Every Term Is Sacred: A Response to Dr. Al Mohler's Article "Deliberate childlessness & moral rebellion" Redux.

Given that I have recently posted a response by Dr. Mohler to his original article on "Deliberate childlessness & moral rebellion", I thought that I would repost my original reponse with corrections.

When my good friend Patrick O'Riley originally asked me to respond to Dr. Mohler's article, I did so. However, I had originally decided against doing so because I believed the absurdity of this argument did not need response. But I assented to my friends request. In doing so, I found myself edging toward the silly side of my nature and, at times, mocking the absurdity of this subject. Having done so, my friend, who found this subject more serious than myself, admitted that the humourous bits of my article detracted from my argument. This thought played on me for a while.

Today I learned that several Christian news sites have been referencing my article. This fact was enough evidence to impel me to edit my article of its humour and treat the subject with much more severity. Obviously I was mistaken: this is a serious subject to many people.

I would suggest that all those who read my article first become familiar with Dr. Mohler's article. While I will be commenting on significant parts of his piece, it is always best to read an argument in toto before one accepts or rejects criticism of that argument.

Dr. Mohler begins his piece by citing an example from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

“Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, “he Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation.’”

He continues by pointing to data that to Dr. Mohler is evidence to support his argument.

“The paper also pointed to the fact that the nation's birthrate fell in 2002 to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43 percent since just 1960.”

While I have no doubt that this data is correct I would question its relevance. In 1970, the population of the United States was 200 million. In 2005, the population now stands at 290,000,000. The population of the nation is expected to continue to grow over the next century. The total world population is currently 6.5 billion. More people are living today than have ever lived at any one time in the history of creation. The nation of China has been enforcing its controversial limited child family policy for twenty years to combat overpopulation. It is estimated that the Chinese have prevented the births of over 200 million people in this last quarter century but the population of China still stands at over 1.5 billion people.

Again, I am sure that Dr. Mohler's figures are correct. I imagine that at a time of increased standard of living, better healthcare, and lack of birth control in the first half of this century, the population of the United States did swell to an all time high. I am not at all surprised that with the steady increase of our standard of living, healthcare, and ever-increasing methods of available birth control that our nations birthrate has not reached its zenith in the middle half of the 20th century. But, and I mean this, I would guess that are current birthrate is much higher today than it was 100 years ago. And I would have guessed right.

“Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "You focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love." That worldview is sick, but more and more common.”

To state that such a worldview is "sick" requires explanation.

“Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate" (Psalm 127:3-5).”

This is the only Scripture that Dr. Mohler cites in his proclamation that a couple choosing to not have a child is rebelling against God, though my friend O' Riley offers that Dr. Mohler may be alluding to another verse. Regardless, his Scriptural evidence is scant. He forgets to cite Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." This is God's first commandment to mankind. It is such an important command that God repeats it after the flood has subsided in Genesis 9:1.

Instead, Dr. Mohler makes the argument that having children is commanded by God to all married couples who can have children by citing Psalm 127:3-5 that "children are a gift." Now doubtless this is true. But does God always give the same gift to all people? Spiritual gifts are gifts but we do not all have the same. Marriage is a gift but we do not all get married. Singleness is a gift of God, as well (1 Corinthians 7:7). Marriage is a part of God's great design but it is not required of everyone. Why then should we say that willful barrenness is not a gift from God, especially if we lack any Scriptural evidence to back up the contrary?

Let us apply Dr. Mohler's hermeneutic elsewhere:

We could state that land is a gift from God. Land is given to man to cultivate. God gives the people of Israel the promise land. The Bible is full of promises of great land to those who obey him. The Bible is full of promises to remove from land those who disobey him. Remember the banishment from the Garden? Remember the Exile? Remember the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD? Again, what is the first commandment that God gives mankind? "Fill the earth and subdue it." In fact, there is more Scriptural evidence for owning land than owning children! Yet, how often do you hear any preacher (other than the Word of Faith crowd) proclaim that if we do not have land we're not right with God? Will Dr. Mohler argue that those who choose not to own land are revolting against the grand design of God?

The problem with Dr. Mohler's hermeneutics is a problem with all those who take the Scriptures and its terms too literally. Yes, one of the difficulties that conservative Christians face is differentiating between universal divine commands and divine commands given to people in Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] cultures. There are a number of customs that were common to ANE cultures that are no longer common today (slavery, bigamy, etc.). There are a lot of moral customs that the ANE culture demanded of its people that God saw fit to allow and even commanded believers to adhere to BUT which he does not allow us participate in (slavery, bigamy, etc.). Levirate marriage is a prime example. According to ANE custom, a childless widow is the responsibility of her late husband's closest male relative. It is that relative's moral duty to marry and have sex with that woman and produce an heir for her and her late husband. This custom was the case no matter if the relative was married or not. It was considered immoral to refuse to do so. This is an ANE custom that God commanded believers during the patriarchal thru the Judges period to honor. In fact, God actually struck down a guy for not honoring this custom (Genesis 38:9-10). But not even the strictest fundamentalists believe that God commands contemporary believers to follow such a command. In fact, all contemporary believers would consider such an action to be an immoral sin. Yet God commanded many people to do this very act.

This is an example of how relative much of our morality is. Not all but much. Breaking the speed limit is breaking the government law and would be considered a sin. But what if your speeding away from a collapsing building that has been bombed by a terrorist. Is speeding still a sin? How about this: the most conservative bathing suit that any current Christian wears would have been considered immoral and indecent a hundred years ago. God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. This is what Soren Kierkegaard calls the “suspension of the ethical”. Here is another example: "Thou shalt not lie," (Exodus 20:16), right? But according to Exodus 1:15-20, it's okay to lie if you’re saving a person's life.

But all of this is just to provide examples of the differences between our culture and the Ancient Near East. Childlessness was considered a curse. But so was singleness. Children were considered a gift. And they still are. But land and having lots of goats, camels, and slaves was also considered a gift from God. In fact, until 150 years ago, owning lots of slaves was considered a gift from God. We have to be very careful to distinguish between customs and values that were honored in the ANE and what is required by God to be honored and valued among contemporary believers 3000 years and one ocean removed from the Old Testament. Furthermore, we have to be especially careful to differentiate between universal, general and particular commands by God. Marriage is not universal and is nowhere in Scripture regarded as such. Marriage is general and can be particular but not particularly universal. Some commands are particular but neither general nor universal. And some commands are definitely universal.

But unlike the issue of levirate marriage, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that willful childlessness in marriage is an act of rebellion against God. And Dr. Mohler, despite his views on sufficiency of the Scriptures, does not provide such evidence.

“The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: "MAKE LOVE, NOT BABIES." This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation -- and His mandate revealed in the Bible.”

Again, no Scriptural evidence is given.

“The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex from marriage (and even from gender), but also from procreation.”

The interesting aspect of this argument is that it is the same argument that the Roman Catholic Church has been making for centuries and the Protestant churches have rejected. The only difference is that Dr. Mohler has not yet gone as far as the Roman Catholics and stated that all sex within marriage that uses birth control is sinful. But all the logic is there: "Sex is a part of God's grand design for mankind to multiply and fill the earth. All sex that does not fit this grand design is a revolt against God."

“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.”

Scripture doesn’t envision many things. It doesn't envision space flight. It doesn't envision cloning. It doesn't envision computers, democracy, capitalism, evolution, television, teenagers, Ben Affleck films or Cold Play. In terms of the sufficiency of Scripture, the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to tell us how to use I-pods. You say that the Scriptures do not envision married couples who choose not to have children; but show me where it prohibits such a choice. If so, then is birth control wrong?

The most troubling aspect of Dr. Mohler's articel is that he says willful childlessness in marriage is "a form of rebellion against God's design and order." If one is going to make such a statement one should be prepared to provide Scriptural evidence.

“This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.”

This is one of the most interesting statements of Dr. Mohler’s argument. The general thrust of this point in the argument is that believers having children is an opportunity to evangelize. The implication of this argument is that the choice of believers to not have children amounts to not choosing to evangelize.

In one sense I can understand why this is somewhat of a concern to Dr. Mohler. As recent news stories have indicated, the conservative resurgence has not yielded the evangelical harvest that so many of the resurgent leaders anticipated. In fact, the fruits of the conservative resurgence have been an increasing decline in the number of baptisms. But, as research has shown, nearly ¾ of the baptisms that have been recorded have been performed upon children. It would appear that our convention’s current methods of evangelism generally work on children but not so much on adults. This being the case, it is no wonder that some would want many more children to be born into believing families: it’s the only demographic with which we are currently having any success.

“The culture is clearly buying into this concept. Legal fights over apartment complexes and other accommodations come down to the claim that adults ought to be able to live in a child-free environment. Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to "breed." Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.”

He makes the statement that "only animals breed." But this is not necessarily so; Webster's dictionary disagrees. But what about the first commandment to be fruitful and multiply given in Genesis 1:28 and 9:1? According to the Scriptures that command was given to both humans and animals.

And animals don't bring glory to God? As the good Calvinist that he is I thought Dr. Mohler would believe with the Westminster Confession (though found nowhere in the Scriptrues) that the purpose of all creation is to glorify God.

“The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.”

Think about this argument: The church should insist that adulthood means marriage and marriage means children So if you're an adult and expect to be married and are not then you are disobeying God. If you are married but are choosing not to have children then you are disobeying God. Furthermore, if you are single and childless then your local church can insist upon you getting married and having kids. Then should singleness and willful barrenness be a cause for church discipline?

Now I agree that if God is telling you to either get married or have children then you should obey God. If you do not, then that's between you and God. However, Dr. Mohler is telling every believer in Christendom what God's will is for their lives without a single bit of Scriptural evidence to back up his universal claim.

But why is Dr. Mohler making this argument? I have already hypothesized that he may be concerned about the lack of evangelism in our particular body of believers. However, I think there might be a more logical hypothesis.

The primary cultural concern of modern evangelicals is the family. Issues such as divorce, spousal authority, gay marriage, and birth control are all subjects that come under the rubric of family and the evangelical goal to protect this institution.

In terms of the issue of gay marriage, there are generally five types of people who are for gay marriage. 1) There are average heterosexual Americans who are for gay marriage because they want to appear to be culturally sensitive. 2) There are the average homosexual Americans who want cultural approval and the removal of their guilt, and they believe that gay marriage will bring such an outcome. 3) There are also those homosexuals who are of a more moderate bent and who see the constant carousing of other homosexuals and its diseased outcome as horrendous and want to use the institution of marriage as the means to bring stability to the homosexual community. 4) There are the politicians who are supporting this issue because they believe they can get votes out of it. 5) Lastly, there are those who support gay marriage because they believe that it will destroy the institution of marriage. Yes, there are many individuals (mostly in academia) who study marriage, sex, and relationships and come to various conclusions about the state of human relationships in various cultures. Some of these conclusions are that marriage is legalized rape for women, marriage is a patriarchal institution that thousands of years of cultural bigotry has forced upon our contemporary culture, stifling our sexual freedom, and that marriage as a cultural institution needs to be abandoned if humanity is to progress. Now, of course, this latter view is in the extreme minority but it is a view among a certain section of radical-liberal academia.

So when conservatives and evangelicals warn that gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage, this latter view of some of radical-liberal academia is where this warning is sourced.

And it is because of this radical view that many evangelicals are responding in their own extreme way. To them, marriage and family are not just one of the important institutions honored by God or an important institution created by God for preserving human development, to them marriage and family are the MOST important institutions created by God for humanity. To disrupt or destroy such an institution is to disrupt and destroy the grand design of God and His most important relational creation.

And how do we as contemporary believers stand in relation to such an important creation? In this view, all individuals (except those chosen few like Paul et al) who reach adulthood are to be married as a part of God’s grand design. In this view, all married couples are to have children (except those who cannot have children) as a part of God’s grand design. Anything or anyone that deviates from this conception (so to speak) of God’s grand design is revolting, rebelling, and must be disciplined back into God’s will.

It is unfortunate aspect of humanity whether they be believers or unbelievers that we allow the extreme views of others to cause us to take opposite extreme views. It is even more unfortunate that such extreme views within the body of Christ causes many unbelievers to shake their head in disbelief about the “beliefs” of Christians.

In conclusion, I still maintain my original view that most believers will see Dr. Mohler’s view of marriage as both ludicrous and legalistic. I would hope that the good doctor would step back, take a deep breath, and temper is argument with common sense and Scriptural evidence. Such extremism can be detrimental to the evangelical witness and to the glory of God. No kidding.