While I do not really want to get in a debate over the issue of Adoption by Gays—hence my not referencing this aspect—[though if that is where this takes us, I’ll come along for the ride...], I do have some concerns about this article.
Concern 1:
“First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.” (The Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony, BCP). In this BCP service, the second reason for marriage is that it is a remedy against sin and fornication, and thirdly, it is for the mutual help and comfort for the two marriage partners.
In the most recent Anglican prayer book in Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, there are two marriage services. Both omit the BCP’s second reason and they make the BCP’s third reason the primary goal. Children therefore seem to have become secondary in today’s marriage liturgies.
While I regret the loss of the second reason, I see no good reason why children should not have been moved to position 2 and “the mutual help and comfort” moved to 1 - after all, was not Eve made as Adam’s “helpmeet”? I understand they were to populate the earth, but—as I read it—God’s first concern was for a suitable helper for Adam.
Concern 2:
Father, mother and children together make up the family. This is true even though all recognise that there are many single parent households in the community today where the single parent manages, often magnificently, to raise their children without the presence of the other partner who may have left the family through death, disaster or choice.
I find this slightly disturbing. While I do agree that it is in the child’s best interest to often have male and female role models, hence mother and father, this seems to be treating single parents as “lower” than “the nuclear family” [a rather modern innovation]. I realise this is tangential to the main topic, but this point was raised. I’d question this in terms of an abusive spouse / parent: surely better to leave than stick it out and risk injury or death. I am just concerned that non-nuclear families are being lowered in status by this paragraph.
Finally:
There are also couples today who chose from the beginning of their marriage not to have a child, and there is even a website from a group that endorses child-free marriage. Visit the website www.worldchildfree.org and you will find that July 1 was ‘World Childfree Day’.
This was sort of stand-alone and I am unsure as to the tone. Taking the beginning of the paragraph above it “Father, mother and children together make up the family.”, I conclude that Margaret Rodgers is not pleased with this.
Some points:
- some couples cannot physically have children and may not want to adopt / foster: are there marriages somehow less?
- some couples choose not to have children: do people here think that is selfish? [my brother-in-law believes so, and in fact believes one should have as many children as “God blesses you with”. I do not bring up the topic anymore as I disagree.] Are their marriages somehow inferior?
And that is not considering those who get married after menopause.
What do others think? Am I reading too much in to it, or being too harsh? Perhaps I am reacting against various friends / ministers I know who consider me “selfish” as I do not want to get married. I do not see that: I know my personality - I know I would not make a good husband / father. I am 100% positive of that. I know God can change people, and I know he can change me. But marriage has never, ever entered my mind [except when I imagine the service and the hymns I’d want ;-)] - and that is not just as I—as explained on another thread—occasionally find myself “attracted” to men; I have far more “feelings of attraction” towards women. I feel I am called to be celibate, for whatever reason. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can only go by the light I have.
Thanks for listening thus far. I look forward to people’s thoughts.
I think we need to remember in these matters to speak against attitudes, not choices.
I have several times in Sydney Anglican circles come across what strikes me as a legalistic attitude towards procreation for Christians which I think usurps people’s freedom in Christ and impugns motives unfairly.
It is unChristian behaviour to choose not to have children or not to get married for selfish reasons. Our selfishness is something we confront, not something we accomodate.
But it is not unChristian to choose to remain childless (and certainly to remain single!) per se.
Remaining single or childless to enable better service of God’s church is, I think, part of the prerogative of Christian freedom. It is wrong to assume that everyone who chooses not to have children does so for selfish reasons. We ought to be more charitable to our brothers & sisters (before you even consider that they might be incapable of having children for one reason or another).
Of course, that has the danger of allowing people to justify in spiritual terms what they want for worldly reasons. But legalism is not the answer - who will discern the heart of another so precisely? It’s hard enough to discern our own!
*climbs down off hobby horse*
Having said all that, I agree with Margaret Rodgers’ article, which I don’t think says ‘all marriages should have children’ but rather that ‘ideally all children should have a married mother and a father’. She is starting from the child rather than the couple.
Deaconess Rodgers reports the change in liturgy without actual comment, though she may be assuming we will see the change as regrettable. In that case, I agree with you, Ian, the primary purpose was mutual within the marriage, then procreation. But to me the order is incidental, if both are divine mandates, both are divine mandates.
But I question strongly whether the divine mandate of procreation in the law ought to be individualised as a basic act of obedience in the New Covenant context. *brushes saddle of hobby horse again, thinks better of it, goes to bed instead*
Not wanting to cause your head to expand ;-), but I wish I was my written words were as clear and deep as yours.
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]I have several times in Sydney Anglican circles come across what strikes me as a legalistic attitude towards procreation for Christians which I think usurps people’s freedom in Christ and impugns motives unfairly.
It is unChristian behaviour to choose not to have children or not to get married for selfish reasons. Our selfishness is something we confront, not something we accomodate.
But it is not unChristian to choose to remain childless (and certainly to remain single!) per se.
Remaining single or childless to enable better service of God’s church is, I think, part of the prerogative of Christian freedom. It is wrong to assume that everyone who chooses not to have children does so for selfish reasons. We ought to be more charitable to our brothers & sisters (before you even consider that they might be incapable of having children for one reason or another).
I am not trying to trip you up, but are you saying that the only unselfish reason for not having children / remaining single is to enable better service in the church?
What if I believed I would not be a good father / husband: simply because of who I am. Perhaps I am being selfish in the fact I am not willing to change some parts [and perhaps, deep down, doubting I can really change which may be sinful], but I am not sure. I am not sure I could satisfy my wife in all her needs, nor be a good parent to children. Perhaps that is how all people feel, but to me I wonder as this feeling [to remain single] seems so strong...so very strong.
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
Of course, that has the danger of allowing people to justify in spiritual terms what they want for worldly reasons. But legalism is not the answer - who will discern the heart of another so precisely? It’s hard enough to discern our own!
Indeed!
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
Having said all that, I agree with Margaret Rodgers’ article, which I don’t think says ‘all marriages should have children’ but rather that ‘ideally all children should have a married mother and a father’. She is starting from the child rather than the couple.
Thank you for that: I did not realise. Though I admit does not take away all my concerns, but I can see that I was perhaps approaching the article from a different starting point to Deaconess Rodgers.
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
But I question strongly whether the divine mandate of procreation in the law ought to be individualised as a basic act of obedience in the New Covenant context.
You wrote it better than I tried. That is where I was trying to come from...have we reached the point where unless you are procreating, you are failing in your Christian life? Obviously it is not as black and white as that, but I see this attitude more and more in Christian circles:
1. You are single: you are asked, “When will you find someone?”
2. You are dating: you are asked, “When will you marry?”
3. You are married: you are asked, “When will you have children?”
While I am still at #1 [and happy there, I’ll add! ;-)], I have seen my friends pass through the ranks to 3. I don’t dare think what questions may be next…
Can I go back to two paragraphs of Matt that Ian quoted? I think they are important in this question, but also confuse things a little.
It is unChristian behaviour to choose not to have children or not to get married for selfish reasons. Our selfishness is something we confront, not something we accomodate.
But it is not unChristian to choose to remain childless (and certainly to remain single!) per se.
I fully agree with the first para. Selfishness is selfishness: single or married, man or woman, right or left handed.
The second para doesn’t work, because of what marriage is. To marry is to start a new family. It says so in the prayer book services! With the emphasis on choice, I would insist that it is un-Christian to be a family that chooses against having children. I believe it says, ‘We want a family & we want it for us.’ That’s quite different from choosing singleness for selfless reasons.
Perhaps I am selfishly hanging on to my beliefs [I pray not, but I am a sinful person], but I have trouble with your second paragraph:
[quote author="Chris Little"]
[cut]
It is unChristian behaviour to choose not to have children or not to get married for selfish reasons. Our selfishness is something we confront, not something we accomodate.
But it is not unChristian to choose to remain childless (and certainly to remain single!) per se.
[cut]
The second para doesn’t work, because of what marriage is. To marry is to start a new family. It says so in the prayer book services! With the emphasis on choice, I would insist that it is un-Christian to be a family that chooses against having children. I believe it says, ‘We want a family & we want it for us.’ That’s quite different from choosing singleness for selfless reasons.
I would say that if one was to have children, marriage is the best place for it [thanks to Matt for his input in helping me to see that side of Margaret Rodgers’ article]. However, I am a bit uncomfortable in reversing that and saying, if you are to be married, it is your bounden duty to fill the earth.
I am not sure how clear I have been [probably as clear as mud!] in my explanations: could I ask you Chris to further expand your statement “I believe it [my comment: it? - Prayer Book?] says, ‘We want a family & we want it for us.’ That’s quite different from choosing singleness for selfless reasons.”
I am not sure how clear I have been [probably as clear as mud!] in my explanations: could I ask you Chris to further expand your statement “I believe it [my comment: it? - Prayer Book?] says, ‘We want a family & we want it for us.’ That’s quite different from choosing singleness for selfless reasons.”
By “it” I think Chris meant a married couple’s decision to not have children (not the prayer book!) is saying ‘we want a family and we want it for us’, in other words, a selfish decision.
Chris Little wrote:
Can I go back to two paragraphs of Matt that Ian quoted? I think they are important in this question, but also confuse things a little.
With due respect, Chris, I don’t think I have confused things so much as plain disagreed with you! ;-) Your point of view is precisely the one I took issue with in my original post. I know I’m out on a limb here in many people’s view, that’s probably why it has become a hobby horse!
Let me further elaborate on my understanding (for better or worse!)
The New Covenant brings with it a re-orientation of priorities, because ‘this world in its present form is passing away’ (1 Cor 7:31). So no longer are the imperatives on God’s people driven by the need to fill this earth so much as the need to fill the new earth (through the expanding family of God).
Hence singleness (as we agree) becomes a viable and even attractive option for the Christian - so they will have more time to devote to the service of Christ through service of and from his church.
But in my view the same principles govern all decisions in the Christian life, whether employment decisions, financial decisions, time allocation, or having children. Our imperative is focussed on the resurrected reality. Our purpose is to act out of an attitude turned towards the priorities of God - with a great deal of creative scope available in performing that task, suited to our individual gifts as Christ apportioned them (Eph 4).
If a married couple genuinely choose to forgo having children in order to have extra time to serve God (and actually use the time that way), are they not being faithful? Did they really marry for selfish reasons? Or did they marry to form an effective ministry partnership of mutual service within and reaching out from that marriage? Or any other valid and selfless reason? Who will judge their hearts?
Let me say that this is not driven out of a desire to justify my own desires for the future. I would very much like to have children someday (assuming I can find a suitable ‘helper’! ;-) But I think (at least for those who endorse contraception more generally) to impose children on all fertile Christian marriages is Old Covenant legalism. Let people work out their faithful response to God within the principles and stipulations of the New Covenant. We can’t presume, in the case of children, to read the outward situation as a barometer of the heart. If a married man’s ‘interests are divided’ (1 Cor 7:34), how much more a father’s?
Chris Little wrote:
The second para doesn’t work, because of what marriage is. To marry is to start a new family. It says so in the prayer book services! With the emphasis on choice, I would insist that it is un-Christian to be a family that chooses against having children. I believe it says, ‘We want a family & we want it for us.’ That’s quite different from choosing singleness for selfless reasons.
As Ian pointed out, marriage is first and foremost a partnership. And it is a family whether they have children or not. Otherwise we cast aspersions on all people who marry knowing they will not be able to have children (e.g. post-menopausal marriages,) with the suggestion that their marriage was selfish. Are they not saying “We want a family & we want it for us” as much as the fertile couple? I think we must insist that a marriage is a family whether it has children or not.
Furthermore, it is actually possible to have children for selfish reasons (need for affirmation, hope of support in later life etc). And that is no more Christian in attitude than choosing to not have children for selfish reasons.
As God said to Samuel, “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart”.
And now to Ian’s question:
I am not trying to trip you up, but are you saying that the only unselfish reason for not having children / remaining single is to enable better service in the church?
What if I believed I would not be a good father / husband: simply because of who I am. Perhaps I am being selfish in the fact I am not willing to change some parts [and perhaps, deep down, doubting I can really change which may be sinful], but I am not sure. I am not sure I could satisfy my wife in all her needs, nor be a good parent to children. Perhaps that is how all people feel, but to me I wonder as this feeling [to remain single] seems so strong...so very strong.
Brother, can I encourage you to alter the way you ask this question? As a Christian, your whole being ought to be outwardly oriented, consumed with doing good to all and especially those of the family of faith whenever you have opportunity (Gal 6:10). So it’s not so much a question of whether there are other ‘unselfish reasons’ to remain single. Paul (in 1 Cor 7) is assuming that the Christian person has embraced this preoccupation with Christ-like serving of others, and therefore explains that they are free to make a decision to remain single as an expression of that priority.
What really matters to God, is not so much what you do (within the bounds of morally acceptable choices) as why you do it.
I hope that helps clarify my position for you both, feel free to shoot back at me if I’m not clear (or missing something!)
Thanks for the question of clarification Ian. Using ‘it’ made the sentence unclear. But thanks also to Matt, who read between the lines exactly what I meant.
I need a bit more time to consider the rest of your post, Matt. Sorry to not engage straight away.
[quote author="Matt"]But in my view the same principles govern all decisions in the Christian life, whether employment decisions, financial decisions, time allocation, or having children. Our imperative is focussed on the resurrected reality. Our purpose is to act out of an attitude turned towards the priorities of God - with a great deal of creative scope available in performing that task, suited to our individual gifts as Christ apportioned them (Eph 4).
If a married couple genuinely choose to forgo having children in order to have extra time to serve God (and actually use the time that way), are they not being faithful? Did they really marry for selfish reasons? Or did they marry to form an effective ministry partnership of mutual service within and reaching out from that marriage? Or any other valid and selfless reason? Who will judge their hearts?
I’m a little torn on this issue because I can certainly understand both sides of the arguement. However, I wanted to ask you to clarify your position in a bit more of a concrete way Matt.
I understand that you are saying that the choice not to have children by a married couple is ungodly when it is made selfishly (agreed) but that you suggest that it can be godly for a married couple to choose not to have children for the sake of service of the Lord.
I guess my question is in what situations would children be a ‘hindrance’ to God’s service (and in fact do we ever see in the Bible that children can be a hindrance?) The eg. you give is that a married couple with no children would have more time to serve God through ministry than a married couple with children. But why is ministry to a church as a pastor (and wife), or bible study leaders or missionary to Africa or whatever you might choose more valuable, or a better use of the couples time than raising children into a Christian family and sharing with them a knowledge and love of God and an understanding of the gospel. Certainly, those children may not end up Christians - but that is God’s choice… not the parents choice.
Parenthood can also open up stacks of ministry opportunities for married couples with kids (which may not be available to married couples without kids) and particularly for the wife.
I’m just not sure we can say that having more time to spend in pastoral work is more important or valuable than raising god-fearing children.
I think most of your questions belong in the discussion of the individual couple’s decision.
But why is ministry to a church as a pastor (and wife), or bible study leaders or missionary to Africa or whatever you might choose more valuable, or a better use of the couples time than raising children into a Christian family and sharing with them a knowledge and love of God and an understanding of the gospel.
I wouldn’t say it is better use of a couple’s time, just a different and equally faithful use of a couple’s time. Who will say that any faithful ministry is better than another? We all have to make choices with our time, ultimately, and my view is not that raising children would be an inferior use of that time, so much as that it can be seen within the variety of faithful choices for the Christian.
There will always be plusses and minuses on both sides, and each couple needs to weigh those up. I am not negating any of those, just suggesting that we should be more charitable to Christian couples and not assume that if they choose to not have children, it is an expression of selfishness or unfaithfulness.
So I agree with all your considerations, but I am not arguing that children are a hindrance, just a different, valuable, allocation of time, within the prerogative of Christian freedom. It is not a sin to choose to have children or not have children. It is sin to do either of those things for selfish reasons.
I could add that all your factors could apply to marriage as well - it’s not that ministry to a wife is inferior to other ministry, it’s just a different choice, now opened up to the freedom of the Christian acting out of Christ’s priorities.
Matt & Dani, thanks for the last two posts. They helped me understand better where we’ve been going.
In Matt’s last post ...
Quote:
But why is ministry to a church as a pastor (and wife), or bible study leaders or missionary to Africa or whatever you might choose more valuable, or a better use of the couples time than raising children into a Christian family and sharing with them a knowledge and love of God and an understanding of the gospel.
I wouldn’t say it is better use of a couple’s time, just a different and equally faithful use of a couple’s time. Who will say that any faithful ministry is better than another? We all have to make choices with our time, ultimately, and my view is not that raising children would be an inferior use of that time, so much as that it can be seen within the variety of faithful choices for the Christian.
This made me more sure that I disagree with you Matt, and still it is on the basis of what marriage is. Your arguments could equally apply to sex within marriage. Paul is most definitely against married celibacy in 1 Corinthians. He did not leave it to ‘the individual couple’s decsion.’
Having kids and other ministry choices are ‘different’, as you say. They are not ‘equally faithful’, however. I believe they are not comparable in the manner you suggest. That’s why the para I mentioned above is confusing - it’s not comparing like with like.
This made me more sure that I disagree with you Matt, and still it is on the basis of what marriage is. Your arguments could equally apply to sex within marriage. Paul is most definitely against married celibacy in 1 Corinthians. He did not leave it to ‘the individual couple’s decsion.’
Yes. I have to say I agree with Chris here… in so much that God’s intent and purpose for marriage did not change with the new covenant. One of the purposes of marriage was for procreation of children and whilst I understand where you are coming from Matt with the concept of needing to work out our priorities in light of the return of Christ (and hence the whole singleness thing) I don’t see how that changes the fact that inexorably tied up in the marriage relationship from the creation of man and woman is the procreation of offspring.
I do agree, however, that Sydney Anglicans could do with being a little more loving, patient, respectful and humble when it comes to all aspects of this issue. I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum-
“You’ve been married 12 months and you don’t have any children yet ????? Why???
Thanks Chris & Dani, though I’m afraid I still disagree (my hobby horse is in full gallop!) :-)
When marriage is instituted in the bible (Genesis 2), there is no mention of children, nor an imperative to procreation (which was connected with creation generally in Genesis 1, not marriage). Marriage is celebrated on its own, with its own separate story in Genesis 2.
Marriage is the appropriate environment for procreation and the only moral environment for carrying out the Old Covenant imperative to be fruitful and multiply; but procreation is not the purpose of marriage (In fact, I can’t think of anywhere offhand the bible says that procreation is the purpose of marriage...?). The chief end of marriage is mutual service of each others needs, and thus ought to be a selfless decision in itself. Marriage is the right environment for procreation, but procreation is not the purpose of marriage.
Chris Little said:
This made me more sure that I disagree with you Matt, and still it is on the basis of what marriage is. Your arguments could equally apply to sex within marriage. Paul is most definitely against married celibacy in 1 Corinthians. He did not leave it to ‘the individual couple’s decsion.’
I disagree that my arguments could be applied to sex within marriage, since abstinence in marriage is to fail in the commitment of marriage - the mutual service of each others needs. That is part of the obligation you took on with marriage. But childbearing is not an obligation of a marriage, otherwise what will be said of those marriages that take place after childbearing is impossible? Are they selfish? Should they be disdained?
Here is where I will get a bit confusing, because I do see that this area is a bit grey in scripture, since procreation is not specifically mentioned as an overturned imperative in the New Covenant. But since sex was essential within Christian marriage, and they weren’t into contraception so much, the distinction between being faithful to marriage by having sexual intercourse on the one hand, and procreating on the other hand, was probably not made.
So I can actually see two contrary views as reasonable readings of scripture: Either contraception is wrong full stop and the fullness of the procreation imperative remains because we can do no other and remain faithful to sexual obligations within marriage, OR contraception is acceptable and we are free to choose how many children we have.
But I cannot see as biblical the legalism that says the imperative is still there but we can choose to just fulfil it to a minimalist degree (i.e. you have to have children, but just plan 2 or 3, then use contraception and you’ve fulfilled your moral obligations there). Either we should still be having as many children as possible as under the continuing Old Covenant imperative, or we are free under the New Covenant to choose whether we have ten, 2.3, or no children.
I favour the latter, can accept the former, but I can’t see the middle ground as biblical. The Old Covenant imperative remains or it is overturned by the New Covenant imperative. But we can’t design our own minimalist version of the old imperative and then impose it on everyone. To me, that smacks of Pharisaism.
Marriage is the appropriate environment for procreation and the only moral environment for carrying out the Old Covenant imperative to be fruitful and multiply; but procreation is not the purpose of marriage (In fact, I can’t think of anywhere offhand the bible says that procreation is the purpose of marriage...?). The chief end of marriage is mutual service of each others needs, and thus ought to be a selfless decision in itself. Marriage is the right environment for procreation, but procreation is not the purpose of marriage.
You make a good point when you question where we see procreation as a purpose for marriage. You’re right it is not explicitly specified in Genesis 2 although Genesis 1 reveals God’s command that the man and woman be fruitful and multiply (and I tend to think it is implict).
What about Malachi 2? What are your thoughts on this?
13And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. . So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16"For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Is it perhaps more correct to say that one of the purposes of sex is procreation rather than one of the purposes of marriage is procreation? In which case (knowing God created sex for marriage) we head down the path you mentioned in your last post whether there was a distinction between being faithful to marriage by having sexual intercourse on the one hand, and procreating on the other hand.
One of the things to keep in mind I think is that whilst we have a vast array of contraception options open to us today, contraception was actually praciticed in antiquity. I’m certain much of it was ineffective of course! But there was contraceptive methods used prior to sexual intercourse (I don’t want to even think what was in some of the stuff women drank and ate back then!), during sexual intercourse to prevent conception (just read Genesis 38!), abortion attempts whilst the child was in the womb and finally infanticide after the child was born (I remember being horrified learning how the Spartans used to put the unwanted or deformed children into clay jars right after birth to then be left on the side of the mountain until they died). Obviously I believe the two latter forms of contraception are ungodly! Leading me into....
The Old Covenant imperative remains or it is overturned by the New Covenant imperative. But we can’t design our own minimalist version of the old imperative and then impose it on everyone
Firstly- I still am not sure about this distinction between the Old Cov. imperative and the New Cov. imperative??? What are the different imperatives?
But getting back to the topic at hand - I don’t see why the ‘procreation imperative’ means we need to have as many children as possible. When God said ‘be fruitful and multiply’ he did not set a maximum ‘fruitfulness’ limit (some friends are going for the 6th now with their eldest in Yr 1 at school!) but He also doesn’t seem to have set a minimum either. He just says be fruitful and multiply. For a married couple to have one, and only one child they have fulfilled both of the commands. They have been fruitful and they have multiplied. And so I’m not sure how we can say that the ‘fullness of the procreation imperative’ means that we should not attempt to stop the conception of any child at any stage but rather just see how many kids we end up with before menopause hits!
The Bible does not seem to speak out against contraception itself (as long as the contraceptive method did not entail sinful behaviour such as infanticide or in the case of Onan in Genesis 38 a failure to do his duty in the eyes of the Lord).
So yes, I think that we are free to choose how many children we will have and not be running against the procreation imperative. Of course God is still sovereign and will work his will regardless of any hi-tech contraception we might come up with anyway! My good friend and her husband discovered that when they found out their contraception had failed on their honeymoon and their first daughter was born 9 months later! But saying we are free to choose how many children we have is not the same (to my mind) as saying we can choose not to have children.... which takes me back to one of the purposes of sex is procreation.
Excuse my rambling :) I’m working this out in my head as I type :)
So yes, I think that we are free to choose how many children we will have and not be running against the procreation imperative.
But it is a shame, isn’t it, that large families seem so rare now? When I was a kid, a family of 4 kids was pretty normal - now that is not very common at all.
If I remember correctly (I lie - I checked on the net):
John Wesley was the fifteenth of 19 children of Samuel and Susanna Wesley. And his mother Susanna was the youngest of 25 children.
A bit of family planning, and Methodism may not have happened.
Here’s a word for you to enjoy, Matt: hobby-horsical. It’s odd, but you can find it in Laurence Sterne’s Tristan Shandy (I am not sure about the spelling, however). I have always thought there was no context in which I could gainfully employ that word. So thanks!
I think we have avoided straw man arguments mostly so far. But I felt one appeared in the following:
I disagree that my arguments could be applied to sex within marriage, since abstinence in marriage is to fail in the commitment of marriage - the mutual service of each others needs. That is part of the obligation you took on with marriage. But childbearing is not an obligation of a marriage, otherwise what will be said of those marriages that take place after childbearing is impossible? Are they selfish? Should they be disdained?
Matt, there are marriages with no sex in them (one partner a quad, for example, or other medical reasons). I don’t think that chasing these ideas is getting closer to what marriage entails.
Matt, can you comment on the distinction you see between old testament ordinances & new testament ordinances? Specifically, I wonder if creation ordinance is a better term to apply to what we learn from Genesis 1-2. Certainly the old covenant is undergirded by God’s plans for the whole creation. So too is the new covenant. What reason could there be to think the lessons/applications of creation are radically different pre- and post- resurrection? (I mean ‘radically different’ as opposed to ‘vastly expanded’.)
Thanks as always for your thoughtful contributions, but I’m afraid they haven’t yet dissuaded me from continuing my hobby-horsical rant (so handy to have an adjectival form, Chris!)
Sorry, Chris, I certainly didn’t mean to create a straw man in the post above. The reason I think it is relevant to consider post-menopausal marriages in the discussion is that first and foremost we need a doctrine of marriage that covers all marriages, not just those early in life. If we say that the purpose of marriage is procreation, then what is the purpose of those marriages? That’s why I want to first affirm that the purpose of marriage first and foremost is mutual between partners in that marriage, that a marriage is full and complete and worthy of celebration whether it has children or not.
I do acknowledge the distinction between incapacity to do something in a marriage, and choosing to not do something (I think that’s the point you were making).
Chris Little wrote:
Matt, can you comment on the distinction you see between old testament ordinances & new testament ordinances? Specifically, I wonder if creation ordinance is a better term to apply to what we learn from Genesis 1-2. Certainly the old covenant is undergirded by God’s plans for the whole creation. So too is the new covenant. What reason could there be to think the lessons/applications of creation are radically different pre- and post- resurrection? (I mean ‘radically different’ as opposed to ‘vastly expanded’.)
Because the Old Covenant carries an imperative to marry & procreate, and the imperative to marry at least is overturned in the New Covenant with a new priority. That is a radical change to the lessons of creation. If that part is no longer vital, why the procreation part? I’ll elaborate on this soon when engaging Dani.
Dani Treweek wrote:
What about Malachi 2? What are your thoughts on this?
Well, I must admit Malachi 2 wasn’t running around at the forefront of my mind, but I’ve looked into it now!
It seems though, that the context is seeking to encourage men to be faithful to their original wives, with whom they have been united as ‘one flesh’. It is only in this environment that ‘godly’ offspring can be produced. I think the focus is on the type of offspring God is seeking (as opposed to the ‘ungodly’ offspring of mixed-race or extra-marital intercourse), not the fact of the offspring. He united them as one flesh with their first wife so that the offspring they produced would be godly. The fact of the offspring would be presumed, since a) it would have been harder to avoid than today and b) the procreation imperative was certainly binding on them in the OT context.
Incidentally, we might also note that translating verse 15 apparently presents insurmountable difficulties, Verhoef & Baldwin agree that it is ‘impossible to make sense of the Hebrew as it stands… the wording of this text is gramatically and syntactically incomplete.’ Stuart goes further, criticising other commentators for even trying to choose an interpretation: “I would advise the reader that since nobody really understands what point verse 15a is making, the worst thing that could be done would be to assume that it can be understood.” Sorry Dr Stuart, I repent in dust and ashes :-( lol
Dani Treweek wrote:
One of the things to keep in mind I think is that whilst we have a vast array of contraception options open to us today, contraception was actually praciticed in antiquity.
In antiquity, yes they had contraception, but was it acceptable practice amongst God’s people? Not to my knowledge. The only indication we have is Onan, where it definitely was not acceptable (admittedly there are other issues tied up with it, but it is Onan’s rejection of his procreative obligation that is primarily at issue, so our interpretive lines we draw around that instance to still endorse contraception could be a little dodgy.)
Dani Treweek wrote:
Firstly- I still am not sure about this distinction between the Old Cov. imperative and the New Cov. imperative??? What are the different imperatives?
Sorry Dani, I should have been clearer. By “Old Covenant Imperative” I am referring specifically to the imperative to marry & procreate - to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
By “New Covenant Imperative” I am referring to the focus on the resurrected reality as a priority that overcomes at least the marriage imperative, and (in my view) the procreation imperative also.
Dani Treweek wrote:
But getting back to the topic at hand - I don’t see why the ‘procreation imperative’ means we need to have as many children as possible. When God said ‘be fruitful and multiply’ he did not set a maximum ‘fruitfulness’ limit (some friends are going for the 6th now with their eldest in Yr 1 at school!) but He also doesn’t seem to have set a minimum either. He just says be fruitful and multiply. For a married couple to have one, and only one child they have fulfilled both of the commands.
God sets the direction, and people who love him are supposed to run in it with all their strength. Sorry, but I think by setting a legal minimum of one child as satisfactory obedience is still pharasaic - asking what do we have to do to achieve a ‘technical obedience’? rather than saying God says ‘be fruitful’, how fruitful can I be?
Dani Treweek wrote:
But saying we are free to choose how many children we have is not the same (to my mind) as saying we can choose not to have children....
Herein lies my problem! I can’t see a way to construct a biblical view that says we are free to mute the imperative to be fruitful and multiply to mean a multiple of 0.5, while still insisting the imperative remains.
If this ‘creation ordinance’ (as Chris dubs it) of procreation survives the New Covenant as an obligation where the ‘creation ordinance’ of marriage does not, then it is still a direction to run in wholeheartedly. Otherwise to my mind it kind-of-half-survived-but-not-really.
If the New Covenant (as in my preferred view) gives a freedom to the Christian to pursue the priorities of the resurrected reality at the expense of the priorities of this present earth, then the old direction to run in (multiplication of people on earth) is superseded by a new direction (multiplication of people in heaven). It seems a very awkward biblical theology to me to say that one creation imperative (marriage) gives way to that new priority while the other (procreation) does not, or even that they only give way as a kind of ‘job lot’.
*sigh* I’m getting long-winded again. What do you guys think?
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
