4.02.2013
The Abolition of Man
"The preservation of society, and of the species itself, are ends that do not hang on the precarious thread of Reason: they are given by Instinct. That is why there is no need to argue against the man who does not acknowledge them. We have an instinctive urge to preserve our own species. That is why men ought to work for posterity. We have no instinctive urge to keep promises or to respect individual life: that is why scruples of justice and humanity—in fact the Tao—can be properly swept away when they conflict with our real end, the preservation of the species. That, again, is why the modern situation permits and demands a new sexual morality: the old taboos served some real purpose in helping to preserve the species, but contraceptives have modified this and we can now abandon many of the taboos. For of course sexual desire, being instinctive, is to be gratified whenever it does not conflict with the preservation of the species. It looks, in fact, as if an ethics based on instinct will give the Innovator all he wants and nothing that he does not want."
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
3.22.2013
Dr. Bessie
From
Alan Graebner, Birth Control and the Lutherans—The Missouri Synod as a Case Study, Journal of Social History, Vol. 2, No. 4, Summer 1969, pages
320-22:
In an attempt to learn more about this "remarkable woman," today I read Dr. Bessie, the 168 page biography about Dr. Alfred M. Rehwinkel's wife coauthored by the husband and wife team.
The first 92 pages of the book paint a picture of a rather progressive woman doctor who has plenty of experience that would make one sympathetic to the notion that birth control could be a blessing - at least for some. I was surprised and pleased, however, to see this perspective tempered somewhat in the second half of the book.
The changing culture of the Twentieth Century, perhaps like others, seems punctuated by the tension between the beliefs, traditions, and sentiments of the past and the perceived challenges of the modern age. These same tensions are clearly evident in each of these two Rehwinkel books, Dr. Bessie and Planned Parenthood.
There is a certain level of respect, though brief, given to the traditional values and beliefs of the past by these authors. However, the overall works both form more of an apology for the progressive agenda. Any defense of the right perspective gets only a few sentences and is outweighed by the overall force of the balance of their writings.
In the beginning of the book, we learn of an ambitious young daughter of a physician. She is engaged to a banker's son. However, the advice of a "motherly friend and neighbor" named "Mrs. Bensen" dissuades her from this prospect: "Bessie, why don't you go to college and study medicine?" Bessie writes:
She approaches her father, who tries to change her mind, but Bessie's ambitions win out and the father gives in with the words: "Very well, you're old enough to know what you want to do."
The next two chapters are all about her difficulties in school and as a new young woman doctor. At the end of chapter III, she relates the difficulties of delivering babies in those days, but at the same time explaining that "it seems that women were hardier that they are now. The laws of nature are designed for the survival of the race. After all, the Creator had ordained for man to increase and multiply long before there were any doctors, nurses, or hospitals." There's one of those points of tension in the book I was talking about.
Next we learn about a few tragedies that strike Bessie's life. Her brother's wife develops an infection after the birth of her fifth child and dies. However, before her death she prays in Bessie's presence: "O Lord, I know that Bessie will not let my children come to want. Help her and bless her for what she will do for them."
Only a few months later Bessie's brother dies, leaving the children orphaned. So what does Bessie do? She finds a woman willing to take care of the baby and another sister takes the other boy. She finds another woman to take care of the youngest of three girls (2 years old), paying her for room and board. And the older two girls she puts in "a Home" (orphanage?).
Then, only a few months after her brother dies, Bessie's latest fiance (who she hasn't mentioned yet up to this point) dies. To get away from all the tragedy she moves to another town. Her conscience then gets the best of her and she returns to rescue the two oldest girls from the orphanage, bringing them home to live with her. Bessie writes:
Then, as a result of the banking crisis and economic problems of 1907, Bessie suffers financial ruin. But, before relating the events that followed this she interrupts an otherwise chronological story to relate some of the "unpleasant experiences" she had in the early days of her practice. And, again, she returns to the subject of procreation. As a general doctor, her stories seem to overemphasize some of the most negative obstetrical scenarios one could think of. It is easy to see how these experiences made a very deep impression on Bessie that was obviously part of the thinking she and her husband had about birth control. Here is the thrust of the first story:
The next story is about abortion. A young woman who is engaged gets pregnant, but her fiance dies and then she wants an abortion. While she counsels this young woman in a prolife manner, Bessie follows this story up with the following words:
It is clear that the Rehwinkels would never have approved of abortion. However, as usual, hard cases make bad law. You can see how any practical discussions Bessie and Alfred had about birth control would have favored the likes of Margaret Sanger and the acceptance of birth control. This book about Bessie is completely consistent with Alfred's book Planned Parenthood.
So, back to the life of Bessie, she moves out west to Wyoming. Here we learn again about some of the more deplorable conditions in which women give birth and in which doctors must deliver babies. Yet, after a long chapter detailing a laundry list of negatives, Bessie writes perhaps the most unexpected words I found in this entire book:
Bessie, a Methodist, ends up meeting a young Lutheran vicar, whom she marries, leaving her medical practice behind and moving to Canada, having three children of her own, and ending up in St. Louis. There's a lot of good story-telling in there, but I guess I'll leave that for those of you who want to read the book for yourself. The important point for the sake of the subject this QF group is most concerned with is explained in Bessie's own words, summing up this latter portion of her life as follows:
That's not the "moral of the story" I expected to hear from Bessie and Alfred Rehwinkel, but I like it!
However, while these early feminists like Bessie Rehwinkel often still saw motherhood as the "crowning achievement" of a woman's life, it was more like the frosting on a cake that would be "humdrum with nothing else to look forward to" without the "cake" of all the other achievements a woman should enjoy before ever getting married, and continue doing after the banner of motherhood has been won with one, two, or at most three, children. Then she can stand proud in any group of women, silently despising all the lesser women who "never went to college."
No, motherhood is not the frosting on the cake. It is the cake! - a cake that is so sweet and delicious it needs no frosting. Unfortunately, this leaves it less appealing to the eye. It also is known to bring pain and anguish. All the other achievements in a woman's life are like all the other dainty and tempting deserts at the table that can be sampled at a party. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these other deserts, per se, especially if the cake is not available at this or that time.
However, after sampling these other deserts, a woman often does not have the appetite or the ability to recognize or fully enjoy what is actually the best cake on the table, or else she is already so full that she only takes a few bites before she can eat no more. Sometimes the party is over before she has a chance to try it. Many enjoy the other fine deserts so much that they refuse to consider that ugly looking cake that doesn't have any frosting, even going so far as spitting it in the trash if they unexpectedly find it in their mouths.
"In this case he [Rehwinkel] was much aided by his wife, a remarkable woman trained as a physician who was practicing medicine and homesteading in Wyoming when she met Rehwinkel. She had grown up Methodist; thus, “when you told her something was wrong, she wanted to know why, and you couldn't just quote Walther [the Synod's patriarch] to her.” Impatience with ultraconservative standards of woman's role, inquiring skepticism and professional medical competence were highly corrosive; by the early 1940's Alfred Rehwinkel was exploring a new position before groups of pastors and occasionally laymen (Alfred M. Rehwinkel, Dr. Bessie, CPH, 1963; interview, Alfred Rehwinkel, June 21, 1967. For a report of one appearance before laymen, see Lutheran Layman, XVIII, 1947, 25). In such sessions, Rehwinkel provided a sympathetic history of family restriction, explicitly defending the much maligned Margaret Sanger. To dispel intimations that contraception was murder, he explained the mechanics of conception and tried to vitiate the simplistic equating of race suicide and birth control."
 | ||
| ©1963, CPH |
The first 92 pages of the book paint a picture of a rather progressive woman doctor who has plenty of experience that would make one sympathetic to the notion that birth control could be a blessing - at least for some. I was surprised and pleased, however, to see this perspective tempered somewhat in the second half of the book.
The changing culture of the Twentieth Century, perhaps like others, seems punctuated by the tension between the beliefs, traditions, and sentiments of the past and the perceived challenges of the modern age. These same tensions are clearly evident in each of these two Rehwinkel books, Dr. Bessie and Planned Parenthood.
There is a certain level of respect, though brief, given to the traditional values and beliefs of the past by these authors. However, the overall works both form more of an apology for the progressive agenda. Any defense of the right perspective gets only a few sentences and is outweighed by the overall force of the balance of their writings.
In the beginning of the book, we learn of an ambitious young daughter of a physician. She is engaged to a banker's son. However, the advice of a "motherly friend and neighbor" named "Mrs. Bensen" dissuades her from this prospect: "Bessie, why don't you go to college and study medicine?" Bessie writes:
"I had thought about it so much, but never had the courage to discuss it with anyone else, not even with my father. ...For a moment my spirits dropped again, fearing that he might not agree. How terrible that would be! All my hopes and dreams would again be shattered. It would mean that I would get married like other girls and settle down to the humdrum life of a married woman in a small town. There would be nothing else to look forward to."
She approaches her father, who tries to change her mind, but Bessie's ambitions win out and the father gives in with the words: "Very well, you're old enough to know what you want to do."
The next two chapters are all about her difficulties in school and as a new young woman doctor. At the end of chapter III, she relates the difficulties of delivering babies in those days, but at the same time explaining that "it seems that women were hardier that they are now. The laws of nature are designed for the survival of the race. After all, the Creator had ordained for man to increase and multiply long before there were any doctors, nurses, or hospitals." There's one of those points of tension in the book I was talking about.
Next we learn about a few tragedies that strike Bessie's life. Her brother's wife develops an infection after the birth of her fifth child and dies. However, before her death she prays in Bessie's presence: "O Lord, I know that Bessie will not let my children come to want. Help her and bless her for what she will do for them."
Only a few months later Bessie's brother dies, leaving the children orphaned. So what does Bessie do? She finds a woman willing to take care of the baby and another sister takes the other boy. She finds another woman to take care of the youngest of three girls (2 years old), paying her for room and board. And the older two girls she puts in "a Home" (orphanage?).
Then, only a few months after her brother dies, Bessie's latest fiance (who she hasn't mentioned yet up to this point) dies. To get away from all the tragedy she moves to another town. Her conscience then gets the best of her and she returns to rescue the two oldest girls from the orphanage, bringing them home to live with her. Bessie writes:
"When my relatives found out what I had done, they were not at all encouraging but rather criticized me as having acted impulsively and undertaken a foolhardy venture. Even my father warned that I was taking on something far beyond my ability. He spoke from experience, because in his second marriage he had married a widow with several children, and he knew what it meant to assume such a responsibility."
Then, as a result of the banking crisis and economic problems of 1907, Bessie suffers financial ruin. But, before relating the events that followed this she interrupts an otherwise chronological story to relate some of the "unpleasant experiences" she had in the early days of her practice. And, again, she returns to the subject of procreation. As a general doctor, her stories seem to overemphasize some of the most negative obstetrical scenarios one could think of. It is easy to see how these experiences made a very deep impression on Bessie that was obviously part of the thinking she and her husband had about birth control. Here is the thrust of the first story:
"The unfaithful husband and father of the 12 children had contracted gonorrhea from some prostitute in the city while his wife was in the last stages of pregnancy or in the early days after her confinement, and then, before she was able to leave her bed, he had infected her with this dread disease."
The next story is about abortion. A young woman who is engaged gets pregnant, but her fiance dies and then she wants an abortion. While she counsels this young woman in a prolife manner, Bessie follows this story up with the following words:
"Cases like this demonstrated to me again and again the unfairness of society in dealing with moral delinquents. The man, equally guilty, in most cases no doubt more so, remains anonymous. He goes free and may continue to wreck other girls, but the girl must bear the consequences alone and is branded for life."
It is clear that the Rehwinkels would never have approved of abortion. However, as usual, hard cases make bad law. You can see how any practical discussions Bessie and Alfred had about birth control would have favored the likes of Margaret Sanger and the acceptance of birth control. This book about Bessie is completely consistent with Alfred's book Planned Parenthood.
So, back to the life of Bessie, she moves out west to Wyoming. Here we learn again about some of the more deplorable conditions in which women give birth and in which doctors must deliver babies. Yet, after a long chapter detailing a laundry list of negatives, Bessie writes perhaps the most unexpected words I found in this entire book:
"But I survived, and so did my patients despite all these hardships and disadvantages. All of which proves again that man by nature is a pretty tough creature. Man was intended to survive and multiply even under the most unfavorable conditions.
"The fact is that even today the greatest number of human beings are born into the world under circumstances far more primitive than we had on the Western frontier in those days. The greatest increase in population still occurs in countries where they know nothing of modern hospitals, sanitation, or even doctors.
"Only we of the Western world have all these luxuries and conveniences, and we are growing soft, lazy, and fat.
"It will remain for history to determine whether the soft and pampered materialistic generation of our age will be able to preserve the wonderful heritage that has been passed on to them by their more rugged and less favored forefathers."
Bessie, a Methodist, ends up meeting a young Lutheran vicar, whom she marries, leaving her medical practice behind and moving to Canada, having three children of her own, and ending up in St. Louis. There's a lot of good story-telling in there, but I guess I'll leave that for those of you who want to read the book for yourself. The important point for the sake of the subject this QF group is most concerned with is explained in Bessie's own words, summing up this latter portion of her life as follows:
"I discovered that there are greater things in the life of a woman than a professional success. A woman may succeed in a man's profession and enjoy the independence of a career, but she remains a woman still. And I learned that to be the wife of a good man and devoted husband and a mother of loving children is infinitely greater than the success in a profession... There is nothing greater in the life of a woman than motherhood."
That's not the "moral of the story" I expected to hear from Bessie and Alfred Rehwinkel, but I like it!
However, while these early feminists like Bessie Rehwinkel often still saw motherhood as the "crowning achievement" of a woman's life, it was more like the frosting on a cake that would be "humdrum with nothing else to look forward to" without the "cake" of all the other achievements a woman should enjoy before ever getting married, and continue doing after the banner of motherhood has been won with one, two, or at most three, children. Then she can stand proud in any group of women, silently despising all the lesser women who "never went to college."
No, motherhood is not the frosting on the cake. It is the cake! - a cake that is so sweet and delicious it needs no frosting. Unfortunately, this leaves it less appealing to the eye. It also is known to bring pain and anguish. All the other achievements in a woman's life are like all the other dainty and tempting deserts at the table that can be sampled at a party. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these other deserts, per se, especially if the cake is not available at this or that time.
However, after sampling these other deserts, a woman often does not have the appetite or the ability to recognize or fully enjoy what is actually the best cake on the table, or else she is already so full that she only takes a few bites before she can eat no more. Sometimes the party is over before she has a chance to try it. Many enjoy the other fine deserts so much that they refuse to consider that ugly looking cake that doesn't have any frosting, even going so far as spitting it in the trash if they unexpectedly find it in their mouths.
2.05.2013
2.02.2013
1.22.2013
The Legalization of Abortion
It all began in 1930 at the Anglican Lambeth Conference:
However, it only took a matter of a few short decades for the continuing social and political forces to cause all of Christendom to capitulate. In 1959, the unofficial change in teaching in the LCMS was marked by the publication by CPH of Alfred M. Rehwinkel's book Planned Parenthood, praising Margaret Sanger. The "hard case" arguments were very much a part of this.
Even the Roman Catholic Church finally gave in to the primary argument of the Lambeth decision of 1930. Paul VI's Humanae Vitae accepted the false dichotomy of the "hard case exception", but nuanced the RC solution by forbidding "artificial" means while officially allowing the most effective "natural" means of having sex while preventing conception, NFP.
The problems with the Lambeth decision are many, but one proved particularly insidious. That is, if contraception is okay in some hard case scenarios, then who gets to decide when it is okay to contracept? Where is the line and who is the one drawing it? How are couples to be counseled? Here is where the rubber hit the road. Children became a choice and people needed a framework to make that choice in.
A supposed "right to privacy" came to the rescue. This "right to privacy" is the very argument that was used to abolish the Comstock laws, legalizing birth control. Ultimately, everyone became subject to his own devices.
The belief that having children is a choice, and that people have a right to privacy, then led quickly and inevitably to the legalization of abortion. This entire series of change took only 43 years from the Lambeth decision until the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Resolution 15Sociological forces around the time of WWI led to this Lambeth Conference decision of 1930, approving the use of birth control in hard cases. This is acknowledged by everyone as the decision which reversed the unanimous testimony of the previous two millennia that Scripture strictly prohibits ALL intentionally contraceptive sex. All other churches, including Missouri Synod Lutherans, attacked the Lambeth decision as flatly contrary to Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the church.
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.
However, it only took a matter of a few short decades for the continuing social and political forces to cause all of Christendom to capitulate. In 1959, the unofficial change in teaching in the LCMS was marked by the publication by CPH of Alfred M. Rehwinkel's book Planned Parenthood, praising Margaret Sanger. The "hard case" arguments were very much a part of this.
Even the Roman Catholic Church finally gave in to the primary argument of the Lambeth decision of 1930. Paul VI's Humanae Vitae accepted the false dichotomy of the "hard case exception", but nuanced the RC solution by forbidding "artificial" means while officially allowing the most effective "natural" means of having sex while preventing conception, NFP.
The problems with the Lambeth decision are many, but one proved particularly insidious. That is, if contraception is okay in some hard case scenarios, then who gets to decide when it is okay to contracept? Where is the line and who is the one drawing it? How are couples to be counseled? Here is where the rubber hit the road. Children became a choice and people needed a framework to make that choice in.
A supposed "right to privacy" came to the rescue. This "right to privacy" is the very argument that was used to abolish the Comstock laws, legalizing birth control. Ultimately, everyone became subject to his own devices.
The belief that having children is a choice, and that people have a right to privacy, then led quickly and inevitably to the legalization of abortion. This entire series of change took only 43 years from the Lambeth decision until the legalization of abortion in 1973.
10.14.2012
Our lack of gratitude deserves to be reproved
Ecclesiastes 11:5, "As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the
bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of
God who makes everything."
In mistakenly thinking man can determine by science the exact moment life begins and, therefore, identify a time before which he can insert his will without murdering, we have lost a necessary awe and respect for procreation as the ongoing work of God - a work which defies human wisdom and knowledge. The growing knowledge of the biological process should only increase our fear and wonder at the miracle of procreation, not increase our confidence in fiddling with it.
"Therefore our lack of gratitude deserves to be reproved. If we believe that God is the efficient and the final cause, should we not wonder at His works, delight in them, and proclaim them always and everywhere? But how many are there who really do this from the heart? We hear that God took a clod and made a human being; we wonder at this, and because of our wonder we regard it as a fairy tale. But that He now takes a drop from the blood of the father and creates a human being, this we do not wonder at, because it happens every day, while the other thing was done only once; yet each of the two is brought about through the same skill and the same power and by the same Author. For He who formed man from a clod now creates men from the blood of their parents." (excerpted from below)
Luther's Works, Vol. 1, Page 120-128:
About the male he said that he was made out of the dust, that the breath of life was breathed into his face, and that all the living beings were brought before him. When Adam saw no help among them, the woman was made—his partner in procreation and in the preservation of the species. God did not want his descendants to originate in the same way in which Adam was made out of earth; it was His desire that man should have the power of procreation, such as the other animals had. ...Thus Adam was created alone; later on the animals were brought to him, and Adam was put to a test whether he could find or see a partner in that group; finally Eve was created. ...For because God had said: “Grow and increase,” it became necessary to describe how the woman was added to Adam, how she was made and was joined to him.
...But so far as this account is concerned, what, I ask you, could sound more like a fairy tale if you were to follow your reason? Would anyone believe this account about the creation of Eve if it were not so clearly told? This is a reversal of the pattern of the entire creation. Whatever is born alive, is born of the male and the female in such a manner that it is brought forth into the world by the female. Here the woman herself is created from the man by a creation no less wonderful than that of Adam, who was made out of a clod of earth into a living soul. This is extravagant fiction and the silliest kind of nonsense if you set aside the authority of Scripture and follow the judgment of reason. Accordingly, Aristotle declares that neither a first nor a last man can be conceded. Reason would compel us, too, to make the same statement if it did not have this text. If you should reach the conclusion that what the unvarying experience of all creation proves is true, namely, that nothing comes into existence alive except from a male and a female, then no first human being can be conceded.
The same thing would also have to be stated about the world, which the philosophers have, therefore, asserted is eternal. But reason with all its force inclines to this conviction even though proofs founded on reason are thought out by which it is demonstrated that the world is not eternal. How can it take its beginning from nothing? Moreover, if you should say that the world had a beginning and there is a time when the world was not in existence, it immediately follows that there was nothing prior to the world. An endless series of other absurdities follows, and these induce philosophers to conclude that the world is eternal. But if you should say that the world is infinite, then immediately another new infinite will also appear, namely, the succession of human beings. But philosophy does not grant the existence of several infinites, and yet it is compelled to grant them because it knows of no beginning of the world and of men. These contradictions and the lack of clarity gave the Epicureans the opportunity to say that the world and man came into existence without any reason and will also perish without any reason, just as cattle perish, which die as though they had never existed. This leads to another conclusion, namely, that God either plainly does not exist or does not concern Himself with human affairs. Into these perplexing mazes reason is misled when it is without the Word and follows its own judgment.
However, it is useful to realize how it comes about that our reason or wisdom is unable to make a greater advance in understanding the creation. For what, I ask, does a philosopher know about heaven and the world if he does not even know whence it came and whither it tends? Indeed, what do we know about ourselves? We see that we are human beings. But that we have this man for a father and this woman for a mother—this must be believed; it can in no wise be known. Thus our entire knowledge or wisdom is based solely on the knowledge of the material and formal cause, although in these instances, too, we sometimes talk disgraceful nonsense. The efficient and final cause we obviously cannot point out, especially—and this is a wretched situation—when we must discourse or do some thinking about the world in which we exist and live, likewise about ourselves. Such pitiable and inadequate wisdom!
Aristotle declares: “Man and the sun bring mankind into existence.” Well said. But follow this wisdom, and you will arrive at the point where you maintain that man and the sun are eternal and infinite. For you will never find a human being who is either the beginning or the end, just as I cannot find the beginning and the end of my person if I want to gain certain knowledge about this and am not willing to rely on belief. But what sort of wisdom and knowledge is it that knows nothing about the final cause and the efficient cause? So far as our having a knowledge of the form is concerned, a cow likewise knows her abode and (as the German proverb has it) looks at and recognizes her door. This also makes clear how awful was the fall into original sin, through which we have lost this knowledge and have become incapable of seeing either the beginning or the end of ourselves.
Plato, Cicero, and other philosophers who belong to the better sort state in their discussions that man walks with his head erect, while the rest of the beings look at the earth with their heads bent down. To man they attribute reason or the ability to understand; and later they reach the conclusion that man is an extraordinary animal created for immortality. But how tenuous and almost useless this is! All this is based on a knowledge of man’s form. But if you go on to give consideration to his substance, does not reason compel you to declare that this being must again be disintegrated and cannot be immortal?
Therefore let us learn that true wisdom is in Holy Scripture and in the Word of God. This gives information not only about the matter of the entire creation, not only about its form, but also about the efficient and final cause, about the beginning and about the end of all things, about who did the creating and for what purpose He created. Without the knowledge of these two causes our wisdom does not differ much from that of the beasts, which also make use of their eyes and ears but are utterly without knowledge about their beginning and their end.
Therefore this is an outstanding text. The more it seems to conflict with all experience and reason, the more carefully must it be noted and the more surely believed. Here we are taught about the beginning of man that the first man did not come into existence by a process of generation, as reason has deceived Aristotle and the rest of the philosophers into imagining. The reproduction of his descendants takes place through procreation; but the first male was formed and created from a clod of the field, and the first female from the rib of the sleeping man. Here, therefore, we find the beginning which it is impossible to find through Aristotle’s philosophy.
After this beginning was made, there then follows the no less wonderful propagation through the union of a male and female, whereby the entire human race is brought into being from a droplet of the human body. In a similar vein Paul, on the basis of this passage, has a clever discourse among the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:25): “God Himself gives to all ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν, spirit and life everywhere, and from the blood of one man He makes the whole human race that it may dwell on the entire earth, that they may seek God, if perhaps they may feel Him or find Him, although He is not far from each one of us.” Here Paul is speaking of the propagation brought about by the first man when he says “from the blood of one man.” If, therefore, man is brought into existence from a droplet of blood, as the experience of all men on the entire earth bears witness, surely this is no less miraculous than that the first man was created from a clod, and the female from a rib of the man.
But why does the creation of Adam and Eve seem so unbelievable and miraculous, while man’s propagation, which all men know and see, does not seem so miraculous? Undoubtedly because, as Augustine says, miracles become commonplace through their continuous recurrence. Thus we do not marvel at the wonderful light of the sun, because it is a daily phenomenon. We do not marvel at the countless other gifts of creation, for we have become deaf toward what Pythagoras aptly terms this wonderful and most lovely music coming from the harmony of the motions that are in the celestial spheres. But because men continually hear this music, they become deaf to it, just as the people who live at the cataracts of the Nile are not affected by the noise and roar of the water which they hear continually, although it is unbearable to others who are not accustomed to it. Without a doubt he took over this very statement from the teaching of the fathers, but they did not want to be understood as though sound were given off by the motion of the celestial bodies. What they wanted to say was that their nature was most lovely and altogether miraculous, but that we ungrateful and insensible people did not notice it or give due thanks to God for the miraculous establishment and preservation of His creation.
Thus it is a great miracle that a small seed is planted and that out of it grows a very tall oak. But because these are daily occurrences, they have become of little importance, like the very process of our procreation. Surely it is most worthy of wonder that a woman receives semen, that this semen becomes thick and, as Job elegantly said (Job 10:10), is congealed and then is given shape and nourished until the fetus is ready for breathing air. When the fetus has been brought into the world by birth, no new nourishment appears, but a new way and method: from the two breasts, as from a fountain, there flows milk by which the baby is nourished. All these developments afford the fullest occasion for wonderment and are wholly beyond our understanding, but because of their continued recurrence they have come to be regarded as commonplace, and we have verily become deaf to this lovely music of nature.
But if we regarded these wonders in true faith and appraised them for what they actually are, they surely would not be inferior to what Moses says here: that a rib was taken from the side of Adam as he slept and that Eve was created from it. If it had pleased the Lord to create us by the same method by which Adam was created from the clay, by now this, too, would have ceased to hold the position of a miracle for us; we would marvel more at the method of procreation through the semen of a man. This crude doggerel is right, and there was certainly good reason for composing it: “Everything that is rare is appreciated, but what is an everyday occurrence comes to be regarded as commonplace.” If the stars did not rise during every single night or in all places, how great a gathering of people there would be for this spectacle! Now not one of us even opens a window because of it.
Therefore our lack of gratitude deserves to be reproved. if we believe that God is the efficient and the final cause, should we not wonder at His works, delight in them, and proclaim them always and everywhere? But how many are there who really do this from the heart? We hear that God took a clod and made a human being; we wonder at this, and because of our wonder we regard it as a fairy tale. But that He now takes a drop from the blood of the father and creates a human being, this we do not wonder at, because it happens every day, while the other thing was done only once; yet each of the two is brought about through the same skill and the same power and by the same Author. For He who formed man from a clod now creates men from the blood of their parents.
Aristotle, therefore, prates in vain that man and the sun bring man into existence. Although the heat of the sun warms our bodies, nevertheless the cause of their coming into existence is something far different, namely, the Word of God, who gives a command to this effect and says to the husband: “Now your blood shall become a male; now it shall become a female.” Reason knows nothing about this Word. Therefore it cannot get away from its childish prattle about the causes of such important matters. Thus the physicians, who have followed the philosophers, ascribe procreation to a matching mixture of qualities which are active in predisposed matter. Although reason cannot disprove this (for it sees that dry and cold natures are unsuited for generating, while moist and fairly warm ones are better suited), still they have not arrived at the first cause. The Holy Spirit leads us to something higher than nature, higher than qualities and their proper mixture, when He puts before us the Word by which everything is created and preserved.
Therefore that a man is developed from a drop of blood, and not an ox or a donkey, happens through the potency of the Word which was uttered by God. And so, as Christ also teaches in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9), we call God our Father and our Creator, as the Creed calls Him. When we look at this Cause, then with a chaste and pure heart and with gladness we can speak of those things which otherwise, if this Cause is disregarded, we could not mention without filthiness and indecency.
This discussion also shows how awful the fall into original sin was, since the entire human race knows nothing of its origin. Indeed, we see a man and a woman being joined; we see the woman made pregnant by a droplet of blood; and later, at a definitely fixed time, a baby is brought into the world. These are facts that lie before the eyes of all and are well known; and yet without the reminder and instruction of the Word you have no actual knowledge of the very activity which you are carrying on consciously and with open eyes. The discussions of the philosophers, with which we have already dealt, give sufficient evidence of this. Such horrible blindness and such a pitiful lack of knowledge!
Accordingly, if Adam had persevered in innocence, it would have been unnecessary to instruct his descendants about their origin, just as it was unnecessary to instruct Adam about the creation of his Eve, because the moment he saw her, he himself was aware that she was bone from his bones and flesh from his flesh. That kind of knowledge of themselves and of the remaining creatures would have remained also among the descendants of Adam. All would have become aware at once of the final and efficient cause about which we now have no more knowledge than cattle have.
For the ears of reason, consequently, this is a very beautiful and pleasing fairy tale, which the philosophers enjoyed ridiculing when they heard about it, as some of them did, especially those who had become acquainted with the science and wisdom of the Egyptians. But it is incalculable wisdom for us to know what is taught by this foolish fairy tale, as the world calls it, namely, that the beginning of man’s coming into existence was through the Word, inasmuch as God takes a clod and says: “Let Us make a man.” Later He likewise takes a rib of Adam and says: “Let Us make a helper for man.”
In mistakenly thinking man can determine by science the exact moment life begins and, therefore, identify a time before which he can insert his will without murdering, we have lost a necessary awe and respect for procreation as the ongoing work of God - a work which defies human wisdom and knowledge. The growing knowledge of the biological process should only increase our fear and wonder at the miracle of procreation, not increase our confidence in fiddling with it.
"Therefore our lack of gratitude deserves to be reproved. If we believe that God is the efficient and the final cause, should we not wonder at His works, delight in them, and proclaim them always and everywhere? But how many are there who really do this from the heart? We hear that God took a clod and made a human being; we wonder at this, and because of our wonder we regard it as a fairy tale. But that He now takes a drop from the blood of the father and creates a human being, this we do not wonder at, because it happens every day, while the other thing was done only once; yet each of the two is brought about through the same skill and the same power and by the same Author. For He who formed man from a clod now creates men from the blood of their parents." (excerpted from below)
Luther's Works, Vol. 1, Page 120-128:
About the male he said that he was made out of the dust, that the breath of life was breathed into his face, and that all the living beings were brought before him. When Adam saw no help among them, the woman was made—his partner in procreation and in the preservation of the species. God did not want his descendants to originate in the same way in which Adam was made out of earth; it was His desire that man should have the power of procreation, such as the other animals had. ...Thus Adam was created alone; later on the animals were brought to him, and Adam was put to a test whether he could find or see a partner in that group; finally Eve was created. ...For because God had said: “Grow and increase,” it became necessary to describe how the woman was added to Adam, how she was made and was joined to him.
...But so far as this account is concerned, what, I ask you, could sound more like a fairy tale if you were to follow your reason? Would anyone believe this account about the creation of Eve if it were not so clearly told? This is a reversal of the pattern of the entire creation. Whatever is born alive, is born of the male and the female in such a manner that it is brought forth into the world by the female. Here the woman herself is created from the man by a creation no less wonderful than that of Adam, who was made out of a clod of earth into a living soul. This is extravagant fiction and the silliest kind of nonsense if you set aside the authority of Scripture and follow the judgment of reason. Accordingly, Aristotle declares that neither a first nor a last man can be conceded. Reason would compel us, too, to make the same statement if it did not have this text. If you should reach the conclusion that what the unvarying experience of all creation proves is true, namely, that nothing comes into existence alive except from a male and a female, then no first human being can be conceded.
The same thing would also have to be stated about the world, which the philosophers have, therefore, asserted is eternal. But reason with all its force inclines to this conviction even though proofs founded on reason are thought out by which it is demonstrated that the world is not eternal. How can it take its beginning from nothing? Moreover, if you should say that the world had a beginning and there is a time when the world was not in existence, it immediately follows that there was nothing prior to the world. An endless series of other absurdities follows, and these induce philosophers to conclude that the world is eternal. But if you should say that the world is infinite, then immediately another new infinite will also appear, namely, the succession of human beings. But philosophy does not grant the existence of several infinites, and yet it is compelled to grant them because it knows of no beginning of the world and of men. These contradictions and the lack of clarity gave the Epicureans the opportunity to say that the world and man came into existence without any reason and will also perish without any reason, just as cattle perish, which die as though they had never existed. This leads to another conclusion, namely, that God either plainly does not exist or does not concern Himself with human affairs. Into these perplexing mazes reason is misled when it is without the Word and follows its own judgment.
However, it is useful to realize how it comes about that our reason or wisdom is unable to make a greater advance in understanding the creation. For what, I ask, does a philosopher know about heaven and the world if he does not even know whence it came and whither it tends? Indeed, what do we know about ourselves? We see that we are human beings. But that we have this man for a father and this woman for a mother—this must be believed; it can in no wise be known. Thus our entire knowledge or wisdom is based solely on the knowledge of the material and formal cause, although in these instances, too, we sometimes talk disgraceful nonsense. The efficient and final cause we obviously cannot point out, especially—and this is a wretched situation—when we must discourse or do some thinking about the world in which we exist and live, likewise about ourselves. Such pitiable and inadequate wisdom!
Aristotle declares: “Man and the sun bring mankind into existence.” Well said. But follow this wisdom, and you will arrive at the point where you maintain that man and the sun are eternal and infinite. For you will never find a human being who is either the beginning or the end, just as I cannot find the beginning and the end of my person if I want to gain certain knowledge about this and am not willing to rely on belief. But what sort of wisdom and knowledge is it that knows nothing about the final cause and the efficient cause? So far as our having a knowledge of the form is concerned, a cow likewise knows her abode and (as the German proverb has it) looks at and recognizes her door. This also makes clear how awful was the fall into original sin, through which we have lost this knowledge and have become incapable of seeing either the beginning or the end of ourselves.
Plato, Cicero, and other philosophers who belong to the better sort state in their discussions that man walks with his head erect, while the rest of the beings look at the earth with their heads bent down. To man they attribute reason or the ability to understand; and later they reach the conclusion that man is an extraordinary animal created for immortality. But how tenuous and almost useless this is! All this is based on a knowledge of man’s form. But if you go on to give consideration to his substance, does not reason compel you to declare that this being must again be disintegrated and cannot be immortal?
Therefore let us learn that true wisdom is in Holy Scripture and in the Word of God. This gives information not only about the matter of the entire creation, not only about its form, but also about the efficient and final cause, about the beginning and about the end of all things, about who did the creating and for what purpose He created. Without the knowledge of these two causes our wisdom does not differ much from that of the beasts, which also make use of their eyes and ears but are utterly without knowledge about their beginning and their end.
Therefore this is an outstanding text. The more it seems to conflict with all experience and reason, the more carefully must it be noted and the more surely believed. Here we are taught about the beginning of man that the first man did not come into existence by a process of generation, as reason has deceived Aristotle and the rest of the philosophers into imagining. The reproduction of his descendants takes place through procreation; but the first male was formed and created from a clod of the field, and the first female from the rib of the sleeping man. Here, therefore, we find the beginning which it is impossible to find through Aristotle’s philosophy.
After this beginning was made, there then follows the no less wonderful propagation through the union of a male and female, whereby the entire human race is brought into being from a droplet of the human body. In a similar vein Paul, on the basis of this passage, has a clever discourse among the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:25): “God Himself gives to all ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν, spirit and life everywhere, and from the blood of one man He makes the whole human race that it may dwell on the entire earth, that they may seek God, if perhaps they may feel Him or find Him, although He is not far from each one of us.” Here Paul is speaking of the propagation brought about by the first man when he says “from the blood of one man.” If, therefore, man is brought into existence from a droplet of blood, as the experience of all men on the entire earth bears witness, surely this is no less miraculous than that the first man was created from a clod, and the female from a rib of the man.
But why does the creation of Adam and Eve seem so unbelievable and miraculous, while man’s propagation, which all men know and see, does not seem so miraculous? Undoubtedly because, as Augustine says, miracles become commonplace through their continuous recurrence. Thus we do not marvel at the wonderful light of the sun, because it is a daily phenomenon. We do not marvel at the countless other gifts of creation, for we have become deaf toward what Pythagoras aptly terms this wonderful and most lovely music coming from the harmony of the motions that are in the celestial spheres. But because men continually hear this music, they become deaf to it, just as the people who live at the cataracts of the Nile are not affected by the noise and roar of the water which they hear continually, although it is unbearable to others who are not accustomed to it. Without a doubt he took over this very statement from the teaching of the fathers, but they did not want to be understood as though sound were given off by the motion of the celestial bodies. What they wanted to say was that their nature was most lovely and altogether miraculous, but that we ungrateful and insensible people did not notice it or give due thanks to God for the miraculous establishment and preservation of His creation.
Thus it is a great miracle that a small seed is planted and that out of it grows a very tall oak. But because these are daily occurrences, they have become of little importance, like the very process of our procreation. Surely it is most worthy of wonder that a woman receives semen, that this semen becomes thick and, as Job elegantly said (Job 10:10), is congealed and then is given shape and nourished until the fetus is ready for breathing air. When the fetus has been brought into the world by birth, no new nourishment appears, but a new way and method: from the two breasts, as from a fountain, there flows milk by which the baby is nourished. All these developments afford the fullest occasion for wonderment and are wholly beyond our understanding, but because of their continued recurrence they have come to be regarded as commonplace, and we have verily become deaf to this lovely music of nature.
But if we regarded these wonders in true faith and appraised them for what they actually are, they surely would not be inferior to what Moses says here: that a rib was taken from the side of Adam as he slept and that Eve was created from it. If it had pleased the Lord to create us by the same method by which Adam was created from the clay, by now this, too, would have ceased to hold the position of a miracle for us; we would marvel more at the method of procreation through the semen of a man. This crude doggerel is right, and there was certainly good reason for composing it: “Everything that is rare is appreciated, but what is an everyday occurrence comes to be regarded as commonplace.” If the stars did not rise during every single night or in all places, how great a gathering of people there would be for this spectacle! Now not one of us even opens a window because of it.
Therefore our lack of gratitude deserves to be reproved. if we believe that God is the efficient and the final cause, should we not wonder at His works, delight in them, and proclaim them always and everywhere? But how many are there who really do this from the heart? We hear that God took a clod and made a human being; we wonder at this, and because of our wonder we regard it as a fairy tale. But that He now takes a drop from the blood of the father and creates a human being, this we do not wonder at, because it happens every day, while the other thing was done only once; yet each of the two is brought about through the same skill and the same power and by the same Author. For He who formed man from a clod now creates men from the blood of their parents.
Aristotle, therefore, prates in vain that man and the sun bring man into existence. Although the heat of the sun warms our bodies, nevertheless the cause of their coming into existence is something far different, namely, the Word of God, who gives a command to this effect and says to the husband: “Now your blood shall become a male; now it shall become a female.” Reason knows nothing about this Word. Therefore it cannot get away from its childish prattle about the causes of such important matters. Thus the physicians, who have followed the philosophers, ascribe procreation to a matching mixture of qualities which are active in predisposed matter. Although reason cannot disprove this (for it sees that dry and cold natures are unsuited for generating, while moist and fairly warm ones are better suited), still they have not arrived at the first cause. The Holy Spirit leads us to something higher than nature, higher than qualities and their proper mixture, when He puts before us the Word by which everything is created and preserved.
Therefore that a man is developed from a drop of blood, and not an ox or a donkey, happens through the potency of the Word which was uttered by God. And so, as Christ also teaches in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9), we call God our Father and our Creator, as the Creed calls Him. When we look at this Cause, then with a chaste and pure heart and with gladness we can speak of those things which otherwise, if this Cause is disregarded, we could not mention without filthiness and indecency.
This discussion also shows how awful the fall into original sin was, since the entire human race knows nothing of its origin. Indeed, we see a man and a woman being joined; we see the woman made pregnant by a droplet of blood; and later, at a definitely fixed time, a baby is brought into the world. These are facts that lie before the eyes of all and are well known; and yet without the reminder and instruction of the Word you have no actual knowledge of the very activity which you are carrying on consciously and with open eyes. The discussions of the philosophers, with which we have already dealt, give sufficient evidence of this. Such horrible blindness and such a pitiful lack of knowledge!
Accordingly, if Adam had persevered in innocence, it would have been unnecessary to instruct his descendants about their origin, just as it was unnecessary to instruct Adam about the creation of his Eve, because the moment he saw her, he himself was aware that she was bone from his bones and flesh from his flesh. That kind of knowledge of themselves and of the remaining creatures would have remained also among the descendants of Adam. All would have become aware at once of the final and efficient cause about which we now have no more knowledge than cattle have.
For the ears of reason, consequently, this is a very beautiful and pleasing fairy tale, which the philosophers enjoyed ridiculing when they heard about it, as some of them did, especially those who had become acquainted with the science and wisdom of the Egyptians. But it is incalculable wisdom for us to know what is taught by this foolish fairy tale, as the world calls it, namely, that the beginning of man’s coming into existence was through the Word, inasmuch as God takes a clod and says: “Let Us make a man.” Later He likewise takes a rib of Adam and says: “Let Us make a helper for man.”
9.27.2012
Parish Resource on Contraception
Here is an excellent, informative, 16 page study by Lutheran pastor, Rev. Heath Curtis, on the question: "Should Christian Couples Use Contraception?" - What the Bible, the Church's Witness, and Natural Law Have to Say about Birth Control
9.20.2012
In his opening letter for the September 2012 issue of The Lutheran Witness, President Harrison continues his message about the Missouri Synod's low birth rate:
"The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is sorely pressed. Thirty years ago, when I graduated from high school, the pool of youth in our church body numbered some 210,000. Today, the number is 90,000. This is because our birth rate has simply mirrored that of the broader European-descent population, and mission gains have not kept up with the decline in growth by birth."For previous quotes from President Harrison and for other statistics, see the posts labled "LCMS population decline."
8.11.2012
Amish Baby Boom II
Amish enjoy unexpected boom in numbers
"High birthrates and decline in defections spur growth"
While interesting, this is not "unexpected", nor is a "new" story. It shows up in the "news" every now and then. For instance, two years ago there was a story about the "Amish Baby Boom".
However you look at it, the lesson is clear in observing both the Amish and the Shakers. "Church growth" by God's appointed means works, while despising children leads to decline or extinction.
You don't have to be anabaptist and reject "hochmut" to increase your numbers and have a high retention rate!
All that is needed is for us to allow God to cause the increase according to his gracious will. Our vocation is to diligently and lovingly catechize the children he blesses us with, which is the primary calling in this life for parents.
The story also mentions "falling defection rates among adults" as one of the reasons for Amish growth. I would say that while church discipline is perhaps important on an individual basis, I don't really think it is one of the major reason for Amish growth, and neither would it be in faithful Lutheran communities.
However, not allowing sinful lifestyles to appear acceptable is certainly important. The openly unrepentant (and undisciplined) contraceptive mindset that exists today is a primary example. But, again, this is mostly a vocational matter of faithful preaching and teaching by pastors and catechizing by patents. At the same time, church discipline must not be neglected.
In Christian churches today, there is a very high "defection rate" from the teachings of the church - a defection of members that isn't even reflected in membership roles because they are allowed to remain as communicant members. Unfortunately, they're not only tolerated. These unrepentant sinners are put high on pedestals and even appointed as pastors. Like soaking yeast in warm water, these deviant lifestyles and heresies are celebrated so as to even more rapidly leaven the whole lump.
Meanwhile, we are falsely accused as haters, legalists, and pharisees for holding fast to the truth of God's Word.
8.04.2012
Unbaby.me Facebook
.
Here's a disturbing story: Baby-picture zapping plug-in is well Liked on Facebook
Here's a disturbing story: Baby-picture zapping plug-in is well Liked on Facebook
In other words, it helps shield the conscience from the natural law's guilt of refusing the blessing of children. This reminded me of a post I wrote two years ago: The Child Catcher. Of course people have a "right" to exclude kids from whatever they want. It's a free country. But this shows the depravity of this free country and our postmodern baby-hating culture."Unbaby.me performs the useful social task of removing baby pictures that narcissistic parents post on your Facebook newsfeed. In less than four days, it has 44,000 Likes. Next stop: a reduced birth rate?
"At heart, though, the greatest social service performed by this fine plug-in is to reduce the pressure on those of a fertile, impressionable age to have children."
7.17.2012
I just came upon an excellent quote from Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, PhD in an article, but I can't find the original source. Pacholczyk says, like I have been saying on this blog, that procreation includes not just fertilization but “the entire act of marital self-giving with its attendant pregnancy, leading up to and culminating in the birth of a child.”
Right! I need to read more from Fr. Pacholczyk. This is the first time I have heard anyone other than myself contradict the currently popular belief that procreation (conception, the creation of life) occurs specifically at the scientifically definable event called "fertilization."
If anyone can tell me where this quote comes from, or can point me to the best writings of Pacholczyk, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
Right! I need to read more from Fr. Pacholczyk. This is the first time I have heard anyone other than myself contradict the currently popular belief that procreation (conception, the creation of life) occurs specifically at the scientifically definable event called "fertilization."
If anyone can tell me where this quote comes from, or can point me to the best writings of Pacholczyk, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
"The four-fold process created by God for becoming a biological family"
In her post, How close can we get, Rebecca Mayes writes:
How can we be certain that our efforts to create a family will be pleasing to our Lord?
The book of Genesis spells it out very clearly as Moses reveals how the first family came about. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” (2:24). Marriage came first. Then, in chapter 4:1: “Adam knew Eve his wife,” (sexual intimacy) “and she conceived,” (conception) “and bore Cain…” (birth). There you have it—the four-fold process created by God for becoming a biological family. This is how it was meant to be. Couples who are able to have children in this way need never doubt whether they are acting in accordance with God’s will.Well said, Rebecca! Again, I assert my contention that "conception" (procreation, the creation of new life) is a process that begins with the one-flesh union and extends all the way through birth, and that we have no business interfering with God's procreative purpose at any point along the way. "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
When does a soul exist?
Regarding the question of when a human soul comes into existence and the distinction between "contraceptives" and "abortifacient birth control" discussed in recent posts, I found the following Roman Catholic support for my contention that the Church (and
Scripture) has previously been silent on the question of exactly when a soul is created. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church appears to favor my argument that we simply do not know how or when a soul comes into existence. Nevertheless, they (and I) affirm that our moral judgment against birth control (abortifacient or otherwise) remains independent of any such answer. Procreation is a process we have no business interfering with.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
Statement 7: In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous.
...and Statement 13: "Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "'The one who will be a man is already one.'"[20]
Endnote 20: Tertullian, "Apologeticum" (IX. 8 PL. 1, 371-372: Corp. Christ. 1, p. 103, 1, 31-36)
...and Endnote 19: " This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul."Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
6.18.2012
LCMS Demographics of Birth Control
Note this data: http://concordiatheology.org/2012/06/a-glimpse-into-the-past-and-future-of-the-lcms/
"Throughout the 1950s and 60s we averaged well over 80,000 infant baptisms per year. At the same time we averaged over 30,000 adult conversions. If we had maintained the birth/infant baptism rate we had then, by my calculations we would have approximately 1.1 million more members in the LCMS."
.
5.21.2012
Interview: Marriage by God's Design
Related post: http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/2010/08/cph-marriage-by-gods-design.html
5.17.2012
Common Error of Logic Regarding Contraception
There is a very common error of logic in most people's acceptance of contraception. To illustrate this logical fallacy, I will use the LCA's birth control statement from 1968. It is first stated that there are three purposes (or more correctly a "threefold purpose") to the one-flesh union of husband and wife:
This is most certainly true. However, the LCA follows this immediately with a non sequitur:
This simply does not follow. The fact that the purpose is threefold does not lead directly to the conclusion that it is right and good to intentionally eliminate any of these three if we don't want one of them. How can people continually make this error of logic? If there is one subject every educated person should be required to study, it's logic. The fact that there are three distinct aspects to the purpose of marriage does not mean we have the right to frustrate any of them. If it did, we would also have to hold that it would be good and right for either of the other two listed purposes to be intentionally frustrated. When is it "right and proper" in marriage to intentionally avoid mutual help and companionship? And, at what point in marriage would it be right not to avoid sexual immorality?
One might point out that it is still good and right for a husband and wife who have found themselves barren to continue engaging in marital relations. However, even the barren should not intentionally frustrate the procreative purpose of their union. In fact, they probably value the procreative purpose more than those who are fertile. I think of the relationship of the threefold purpose of marriage as similar in nature to the threefold purpose of the law. When would it be "right and proper" to intentionally frustrate any of the three purposes of the law? When a pastor preaches the law, he cannot preach one purpose at the expense of the other two. God decides what purpose(s) His Word will accomplish in every hearer. It is not our prerogative to limit the purpose.
It is then stated:
This is one of the reasons that I cannot accept the position sometimes put forth by well-meaning Christians that says contraception per se is morally neutral, but is often used for sinful reasons. It leads to the conclusion that the person who uses contraception for a "good reason" does a good work, but people like me are left condemned for not using contraception to these good ends. In other words, I have ignored the welfare of my wife, children, community, and nation. According to this theory, I have violated the law of love, while the contraceptor has done a good work. But it doesn't stop there...
Hear that, all you irresponsible breeders? You are NOT being responsible by simply leaving the creation of children up to nature. God wants you to be more responsible toward Him and toward humanity. Simply letting nature take its course is irresponsible parenthood! Of course I inserted the concept of "nature", but it is certainly implied that God is not in control of the natural course of things with regard to procreation, so it's an area we must exercise our "responsible" dominion over.
Also note one important omission in this and in all similar documents which announced the acceptance of birth control. There is never any mention of the actual historic teaching of the church or her consistent application of Scripture to the matter. There is no refutation of the church's unanimous view over two millennia that Scripture prohibits contraception. It is treated as if the church never had a position on this. Or, as we find here in this LCA document, a straw-man is erected by asserting:
Ah, yes, the "biological maximum." What's that, you ask? You know. We hear the arguments all the time. You breeders think we should all be married by the time we reach puberty and have sex every day of our lives (and twice daily during the fertile period) and use every possible fertility increasing trick available and abstain from anything that might have a negative effect on fertility, such as hot-tubs and tight underwear. Breastfeeding? Forget it. Don't you know that cuts into your "biological maximum" fertility?
But then, according to this faulty logic, if you admit this ridiculous position is wrong, then it must therefore be "right and proper" to limit the number of children. Oh, and it is not only right and proper, but truly the only responsible type of parenthood.
What I find is that the majority of Christians think birth control is not only morally neutral, but actually one of God's good gifts, and therefore "right and proper" to use as long as your reasons for using it can be spelled out to read: "responsible parenthood." It really isn't that often that you meet a serious Christian who, when the subject of children being blessings comes up, doesn't give you some "valid reason" they have for limiting the number of children they allowed themselves and the world to be blessed with.
What this leads to is a very subjective legalism. You have to be constantly deciding if creating another child is the responsible thing to do. And those of us who do not exercise this "dominion" or "stewardship" are therefore, even if only by inference, guilty of being irresponsible and unloving toward spouse, children, community, nation, and yes, even the earth!
Even the broader Calvinist or Evangelical "quiverfull" brand gets this wrong. They often have the legalistic position that, "you MUST trust God." You just have to trust God more! Contrast all this to the free and simple Christian position of faith that says, "you CAN trust God." He is trustworthy! Thanks be to God!
(a) mutual help and companionship (Eph 5:25; Gen 2:18);
(b) procreation (Gen 1:28);
(c) avoidance of sexual immorality (1 Cor 7:2).
"Procreation thus cannot be regarded as the only purpose of marriage."
This is most certainly true. However, the LCA follows this immediately with a non sequitur:
"For married couples sexual intercourse, therefore, apart from the purpose of procreation is right and proper."
This simply does not follow. The fact that the purpose is threefold does not lead directly to the conclusion that it is right and good to intentionally eliminate any of these three if we don't want one of them. How can people continually make this error of logic? If there is one subject every educated person should be required to study, it's logic. The fact that there are three distinct aspects to the purpose of marriage does not mean we have the right to frustrate any of them. If it did, we would also have to hold that it would be good and right for either of the other two listed purposes to be intentionally frustrated. When is it "right and proper" in marriage to intentionally avoid mutual help and companionship? And, at what point in marriage would it be right not to avoid sexual immorality?
One might point out that it is still good and right for a husband and wife who have found themselves barren to continue engaging in marital relations. However, even the barren should not intentionally frustrate the procreative purpose of their union. In fact, they probably value the procreative purpose more than those who are fertile. I think of the relationship of the threefold purpose of marriage as similar in nature to the threefold purpose of the law. When would it be "right and proper" to intentionally frustrate any of the three purposes of the law? When a pastor preaches the law, he cannot preach one purpose at the expense of the other two. God decides what purpose(s) His Word will accomplish in every hearer. It is not our prerogative to limit the purpose.
It is then stated:
"It could be a violation of the law of love to bring children into the world without any regard to
(a) the welfare of the mother;
(b) the welfare of the children (e.g. will such children be adequately fed, clothed, sheltered and otherwise cared for without suffering perhaps irreparable harm to their physical, mental, ethical, and spiritual life?); and
(c) the welfare of the community and nation."
This is one of the reasons that I cannot accept the position sometimes put forth by well-meaning Christians that says contraception per se is morally neutral, but is often used for sinful reasons. It leads to the conclusion that the person who uses contraception for a "good reason" does a good work, but people like me are left condemned for not using contraception to these good ends. In other words, I have ignored the welfare of my wife, children, community, and nation. According to this theory, I have violated the law of love, while the contraceptor has done a good work. But it doesn't stop there...
"6. This means that parenthood will be responsible parenthood. It will be undertaken prayerfully, with full responsibility both toward God and humanity, and joyfully."
Hear that, all you irresponsible breeders? You are NOT being responsible by simply leaving the creation of children up to nature. God wants you to be more responsible toward Him and toward humanity. Simply letting nature take its course is irresponsible parenthood! Of course I inserted the concept of "nature", but it is certainly implied that God is not in control of the natural course of things with regard to procreation, so it's an area we must exercise our "responsible" dominion over.
Also note one important omission in this and in all similar documents which announced the acceptance of birth control. There is never any mention of the actual historic teaching of the church or her consistent application of Scripture to the matter. There is no refutation of the church's unanimous view over two millennia that Scripture prohibits contraception. It is treated as if the church never had a position on this. Or, as we find here in this LCA document, a straw-man is erected by asserting:
"Nowhere in Scripture, however, is there any indication that married couples should produce offspring to the extent of their biological maximum. Nor has the church ever taught this."
Ah, yes, the "biological maximum." What's that, you ask? You know. We hear the arguments all the time. You breeders think we should all be married by the time we reach puberty and have sex every day of our lives (and twice daily during the fertile period) and use every possible fertility increasing trick available and abstain from anything that might have a negative effect on fertility, such as hot-tubs and tight underwear. Breastfeeding? Forget it. Don't you know that cuts into your "biological maximum" fertility?
But then, according to this faulty logic, if you admit this ridiculous position is wrong, then it must therefore be "right and proper" to limit the number of children. Oh, and it is not only right and proper, but truly the only responsible type of parenthood.
What I find is that the majority of Christians think birth control is not only morally neutral, but actually one of God's good gifts, and therefore "right and proper" to use as long as your reasons for using it can be spelled out to read: "responsible parenthood." It really isn't that often that you meet a serious Christian who, when the subject of children being blessings comes up, doesn't give you some "valid reason" they have for limiting the number of children they allowed themselves and the world to be blessed with.
What this leads to is a very subjective legalism. You have to be constantly deciding if creating another child is the responsible thing to do. And those of us who do not exercise this "dominion" or "stewardship" are therefore, even if only by inference, guilty of being irresponsible and unloving toward spouse, children, community, nation, and yes, even the earth!
Even the broader Calvinist or Evangelical "quiverfull" brand gets this wrong. They often have the legalistic position that, "you MUST trust God." You just have to trust God more! Contrast all this to the free and simple Christian position of faith that says, "you CAN trust God." He is trustworthy! Thanks be to God!
5.07.2012
The Cross of Barrenness
I highly recommend reading the following post by Katie Schuermann, as well as subscribing to her excellent blog and buying her book.
http://heremembersthebarren.com/2012/05/07/the-cross-of-barrenness/
http://heremembersthebarren.com/2012/05/07/the-cross-of-barrenness/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
