August 22, 2008

To Be A Country Of Willful Sterility? Birth Control and a Rejection of the American Spirit

A vast number of forces were at work when Teddy Roosevelt penned the following excerpts from a paper he wrote in 1911. Social Darwinism was rampant, as was Neo-Malthusianism (the modern eugenics movement); and the modern Birth Control movement was well on its way to social prominence (all of these having their quasi-religious proponents, who were willing to slice and dice the Bible in a manner that would yield arguments favorable to their respective cause). Far from a neutral observer (or religiously orthodox for that matter), the former President Roosevelt unsurprisingly had strong words for a country, and its countrymen (and women) for whom he had fought and served for his entire life. His message? Willful sterility in marriage is a “cardinal sin”…

I though it was quite an interesting social commentary.

What do you think?

‘BH

“The American stock is being cursed with the curse of sterility, and it is earning the curse, because the sterility is willful. It is due to moral, and not physiological, shortcomings. It is due to coldness, to selfishness, to love of ease, to shrinking from risk, to an utter and pitiful failure in sense of perspective and in power of weighing what really makes the highest joy, and to a rooting out of the sense of duty or a twisting of that sense into improper channels…

…Our forefathers were the heroes of the tremendous epic that tells of the conquest of a continent. The conquerors, the men who dared and did, with hearts of steel and thews [sinews] of iron, looked fearlessly into the eyes of the future, and quailed before no task and no danger; are their sons and daughters, in love of effortless ease and fear of all work and risk, to let the blood of the pioneers die out of the land because they shrink from the most elemental duties of manhood and womanhood?…

Many willfully sterile people actually regard themselves as good citizens, and even look down on what they stigmatize as “vice.” But in reality, willful sterility inevitably produces and accentuates every hideous form of vice. Nor is this all. It is itself worse, more debasing, more destructive, than ordinary vice. Every decent citizen must abhor vice; I rank celibate profligacy as not one whit better than polygamy; yet after all, such vice may be compatible with a nation’s continuing to live; and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is chance of reform. But the cardinal sin of willful sterility in marriage means death; and for the dead there is no reform

…In the partnership of man and woman, the woman risks most, and for that reason we should hold in peculiar abhorrence the man who fails to realize this and to be gentle and tender and loyal in his dealings with her. The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women; and those men have indeed touched the lowest abyss of brutality and depravity who do not recognize something holy in the names of wife and mother. No man, not even the soldier who does his duty, stands quite on the level with the wife and mother who has done her duty.” - Theodore Roosevelt, “Race Decadence,” The Outlook, April 8, 1911.

(HT: Controlling Reproduction - google books)

August 22, 2008

I.O.U.S.A.?

This new documentary looks like it may be interesting (at the very least)… and it does have a Ron Paul scene!

August 20, 2008

I Know It’s Last Minute: Ron Paul’s Rally

So yeah, I figure, why not? I may be going to this…!

And of course, this video is classic…

August 20, 2008

All I have to say is…

WOW.

August 19, 2008

Contracepting Koalas?

This video reminds me of this post from a few months ago: From Beast to Men: Distorted Dignity, if any at all

August 19, 2008

Blogger? @ Southern? See you Thursday?

SBTS Bloggers Meet-Up This Thursday (8/21)

by Tony Kummer on August 19, 2008

Several guys have been asking for it, so let’s go ahead and try for this week. We can make more definite plans in the comment section, but let’s meet at Founders Cafe around 5 PM. I’ll be coming across from Indiana, so start without me when I’m late.

I’m thinking a general meet & greet, but I could arrange some mischief if anyone is interested. Leave a comment if you think you’ll stop by.

(HT: Said at Southern)

August 18, 2008

One Thing Abortion Advocates Have Right

“It’s difficult to imagine abortions ever becoming rare, especially in the absence of comprehensive sex education and widely accessible contraception, but we should perhaps expect abortions to become unsafe and illegal, while still common.” - Wendy Kaminer, abortion advocate, Op-Ed, June/July 2006 Free Inquiry magazine

One thing nearly all abortion advocates have right is the link between abortion and contraception. For them, it is a link in treatment method - abortion merely being the next level in contraceptive technology. Many Evangelicals on the other hand, have made a distinction between something that takes the life of an embryo - and something that prevents the life of an embryo. The difference there is real, but a mere difference is no commentary on the morality of either practice. The fact that assault is not murder, has no bearing on the fact that assault is still illegal, immoral, and illicit.

For abortion advocates, the problem solved by contraception and abortion is the same problem solved by contracepting Evangelicals: an end to unwanted pregnancies.

But here is the root. Where, and by what authority have Evangelicals been convinced that a child’s “wanted-ness” is the necessary qualification for its existence? We act as if God submits an application to us to gauge our desire for a child - and then acts accordingly. Not only is this mindset foreign to Scripture, it is totally opposed to it.

Liberals make the link between the contraceptive mentality and abortion, but many Evangelicals do not. Why, you ask? I’m ashamed to say, it may be because they (at least in this instance) are more intellectually honest than we.

What say you?

‘BH

August 18, 2008

The Lie in the Abortion Numbers

“THURSDAY, Jan. 17 (HealthDay News) — The U.S. abortion rate has reached its lowest level in three decades, according to a new report released Thursday.

“We don’t know why,” said study author Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that focuses on reproductive issues.”

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Apart from my own research on the direct correlation between Pro-Life activity and the drop in surgical abortions, I do want to take note of one issue that was highlighted in this article. The Guttmacher Institute doesn’t know why there is an apparent drop in abortion numbers, but I have an idea. The issue may be one of statistical manipulation, or rather statistical re-definition, in terms of what exactly an “abortion” is.

As was noted in the article, there was an observable rise in the number RU486 abortions in the past few years. What was not documented is the rise in the use of abortifacient contraception techniques, such as Plan B and other over-the-counter birth control pills. Such drugs kill countless tiny human embryos, which never make the statistics because they have been redefined as something other than human; and their death something other than abortion, namely, contraception…

While I am exuberantly thankful that there may in fact be fewer surgical abortions being performed today, I’d like to urge us to consider that the abortion industry perhaps has just found a way to kill children sooner, and cleaner. In effect, they may have gotten so good at what they do, they have found a way for women to abort their children in the comfort of their own homes - where even Pro-Life sidewalk counselors can not reach them with the hope and healing that comes only by the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately it may well be true, there are many times that (as Ronald Reagan remarked) “facts are stupid things”, having a deceptive edge that can cut as sharp as any dagger…

‘BH

August 15, 2008

Birth Control in light of Redemptive Theology

Where so many Protestants go wrong in deliberating the morality of contraception is their failure to distinguish between creation and nature. As Brent Waters comments in his work, Reproductive Technology:Towards a Theology of Procreative Stewardship, “Although creation is good because of the imprint it bears of its creator, and its created order has been vindicated by Christ’s resurrection, its perfection will be accomplished only in Christ in the fullness of time.” Therefore, when we view our fertility as merely a natural (read, unCreated) function to be altered at whim, we are thereby rejecting it’s innate Createdness, and any intention of both the Creator and Redeemer for the ends of our fertility. Naturalism brings with it no intentionality on the part of nature, no plan as how best to steward it. Creationism on the other hand, is rich with an understanding of not only the original created order, but also the teleos (or ends) to which it has been, and is being vindicated and redeemed in Christ.

Consider this…

“Since dominion is a divine blessing, God expects its recipients to exercise it in accordance with creation’s vindicated order and appoint end in Christ. According to Oliver O’Donovan, the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ vindicates creation and its order. The word ‘creation’ implies a given order; otherwise the universe would consist of undifferentiated matter and energy. Since God’s created order includes all creatures and the natural processes upon which they depend, creation’s vindication provides an objective and expansive focal point for moral deliberation. This does not mean that we may simply look to nature and discover given norms or ethical principles. This would reduce creation to nature, diminishing the significance of Christ’s resurrection. Rather, a vindicated creation discloses a natural ethic that can only be perceived in its ordering in and to Christ as the head of creation and first born from the dead. It is what Christ’s resurrection reveals that enables us to see a created order instead of a more narrowly construed natural order.” - pg 34, Reproductive Technology: Toward a Theology of Procreative Stewardship

‘BH

August 15, 2008

Could W.A. Criswell be an Example for Baptists to Reject Contraception?

Did you know that W.A. Criswell (two term SBC President) was quoted in 1973 (shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision) as saying, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from the mother that it became an individual person, and it always has, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed”? Criswell later came to reject abortion and became an outspoken proponent of the Pro-Life cause.

Modern day Baptists should take note of what happened with this ‘patriarch of the conservative resurgence’. Here was a pastor-theologian who had much of his doctrine in order, but missed the implications of this doctrine in regards to procreation and the sanctity of human life. But, rather than ignoring the implications, Dr. Criswell evaluated these implications in light of Scripture and evident reason, and eventually came down on the side of Truth.

Oh that every contracepting-Baptist would have the same moral courage.

Just because your doctrine is “in order”, does not mean that you have Scripturally accounted for it’s implications. Just because you have found a culturally suitable (or perhaps, theologically palatable) reason to reject the Natural family, does not mean that you have given due effort to the question at hand. Claiming “stewardship” is not a trump card to Natural law, and the mere claim itself is far from sufficient evidence of it’s own truthfulness.

Criswell could have very well claimed that abortion was a wise form of stewardship for the God-fearing Baptist family. And originally, in a sense, he did just that. But his own theology eventually got the best of him, and the realization that a rejection of God’s prohibition to murder can not be over-rided by “good”-intentioned stewardship. Contraception is no different. Stewardship is no answer to a practical, and effectual rejection of the gift of children. While the issue can easily be excused in our minds, it has much farther to go in being excused in our practice.

Criswell learned this, shouldn’t we?

‘BH

———-

From Dr. Allan Carlson’s 2006 speech, “The Emptied Quiver: The Protestant Embrace of Contraception“:

“For Luther, writing in his 1521 treatise on The Estate of Marriage, God’s words in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” represented more than a blessing; even more than a command; they were rather “a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.” Addressing the celibate Teutonic Knights, the Reformer also emphasized Genesis 2:18: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper who shall be with him.” Setting himself squarely against the Papacy and the Church Councils here, Luther declared: “[w]hoever would be a true Christian must grant that this saying of God is true, and believe that God was not drunk when he spoke these words and instituted marriage.” Except among those rare persons—“not more than one in a thousand” Luther said at one point—who received true celibacy as a special gift from God, marriage and procreation were divinely ordained. As he wrote: “For it is not a matter of free choice or decision but a natural and necessary thing, that whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man.”

The Geneva-based reformer John Calvin put even greater emphasis on Genesis 1:28. He argued that these words—“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”—represented the only command of God made before The Fall that was still active after God drove Adam and Eve out of Eden. This gave these phrases a unique power and importance.

While occasionally acknowledging in unenthusiastic fashion St. Paul’s defense of the single life, the Reformers were far more comfortable with the social order described in Luther’s Exhortation to the Knights of the Teutonic Order. “We were all created to do as our parents have done, to beget and rear children. This is a duty which God has laid upon us, commanded, and implanted in us, as is proved by our bodily members, our daily emotions, and the example of all mankind.” Marriage with the expectation of children, in this view, represented the natural, normal, and necessary form of worldly existence.

Marital fertility was also a spiritual expression. Luther saw procreation as the very essence of the human life in Eden before the Fall. As he wrote in his commentary on Genesis:

[T]ruly in all nature there was no activity more excellent and more admirable than procreation. After the proclamation of the name of God it is the most important activity Adam and Eve in the State of innocence could carry on—as free from sin in doing this as they were in praising God.

The fall of Adam and Eve into sin interrupted this pure, exuberant potential fertility. Even so, the German reformer praised each conception of a new child as an act of “wonderment…wholly beyond our understanding,” a miracle bearing the “lovely music of nature,” a faint reminder of life before the Fall:

This living together of husband and wife—that they occupy the same home, that they take care of the household, that together they produce and bring up children—is a kind of faint image and a remnant, as it were, of that blessed living together [in Eden].

Elsewhere, Luther called procreation “a most outstanding gift” and “the greatest work of God.”