Deliberate Childlessness

Al Mohler on willful childlessness.  He often causes a stir on this subject.  I'm more interested on the topic of when to have children, not whether.  But it's helpful, nonetheless.

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.

Comments

[bob Hyatt]

really?

Is there a time limit on when it becomes rebellion...

you know, waiting a year is ok, waiting five years is sin, etc...

It seems like if one couldn't give the guidelines, declaring it "sin" so broadly is tantamount to saying "contraception is wrong", no?

This is a very careless statement: "The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. " True in many ways... untrue and hurtful in others.

And this... this is just plain biblically wrong: "The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children."

Has Al not read Paul???

[Steve McCoy]

As for Al's "careless statement", he has a good friend who had remained childless for some time. So it's hits close to home for him. he's not just being careless. Scripturally, he is accurate. Does that mean the same for us?

I don't think this can be denied: children are a blessing from the Lord. So why refuse God's blessing? I've never heard a good reason, including missionary service and so on.

[dcofchrist]

This Mohler fellow obviously cares more to make the scriptures say what he wants. False teaching is a sin. And Mohler seems to partake in that.

Having Children? The question as said above is how long before it is sin. Is it wrong to intentionally prevent from having children after having a certain number or whatnot? Where does this legalism stop? Having children is a joy it is also an expense. Unlike the Biblical days and even early America society was argicultural more children the better. They helped on the farm in many cases etc...

Children today pose an expense an expense that is worth it. Money does not grow on trees. The scriptures also say one should provide his family. This includes our time. And spending more hours working to feed more children for my own blessing seems quite selfish. Children are a blessing of the Lord. I would prefer to enjoy them. If a person has more children than is financially feasable it that providing for ones family. Is it also unwise as women are not baby making machines and having too many or too late can be harmful to mother and child. Is not our body a temple? Are we not to take care of it in this life?

I don't see an excuse I see plenty of reasons that stand in light of the scripture. If Mohler and the like would actually start following the text themselves rather than being critical of others maybe the visible church wouldn't be in the shape it is today.

[joe kennedy]

is this such a huge issue that he felt it necessary to address it so publicly?

[bob Hyatt]

hold on, hold on...

In the old testament, leprosy was a sign of sin, a curse from God.

Is that still true?

I have many people in my community who are having trouble conceiving... I would not use the word curse in reference to their barrenness.... because obviously that makes their next question, "Why is God cursing me?"

That's why I call it careless... to use the word "curse" may lead people to infer that which we may not (or may) be implying.

[bob Hyatt]

and again: this is just plain biblically wrong: "The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children."

[Steve McCoy]

bob, how is that biblically wrong? He isn't saying without exception as I understand it (singleness) but that the biblical picture is marriage and children. How is that wrong biblically?

[Amy]

I think Al is WAYYY too obsessed with what other married couples do and don't do, for one thing. There are plenty of children in the world, I don't think the human race is going to die out any time soon LOL so why does it bother people so much that some people choose not to take on the big responsibility of parenthood? Also, in past cultures, the idea of limiting reproduction was mostly unheard of (they didn't exactly have the Pill in those days) and a person's worth was largely based on how many children (especially sons) they had. As far as direct quotes from Scripture, I could think of Christ's teaching that some are born eunuchs, some are turned into eunuchs, and some choose to become eunuchs (in that day and time, it seems that being childless was considered even a worse fate than to be celibate). I admit I'm not a parent;being almost 40 and not yet married it hasn't been an issue yet but if I do get married I don't think it's the best idea, healthwise, for middle-aged women to start having babies. Should I therefore stay single all my life?

[JACK]

Wow, it looks like you touched a nerve, Steve!

Bob, I don't think you are being quite fair to Mohler. He clearly states he isn't talking about those who can't conceive for physiological reasons:

"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 instead in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle."

Like, Steve, I'm having a tough time seeing why you conclude this position is unbiblical. Or legalism. To me, it seems just the contrary of legalism -- can you think of something that demands a greater act of self-giving and trust than to entrust one's fertility to God? Talk about sacrifice and following!

Now where I would agree with you is that I don't see how to escape the natural logic of Mohler's position resulting in a condemnation of artificial contraception generally. I may be single now, but this is a very real topic to me. Because I belong to a church that in fact has reached this conclusion and teaches that it is sinful to use artificial contraception. (Talk about an awkward topic to ask someone your dating with views towards marriage!) However, hard I might find that teaching (conceptually now and, God willing, practically in the future) I've read enough theology of the body to be unable to dismiss it as unbiblical or legalism.

[bob Hyatt]

well... because to say that the "biblical formula" calls for adulthood to mean marriage is not quite true. It doesn't take into account the life of Christ, the life of Paul, 1 Cor 7...

I don't argue that marriage isn'y good, commendable, a state to be honored...

But as someone who remained single well into his 30's (and not by choice!), I can attest that the message given WAAY too often to singles by the church is one of second-class citizenship.

Yes- I want to encourage people to get married, but I want to avoid telling singles and those having trouble conceiving that they are somehow inferior, which I believe the wording ""The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children."

I know Al doesn't MEAN to say that these people are cursed, second class, etc... but sometimes we need to take responsibility for the impact of our words, and I can think of a lot of people who would get hit like a ton of bricks by those words... and undeservedly so.

I'm with a few of the other commenters... I know of 1 single couple of all the hundreds I'm friends with who have chosen to remain childless- I think raising this issue like this hurts those who can't
more than convicting those who won't...

[JACK]

Bob:

Certainly, you are right that there are other state's of life than married. Celebacy is clearly biblical, as we only need to look at Jesus for that.

But do you really think the point of the article was for those who are single? That seems to be critiquing Al's entire article for a bad turn of phrase and then using it (unconvincingly in my view) to criticize his real challenge: to those who are married, but are avoiding children.

And in this manner I would agree with Mohler: most people are called in adulthood to marriage. I seriously doubt that Mohler is absolutizing that.

I'm glad to hear that your married friends are open to having children. But on this subject I would have to side with Mohler. The vast majority of people I know are chosing childlessness. Now they may be open to one child, or some children 10 years from now, or when John makes partner, but they are most definitely choosing childlessness. I think that's far more the norm of the culture today, given all the evidence I've seen.

[bob Hyatt]

But wouldn't it be nice if Al also differentiated between those who choose childlessness in the beginning years of their marriages as opposed to those who make it a permanent choice?

And I still think absolutist statements on the "correct" state for "adults" (married WITH children) has a hurtful impact on those who can't do one or the other or both... even without meaning to hurt them.
It seems like a more careful, nuanced approach...

Ah... it's okay. Al can say what he wants. I'm no Southern Baptist... though I am ordained in the European Baptist Convention (a spin off of the SBC)...

[iMonk]

Mohler at his worst. Sorry. I love the guy, but this is just so bad.

[Formica Dinette]

Now let's see. Dr. Mohler just completed a 4 part blog calling for the return of church discipline. Fair enough. But, if "willful childlessness" is a sin, it is a public sin. Public sin requires corrective discipline that, if not heeded, may result in public measures (like shunning, fencing the communion table, and excommunication).

So, should willfully childless couples be disciplined by their churches?

[dcofchrist]

>So, should willfully childless couples be disciplined by their churches?

Good question. How does one know though if it is willfull or not? Are churches going to start demanding medical records etc... There is no end to this. This is a Romans 14 issue in my view. A matter between a husband and wife on how many and when and not the church eldership.

The church is going to continue to lose in light of this legalism. And that is what it is. I don't see any of the Apostles and Jesus obsessed with such an issue.

Are we going to start refusing communion and shunning because of lack of children if it is sin and therefore a public one you are biblically required to do so. If not you admit it is the legalism that it really is.

I am sick and tired esp. of pastors who have large families that receive all kinds of stuff from their congregation and get to write all kinds of things off that rest of us can't sit and judge the avg. working man on these things. I have yet to see a pastor not get taken care of whereas I have seen many families struggle without the church lifting a finger. I have a pastor in the family and are close friends with several others.

Get back to the Gospel. Worry about liars, false prophets, etc... And stop worrying about when and how children Christians are going to have. I usually like Mccoy's stuff, but this is beyond the pale.

[Steve McCoy]

Relax everybody. Even if you disagree with Mohler's point, this is still a discussion worth having. We live in a time when everything becomes a choice, even having kids.

Mohler is polarizing on this sort of issue, I know. I started the thread by making that clear so that everyone wouldn't freak out. Worked great. ;)

I find it interesting that many of us are talking about being generous in our orthodoxy, but on an issue like this with a guy like Mohler we can't be. We get angry and hurt.

Mohler is not beyond criticism, and I do my fair share. Some think beyond my fair share. And in his shoes there are things I would have said differently and with more understanding. But let's not miss his point, and let's discuss his point and be willing to give biblical reasons if we think it is unbiblical.

That is all. :)

[Joe Thorn]

For me it comes down to Genesis, and how I view the covenantal relationship between God and humanity there. Are the conditions of the covenant of creation (part of which was to be fruitful and multiply) binding on all of Adam's posterity? For me, the answer is, "yes," though the issue is bigger and far more complicated than that.

[Tim]

I'm sure we all know a lot of couples who have kids but who probably shouldn't have had kids.

:)

[THilton]

I agree with Joe on Genesis, there are huge implications. I don't desire to fall into the ditch of legalism on the subject, but I think that the majority (even among evangelicals) view children as a burden. Not only financially, but mainly to their personal life. I see "christian" parents who have several children trying to invent ways to not spend time with their kids. They don't recognize God's design in the functions of the family. I think it was Mark Driscoll who said in his conference: "Show me a good golfer and I'll show you a lousy husband and father."
I think the whole issue Mohler is bringing up is the issue of calling. We don't consider God's purpose for marriage something that is to bring exclusive glory and honor to Him.

I think people who are offended by this are not getting the point. Children are a blessing from God. Marriage was created by God not only for companionship, but to produce children who are to be cherished and taught the ways of the Lord day and night (Deuteronomy 6:7). The Bible presents children as something to be desired as a gift, not a burden or inconvience.

[fritzfos]

A few points:

1. In the Bible, childlessness as a curse seems more of a cultural issue than a sin. In the Ancient Middle East, any barren woman was seen as cursed, whether she was a Hebrew, Phoenician, Edomite, or whatever, and regardless of what god or goddess she worshiped.
2. God never said that childlessness was a curse. He did curse some women with barrenness, probably because that was a curse in their culture. Today being unemployed might be a similar curse.
3. Circumstances change. I know this is anathema to many Baptists, but Paul clearly had a different dynamic in mind when he advised against marriage than the one operating in the Old Testament. God's commands are sometimes perpetual, sometimes to a specific time. For example, God's Levitical commands regarding ceremonial purity are no longer followed explicitly (mixing fabrics, etc.). Quite possibly the command to be fruitful and multiply applied until the earth was filled, which point I personally think we reached when housing and feeding 6 billion people became a problem.
Is this a "slippery slope"? Maybe, but one of God's own devising, and requiring his Holy Spirit and the Bible to navigate, rather than our own minds and prejudices.
4. No contraceptive method is 100% effective. God can create a child anywhere He wants, regardless of human efforts.
5. The SBC might have become so insular that they believe the only way to maintain their numbers is to raise Southern Baptists from the womb up. When you are more concerned with driving out people who think differently than bringing in people who are lost, your only avenue for growth is internal.

[JACK]

THilton:

Good post. And I would say it is more than evangelicals where this is symptomatic.

I seriously doubt that Mohler's point on this matter is related to growth of the denomination. Not being SBC, I can't tell if it is the issue or Mohler (who I don't know from a hole in the wall) that is generating such reaction. But it seems to be not giving him the benefit of the doubt that his position has a deeper basis than that. He's talking about a generosity with God that is damn frightening, I know, but it is only because it is challenging and counter to our materialist and individualist culture.

Now, I personally, don't like Mohler's style in this article because it begins with a number of sword lunges that get the type of hostile reactions one would expect. I wish he instead spoke of God's design for the body and the family, approaching it from a positive viewpoint, which I think is possible.

"No contraceptive method is 100% effective. God can create a child anywhere he wants, regardless of human efforts."

I don't know how that is an answer to Mohler's point, which is focused on the act of the will. Anything is possible with God, but He's chosen a particular method by which He wants to bring children into this world and has encoded it in our very being. Mohler's point is that to willfully reject that is the problem. So that we aren't effective in our disobedience, I think Mohler would argue, doesn't change whether it is sinful or not.

This is a huge issue in Catholic circles being one of the churches that does teach that use of artificial contraception is wrong. It's caused a lot of divides and a lot of people have just ignored the Church's teaching. But it was important enough to the late John Paul II that he spent his Wednesday addresses for the first three years or so of his pontificate speaking on the subject of a Christian understanding of sex. It continued the work he did in his book Love and Responsibility and has come to be known as Theology of the Body. Catholics only now are starting to absorb these lessons. I mention it only because it might give you a different window (from the positive viewpoint) into the matter and might help in understanding what motivates Mohler. Because I am guessing that the roots of their positions are similar.

[David]

I am a devoted Christian, as is my wife, we work with the adult singles in our church and we have since the time we began dating. As we move into our fifth year of marriage and our mid 30's we have yet to have children and at this time it is unlikely that we will. We have remained childless for several reasons, none physical, and several of those relate to being able to minister. We seem to have become the segregate parents for many older youth and young adult singles over the last years. Our house is open to them and we REGULARLY are closer to them then their church going parents. At this point it seems that they have them and we finish raising them.
To call our choice not to have children rebellion and unbiblical is just ridiculous. God does not have the same plan for every Christian, nor for every Christian couple. God has never used a cookie cutter to design and call His people. As some are called to some ministries and directions, others are called to other ministries and directions. If God can, and does, call some to remain single and serve Him, He can also call some to remain childless to serve Him. To say that we all have the same call/s as they did at the time of Christ on the earth would mean that we need to all sell our property and live a almost communal existence, which the early church did and few Christians do today.

As others have mentioned being childless is not a curse if it is a physical issue, but it is not rebellion if the couple has prayed and God as truly lead them to remain childless. Long and short I think the mere idea that we assume that we can tell others what God’s call and purpose/s for their life by use of a large net and broad statements is flawed.

[JACK]

I'll bow out after this. I know this is a sensitive topic and hard to discuss because it cuts close to the bone for a lot of people.

All I would say, David, is that for you to reach that position you either had to conclude that you would remain celibate within your marriage or that it is permissible to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse.

I just think it is helpful to put these things on the table, because then things can be evaluated in the context of the validity of the teaching and less in terms of the other factors that get raised because this issue personally affects all of us because of how pivotal sexuality is to our being and our culture.

Frankly, if I didn't belong to a church where God's call must be discovered in the context of communion (koinonia) I don't know if I would have reached a conclusion different than where you and your wife have come out, David. But that I do, and having considered what they have said, I have to say there is a lot of merit to what they have to say.

[Neil]

Jack,

I am with David on this one. I think God does allow for the seperation of the aspects of sex within marriage. That is not due to difference in faith, but because of what I see as the nature of God.

He allows us to enjoy sex as a means of enjoying our partner. All maritial sex does not have to be for the purposes of reproduction and that is true weather you are ulitimately attempting to have a child or not. Christian couples can and do have sex just to enjoy each other and not in an attempt to have children. That has been true and will always be true, regardless of the use or lack of use of the pill or not.

As for recieving your call in relation to the community instead of individually. I do not feel those are mutually exclusive, at least not in my faith. I recieve my call/s from God individually but they fit within the body / community God has me in. Individual calls within a large body is no more then specific wheels and hubs go togather to make a the full machince run. I think to basically say that David's call is selfish because it does not fit within your definition of one that works within the community you belong too is wrong in my book.

You may not have meant it like it sounded but to me the statement about if you were in a different faith community then you may have reached a similar position sounds a bit like a insult to David and his faith. His faith is not less then yours just because it is different. There are plenty of room for serious Christians to have faith disagreements, but there is not room for one to assume their view is superior. Such things lead to needless Christian arguments.

From what I see and read in David's post he is working / fitting within his community and body. I can and would ask no more of any Christian.

I think in the end each believer has to find where God wants them and serve there. If that is with or without kids I think that is up to God and that He can call people either way. If more people were actually working in the body then there may be less need for people like David and his wife, but that is another topic for another day.

Jack overall I do respect you, but I think you are bit off on this one.

[JACK]

Wow.

To be clear, my only point in saying let's talk about whether it is permissible to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex was to get the conversation away from critiques that were reading more like critiques of Mohler and his personality and way of communicating the idea than the idea itself. I understand that people might reach different conclusions on the question. So I'm not sure the concern. I'm not trying to take away anyone's freedom to reject the conclusion that I've reached. But I get the sense the fact that I have reached this conclusion in my freedom makes some uncomfortable. Why?

As for the difference in discernment, it was by no means meant as an insult but as an explanation for why in part we have reached different conclusions on the issue. My church has spoken on the question. My point simply was that if left to my own devices, I think it is entirely possible that through sincere prayer I might conclude that God is leading me to make the exact choice that David described. So just the opposite, I was trying to express how sincere I thought David and his wife probably have been in their approach. To explain further would be to go on a tangent I rather not. Suffice for here that in no way was I intending any insult or disrespect of David. Just the opposite.

But if this discussion is going to go anywhere we need to be able to get past the "Well, God's leading me differently" position. Obviously, I failed in my attempt to create that bridge.

[Neil]

Well jack I do appreicate and respect your clarification. Now that you explained your view a bit more I respect you even more. Thanks for the clarification.

Like you I think the topic is important, but I do not think it is likely ever to get past a conversation of - God lead me differently - because honestly that is the root issue - weather God can or does lead people differently in this area. Some will say no and some will say yes, but in the end it is just a debate over how God can or does lead them.

In the end there is little else to debate other then if God can or does lead some to remain childless. I appreciate your attempt to bridge it to more though.

[Joel]

WOW! What heat this has generated! Like many who have already posted, I believe many here who have "lashed out" at Mohler do so without understanding his point. The main issue he is addressing here is one of worldview, and ultimately, of our hearts intent.
I don't presume to speak for Al Mohler, but I would bet his intentions were not to shame those who are biologically unable to bear children, nor was it to look down upon those who choose childlessness in order to give more time to the ministry. The issue here is one of the intent of the heart. In our present culture, we largely see children as an inconvenience, to the extent that if one happens to be conceived at an inconvenient time, it is not legal, AND socially acceptable, to murder him or her before he or she is born! Mohler is countering this, not only by arguing against abortion, but the whole idea that fuels the "pro choice" debate: namely, that children are bothersome. Scripture does teach that they are a blessing from God, and should be received in this way.
Therefore, a couple who marry, and intentionally choose not to have children because, for example, they like the leisure nature of their current lifestyle, is wrong. We have grown so accustomed in our world to the assumption "I'll do what I do in my own life, and its noone else's business" that we think these kinds of statements are "meddling" rather than "preaching."
Also, it is blatantly unfair to paint Mohler as one who holds a borderline Catholic view of sex as ONLY for procreation. Mohler has stated in many other venues that sex was designed for pleasure and the development of marital intimacy, but he is forwarding a BOTH/AND case here, not an EITHER/OR.
Again, the issue is not legalism, but an examination of the heart.

[JACK]

Neil, thanks for your kind words. And in the end you may be right on the difficulties this discussion poses.

On and for clarity only, Catholics do not believe that sex is only meant for procreation. It's definitely falls in the both/and category. What the church has said is, basically, one can't divide the two. They go together for a reason.

[M. Daling]

In reference to fritzfos's comments:

The slippery slope argument is just as elusive as the arguments of certain texts being culturally bound - so I won't argue that point. However, the promise (and command), of Genesis 1.28 is conceptually carried through the OT and NT. A great biblical-theological treatment of this is G.K. Beale's 'The Temple and the Church's Mission' by IVP. One would be hard-pressed to say that Gen. 1.28 is culturally bound to OT Israel in light of how it is used throughout the rest of scripture - right into Revelation.

That said, we should be careful not to go overboard saying that this represents an absolute model for marriage and family. As Beale points out (though he might agree with Mohler anyway), Gen. 1.28 is God's charge to Adam to expand to the farthest reaches of the world the very presence of God. Gen. 1.28 is repeated in every one of God's New Creation acts (Noah after the flood, the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the giving of the Law at Sinai, etc.) This blessing comes to fruition in Rev. 21 in the New Heavens and New Earth - where God's presence dwells with His people forever. It is a promise and mandate to mission and worship, not simply how mankind should populate the earth.

We must be careful not to dismiss scripture, but we also must establish that Gen. 1.28 mandates that a married couple MUST have children (if they are able). I don't think that this has really been established in this discussion.

This discussion does strike me close to home. My wife and I were given a miracle 4 years ago when the door was opened for us to conceive via invitro fertilization. That is kind of personal, I know, but the point is that we would not have otherwise been able to conceive. Bob is right to have problems with some of the things Mohler has said - they could very well be (unintentionally) hurtful. The only pain I can imagine worse than being unable to have a child is actually losing one. Whether or not Mohler wants to eliminate people who are unable from the equation, statements about the Biblical pattern include those people as well. The Biblical pattern, as Mohler presented it, is universal. Children are a blessing, childlessness a curse. If this is what the text is saying, it is not making exceptions. As Steve said, Mohler did NOT say that there was no exception - but this is an easy implication to draw from what he said. This does need to be discussed, but in the larger context of why we are so devoted to practicality and our own comfort.

All in all, I am not certain on this issue one way or another. However, we need to be careful not to heap a heavy yoke on people. For those of you who agree with Mohler on this, can you establish this point in a better biblical-theological way? I found Mohler's arguments to miss the mark. Would it be better to come at this from the relationship between marriage and Jesus & the Church?

Regardless, it is nice to be arguing on the same side of the fence as Bob.

[bob Hyatt]

ha!

Okay- Scripture...

I agree that Genesis provides a very specific command to Adam n Eve and a more general command to all of us. But as we interpret Scripture by and in light of Scripture, in view of Paul saying "Yes, it is good to live a celibate life" and "Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows--it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am" I have to disagree with Al that "The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children." It just plain doesn't.

Now, I understand that "the present crisis" that Paul speaks of in this chapter is critical background information. But I just believe that if it were so that " the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children", he would have said things differently.

And that's where I am with Dr. Mohler. I don't disagree. Some people choose to remain childless out of selfishness, but it's the selfishness that needs to be reproved, not the childlessness.

I think he could have raised this issue differently, and avoided making general sweeping statements about the "biblical pattern for adulthood" which left out Paul and Jesus Himself.

Boy! This is a fun one, eh?

[Phil in CA]

Mohler's marriage & family obsession is well documented (See "Is Singleness a Sin?" on http://www.christianitytoday.com/singles/newsletter/mind40811.html). One might want to keep some statements in mind:

Mohler at the 2004 "New Attitude Conference" for singles: "I'm going to speak of the sin that I think besets this generation. It is the sin of delaying marriage as a lifestyle option among those who intend someday to get married, but they just haven't yet. This is a problem shared by men and women, but it's a problem primarily of men. [...] The corruption of delay, the injury that comes by delay, is multiple. [...] You've got to be urgently seeking [a spouse] as much as you would seek what God would have you do vocationally, as much as you would seek what God would have you to do in terms of your mission for life."

"Sin" of delaying marriage? S-I-N? So, choosing to be unmarried is like choosing to be unemployed. (2 Thess 3:10 come to mind? Me, too.) So, good luck in your "baptize a million" efforts when such a prominent SBC frontman judges fully 1/2 the adult population as irresponsible and lazy (other pejoratives come to mind) as someone who is in their late 20's and never held a job.

Back to Mohler at the 2004 conference: "What is the ultimate priority God has called us to? In heaven, is the crucible of our saint-making going to have been done through our jobs? I don t think so. The Scripture makes clear that it will be done largely through our marriages."

Um, "Saint making?" Lay-speak for "sanctification process" if you ask me. While the Catholics teach that we need Mary for sanctification, Mohler teaches that it in Heaven we'll see that it comes through marriage. No, Mohler never cites chapter-n-verse for his teaching, nor could he. His "delay = sin" teaching is either in lines with the life, teaching and witness of Christ and the plenary canon of Scripture, or it's not. It's not.

Stop. Just take a moment. Listen to Mohler --- not just his words, for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" --- but just listen and imagine you're a young single man holding down 18 credit hours, a single moms, or any of 1001 various difficult life situations… does Mohler pass the charity test? Yup, I'm judging what I hear because he's appointed as one who teaches, and with a big pulpit at that.

There comes a time to call a doctrine what it plainly is: "marriage-olotry". When the covenant become the ends, rather than the means, and when our love of an institution (marriage, the church, etc.) becomes more valuable than the souls therein, we have lost our way. Anything, even holy and blessed things, can become an idol when it eclipses God as the object of our adoration and devotion.

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

[Ellen]

Out of 613 commands in the Law, God slipped up and forgot contraception...

Don't say that it's because it was obvious - He had to put beastiality in there, and that seems WAY more obvious to me...

Phil in CA, I'm with you...Mohler...who put the "sin" back into "single"...

[bob hyatt]

well, there is the story of Onan...

just kidding.

Dang. Sin of singleness?

Again, I can see the wiggle room built in here ("delaying marriage as a lifestyle option among those who intend someday to get married") but still...

[Ellen]

Mohler also says this:

Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.

"making of saints?" sometimes parenting requires the "patience of a saint" - but *making* saints? I'd need chapter and verse on that one.

There is a difference between limiting a family and preventing one altogether, yet Mohler's approach does not make that clear.

[Steve McCoy]

Mohler has written elsewhere,

"Paul privileges this gift of celibacy, stating that he would have many of the Corinthians demonstrate this gift and "remain even as I." [1 Cor. 7:8] Yet, most Christians in every age have been married--not celibate. Marriage has represented the norm for adult Christians in every generation since the time of Paul's writing. This is consistent with the purposes of marriage as laid out in the biblical pattern, and is acknowledged by Paul in numerous passages dealing with husbands and wives, parents and children, and qualifications for church leaders. Celibacy is a wonderful gift--a gift the whole church should celebrate--but it is a rare gift."

[Ellen]

"Again, I can see the wiggle room built in here ("delaying marriage as a lifestyle option among those who intend someday to get married") but still..."

That would include college students, those deeply in debt and trying to get out, those in the military, etc.

[Ellen]

Sorry - missed the end quotes on the first paragraph...

[M. Daling]

Steve,

Isn't the problem with what Mohler is saying there (and in the larger post you linked)that Paul neither says that it is the exception OR that celibacy is ONLY for specific Christian service? Paul simply says that it is better.
Thanks for linking that though. At least Mohler is trying to interact with the whole of scripture - I just think he is overreaching the evidence on this. He makes a good point about certain problems. I thought the point about the time between puberty and average age of marriage was interesting. The link between that and premarital sexual relationships may be a good one.

[joe kennedy]

Steve, I know Mohler is your boy, but it sounds like he contradicts himself, eh? Singleness is sin, not having babies is sin, but celibacy is good?

Didn't Jesus say it is better for some not to marry?

Could it be that this is just another way the Baptists are trying to be different from the Catholics, as traditionally and historically they have tried to do? Many of the landmark views came out of an attempt to distance themselves from the RCC. Is it possible that this is just another way, albeit not overtly and most like subconsciously? Just a question on his motives here, sincere or not. I don't see that this is nearly as important as he's making it.

I also agree with fritzfos's comments. Perhaps we can't baptize a million souls as Welsch wants. Maybe instead, we should just have a lot of babies to keep the convention alive. I really don't see a difference between Welsch and Mohler when it comes to this- both ideas are ridiculous, but also seemingly innocent in motive.

[Joe Thorn]

Let me say that I am unhappy with some of what you guys are saying here. I don't care of we disagree. Or maybe I care, but I expect that from time to time. But questioning people's motives is wrong. Give people the benefit of doubt, and deal with what they are saying.

On this topic, I would like to see more of you dealing with Scripture - without guessing. Good grief Joe, the disciples said to Jesus, "It is better not to marry," when he laid out his view on divorce. But what does the Bible say and let's go from there. From there we can develop valid views.

See - I am not impuning any of your motives, while still having a problem with what some of you are saying. :)

[Steve McCoy]

Geez, finally. Thanks Joe Thorn. This have been a long thread of "missing the point."

[Joe Thorn]

And fix the stinkin italics. lol

[Ellen]

As far as dealing with the Scripture - if somebody is going to name something as 'sin' - isn't it up to them to prove it from Scripture?

[Steve McCoy]

Of course. But if someone else is calling it unbiblical, they should try to show that from Scripture too.

[Joe Thorn]

It's only implied (still valid) in most texts unless you deal with the covenant of creation in Gen 1 and 2.

[joe kennedy]

I appreciate the correction. I do question motives, though, simply because I sense a double standard between this blog's treatment of Welch and Mohler. Steve, this is your personal blog, so that's up to you. I'm not trying to attack, it's just a perception. Neither of those men mean anything to me, they're just guys out there trying to do what's right to them, saying what's on their minds. Do I disagree? Sure I do- with both of them. But I do feel like sometimes this is a "bash Bobby" and "exalt Mohler" type of thing. I apologize for my strand, I think this is one of the first times I've really spazzed out over here, so hopefully I'll get my free pass and move on.

Peace guys.

[Joe Thorn]

You kidding Joe? Steve has received major heat for addressing Mohler's stuff when he feels it's off the mark, just like he has addressed Bobby's nuttiness.

[joe kennedy]

Well that makes me feel better. Really. I just saw the "Reasons I love Al Mohler" the other day and thought... wrong, I guess.

Now I wish I could write my "5 Reasons I Love Chuck Kelley" article. But my best arguments are from secondhand stories.

[David]

Given that I have 3 children, I'm not sure why I even care about this, but I do. Maybe it is because I KNOW that if I went to certain churches my family would be seen as a starter kit. "Why are you denying God's futher blessing? Do you not want to raise an additional saint?" It all just seems like a conscious thing to me. If a couple feels called to have children (or more children), but deny that calling so as to live a worldly life, then they are sinning. But it has not been proven to me that they are sinning if they honestly just don't feel up to the challenge/responsibility of raising a (an additional) child. Which is exactly why we have three, not four. Bottom line -- before we call people sinners for a given life choice, let's please have some clear biblical injunction to argue from. It is there for homosexuality, e.g., but not for childlessness -- except Genesis -- which simply begs the question, how much must we multiply. Is one enough? If not, then how many? I've never used the "Mohler told us to" line on my wife. I doubt it would work.

[Phil in CA]

M. Daling: Paul did qualify the preferability of singleness in those passages. Paul advocates that singles should "remain as they are" because of "the present crisis" (verse 26). Many teach unqualified advocacy of singleness because they forget/ignore Paul's clearly stated qualification for his teaching in the specific case of the Church at Corinth.

Steve: Thanks for that citation from Mohler regarding singleness and 1 Cor 7. As a single guy, I hear soooo much both read into and left out of that stretch of Scripture. Perhaps if we understand that Paul deemed singleness as preferable during times of crisis, we might have more charity when dealing with brothers and sisters who make that same choice today during seasons of hardship.

As for missing the point, speaking for myself, I don’t believe I am. Mohler again used the common tactic of opening with anecdotes of extreme world behavior among the worldly, thus intimating that Christians who delay or refuse having children are up to parallel sinful behavior. Of course he makes the one reference to those who can't have children, which is appreciated. As for judging motives, a man who publishes and is a well spoken as Mohler gets easier to "read into" as his body of published work mounts. Because Jesus said that we speak out of the abundance of our hearts, it gets easier to see Mohler's heart over times as he speaks.

Besides, if what he's preaching is Scripturally untenable, then his motives are irrelevant anyway.

[Phil in CA]

Side note: Mohler chose the so-called "full quiver" verse. His chosing that verse right up front spoke volumes to those familiar with hardline "Full Quiver" theology. The rest of what he wrote is lock-step with the Full Quiver position. A wonderful (and Reformed-friendly) response to the Full Quiver position is availble: "Does the Bible permit birth control?" by John Piper.

[Scott M]

Hmmmm....

I've observed this thread for some time in something approaching bemusement. This particular issue is one of the few that does not directly involve me. My oldest was conceived when I was 15 and my youngest is now 8. (I'm 40.) I have little conception or experience of life that does not include parenthood. And even in those moments when I would love to strangle them, I wouldn't trade it for the world. As bad as it gets (and for me it's not been all roses), I wouldn't trade any of my kids.

With that said, I'm not sure how to interpret or process the reaction. First, though I've been many things, I've never been catholic. Even so, I have a great deal of exposure to and respect for that tradition. It is not correct to say that they hold sex is only for procreation. As Jack has already noted, that's a perversion of the doctrince. Rather, they hold that it is a sin to artificially preclude the possibility of procreation. But it's not the sole purpose of sex. Sex is also for unity in marriage and for plain, old fun.

But I am simply not in a position to even imagine life without children. Where it is an expression of self-centeredness and selfishness, then it is clearly a manifestation of a deeper sin. I see it as one of those attitude things.

But that's probably just me. So many things are.

[Keith]

If Mohler really believes this, he should be advocating discipline on this issue in churches, in his seminary, and in the denominational leadership. In fact, I'll call out Mohler for "moral rebellion" if he doesn't follow up on this "sin" in the biblical manner and teach others to do the same. It seems to me that unless his words are accompanied by actions, they are pretty empty.

[RevGlenn]

Hi Folks, I'm very late in this long conversation. I see some very passionate viewpoints being expressed on all sides. But I can't help in saying it looks to me like there is an underlying problem in this discussion, one I see replayed in numerous venues across this nation, and certainly within the church -- an unwillingness to be held accountable to any standard but our own. For what it's worth, I think Mohler's comment, agree with it or not, does raise that issue in its wake. And I think that is a very BIG issue.

[Ellen]

I would say that if you are attempting to put people under the yoke of a law, you should be able to point to it.

In "The Radical Reformission" there's a chapter (my daughter has my book, so I'm going off the top of my head) called "The Sin of Lite Beer". The point is - don't let anybody tell you drinking is a sin because - well, it just is. I grew up in a church were pretty much everything was a sin.

I learned, as an adult, to examine every "law" to see if it's God's law, or man's law - or an "implied standard" that can be read in a number of ways.

There are a number of "levels" of this "law". The quiver-full types (Mohler used their "proof text") that believe that *any* form of avoiding conception, including Natural Family Planning, is sin.

There there are those that believe that any *artificial* birth control is sin, including barrier methods.

There are those that believe that a couple should have children, but stewardship principles should be in place and God's guidance should be sought.

Then there are those that believe that children are a blessing, but that there may be valid reasons for not wanting more (or any).

What I need to know is - why is it important to Mohler to put people under the yoke of this law? And is it even a law?

[Ellen]

But I can't help in saying it looks to me like there is an underlying problem in this discussion, one I see replayed in numerous venues across this nation, and certainly within the church -- an unwillingness to be held accountable to any standard but our own.

I'd say that most of us here would be willing to be held accountable to God's standard - not Mohler's.

[M. Daling]

Finally, we are actually talking about the text.

In reference to Paul in CA:

Thank you for interacting with me on the text. Paul does use the phrase 'because of this present crisis', but what are we going to take that to mean? Is it simply something going on in the Corinthian church, a first century Meditarranean World problem, or a crisis involving the expectation of Jesus' second coming? What is it that Paul grounds that statement in? My intitial point was that Paul did NOT say that one should stay single only if they were specifically called to by God for a specific ministry. As you have pointed out, that is not the end of the discussion. What does Paul's grounding statement 'because of this present crisis' (v. 26) mean? I take it to involve the imminent expectation of Christ's return. That may be important since we would be hard pressed to say that this particular crisis is no longer there. It is also important to acknowledge that Paul is telling the Corinthian church what he thinks is best - it is not an authoritative word from the Lord.

Please note: I am not trying to fall down to one side or the other here. I just do not think that Mohler (or anyone in the this conversation yet) has proved their case Biblically - yet.

An underlying problem, which Joe Thorn pointed out so well, is that we are approaching this issue by reacting to each other. Instead, why can't we just come humbly to the text and discover what God is saying? It is not enough for us to say that God has chosen for us a different way if it contradicts His Word. However, I have not seen anyone prove the case that singleness could be considered sin from the text itself. Moreover, I don't think anyone has established that childlessness can be sinful from the text. I would like to see the 'Biblical norm' pattern as advocated by Mohler established deeper in the text. Are there any points where the Biblical norm is ignored and God judges this action?

If we can all see that Gen. 1 & 2 have a great deal to do with this, let's plumb the depths of those passages. As I said before, we are NOT able to dismiss them because they are in the OT. They are NOT simply culturally bound. Gen. 1 & 2 have a huge impact on the rest of scripture.

Thank you Steve for posting this. We need to learn to engage the text together, but we all obviously have a long way to go.

[bob hyatt]

yes... this does seem to have hit a chord, larger than simply "childlessness vs childfullness"...

There's something in the way that Dr. Mohler has communicated that has really set people off.

It seems like maybe he has taken a general principle of Scripture (marriage/children=good), taken the inverse of this general principle (delaying or avoiding marriage/children) and called it sin.

The big question to me is-
Is it good hermeneutics to do this?
I can see where we might call many things not explicitly spoken of in Scripture as sin...
But.
Here's what I am thinking...
I wonder if anyone, coming to Scripture tabula rasa, would come to anything like our present "focus on the family"? I further wonder if we, especially in conservative, evangelical circles in the US, are experiencing a bit of "familiolatry." We (imho) have made an idol out of the nuclear family.

Thanks Phil for the Piper article. This was great:

"It is very important to delight in the reality that "children are a gift of the Lord." But some people go further and argue from this that since children are gifts from God, it is wrong to take steps to regulate the timing and number of children one has.

In response, it can be pointed out that the Scriptures also say that a wife is a gift from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22), but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to stay single (1 Corinthians 7:8). Just because something is a gift from the Lord does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive. As Wayne Grudem has said, "it is okay to place less emphasis on some good activities in order to focus on other good activities.""

[M. Daling]

Ellen,

I am not implying that you haven't, but have you searched the text for the answer to this problem? Isn't it possible that Mohler did just that? You are right in saying that we should not accept being placed under a 'yoke of law'. My problem here is that, though I don't think Mohler proved his point through the text in what Steve posted and linked, neither has anyone who argues against him in this discussion. Maybe we should actually discuss the relevant texts to see if Mohler is right - he may have a point that we should listen to.

[M. Daling]

Bob,

Good Piper quote. I am not so sure that the rage against Mohler here is one over hermeneutics. The way things have seemed to be processed has seemed more like pride. I hope that I am way off here.

[Art Good]

"I have yet to see a pastor not get taken care of whereas I have seen many families struggle without the church lifting a finger. I have a pastor in the family and are close friends with several others."

Uh, well here's one for you. I am a pastor, and my wife and I have one child, and that is all we are going to have. Why? Because the church I pastor refuses to pay me a livable wage, and offers no benefits. The hospital bill for our son's delivery and hospital fees was over $13,000.

Anyone who disagress with us for not having more children can e-mail me so I can tell you where to send the check.

[Ellen]

My problem here is that, though I don't think Mohler proved his point through the text in what Steve posted and linked, neither has anyone who argues against him in this discussion.

You're asking to either argue a negative, or preach from silence.

Mohler is the one making the claim - I'm asking him to prove it Biblically.

If a church preaches that drinking is a sin - it is up to them to prove it Biblically, is it not?

Same thing here. If Mohler names something as sin, it is up to him to prove it Biblically.

[M. Daling]

Ellen,

I asked you only because I wonder if it really is an argument from silence. While responsibility certainly falls on someone making an assertion about what the Bible says to prove the case, we should also be vigilant in weighing the text for ourselves. It is not Mohler's SOLE responsibility in this case. He actually brings up some underlying problems that, in fact, are sinful - like our extreme individualism that often shuts our ears to what God is saying. Again, I don't think Mohler proved his point, but neither has anyone else. It is our responsibility to weigh what people say - especially leaders - against the text itelf.

[M. Daling]

By the way, I am not asking you to argue a negative. I am asking that we seek what God IS saying - and be prepared to humble ourselves before Him.

Also, in reference to drinking, it absolutely is up to the church to prove their case Biblically. But that is hardly the last word. We would still need to search the text for reasons that our church may be wrong, AND be prepared to submit to the church's teaching (though we don't agree and may argue the point) for the sake of others in the church.

[My Friend Walter]

I setup a site for you guys:

Mohler Fight

[Steve McCoy]

HAHA. Seriously, that's funny.

[Kelly Goza]

It seems this discussion has gone down many paths, but many people have referenced "the pill" and contraceptives very carelessly. I am Southern Baptist (not Catholic) and have recently learned what contraceptives actually do to a woman's body. The technical term is abortafacient (yes, that comes from the same root as abortion). The low doses of hormones in the birth control pill no longer prevent pregnany, but flush a woman's body out whether she has conceived or not (If you have more questions I can give you more detailed info).

When we depart from laying our lives completely before the Lord as His and not our own, we wander into the dangerous territory of contraceptives and wanting to control creation, something which only God should have jurisdiction over. Scripture may not say DO NOT do... every specific that we can think of...so look at the heart and character of God. It's not about legalism, it's about living a life completely surrendered to His will, plan and purpose.

[dcofchrist]

>It's not about legalism, it's about living a >life completely surrendered to His will, plan >and purpose.

I say it again. How do YOU or Mohler know what the will of God in my life is?

The pill seemed to arise at the same time our lives started really shifting from a Farm culture to suburban one. How do you know it is NOT God's Will? You don't.

That is MY POINT. People need to get out of others bedrooms and quit trying to use the Bible to nose in others Sex lives. It is between a husband, a wife and the LORD. I am sick of this Fundamentalist obsession with Sex esp. what others esp. married couples lives.

Children are a blessing. They also are a responsibility. Some choose rightly NOT to have them, because they believe they are not up to the responsibility of being parents. Who am I to argue? The gentleman who said the Yoke of the Law is right. What man can judge me on this issue it is God who justifies.

As I said it is a Romans 14 issue. You can read it for yourselves.

As for the Gentleman above on being a pastor. My point was NOT that pastors are always taken care of. But they A have benefits that even my S Corp cannot match and B they(pastors) are usually taken care of BEFORE others in need in the congregation was my point. If you chose to have a child and it cost you $13,000 are your church chooses to not provide benefits that is between you and GOD. Which is again my point. I care not to judge you on this matter. There are are exceptions to every rule.

[Ellen]

...wanting to control creation, something which only God should have jurisdiction over.

I agree that hormonal contraceptions are abortificants and should not be used.

but as far as controlling creation...

"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."

if we are to subdue the earth, does that not mean bringing it under control? Are we not part of creation?

[M. Daling]

dofchrist,

Are you certain that it is just an issue between you and God? If it is a sin, then it most certainly is not (although I agree Christians tend to spend to much time calling each other out and not themselves). You say that it is a Rom. 14 issue, and may be, but why would it fall into that category? It can't simply be because you want it to be. Rom. 14 says nothing explicitly about this issue, so why are we to place it there? You may be correct, but how are you going to determine whether something is God's will or just your own passing fancy if not by the text? My point is, does Paul's discourse in 1 Cor. 7 move this to an issue like Rom. 14? Also, how do we interact with Gen. 1 & 2 here?

[Joel Maners]

I've been reading this thread for some time now. Many good points.

I have to say that I am amazed at the way God honors us with the freedom to choose. We can choose to get married or not. We can choose to have sex at a certain time of the day/month/year, or not. It seems to me that by fiat, he has given us the choice of whether or not to have children.

Now the question is, what do our choices say about us? If I choose to not have sex with my wife on a regular basis, that may say several things about my relationship to my wife, my body, or my physical condition. Or it may say nothing. If I choose to not have children it may say something of how I view children, life, and God's blessing. It may also say something about my level of faith. It MAY or it MAY NOT.I don't think it's right to impugn the motives of couples who choose when to marry, have children or to remain childless.

Is it possible for concientious Christians to make different choices? I think so. Do I think it's right to judge the motives of Chirstians who make different choices than me? I think not.

[M. Daling]

Ellen brings up a great point. God has placed humans in a place of authority in His creation. Is deliberate childlessness or deliberate singleness a violation of the stewardship God placed on us? Thanks Ellen.

[Kelly Goza]

Ellen,
You got me on semantics, I meant we should not "inhibit" creation. On that same note...Do we not trust our creator, He is able to give and take away, we do not need to take that into our own hands.

To dcofchrist,
As far as God's plan or will for your life. Look at God's character, He would not desire for man to end a life at any point, therefore any type of pill/contraceptive is not the will for any person's life, no matter how personal or different you think you are. God is who He is, and His view toward the sanctity of life of His creation is not going to change.

You may want to research the way that contraceptives work, because it's pretty similar to abortion (just an unaware version of it). Unless you're pro-abortion, you'll see that any type of contracptive would not be God's will.

[M. Daling]

Joel,

If Mohler is correct in claiming that this is a sin, it wouldn't be judging others to say so. This is a matter of being humble before God. I think that Mohler believes that the text says what he thinks it does. Let us not judge him just because we may disagree. If it is sin, it would not be right for him to not call it out. The question is, is it really sin? This is not a question of individual choice, but one of our relationship with God.

Ellen has been making the point that Mohler and others need to prove their point through the text before they call something sinful. I think she is right. Now that it is out there, however, shouldn't we at least ask the question?

[bob hyatt]

yes... the heart is the issue. If I choose to remain unmarried to serve God better (as Paul apparently did), am I sinning?
I don't think so.

If I choose to remain unmarried so that I can play the field and have more time to golf/jet ski/watch my big giant TV, am I sinning?
I think I may be...

"Is it possible for concientious Christians to make different choices? I think so"

I agree. The same choice made out of two completely different motives may be sin in one person's life and not sin in another's.

I come back to this. Humanity has done a BANG-UP job of following God's command and filling the earth and subduing it. We have gone forth and multiplied... and we're still doing it.

If an individual couple chooses to stop at one, or two, or even to not have children so that they can better serve God, biblically, I don't think we have a leg to stand on in criticizing that. To have a bigger house? Yes. To be be free to serve God better, in a unique situation/way? I can't see it...

[Scott M]

Personally, I think we tend to spend far too much time and energy focusing on and thinking about sin. If you are focused on trying to discern, decide, determine that something is a sin, arguing with others about, searching texts for proof, then your central focus becomes sin.

Maybe we need to flip that?

Just a thought ...

[M. Daling]

Scott

You may be right, but doesn't it make sense to come to a full understanding of what sin is so we can understand what we are actually saved from? Also, if we are to be missional Kingdom people, do we not need to be able to discern what is pleasing to the Lord - and what is not?

[Ellen]

You may want to research the way that contraceptives work, because it's pretty similar to abortion (just an unaware version of it). Unless you're pro-abortion, you'll see that any type of contracptive would not be God's will.

there are forms of birth control that are not hormonal or abortive. Are you referring to *any* form of conception-avoidance? Or just those that are abortificants? You should be clear, since it makes a difference in the theology.

[Scott M]

Do you honestly believe it is possible to come to a full understanding of sin? In any context? Is it really that important to have a complete grasp of everything from which we have been saved? Some grasp? Certainly. But we hardly have to strive to achieve that goal. At least I'm never without some awareness of the work of grace in my life, even if that awareness grows and changes over time and I sometimes catch glimpses of even more.

Hmmm. I suppose if you believed that God would only relate with us on an ongoing basis (even while saving us in the abstract) if we managed to recognize, confess, and repent of every individual sin (which sometimes seems to be the perspective I sense from some people) it would become critically important to be able to classify every thought, deed, action or inaction as either sin or not sin.

I've never been able to squash grace into that particular box.

I think the better question and central focus should always be what is pleasing to the Lord. Period. When we focus on what is not, we are staring at the wrong thing. Individually, am I doing what is pleasing to God? And together, are we (the body and bride) doing what is pleasing to Jesus? How are we helping each other keep that our focus? I've never seen a focus on what is not pleasing help move anyone or any group closer to that mark. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, just that I'm not familiar with it.

I don't think I'm expressing my thought very well. The manner in which you approach the fundamental question is as important as the individual item in question. Even the way the question is introduced frames the entire context. You can begin with, "Is this pleasing?" Or you can begin with, "Is this evil?" And by that first step, you have already made many choices, set your mark, focused your attention, and in many ways conditioned your response.

Everything that follows flows from that initial step. And it seems to me that when we make evil our focus, even in the context of a weak negative like, "What is not pleasing to God?", it immediately feels condemning to some and self-righteous to others. And as those set the tone, the fellowship tends to argue among itself and alienate rather than befriend those without.

When we focus instead on helping each other become the bride our bridegroom already sees in us, the whole dynamic is different. But as I read the stories of the early church and the advice and direction of its first leaders, I sense very strongly that it is not an personal, individual thing. It's a path we walk together, always encouraging, helping, and sharing our own recongition of our failings and failures. I think that comes closer to the sense behind confessing our sins to each other than accountability groups.

Does any of that make sense?

Personally, I don't have any strong opinion one way or another on the specific topic in this thread. I can say that I don't see anywhere that God has provided a black and white, universal, one size fits all, individual command on the topic. There's probably a reason for that.

But it's not just this discussion. It's many of them throughout the church. The focus seems to be on sin, that which is not of God, more than it is actually on God.

[Joel Maners]

Only one thing I would add, God is not threatened by our sin, we are. God looks at our sin and selfishness and says "look what that's doing to you. What kind of a life is that you are living?"

Hmmmm....

[M. Daling]

Scott,

Thank you for your reply. Your point is well-taken, and I do not think that you and I disagree to any great extent. What I was getting at was not the type of discussion in which I point out the speck in your eye, etc. I am also not trying to say that we can come to a full understanding of anything. We can no more understand the depth of our own sin than we can understand the totality of God's grace.

I don't think that precludes us from talking about sin in a mature manner in order to understand better who we are, who God is, and what we are saved from. This is not simply on individual terms, but globally as well. The systemic evils that are inherent in our social structures are just as much sin as my individual hatred toward another individual - maybe even worse. They NEED to be talked about, discussed, called out for what they are. As the people of God we are in opposition to this evil wherever it occurs. It is not to be ignored. Again, this is not to say that we retreat from the world, or cast people into the outer darkness. This has to be talked about - but it has to be talked about maturely and in love. I would say that we have fallen short of this time and time again. We are fooling ourselves if we try to deny that the Gospel will be offensive, but we have too often tried to be offensive and not really live out the Gospel.

Joel,

I am certain that God laments our sin in the way you have mentioned, but I think that is a reductionistic view. Our sin is a violation of God's creation, an offense against God Himself. Sin is not just simple mistakes that are messing our lives up. It is far, far more serious than that - and the Bible speaks of God's righteous judgment over sin often (in the OT and NT).

[Seanno]

One issue that has not been raised in this forum is Mohler's implied connection between materialism and intentional childlessness.

I couldn't tell if he was making a secondary point or using the description of materialistic trappings as ad hominem leverage.

Certainly there is much more fodder for discussion about materialism within the evangelical middle class family-centric culture.

:)

[dcofchrist]

>To dcofchrist,
As far as God's plan or will for your life. Look at God's character, He would not desire for man to end a life at any point, therefore any type of pill/contraceptive is not the will for any person's life, no matter how personal or different you think you are. God is who He is, and His view toward the sanctity of life of His creation is not going to change.

Ummm... Excuse me. The pill is a preventative that stops the release of the egg it does not end life. If it fails guess what your pregnant. It is clear you are clueless.

Don't sit there pontificate to me on something you are ignorant on. Stopping conception is different than ending a life. If you can't tell the difference then the issue is with you and not and I nor God. Keep your legalistic judgement to yourself. My wife and I unlike you have given serious thought about this in light of the scriptures.

>Are you certain that it is just an issue between you and God? If it is a sin, then it most certainly is not (although I agree Christians tend to spend to much time calling each other out and not themselves). You say that it is a Rom. 14 issue, and may be, but why would it fall into that category? It can't simply be because you want it to be. Rom. 14 says nothing explicitly about this issue, so why are we to place it there?

Because the scriptures En Toto do not speak to this issue directly. The NT talks about freedom Christ and not bondage. If it is Sin then you must ask if it is every childless couple if it is intentional and Excommunicate them. That is what you must do. Who is going to try that one? If it you do NOT it cannot be sin. The scriptures do NOT show ANY instance in the NT of such prying in a believers life. Never does it say that Children are a requirement of marriage. The scriptures do say they are a blessing. They are. But, they are a responsibility as well and the scriptures point to that.

So therefore unless you believe it is YOUR business to breach the sanctity of the Marriage Bed of a man and a woman and you can justify scripturally doing so. You then are creaing a law and adding to the scriptures. Therefore it is a matter of personal between the husband and wife and God. Romans 14. You or anyone else here have yet to make the leap from something being a blessing to a requirement. I ask again what is this Fundie obssession with sex. You have NO BUSINESS with the context of a marriage to dare question marital relations between a man and a woman. NONE. The Bible does not command nor make allowance for such a thing. If you say it does then it is you who are sinning for lying about what the Holy Spirit was written and therefore God has said. Just because someone is choosing not to take part in God's Blessing it DOES NOT mean he will curse them. Not everyone becomes a pastor yet that is a blessing also a responsibility. Not everyone has kids yet they too are a blessing and a responsibility.

If someone says this is sin they are adding to the Word of God.

[Phil in CA]

Seanno writes: I couldn't tell if he was making a secondary point or using the description of materialistic trappings as ad hominem leverage.

You be the judge: "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."

Writing consists of tone, language, implication, etc. Of a 1279 word essay, Mohler spends the first 41% of the text detailing the behavior of excruciatingly selfish people outside the church. Clearly this lays the foundation for the "bad example" portion of the ad hominem intimations to be directed at his obvious audience: the church. It's a literary way of implying: "Ya see? Ya see? Don't you [church] people be like those [worldly] folk." He goes further and clearly promotes the idea that "intentional childlessness = sinful heart full of selfishness and materialism". What kind of selfishness and materialism? The kind he spends the first 500+ words discussing.

Those of us who are reacting to Mohler's latest pontifications are being put on the rack for "judging motives". This is odd considering that this whole discussion was started by Mohler's latest sweeping judgments of hearts and motives behind intensely personal decisions. Further, since we cannot give assurance of salvation to those who walk in willful "moral rebellion," Mohler's strong statement that "willful barrenness and chosen childlessness" is "moral rebellion" against one's creator is a strong suggestion that such ones are not even saved. Mohler need not overtly state it, but the terminology used makes that conclusion inescapable to anyone willing to follow his argument to it's logical conclusion.

Question: Given Mohler's views that procreation is an obligation, is he not also clearly intimating that it would be unbiblical to knowingly go into a someone who cannot have children? Personal example: I've never had children, but the woman I love cannot have children. Since I would be going into a marriage knowing that we would remain be a childless couple, our childlessness would obviously be intentional as well. This is different than a couple finding out (post-wedding) about infertility... this is going into a "barren" marriage.

--------------

This also gets me: "God's glory is seen in [the family], for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that."

Again, no proof-text, just more marriageolotry. Read Revelations and it's clear that when Jesus looks at Laodocea, Smyrna, etc., it's the condition of the Church, not local families, that incurs His wrath. Christ never said, "Hey, go establish big families unit to display my glory." While the marriage relationship reflects the relationship of Christ to the Church, it is the Church, not the family, that is called "the body of Christ."

[Phil in CA]

Grrrr... typos. Above I meant to ask "is he not also clearly intimating that it would be unbiblical to knowingly go into a marriage with someone who cannot have children?"

[M. Daling]

dcofchrist:

Thank you for your explanation. In response, I would like to say that I don't have authority to pry into your life at all in order to judge you. My eyes are clouded enough by my own sin.

That said, God is involved in EVERYTHING you do - and has absolute authority. My question for you was directly in reference to you saying that this is a Rom. 14 issue. The problem is that you are treating Rom. 14 as a catch all that it most certainly is not.

The fact is, the reason Mohler is overreaching is not because it is an issue covered under Rom. 14, but because he inadequately interacts with Gen. 1 & 2 as well as 1 Cor. 7. I am in complete agreement with you about the leap between blessing and responsiblity. I question the way you were using Rom. 14. My question to you was not meant to offend you, so please do not feel you need to defend yourself. It was not my intent to do this.

[Steve McCoy]

Time out.

Flame-off guys. Even if you feel attacked, try to respond with some kindness and gentleness. I'm quite sure that's a biblical idea that won't result in someone claiming I've added to the Scriptures. And if you are speaking disrespectfully of someone else, even if you feel like they are stupid, stop it.

Much of what has been said, even when I disagree, has been interesting and thought-provoking. But the word of the day is "grace," and it's easy to miss around here. Remember, you are not on your site, but mine. So chill out.

Game on...

The Management :)

[M. Daling]

Phil in CA:

Well put. I don't think Mohler would go as far as saying that you shouldn't get married to someone who can't have children - but, then again, I wouldn't have thought he would have made this argument either.

[Marty Duren]

Congrat Steve-
88 posts here; 89 counting this one. And only 18 on the previous calvinism post.

We might actually be making progress here.

[Ellen]

Ummm... Excuse me. The pill is a preventative that stops the release of the egg it does not end life. If it fails guess what your pregnant. It is clear you are clueless.

This is where many Christians need to be more educated about the way the world works.

Read the three ways that birth control pill work:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

With the new, lower dose pills, there is a far greater chance of pregnancy, especially if you don't take them at the exact same time every day. One of the ways that BC pills is to inhibit ovulation.

Another way is to change the mucus so that the sperm cannot get through.

The third way birth control pills work is to change the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant.

If you believe that pregnancy starts at fertilization, then deliberately taking a medication that is designed to keep a fertilized egg from implanting is abortion.