nationalprosperity

Land

Now, let's say the original couple purchased a small house on inexpensive acreage, zoned rural or semi-rural.

An extra bedroom could be added onto the house as each child is born.

Then when the time comes for each of their children to marry, a home can be built for each new family, on the property.

Each new house can also be extended (in stages) as new babies come along.

Then when the grandchildren grow up and marry, houses are built for them also, on the property - and each of these houses is similarly extended to accomodate each of their babies as they come along, and so on...

After approximately 100 years, there would be around 625 large houses on the property - each with six bedrooms.

Since each new house is started small and later extended, and since the land is already owned, each new home is highly affordable to each family.

If the original couple had bought say 1000 acres, that means each family could now have one-and-a-half acre blocks for their homes, with 62.5 acres still remaining for communal roadways, businesses, farms, an assembly hall, etc.

In this way, one man has now become a 'village' of families. He has become a township of 625 families totalling 4,600 people - simply by each family having five children.

Blessed to Be a Blessing

Imagine the influence for good that this many people can have!

I chose to do these calculations based on five children per family, because five children per couple was the average fertility rate in the 50's, before the introduction of the contraceptive pill.

But if each family was able to match the average fertility rate of the 1800's - which was eight children per couple - the population after 100 years would then be 42,000.

Or if each family had the same number of children with which the Lord blessed Jacob - 12 children - the result would be almost a half million people, or more than the population of the entire Gold Coast, or about 12% of Queensland's total population.

But even if we take the lower figure, imagine the influence that a family of 4,600 people can have in its local Shire.

They would be able to exert a significant influence on the morals, faith, law, government, business, education, health, media, and religion of their surrounding region.

And imagine their combined economic power (some townships of a similar size already contribute sizeably to Queensland's overall Gross Domestic Product).

Now consider some of the advantages of this lifestyle to the family itself:

The original father can guide each of his children how to fear the Lord, and the children teach the children's children, etc.

Each young family can be surrounded by and helped by the support-structure of the collective wisdom of the older families. The elders of the families would be available to give continued guidance to the younger families.

The property could include trees, wetlands, grazing paddocks and agricultural areas promoting a a non-toxic environment and yielding healthier nutrition.

Children could safely play outside until late afternoon with their parents never worrying where they are - because after all, they'd be with relatives!

God's blessing would abide on the families because they continually obey His principles in matters of faith, morals and in natural things as well.

Inevitably some families may want to move away, but hopefully an environment will have been created where most of the new families will see clear advantages to staying on the property.

But even if some of the families do move away - either to do missionary work, or for business or education - each family would still remain a trustee or beneficiary of the family property. Even if a family bought a house or apartment in another city, they would have the assurance that they still own their share of the family property no matter what.

The land itself would remain in Trust as a perpetual family inheritance for generations to come. The houses on the property may be leased but never sold outside the family.

This means that each new family wouldn't have to start from scratch and spend half their working life paying off a mortgage on a quarter-acre block.

Instead, getting started in life is now made easy for each new family, because they can build their home on the land which is already owned by the family - even if they choose to live somewhere else.

Taking it to a National Level

Now let's see what would happen if not just one couple - but believers in Christ all over the country - adopted this lifestyle.

If we can achieve Christian women becoming the most fertile 20% of women in the country, in the second generation one half of all the children in the country will belong to Christian families.

It's called the law of Heritability of Fertility, and it goes like this:

"...suppose that out of every 10 women in the present generation, 3 have no children, 3 have one child, 2 have 2 children, 1 has 3 children, and 1 has 4 children.

The total number of children is 14, and the average per woman is 1.4 [which is about how it is...in developed countries].

Now suppose that...every female has as many children as her own mother.

On these assumptions the average number of children born to each female of the second generation will be 2.57.

Average fertility has almost doubled in a generation.

This largely reflects the fact that in this model the most fertile 20% of women contribute half of all the children in the second generation (7 out of every 14), and we assume that the daughters from these families inherit their mothers’ high fertility."

- David Burbridge

Notice that half of the children in the second generation come from the most fertile 20% of women.

Second Generation 0 + 3 + 4 + 9 +16 = 32 children.

16 out of 32 come from the top 20% most fertile women.

If those most fertile 20% of women happen to be Christian women, then half the country's children will come from Christian homes, in the second generation.

Is this achievable? Could Christian women become the most fertile women in the country? Can half the nation's children come from Christian homes?

It's a matter of values, of lifestyle, of choice, and a matter of the blessing of the Lord.

Approximately 32.25% of Australia's population are females within the ages of 21 and 42; and approximately 2.9% of Australia's population are Pentecostal, Baptist or Church of Christ.

If each Pentecostal, Baptist and Church of Christ family produced an average of five children per couple whilst the rest of Australia continued producing the current national average of 1.797 per couple, within approximately 50 years the women of these Pentecostal, Baptist and Church of Christ families will be the top 20% most fertile women in the country. And in the generation after that, half of all the children born Australia-wide will belong to those evangelical Christian families. In approximately 100 years, about three-quarters of the nation's children would be from Christian families.

So that illustrates that raising the birthrate can be great for our country spiritually.

Raising the birthrate can also be beneficial for families financially, as follows:

The fertility rate in most developed countries is currently below the replacement level (in Australia it is 1.6 babies per couple). This means we have an ageing population with fewer people in the working age bracket to support the aged population, causing a strain on the economy.

But if we lift the birthrate we will have more young people in the working age bracket and a larger labour force to derive the highest possible benefit out of our rich natural resources.

Governments of developed countries including Australia are now starting to offer incentives to couples to have more children, because economists understand the importance that lifting the birthrate has to our future prosperity.

In short, if we lifted the birthrate we would all actually be better off!

Paradigm Shift

Obviously the picture painted in the above plan is very Utopian and may be practically unworkable in some aspects if attempted literally.

So in most instances, perhaps, only the principles inherent in it could be followed - and then only with quite a lot of variation, depending on each man's unique calling, gift, and circumstances.

For example, one family may not feel led to move out to a rural area, because of a call of God on their life to reach people in the city, or to work in the city. So they may choose not to buy one large rural property, but instead choose that each succeeding family buy their own, separate, smaller block of land within the city.

Also, of course, there would be variation in the number of children each couple have.

Nevertheless the core value of the plan, and this is the practical part that can be applied, is that influence can best be achieved, and material prosperity can best be measured, by these two things:

1) Land; and

2) Children.

For many of us in post-modern society, even believers in Christ, that in itself may require a paradigm shift, a re-evaluation of values.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God"

- Romans 12:1,2

Children are an heritage from the Lord - a blessing, and not an obstacle to our prosperity.

Making it Easier for the Next Generations

Inevitably many descendants would move away to live in other places, for education and career, or in order to fulfil a call of God.

However, no matter where each person ends-up living, he would know that he always has a place to call home and a house of his own, back on the land which remains his perpetual family inheritance - land which may be leased, but never sold.

This would be a lavish foundation and a huge load off the shoulders indeed, for any young couple starting out in life together.

We can either put this principle to work for us; or this principle will be put to work against us.

Testimony

I once visited an elderly Filipino couple in Brisbane, and on their lounge room wall were individually framed photos of the couple and each of their twelve children.

One-by-one the man pointed-out with pride what each child is now doing.

One is now a Pastor in Norway.

Another is a Pastor in Manila and Founder/Principal of a school with 700 students.

Another founded a humanitarian aid program in Australia benefiting the Philippines.

Another has an itinerant ministry training children's workers.

Another lives in and works in America.

One-by one he told me what they are now doing, and I couldn't help thinking, "Here is a man of influence!"

He said to me, "I can't understand why Australians say they can't afford more children. If I could bring-up twelve children in a poor country like the Philippines [and they adopted one too], surely they can do it here in Australia".

I asked, "But in the Philippines, don't you have help from your extended family to look after all those kids?"

"No!" he said, "We raised them all ourselves. Sure - I had to work a second job at times. But we got through - the Lord got us through."

Neither he nor his wife seemed worse for the wear, and again - I couldn't help thinking, here is a man of influence.

Working Smarter, Not Harder

A certain couple who wanted to become missionaries already had two children when, after a significant gap, she became pregnant again with their third.

They told me how their Pastor, trying to be helpful, advised them not to have any more children.

"How will you ever have a world-wide ministry? Now you'll have to wait even longer for all your kids to be off your hands!" he said.

I simply asked, "Would you say Benny Hinn has a worldwide ministry?" and pointed-out that he has four children.

What better way to influence the world than through the lives of children, whom you have with you full-time all those years.

Sure the couple may need to adjust the way they operate in the ministry at times. Perhaps they could train local leaders to share the work of evangelism. They could even add a TV ministry, if the Lord willed. That way they could widen their influence without being away from home so much.

Besides, why does a couple need to wait for their children to be grow up before they go to the mission field? It occurred to me one day, as if I hadn't already noticed, that there are already children living in those countries where we want to go as missionaries - lots of children. If the children there are surving, then our children will too - even more so, because we have the promises of God on our side!

What message are we missionaries going to take to the mums and dads in these countries anyway - that my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus? and yet we don't demonstrate faith in that promise in our own lives, by bringing up our own family there, with God's help?

Issues & Considerations

Could Australia's future prosperity be impacted by whether or not society adjusts its view about having more children?

Many have thought they could safe-guard their standard of living by restricting the number of children they had. And with the introduction of the Contraceptive Pill in the 1950's, the fertility rate plummeted from an average of 5.0 per couple to the 1.8 it is today. Sociologists are therefore asking whether the ideology has backfired on us.

• We are not even replacing ourselves.

• We now have an ageing population and a diminishing workforce that will be unable to sustain the way of life that society has become used to. Eventually the population will start declining - yet we already have a shortage of skilled labour in Australia and already need workers to come from abroad.

At the end of the day, people means power, for any economy - despite the vastnes of its natural resources.

Even though it seemed we could give a better quality of life to our children by having fewer children, it seems as though that is not a sustainable situation.

Plus - has it really been a significantly better quality of life for our children anyway?

Could we as a society benefit from a return to the old sense of values - that sees having more children as a good thing?

Declining birth rates are happening in most of the developed, democratic, Western societies - such as the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Europe - all the countries that have traditionally been bastions of democracy, human rights, civil liberty, international security, and faith in Christ.

These are the countries which, because of their ideology and faith, were able to save the world from evil during the First and Second World Wars.

These are the countries from which most missionary work emanates.

On top of the lowering birth rate, these countries also have the highest abortion rates in the world (Australia has one of the highest abortion rates in the developed world).

Meanwhile, it is the Muslims in Australia that continue to have a high fertility rate. The Muslim population of Australia increased at a rate five times higher than Australia's overall population growth, in the period between the last two censuses. This applies similarly to Muslims all over the world, not just in Australia.

So what could Australia's and the World's demographics look like in a couple of hundred years - politically, socially, ideologically, economically, domestically, internationally, and religiously - if the current way of thought concerning the value of children in this country continues??

I'm wondering whether we could enhance our future prosperity in Australia by having more children - even of it means adjusting one's view of what really constitutes a preferred way of life.

Not that every couple, even with God's blessing, should produce some 20,000 offspring within approximately 100 years: "...every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that" (I Cor.7:7).

But perhaps if more Christians decided to have larger families, there would be a future benefit to Australia's way of life economically and religiously - as each child grows and takes their place in society.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"

- Isa.55:8,9

It seems to be the white, Christian societies that are having fewer children. Meanwhile some white people complain about their Government's policy of foreign immigration. Could one solution be to simply have more kids themselves?

In Moses' Law, God gave a pattern for family land ownership similar to that described above. God also imprinted his plan for childbirth in nature itself - and we interfere with it to our own detriment, as sociologists are now discovering. If it's so bad having a large family, how come every mother of a large family I've met seems to have a glow of happiness and fulfilment on her face that other mothers don't seem to have?

But of course, the rule is love. A woman and a mother needs to be treated with kindness and consideration - and it needs to be her will as much as the husband's, if they are to have children.

According to one

- J.E.