PC recently penned a must-read on the sloppy exegesis culture warriors use to hogtie religious men with old-fashioned gender roles. Take a gander at it, fellows.
Later.
Another bad cop
4 years ago
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Drai-nage!!!
There is an article by Russell Moore in Touchstone magazine (HT: Boundless.org) about how consumerism and materialism is ruining the church. Especially noteworthy is this statement:
But why all this talk about getting back to the warm fuzzies of relationships and spiritual matters? Where were people like Mr. Moore 15 or 20 years ago? I agree for the most part with what he has to say but his words ring a little hollow and disingenuous. As a young man, I languished in putatively conservative churches where the subtle implication was that if you were not Mr. Biff Success with a Bible, no Christian woman would want you. Indeed, the zeitgeist of "many luxury vacations" is older than Debbie Maken.
The men of my generation were told to take cold showers, realize that women don't need us, and to grin and bear it. They were given the "gift of singleness" talk by the pundits. Where are those pundits now? It seems that there is some theological revisionism going on these days. What is the matter? Did preachers decide their gospel of corporate consumerism is no longer suitable, and are they worried their grown daughters won't find a decent chap to marry? Are they are afraid of not having grandchildren? Are their pews getting empty? Are they getting nervous because the American Dream has been priced out of the market for so many people and people are thus not having babies?
Where were these preachers in the nineties and the earlier part of this decade when things looked good--when people had crummy jobs but economic bubbles seem to disguise the malaise? What did they have to say to young men who were struggling then? What did women have to say to young men who were struggling then--before middle age hit and the eggs started drying up? Where are Ani DiFranco, Alanis Morissette, and Meredith Brooks now?
I think some people are a day late and dollar short to be doing an about face. The plaintive cries of Russell Moore are akin to a deathbed repentance for institutionalized religion in North America, something that has become irrelevant to many men in my generation. It is odd that Russell Moore would lecture us about the possibility of living in trailer parks when he himself works in a very nice office. It really doesn't sound convincing when the people who would tell the rest us to stop being so materialistic look, well ... so predictably yuppie. And I wonder if Mr. Moore feels like he has "done something" about materialism by stating what the rest of us have already known for years.
I think about how men such as myself and others in the MGTOW community might feel about all of this. There is a well-known movie short that has made the rounds in cyberspace and which sums up nicely my feelings about the belated calls for men to get married, for men to come back to the sandbox, for Christians to become less materialistic, etc. I have my straw, so watch and understand ...
"Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can 'afford' it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship."Of course, Mr. Moore gets it wrong about 1 Corinthians 7. There is no clear admonition in 1 Cor. 7 for young to people to marry. It's just plain old marriage mandate poppycock to suggest otherwise.
But why all this talk about getting back to the warm fuzzies of relationships and spiritual matters? Where were people like Mr. Moore 15 or 20 years ago? I agree for the most part with what he has to say but his words ring a little hollow and disingenuous. As a young man, I languished in putatively conservative churches where the subtle implication was that if you were not Mr. Biff Success with a Bible, no Christian woman would want you. Indeed, the zeitgeist of "many luxury vacations" is older than Debbie Maken.
The men of my generation were told to take cold showers, realize that women don't need us, and to grin and bear it. They were given the "gift of singleness" talk by the pundits. Where are those pundits now? It seems that there is some theological revisionism going on these days. What is the matter? Did preachers decide their gospel of corporate consumerism is no longer suitable, and are they worried their grown daughters won't find a decent chap to marry? Are they are afraid of not having grandchildren? Are their pews getting empty? Are they getting nervous because the American Dream has been priced out of the market for so many people and people are thus not having babies?
Where were these preachers in the nineties and the earlier part of this decade when things looked good--when people had crummy jobs but economic bubbles seem to disguise the malaise? What did they have to say to young men who were struggling then? What did women have to say to young men who were struggling then--before middle age hit and the eggs started drying up? Where are Ani DiFranco, Alanis Morissette, and Meredith Brooks now?
I think some people are a day late and dollar short to be doing an about face. The plaintive cries of Russell Moore are akin to a deathbed repentance for institutionalized religion in North America, something that has become irrelevant to many men in my generation. It is odd that Russell Moore would lecture us about the possibility of living in trailer parks when he himself works in a very nice office. It really doesn't sound convincing when the people who would tell the rest us to stop being so materialistic look, well ... so predictably yuppie. And I wonder if Mr. Moore feels like he has "done something" about materialism by stating what the rest of us have already known for years.
I think about how men such as myself and others in the MGTOW community might feel about all of this. There is a well-known movie short that has made the rounds in cyberspace and which sums up nicely my feelings about the belated calls for men to get married, for men to come back to the sandbox, for Christians to become less materialistic, etc. I have my straw, so watch and understand ...
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Feminist Stupidity from Boundless Readers
Over at Boundless, Adam (I don't know if he is Puritan Calvinist or not) started a lively discussion when he stated the following:
Christina understood what Adam was saying. However, many of the replies to Adam were certifiably numb-skulled. Most of them accused Adam of "justifying" rape. One of the most inane comments comes from a man:
Anyway, the posters who piled on Adam needed to look up the word "justify." But that is not the only stupid nonsense to be uttered by Adam's critics. Here are some other comments:
Boundless staff writer, Heather Koerner, then weighs in with a post about the matter. Here is what she has to say:
But wait there's more. One reader, Bek, said the following about 1 Cor. 7:1-7:
Anyway, I have proffered my two cents worth at Boundless. You can read it at this link. One of the things I said was this:
"I would say that, if husband or the wife has to demand sex or rape their spouse, their spouse has sinned, even before they themselves have sinned. Paul is very clear that sexual relations are a marital debt that is owed between both the man and the woman. This not just true if a man wants sexual relations with his wife. The same thing is also true in reverse. If the woman has to demand sex or rape her husband, there is already sin as well. The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 that this must be the case because of sexual immorality. If it is not, then we run the risk of driving our spouse into sexual temptation, because we are denying them something that is rightfully theirs."Adam then clarified what his views were on marital rape:
"Paul's command does not excuse things like rape of a spouse. That is sin also [and a far greater sin]. However, I would say that there is already problems if it has to get to that point."And furthermore, he said:
"Read what I said in my clarification post. I am not saying that forcing it out of someone is right. What I am saying is that sin is already present if it comes to that point. Granted, the person who forces it out of the other person is committing the much more grevious sin, but, in such a situation, there were clearly other problems that lead up to the rape.Simple enough to understand. Rape is wrong, period. It is a heinous sin. But are women entirely innocent when it happens? Not necessarily. One has to take responsibility for provoking another person to sin just as much the one who sinned. After all, if depriving a spouse of sex never caused anyone to sin, then why did Paul command people to not deprive their spouse?!
The point is that, if marriage is lived according to the scriptures, it should never come to this point. God set up the man and the woman owing each other the marital debt for a reason, and that is so that this would never happen. There will be times when you will want sexual relations, and your wife will not feel like it. However, the beauty of the Biblical teaching is that, sooner or later, your wife is going to want sexual relations when you don't feel like it. Hence, it all evens out, and it prevents sexual debauchery in such situations."
Christina understood what Adam was saying. However, many of the replies to Adam were certifiably numb-skulled. Most of them accused Adam of "justifying" rape. One of the most inane comments comes from a man:
"Yes. I saw where you indicated where a man is still responsible for his sin. I will agree with that, but you still justify the act of RAPE with the rest of your comment. You are writing that if she does not submit it is ok to rape her."Erm, if Adam says rape is a sin, then how is he saying it is okay to rape anyone? The male gynocentrist then goes on to say this:
"In my opinion a sexual assault is the worst thing that another person can do to another. Check out Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org), The White Ribbon Campaign (www.whiteribbon.ca), and One in Four (http://www.oneinfourusa.org/) for some information on ending sexual assault from a male's perspective. Since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men we as men have the power to challenge stereotypes and other people into thinking and behaving differently."Sorry, but much of the activism targeted against rape is underwritten by feminists with a misandrist agenda. The "one in four" slogan has been disputed. The saying, "Men can stop rape" is stupid. It makes no more sense than the statement, "Women can stop child abuse" (even though most acts of child abuse are indeed committed by women). Just because you are a mother doesn't mean your are culpable for what every other parent does. The same principle applies to men. Implicit in the statement "men can stop rape" is the misandrist suggestion that men are collectively responsible for the actions of a few bad men. I say a better slogan is this: "Feminists can stop whining."
Anyway, the posters who piled on Adam needed to look up the word "justify." But that is not the only stupid nonsense to be uttered by Adam's critics. Here are some other comments:
"Please do not contribute to the domestic violence lie that it is 'the woman's fault.'"So should we contribute to the feminist lie that it is the "man's fault"?! Some folks need to look up what DV researchers Murray Strauss and Donald Dutton have to say about the matter.
"I am so dismayed I can't even think straight... A woman DOES NOT instigate abuse or rape. PERIOD. I'm just glad I'm not your wife."I'm glad you are not my wife, either, lady. A woman never instigates anything? Ever? Period? They are entirely innocent 100% of the time and contribute nothing to the husband's actions? But, hey, this female reader admits, "I am so dismayed I can't even think straight." That's the problem, isn't it?
Boundless staff writer, Heather Koerner, then weighs in with a post about the matter. Here is what she has to say:
"What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin 'cause' his sin?"Well, Heather only gets it partly right. If I sin, then yes, I don't need to be pointing to how others made me do it. I still had a choice to resist sin. I need to take my lumps and not play the victim card. However, it doesn't take away from the guilt of those who contributed to my sin (Mark 9:42). What ticks me off about Heather's comment and about Boundless.org is that if the roles were reversed--if the woman was caught up in sexual sin--the man would probably be blamed. I infer this from what Boundless has published before. It's not Biblical Christianity. It's neo-traditionalist woman-firsterism.
"We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs."
But wait there's more. One reader, Bek, said the following about 1 Cor. 7:1-7:
"The verse says that the wife's body belongs to the husband, but the husband's body also belongs to the wife. Immediately, this shows marital rape to be against whatever Paul was trying to say. If her body belongs to him you could argue that he could have sex with her anytime he wanted, but since his belongs to her also, she could chose that he doesn't have sex with her anytime she doesn't want him to. I think it's probably intended to be more like the parts of a body stuff...that both partners need to properly consider the other's needs (in this case, physical desire) and work together for the good of the 'body', in this case, the marital unit of man and wife together." (emphasis mine, Anakin)Ok, so you having power over your husband's body means you can refuse sex? But, uh, the Apostle Paul goes on to say, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time." So, sorry, but you and your friends have failed, my dear.
Anyway, I have proffered my two cents worth at Boundless. You can read it at this link. One of the things I said was this:
"Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that. We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture. We are called to stand on the truth of the Bible."In sum, this whole affair underscores how the gynocentrism of the broader culture has crept into our faith communities. Men take note.
Friday, February 20, 2009
How to Drive Men to Porn
Well, Puritan Calvinist has moved to his new blog, and I have followed him to peruse his posts. At the beginning of this week, he posted a wonderful piece on some worrisome comments by Albert Mohler. At issue is the mistaken notion that getting married will help someone get out of porn. Puritan Calvinist rightfully takes issue with this idea.
I'll go one further, though. I think Mohler and others in the Marriage Mandate Movement may actually drive men to porn. I can hear someone retort, "Anakin, how can you say that!? Nowhere do these people tell men to use porn! Just the opposite! Stop putting words in their mouth!" Of course, the marriage mandators are against pornography. That's not the point. The point is that the logical end of their dogma makes men spiritually vulnerable to sexual temptation. I've touched upon this matter before. If you keep telling men that most of them can't live apart from women and be chaste outside of marriage, then what do you suppose men who have no immediate prospects of marriage are going to do??? No good woman in sight? Here come the mouse clicks. Q.E.D.
I'll go one further, though. I think Mohler and others in the Marriage Mandate Movement may actually drive men to porn. I can hear someone retort, "Anakin, how can you say that!? Nowhere do these people tell men to use porn! Just the opposite! Stop putting words in their mouth!" Of course, the marriage mandators are against pornography. That's not the point. The point is that the logical end of their dogma makes men spiritually vulnerable to sexual temptation. I've touched upon this matter before. If you keep telling men that most of them can't live apart from women and be chaste outside of marriage, then what do you suppose men who have no immediate prospects of marriage are going to do??? No good woman in sight? Here come the mouse clicks. Q.E.D.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Selfish Singles? (An Exegetical Challenge)
Back in November of last year, Albert Mohler discussed the delay of marriage on his radio program. His remarks were in line with his previous statements about immature men, the cultural problems associated with people putting off marriage and family, and his insistence that God mandates that most people get married. The radio broadcast in question was the subject of an earlier post of mine regarding Puritan Calvinist's on-air exchange with Mohler. However, I want to revisit Mohler's comments for another reason.
Over the Christmas break, I mulled over the broadcast. I thought about the seeming insistence by Mohler and others that the only acceptable form of indefinite singleness is one which not only entails celibacy, but one that is singularly devoted to active ministry. Short of insisting on poverty, marriage mandators seem to demand that a confirmed bachelor live like a monk. It makes me wonder if their concept of celibacy and singleness is more rooted in the heritage of Roman Catholicism and it long shadow over Protestantism than it is in the Bible.
But let's suppose the marriage mandators' views of the single lifestyle are more a matter of exegesis than a matter of religious tradition. A particular argument that I often come across can be stated like this: "With regard to the decision to marry, the Bible only holds out two choices to people. You get married, or you stay single to serve the Lord in some demanding way that takes up all your time. The Bible doesn't say anything about the single man who wants more time for his hobbies."
The individuals making this argument may point to passages such as 1 Cor. 7:35. They may think the phrase "without distraction" precludes a lot of spare time for recreational pursuits (I am thinking about Candice Watters' take on 1 Cor. 7:35 in her book Get Married.). Of course, the immediate context of the phrase "without distraction" points back to 1 Cor. 7:32-34 (i.e., married life), not to all the pet scapegoats of the marriage mandate crowd. And I might ask, why aren't married people asked to give up their spare leisure time? If the only choices are minister or make babies, shouldn't everyone have to sacrifice their pleasures?
But anyway, let us grant the argument that with respect to the Bible, there is no mention or no anticipation of the man whose primary motivation for being single is to avoid the cares of married life. Granted, it means we must contradict Paul who wanted people to be "without care" (1 Cor. 7:32) and who left the choice marry up to individuals. (1 Cor. 7:35-40). In the case, the marriage mandator might say, "Forget what Paul said! Most people are to be with the cares of married life. It is required and there is no choice in this matter." But, nonetheless, I am still willing to consider the argument raised by marriage mandators.
For the sake of this discussion, consider Eph. 4:28, where it is written: "The thief must no longer steal but must work hard and do what is good with his own hands, so that he might earn something to give to the needy." This passage tells us that one purpose for earning income is to give to the poor. Now, in 1 Tim. 6:17, it says that God gives us everything for our enjoyment, but it also tells rich people to not trust in their riches. Furthermore, there is no mention in 1 Timothy of the luxuries and entertainments the our modern, affluent lifestyles can afford.
What if I were to tell you that Christians need to give up their nice houses, their nice cars, their home entertainment systems, their social outings at restaurants and theaters, etc.? What if I were to tell you that there is no scriptural authority for these things because the New Testament doesn't mention them? What if I were to say that what God "gives us to enjoy" may not be very much materially? What if I were to point to the horrible sins of materialism as a rationale for demanding an equalization of assets between rich and poor Christians? What if I were to say there are only two choices: (1) be poor, or (2) work for the sake of giving all your surplus income to the poor? What if I were to say my views are mandatory and are what Christians are supposed to believe?
It's a pretty strict application of Eph. 4:28 and 1 Tim. 6:17, isn't it? Hey, I didn't even bring in Acts. 2:45! Do you think my hypothetical reading of the passages in question ignores the context, historical setting, and primary intent of these passages? Is my exegesis marred by a wooden literalism? Does my argument depend too much on the argument from silence? Do you think I would be going too far to expand my reading into some sort of narrow rule for how Christians should live today? Would you write me off as some bleeding heart liberal or Marxist? Would the ghost of David Chilton rise to pan my writings the way he did Ron Sider?
Here's my point: I took the same exegetical approach to the Scriptures regarding rich people and their money as is often done regarding single people and their time. Let's be consistent (Matt. 7:2; James 2:1). If we are going to develop some strict, Pharisaical midrash about what singles do in their spare moments, let's clamp down on the discretionary income of middle-class and wealthy Christians.
To the Focus on the Family crowd, I ask the following: If single people having too much spare time for hobbies is a problem, then is James Dobson willing to sell off a good chunk of his material assets to help the poor? According to one source, Dr. Dobson's holdings in personal real estate exceed a million dollars.
What about Albert Mohler? Yes, let's get back to him. I suspect that he is able to live where he does, courtesy of Southern Seminary and the SBC. But come on, does a Christian really need to live in a house like the one he lives in? From the pictures I've seen, it looks pretty nice, to put it mildly.
Needless to say, the gauntlet has been thrown down on this issue. I think some people to put their "money where their mouth is" if you catch my drift.
Over the Christmas break, I mulled over the broadcast. I thought about the seeming insistence by Mohler and others that the only acceptable form of indefinite singleness is one which not only entails celibacy, but one that is singularly devoted to active ministry. Short of insisting on poverty, marriage mandators seem to demand that a confirmed bachelor live like a monk. It makes me wonder if their concept of celibacy and singleness is more rooted in the heritage of Roman Catholicism and it long shadow over Protestantism than it is in the Bible.
But let's suppose the marriage mandators' views of the single lifestyle are more a matter of exegesis than a matter of religious tradition. A particular argument that I often come across can be stated like this: "With regard to the decision to marry, the Bible only holds out two choices to people. You get married, or you stay single to serve the Lord in some demanding way that takes up all your time. The Bible doesn't say anything about the single man who wants more time for his hobbies."
The individuals making this argument may point to passages such as 1 Cor. 7:35. They may think the phrase "without distraction" precludes a lot of spare time for recreational pursuits (I am thinking about Candice Watters' take on 1 Cor. 7:35 in her book Get Married.). Of course, the immediate context of the phrase "without distraction" points back to 1 Cor. 7:32-34 (i.e., married life), not to all the pet scapegoats of the marriage mandate crowd. And I might ask, why aren't married people asked to give up their spare leisure time? If the only choices are minister or make babies, shouldn't everyone have to sacrifice their pleasures?
But anyway, let us grant the argument that with respect to the Bible, there is no mention or no anticipation of the man whose primary motivation for being single is to avoid the cares of married life. Granted, it means we must contradict Paul who wanted people to be "without care" (1 Cor. 7:32) and who left the choice marry up to individuals. (1 Cor. 7:35-40). In the case, the marriage mandator might say, "Forget what Paul said! Most people are to be with the cares of married life. It is required and there is no choice in this matter." But, nonetheless, I am still willing to consider the argument raised by marriage mandators.
For the sake of this discussion, consider Eph. 4:28, where it is written: "The thief must no longer steal but must work hard and do what is good with his own hands, so that he might earn something to give to the needy." This passage tells us that one purpose for earning income is to give to the poor. Now, in 1 Tim. 6:17, it says that God gives us everything for our enjoyment, but it also tells rich people to not trust in their riches. Furthermore, there is no mention in 1 Timothy of the luxuries and entertainments the our modern, affluent lifestyles can afford.
What if I were to tell you that Christians need to give up their nice houses, their nice cars, their home entertainment systems, their social outings at restaurants and theaters, etc.? What if I were to tell you that there is no scriptural authority for these things because the New Testament doesn't mention them? What if I were to say that what God "gives us to enjoy" may not be very much materially? What if I were to point to the horrible sins of materialism as a rationale for demanding an equalization of assets between rich and poor Christians? What if I were to say there are only two choices: (1) be poor, or (2) work for the sake of giving all your surplus income to the poor? What if I were to say my views are mandatory and are what Christians are supposed to believe?
It's a pretty strict application of Eph. 4:28 and 1 Tim. 6:17, isn't it? Hey, I didn't even bring in Acts. 2:45! Do you think my hypothetical reading of the passages in question ignores the context, historical setting, and primary intent of these passages? Is my exegesis marred by a wooden literalism? Does my argument depend too much on the argument from silence? Do you think I would be going too far to expand my reading into some sort of narrow rule for how Christians should live today? Would you write me off as some bleeding heart liberal or Marxist? Would the ghost of David Chilton rise to pan my writings the way he did Ron Sider?
Here's my point: I took the same exegetical approach to the Scriptures regarding rich people and their money as is often done regarding single people and their time. Let's be consistent (Matt. 7:2; James 2:1). If we are going to develop some strict, Pharisaical midrash about what singles do in their spare moments, let's clamp down on the discretionary income of middle-class and wealthy Christians.
To the Focus on the Family crowd, I ask the following: If single people having too much spare time for hobbies is a problem, then is James Dobson willing to sell off a good chunk of his material assets to help the poor? According to one source, Dr. Dobson's holdings in personal real estate exceed a million dollars.
What about Albert Mohler? Yes, let's get back to him. I suspect that he is able to live where he does, courtesy of Southern Seminary and the SBC. But come on, does a Christian really need to live in a house like the one he lives in? From the pictures I've seen, it looks pretty nice, to put it mildly.
Needless to say, the gauntlet has been thrown down on this issue. I think some people to put their "money where their mouth is" if you catch my drift.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Menleavechurch.com
I have discovered menleavechurch.com and it makes me angry and sad. I am grieved not so much at the webmaster as I am at the people and institutions that made his slide towards atheism so much easier. I want to thank all the marriage mandators, the misandrists and woman-firsters in sheep's clothing, all the Christian women who have a prima donna attitude, spiritually complacent religious leaders, men with their heads stuck in the sand, sanctimonious believers, and institutionalized religion itself for turning yet another single man away from God. He is not the first man I've seen become a spiritual causality of organized religion's callous indifference or animosity towards men. I fear that he will not be the last.
When I first stumbled across his site, I thought I found another brother-in-arms in the fight against religious misandry. It's been a lonely trek for me in the blogosphere on this issue and the occasional companions have been few and far in between. All too often, others only partially address the subject. Other times, the discussion gets derailed by counterproductive proposals involving some form of macho Christianity or the such like. When it comes to expectations, one set of hoops for men to jump through like little puppy dogs is often exchanged for another set by those who claim to be sticking up for men. Regrettably, the damage has been done for the guy who runs menleavechurch.com.
It's been a depressing week for me and my discovery of menleavechurch.com is the icing on the cake. Let me take this opportunity to express my dismay at the folly and arrogance of other human beings. Have a good weekend, folks.
When I first stumbled across his site, I thought I found another brother-in-arms in the fight against religious misandry. It's been a lonely trek for me in the blogosphere on this issue and the occasional companions have been few and far in between. All too often, others only partially address the subject. Other times, the discussion gets derailed by counterproductive proposals involving some form of macho Christianity or the such like. When it comes to expectations, one set of hoops for men to jump through like little puppy dogs is often exchanged for another set by those who claim to be sticking up for men. Regrettably, the damage has been done for the guy who runs menleavechurch.com.
It's been a depressing week for me and my discovery of menleavechurch.com is the icing on the cake. Let me take this opportunity to express my dismay at the folly and arrogance of other human beings. Have a good weekend, folks.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Childbirth Movement and Logic
In light of a recent discussion at Boundless, I got to thinking about the Childbirth Movement (which overlaps with the Marriage Mandate Movement) and the arguments some use to insist that married people must have children. As a Christian that tries to respect the scruples of other believers, I will not stand in the way of a couple who thinks that God is leading them to have children. I may disagree with their convictions, but I accord to them the charity that Christian unity demands (Romans 14).
Sadly, however, I don't think this charity is often reciprocated by the anti-contraceptive/childbirth advocates. Many of them equate their position with obedience to Christ. If they really believe their convictions are a reflection of a clear mandate in the Bible that is universally binding, then I suggest that they make their case in a reasonable manner. In particular, I ask those in the Childbirth Movement to stop using emotionalism, sloppy reasoning, bad argumentation, and fallacious logic. Here are some of the logical fallacies they need to steer clear of ...
1. Argumentum ad Homimem
Don't tell me what a bad Christian I am if I don't want to have children. Don't me I'm "worldly," "am selfish," etc. Don't point to some unfavorable trait about me as a person. You are not proving anything except maybe your dislike of people who happen to disagree with you.
2. Negative Inference Fallacy (a phrase coined by D. A. Carson)
You tell me that the Bible says children are blessing. So? It does not logically follow that not having children is not a blessing. Having children may be a blessing, but being childless may also be a blessing (How do we explain the commendation of singleness in the Bible if this were not the case, or do single people need to have children, too?).
3. Argumentum ad Consequentiam and Slippery Slope Fallacy
Don't tell me how acceptance of contraception and the refusal to have children will lead to abortions, some terrible economic crises, or the extinction of the human race.
4. Argumentum ad Naturam
Don't tell me that because having children is natural, we must therefore embrace childbearing.
5. Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
I don't care how many "respected" "scholars" from your faith tradition believe something now or have believed something in the past. Present the arguments and let them stand or fall on their own merit. Also, don't tell me about how many times in the Bible we find people having children or exulting them. Polygamy and circumcision were pretty popular, too. Then there is foot-washing and greeting one another with a "holy kiss." Customs do not necessarily rise to the level of a Biblical mandate.
6. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Don't tell me, "There is no example of saints in the Bible refusing to have children." An argument from silence is inconclusive in and of itself.
7. Loaded Language
Don't talk to me about the "Christian worldview" until you prove that your views indeed reflect it. Don't talk about "selfish lusts" when discussing those who don't want to have children. What do you mean by the word "selfish" and "lust", anyway? That couples having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it or for expressing love are sinning? Please make your case from the Bible. Cut the emotion-laden buzzwords and give me just the facts, ma'am.
8. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Don't ask me if I like children. Left-wing politicians "think of the children" when they proffer their interventionist, big-government programs. That, of course, does not make you a bleeding-heart liberal, but you do share the illogic of one if you employ the same sort of emotionalism in your line of reasoning.
9. Ignoratio Elenchi
Don't tell me that Lord "opens and closes wombs." It's true, but it's irrelevant to your case. The Bible says that the Lord "kills and makes alive" (1 Sam. 2:6), but I don't see a lot of Christians giving up their firearms as a gesture of trusting in the Lord.
10. Guilt By Association
Don't tell me how the big, bad, secular humanists take my position. Who cares? What if they have a bigger clue than you (Luke 16:8b)?
11. Suppressed Evidence
Don't keep repeating Gen. 1:28 like a Fisher-Price See-N-Say toy unless you are willing to deal with the counterarguments against your exegesis (e.g., the use of heterosis in the Hebrew language which changes the meaning of an imperative verb).
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. I am certain there are some other forms of bad argumentation that the Childbirth Movement adherents need to avoid. The point of my post is not, however, to say that these people are wrong. My point is that these people have their feelings invested in the debate; now is the time for them to invest their brains.
Sadly, however, I don't think this charity is often reciprocated by the anti-contraceptive/childbirth advocates. Many of them equate their position with obedience to Christ. If they really believe their convictions are a reflection of a clear mandate in the Bible that is universally binding, then I suggest that they make their case in a reasonable manner. In particular, I ask those in the Childbirth Movement to stop using emotionalism, sloppy reasoning, bad argumentation, and fallacious logic. Here are some of the logical fallacies they need to steer clear of ...
1. Argumentum ad Homimem
Don't tell me what a bad Christian I am if I don't want to have children. Don't me I'm "worldly," "am selfish," etc. Don't point to some unfavorable trait about me as a person. You are not proving anything except maybe your dislike of people who happen to disagree with you.
2. Negative Inference Fallacy (a phrase coined by D. A. Carson)
You tell me that the Bible says children are blessing. So? It does not logically follow that not having children is not a blessing. Having children may be a blessing, but being childless may also be a blessing (How do we explain the commendation of singleness in the Bible if this were not the case, or do single people need to have children, too?).
3. Argumentum ad Consequentiam and Slippery Slope Fallacy
Don't tell me how acceptance of contraception and the refusal to have children will lead to abortions, some terrible economic crises, or the extinction of the human race.
4. Argumentum ad Naturam
Don't tell me that because having children is natural, we must therefore embrace childbearing.
5. Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
I don't care how many "respected" "scholars" from your faith tradition believe something now or have believed something in the past. Present the arguments and let them stand or fall on their own merit. Also, don't tell me about how many times in the Bible we find people having children or exulting them. Polygamy and circumcision were pretty popular, too. Then there is foot-washing and greeting one another with a "holy kiss." Customs do not necessarily rise to the level of a Biblical mandate.
6. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Don't tell me, "There is no example of saints in the Bible refusing to have children." An argument from silence is inconclusive in and of itself.
7. Loaded Language
Don't talk to me about the "Christian worldview" until you prove that your views indeed reflect it. Don't talk about "selfish lusts" when discussing those who don't want to have children. What do you mean by the word "selfish" and "lust", anyway? That couples having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it or for expressing love are sinning? Please make your case from the Bible. Cut the emotion-laden buzzwords and give me just the facts, ma'am.
8. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Don't ask me if I like children. Left-wing politicians "think of the children" when they proffer their interventionist, big-government programs. That, of course, does not make you a bleeding-heart liberal, but you do share the illogic of one if you employ the same sort of emotionalism in your line of reasoning.
9. Ignoratio Elenchi
Don't tell me that Lord "opens and closes wombs." It's true, but it's irrelevant to your case. The Bible says that the Lord "kills and makes alive" (1 Sam. 2:6), but I don't see a lot of Christians giving up their firearms as a gesture of trusting in the Lord.
10. Guilt By Association
Don't tell me how the big, bad, secular humanists take my position. Who cares? What if they have a bigger clue than you (Luke 16:8b)?
11. Suppressed Evidence
Don't keep repeating Gen. 1:28 like a Fisher-Price See-N-Say toy unless you are willing to deal with the counterarguments against your exegesis (e.g., the use of heterosis in the Hebrew language which changes the meaning of an imperative verb).
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. I am certain there are some other forms of bad argumentation that the Childbirth Movement adherents need to avoid. The point of my post is not, however, to say that these people are wrong. My point is that these people have their feelings invested in the debate; now is the time for them to invest their brains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
