Sunday, November 21, 2004
Rebels Without a Clue
With all the focus on same-sex marriage at the moment, some other conservative ideas about family life often go unnoticed. For example, hardcore pro-lifers are also opposed to artificial birth control, claiming that anything getting between sperm and egg is just as sinful as abortion. Less nuttily, some on the right have argued that it ought to be harder to get a divorce than it is now. As the AP noted in a story today headlined "Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage" (presumably appearing in Sunday newspapers as well as on the web), other scholars are arguing for greater tax incentives for marriage, more premarital education, and so forth. But it was a comment in the article by Southern Utah University professor Bryce Christensen that got my attention:
It so happens that The Mrs. and I are childless, not because the equipment doesn't work, or we don't know how to work it (or because we are trapeze-swinging libertines), but because after we had been married a few years, we simply chose not to have any. We've been married 21 years, and I find it hard to imagine that a stable marriage like ours is somehow contributing to the general decline of marriage as a societal institution because we haven't reproduced. It seems to me that at this uncertain moment in history, opting not to have children is far from an immoral act. It's hard to argue against the wisdom of having fewer mouths to feed, and fewer people to grow up and become consumers of dwindling natural resources. But then, I'm not the sort of person given to narrow readings of ancient texts, either.
This sort of rhetoric from the right bears watching. Some of them really do mean to make the world over again, and they don't give a damn what you think, want, or believe for yourself.
Recommended Reading: Some of our blogosphere pals have spent their Sunday figuring out what Oklahoma Senator Ernest Istook was up to yesterday with his amendment to the appropriations bill that would have permitted the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, or anyone they designated, to snoop into personal and business tax returns without privacy restrictions. Josh has the short version; a poster at Daily Kos has the long one.
With all the focus on same-sex marriage at the moment, some other conservative ideas about family life often go unnoticed. For example, hardcore pro-lifers are also opposed to artificial birth control, claiming that anything getting between sperm and egg is just as sinful as abortion. Less nuttily, some on the right have argued that it ought to be harder to get a divorce than it is now. As the AP noted in a story today headlined "Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage" (presumably appearing in Sunday newspapers as well as on the web), other scholars are arguing for greater tax incentives for marriage, more premarital education, and so forth. But it was a comment in the article by Southern Utah University professor Bryce Christensen that got my attention:
If [state and federal bans on same-sex marriage] are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile. If they're isolated--if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness--then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.Wait, wait, wait--"deliberate childlessness" is among the threats to the place of marriage in society? Dude be wack, I thought--but then I went out and searched the phrase "deliberate childlessness" on the Web, and found an article from last summer in something called The Christian Post, which propagated across the web in various guises: "Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face." The author is R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. After quoting several childless adults who say their lifestyle doesn't have room for children, Mohler says:
Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift....Well. When you frame the issue in terms of a moral obligation to produce future generations, you're not far from suggesting that given America's moral responsibility to the world, it's the moral duty of Americans to have more babies--which smacks of the sort of "growing of the race" encouraged in Nazi Germany. And even if nobody leaps that far, this sort of thinking represents the worst kind of intrusion on the right of personal choice and privacy--and yet another way in which conservatives assume the right, or as they might put it, the duty, to police what goes on in America's bedrooms. (Or doesn't go on, as it turns out.)
Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle....
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.
Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation.... Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood. They rely on others to produce and sustain the generations to come.
It so happens that The Mrs. and I are childless, not because the equipment doesn't work, or we don't know how to work it (or because we are trapeze-swinging libertines), but because after we had been married a few years, we simply chose not to have any. We've been married 21 years, and I find it hard to imagine that a stable marriage like ours is somehow contributing to the general decline of marriage as a societal institution because we haven't reproduced. It seems to me that at this uncertain moment in history, opting not to have children is far from an immoral act. It's hard to argue against the wisdom of having fewer mouths to feed, and fewer people to grow up and become consumers of dwindling natural resources. But then, I'm not the sort of person given to narrow readings of ancient texts, either.
This sort of rhetoric from the right bears watching. Some of them really do mean to make the world over again, and they don't give a damn what you think, want, or believe for yourself.
Recommended Reading: Some of our blogosphere pals have spent their Sunday figuring out what Oklahoma Senator Ernest Istook was up to yesterday with his amendment to the appropriations bill that would have permitted the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, or anyone they designated, to snoop into personal and business tax returns without privacy restrictions. Josh has the short version; a poster at Daily Kos has the long one.
