.

  • Jeremy

    “Jeremy doesn’t believe that many children are a blessing.”

    I have 3 children and I love them all dearly. Just because I don’t believe in the Quiverfull principle doesn’t mean I don’t love kids. Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that kids today are expensive. In yesteryears, kids provided a cheap source of labor on the farm, they went to work early and married early, and you didn’t have college cost and all the other things to worry about. During that time, a secular atheist would agree that 9 kids are a blessing. That’s no longer the case.

  • Jeremy

    “Jeremy doesn’t believe that many children are a blessing.”

    I have 3 children and I love them all dearly. Just because I don’t believe in the Quiverfull principle doesn’t mean I don’t love kids. Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that kids today are expensive. In yesteryears, kids provided a cheap source of labor on the farm, they went to work early and married early, and you didn’t have college cost and all the other things to worry about. During that time, a secular atheist would agree that 9 kids are a blessing. That’s no longer the case.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have serious doubts that there is a strong causation from religious adherence. I would not be surprised that religious adherence played a role. But I have a feeling economic and societal factors play an even larger role. It has become the societal norm to have 2.5 kids in most regions of the U.S. with a few regions have a norm of 1 child (NYC for instance). People feel these societal influences and plan accordingly without realizing that it is only one viewpoint.

    Honestly, Jeremy, while agree with your assestment that economically children are expensive, and that reality plays a role. I am not sure it is a healthy reality, because it does reinforce the idea of children as burden rather than blessing.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I have serious doubts that there is a strong causation from religious adherence. I would not be surprised that religious adherence played a role. But I have a feeling economic and societal factors play an even larger role. It has become the societal norm to have 2.5 kids in most regions of the U.S. with a few regions have a norm of 1 child (NYC for instance). People feel these societal influences and plan accordingly without realizing that it is only one viewpoint.

    Honestly, Jeremy, while agree with your assestment that economically children are expensive, and that reality plays a role. I am not sure it is a healthy reality, because it does reinforce the idea of children as burden rather than blessing.

  • WebMonk

    Michael Z – the correlation (inverse) between wealth and number of children is exceptionally strong. I mentioned Middle Eastern Islam and Indian Hinduism as examples of non-Christian deistic groups with lots of kids, but mentioned income levels as a possible factor because it is extremely possible that the correlation between income and kids is the driving force rather than the religion of those groups.

    For a “non-deistic’ examples of groups with high birth rates, many areas in central and southern Africa would suffice. There are a lot of areas where neither Islam nor Christianity have become very widespread, and yet the birth rate is extremely high. In those areas the religion tends to be animistic rather than deistic, and yet those areas still have tons of kids. Many parts of South America would also serve as similar examples.

    Not surprisingly, the inverse correlation between wealth and birth rates still holds true. I suspect that the strength of the links between wealth and birth rates is far greater than the strength of links between religion and birth rates.

  • WebMonk

    Michael Z – the correlation (inverse) between wealth and number of children is exceptionally strong. I mentioned Middle Eastern Islam and Indian Hinduism as examples of non-Christian deistic groups with lots of kids, but mentioned income levels as a possible factor because it is extremely possible that the correlation between income and kids is the driving force rather than the religion of those groups.

    For a “non-deistic’ examples of groups with high birth rates, many areas in central and southern Africa would suffice. There are a lot of areas where neither Islam nor Christianity have become very widespread, and yet the birth rate is extremely high. In those areas the religion tends to be animistic rather than deistic, and yet those areas still have tons of kids. Many parts of South America would also serve as similar examples.

    Not surprisingly, the inverse correlation between wealth and birth rates still holds true. I suspect that the strength of the links between wealth and birth rates is far greater than the strength of links between religion and birth rates.

  • helen

    My grandparents had 8 and 9 children. Those 17 produced 34, which just replaced them and their spouses. I asked my mother once why there were only two of us. She said, “I don’t know. I thought there would be more.”
    My cousin, born in 1934, was asked by a teacher why her public school class was so much smaller than average. She replied, “It was a dry year.” [Ask a farmer's kid; get a farmer's answer!]

  • helen

    My grandparents had 8 and 9 children. Those 17 produced 34, which just replaced them and their spouses. I asked my mother once why there were only two of us. She said, “I don’t know. I thought there would be more.”
    My cousin, born in 1934, was asked by a teacher why her public school class was so much smaller than average. She replied, “It was a dry year.” [Ask a farmer's kid; get a farmer's answer!]

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I tend to agree with those who view this as largely economically driven.

    In wealthy societies, children, quite simply, are a liability (saying this does not preclude them from also being properly viewed as blessings), the biggest liability being college. Back when Americans were having 10 kids in a family, how many of those kids went off to college? How many 529′s were set up (I realize that’s an anachronism)?

    The two big holes I pour money into for the future are 529s and my own retirement saving. Which gets to another aspect of things: in wealthy societies, we’ve shifted away from the idea of kids as taking care of us in our old age. Either we’re going to take care of ourselves (via savings), or the government will (through forced savings, as it were).

    In poor countries, it’s the opposite. The main cost that children incur is food. But they repay that with labor, in addition to taking care of you in your old age. Or so I understand things.

    I’ll also add this: the families I know with lots of children (all Christians, yes) tend not to be advertisements for that tactic, since they often complain in conversations about the cost and difficulty. I’m quite certain their home lives are much happier than such conversations would imply, and maybe they’re just playing to the crowd, presuming that their approach isn’t a popular one, and so playing it down.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I tend to agree with those who view this as largely economically driven.

    In wealthy societies, children, quite simply, are a liability (saying this does not preclude them from also being properly viewed as blessings), the biggest liability being college. Back when Americans were having 10 kids in a family, how many of those kids went off to college? How many 529′s were set up (I realize that’s an anachronism)?

    The two big holes I pour money into for the future are 529s and my own retirement saving. Which gets to another aspect of things: in wealthy societies, we’ve shifted away from the idea of kids as taking care of us in our old age. Either we’re going to take care of ourselves (via savings), or the government will (through forced savings, as it were).

    In poor countries, it’s the opposite. The main cost that children incur is food. But they repay that with labor, in addition to taking care of you in your old age. Or so I understand things.

    I’ll also add this: the families I know with lots of children (all Christians, yes) tend not to be advertisements for that tactic, since they often complain in conversations about the cost and difficulty. I’m quite certain their home lives are much happier than such conversations would imply, and maybe they’re just playing to the crowd, presuming that their approach isn’t a popular one, and so playing it down.

  • The Jones

    Godder? Why not use the already sufficient word, and easily more eloquent , “Theist”?

  • The Jones

    Godder? Why not use the already sufficient word, and easily more eloquent , “Theist”?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How about the rationale that religionists are less likely to abort. Studies from the UK, Finland, that include the entire population by using the public health system records found that the average number of children from women who had never aborted was greater than the number for those who had ever had an abortion. The fact is contraception fails, often. Most of my close friends have at least one child from contraceptive failure. My brother has two. However, being unwilling to abort to ease the finances and other strains meant that those children lived.

    Under conditions of deprivation, folks just lost their children. So, in order to have a stable population, about 2x-3x children were necessary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How about the rationale that religionists are less likely to abort. Studies from the UK, Finland, that include the entire population by using the public health system records found that the average number of children from women who had never aborted was greater than the number for those who had ever had an abortion. The fact is contraception fails, often. Most of my close friends have at least one child from contraceptive failure. My brother has two. However, being unwilling to abort to ease the finances and other strains meant that those children lived.

    Under conditions of deprivation, folks just lost their children. So, in order to have a stable population, about 2x-3x children were necessary.

  • Booklover

    Believers have more children because they believe in eternity. What is of more value than an eternal soul? Believers know that children are from God, not material. There is nothing on this earth that is more valuable to me than my four sons.

  • Booklover

    Believers have more children because they believe in eternity. What is of more value than an eternal soul? Believers know that children are from God, not material. There is nothing on this earth that is more valuable to me than my four sons.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Booklover said (@16):

    Believers have more children because they believe in eternity.

    Non sequitur. The fact that you value your children’s souls more than anything does not explain why you have four children.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Booklover said (@16):

    Believers have more children because they believe in eternity.

    Non sequitur. The fact that you value your children’s souls more than anything does not explain why you have four children.

  • Booklover

    Another reason I can think of as to why believers have more children. . .Believers have Someone they can go to with their problems, burdens, and concerns. I can not by any stretch imagine raising four teen-age sons without being able to go to God in prayer.

    For a believing parent of multiple children, there is Prayer, and there is Hope. Oh, and there is also the church, the community of believers, who is there as support when all those multiple problems in a large family arise.

    There is a God Who, when all those sinners appear and appeal, is Saviour.

  • Booklover

    Another reason I can think of as to why believers have more children. . .Believers have Someone they can go to with their problems, burdens, and concerns. I can not by any stretch imagine raising four teen-age sons without being able to go to God in prayer.

    For a believing parent of multiple children, there is Prayer, and there is Hope. Oh, and there is also the church, the community of believers, who is there as support when all those multiple problems in a large family arise.

    There is a God Who, when all those sinners appear and appeal, is Saviour.

  • WebMonk

    tODD @13 – you may want to look into Coverdells. 529 plans are nice for tax benefits, but they tend to be fairly restrictive as to how the funds can be used. If you are pretty sure your kids’ education will fit the 529 guidelines, then great, but you might want to check out Coverdells as well.

    I’ve gone through the 529/Coverdell studying and comparison fairly recently, so it’s fresh on my mind.

  • WebMonk

    tODD @13 – you may want to look into Coverdells. 529 plans are nice for tax benefits, but they tend to be fairly restrictive as to how the funds can be used. If you are pretty sure your kids’ education will fit the 529 guidelines, then great, but you might want to check out Coverdells as well.

    I’ve gone through the 529/Coverdell studying and comparison fairly recently, so it’s fresh on my mind.

  • GL

    @Jeremy,

    Glad to hear it, but you still impune people who choose to be open to as many children as God’s chooses to give them by questioning their sense of responsibility and by comparing them to high schoolers who, presumably, are having babies out of wedlock. I assume that everyone posting here believes couples should marry before copulating and that they should refrain from doing either until they are mature enough and otherwise in a position to have children. The question is, after they have reached that level and have married, should they trust God’s Word that children are a blessing and that the man who has many is particularly blessed or should they substitute their own wisdom for that of Holy Scripture.

    The issue is not, by the way, a new one. For example, Lactantius wrote in his Divine Institutes 6:20 in A.D. 307:

    “[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife .”

    So, Christians 17 centuries ago were faced with the same choice. The solution then when resources simply won’t support another child is still available today: continence.

  • GL

    @Jeremy,

    Glad to hear it, but you still impune people who choose to be open to as many children as God’s chooses to give them by questioning their sense of responsibility and by comparing them to high schoolers who, presumably, are having babies out of wedlock. I assume that everyone posting here believes couples should marry before copulating and that they should refrain from doing either until they are mature enough and otherwise in a position to have children. The question is, after they have reached that level and have married, should they trust God’s Word that children are a blessing and that the man who has many is particularly blessed or should they substitute their own wisdom for that of Holy Scripture.

    The issue is not, by the way, a new one. For example, Lactantius wrote in his Divine Institutes 6:20 in A.D. 307:

    “[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife .”

    So, Christians 17 centuries ago were faced with the same choice. The solution then when resources simply won’t support another child is still available today: continence.

  • http://parentaloffice.com Joshua McNary

    Perhaps orthodox Christians have more children because we oft consider a pregnancy/birth as God working through us to do His bidding. In our family’s case, we have taken a firm stand on “doing God’s will” when surrounded with the ‘stresses’ of being parents. For instance, when we found out our last pregnancy was really to two kiddos (twins), we of course were overwhelmed (we are sinners after all) , but when we could pray on and consider the gift given to us our “ho-hum” attitude came back and we did (as much as we can as sinners) His will. Of course all this is supported by knowing Christ’s death on the cross for us. Surely we do not think this way all the time (life with twins & a toddler is crazy and stressful sometimes – & Christ is forgotten in those moments), but this kind of argument is something a secular or mainstream Protestant may not consider upfront.

    Also, if interested in learning more about Christ-focused parenting from myself and other parents, visit http://parentaloffice.com. Dr. Veith’s work is one of our inspirations for the site!

  • http://parentaloffice.com Joshua McNary

    Perhaps orthodox Christians have more children because we oft consider a pregnancy/birth as God working through us to do His bidding. In our family’s case, we have taken a firm stand on “doing God’s will” when surrounded with the ‘stresses’ of being parents. For instance, when we found out our last pregnancy was really to two kiddos (twins), we of course were overwhelmed (we are sinners after all) , but when we could pray on and consider the gift given to us our “ho-hum” attitude came back and we did (as much as we can as sinners) His will. Of course all this is supported by knowing Christ’s death on the cross for us. Surely we do not think this way all the time (life with twins & a toddler is crazy and stressful sometimes – & Christ is forgotten in those moments), but this kind of argument is something a secular or mainstream Protestant may not consider upfront.

    Also, if interested in learning more about Christ-focused parenting from myself and other parents, visit http://parentaloffice.com. Dr. Veith’s work is one of our inspirations for the site!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X