A short description of what we’re up to can be found here. Comments are welcome but may be moderated for content and tone.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

The End of the Family Line

“With no complications, fifteen generations of mine all honoring nature. Until I arrived with incredible style. I’m the end of the line; the end of the family line”
— Morrissey
“And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth …” (Genesis 1:28)
Relax, I’m probably not going where you think I am.

I have nothing to say on the subject of whether it would be better for any particular Christian couple to have nine children … or none. If you are a young, single person in the church of God, whether you should eventually marry (or not) is another subject about which I would decline to express an opinion. Birth control?

Not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole.

I have opinions like everyone else; of course I do. Some choices are wiser, more selfless, more alert, more contemplative of potential long-term consequences, more self-aware — and more blessed, if we can use that term, than others.

But, on such issues, unless you step into territory that Scripture unequivocally and explicitly labels as sinful, it is simply not my place to say.

I have become wary, over the years, of those who too-rigidly assemble and systematize the various teachings of the New Testament with respect to family matters into what (in their mind) constitutes an acceptable code of conduct for all believers.

Even as a father, while I have a number of very specific spiritual goals for my children, none of the things to which I aspire for them is affected in the slightest by whether or not they become husbands, wives or parents one of these days.

Marriage is not for everyone. Having children is not for everyone.

But where Christians are concerned at least, the will of God should probably have something to do with those issues, don’t you think?

The Lord himself addressed the subject:

The disciples, confronted with his teaching that divorce was never the will of God, said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

The Lord’s response is interesting. It makes little concession to our natural desire to have things laid out in the form of straightforward rules and regulations, with subparagraphs and “if/then” clauses  a human foible that gave rise to the Talmud and the Midrash, the interpretations and amplifications of Jewish tradition. It doesn’t give those who take pleasure in knocking others into shape when they step out of line very much to work with.

He says to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”

It sounds to me as if the Lord is indicating that there is actually some latitude as to how his will in this area of life may be applied in the individual circumstances of his followers. He recognizes that there are differences from situation to situation:
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
You notice here that there is an indicator of what might, perhaps, be the highest aspiration of single life; that is that it might be chosen “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

That seems to be the Lord’s priority.

Paul reinforces this with a little more specificity when writing to the Corinthians, saying, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”

Again here it sounds to me like there is a fair bit of flexibility for the Christian as to the issue of family life, provided that “each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him”.

In other words: Whatever. It’s up to you. Just make sure the Lord’s priorities are seen to first.

I’m going to throw out something a little rash here, and you may feel totally free to comment to the contrary: I believe that WHAT you choose matters considerably less to the Lord (within the bounds of what is morally permissible as a believer, of course) than WHY you choose it.

I quoted Morrissey at the beginning of this post because his little tune about declining demographics in the UK epitomizes the self-obsessed mentality of every generation since the end of WWII. Self-occupation is not, by any stretch, the distinctive characteristic of a single generation.

He sings, “I’m the end of the family line” without apparent regret, because he loves men. Not much in the way of “fill the earth and subdue it” there. But homosexuality is among the least of the western world’s issues. Feminism is another, and abortion, the natural corollary of feminism, follows right behind. DINKs (double income, no kids) are another; people who bother to marry, but scrap the idea of a family entirely for the sake of self-actualization and self-development. Or just for the plain old cash (kids are expensive, dontcha know).

Western civilization is in a demographic death-spiral because of a preoccupation with self-fulfillment that manifests itself in every aspect of life. The priorities of God have not taken a back seat so much as they have been ignored entirely.

The Christian who gets caught up in the thinking patterns of Morrissey and others of his generation will find themselves in their own downward spiral of uselessness and misery.

How much grief would be avoided if we all led the life the Lord has “assigned” to us?

2 comments :

  1. " Feminism is another, and abortion, the natural corollary of feminism, follows right behind."

    I've read this for context and understanding approximately 6 times and I still am confused as to the meaning here.

    First, are you comparing abortion's devastating effects on women and civilization as a minor issue like feminism?

    If not, can you restate what you mean so that a simple man like me can understand your point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I was too terse there, Micah.

      I was disinclined to open up those subjects individually as I could go on all day about each, and it would've been, for the purpose of this relatively short post, off-topic. My intent, perhaps lost along the way, was merely to list factors that have contributed to declining birth rates and decreasing interest in having or raising children among certain segments of the western world's population.

      I didn't mean to imply any ranking of these contributing factors in terms of the direct damage they produce, so no, I am not comparing the two issues you mention as to the amount of civilizational havoc they wreak.

      I do believe current abortion rates are directly attributable to feminism, in the sense that you have to have a significant level of public agreement with the concept of women's rights in order to build a consensus for "a woman's right to choose".

      Whether it is an intended or an unintended consequence probably depends on what sort of feminist you ask.

      Delete