General Comments on Issues Raised by the Previous Post
The comments on the previous post have gone in a more general direction than the specific criticisms/questions expressed about Mr. O. I’ll take some space here to summarize my positions on the general issues:
Dispensationalism, prophecy, etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
For an advocacy of the more traditional position, this from the Founders organization (a Southern Baptist group dedicated to restoring the SBC to its Reformed roots):
www.founders.org/FJ09/article1.html
Not many Christians have a systemic view of prophecy, just what they’ve picked up here and there. Very few realize that the whole framework of the rapture, Israel, the tribulation, etc, are rather recent inventions unknown before about 1820, and really only popular after about 1900. I would probably be classified as an amillenial on this issue:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism
Though when I am feeling particularly optimistic and want to annoy liberals I consider postmillenialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism
I am not qualified to make more than basic arguments for any position, and really smart, genuine Christian theologians disagree on them. My macro-reasons for rejecting dispensationalism have to do with its newness, its pessimism and the secondary role it gives to the church. I do not believe the church is a mere parenthesis or pause in the story so God can get back to the original plan of Pharisee priests offering temple sacrifice (I am being cheeky here, but dispensationalists really do believe temple sacrifice will be restored and sanctioned by God post-rapture). I believe Christ fulfilled all prophecy for all time, including prophecies formerly meant for physical Israel. I think dispensationalism makes some of the same errors as people made about Christ, in imagining Him to be a physical earthly king instead of a spiritual king:
Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Similarly, I think Galatians makes it clear that the true, spiritual Israel is the church and “heirs to the promises thereof”.
If you haven’t considered these issues before, it’s hard to comprehend how many of your assumptions about end-times are not universal among Christians and largely ahistorical to both Protestants and Catholics, but rather are a popularized theological scheme invented by a small American sect (and one person in particular, the theologian Darby) in the 1800’s.
I do not think this is an issue that is in any way critical, nor is theological correctness on this issue any reflection of status or virtue. It is an issue where I understand how people view it differently and can simply disagree.
For more information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences
Seeker-friendly churches/etc:
Based on the fruit produced by modern evangelicals (i.e. the lack of any statistically significant deviation from worldly norms of divorce, the massive falling-away rate of our youth, etc), I think there is a significant chance the way we teach salvation and/or handle the salvation process in the contemporary church is not effectual for salvation. By seeking growth and soft-selling sin and repentance (which is what Osteen, Warren, et. al. do; though, really, they are merely the endgame of a long trend of Gospel minimalism), we are risking not truly growing the church- we may be producing many people who only think they are Christians, which is worse than KNOWING you’re not. At the very least, we are producing very immature believers when compared to the historical context of Christian belief: the average illiterate medieval serf received more spiritual red meat watching a morality play than is often provided by the feel-good self-help sermons we have become accustomed to.
I see three historical mechanisms for church growth:
1) Primarily and foremost, through the children of believers. This is a major point of failure in the contemporary church, which does not give due credit or support to the front-line missionaries of any church: mothers. We sing the praises of missionaries to exotic lands, but rarely a word for mothers whose thankless work renews the Church each generation. We also do not explicitly encourage Christians to have large families so that the Kingdom of God grows rather than shrinks.
2) Through long-term personal relationships with unbelievers, who seeing the peace and community of believers, desire this for themselves or by contrast feel their need for salvation.
3) Through occasional God-ordained revivals that man cannot control or engineer. The last one of massive scale in this country occurred during the War Between the States. These revivals, if anything, have an even greater emphasis on sin, hellfire and condemnation, which belies the claim of the Church Growth Movement that we need to reinvent these concepts. The most famous hellfire-and-damnation sermon, “Sinners in the Hand of An Angry God“, was during the previous revival of the 1700’s- and was delivered in (if I recall my history correctly) monotone by its not-very-charismatic (in the personal persuasiveness sense) author Jonathan Edwards. When God decides to grow the church in a massive way, He does so at Will, and there is nothing we can do to hurry or engineer the process. He will use whoever is willing to deliver his unvarnished message of repentence (even a rather drab messenger like Edwards as opposed to pretty-boy Osteen) to get the job done, because the people involved are just window-dressing to His work.
The Church Growth Movement is an attempt to engineer revival, which is about as ridiculous as man attempting to build another moon. We see the results of man’s shoddy attempts, however, in a cheap salvation whose non-existent fruit makes one question its validity.
Legalism:
I think the fact we are dealing with a general discussion makes it harder to agree; legalism is hard to define, but most people know it when they see it. My one additional point of caution would be to make sure that the spirit of our age does not bias you towards being more eager to condemn those to your “right” (as in more conservative) while being more tolerant of those to your “left”.
I notice that sometimes we are more careful in our words when dealing with a popular liberal (Osteen) while reserving unmetered condemnation for someone just a little bit more conservative than ourselves- this temptation is from the culture, where “conservatives” jockey for position and demonstrate moral superiority in the liberal societal framework by condemning those further to their right, or sometimes those who are just a little less equivocal in how they express their views.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Hey Tom, lotsa insight, I think we would agree on much. Anyway, glad to hear that you have a proper view of absolutes, at least I think that is what I am gleaning. Comment on legalism - it does take a very relative tone in that one person’s legalism is another one’s bilbilical standard. Many people would think that I am legalistic because I think the bible teaches that speeding is a sin, that birth control is a concept from the pit of hell and that I would move rather than subject my kids to government school. Food for thought, it is a more complicated concept than many think. When the bible says beat them with a rod, well…, that must mean the infamous time out chair, right? Blessings to you and your wife and the kids,
Aaron
October 15th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
I believe it is always useful to define our terms. So again from Wikipedia (best definition I could find):
Legalism, in Christian theology, is term referring to an improper fixation on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of pride and the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God.
I think we could all more or less agree on that definition. We could not agree necessarily on what “improper fixation” means. Clearly behavior is an important part of faith, and different people define it different ways. Until we get to heaven, we are going to have to deal with some level of relativism- but of course we should see it as a necessary evil of our loss of communion with God, not an excuse to relativize everything.
Certainly, you are not legalistic for holding those convictions. I think legalism would be condemning those who might disagree, not simply disagreeing with them of course, but condemnation. I think the issues you mentioned, particularly birth control, are things to think about- I think birth control in particular if it is used to limit family size for the sake of materialism. Clearly, those who believe birth control is a sin are going to have a microevolutionary advantage over those who do not! Those who multiply will inherit the Earth. Pat Buchanan’s book Death of the West speaks about the terrible consequences for our civilization if we continue our below-replacement birth rates.
But there is one thing you mentioned that I really have a problem with…
{SARCASM} Speeding is a sin?! C’mon! I didn’t know you were that much of a wacko… {/SARCASM}
October 15th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
To quote Aaron:
Many people would think that I am legalistic because I think the bible teaches that speeding is a sin, that birth control is a concept from the pit of hell and that I would move rather than subject my kids to government school.
__________________________
I would not see these beliefs as legalistic. The way I understand legalism is that it is not based on what a person’s convictions are — but is based on if/when that person condemns others for not believing the same.
Then you have the issue of “What is condemnation?” The dictionary says:
to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
Like “improper fixation,” I guess it will mean different things to different people.
So I don’t think you are legalistic for believing speeding is a sin, but if you corrected me for speeding when I don’t believe it is a sin, I feel that this would be legalism. Since the Bible doesn’t address speeding, I guess we’d just have to duke it out.
That’s a poor example, but I hope you see where I’m going with it.
One person’s “condemnation” is another person’s “expressing their opinions/feelings.”
Tom, I just ordered that P. Buchanan book at Sarah’s suggestion.
As for birth control, I’m sort of on the line on this one. For the most part, I do believe there is a good argument for it being wrong biblically speaking. On the other hand, I’m not the best person to make this judgement since I am not able to conceive so it’s never been an issue that I’ve had to explore. People have different, private reasons for using birth control — and I do believe there are situations where God allows it. This said, I certainly don’t believe birth control is a sin for everyone.
Slight change of direction: Most people are completely unaware that almost all forms of birth control are abortifacients. While their primary object is to prevent fertilization, if fertilization does occur (resulting in a human embryo=life), it prevents implantation of that life, therefore causing it to perish.
It’s a difficult issue at best, but one that most people rarely discuss.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I think a reasonable compromise position would be:
1. Birth control methods that are inherently abortifacient are wrong to use: IUD’s, the mini-pill, etc. These kill an embryo with a unique genetic identity and should be avoided.
2. Chemical birth control (the pill) has a number of bad effects on a woman’s body and can be an abortifacient, and should arguably be avoided as well.
3. The Bible tells us to be fruitful and multiply. A plain reading of the text would imply that multiplication means an increase from generation to generation, and in most natural processes this is a doubling. Thus, if physically possible and medically permissible, Christians should have a minimum of four children. Children in general should be seen as a blessing, not a burden or phase of life one seeks to hurry out of. Women should see childbearing and men should see supporting a large family to be among the highest purposes of their life (a purpose conspicously omitted from PDL), more important than a career for a woman and more important than material wealth for a man.
4. I think it’s reasonable to stop having children in the woman’s late 30’s to avoid increased risk of genetic deformities.
5. It’s reasonable to space your children such that infants can get the benefit of a full-year of breastfeeding, since doctors now prohibit breastfeeding while pregnant since it can cause abortion. Some studies now indicate that 18 months from birth to conception may be necessary for complete healing of the womb, so a longer spacing to accomodate this would be reasonable as well.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Hi, I couldn’t resist chiming in on this one! Birth control is so controversial and everyone seems to have their opinions on when/what kind is okay etc. One of my favorite quotes — The Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing, yet today people are applying for curses and rejecting blessings! As far as #5 above I realize there are increased risks when the maternal age goes up, however, God already knows who our children are, and His grace is sufficient to see through whatever needs that child might have (colic all the way to spina bifida, cerebral palsy, down syndrome etc.) I say bring on the babies! What better way to stay young (while getting gray hair)! #6 above is something that many worry about but remember, just because doctor’s suggest something doesn’t mean you have to comply. I continued to nurse Cade while pregnant with Christian, it has been done! There are advantages and disadvantages to having children close in age, there again letting God decide takes the pressure off of us! I have a friend who has 7 children, the oldest of which is 9! She is a busy lady but so very blessed. I always enjoy seeing children raised to love and fear the Lord. Whether someone has 2 or 10, if they are raising them to serve God - what could be better? Cathy
October 16th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Cathy, You would love my friend Karen. Some of my favorite things she’s ever said to me:
*If there’s room in the heart, there’s room in the home.
*When you’re into a family-size pack of hamburger meat, what’s one more?
_________
I assume you’re familiar with http://www.quiverfull.com/ ??? I’m not really all that familiar with it, but I’ve heard talk of it.
Cathy, how many kids do you have?
I always, always, always wanted 5 or 6 children, but God had other plans. I also always always always wanted girl twins, though, too (and so did my husband). He gave us infertility, but he also gave us our twin girls. Who knows, I might have those 6 kids yet.
I so love families with lots of kids. On days when you wonder how you’ll get through you can just dream of Thanksgiving and Christmas in 30 years with all your kids and their spouses and your grandkids!
That is one thing I will dearly miss. My dad has (had) 9 siblings, and my mom has 5 siblings. My mom’s mom had 8 siblings (she was also a twin). So we have a very, very large family — and I will miss the joy of a large family down the road. My husband has 4 siblings but they are spread out everywhere. I am an only child. Why am I giving my family history here? I’m sorry Tom.
To quote you Cathy: His grace is sufficient to see through whatever needs that child might have (colic all the way to spina bifida, cerebral palsy, down syndrome etc.)
__________
I completely agree. I haven’t been faced with the last three you mentioned, but I did spend 9 months of my life (literally from the day I got pregnant to the day I gave birth) flat on my back.
Just about every problem you can have with a pregnancy, I had it. I was going to list a few, but I’ll just spare everybody. Suffice it to say that after the girls were born and healthy and safe and sound (albeit 6 weeks early), my doctor told me that she never thought my girls would survive.
In all that time, God’s grace covered me and prevented me from fear and discouragement. If you knew me, you would know this is a true, true, true, true, true miracle. I struggle severely with anxiety and panic. But God’s grace covered me in a way that I would not even TRY to put in words.
Well, all that to just agree with you that no matter what the circumstances, God sees us through. I want to clarify that I am in no way comparing my experience to a parent dealing with an illness or down syndrome…but I guess I just wanted to offer my testimony on how God’s grace is sufficient. When you go through what you are convinced you could never, ever go through, His hand provides. And it’s enough.
Anyway….sorry for writing a novella. I tend to get carried away. Very wordy…
October 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I can understand where you are all coming from on having large families. Until recently, I did not know that the Pill and other contraceptives are abortifacient. I was shocked to know that to say the least! I feel if more women knew that they would not use it. How do you all feel on not using any forms of birth control besides abstaining during ovulation? I feel if God wanted me to have a child, he could “surprise” me. I also have to say, I have 2 friends who were using the Pill and became pregnant. I know that God can work around whatever barriers we put up. I guess what I am asking is, “If God wanted me to have another child, wouldn’t He make it happen regardless?” Your thoughts please…
October 16th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I also was interested on your thoughts on fertility treatments and when it is acceptable to prevent pregnancy -mother’s health, genetic disabilities within a family etc…
October 17th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Becki, I think on the issue of the birth control method of abstaining during ovulation, it’s not a letter of the law thing but a Spirit thing. It could be right for you and wrong for someone else depending on how God’s Spirit speaks to you.
I agree that few people know all the facts about most BC methods. I think that is completely on purpose, but that’s another corporate rant I’ll save for another day.
I have a lot of friends with my same disease who had to go through infertility treatment to get pg. Three of those people had twins and within six months were pg again. “Surprise! I thought I was infertile!!”
So surprises definitely happen.
On the issue of infertility, I realize there are lots of different opinions. Just please be gentle since this is a subject that is very personal to me since my baby girls were conceived by IVF. I’m not asking anyone not to state their beliefs, I’m just sayin’ is all.
To answer your questions, Becki, obviously I don’t think infertility treatments are wrong unless they become an obsession (=idol). This is such a difficult topic because there are so many layers to it that I can’t talk about right now since it’s 11:52 p.m. I think, again, instead of being a letter of the law thing, it’s a Spirit thing. After all, as far as I know, in-vitro isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
As for preventing pregnancy due to genetic issues or mother’s health, do you mean birth control or abortion?
If you mean birth control, I believe it’s an issue between that couple and God.
If you mean aborting the baby because of genetic disabilities, I believe this is definitely sinful. Those tests are not always accurate. In fact, there is a large percentage (can’t remember what it is right now) that are false positives anyway. And even if the baby was born with disabilities, I can tell you that all the parents I have known of children with down syndrome say while it was the scariest, saddest thing to endure in the beginning, it became their greatest blessing. So you never know what God has in store, right?
Regarding a mother’s health, I think it depends on the situation. I had a friend who was the mother of two small children and pg with her third. In her 22nd week, she developed a rare form of toxemia that was life-threatening. She and her husband were given an hour to decide what to do because the mom needed to be in ICU ASAP. She was literally dieing, and the only cure was to deliver the baby.
She felt that she could not leave her other two children motherless but also could not allow her baby to be born that early. Can you imagine what a horrible decision to have to make? In the end, her husband had to make the decision because she became so ill.
Because a “fetus” (=baby) is viable at 22 weeks, it wasn’t considered abortion but rather delivering the baby early. They absolutely refused late-term abortion (what’s it called? I’m drawing a blank; it’s late). So her baby was delivered. Within hours (several) she (mother) was out of critical condition. She was able to meet her baby who died 3 days later.
I can’t say I wouldn’t make the same decision in her shoes — especially with only an hour to decide: her life or her baby’s. She still says, years later, that she would have willingly given her life just to give her baby a chance — if she didn’t have other children. She just couldn’t fathom dieing and leaving her children motherless.
Anyway…look, see I’m already not making this short.
The point being that sin is sin, and there’s no way around it. But some things are not so cut and dry, letter of the law. Some things are. It’s up to us and the Holy Spirit to discern what’s what for each Christian. My opinion at 12:10 a.m. Why am I still up?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I think in general it is a mistake to say that “God is in control, therefore it doesn’t matter if I do X.” I think we ought to use the brains God gave us (to fulfill the spirit of His revealed will in the Bible) when determining prudent courses of action, whether that’s deciding when to stop having children to prevent disease, or whether to use birth control.
I certainly am not going to talk anyone out of having more kids, though…
Leisa, I think IVF is a fine thing to do if necessary for conception, though many will disagree. The spirit of the procedure is to create life. I certainly would use it if in that position. I’m aware of the inconsistencies of my position, but it remains so. There is sometimes a higher natural law we must submit to, and plead forgiveness if we’re wrong- the desire to have one’s own genetic children is one of those natural imperatives.
Another situation would be if someone harmed my family in a serious way- I would kill them if I could, even though it would be wrong to deny them their day in court. I would just have to ask for forgiveness after I buried the body
October 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Thanks Tom. I liken it (infertility treatments) to an organ transplant. Is it wrong to have a heart transplant when your heart is failing? I don’t believe so. We have modern medicine, and God does not disallow the use of it (except in cases of new agey type stuff).
Though I will say that I do believe modern medicine and technology can go too far. Gender selection methods? Now that’s going over the line in my opinion.
Some people think infertility treatments are over the line, and I can sort of understand why they feel that way. They might feel differently, however, if they found themselves unable to have the one desire God put in their heart since childhood. Maybe not…but maybe.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
In regards to the “barrier method”… Isn’t there a verse that says something to the effect that it’s better for you to put your seed in the belly of a whore than to cast it on the ground? And isn’t this what condoms amount to? (Err.. the ground, not the belly thing)
October 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Georgia did not approve this message.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Brian, that’s not actually in Scripture. I was trying to look it up to read it in context and couldn’t find it, so Blue Letter Bibled it, and this is what I got:
See http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/sayings.html#belly. Sorry about some of the content, but it certainly couldn’t be worse than talk of seed and bellies and whores. lol
Not gonna get into the barrier thing…just wanted to let you know that it was just a saying.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Thank you Leisa… I stand corrected.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:31 am
There is so much that I could say on this issue, as it has been on my heart for 6 or 7 years now, but my husband is a private man so I will try to not get too personal! My opinion/interpretation of “be fruitful and multiply” is that it is not a command for everyone. I see it as a command to Adam (Gen 1), Noah (Gen 8, 9), and Jacob (Gen 35). It is understandable to me that for Adam and Noah (and his sons) God would have them “replenish the earth” and for Jacob, too, to bring about the chosen nation. Why would God need to reiterate this command after Adam if it was intended for all men? It seems that he repeats the command as it is necessary to do so. Also, Exodus 32 and Leviticus 26 say that God says HE will multiply their seed and make them fruitful. He obviously plays the bigger role.
Regarding children being a blessing, I certainly agree! I think that it is a blessing for those who have children and those who have a “quiver full,” but not a command. I’m not saying parents shouldn’t seek the Lord on this. My personal opinion is that parents should examine themselves and their motives for preventing pregnancy, in my opinion materialism and self-centeredness are not valid reasons, but the actual sin is the heart condition, not preventing a pregnancy.
I do agree with the comments already posted about how you go about preventing a pregancy as being a moral issue as well. Thankfully, we learned the truth about oral contraceptives early on in our marriage, but I still grieve over the possibility that I could have unknowingly aborted precious children in our early months of marriage. Regarding the “spilling the seed” topic . . . my interpretation of this issue, biblically, is that Onan’s sin was that he did not want to impregnate his sister-in-law because the heir would be his deceased brother’s and not his own. It seems to me that selfishness was the root issue, and God took this very seriously and consequently killed the man.
There is more I could say on this issue, but it is experiential in nature and my medical limitations cause me to be emotional over this “hot topic.” I will say that our desire has always been for a large family, and we have seen the Lord move in His timing in each of our three pregnancies, and trust that He will guide our family in any additional additions in the future.
Going back to the original discussion on legalism, I feel that this word has almost become a “buzz word” in our circle these days (or perhaps this is where I have been “camped out” lately, as the Lord has been working on me). After talking to many godly friends about this, I have seen that it does mean different things to different people. I have lately begun to wonder if true legalism is simply saying you have to do something else to be saved or to be “more spiritual.” So, maybe we’re calling something legalism when it is more likely a critical spirt or being judgemental? I don’t know . . . still struggling with this one.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Carrie,
I see parents limiting their family size for so many reasons (concerns about the cost of college, about the children getting enough attention, etc) that can be rationalized as non-materialistic, even though none of us would choose to retroactively terminate our existence because Daddy can’t afford to pay for college or give us enough attention.
For my children, I think it’s appropriate to set a firm guideline (four kids), based on the weight of scripture and the general self-interest of the family. I see too many temptations for people to reason themselves (even honestly) into a smaller family given the extremely high short-term cost of raising children.
When you consider that Social Security, corporate pensions and the US government itself are virtually guaranteed to go bankrupt in a Weimar-style hyperinflation at some point (and that many of us are likely to get our personal wealth caught up in it if we aren’t quick to move out of dollars), having a lot of able-bodied children seems like pretty good insurance against the Alpo diet in old age.
Tom
October 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Leisa,
Another saying not found in scripture, but most people think is there:
“Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Well, if it were that easy, God could just send our sin to hell and we wouldn’t need salvation!
Tom
October 18th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I’m loving this topic! I understand all sides of the issue. With all the personal aspects (medical issues etc.) that go along with pregnancy I can see where this would be a topic that each family would have to deal with individually. Tom, I was laughing at your alpo diet comment!! It does get easier the more children you have. Yes, your time individually is limited but I think children gain so much from a large family. This was something that I struggled with until I read a couple books. These are just suggestions…(nobody hate me for my opinions)! I read: A Full Quiver (Family Planning and the Lorship of Christ) by Rick & Jan Hess, Be Fruitful and Multiply (What the Bible Says about Having Chilren) by Nancy Campbell, A Mom Just Like You by Vickie & Jayme Farris (her husband Mike is the president of HSLDA) and several books by Mary Pride (the way home, all the way home). These were some tough books to read! I didn’t want to agree with what they said, I thought they must be nuts. Especially the book A Mom Just Like You, it is so touching as she talks about her fertile years (they have 10 children) but they also had 4 miscarriages and her last baby came at 42! Her thinking changed from I can’t handle anymore to — God, please give me just one more. This is not a decision that everyone will agree with (or even be interested in) BUT it is a necessary topic to ponder. People seem to think that without birth control everyone would wind up with 20 kids - this is just not true (except maybe for the Duggars! They have had 4 documentaries on discovery health which my family has loved watching). For me this issue comes down to the phrase Trust and Obey. Everytime I start to question our decision, I just hear Trust and Obey. He will not give us more than we can bear. He will provide all that is needed to raise the “arrows” He gives us. Keep in mind this won’t mean he will give us huge houses, college funds etc. (that would be nice wouldn’t it). He will provide for our NEEDS. For me, having children is a lesson in patience, laziness and selfishness. It’s amazing how you can look at your child and see yourself reflected (kinda like a mirror). When I get on my kids for issues, most of the time if i’m honest I will see that I am having the same issues (ouch, convicting huh)? Almost every question for me can be answered by trust and obey. Some of my concerns have been: Can we afford it (Trust), can I handle it (Trust), is it fair to our other kids (Trust), what about the medical aspects (Trust), etc. etc. God keeps repeating this to me over and over (you’d think i’d get the message). Anyway, we also wholeheartedly support adoption! We are waiting (not very patiently) for our precious daughter from China! I have already mentioned a possible second adoption but Aaron has given me the “are you crazy/is there a money tree in the backyard” look. Cathy
**for those thinking about large families, reading about Susannah Wesley is very interesting!
October 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Cathy, I ADORE Susannah Wesley’s bio. I love love love it — whether you have zero kids or 13. She’s an inspiration to every woman.
Tom, there are SO many things that people think are in the Bible that aren’t. Me included. I looked at that list on the link I gave to Brian and was surprised.
This too shall pass.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
Neither are in Scripture.
Carrie, I just love you!! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Sort of a codicil to several comments:
As liberals have fewer and fewer children (e.g., France), mainly because “how can we bring a child into such a horrible world?”, and since biologists define a species’ success as the ability to thrive (i.e., reproduce) in its environs, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Christians having as many children as they are willing and able to; this includes adoption, IVF, what have you. And assuming the fathers are men who take their jobs seriously, and if Jeff is right on one of his many finer theological positions, this practice would tend to support amillenial eschatology.
In other words, we would eventually breed them (liberals) out of political and social relevance.
…or was that where y’all have been taking this the whole time?
October 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Correction: it would tend to support postmillenialism.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Also, Tom:
“love the sinner, hate the sin” — I’ve never personally heard anyone ascribe this to Scripture. I’ve only heard it used as a general philosophy in reaching out to the lost. Of course, when you’re trying to reach people who define themselves by their sin (homosexuals, for example) this approach becomes somewhat problematic.
I mean, John told us “God… loved the world [and then] sent His Son….” Which tells me that He loved me when I was yet dead in my sin, and the only difference between me and the murderer/drunk/pederast/kleptomaniac/little white liar next to me is that I have agreed to give up “that which I cannot keep” in order to get “that which I cannot lose.” — I know not only where the Narrow Gate is, but that there is a Gate to begin with.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Quote by Brian:
I mean, John told us “God… loved the world [and then] sent His Son….” Which tells me that He loved me when I was yet dead in my sin, and the only difference between me and the murderer/drunk/pederast/kleptomaniac/little white liar next to me is that I have agreed to give up “that which I cannot keep” in order to get “that which I cannot lose.” — I know not only where the Narrow Gate is, but that there is a Gate to begin with.
_________
Preach it brother!!!
I completely agree.