Come on! Tell me this isn't a plot ... and, no, I don't mean by some devious scientists or angry feminists or any such thing.
Do you know what the very first command God ever gave to mankind was? No, it was not "Don't eat that apple." It was "Be fruitful and multiply." This represents the starting point of God's intentions for humans on this planet. He specifies that this is done through the union of a man and a woman (you know, the standard definition of the term "marriage"). As biblical revelation continues, it becomes abundantly clear that this process is designed to only occur within the confines of marriage, and that, by clear inference, this is one of the primary functions of marriage -- "Be fruitful and multiply."
The Roman Catholic Church has always banned the concept of contraception. To the Roman Catholic Church, "family planning" entails abstinence for one week out of the month. That's it. You see, they figured (silly them) that the Bible favors married couples having children. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is about the last hold out for that view these days. Protestants tossed that out a half century ago. Why not engage in family planning at a higher level? So barrier methods and the pill were all good to go. So Protestants have worked hard (without even knowing it) at eroding the biblical image of marriage by separating sex from child bearing and child bearing from marriage.
And now we learn that the most popular method of female birth control, the Pill, may do permanent damage to the female sex drive. The artificial hormones disrupt the natural hormones that affect female enjoyment of sex and then disrupt the ability of the woman's body to effectively using the hormones that create the sex drive in a woman and -- Poof! -- our desire to ignore God's instructions on marriage in favor of our own lusts appear to have neatly stripped us of both. How's that working for you?
Like I said, it's not some science scheme or some feminist attack or some gay agenda. No, this one would be coming from the enemy of God. It seems a bit disconcerting that so many Christians have fallen into this trap. But, then, I suppose mine will be one of those "odd voices" out there. So be it.
11 comments:
Nope... not the only odd voice. I agree with you :)
That makes two of us odd people. :)
I know the command to be fruitful and multiply. I even believe it is still in effect. But how can I, as a husband and future father, responsibly become a father, when I am living with my in-laws and making 15.55 an hour? I am making just enough to take care of my wife and myself, barring anything major going wrong. I look forward to have kids. I sometimes long for it, but what kind of father would I be to bring a child into the world that I have no hope of taking care of?
By your suggestion, I should either not have gotten married until I felt financially capable of fathering a child, or gotten married and just abstained from sex until...
Do we take birth control too far? Absolutely! But ban it as Christians? That's a hard sell, especially in these hard economic times.
We are victims of our times. Most people don't realize that up until the 1930's or so all Christian churches taught against contraception. When the (liberal) Anglican church approved contraception within marriage for serious reasons, they were rebels ... much like the Episcopalians today ordaining homosexuals. Today, of course, we think, "How could anyone seriously push that line?"
First, the idea is not "No family planning". The idea is no artificial means. Contraception of any kind provides such protection against pregnancy that it is a virtual impossibility, whether it is a barrier method or a chemical approach. It says, "God, if you want me to have kids, you're going to have to do it against my will. You're going to have to violate science to do it." It says, "God, my primary concern is my own pleasure. For whatever reason I'll set aside your primary concern for at least awhile." Other methods, known as "natural family planning", say, "God, I will practice self-control while leaving You full and easy access if you choose to change that plan." And the Bible is not silent on the topic of kids. "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate" (Psa 127:3-5).
I understand the concern. "We can't afford it; it would be irresponsible to bring them into the world." It is the same concern that sent mothers to work a few decades ago, creating a vast array of two-income families ... and no full-time parents. I've heard it at my shoulder -- "What was she thinking getting pregnant now? They can't afford to take care of the ones they have!" Of course, an earlier generation would have thought, "How can you even think that way?" An earlier generation would have thought, "Let's have kids and as the need arises we'll figure out how to take care of them." An earlier generation of Christians would have thought, "I don't know where the income will come from but this much I know. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and we are promised that God will supply our needs, so we're going to trust and obey." That's what an earlier generation would have said. Not mine. Certainly not yours.
So, from a different perspective (and these are questions for you to ask, not to answer for me), since $15.55/hr is not enough and where you live isn't right (using your two examples), what is enough and where is right? By what standard do you say, "Now $25 an hour is good enough" (or whatever value you place there) "and a small, two-bedroom condo by the beach should do it"? No, you didn't. But what standard is "enough". And would you say that it is irresponsible for Christian parents to have children in hard economic times?
Just some thoughts.
I'm with you Stan. I believe in I Cor 7:3-5 as well, which puts me at odds with the Catholics.
I think the command should not be taken to mean "no matter what". There does need to be some sense of responsibility, reason and maturity in the equation. The command might assume all that is in place so that one IS ready financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc. to procreate.
I do fall in line with the concept that artificial means are improper and that the rythm method and self-control are more in line with a proper attitude about sexuality, marriage, procreation and Christian living in general. It takes some level of discipline and self-denial to live as a Christian no matter how you look at it. Why would anyone expect it to be different in this arena?
Marshall Art: "The command might assume all that is in place so that one IS ready financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc. to procreate."
This was David's concern as well. And, as I told him, I'm not talking about "no family planning", but about the use of absolute preventive measures (such as barrier methods) and abortifacients (such as chemical measures).
But, while I certainly understand this whole "I don't believe I am yet financially (emotionally, psychologically) ready", it seems to me that 1) this is a direct assault on faith -- "I don't feel like I'm ready and I'm pretty sure God can't take care of it" -- 2) a sure component of the current demise of society's view of marriage, and 3) completely without biblical support. I do find "children are a blessing" and "be fruitful and multiply", but I don't find "as long as you feel like you're ready".
One other thing (and I hope David reads this as well). This isn't a hill I'd die on. I would not break fellowship with someone over this. I wouldn't look them in the eye and declare, "Repent, sinner!" I'm just expressing what I see in Scripture as it differs from the popular worldview today and am open to having my perspective changed.
I understand what you're saying, but I think it needs to be tempered with basic common sense, another gift of God, as it were. At it's basic level, "Be fruitful and multiply" can be taken in a very nasty way, where a Wilt Chamberlain (if his bragging is to be believed) could have impregnated each of the 20,000 women he claims to have bedded in his lifetime. Of course that's not what God had in mind (I'm sticking my neck out to guess), but it is an extreme example of the wrong idea.
Yet still, one could say that God will take care of each of those 20,000+ (assuming twins now and then) kids.
The concept reminds me of two jokes.
One is actually a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Sally Field played a Bible-thumping southern woman who prayed for everything, no matter how insignificant because she believed in the notion that God will provide. She's visited by Christ, played by the late Phil Hartman, who basically tells her to use her head once in a while and quit bothering Him with every little thing.
The other concerns a man who figures that God will provide and dies impoverished and questions God about why He never provided like he was taught God would. God reminds the man of lotto tickets he almost bought, but didn't because God would provide and other similar non-decisions the man made because of his hard-core belief in God providing for his needs.
OK. Maybe these aren't really related, but the idea that one should put his trust in God after consciously making a poor decision, such as being unprepared for a child but procreating anyway, seems like testing Him, something I beieve we're taught not to do.
Thus, preparations, such as developing a career before even marrying, and developing an decent income that accounts for raising a child, or children, is the way to go. Indeed, I think having a kid one isn't financially prepared to have is more likely to prevent ever being able to afford having the kid at all. We can't prepare for all eventualities, but to simply start popping out kids without regard to what a parent's responsibilites are is irresponsible.
One other thing: this is something that I still "rassle" with myself. I married late and at forty we had what was MY first child. It was my wife's third. She did not want any more and among the reasons was our finances would be stretched. (Considering my present employment woes, it was a good decision.) While she was still on the table, she had her doctor tie off her tubes. I wasn't keen on the idea and I like to say that if I was younger, richer and could keep the wife drunk long enough, I would have had a dozen kids.
The issue here is that I get the idea that sex for the fun of it IS, at the very least, tolerated for married couples and possibly even sanctioned. We, at least my wife, has had kids. She was fruitful to be sure and she did multiply. Now (or then) in her more advanced years (relatively speaking) considered more children financially dangerous and considering our advancing ages, unfair to the potential kids. It's also riskier healthwise for women to have kids in later years.
Though I understand and relate to your position, I don't see our decision as necessarily wrong.
First, I need to say up front that I'm old now and I didn't get this right in my youth. So I'm not talking from a "Dear God I sure wish these inferior beings were more spiritual like me" position. I'm talking from a "I think I did it wrong" position.
It seems to me that what we're saying is "I know that God says to be fruitful and multiply, and I'm going to obey it if and only if I think it's a good idea." It seems as if the idea is "When we think we can get around to it, God, we'll get around to it so back off!" It feels like "My God shall supply all your needs ... well, most ... well, okay some. For the rest, well, if you're stupid enough to take God at His word and 'trust and obey', well, then, you're pretty dumb."
One of the most disturbing things to me is that standard birth control these days is predicated on abortion. The IUD, the Pill, the morning after pill, more and more contraceptive methods are intended to prevent the fertilized egg (read "life") from implanting. So it is hard for me to fathom how Christians see that as a viable option.
Of course, tied tubes, vasectomies, even condoms don't do that. No. What they do is tell God, "I will not have more kids. It's unwise and I'm much smarter than that. If You want me to have kids, well, you're just going to have to violate my free will and modern science to do it, because I say NO!" And that's hard for me to see as a good thing, even when cloaked with "We can't afford to have a child." (I mean, seriously, could Mary afford the baby she was carrying? Okay ... low blow.)
"First, I need to say up front that I'm old now and I didn't get this right in my youth. So I'm not talking from a "Dear God I sure wish these inferior beings were more spiritual like me" position. I'm talking from a "I think I did it wrong" position."
Me too.
What amazes me is how far I've come; that is from a "I'm not ever going to have children because I wish to God my parents hadn't to, I love children and wish we had had a whole hose full. Like you, I'm now too old. Before we had our first I dreaded the idea. After our second I loved the idea. There was no way I could have known the latter thought until I experience the joy of it. We make so many decisions, and establish so many "truths" from a position of ignorance. How scary.
Post a Comment