The No Kool Aid Zone

“Whether or not Christian couples should childlessness…” That’s nauseating, a disgrace. How hedonistic and low can you go? Thanks for sharing Byron, I enjoyed reading about someone who sees children as a gift from God and not as an “inconvenience.” Keep up the good work!

Billy ~ Jun 13, 2005 at 8:07 pm

Maybe I’m just not a good Christian. Maybe I’m a product of my generation, but I fail to see the sin, the nausea, the disgrace, hedonism, and ungodly depths in deciding to not have children.

Narzack ~ Jun 14, 2005 at 10:08 pm

I’d say that reading Mohler’s article would be a good thing, Narzster…

Byron ~ Jun 14, 2005 at 10:34 pm

I am one half of a childless couple. We have chosen this life style. I am also certainly willing to confess that, as a Christian, there are areas of my life that are far from perfect. Having said that, here is my take on this issue.

I agree with Narzack and I have read the article, have you? Mr. Mohler is pretty good at building straw men but not very good at making a valid argument. He makes sweeping generalizations that show a lack of depth of thought (the kind that, frankly, give Christians a bad name).

Does it really follow that since “Scripture does not even envision married couples that choose not to have children” then all married couples that can have children must have them? How many things are we involved in on a daily basis that “Scripture does not envision”? I never realized that Scripture’s silence on a topic was a proof for a point of view.

I’m curious about how many children Mr. Mohler thinks we should have. I would take from his article that as long as you are capable of having children you should have them. Is a couple that has had only one child, and then stopped having children, in “moral rebellion”? Is one gift from God enough? How many children make a “full quiver”?

Finally, Mohler says, “those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood”. How in the world does he know how and why my wife and I made our decision? This is a simplistic and inaccurate judgment.

I would suggest that before Mr. Mohler calls down God’s judgment on anyone else he should take a good long look in the mirror.

Fuds79 ~ Jun 15, 2005 at 3:58 pm

No, no. I read the article. I just find myself unconvinced of the heresy of childlessness. I don’t think it has anything to do with judging, or hypocrisy or any of those ridiculous and meaningless buzzwords. It just doesn’t seem to me to be proof of depravity. And, I do believe in the literal truth of the Bible, that’s not the problem either.

Narzack ~ Jun 15, 2005 at 4:27 pm

I agree with Fuds79 and Narzack. The article is not so much based on scripture as a worship of “The Family” and seems to be more rooted in a concern that the secular will outnumber the Godly, as if this is a numbers game.

Expat Teacher ~ Jun 20, 2005 at 3:34 pm

umm people.. narzack in particular… “judging, or hypocrisy” is what you people do. remember? sucks to have it turned on yourself for once doesn’t it?

El Serracho ~ Jun 21, 2005 at 4:47 pm

El Serracho

That’s pretty bold to say that Narzack, a person you have never met, nor probably know anything about, is a judgmental hypocrite. I assume by “you people” you mean Christians. There is certainly no shortage of the hypocritical judgmental ones, but to throw in specific people you have never met as part of that group is a little offsides, no?

Hefe ~ Jun 21, 2005 at 5:24 pm

I said that it has nothing to do with hypocrisy or judging. NOTHING. Don’t try to bait me.

Narzack ~ Jun 21, 2005 at 10:10 pm

sure, it wasnt very nice but to the larger question…

i find it very interesting, maybe even heartening, to see that there is a discussion in the christian community about some internal strife. so the evangelical world at large has decided (mostly) that this particular lifestyle (gays) or that (muslims) or the other (pagans) is “wrong” or “ungodly” (heaven forbid).. and now a (presumably smaller) group within that group has decided that certain of it’s own aren’t living up to their interpretation of a proper life.

sort of ‘shoes on the other foot’ sort of thing.. eh?

perhaps it a chance for some introspection and consideration of how it feels to those that you choose to persecute .. er sorry, i mean ‘save’.

El Serracho ~ Jun 23, 2005 at 2:09 pm

Back in the saddle and re-reading the article, I have to concede that the weakness of Al Mohler’s argument is that he doesn’t seem to envision the possibility that a Christian couple might choose childlessness for some reason other than selfishness—which is what the examples he uses illustrates. In the narrow examples he uses—and it would be very interesting to know what the “percentages” are—I agree with his conclusion: if a couple’s prime motive for remaining childless revolves around selfishness and hedonistic impulses, such as his examples would seem to indicate, then I think that that’s a huge problem, morally—because selfishness manifested in any way is a moral problem, right?

What he doesn’t seem to countenance—and where the water gets a lot murkier—is in the case of the Christian couple whose motive is different. Health issues and other significant family responsibilities, for instance, might represent two much more valid motives for making this choice, and I’m sure others could be envisioned. Mohler seems to be taking on what he assumes to be the majority reason—and again, it may well be—for a couple remaining willfully childless. On that point, I certainly concur with him, while acknowledging that the same choice made with other motives might very well be a different story.

And let me respond to El Serracho (Spanish translation?) in a separate post…

Byron ~ Jun 24, 2005 at 11:38 am

El Serracho,

One of the things you should know is that there are a whole range of issues—maybe they don’t see the light of day, but they exist—upon which the evangelical community expends effort in debate. This idea of a political/religious monolith that our simplistic media likes to paint, of “fundamentalists” who march in lockstep on virtually every issue, is just false. If you read this blog regularly, you’ll find me taking on a whole range of issues, and disagreeing with some of my evangelical brethren with regularity (hence “The No-Kool-Aid Zone”). One of my next posts will be about the Flag Amendment—and I’m with—egads!!!—Hillary Clinton on this one more than I’m with Rick Santorum! Yikes!

To the bigger point, though, a key shortcoming in your previous post is with a presupposition you make so that you may then reach a conclusion: the evangelical world at large has decided (mostly) that this particular lifestyle (gays) or that (muslims) or the other (pagans) is “wrong” or “ungodly”. The “evangelical world” does nothing of the sort; our commitment is to taking the Bible literally (where it’s meant to be taken literally, of course), believing it to be God’s Word to us (rather than man’s ideas about God). If it’s God’s Word to us, then our responsibility is to accurately interpret it, as best we can, and then to humbly live it out—regardless of our own predilections and whims.

We often don’t do it all that well. We sometimes confuse “hating the sin” with “hating the sinner”—and we are dead wrong when we do that. We often justify our own sins and excesses—the 300-lb. preacher inveighing against drinking a beer leaps to mind—and we are dead wrong when we do that. We sometimes come off as though we relish the idea that some of the groupings of people you mention whom we believe will perish eternally without Christ—”gays”, Muslims, etc.—we are dead wrong when we do that. We sometimes come off as though we have everything figured out about God, and we sometimes come off as though we are holier than thou—and we are dead wrong when we do that. We sometimes “persecute” others, and we are dead wrong when we do that.

All of that said, the truth of God remains firm, despite our failings. What doesn’t make news, though, is the millions of Christian people who are doing what they can to make a difference, who are loving their neighbors, be they gay, Muslim, atheist, you name it. What doesn’t make news is the sacrificial way many Christians give of themselves. For every idiot like Fred Phelps who puts up a “God Hates Fags” website, there are thousands who would welcome people struggling with homosexuality into their churches, who would pray with them and love them and lift them up in their struggles. Sometimes what our truth-twisting media chooses to say is way wide of the mark when it comes to how evangelicals think and act…

What evangelicals try to do is to let the Bible guide our words and actions. This sometimes makes us “soft” where the world is “hard”, and sometimes it makes us “hard” where the world is “soft”. Actually, this should happen more often than it does! But our motive is far from one of trying to persecute people for the kicks we get out of it; it is one of trying to do what we must to be faithful to God’s Word, and when we are doing it right, we recognize first of all the 2×4 in our own eyes long before we get around to fiddling with the splinter in someone else’s.

Byron ~ Jun 24, 2005 at 11:57 am

Thanks for a balanced reply in defense of Evangelicals who are genuinely trying to live out love for others, not persecute the people God loves, who are in no way less valuable than we are.

On the issue of choosing not to have children, my husband and I are well into the gray area. We aren’t convinced that we are right, but we hope that the desire to have children is a gift from God, and the desire to remain without children is also a gift similar to the gift of celibacy. While it is true that we would in no way be able to enjoy parenthood, if we were certain that it was a requirement of God, we would go through with it anyway. We want to be obedient. However, it seems to me that if we were born completely without parental instincts, that might be for a reason.

We own a successful business that takes up a lot of our time and resources. We intend to dedicate the proceeds to the work of the Kingdom. Someday, if God continues to bless our work, we will be financially independent and able to give our time as well as our money to helping others.

Our decision to not have children may have a decidedly selfish element (i.e., we don’t want to), but I hope that the overall course of our lives will not.

I do find children a tremendous blessing. Other people’s children. I have nieces and a nephew that I adore. But I don’t feel remotely equipped with either the desire or the ability to raise children of my own. Does that make me rebellious against God’s plan, siding with the hedonistic world around me rather than with scripture? I hope not, with all of my heart.

Chere ~ Sep 4, 2005 at 3:09 am

I also agree with Fuds79 and Narzack. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that living without children is moral rebellion.

I am married and intentionally childless primarily because I believe I’d make a horrible parent. I’m easily annoyed and quick to anger, and the things children are interested in and do on a daily basis bore me to tears. I’m also a hyper-analytical perfectionist (thanks to my OWN parents) and I am afraid I would inflict that on a child of my own (whether I consciously tried to or not).

Anyway I think it takes a strong person to acknowledge your strengths and weaknesses. I’m 37 and my wife is 38 and I’ve been struggling for years with my personality quirks. Maybe if I were a different person I’d feel I could be a parent… but I’d hate to think I could raise a child who wishes every day he/she had a different Dad as I did with my parents.

But I’m sure Mohler thinks I’m just selfish and all about sex, right?

Kyle ~ Apr 13, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Doesn’t widespread contraception and “willful barrenness and chosen childlessness” (contraception/abortion/sterilization = fruit of the same tree) use by Christians lead to:

(1) dramatic decline in births;
(2) ubiquitous fornication and adultery since the risk of a “consequence” nine months later is gone;
(3) hundreds of thousands of abortions to hide these “consequences”;
(4) unprecedented divorce and unbiblical “remarriage” (AKA perpetual adultery) rates;
(5) millions of destroyed Christian homes;
(6) shrinking and failing Christian denominations?

Isn’t pervasive use of contraception/abortion/sterilization by Christians anti-Bible, anti-family, anti-Church *and* anti-American?

Therefore, how can “intentional childlessness” be Christian?

Allan Schwarb ~ Apr 22, 2010 at 8:23 am