The new Christian eugenics
Jan. 10th, 2006 02:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ihcoycThe notion seems to be spreading among some circles that Christians are under some kind of duty to marry and have children. This is apparently the position of Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, who writes that "To demand that marriage means sex -- but not children -- is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children."
My position is that this is dangerous malarkey, for reasons I hope to make clear here.
First, it seems contrary to the counsel of Scripture. The most relevant text of the New Testament that addresses this is 1 Corinthians 7:
There are several points that I would make:
— First, that the Apostle Paul phrases his advice here as being personal, not a revelation from the Lord. Some would say that this means that this text has less authority than some other; I see it, instead, as the recognition that Paul is touching upon personal matters. The text suggests instead that individuals need to find their own way and own accomodations here.
— Second, the Apostle clearly prefers the single life over the married life, while recognizing that this is not for everyone.
— Third, the reason why Paul prefers the single life has to do with the freedom from earthly and financial affairs that the single state entails. This freedom, among other benefits, leaves the believer more time to do the Lord's work.
Very simply, all the reasons that Paul prefers the single life over the married life are also reasons to prefer the childless life over the breeding life. This is as close as you are going to get to a suggestion from Scripture as to what's appropriate here.
The other thing is that positions such as Mohler's are a revival of racist eugenics. Mohler appears to be concerned that the saints be the ones who are doing the breeding.
Now, some people use "eugenics" as a word of opprobrium; I am not sure they are right to do so all the time. I suspect that horror over the Holocaust tends to colour our reactions towards proposals that would manipulate human fertility to eliminate the suffering caused by congenital diseases. So long as government fiat is kept out of this, I don't necessarily have a problem.
But Mohler's position strikes me as disturbingly close to that of a neo-fascist morosophus like the fellow who calls himself "Spengler" after the Nazi philosopher. One of "Spengler's" obsessions seems to be that white Christian Europeans are being outbred by North African or Asian Muslims. He worries about racial or cultural displacement. I would never have heard of this fool but for the fact that some of his opinions were favourably mentioned on Christdot, a Christian blog.
This is far more dangerous stuff than birth control in my eyes, and far more contrary to the tenor of Scripture. I find myself unable to care whether future generations are white or brown. I just don't want to change their diapers.
My position is that this is dangerous malarkey, for reasons I hope to make clear here.
First, it seems contrary to the counsel of Scripture. The most relevant text of the New Testament that addresses this is 1 Corinthians 7:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
...
Now concerning[e] the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
There are several points that I would make:
— First, that the Apostle Paul phrases his advice here as being personal, not a revelation from the Lord. Some would say that this means that this text has less authority than some other; I see it, instead, as the recognition that Paul is touching upon personal matters. The text suggests instead that individuals need to find their own way and own accomodations here.
— Second, the Apostle clearly prefers the single life over the married life, while recognizing that this is not for everyone.
— Third, the reason why Paul prefers the single life has to do with the freedom from earthly and financial affairs that the single state entails. This freedom, among other benefits, leaves the believer more time to do the Lord's work.
Very simply, all the reasons that Paul prefers the single life over the married life are also reasons to prefer the childless life over the breeding life. This is as close as you are going to get to a suggestion from Scripture as to what's appropriate here.
The other thing is that positions such as Mohler's are a revival of racist eugenics. Mohler appears to be concerned that the saints be the ones who are doing the breeding.
Now, some people use "eugenics" as a word of opprobrium; I am not sure they are right to do so all the time. I suspect that horror over the Holocaust tends to colour our reactions towards proposals that would manipulate human fertility to eliminate the suffering caused by congenital diseases. So long as government fiat is kept out of this, I don't necessarily have a problem.
But Mohler's position strikes me as disturbingly close to that of a neo-fascist morosophus like the fellow who calls himself "Spengler" after the Nazi philosopher. One of "Spengler's" obsessions seems to be that white Christian Europeans are being outbred by North African or Asian Muslims. He worries about racial or cultural displacement. I would never have heard of this fool but for the fact that some of his opinions were favourably mentioned on Christdot, a Christian blog.
This is far more dangerous stuff than birth control in my eyes, and far more contrary to the tenor of Scripture. I find myself unable to care whether future generations are white or brown. I just don't want to change their diapers.
