Intellectuelle

I just have to question why one would feel the need to be anything but " defensive" in this sort of discussion. What would be the purpose of being on the offensive in this topic?

I give a lot of weight to Jeremy Pierce's comments, having had discussions with him and regularly reading his blog. I learned to ask just what he meant, because he is unusually precise, and with that being true you can't presume. So, while I am unsure what the exact intent is in posting this, I would ask:

1) in the statement, "Moral principles interact in complicated ways." while being true, is this how QF people view it, as "principle"? Or do they view it as command... in which case -for them- it stands apart from the complicating interaction.

2) If it is command to them in their minds, are we right in disputing that for them, in the spirit of Romans 14 and the conscience.

In this case, does the theoretical scenario of an over-populated world have much real meaning? Would there be a large enough number of people convinced of this as truth to impact the practical outcomes? The more there would be real world overpopulation the less people would tend to be given to this conviction that they are commanded to have children. It is only a small portion of the world's population that entertain these thoughts.
Are we to say they are wrong based on some imaginary evil future scene?

IOW, Couldn't we afford to leave them alone, and wouldn't the moral point be moot, unless you are willing to say it is immoral to have children under certain circumstances. Which many in the secular have already said.

... and then how does that line up with moral principles of any Christian sort?

3)And so I find fault with this entire line of thinking:

"It's good to have children, other things being equal, but other things aren't always equal. There may well be situations that it would be immoral to bring children into, and I'm even willing to say that many people's motivations for wanting children (or wanting more children) are so selfish that it's wrong for them to have children (or more children)."

Since when do we play God, now that we have clean technological ways of ending pregnancies? Or is this another instance of the myth that birth control is 100% effective. What do you do about this theoretically "immoral" baby, then? Since when do we have nice clean cut and dry ways of dividing off the selfish reason for having a child and the ...what?... moral, ...holy.... acceptable reason for having a child?
Can these lines even be drawn? I say no, not with a reasonable certainty, and to bring it up is to cast unmerited aspersions.

I love you, bro' but this was not the best of your arguments.

I have a few more points... but I think this is enough for now.

=====
The commandments are few, and the principles are couched within ones relationship to God. Ones conscience before God.

I see nothing wrong with the grad student who is struggling with doing what is best for his own family. Nothing. I also see nothing wrong in the QF convinced person following what they believe is their calling.

I have difficulty -further- with throwing the whole childbearing thing into a view of moral vs. immoral. It has many problems.

I like talking issues, I heartily dislike skewering people for what they believe. I hope we are making distinctions here.

Ilona, I don't have time to address your comment right now but I just wanted to make clear that I asked Jeremy if I could post his comment here and he agreed. Now I need to let him know that it's here so he can respond...

I just have to question why one would feel the need to be anything but " defensive" in this sort of discussion. What would be the purpose of being on the offensive in this topic?

Hi Ilona - that's a good question. Those who consider their belief to be a command do sometimes take the "offensive". I've deliberately said that generically as it can apply to many beliefs/positions. So I think the statement in the post is a clarification of position. Why would some-one feel the need? To answer in a generalised way - for the same reasons one feels the need to pronounce any dogmatic belief - a belief that one has a truth which needs to be conveyed in order to bring an alignment of hearts and actions with the will of God. If that is the case then scripture needs to be clear I think, and if it isn't, then the "offensive" requires a response - an apologetic of sorts.
I agree with what you are saying, if I read you right, that as there is no clear mandate then it becomes a matter of conscience in the context of personal relationship with God and within marriage. But getting to the spirit of Romans 14 sometimes takes some discussion - hence the discussion in Romans 14 itself.

Marla,
QF is not something I've really encountered offline either. Except for some Catholics I've known. I've also known Catholics who have practised birth control. It seems to be a cultural phenomenon in some ways - and that is not a criticism on my part but just an observation. If it is being mandated as a command then it does carry a parallel judgement with it - every command carries with it the blessing or curse of obedience or disobedience. If it is seen as a personal matter of conscience which is to be respected as the will and work of God in a couple's life, then I see no issue.

Ilona, I just had a chance to re-read your comment, so quickly (dd #2 has just awoken) let me just say that I wouldn't be raising the offensive (with Jeremy's comment here) but for the condemning response I got when I initally went on the defensive. One person even posted a quote from a Catholic saint (which, btw, as a protestant, I view all believers as saints) saying that many a childless woman was burning in hell.

If QFers wouldn't look upon family planners as being in sin, I wouldn't have any need to discuss this. The pros and cons of families of varying sizes maybe, but not in a defensive way. If QFers said (as you asked) "this our interpretation of Scripture for ourselves" or "this our individual conviction/calling" without trying to legalize the entire body of Christ with it, there would be no need for me to post on this subject.

But what I've been seeing is that in other geographic regions (not liberal areas like where I live and there) QF has become a form of peer pressure--it is becoming legalism. And that's also clear from the QF websites. I would argue, that is in fact become a whole subculture in itself. But to discuss that, I need to make my post about the third presupposition (or whatever it should be called) about "growing the kingdom." I have major issues with "kingdom theology" and the damage it's causing.

I don't like to see believers hurting each other by enforcing dogma that isn't Biblical--even if they do it in a subtle way. And I'm exploring the idea of whether a QF subculture could be problematic, especially if it is isolationist (i.e. raising up homegrown "armies" for God that are sheltered from the world and then sent out to "evangelize"). This smacks of kingdom theology to me, but I will have to get into that later...

Sorry if I'm incoherent but my mind is in about 17 places at once right now! Hopefully I haven't offended anyone who isn't dogmatic about QF...there are lots who have identified themselves with QF but once they realize the actual beliefs, they are starting to separate themselves, largely as a result of the discussion of what QF is that I have forced to the surface so that it cannot subtle infiltrate the doctrinal positions of churches or the minds of women who would otherwise not feel called to having so many children--it is no small thing to make a woman feel as though she must raise a huge family in order to be a "Godly" woman.

And I'm still trying to find time to research the whole Bill Gothard angle/origin so I can post on that if there's anything to it...

Ugh, I hate not being able to edit myself. This is how I always seem to get into trouble.

Ilona, I'm not telling people what to do, which is all Romans 14 talks about. I'm giving arguments in the direction of what the correct moral view is. Romans 14 presumes there is a correct moral view. In that passage, the correct moral view is that it's perfectly ok not to keep kosher, to eat meat, etc. There are those who are weak of conscience who haven't been freed of their past inhibitions against such things, and therefore those who understand the correct teaching of scripture on those issues will need to be careful around those who have false views because of weak consciences and not cause them to do something they believe is wrong, because it is sin if they do what they think is sin, even if they're wrong that it's sin in general. It's still sin for them.

Note that Paul still taught the truth. He taught that we don't need to circumcise our children, keep kosher, or engage in the ritual celebrations of the Hebrew calendar. He made no bones about that. With those whose consciences still were weak and couldn't move away from those, he kept such traditions while with them. With those who weren't grasping the truth, his interactions with people didn't involve him taking advantage of the freedom Christ has provided. That doesn't mean he didn't try to help people to see that freedom doesn't require keeping such traditions. It just means he wanted to make sure he didn't do anything that made them do it during the time they considered it sin, and he tried not to provoke them to immoral judging by doing it around them in some blatant and provocative way.

When you apply this to the quiverfull issue, what I'm arguing is that the quiverfull mentality is held by those who are weak of conscience and can't get around an extremely simplistic reading of some biblical statements. For them, it is wrong to use birth control pills and condoms, because it would be doing something that they believe to be wrong. It isn't wrong in principle, however, and those who have thought through the various moral principles that apply will realize that sometimes it's wrong to use such methods and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

Now that's one thing. It's quite another for believers who are spiritually mature and in a position to influence less mature believers to impose this sort of requirement on others. That's teaching a moral principle in a way that's elevated above its real applicability. It becomes legalism much like that of the Pharisees, who simply had different issues they were forcing on others.

As for the offensive and defensive issue, I was quite sure that what I was up to in my comment was defensive. Marla gave some indication of where she stood on this issue in a post, and some quiverfull types came in and presented a bunch of arguments against what she said. I responded to one of them in a comment that I also posted on my own blog. Months later, someone clicked to my blog from that post, and I went to check back to see if anyone else had commented. Someone had. They had responded specifically to my argument, claiming that the things I said were parallel weren't really.

The thing Marla quotes from me starts with the key statement from the comment I was responding to:

"The reasoning in most of the comments goes against the way God has created us: God has created us to work, to explore, to create. One of the first things he told Adam to do was have dominion. He directly commands us to be diligent, etc."

My comment was a critique of that statement. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be offense rather than defense. It's a defense of things I've said against what's been said against them.

The playing God argument is almost always fallacious, by the way. I had a whole post on that a while back, so I won't repeat it here.

The playing God post is here.

Actually, we Catholics agree that the communion of saints includes the faithful on earth, although in colloquial speech we usually use it to mean canonised saints, or the saints now in heaven.

And the St John Vianney quote doesn't talk about childless women, he said, "[the women who] did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

I know you're tired of this quote, but note the should in there. It's the critical point. Do you agree that if it is God's will that you should have a child, it would be a sin to impede it?

(Incidentally, I strongly suspect the Curé was referring to abortion as well as contraception.)

That leaves the question of whether you should, that is, how to discern God's will in this matter. QF apparently say, "Try to have all you can and don't even try NFP". Catholics say, "If there are grave and serious reasons, NFP is allowable if used prayerfully and discerningly."

"Catholic saint (which, btw, as a protestant, I view all believers as saints) saying that many a childless woman was burning in hell. "

Oh for crying out loud Marla, that's not what St. John Vianney said at all. You are totally taking it out of context and misrepresenting him.

Atlantic presents the Catholic position very well.

Yes, Elena, I have been crying out loud...wailing actually, as a woman in labor--hopefully my two "meager" births count for something ;)

Let's see, to correct myself, the quote (sorry I'm too lazy/tired to go back and look and neither of you has posted it here) actually said something to the effect of women not having enough children (?) being in hell. All I remember is that it had to do with women being in hell...who did not have children or enough children. That about covers it. But feel free to post the exact quote here if you like.

I agree with your criticisms of QF, and, gaging from this excerpt from one of his sermons, so would John Piper:

"Woe to us if we ever become so fixated on the welfare of our own children that we lose our passion for rescuing lost neighbors and reaching lost nations. It is astonishing, but true that Jesus said in Matthew 19:29, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life." We have to come to terms with the fact that leaving children for Jesus' sake may not be sin.

Our own children are not our highest value. Christ is our highest value. And the call of Christ relativizes two great creation ordinances. One is marriage and the other is parenting. In creation God said, "It is not good for man to be alone . . . a man shall leave mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:18, 24). But the apostle Paul said to the Corinthians that he wished everyone were like him—namely, single—because it can bring such undistracted devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:7, 35). He concedes, each has his own gift (1 Corinthians 7:7). So it is good to be married. Yes, but for the sake of the in-breaking kingdom of God in these last days, it may be even better to be single.

So it is with parenting. Psalm 127:3 says that children are a precious "inheritance" and a "reward." Genesis 1:28 says that we are to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." Yes, but this too is not absolute. If marriage is not ultimate, parenting cannot be ultimate either. If the in-breaking kingdom of God relativizes the ideal of marriage and makes singleness a crucial, Christ-exalting strategy, so it is with parenting. There will be God-ordained, Christ-exalting kingdom-advancing strategies for parents that are not built around the ideal comforts and securities and earthly possibilities and pedagogical excellence for children. There will be times, Jesus says (in Matthew 19:29), when "for my sake" you will leave children. And no doubt in leaving you will feel that the ideal home situation is being lost. And it is. But God is able to do more than we ever dreamed with the painful circumstances created by following his radical call. "One hundredfold", is the word he uses. "One hundredfold" (hekatontaplasiona)!

I mention this only to say again, Woe to us if we ever become so fixated on the welfare of our own children that we lose our passion for rescuing lost neighbors and reaching lost nations."

Scott, I really appreciate what you've contributed here. I'm learning a lot as I process this stuff aloud, so to speak...er, blog ;)

Unless I missed it somewhere, no one's quoted from someone promoting QF. I haven't heard the position argued as Marla's presented it. If Marla's presentation is accurate, then I suppose I'm in a weak or modified QF camp.

Here's how I would put it- In general (but not always), married people should have as many children as God will bless them with except in extreme circumstances- such as poverty, military oppression, etc. I would not say it's sinful to use family-planning methods unless the method(s) are abortive. My limited understanding on that is that all pills are in some way abortive, so options are quite few.

I look at it this way- Someone who "loves God" but doesn't pursue knowledge of God will at the very least be stunted in their spiritual growth. They may not be in sin, but they're missing a significant part of the Christian life. A Christian couple who decides not to have children, when there are no extreme circumstances, is missing out on something that would bless them because it would bring glory to God. I have a friend who is admimently against having children, even though her and her husband would likely make great parents and would be able to provide for their family well. They're not sinning (I don't think), but I think they would please God more by raising a family.

Hi Roger,
Re:
Here's how I would put it- In general (but not always), married people should have as many children as God will bless them with except in extreme circumstances- such as poverty, military oppression, etc. I would not say it's sinful to use family-planning methods unless the method(s) are abortive. My limited understanding on that is that all pills are in some way abortive, so options are quite few.

The difficulty I have with your provisos - poverty, military oppression - is that you haven't provided a biblical basis for those. Or for the partial QF argument.
On the pill - no, not all can be called abortifacient.
See this.
However the issue is not the Pill, as some use NFP.
I think we can all give different individual examples of people who choose not to practice birth control or who those who do - and various reasons as they are given in each case. But underlying all that is the issue of whether or not QF is a command, or a matter of conscience.

Of your friends you said:
They're not sinning (I don't think), but I think they would please God more by raising a family.

Given that there is no clear general madate - how can you say you think they would please God more? Haven't you just moved from a "defensive" to "offensive" position?

Roger, I didn't link to all the posts/comments on my blog dealing with this issue because I didn't want to stir up even more controversy, but when I've pinned down QFers on this, they're very black and white about it. There are no exceptions. Your view is more like the Catholic view except even more liberal. I wouldn't say you are QF. You can also check out the QF websites though I'm not sure they explicitly state the theology but it's strongly implied. To borrow Catez's terms, my understanding of it is that it is command, not conviction, thus the reason it's become known as a theology.

L-Samantha asked a good question on her blog and the comments are enlightening, especially the one from dollymama who used to be QF until some major life threatening situations cause her and her husband to re-evaluate the view. Here's the URL of the post and comments:

http://homerealm.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/13974

Roger, I consider your position very moderate as quiverfull goes. I myself think there are moral considerations that, in absence of other moral considerations, would favor trying to maximize fertility. I even think there are moral considerations against using most methods of family planning or birth control (or whatever you want to call it). This includes not just the pill but condoms and even natural family planning. Condoms interfere with one natural purpose of sex by having something come between husband and wife, and that's bad enough that it takes somewhat strong considerations to overcome it. What's usually called natural family planning is basically abstinence, and we do have an extremely strong statement against that from Paul in I Corinthians. That shouldn't be used for avoiding children but only for prayer, and this is a concession to those who have trouble devoting themselves to prayer while sexually active, something I doubt is true of most people in our context.

What distinguishes that position from quiverfull is that there are other moral considerations, and you seem happy to agree with that. With the quiverfull view, these things are viewed as absolutes, something akin to Immanuel Kant's view that lying is morally wrong no matter what, even if it's a matter of life and death. This doesn't hold up biblically, given God's command that Samuel lie to the elders of Bethlehem about why he was there in I Samuel 16 or the clear enough statements that the midwives in Exodus 1 and Rahab in Joshua were righteous in their actions when they lied to save lives. That's a fairly common absolutizing of a moral consideration that really is very serious but not absolute.

Quiverfull does the same thing with the command to be fruitful and multiply, but this is worse, because this would be like saying the command not to lie means we need to tell as many truths as we possibly can as often as we possibly can, when all the prohibition says is not to lie (and with biblical evidence that it's not absolute to begin with). It goes way beyond the statement that children are a blessing from God too. Crops to harvest are a blessing from God. That doesn't mean we should buy as much land as we can afford and then farm as much of it as we can to maximize the yield from it. Descriptions of biblical people that display how blessed by God they were include wealth and property, but that doesn't mean we should do all we can to get as much wealth and property as possible. You don't countermand other moral considerations to achieve military victory, though military victory is a blessing from God. You can misuse methods of achieving wealth and poverty, and you can misuse things that help achieve military victory. You can misuse your time and resources in growing crops.

So too can you misuse the ability to reproduce. I think most Americans have children out of selfish reasons, and that is indeed immoral. The aforementioned medical and financial considerations are moral considerations. Some people may find themselves in conditions that simply make it unwise to have children or to have more children, just as people may find it unwise to take a job that would in other circumstances may be the best thing to do and would be a blessing. Having children is a responsibility, and those who take it on without a commitment or ability to follow through with it are acting immorally. That doesn't mean the best option for them is not to have children, though in extreme cases it might be. People also shouldn't underestimate their own abilities or the fact that people will rise to the occasion in most cases, but people who have children without this willingness and therefore end up as very bad parents would have been better off not having children at all. The millstone passage comes to mind, which says they would have been better off not even to have been born.

We must take into account the environmental consequences of expansion beyond what our planet can hold, not that I think we're there yet, but it's the principle. The command to dominate the earth has been fulfilled in some parts of the earth, however, particularly China and India. I don't advocate the Chinese policy of dealing with this, but surely it's a moral consideration to want to limit reproduction, and those who would voluntary seek not to contribute as much to their overpopulation are acting out of a concern for something that is moral but goes in the opposite direction of quiverfull.

Not everyone is obligated to do all of these things anyway. The command to be fruitful and multiply is given to humanity. The fact that Paul says it's in some ways better not to be married, as the Piper quote says, shows that it doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not sure why we'd assume it even applies to every married couple.

"Yes Elena... I have been crying out loud..wailing actually like a woman in labor ... hoping my two "meager" briths actually count for something. "

Wow. As strawman arguments go - that was certainly one of the more dramatic ones I've ever encountered! And why "meager" in quotes? Who said that?

Sorry Marla, but if you're too tired or lazy to make the exact quote in context then you should have just left it out. I'm pretty sure you learned that at UC Berkley!. Catholic theology isn't QF anyway.

If someone really has an itch to debate what the saint said, I put something on my blog up on August 4, Feast of St. John Vianney and I included the infamous quote.

Elena, it was a joke, not an argument--pure sarcasm. Here's some more. As for the paraphrased quote, I was commenting, not writing my dissertation.

Actual quote:

"There is many a woman in hell who did not have the children that God wanted her to have." St. John Vianney

Here's the Vianney post on my blog:

http://www.marlaswoffer.com/blog/2005/07/qf_again.html

Well then your paraphrasing leaves a bit to be desired.

Here is the quote in context:
To a mother of a large family, who was expecting another child, he said with fatherly kindness and consideration: "Be comforted, my child. If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

Further links and discussion here:
http://mydomesticchurch.blogspot.com/2005/08/today-is-feast-of-st.html

Elena what I don't understand is why you are arguing the Catholic position so strongly on a post that is about QF. I agree the Catholic position is not the QF referred to in the post. So you are introducing a position that is actually not relevant.
I also don't see the relevance of Vianney's quote - he provides no biblical reference at all. Easy for him to pass an opinion without the responsibility. On the other hand - since we are discussing QF and it is found in a Protestant context, albeit a cultural phenomenon, Catholic teaching is irrelevant.
I am an ex-Catholic myself, and I know that while the church might make it's official statements, many don't adhere to no-contraception. But as I said, as far as QF Theory goes it is a matter of conscience, and not in the context of Catholic dogma.

"Be comforted, my child. If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

QF take aside, I find it odd to comfort a pregnant woman with the thought that another women is going to hell. That wouldn't comfort me. It would probably distress me more.

Elena what I don't understand is why you are arguing the Catholic position so strongly on a post that is about QF. I agree the Catholic position is not the QF referred to in the post. So you are introducing a position that is actually not relevant.

Actually I agree. The Catholic position, doesn't have a dog in this race!!

and yet you yourself brought it up Catez as knowing Catholics who were QF (and if they were, they're doing they're own thing, just as Catholics who contracept are doing their own thing. Neither group is following what the Catholic Church actually teaches) Then Marla brought St. John Vianney into it again with a blatant misrepresentation of what he said.

So I'm not arguing the position, I'm merely keeping the record straight on what the Catholic church does and does not actually teach. That said, I'm more than happy and a bit bemused to watch the rest of ya'll wrestle with this! So carry on!!

Point taken Elena, I did mention Catholics - I think I worded that poorly before. I was getting at the fact that I've only come across QF online - and the most similar thing I'd encountered offline was some Catholics I've known. But they are two different things and I'm glad we are agreed on that.

I don't think Vianney was misrepresented. It's a matter of perspective and how much importance one places on him personally I think. His opinion came in because of previous discussion on this at Marla's blog - and you introduced it as I recall. So it has followed on - but is irrelelvant I think to what this post is about.

It's a good discussion. Thanks for replying to my comment - appreciate it.

Point taken Elena, But they are two different things and I'm glad we are agreed on that.

Me too! : )

I don't think Vianney was misrepresented.

Sure he was. He never said all childless women would go to hell or anything of the sort. That was a misrepresentation.

It's a matter of perspective and how much importance one places on him personally I think. His opinion came in because of previous discussion on this at Marla's blog - and you introduced it as I recall.

Nope. Wasn't me. Someone else put it in the comment section on Marla's blog and then Marla brought it front and center for discussion. I had nothing to do with introducing it.

It's a good discussion. Thanks for replying to my comment - appreciate it.

You're welcome. Thank you for a nice dialogue!

OK. Elena to be honest I don't care about Vianney - his view is not relevant to me. I don't care who brought what front and centre in another post - it's starting to come across to me as axe grinding rather than discusion. I was just trying to point out the spill over. And it's irrelevance.

Catholic teaching on contraception is not the same thing as QF Theory, and we are agreed. The post is on QF Theory.

Just out of curiosity Catez, we had a pleasant ending I thought. Was your last comment really necessary?

Hi, Elena,

Because I have an interest in quotes and their use, I do have a few questions about Vianney's quote that weren't answered on your blog's discussion on the topic. I decided to address it here in case other readers had the same questions.

So, knowing that this post doesn't specifically address Vianney's quote and knowing that people are probably weary of "the quote" I have a few questions about it. I'm asking you because you know more about it than I do and I'd like to understand.

I'll use your comment as the basis for the questions.

Earlier in this post you said:

"Here is the quote (Vianney's) in context:

To a mother of a large family, who was expecting another child, he said with fatherly kindness and consideration: "Be comforted, my child. If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

Further links and discussion here:
http://mydomesticchurch.blogspot.com/2005/08/today-is-feast-of-st.html

(As I said, I checked your blog but didn't find the answers to my question. I thought I left a comment asking for clarification, but I must have hit the wrong button.)

Here's where I need your help in understanding the quote. What did he mean when he said, "women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it." ?

I understand that he was trying to comfort the woman. It still seems as though he was saying the some women will go to Hell because they didn't have the children they should have. Can you give me your opinion on what he meant?

Also, you said that he has been misrepresented in this discussion:

"He never said all childless women would go to hell or anything of the sort. That was a misrepresentation."

I agree that he did not say that ALL childless women would go to hell, but he did say something of the sort.

Per your quote of his quote he said, "If only you knew of the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

I know quotes can easily be taken out of context and misrepresented, but I don't see how his quote has been misrepresented, but I'm willing to listen to an explanation of that.

Elena, thanks for your willingness to discuss this.

To all who are weary of "the quote", thanks for cutting me some slack as I seek clarification.

(I really need to learn to use italics. Amazing how a slight slant of letters can ease reading of a plodding post.)

Elena,

Just checked your blog and found my comment and your response. (I must have been looking in the wrong place when I looked for it earlier.) I appreciate the time your spending trying to communicate your view point, including posting part of the catechism on your blog.

In light of the time you've spent on this issue on your blog, I don't want you to feel your answering the same questions twice.

From reading your blog about Vianney's quote, it seems that he wasn't neccesarily stating doctrine, but just trying to make the woman feel better by letting her know that having children is a blessing.

As I said, trying to comfort someone by pointing out that someone else is going to hell seems odd. It has the feel of saying, "At least you're not as bad as that person." Maybe that is simply a matter of cultural differences between then and now.

I suppose you'd have to look at his quote in the context of his life as well. I know there are things I've said, and will say, that could me misunderstood.

Is that similar to what you meant when you said he was misrepresented...not that he was misquoted, but that taking his quote on it's own is not representative of his beliefs?

Thanks, again, for your time.

Lexie, just want to add that if you follow the link in my previous comment to my post, there is biographical info about Vianney which I pasted into the comments there. What I learned only reinforced the negative view I had of him from the quote, some of which can be attributed to Catholic/Protestant differences. While I respect and admire devout Catholics (Chesterton especially), I am grateful for the Reformation because I see grave issues with Catholic doctrine (which I will not go into here, but if you read the info about Vianney, you'll get a taste of what I mean) so I'm afraid I will never truly embrace ecumenicalism. I'm in good company, though. I'm now a groupie of Phil Johnson (Pyromaniac Blog) ;) ...that said, my views are not entirely aligned with his either but so far he (along with John MacArthur and John Piper) tend to represent what I consider orthodoxy.

Hi Elena,
My comment was necessary but too shorthand - apologies for the abruptness. That's the problem with having to comment and then fly off elsewhere sometimes.

To put it into context - Vianney, or a quote from any mystic, is irrelevant for me unless it has biblical reference. So I'm coming from the view of the inerrancy of the bible firstly. Then within that the exegetical question - since QF hinges largely on one verse. It isn't really advisable to create doctrine on the basis of one verse - particularly when the exegesis is questionable.

So I was trying (in a hurry) to bring any discussion between us into the framework which QF is within, rather than continually being engaged on something that is really outside the periphery.

On the QF issue - as I've mentioned it is distinguishing between whether it is a biblically mandated command or a matter of conscience. Given that the bible is not clearly madating QF, and leaving aside extra-biblical tradition which does not reference scripture, it becomes evident that it is a matter of conscience. As a note, both QFers and non-QFers, and those in between, will not hold extra-biblical tradition as the common ground for exploration.

So my encouragement is that on this particular topic I would be willing to engage in discussion on QF in relevant terms.

Yes, I do think it's necessary to say I don't care about Vianney - I am demarcating both the issue and my personal position.

Marla,
My response to Elena was just my own position. Obviously if you both communicate directly on that point I will not complain - but I didn't want to get into it all myself.

Sorry - the last part was for Lexie, not Marla.

From reading your blog about Vianney's quote, it seems that he wasn't neccesarily stating doctrine,

actually I believe that he was and that the catechism paragraphs I gave you supported that.

I will try to explain on my blog in the comments so as to not bog down this QF discussion any further.

Thanks for your interest Lexie!

"so I'm afraid I will never truly embrace ecumenicalism. I'm in good company"

It's OK Marla, I probably won't either! : )

I may have to post more than once. There was too much in some of the answers to go further down the line.

On "offensive" and "defensive": If someone is strongly evangelistic about -anything- are they on the offensive, or do we just deem it so because we take a defensive position against it? This is not an academic question. Most of us as convinced Christians will get this same response when we firmly present the gospel. Firmly, in the sense that we believe it right. I say "Jesus saves". The pagan says "you are arrogant and pushing your views on me". The defensiveness is within them, as I am making no moves to force them, their conscience in grappling makes them feel forced.
Apply this to discussion of doctrine of any sort.

====
Jeremy,
"I'm not telling people what to do, which is all Romans 14 talks about." I don't think it is your intent to tell people what to do, but I think we look at the dynamic, and it works both ways: our statements that something is moral or immoral is telling people, indirectly what to do. What we need to look at is what we back that up with. And then focus on the morality of that. Is it wrong to hold a QF philosophy? Is it wrong to say it is God's mandate? Is it wrong to anathemize ( is this a word?) people on that basis? That is the progression of the argument. I think Romans 14 is applicable to this progression.

I agree with your legalism point,"teaching a moral principle in a way that's elevated above its real applicability. It becomes legalism".

"it is wrong to use birth control pills and condoms, because it would be doing something that they believe to be wrong. It isn't wrong in principle"

This is equally simplistic. I don't know this -under certain specific circumstances. Which is why I throw this whole topic into personal conscience before God. It is one of those things where you present the facts biologically, you present the scripturally pertinent principles, and you place it in the hands of the man and woman and God.

Lots of sex-related things can be dealt with this way, but I would be faulty if I didn't point out that there are moral weights. As Paul gave his personal opinion on what was the more godly thing to do, this will weigh in on these types of discussions. We put ourselves on the line without making fiats and condemnations when we state our opinions in this way.

I don't think the 'playing God' argument is fallacious, but will give a look at your post. That is a digression here, tho. Good one, but ...onward.

On your behalf, I realized the position that posting a comment out of the blue is a little awkward. (Hastening to say I do not fault Marla on this, it just is what it is). Still, to point up things as immoral is to make a strong judgment. We are dealing with more than just birth control, but aspects of the place of modern life, and the altars of men.

Because it is wrong for us to castigate each other(generally speaking) on points of moral principle rather than dealing with the scriptural issues, I think even the most rational ( you, Jeremy) sometimes slips into responding to the action. I think as you said you reponded to the dogmatic comments of others not included in this posting. I don't know how we can avoid that, but aside from saying that someone is burning in hell for something, the QF people are only making some points based on life without modern inventions of birth control. I personally think they are responding to the zero-population sort of dogma in the culture.
Most of the contention is the spinning it out into demands that everyone lives in a certain way.

I say that is where the argument pivots, not on the right or wrong of the personal conviction.

No one is more or less holy on the basis of numbers of children. We can all agree on that? Even members of QF?

This throws into the light many awful things we do in assessing one another. We have many false standards.

Marla,
"If QFers wouldn't look upon family planners as being in sin, I wouldn't have any need to discuss this. The pros and cons of families of varying sizes maybe, but not in a defensive way. If QFers said (as you asked) "this our interpretation of Scripture for ourselves" or "this our individual conviction/calling" without trying to legalize the entire body of Christ with it, there would be no need for me to post on this subject."

I have seen this. I understand your point, but I am saying that there should be a choice in the focus of the argument: either focus on the teachings of QF directly, or focus on the problem of legalistic demands and the problems with that. IMO. The mixing of the two is what I think presents the problem and makes for unnessary defensiveness and potentially harsh debates ( not that this happened either here or on your blog).

I don't think, without dialogue, and maybe even with it, how one can demand that peole say things in a certain way. We can ask them to, we can respond with our doubts that they have things right.... but I don't think that you can expect that someone convinced of the moral rightness and the idea that something is command to respond with less than that strong of a wording.

"[QF] I would argue, that is in fact become a whole subculture in itself.""I have major issues with "kingdom theology" and the damage it's causing."

Perhaps we are at the root of what is really bothering you , here.

I would like to caution you, I have weathered through many 'theologies" that are "damaging", and the reaction to them is as damaging as the abusing of them by their advocates.
What you want, Marla, is to pursue truth, not to pursue the eradication of error. Errors proliferate, and truth is the only sufficient antidote. Focus on finding the truth... because lots of these potentially damaging theologies have some granules of truth, and you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ( I apologize for what is probably an unfortunate pun in the discussion context)

====
"I think most Americans have children out of selfish reasons, and that is indeed immoral." -Jeremy

Please support that.
=====
""Woe to us if we ever become so fixated on the welfare of our own children that we lose our passion for rescuing lost neighbors and reaching lost nations. "
-Scott quoting Piper
Then you went on to make a division "Our own children are not our highest value. Christ is our highest value." In this context this is what the QF people say, too. They say they are fulilling Christ as highest value by what they do. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I would leave your statement as is, if it were only addressing the idea that we lose our life and self-interest for the sake of Christ. Yes. But of the many who limit themselves on that basis for working to gain this world for Christ. How deliberate are they in that ? Why is so little done in evangelization of our neighbors here in America, in the West if so many limit their families? Please don't say so they can have more money for missionaries or something like that or I will lose my reason and scream. Although would probably recover quickly and deliver a much more piercing look at your premise.

And whose to say that chidlren aren't a vehicle of winning a lost and dying world? I have my little story of how I am able- usually with people of foreign countries - to use the shocking fact of my family size to open a door of witnessing to Christ.

Strange world isn't it?

And to answer the unasked question: I argue on my side of things not because I think it is good to have a large family, perse, although you might think that, but because I have found a definite prejudice within the Church for reasonings to avoid having children. Career women are promoted beyond all expectation, and women who choose to have a more traditional life are still denigrated within the opinions of Protestant Christians, especially. But Catholics are only off the hook because I don't engage in inner disputes in that stream of the Christian Church.
-there you have my motivation in this conversation.

On "offensive" and "defensive": If someone is strongly evangelistic about -anything- are they on the offensive, or do we just deem it so because we take a defensive position against it? This is not an academic question. Most of us as convinced Christians will get this same response when we firmly present the gospel. Firmly, in the sense that we believe it right. I say "Jesus saves". The pagan says "you are arrogant and pushing your views on me". The defensiveness is within them, as I am making no moves to force them, their conscience in grappling makes them feel forced.
Apply this to discussion of doctrine of any sort.

Actually I have difficulty applying it to doctrine of any sort bcause there are two different issues here. One is discussion of doctrine between Christians, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The other is evangelism - the gospel to those who are unregenerate. So I don't see the two kinds of responses as the same.

On evangelism - it is "offensive" - and people are offended by the cross. To some it is a stumbling stone, to others a rock of offense. The biblical position is clear I think - we go out ("offensive") with the gospel.

On doctrine - I see what you are saying in regard to the spirit of the discussion, which I take as a plea for the discussion to be different to the spirit of the world - and I agree, although of course our humanity gets in the way sometimes. And we are trying to discuss in a comment box on the internet which has it's drawbacks sometimes. In terms of doctrine I think it comes back to the point that's been made before - starting with whether or not there is a clear biblical madate. If there is, then being "offensive" is not the issue. If the biblical position is not a mandate then being "offensive" is an issue - because it contradicts scripture to be so (Romans 14).

QF is, from mym perspective, a conscience issue. Thus one would not need to be "offensive". However one would be "defensive" (an apologia) if one's conscience was being assailed by legalism (I use the word "assailed" deliberately). In the same vein Galatians is an apologia, in strong terms.

I'm coming in late -- excuse my naivete.

Was not the command to multiply a command to the Jews to make more warriors in a time of great need of warriors? Is the command limited to such times?

Have the QF people looked at Mormon theology?

If we presume that pregnancies are God's will unless we intervene with contraceptives, should we not then welcome all pregnancies, including especially out-of-wedlock pregnancies?

Ed, there were no warriors fighting in the early chapters of Genesis. Some commentators take it to be a command to spread the garden to the rest of the world, which existed in wilderness form. What's more obvious is that it's a command to use wisely what God has put in human hands to be his stewards over.

Ilona, I'm trying to figure out how it's simplistic to say that it's sinful to do something they believe to be wrong. You quoted my statement about that and then told me it was too simplistic. I just can't think of an example of someone doing something they truly believe is wrong yet not sinning. If you believe it's wrong, you shouldn't do it. That's why Paul is so keen on not leading people to stumble by getting them to do something that's against their conscience in I Cor 8-10.

I'm not sure why you want to take the word of God as if it's mere opinion. It's not. It's God's word. Maybe you're thinking of the passage where Paul distinguishes between the word of God delivered through the Lord in his personal ministry and the word of God delivered through Paul in his apostolic ministry ("The Lord says ... I say, not the Lord). That doesn't amount to personal opinion any more than it's personal opinion when prophets speak from their own point of view rather than quoting God from God's perspective.

You've gone into this business about not stating moral views in the past. I still can't fathom it. There's nothing wrong with stating moral views and stating them quite firmly. The biblical authors do it all the time. To say that murder is wrong is not to tell murderers what to do. It's not to make a judgment on murderers. It's not to say anything about who is a murderer. It's simply to say that murdering is wrong. When I give a moral argument for a moral conclusion, I'm stating that an action, attitude, character trait, belief, etc. is morally wrong. I'm not saying anything about people who do it. I'm not saying who does it. I'm not judging people who do it. I'm not criticizing people who do it. I'm stating a moral view. In this case, I'm stating a moral view in response to a false moral view. I'm correcting the false view put forward by QF by stating an alternative moral view, one that lines up better with the moral statements in the Bible.

I think it's obvious that most Americans want children for their own selfish reasons. A professor I worked for used to ask his classes if they wanted to have children someday. Most of them said yes. He then asked them why. The reasons were almost never altruistic. None of them had to do with stewardship, pursuit of the gospel, or serving God. The male students were more inclined to talk about having children so they can have someone to come after them as if their legacy is most important to them. The female students tended to want a child to cuddle. They were thinking of the enjoyment they would have of the good times of raising kids.

It would be equivalent to wanting to get married simply because you don't want to be lonely and enjoy the person you want to marry but not out of a desire to serve God by encouraging and helping to edify your future spouse and minister together for his kingdom. Now most Americans don't get married for that reason either, and most of the reasons I know about are somewhat selfish. This is a fallen world. People do things for selfish reasons all the time, without anyone batting an eye. I'm not sure why I have to go into all this to point out something every Christian ought to admit.

I never said the actual motivations of most people who limit the size of their families are godly. All I said is that the motivation for QF leaves something out. It treats as absolute something that isn't. If some people take another approach for selfish reasons, God will deal with that also. If I say that one thing is wrong, that doesn't mean that I think nothing else is wrong. I just mean that the first thing is wrong. You aren't absolved from blame simply by doing something else, no matter what it is and no matter your motivations.

My point is simple. Having more children can serve the cause of Christ, and having fewer children can serve the cause of Christ. QF removes half of this and thus leaves some people doing what for them would actually serve the cause of Christ less.

Sorry about the double trackback. Don't even know how I did it. You can delete one - and this comment as it's just admin.

If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

The "BECAUSE" is important - this Roman Catholic priest is saying that there are women in hell "because" they did not have the right number of children.

Elena said, "actually I believe that he was [stating doctrine] and that the catechism paragraphs I gave you supported that.

If you believe Roman Catholic doctrine that teaches that women that don't have the right number of children (or maybe just not the *one* that the world needs) end up in hell - how can you justify NFP? How can you be sure that you won't go to hell, because you naturally planned to not have the right number, or miss the "one"?

This is a genuine question - if the Roman Catholic Church teaches that a woman can go to hell by preventing a birth, how can the Roman Catholic Church also teach Natural Family Planning, at the risk of preventing a birth?

Given that this is a direct question about Catholic teaching, I hope no one minds if I answer it.

The essential point is that both St John Vianney and the woman he was counselling, and the Catholics who hear this quote, are understanding it in the light of Catholic teaching.

This means that the moral imperative assumed in the "should" of the quote - "the children they should have given to [the world]" - must be according to the teaching of the Catholic Church (and all Christian teaching in this matter up until 70 years ago).

This teaching is clear, and it is not "Married couples should have as many children as they are physically capable of doing." If there is a grave and serious reason for couples to do so, they are permitted to abstain from sex.

It is worth noting that the Curé's statement easily applies to women who have had abortions. Do you believe that no woman who had an abortion ever died in unrepentance of it?

I wonder, though, if your question might in part be, "If a Catholic couple who thinks they have a grave and serious reason to use NFP, how do they know they are right?" Well, that is one of those areas of moral discernment that may be very difficult, and should be aided by much prayer, thought, and consultation with trusted spiritual advisers.

I believe that any couple who are really trying to prayerfully discern the will of God in this matter, are not committing mortal sin (which requires full knowledge and deliberate consent).

It is worth noting that the Curé's statement easily applies to women who have had abortions. Do you believe that no woman who had an abortion ever died in unrepentance of it?

I'm sure that there are - but it is dying in rejection of Christ that sens a woman (or man) to hell.

If they didn't reject Christ, their sins wouldn't be unrepented.

That's another theological debate...but you're saying that a Christian cannot commit sin...and if you're saying that, and you state that artificial birth control is sin...does that mean (by your theology) that a person (couple) that practices artificial birth control cannot be a Christian?

You know, I have a feeling we both have a lot of hidden assumptions that are leading to problems communicating!

Committing a mortal sin is rejecting God. Christians who do so may still be Christians, technically speaking, but they have separated themselves from God.

Sin is mortal if it meets three conditions: (a) it must be regarding a grave matter (b) the person knows it is a mortal sin and (c) the person does it with full consent.

Therefore, a person committing a grave evil may not be fully culpable for it, because of ignorance or lack of consent.

Therefore, contracepting Christian couples might not be committing mortal sin by using artificial contraception.

Atlantic, what is the Biblical basis for making these distinctions between different kinds of sins (mortal vs. non-mortal)? I thought the only distinctions were varying degrees of inherent consequences, and there was just one unpardonable sin--"blaspheming the Holy Spirit" (which I have always thought was willfully rejecting Christ).

How we went from QF to Catholicism is interesting. Guess no QFers read Intellectuelle but Catholics do. I won't get all sociological on that one and instead just say...score one for the Catholics ;)

I go home in 20 minutes so I won't have time to reply in full (this is how I control my Internet addiction - I don't have a home connection!) but the first Scriptural basis I would point you to is 1 John 5:16, which distinguishes between "sin unto death" and other sin. That's precisely why it's called mortal sin.

Catez, if you look at the context, human response and psychology, you'd see it isn't about what the response is to, but how it works. I think we need to see the other persons perspective and deal with that. They think something is a mandate. You have to work through that stronghold in their mind and not get all offended with the strength with which they promote their conviction.
Jeremy,
"I'm not sure why you want to take the word of God as if it's mere opinion."
I don't ever do that. period.
"That doesn't amount to personal opinion any more than it's personal opinion when prophets speak from their own point of view rather than quoting God from God's perspective."

I believe you're wrong on this. Why would Paul make the distinction? There are times when a prophet speaks in his role of prophet and that is directly from God. There are times a godly man gives his opinion. And that is opinion, even when recorded in scripture, particularly when he makes that point. But it has a weight to it, based upon that man's understanding of God and God's Will.

Whether you say something is a "false moral view" or "immoral" you sidestep the condemnation in that statement. I'm saying there are times you should be much more careful. When it is a matter that is personal conscience...even if that person speaks of those views publicly with ideas that it is God's commandment.... it isn't something to condemn them over, as you yourself said they are simply weak in your view. Weak is not the same as false morality.

"I think it's obvious that most Americans want children for their own selfish reasons."

I know you think this, but you can't support it. It is one of those matters too mixed up in the human mind. In every culture you want to name.

"The reasons were almost never altruistic. None of them had to do with stewardship, pursuit of the gospel, or serving God."

That is not the first level of response whether someone has reasons like that or not. Usually you think about those things with training, and then you'd still lie if you didn't admit you have some of the selfish reasons all mixed up in it, as well.
I believe this is deliberate on the part of God. It is called interdependency.

Americans are no more selfish as a whole than any other set of human beings - tho' I would say our culture is doing a good job of shutting down the ability to develop altruism in general.

I think what your response ended with is the fact that we are all selfish and it colors everything we do. I'd agree, but in the terms you laid out, you almost have to say that the QF people come closest to true altruism. Although I personally think they are simply unbalanced in their view.

I'm not going to argue your point "having fewer children can serve the cause of Christ. QF removes half of this" for the sake of peace. I will tell you I don't see your scriptural basis for saying it.

I also think we talk across one another on "stating moral views". I don't have a problem with it in my own mind, I just react to what I feel is overreaching.... and we have different approaches to this. I don't know what would resolve the mutually non-plussed reaction except more discussion than is possible on these topics. It would be a digression. Worthy, tho'
=====
Marla, I think I know some actual QF'ers, but there is no reason to discuss their view because I accept them and they don't feel the need to convince me to have a bigger family. I also generally keep things to myself on this topic- if no one else brings it up.
It seems natural for Catholics to discuss their views since they grapple with related issues- and maybe they want to clarify misconceptions they feel people have on Catholic views on the issue. just a thought.

Ilona--QFers say QF is *the* correct interpretation of Scripture. Anytime anyone says that, I see a red flag. It's much different than someone saying, "I interpret this Scripture to mean x, y and z...but I understand that other people don't have the same conviction and that's fine for them."

Let's try an analogy. There are people who consider themselves pro-life who would never personally choose abortion but they don't believe in taking the choice of abortion away from others. Then there are the other pro-lifers (of which I am one) who believe that abortion is wrong (from an objective standpoint) and that it shouldn't be a legal option.

QFers believe family planning is wrong for everyone, not just themselves. It is not a matter of personal conscience for them but of Biblical right and wrong that applies to all believers. They view the rest of us as actively disobeying God by limiting the amount of children we conceive.

Protestant doctrines may not be being rewritten but peer pressure, or in-house evangelism (i.e. subtle guilt trips, like "why don't you just trust God with the size of your family?"), is an even more effective means of spreading faulty theology.

It's the (thought/spiritual) basis for the theology even more than the theology itself that concerns me. But I will have to save that for some future date when I have time to examine whether QF is becoming a subculture, what it has to do with Kingdom (Now) theology, and whether its roots are in Bill Gothard's Basic Life Principles. I think there may be a photo of a certain well-linked blogger on his website (see advanced life seminar page), though I can't confirm it's her. Also a while back, a prominent QFer with 12 children commented on my blog that her daughter came to "submit her birth control to the Lord" after attending a Gothard seminar).

Hi Ilona,
re:
Catez, if you look at the context, human response and psychology, you'd see it isn't about what the response is to, but how it works. I think we need to see the other persons perspective and deal with that. They think something is a mandate. You have to work through that stronghold in their mind and not get all offended with the strength with which they promote their conviction.

Ilona I think you have missed where I was coming from. I wasn't talking about working through the stronghold in their mind - I was talking about the response one has when a mandate is proposed.
You seem to see it as being about changing them. I see it as having a response for me - and discussing it with others who are pondering it. So no head-to-head clash from my perspective.

Having said that, you can't ignore the Galatians type apologetic (very relevant here) - and one Paul used not for them (I hate using that word) but for those receiving their legalistic mandate. If the Holy Spirit also convicted them then great!

Personally I'm not "all offended by the strength of their conviction" - I think that's a straw man here.
My previous response to you was looking at two different issues rolled into one comment - and I was explaining "defensive". Of course I understand some of the psychology involved - but if one is taking an apologetic position then as I said, it's about a different spirit. So I'm not sure how my comment led you your latest response.

"I think it's obvious that most Americans want children for their own selfish reasons."

I know you think this, but you can't support it. It is one of those matters too mixed up in the human mind. In every culture you want to name.

I work in a public high school

"Nobody else loves me. If I have a baby, it will love me."
"If I have a baby I can get enough aid to get out of my mother's house"
"If I get pregnant I can get my boyfriend to marry me"
"People will treat me like a grown up if I have a baby."

"Protestant doctrines may not be being rewritten"

Then why are there so many protestant denominations?

Elena, I was referring to the issue at hand--QF. As far as I know, it's not in the doctrinal statements of any churches yet, i.e. there are no QF churches, but I could be wrong...

I have thought alot about this question of QF 'theology', and I think I am ready to argue against it.

I am looking at the implications. There are two places to find faults in the thinking I believe: one is the idea that we shouldn't interfere with the natural order of things and the second is a misunderstanding of the requirements of fruitfulness, both as found in God's principle and in natural illustration.

Ellen, what I didn't say is that people are free from selfish reasons to have children. I am saying it is mixed up and that it is not attributable to American culture.

Every person who has had a child has some form of a reason we may call selfish. This brings up an interesting thought: should we emphasize agape love as that which is the only acceptable type of love in bearing children?
Isn't phileo an important component? And in marriage, isn't eros?

Are we more moral if we try to divide these different motivations of love? Does God do this in this area?

I think you are all missing the key aspect of this whole discussion which is attitude. Jeremy Pierce came close to what I think is the central issue here, but ironically he used his observation as an argument against so-called quiverfull theology.

I think it's obvious that most Americans want children for their own selfish reasons. A professor I worked for used to ask his classes if they wanted to have children someday. Most of them said yes. He then asked them why. The reasons were almost never altruistic. None of them had to do with stewardship, pursuit of the gospel, or serving God.

Exactly. Children are not things to be used for own selfish ends. Children are blessings, not burdens. I would say that a contraceptive mentality leads to an attitude that values children for what they can do for ME. I will have the number of children that suits me, when it suits me, and I won't have any more than I want. Of course, the other extreme is those quiverfull people who have more children (like Leah in the Bible) in order to impress someone or to feel worthy or to feel as if they've done something super-spiritual to impress God.

If Marla wants to do an expose on Bill Gothard or some other person who is teaching what she says is quiverfull theology, I would not have a problem with that. I have some disagreements with both Bill Gothard and with any teaching that legalistically says that a person must have as many children as possible, using absolutely no birth control methods whatsoever under any circumstances, in order to be obedient to God. (By the way, I think Annie Crawford did an excellent job of dealing with some the issues involved here at CEO Mom. I would suggest you read her her posts analyzing the Above Rubies position and theology before re-inventing the wheel.)

I would agree with CEO Mom, I think, and respectfully disagree with Mr. Pierce and with Marla in that I don't believe that whether or not to have a child is a decision that is to be based on what seems right in my own eyes or what feels good to me. Nor is it a "whatever" decision: no children, some children, many children, whatever. The bias in Scripture, although many exceptions can and even should be made, is in favor of welcoming children into our families, not so that we win the world through our many children, not so that we can impress anyone with our many children, not so that we can have many children to do whatever it is we want them to do, but just because God says they are a blessing.

I would agree with CEO Mom, I think, and respectfully disagree with Mr. Pierce and with Marla in that I don't believe that whether or not to have a child is a decision that is to be based on what seems right in my own eyes or what feels good to me.

I believe that Mr. Pierce and Marla would stand in agreement with you when you say, whether or not to have a child is a decision that is to be based on what seems right in my own eyes or what feels good to me. In fact, I think that both of them would say that any decision that a Christian makes, whether it is a new car, a new house or a new baby, should be made with prayer and consideration.

Portraying these two people as saying that Christians are making these life decisions without prayer and merely with human wisdom is uncharitable.

I would say that a contraceptive mentality leads to an attitude that values children for what they can do for ME.

evidence, please?

My choice to use contraception had nothing to do with what children could do for me - it had much more to do with what I would be able to do for the children that I had - like be alive.

Exactly. Children are not things to be used for own selfish ends.

I'd like to point out that even in eras when artificial contraception was not easy to come by, children were still used for "selfish ends".

Farmers "used" their children from very young ages to feed chickens, gather eggs, pick crops, etc. Lots of children were an advantage, because of the extra workers.

Even David, in his "quiver full", seemed to be saying that a whole bunch of children would be a military advatange for *him* when contending with his enemies.

To say that "contraceptive mentality leads to an attitude that values children for what they can do for ME" disregards history and the way that children (in large families) have been used.

"Then why are there so many protestant denominations?"

Why are there Jesuits, Franciscans, Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant) and the sixteen Roman Catholic traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic.

Jesuits and Franciscans aren't denominations with different doctrines, they are orders with the Church.

Where did you get the list you give of 'sixteen traditions'? What on earth is "Latin-rite local" versus "Latin-rite catholic"? Several of the names you give are those of the Eastern Catholic Churches - they have different rites, but are still part of the single Catholic Church, holding to the same doctrine and recognising the authority of the Pope.

Schismatic 'Catholics' like the sedevacantists are just another kind of Protestant IMHO. :)

http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol44.htm

But...so what you're saying is that Catholics have a lot of different ways to worship, with emphasis on different things and they all stand united under one man, so they're not really demoninations.

Protestants and Reformers do have different doctrine, but by and large all Reformers have the same basic doctrine (with minor differences) and all Protestants have the same basic doctrine - they just put emphasis on different things, and they all stand united under Christ and you count each one as seperate.

Eric Svendsen....er, let's not go there. Here's a good article about the Eastern Rite Catholics from a Catholic source.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm

The Catholic Church holds the teachings handed down once for all to the apostles - one body of doctrine. We don't have subgroups with differing doctrines - which is where I see the difference with the denominations grouped under 'Protestantism'. Even if Elena's comment was made through a misunderstanding of Marla's comment, that's the issue she was trying to get at, I think - that Protestants seem to have a tendency to argue and split over doctrinal points and so denominations multiply (however you count them). It seems to be the logical consequence of sola scriptura.

I think all Christians share unity in Christ, even if many are not in full unity with His Body the Church.

I think part of our difference in viewpoint here is that "same basic doctrine (with minor differences)" is not how I think of "denomination". When I see "difference of doctrine", to me that is a different denomination.

I think the idea of defining "denomination" as semi-autonomous "jurisdictions", as Svendsen says Barratt does, is absurd. Svendsen is still wrong about the various Catholic rites being different denominations.

Anyway, to get back to something resembling the original topic, I think the issues is less a "contraceptive mentality" than a "control mentality" - it applies to all kinds of assisted reproduction techniques as well as contraception.

The day I started wrapping my mind around Church teaching on contraception and ART was the day I thought about the fact that I was not at all a planned child, but my parents had a fundamentally generous and loving attitude and I never felt anything but wanted. I compared this to my DH, who was intensely wanted and planned....and abused as a child, and was eventually taken into care. 'Nice' middle-class family, poverty wasn't an issue. IMO his mother had a control freak mentality, and when he wasn't her idea of "perfect" she didn't love him anyway. (This is why I laugh hollowly when I hear Planned Parenthood talk about "every child a wanted child".)

(Incidentally, from your statements I wouldn't be at all surprised if you had a grave and serious reason to not conceive....the only thing we would disagree on then would be whether your method was licit.)

Sherry, thanks for linking Annie's series. I was intending to do that in a future post, but it's good to get it out now since everything is being discussed. I think Annie and I are on the same page (I read most of the series) so if you and she are, I'm not sure where you and I differ.

Ellen, thank you for saying what you did about Jeremy and me regarding how we make decisions. I really appreciated that, as well as the other points you made.

Atlantic, because of the NFP loophole, I don't take Catholics to task on the b/c issue. NFP has worked great for us, though we don't follow the Catholic guidelines for how to behave sexually during the time of abstinence, so I guess we sort of practice a Protestant version of NFP :) ...also I'll probably be strung up for this, but while I'm breastfeeding (no cycles), we're using condoms. Too many people I know nursed on demand and had a baby a year after the first one. One friend's baby almost died because her body wasn't physically recovered enough to carry her next baby to term so soon after the first. She ended up in the hospital two months early and had a c-section. Her baby clung for dear life over the next few months and it was truly a miracle he made it.

Eric Svendsen....er, let's not go there.

What is it that Elena accuses? Poisoning the well...

Ellen, thank you for saying what you did about Jeremy and me regarding how we make decisions. I really appreciated that, as well as the other points you made.

You're very welcome. I don't know why this issue strikes a chord with me. I'm almost 46, medically infertile, single and I haven't done anything that would create a baby in a while.

I think it has more to do with extra-Biblical "laws", like the ones I grew up with and ended up unlearning...

;-)

Marla, the percentage of the babies in today's preemie wards because they were conceived too soon after a sibling is a very very small one!

I personally know of children who were born relatively soon after a sibling and did just fine - my kid sister among them!

The other side of your anecdotal horror story is that many times, these children grown up to be very good playmates for each other as kids, and the special friends for life as adults. I wouldn't trade away the special friendship with my sister for anything. The special relationship between my own set of "Irish twins" is heartwarming!

"Eric Svendsen....er, let's not go there.

What is it that Elena accuses? Poisoning the well..."

I don't get it. What does Elena have to do with Eric Svendsen?

She is referring to this Atlantic

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/elliemom/112212094258979242/#168804

I note that Ellen has distanced herself from your rebuttal!

Why should I enjoin the rebuttal?

I could be catty and say, "er...a Catholic source...let's not go there..."

Unlike Roman Catholic, my source of truth is solely in Scripture.

Thus, no matter what "law" you are trying to impose on me, no matter what your bishop of Rome says, if it is not in the Bible, don't bother me with it.

I see.

Since that list was brought up as a statement of fact – “sixteen Catholic traditions” as if they were the same thing as Protestant denominations – technically the question of logical fallacies (“poisoning the well” or otherwise) does not arise at all, as logical fallacies apply to arguments, not to statements purporting to be fact.

When it comes to facts, unless we have confirmed it through personal experience, we rely on others’ accounts, so the question of whether our sources are generally reliable for a given topic is indeed valid.

I would submit that in order to find out what organisations exist within the Catholic Church and how many of them, it would be best to check with reliable Catholic sources rather than to an article by a person who not only is not Catholic, but is so antagonistic to the Church that he does not even allow linking to Catholic sites on his discussion forum. Furthermore, the source he discusses (Barratt – another non-Catholic) is clearly using his own definition of “denomination” which Svendsen himself does not agree with! And if we want to discuss whether these internal organisations are denominations, or how many Protestant denominations there are, we should start by defining what we mean by the term.

The precept “If it’s not in the Bible, don’t bother me with it” surely excludes Svendsen’s articles too. :)

My source of truth is not only in God-breathed Scripture, but also in the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

"pillar and foundation of truth" modifies "living God", not "church"

You notice that I'm not taking any "laws" away from Svendsen's articles, and I'm not taking any from the biship of Rome. My laws come from the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, and His Word.

{"pillar and foundation of truth" modifies "living God", not "church"}

Uh... not exactly as "of the living God" is a prepositional phrase.

Nor am I taking laws from the Eastern Catholics article in Crisis- we're discussing the facts of traditions and denominations!

There is nothing in the Greek text that necessitates the idea that "pillar and foundation" is modifying "the living God" rather than "the church of the living God".

The following link makes several technical points about the Greek, and suggests that stulos kai hedraioma normally be in the genitive if they modified Theos - which they are not.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-January/027712.html

Both Scripture and the parallel structure are in favour of the clear reading.

In Scripture, God is truth, not merely a pillar and support of it, while the Church and its members are described in architectural/building metaphors (among others). And compare:

household.......................God
church............................living God
pillar and foundation...........truth

Furthermore, I just checked bible.crosswalk.com and almost all of the Protestant commentaries on the verse explicitly support "pillar and foundation of truth" as meaning the church (although naturally they don't think the Catholic Church is the church referred to), a couple do not specify, and none support your reading. This isn't even a case where they all changed their minds in 1935. :)

In light of this, I really think you need to consider - prayerfully - whether your animus against the Catholic Church is leading you to twist God's Word to meet your a priori beliefs.

No, actually, it was reading the Scripture that leads me t problems with Roman Catholic doctrine.

Like the doctrine that isn't in Scripture.

(I thought we started out discussin extra-Biblical laws, like that against birth control)

You're not just disagreeing with the Church on this point, or just all Protestants pre-1935, but with the clear reading of the text, the Greek grammar and practically every Protestant I can Google on this topic. And that's when you have the obvious choice to interpret "church" in a Protestant fashion. That's why I find it odd - as if you simply have to find some way to make sure that no church, anywhere, in any sense, could be the pillar and foundation of truth.

"(I thought we started out discussin extra-Biblical laws, like that against birth control)"

And perhaps it's time to get back to that - but we did have a discrete subdiscussion about denominations and related issues!

Incidentally, Catholics believe that no Catholic doctrine is against Scripture, and many early Church Fathers and theologians (including the current Pope!) hold that every Catholic doctrine is found in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly.

And of course (back to QF) this seems exactly the point of the discussion here - saying that the QF or Catholic positions are extra-Biblical is begging the question (we're building quite the library of logical fallacies here). Are these positions legalism or doctrine? Is the contraceptive position in Christian liberty, lax, or against God?

Then there's my question: Does "legalism" in Protestant circles mean anything other than, "They think it's God's law and I don't?"

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I did read that Scripture wrong (that's the beauty of not following the bishop of Rome - another believer can challenge a reading and make headway. Roman Catholics cannot do that, since they must follow the bishop of Rome.)

My later comment was strictly related to why I am not a Roman Catholic. I studied the catechism and I studied the Bible.

Does "legalism" in Protestant circles mean anything other than, "They think it's God's law and I don't?"

Theologically, "legalism" is the doctrine that requires works in order to be "saved".

For example, the quote by St John Vianney. "women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it." This doctrine (at least Elena said that Vianney was stating Roman Catholic doctrine) is legalistic because bearing the "right" number of children is a passport out of hell.

Today, common usage refers to the view that following "law", not found in the Bible (and most often imposing that "law" on others) brings a greater righteousness before God. For instance, there is no clear command forbidding contraception, people that attempt to impose a "law" forbidding it are legalistic.

I believe you were going on what the two of you decided was best under your circumstances and according to you, not what God actually told you.

The above was an "anonymous" commenter on my blog - this is legalistic, because of the assumption that, since my husband and I chose to sterilize we chould not have been listening to God. (as God would have it, my husband *DID* die young and his concerns about his health were well-founded. If we had not heeded that voice, my children would now, more than likely be parentless.)

If there is no "Law", there should be no "law". If you try to make one, that is legalism. Compare - playing with a deck of cards, social drinking, gambling, movies, dancing, etc.

Is the contraceptive position in Christian liberty, lax, or against God?

I wrote on my blog that there is a big difference between - quiver full lifestyle (lots of kids that I wish I could have)
- quiver full attitude (lots of kids are a good thing, and families that choose that should be emotionally and spiritually supported fully, but there are good and valid reasons for using birth control)
- quiver full theology (the "law" that says that all birth control, for any reason is against the "Law" of God) And yes, this *does* differ from Roman Catholic doctrine that (as St John Vianney states) there are women in hell because they didn't have the children they were meant to have, yet teaches Natural Family Planning).

I have the quiver full attitude, and would have another "few" children, if I could. I support those that embrace the quiver full lifestyle.

I do *NOT* consider the quiver full *theology* and the attempted imposition of that "law" as Biblical, since God did not see fit to mention it an any of the 613 Laws that He gave the Israelites, or in any subsequent Books of the Bible.

Incidentally, Catholics believe that no Catholic doctrine is against Scripture, and many early Church Fathers and theologians (including the current Pope!) hold that every Catholic doctrine is found in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly.

Of course...

do you repudiate the Counsel of Trent?

For example, the quote by St John Vianney. "women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it." This doctrine (at least Elena said that Vianney was stating Roman Catholic doctrine) is legalistic because bearing the "right" number of children is a passport out of hell.

St. John Vianney however, wasn’t speaking of bearing a certain number of children. In fact he didn’t mention a number at all. It’s far more nuanced than that, but I am suspecting more and moer that one must have more of a background in Catholic theology and understanding to get it.

Yes, I'm sure that you must be Roman Catholic to "get it".

The bottom line is that this doctrine teaches that whatever the theoretical "right" number of children is, a woman goes to hell for not having that number.
That makes salvation works based, undermining Christ's finished work on the cross...salvation is not of works, lest any man shall boast.

Besides, my point was that this "law"(doctrine) is legalistic because Rome and the bishop of Rome places a further burden on the people that follow him, by making this "law" related to salvation, as spoken by Vianney.

Elena, aren't you just a little concerned, that you, Elena, may be going to hell (I don't believe that, but this doctrine teaches it) because you avoided the conception, through NFP, of a child that you should have had?

The bottom line is that this doctrine teaches that whatever the theoretical "right" number of children is, a woman goes to hell for not having that number.

Here's your key mistake Ellen - It's not about numbers! It's about attitude. And that's why you don't get it.

No, I don't think that *you* get what I'm saying.

I don't care what the number is! You might not get the "theoretical* part. What matters is that *you*, Elena, through NFP, might have prevented a child that you should have had.

It is *your* religion, not mine, that teaches a woman goes to hell for not having the "children she should have had".

It is also my Catholic religion that teaches that children are a supreme gift of marriage

that couples who for grave and serious reasons cannot accept children or must postpone pregnancy can do so through the natural methods provided by the creator through abstinence. This is not sinful.

that only "mortal" unrepentent sins can doom one to hell

but that all sins, including mortal sins can be absolved through the sacrament of reconcilliation.

What St. John was saying, is that women who willfully, with full knowledge and consent, refuse to be open to the possibility of new life for reasons that are not grave or serious, and remain unrepentent about this, even to the time of death, commit mortal sin and chose their own fate.

Any clearer Ellen?

Elena,

Vianney did not say to the woman, "Many a women will go to Hell for not having the proper attitude regarding child-bearing." He said, "If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it." It's because of the children not brought into the world that the women are condemned. If the attitude is the real reason, why didn't Vianney say so?

You may say, "because it's a given if one understands Catholic doctrine." If this is so, why wasn't this background given for the sake of non-Catholic readers when Vianney's statement was first brought into this discussion? Atlantic put the emphasis on the word “should,” which alludes to attitude, yet this doesn’t go far enough.

Even if the issue is an attitude and not specific children not brought into the world, such an attitude is still a work. Therefore, a married person must have the proper attitude about childbearing at all times, in order to bring into the world the children they should, or they are condemned to Hell.

What if a married woman does not have the proper attitude leading to the conception and bearing of the children she is called to bring into world, yet repents of this later? Is she still doomed to Hell? If so, then the issue is her repentance or lack thereof, not the children she did or didn't bring into the world. But Vianney does not say this. He doesn't say, "If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not repent of not bringing into the world the children they should have given to it."

Vianney is also telling the woman that she is, essentially, going to heaven because of the children she has borne and the one she is soon to bear. Yet how could he possibly know that she did or did not (or would not in the future) bring into the world the children she should have given it?

I am not comforted by the fact that someone might be comforted in knowing that someone else went to Hell. There is justice, but there is also the leaving of vengeance to God. (which also reflects an attitude, and a choice) It might be possible to take comfort in knowing that someone has gone to Hell from the standpoint of being comforted that justice will be ultimately be done and that sin will ultimately get its due, but this is different from taking comfort in the fact that particular persons (i.e., women who did not bear the children they were supposed to) will go to Hell.

And as far as all this relates to any act or omission of an act done or left undone for the purpose of preventing the conception of a child, Vianney's quote cannot be used against those who contracept yet not against those who practice NFP, because, clearly, a couple may use NFP to achieve the very same objective, for the very same grave reasons, that another couple may use artificial contraception to achieve. Meaning, a couple whose only method of preventing conception is NFP could still be guilty of not bringing into the world the children they should have, and of being unrepentant of this.

Here is where you are setting up a straw man of your own. Nobody here is saying that children are not a supreme gift from God - but by your own admission, prayerfully seeking God's will on timing is permissible.

What St. John was saying, is that women who willfully, with full knowledge and consent, refuse to be open to the possibility of new life for reasons that are not grave or serious, and remain unrepentent about this, even to the time of death, commit mortal sin and chose their own fate.

Then he should have said that - or you need to get a better quote.

Have you repudiated the Council of Trent?

Vianney did not say to the woman, "Many a women will go to Hell for not having the proper attitude regarding child-bearing." He said, "If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it." It's because of the children not brought into the world that the women are condemned. If the attitude is the real reason, why didn't Vianney say so?

Probably because he was speaking to a Catholic woman who already knew Catholic doctrine. Atlantic and I, as Catholics got it on first reading.

You may say, "because it's a given if one understands Catholic doctrine." If this is so, why wasn't this background given for the sake of non-Catholic readers when Vianney's statement was first brought into this discussion?

Beats me. I didn't bring it up.

Even if the issue is an attitude and not specific children not brought into the world, such an attitude is still a work. Therefore, a married person must have the proper attitude about childbearing at all times, in order to bring into the world the children they should, or they are condemned to Hell.

Not exactly. If you want I can send you the Catechism of the Catholic Church links on mortal sin.

What if a married woman does not have the proper attitude leading to the conception and bearing of the children she is called to bring into world, yet repents of this later?

That's great! We have a sacrament for that - the Sacrament of Reconcilliation - aka the Sacrament of Confession.

Vianney is also telling the woman that she is, essentially, going to heaven because of the children she has borne and the one she is soon to bear. Yet how could he possibly know that she did or did not (or would not in the future) bring into the world the children she should have given it?

I don't think he was necessarily telling her that she would go to heaven, but rather that her openness to that particular baby was good.

I am not comforted by the fact that someone might be comforted in knowing that someone else went to Hell.

Well unless you believe as a recent commenter on my blog believes (that hell is empty), people do go to hell all the time. People get cancer all the time too. Does it not comfort you to do all you can to prevent getting it yourself?

And as far as all this relates to any act or omission of an act done or left undone for the purpose of preventing the conception of a child, Vianney's quote cannot be used against those who contracept yet not against those who practice NFP, because, clearly, a couple may use NFP to achieve the very same objective, for the very same grave reasons, that another couple may use artificial contraception to achieve.

See it's a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine.

An NFP couple for grave reasons is not sinning.
A contraceptive couple for grave or even not so grave reasons, if they do not meet the qualifications for mortal sin, are not committing a mortal sin.

Meaning, a couple whose only method of preventing conception is NFP could still be guilty of not bringing into the world the children they should have, and of being unrepentant of this.

Actually this is true. The church teaches it should be for grave reasons.

Here is where you are setting up a straw man of your own.

I wasn't setting up a strawman for you Ellen, I was trying to cover Catholic Theology in a nutshell for you. Had to start somewhere!

Then he should have said that - or you need to get a better quote.

1. He didn't need to say it better. He was speaking to a Catholic woman, presumably who understood Catholic doctrines.
2. I didn't bring up the quote. I'm just here defending the Catholic faith and St. John Vianny.

Not exactly. If you want I can send you the Catechism of the Catholic Church links on mortal sin.

I have a better idea...how about if you give the *Biblical* sources for mortal sin?

See it's a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine.

But it may be a understanding or knowledge of *Biblical* doctrine

'Elena, do you repudiate the Council of Trent?

I have a better idea...how about if you give the *Biblical* sources for mortal sin?

Already been done in this thread. Atlantic posted this: "the first Scriptural basis I would point you to is 1 John 5:16, which distinguishes between "sin unto death" and other sin. That's precisely why it's called mortal sin."

But it may be a understanding or knowledge of *Biblical* doctrine

Who's understanding? That's the question. BTW I'm running 2 articles right now on why I think sola scriptura is in error. Looking forward to your comments!

Elena, do you repudiate the Council of Trent?

Already been done in this thread. Atlantic posted this: "the first Scriptural basis I would point you to is 1 John 5:16, which distinguishes between "sin unto death" and other sin. That's precisely why it's called mortal sin."

Ok, so show me in the Bible where it says that not having the children you're supposed to have is a mortal sin.

Oh...since it seems that only go to hell for not having the children they were supposed to have, why didn't God kill Tamar?