| Not Having Babies, Not an Option | |
In a recent Boundless article, Dr. Budziszewski stated that one way to be impure within a marriage is to "refuse the gift of children."
Additionally, I recently purchased and read Dr. B's helpful book How
to Stay Christian in College. While I found most of the book easy
to figure out, I was a little puzzled by Dr. B's assertion that "unless
you're biologically incapable, never [having children] is not an option."
I just wonder why "be fruitful and multiply" necessarily applies to
every individual. My question to Dr. Budziszewski is, "What obligates
every married couple to have children?" And also, does Dr.B's opinion
on this issue have anything to do with his studies on natural law?
Jonathan Elifson
Dear Mr. Elifson,
Thanks for your excellent question. Here is the passage of How to
Stay Christian in College to which you're referring:
There are two ways to argue the point: One is from Scripture, which
is sometimes called "special" revelation because it is given specially
to the community of faith to guide us to Christ and safeguard us from
error. The other is from natural law, which is sometimes called
"general" revelation because it is made dimly available to every human
being. I'll use both ways.
The scriptural reason why deciding not to have children is not an
option for couples is that when God commanded us to be fruitful in Genesis 1:28, no
exceptions were either stated or implied. On the contrary, not only
in this verse, but throughout the Bible, children are viewed as a
joyful gift, and barrenness as an affliction. To offer one's body to
God as an occasion for His creation of a new human life is a profound
expression of obedience, cooperation and trust. As Mary said to
the archangel Gabriel on hearing that she was to bear Jesus, "I am
the Lord's servant; let it be to me as you have said." And let us
not forget that hers was a "crisis pregnancy" in an even deeper sense
than the usual.
To argue from general revelation rather than special revelation is
to appeal to considerations which can be known even apart from
Scripture — although they can usually be found in Scripture too.
Surprisingly, the Bible does not make the claim that nobody can know
anything about God's moral requirements except by reading the Bible.
In fact it tells of a number of other ways in which God has made them
known, including the principle of the harvest (that every sin has
consequences) and the plan of our physical and emotional design (the
purposes that are plain from the way we are put together).
For example, even without referring to Scripture it is easy to see
that having children changes us in a way we desperately need to be
changed. For those who are called to celibacy God provides other
means of transformation, but for those who are called to marriage,
children are the plan. They wake us up, they wet their diapers,
they depend on us. Willy-nilly, they knock us out of our selfish
habits and force us to live sacrificially for others.
Children are a necessary and natural continuation of the shock to
our selfishness which is initiated by marriage itself, for although
it is true that the spouses can live sacrificially for each other,
by itself this love is not enough; it turns too easily inward rather
than outward to the world. You see, as time goes along, married
folk who refuse to offer themselves to God for the gift of children
become even more selfish than they had intended. Instead of two
selfish Mes they merely become a single selfish Us, so they have
really not got far outside themselves after all.
Does it have to happen that way? Yes. We were designed to live
a certain way, and when we try to live in another, it doesn't work.
Anyone can see that sex not only produces children but also brings
about an exquisite enhancement of the unity of the spouses. What we
dare not forget is that this is a package deal. By trying to separate
the two purposes, seeking the unity but refusing the gift of children,
we still get a kind of unity, but it goes bad; it ferments, turns sour,
and begins to stink.
My criticism does not apply to infertile couples, who are childless
through no fault of their own. But when we deliberately separate the
intimate and the procreative sides of sex, we make ourselves like
those ancient Romans who tried to separate the social from the
nutritive side of dining. They served more food at feasts than
anyone could digest, offering their guests peacock feathers for
purging between courses.
These things have always been recognized among Christians, even in
the ceremony of marriage. The modern refusal of the gift of children
comes neither from faith, from hope, or from love. Nor does it come
from "care for the earth" or any of the other secular nostrums that
are offered in its defense. It is nothing but selfishness, the desire
to have everything our way. Through marrying and having children,
by contrast, we identify with all those mothers and fathers, all those
mothers of mothers and fathers of fathers, through whose self-giving
we ourselves have received the gift of life, and we pass that gift on
into hands we do not see. We link ourselves with all past and all
future generations, confident of the providence of the Lord our
God, Who was, and is, and is to come.
Thanks again for writing.
Grace and Peace,
If you have questions you’d like to Ask Theo,
send us an email and we'll pass it along to him.
|
|