It's the end of the world as we know it...

Politics, philosophy, the law, current events, left leaning debates, religion, baseball, football, pop culture, growing up Greek, random events in my life...whatever hits my mind at the time.

17.12.04

Deliberate Childlessness

I never thought the day would come when people were FORCED to have children.

Connie Schultz of the Cleveland Plain Dealer
wrote an article on Monday about Bryce Christensen (who regularly writes for the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society), who argued that "deliberate childlessness" must be stopped. Let's reflect on some of his thoughts: woman have abandoned their biblically mandated roles as housemankers for the work force, working mothers kids are "semi-orphans," working mothers steal jobs from men, depriving men of a "family wage."

Ironically, Christensen's own wife works -- full time -- outside the home. Oh, how I love hypocricy. Wanna hear her view?

First: "I resented that society put me in the position where I had to go back to work," she said. "I remember a time when cars were $3,000, houses were $27,000. But banks started taking second incomes as collateral, and that priced so many out of a home."

Then: "Did I want to go back to work? Yes. Yes I did." D'oh!

But he isn't even the worst offender. Even more appalling, R. Albert Mohler Jr. (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
wrote that:

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.

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.

But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the
contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design
and order. Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the
biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with
joy as God's gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

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

The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.

Wow. Again. Where is this supposed freedom of religion, a bedrock of our country? Now we have to get married, we have to have kids, we can't work. They really *do* want to move his country back to the 40s. Hell, why even give women the right to vote? Did we run that one by God before we just started handing out rights like that? Women voting makes the lines longer, depriving men of being able to vote and get to work on time.

What is wrong with the world?!

6 Comments:

  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Jennifer said…

    There are so many things mentioned here that piss me off. I don't have time to go into all of them. But I want to address the birth control issue. According to the hard core Christians I am just supposed to keep popping kids out one right after the other? I think it's better that I have two kids that I can feed, clothe and provide for instead of having 5 or 6 that will want for everything. Unless Pat Robertson is going to help support them?

    Bah, this country scares me.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Erinna said…

    Yeah, they're pretty loony. *shiver*

    These people can rant all they want...I don't think we're ever going to reach a point where the government can actually DO anything about it. You can't force people to have babies. You can't force people to NOT use birth control. I can't believe that these idiots don't see that it's better for people who don't want children (or are not financially or emotionally able to support them) to NOT have children...

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, lots of women were working in the 1940's, and in good paying, traditionally male jobs too, since most of the menfolk were off to war. It was in the 1950's, when the men returned and wanted "their" jobs back, that the huge emphasis on women as homemakers came about...

    "Backlash" by Susan Faludi is a really interesting read as it tracks the history of backlashes against working women - cycle after cycle - all the way back to the 1800's.

    jennie

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Matthew said…

    There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin.

    Pat Buchanan (that bastion of open-minded thought) has devoted very large chunks of his newspaper columns, talk shows and books to telling women that they, basically, need to be baby machines. I mention Buchanan, because he represents an undercurrent of our society which is becoming more vocal and more powerful over time. They resent women working. They resent women waiting longer before getting married, and then even longer before having children.

    While there may be some truth to their belief that a society needs to producer an equivalent (or greater) number of children in order to support itself, I can not abide forced child production, and everything that would have to come with it (i.e. removal of women's rights).

    As for the person lamenting the old-time cost of cars and houses, all I have to say is, 'Do you not want inflation?' Cars aside, something like a house is an investment, as well as a home. That's why people like to buy as opposed to rent. If houses never went up in value at a good rate, then there wouldn't be as good a return on their investment. Oh, and the stock market wouldn't exist without inflation - period. So, I don't really know what that person is lamenting.

    I know that I'm sidestepping the whole religiosity of what you were getting at, but couldn't help but deal with the issues on practical level. Hope you don't mind. Take care.

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Caren said…

    And my family wonders why I left organized religion...

    It still boggles my mind that people still think this way in this day and age. Welcome to the 21st century verson of the 1950s...

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Anonymous Lyn said…

    I would *love* to return to the 1940s if I could escape the insanity that we have today! During the '40s, women had a relatively good time of things. I agree with the previous post: let's keep track of history. In terms of marriage and families, the 1950s represent a deviation from what went on for the previous 150 years and the subsequent 50 years. Marriage ages were lower in the 50s than they were before or after. When right-wing fundies call for a "return to tradition," I'm happy to go along with them as long as *I* can decide on the tradition!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Site
Meter Blogarama - The Blog Directory Listed on Blogwise Listed in LS Blogs Blog Directory & Search engine

Days until Bush leaves office.
Designed by georgedorn and provided by Positronic Design.
Grab your own copy here.