Why God hates the childfree

Taken from a thread on the No Kidding board, I am glad to be assured by Mr. Mohler (who wrote in the haven of heavenly love and forgiveness that is the Christian Post) that my worldview is "sick", that I am "cursed" and am actively revolting against God and denying the glory of His blessings. Because if I were not, by Mohler's definition, my conscience would surely damn me to eternal guilt for disavowing the free will and sense of justice that none but oneself may abrogate.

Now would anyone know where a cheap and good vasectomy could be had on this island?

Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face

June 28th, 2004

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

According to 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, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation." The paper also pointed to the fact that the nation's birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43% since just 1960.

"Many childless couples," according to the report, "revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free." The Schums just don't want kids to get in the way of their lifestyle. They enjoy cruising to the Georgia mountains on their matching Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They love their gourmet kitchen, outfitted with the very latest stainless steel appliances and trendy countertops.

Deb Schum explains, "if we had kids, we would need a table where the kids could do homework." Clearly, children aren't a part of their interior design plan.

This pattern of childlessness has caught the attention of others in the media. The left-wing internet site Salon.com actually published a series of articles entitled, "To Breed or Not to Breed." This series of articles featured couples and individuals who have decided that children are not a part of their chosen lifestyle.

One woman wrote that parenthood just isn't a part of her plan, regardless of cultural expectations to the contrary. Motherhood just doesn't fit her self-image or her schedule. "I compete in triathlons; my husband practices martial arts; we both have fulfilling careers; we travel the world ... we enjoy family and friends; we have a fun, intimate relationship."

For others, the bottom line is simply financial. One woman asked: "What would the return be on the investment? Are there any laws that would require my children to pay for my nursing home when I am old? Are they going to be a sufficient hedge against poverty and loneliness?" A return on investment?

Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group "No Kidding" was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children.

Traci Swartz, an occupational therapist in her thirties, joined "No Kidding" with her husband Jeremy, a 32-year-old computer analyst. "When you don't have children, you are not involved in any activities like a lot of other people, like soccer and ballet," said Traci. She explained that "No Kidding" members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. "People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids," Traci explained.

No wonder. 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.

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]

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

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. 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. We are to find many of our deepest joys and satisfactions in the raising of children within the context of the family.

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.

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. 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.

Without doubt, children do impose themselves upon our creature comforts, waking us up in the middle of the night with demanding needs and inconvenient interruptions. Parents learn all too quickly that children are not only the smiling cherub sleeping in the crib, but also the dirty-faced preschooler, the headstrong teenager, and the boisterous grade-schooler.

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.

Comments

[Agagooga]

This is hilarious. If/when I stop laughing I shall come up with a suitable response.

In the meantime: Hahahahahahaha

[budak]

The scary thing is that sites like this www.christianpost.com are supposed to be mainstream Christianity (look at their absolutist header saying "let your yes be yes, and no be no"). If you could trouble yourself, I would be keen to hear your thoughts on the article in the ST yesterday (15 Dec) arguing against the notion of a secular system.

[Agagooga]

I wonder how many fundies there are, really. More than they used to be, but are they a vocal minority, or really a majority?

The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.

"As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?'"

If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.

What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.

[Agagooga]

Someone else:

What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and
religious values coming together turns on those which are socially
conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible
3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially
conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing
that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially
those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.

I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?

[Tyrone]

"the fruit of the womb is a reward"

Then certainly not to bear fruit is punishment enough?

Did Jesus have a wife? Kids? etc... "Oh but Jesus was the Son of God! He couldn't marry and complete His mission to reconcile us with God!!!" BS at is finest. Not only is it totally wrong it is 100% correct. Donald Rumsfeld could not of done better.

Jesus Christ was the Son of God and perfect in every way. This includes his humanity. Jesus could not of completed His mission had He married and fathered children. His example very clearly indicates that marrying and having kids is no prequisite for getting into Heaven. You are judged firstly by your acceptance as Jesus Christ as Savior and faith in God. Thereafter you are rewarded according to your work done in the service of God and man; NOT the number of kids you had. Were this the case then many of the Apostles would be in serious doo-doo... never mind Martin Luther and most of the Saints---that seem to lend their names to many monasteries and convents where good God fearing people can go and NOT marry and NOT have kids and serve God. How odd.

Mr Mohler's views are not inline with Fundamental Christian thinking but lean far more towards the neo-pharisee frame of thought. These individuals, having extensively tended to the multitude of God's much maligned children, have now turned their focus to theological matters of their own personal opinion that they would like others to suffer with. Paul vermently condems such people in Romans Chapter 14. Jesus himself condems them: "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Matthew 23:4.

As a Christian fundamentalist (as described by Paul in Romans) I have never condemed my atheist child-free friend for not having kids because that isn't my business. Christians are in the soul-saving business and that has very little to do with kids. Infact many mission groups target the elderly that are probably far too old to "go forth and multiply."

However, there is sound reason to "go forth and multiply" and this reason is socio-economics. Today's neo-socialist social security systems rely on a large economicly active population to generate wealth (that the government can tax). This sector of society tends to be between the ages of 15 and 35. If current child-free ideas continue state pension and welfare systems will collapse as they are threatening to do in Europe. Already law-makers in France and Germany are realizing that there is a BIG problem. The choices are: raise tax or raise the mandatory retirement age. Neither option has met with popular approval. People, particularly child-free couples, want to (save thier money and) retire and enjoy their golden years without having to pay very much extra to the State and its social security programs (or worry about Christmas presents for kids and grand kids).

Well, the choice is clear: kids, taxes or work your arse into the grave. What is it going to be? Having kids, while not obligatory, is certainly a serivce to humanity that needs to be rendered by qualified people (and rarely is as Francis Galton pointed out).

To maintain the current economy one couple need only have 2 kids... or import orphans from Russia or China (so you can avoid those nasty stretch marks).

tt4n

[Tyrone]

I should really read more carefully...

"I would be keen to hear your thoughts on the article in the ST yesterday (15 Dec) arguing against the notion of a secular system."

Any body thinking about mergine Church and State should take a good look at:
The Roman Empire (The Emperor WAS God)
The Moslem conquest of the middle east
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The Huguenot slaying by the pro-Catholic French Monarchy (again that damned devine right of kings...)
Iran
The Taliban Afganistan
The USSR (Stalinist communism is about as much a religion as you can get)
Nazi Germany
Tibet vs China (Budha rules Tibet vs Little Red Book says all Chinese must unite!)

In fact anywhere where religion and state have been fused as ended up in a blood bath. Also, one need not have a god to have theocracy. All you need is a theology of sorts which you can put your faith in and deny every else as being valid.

tt4n

P.S. I'm afraid I haven't put as much thought into this post as the previous one... nor have I controled for spelling and gramatical errors. Sorry but I'm feeling lazy.