Last week Rev. Jane
Adams Spahr was found not-guilty of ministerial misconduct, even after the
openly lesbian Presbyterian minister had defied the teachings of her church by
performing “marriages” for two lesbian couples. Given the current state of
mainline Protestantism, the actions by the trial court were not completely
unexpected. Nevertheless, this act of rebellion against the church’s law and
the clear teachings of Scripture sets the stage for an even larger conflict
when the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) holds its General Assembly in June.
Rev. Jane Adams
Spahr is no stranger to controversy. In 1991, the Downtown United Presbyterian
Church in Rochester, New York called her as co-pastor. That call was
subsequently invalidated by the denomination’s General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission. Nevertheless, the church then called her to
serve as a “lesbian evangelist” and she established her ministry as the
organization called “That All May Freely Serve.” That ministry was formed in
partnership with Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tiburon, California. As the
denomination’s news service, PCUSA News explained, “Since then, Spahr
has traveled the country mustering support for the ordination of gay and
lesbian Presbyterians and building a network of regional groups to help in the
effort.”
The current
controversy emerged as Spahr was charged with breaking church law by marrying
two homosexual men in Canada. Since her ordination was not recognized in that
country, and therefore her name did not appear on the marriage certificate, a
church court ruled that it could not prove that she had actually officiated at
the wedding.
In short order, she
eliminated that defense by openly officiating at the “weddings” of two lesbian
couples. She officiated at ceremonies for Annie Senechal and Sherrill Figuera
in 2005, and the previous year had officiated at a ceremony for Barbara Jean
Douglass and Connie Valois.
Her current trial
took place before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Redwoods Presbytery
in California. The trial took place at the Church of the Roses in Santa Rosa,
located about 65 miles north of San Francisco.
As media reports indicated,
the church was often packed with Spahr’s supporters and those who were openly
advocating for a rebellion against the church’s rules.
Stephen L. Taber,
the attorney prosecuting Spahr on behalf of the Redwoods Presbytery, had argued
that the trial was not over gay rights, but the right of the denomination to
establish its own rules and structure for church discipline. “The burden on
this commission is not to decide whether same-sex marriage is or is not
appropriate for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” he argued. “The only
question here is whether Rev. Spahr committed certain acts, and whether those
acts are in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church.”
Taber was standing
on firm constitutional ground as he made his case. After all, the denomination’s
Book of Order defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman,
excluding all alternatives. Furthermore, the Permanent Judicial Commission of
the General Assembly ruled in 2000 that ministers may bless same sex “unions,”
but may not call such unions marriage.
In presenting her
defense, Spahr claimed a right to individual conscience. As PCUSA News
reported: “Spahr, as the first witness called before the seven-member
commission, was far from repentant for presiding over the nuptials of the
lesbian couples. She said she was following her conscience, a call from God and
the wishes of the ‘brides’ when she officiated at their weddings.”
In pressing her
case, Spahr argued that the church’s rules that disallow same-sex marriage are
unfair and unjust. “I can’t begin to tell you what it is to say to [same-sex
couples] that they were married by the church, by the authority of someone
representing the church of Jesus Christ,” Spahr told the court. “What it means
for lesbian and gay people who are told for so long that they’re no good, that
our relationships are no good. That has a profound effect on them.” She also
claimed that the denomination’s rules limiting marriage to heterosexuals
violates the church’s commitment to “love and hospitality.”
Spahr’s attorney,
Sara Taylor, argued that the church had no right to judge Spahr’s actions. “The
reformers were clear in their assertions that the authority of the church to
discipline belongs not to the church but to Christ.”
Of course, this is
hardly fair to the reformers and their witness. Nevertheless, the trial ended
with the court acquitting Spahr by a six-to-one ruling that determined that
Spahr was acting within her ministerial “right of conscience” in performing the
same-sex marriages.
Beyond this, the
court’s majority went on in a “concluding affirmation” to offer a direct
challenge to the denomination’s rules. “We affirm that the fundamental message
of the Scriptures and Confessions is the proclamation of the Good News of God’s
love for all people. It is a message of inclusiveness, reconciliation, and the
breaking down of barriers that separate humans from each other, and that this
proclamation has primacy in the conduct of the Church.” In other words, the
court turned its back on the Bible’s clear teachings that condemn homosexual
activity as sin and on the church’s explicit rules that prohibit ministers from
officiating at same-sex marriages—all in the name of “the fundamental message
of the Scriptures and Confessions.”
The Spahr trial and
the larger controversy point to the most basic issues that have created such an
explosive crisis within liberal Protestantism and the denominations commonly
known as “mainline” Protestantism. For years, the mainline Presbyterians have
been debating issues of scriptural authority.
The foundation for
theological revolution was set in 1967, when the denomination replaced the
historic Westminster Confession with a book of confessions that replaced one
common doctrinal standard with several—insuring a process of theological
compromise and accomodationism.
In June, the 217th
General Assembly of the denomination is to receive the final report of the “Theological
Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church.” This task force was
established in 2001 and was charged with developing “a process and instrument
by which congregations and governing bodies throughout our church may reflect
on and discern the matters that unite and divide us, praying that the Holy
Spirit will promote the purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”
The group’s report,
entitled Peace Unity Purity [or PUP], is, in effect, nothing more than a
call for continuing conversation and the embrace of even greater diversity
within the denomination.
Of course, Scripture
stands at the very center of this controversy. The PUP report cites The
Second Helvetic Confession and asserts: “we believe and confess the
canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be
the true Word of God, and have sufficient authority of themselves, not of
[human beings].” Responding to this confessional statement, the group asserted:
“We acknowledge that there is heated debate over biblical interpretation among
Presbyterians who honor the authority of Scripture. In the midst of these
debates it is important to remember that the consciences of us all are bound by
the witness of Scripture to Jesus Christ. Even as it is important to preserve
freedom of conscience and the interpretation of Scripture, such freedom is
subject to standards . . . and must be exercised within constitutional bounds .
. . .”
As should be obvious
by now, the acquittal of Rev. Jane Adams Spahr should demonstrate conclusively
the failure of this proposal.
In the first place,
one must question the group’s decision to suggest that the heated debate over
the interpretation of Scripture on issues of sexuality is found “among
Presbyterians who honor the authority of Scripture.” Such a statement
effectively implies that persons may deny clear teachings of Scripture, while
still claiming to honor its authority.
By any measure, the
acquittal of Rev. Spahr should demonstrate that a call for all ministers to
bind their consciences “by the witness of Scripture,” does not avail. The
presbytery of the Redwoods did nothing to require Rev. Spahr to subject her
conscience to the constitutional bounds of the church or to the clear teachings
of the Bible.
Rev. Spahr’s
attorney cited the reformers of the sixteenth century as suggesting that the
church must leave matters of ministerial discipline to God. This flies in the
face of the actual writings and actions of the reformers. John Calvin, whose
legacy stands as the very fountain of the stream that eventually produced the
Presbyterian denomination, insisted that “we must be ruled by the Word of God.”
Furthermore, “Seeing God will be served with obedience, let us beware and keep
ourselves within those bounds which God hath set,” Calvin insisted. Martin
Luther, famously standing at his own church trial at the Diet of Worms,
famously told his judges that his conscience was “bound by the Word of God.”
The Presbyterian Lay
Committee, a group of concerned Presbyterians who have been seeking to pull
their church back to biblical and theological accountability, has referred to
the PUP document as “a political solution to a theological problem.”
“Some persons who
call themselves Christians, including ordained leaders of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), struggle with claims of the authority of Scripture,” the group
argued. “They affirm Scripture as a guide and source of wisdom, but regard it
as culturally conditioned and of human origin. Thus they place it alongside,
and even, at times, under the judgment of other human authorities. They prefer
to say, ‘Listen for the Word of God,’ rather than ‘Listen to the Word of God’
when reading the Bible in the context of worship. Persons who hold such beliefs
clearly are not talking about the Scriptures that Jesus upheld and fulfilled
and that his church has affirmed for more than 2000 years.”
As the Presbyterian
Lay Committee’s argument concludes, “Making the denomination’s implicit
pluralism explicit, by whatever inclusivist scheme, would admit but not solve
our current disorder. Elijah’s counsel to Israel is precisely the word that the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) must hear. We must cease limping between two
opinions. We must answer Christ’s compelling question: ‘Who do you say that I
am?’ We must make a choice.”
The Presbyterian Lay
Committee has it right—the denomination must make a clear choice. The acquittal
of Rev. Jane Adams Spahr sets the stage for the denomination’s General Assembly
to face the question squarely when it meets in June. Nothing less than the
denomination’s witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake. If individual
conscience is allowed to invalidate the clear teachings of Scripture, the
denomination faces an unavoidable disaster.
==============================
On November 3, 1921, J. Gresham Machen presented an address entitled, “Liberalism
or Christianity?” In that famous address, later expanded into the book, Christianity
& Liberalism, Machen argued that evangelical Christianity and its
liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions.
Machen’s argument became one of the issues of controversy in the
Fundamentalist/Modernist controversies of the 1920s and beyond. By any measure,
Machen was absolutely right—the movement that styled itself as liberal
Christianity was eviscerating the central doctrines of the Christian faith while
continuing to claim Christianity as “a way of life” and a system of meaning.
“The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism,’” Machen
asserted. “Modern liberalism, then, has lost sight of the two great
presuppositions of the Christian message—the living God and the fact of sin,”
he argued. “The liberal doctrine of God and the liberal doctrine of man are
both diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergence concerns
not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the message itself.”
Howard P. Kainz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Marquette
University, offers a similar argument—warning that it is now modern secular
liberalism which poses as the great rival to orthodox Christianity.
Observing the basic divide in the American culture,
Kainz notes: “Most of the heat of battle occurs where traditional religious
believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular
liberalism.”
Kainz offers a crucial insight here, suggesting that one of the most important
factors in the nation’s cultural divide is that persons on both sides are
deeply committed to their own creeds and worldviews—even if on one side those
creeds are secular.
“This explains why talking about abortion or same-sex ‘marriage,’ for
example, with certain liberals is usually futile. It is like trying to persuade
a committed Muslim to accept Christ. Because his religion forbids it, he can
only do so by converting from Islam to Christianity; he cannot accept
Christ as long as he remains firmly committed to Islam. So it is with firmly
committed liberals: Their ‘religion’ forbids any concessions to the ‘conservative’
agenda, and as long as they remain committed to their secular ideology, it is
futile to hope for such concessions from them.”
Kainz’s argument bears similarities not only to J. Gresham Machen’s
observations about the theological scene, but also to Thomas Sowell’s
understanding of the larger culture. As Sowell argued in A Conflict of
Visions, the basic ideological divide of our times is between those who
hold a “constrained vision” over those who hold an “unconstrained vision.” Both
worldviews are, in the actual operations of life, reduced to certain “gut
feelings” that operate much like religious convictions.
Kainz concedes that some will resist his designation of secularism as a
religion. “Religion in the most common and usual sense connotes dedication to a
supreme being or beings,” he acknowledges. Nevertheless, “especially in the
last few centuries, ‘religion’ has taken on the additional connotations of
dedication to abstract principles or ideals rather than a personal being,” he
insists. Kainz dates the rise of this secular religion to the French
Enlightenment and its idolatrous worship of Reason.
Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues
that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems
for millions of individuals. Looking
specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas,
canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial
congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology. Marxism’s dogmas
were its core teachings, including economic determinism and the “dictatorship
of the proletariat.” Its canonical scriptures included the writings of Marx,
Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. Its priests were those guardians of Marxist purity who
functioned as the ideological theorists of the movement. Its ritualistic
observances included actions ranging from workers’ strikes to mass rallies. The
eschatology of Marxism was to be realized in the appearance of “Communist man”
and the new age of Marxist utopia.
Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own
dogmas. Among these are the beliefs “that mankind must overcome religious
superstition by means of Reason; that empirical science can and will eventually
answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly
referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by
constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will
achieve perfectibility.”
Kainz also argues that contemporary liberalism has borrowed selectively
from the New Testament, turning Jesus’ admonition to “render unto Caesar what
is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” as a foundation for “absolute
secularism,” enshrined in the language of a wall separating church and state.
Thus, “religion [is] reduced to something purely private.”
Secular liberalism also identifies certain sins such as “homophobia” and sexism. As Kainz sees it, the secular
scriptures fall into two broad categories: “Darwinist and scientistic writings
championing materialist and naturalistic explanations for everything, including
morals; and feminist writings exposing the ‘evil’ of patriarchy and tracing
male exploitation of females throughout history up to the present.”
The priests and priestesses of secular liberalism constitute its “sacerdotal elite” and tend to be intellectuals who can
present liberal values in the public square. Congregations where secular
liberals gather include organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the
National Organization of Women, and similar bodies. These groups “help supply a
sense of affiliation and commonality for the religiously liberal.”
The rites and rituals of secular liberalism include “gay pride” parades and pro-abortion rallies. Interestingly,
the eschatology of this movement is, Kainz argues, the distillation of
pragmatism. “In the estimation of the religiously liberal,” Kainz asserts, “all
lifestyles and all moralities can approximate this goal, as long as the
proscribed illiberal ‘sins’ are avoided.”
Kainz readily admits that not all liberals are committed to this
religious vision of liberalism. As he sees it, “There are many people working
for social justice, human rights, international solidarity, and other causes
commonly regarded as liberal without a deep ideological commitment.” His point
is that conservatives may find common cause and common ground with these
non-religiously committed liberals.
“For many ‘moderate’ liberals, liberalism is a political perspective,
not a core ideology,” he observes. “In the culture war it is important for
Christians to distinguish between the religiously committed liberal and the
moderate liberal. For one thing, Christians should not be surprised when they
find no common ground with the former. They may form occasional, even if
temporary, alliances with the latter.”
Kainz’s article “Liberalism as Religion: The Culture War Is Between
Religious Believer on Both Sides,” appears in the May 2006 edition of Touchstone
magazine. His analysis is genuinely helpful in understanding the clash of
positions, policies, convictions, and visions that mark our contemporary scene.
Though Kainz does not develop this point, all persons
are, in their own way, deeply committed to their own worldview. There is no
intellectual possibility of absolute value neutrality—not among human beings,
anyway.
The conception of our current cultural conflict as a struggle between
two rival religions is instructive and humbling. At the political level, this
assessment should serve as a warning that our current ideological divides are
not likely to disappear anytime soon. At the far deeper level of theological
analysis, this argument serves to remind Christians that evangelism remains central to our mission and purpose.
Those who aim at the merely political are missing the forest for the trees, and
confusing the temporal for the eternal.
==============================
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren’t worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn’t ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper’s report, “the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don’t factor in the marriage equation.”
The paper also pointed to the fact the nation’s birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43% since just 1960. “Many childless couples,” according to the report, “revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free.”
The Schums just don’t want kids to get in the way of their lifestyle. They enjoy cruising to the Georgia mountains on their matching Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They love their gourmet kitchen, outfitted with the very latest stainless steel appliances and trendy countertops. Deb Schum explains, “if we had kids, we would need a table where the kids could do homework.” Clearly, children aren’t a part of their interior design plan.
This pattern of childlessness has caught the attention of others in the media. The left-wing internet site Salon.com actually published a series of articles entitled, “To Breed or Not to Breed.” This series of articles featured couples and individuals who have decided that children are not a part of their chosen lifestyle.
One woman wrote that parenthood just isn’t a part of her plan, regardless of cultural expectations to the contrary. Motherhood just doesn’t fit her self-image or her schedule. “I compete in triathlons; my husband practices martial arts; we both have fulfilling careers; we travel the world ... we enjoy family and friends; we have a fun, intimate relationship.”
For others, the bottom line is simply financial. One woman asked: “What would the return be on the investment? Are there any laws that would require my children to pay for my nursing home when I am old? Are they going to be a sufficient hedge against poverty and loneliness?” A return on investment?
Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group “No Kidding” was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children. Traci Swartz, an occupational therapist in her thirties, joined “No Kidding” with her husband Jeremy, a 32 year old computer analyst. “When you don’t have children, you are not involved in any activities like a lot of other people, like soccer and ballet,” said Traci.
She explained that “No Kidding” members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. “People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids,” Traci explained. No wonder.
Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, “you focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love.” That worldview is sick, but more and more common.
Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: “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.” [Psalm 127: 3-5]
Morally speaking, the epidemic in
this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children
but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable
of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.
The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: “MAKE LOVE, NOT BABIES.” This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God’s intention in creation—and His mandate revealed in the Bible.
The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex for marriage [and even from gender], but also from procreation.
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God’s design and order.
Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God’s gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are to find many of our deepest joys and satisfactions in the raising of children within the context of the family. Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood. They rely on others to produce and sustain the generations to come.
This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.
The culture is clearly buying into this concept. Legal fights over apartment complexes and other accommodations come down to the claim that adults ought to be able to live in a child-free environment. Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to “breed.” Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.
Without doubt, children do impose themselves upon our creature comforts, waking us up in the middle of the night with demanding needs and inconvenient interruptions. Parents learn all too quickly that children are not only the smiling cherub sleeping in the crib, but also the dirty-faced preschooler, the headstrong teenager, and the boisterous grade-schooler.
The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God’s glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.
The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex—but not children—is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.
==============================
Clearly, I hit a nerve.
Almost two years ago, I published an article entitled “Deliberate
Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face.” In that article I addressed
the growing phenomenon of married couples who simply choose not to have
children. I argued that this development indicates an eclipse of the Christian
worldview in terms of the gift of children and a redefinition of marriage
itself.
The article has been
republished in various venues and has just recently erupted as a major focus of
debate. After reviewing various
responses—some extreme in intensity—I have taken time to rethink the issue and
to revisit the question. At this point, I am even more
convinced that deliberate childlessness represents a serious moral issue and
that many Christians are deeply confused about the topic. Others seem to
believe that the invention of modern contraceptive technologies has simply
redefined the institution of marriage and the goods it is intended to
represent.
In my original article I
argued that “Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood
represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design.” In
response, many have suggested that a rejection of parenthood is simply a deeply
personal and sensitive question that is beyond moral consideration on the part
of the Christian community. I find this argument impossible to accept. The
Scriptures speak specifically to God’s intention in making us sexual beings and
in creating marriage as the arena for the holy and healthy fulfillment of the
sexual gifts. From a biblical perspective, the conjugal bond between husband
and wife is never without reference to God as the Creator and to the entire human
community as the beneficiaries of marriage. The capacity for procreation is, by
God’s design, a central part of the conjugal bond and the institution of
marriage.
The shocking reality is that
there are so many persons who seem to privilege our own technological age as
representing a new moral reality that allows human beings to transcend the
sexual bond of marriage in terms of procreation. This is true in the secular
world, where the invention of modern contraceptives—especially “The
Pill”—represents nothing less than the liberation of sexuality from both
marriage and procreation. Without the “threat” of pregnancy, unmarried couples
are now free to engage in adultery and other forms of sexual sin without fear
of the imposition of new life in the womb. Even among married couples,
something similar has happened: Thanks to the reliability of contraceptive
technologies, husbands and wives are now able to see children merely as a
lifestyle option, rather than as the gifts that come naturally with the enjoyment
of the conjugal act.
The responses to my article
have been interesting, if often perplexing. Some have criticized me for failing
to address the issue of infertility. I can only wonder if these persons
actually read the article. I clearly stated: “Morally speaking, the epidemic in
this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children
but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable
of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.” Based in
personal experience, my wife and I would never overlook the pain of those who
even now are waiting for the gift of children, much less those who have come
face to face with the reality that they are unable to conceive or bear
children. My concern is with deliberate childlessness—a point made clear in
both the title and the substance of the article.
Some have suggested that
Christian couples might choose childlessness in view of extenuating
circumstances required for unusual Christian service. I fully acknowledge that
there may be situations, rare in the extreme, in which this may emerge as a
serious moral consideration. Nevertheless, it hardly seems reasonable to assume
that the innovation of modern contraceptives represents a new reality of gospel
significance. Some have pointed to Paul’s concern for the gift of celibacy in 1
Corinthians chapter seven. I have dealt with this issue extensively elsewhere,
but it simply has nothing to do with those who, not receiving the gift of
celibacy, decide to marry.
Others have raised the
specter of overpopulation. As one critic wrote, “Mohler seems to be unaware
that the greatest moral issue facing planet Earth is overpopulation.” That
critic needs to come into the 21st century, where the main population concern
in Western nations is underpopulation rather than overpopulation. Though
overpopulation may be a significant issue in some nations, the statistics
indicate that underpopulation is likely to be a worldwide phenomenon with
ominous repercussions. The tragic reality is that citizens of Europe and North
America are now failing even to replace themselves in terms of children. We
will soon face the phenomenon of an aging population with fewer young people to
drive the economy and to support the entire social structure.
Nevertheless, demographics
are the symptom rather than the cause of the phenomenon of deliberate
childlessness. My larger concern is with the bare fact that an anti-natalist
philosophy has now infected much of the Christian church. I fully expect non-Christians
to think and to act as unbelievers. Nevertheless, I am perplexed by Christians
who seem to believe that marriage and reproduction can be separated while
glorifying God within the marital bond.
Throughout the centuries, the
Christian moral tradition has focused on the unity of the goods that God gives
us. Separating these goods leads to a weakening of the structure God intended
for our good. This is never more clear than in the institution of marriage. Our
current confusions over marriage—even the debate over same-sex marriage—betray
the fact that we have allowed an artificial understanding of marriage to
dominate our thinking. The very fact that same-sex marriage can be envisioned
indicates that the institution of marriage has already been fundamentally
weakened. The separation of sex from marriage and the separation of marriage
and sex from reproduction must surely be a contributing cause of this
confusion. If marriage were clearly understood as the marital bond between a
man and a woman that represented the full reception of God’s gifts—including
the gift of procreation and children—we would have very little misunderstanding
about what marriage is.
Beyond this, does God’s
purpose in creating us as sexual and reproductive beings mean that, in a very
real sense, we need the experience of children and parenthood? The experience
of parenthood changes both mother and father. Dirty diapers, midnight feedings,
skinned knees, and first days of school give way to adolescence and the
emergence of our children as adults in the making. The entire process requires
parents to give themselves unreservedly to the toil and joy of raising,
teaching, protecting, nurturing, disciplining, loving, and enjoying our
children. Does God not use this to make us different people than we otherwise
would be — even different Christians?
This isn’t for everyone —
only for those who marry. Those who reject the responsibilities and delights of
parenthood have decided to leave the raising of the next generation to others.
What does this say?
Does this mean that all
couples must maximize the number of children they can receive and raise? I did
not raise the issue of contraception within the life of a marriage that is open
to the gift of children. Elsewhere, I have argued that Christians must make
contraceptive decisions with great care and that, as Christian believers, we
are pre-committed to see children as gifts, rather than as incidental
byproducts of the sexual act—much less as intrusions into our cherished
lifestyles. I have consistently argued that Christian couples can make
responsible decisions about the timing and number of children, so long as the
marriage is genuinely open to the gift of children and the responsibilities of
parenthood.
At this point, my position
diverges somewhat from the Roman Catholic tradition. Participating in a
symposium commemorating the 30th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the papal
encyclical that conclusively dealt with the issue of contraception, I argued
that, “The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most
important defining marks of our age—and one of the most ominous.” I agreed with
the predominating theme of the encyclical—that Christians must reject the
“contraceptive mentality” that marks the postmodern mind.
Nevertheless, I believe that
the Roman Catholic tradition focuses too narrowly on “each and every act” of
sexual intercourse within a faithful marriage rather than on the marriage
itself as being open to the gift of children.
To be honest, I am most
perplexed by those who seem to think that the position I articulated is
something new in terms of Christian conviction. Actually, the affirmation that
marriage and procreation are inextricably bound together has been the consensus
of Christians throughout the centuries. Consider the witness of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, who addressed this issue beautifully and sensitively in his Ethics,
written between 1940 and 1943. Bonhoeffer puts the case clearly: “The right of
nascent life is violated also in the case of a marriage in which the emergence
of new life is consistently prevented, a marriage in which the desire for a
child is consistently excluded. Such an attitude is in contradiction to the
meaning of marriage itself and to the blessing which God has bestowed upon
marriage through the birth of a child. Certainly a distinction is to be drawn
between the consistent refusal to allow children to come of a marriage and the
concrete responsible control of births.”
Bonhoeffer wrote these words
as he was leading a congregation through the agony of Nazi persecution. His
thought was necessarily clear and his point was urgent. Even under the threat
of Nazi tyranny, marriage was to include the hope of children and the desire to
receive them as God’s gifts. Surely, we can learn from his example.
Without doubt, this debate
will continue. My hope is that the consideration of this great question will
lead to a larger embrace of the goodness of marriage — and a deeper obedience
for all of us who know its delights.
==============================