04/27/2004

More on QuiverFull

Matt has responded (his April 26 2004 post) to my thoughts below on his Quiverfull FAQ document. I will quote him and then offer response in turn. If I leave out part of Matt's original statement, it is usually because he's right and there's no need to treat it, or because I don't have the inclination to treat it right now. That mostly is the case just with the Onan stuff at the end. I leave out the part where he says not all the ancients believed in homunculi, etc. Okay, here goes:

Sora and I do not believe that it is necessary to procreate "as much as biologically possible." That is your own statement, presumably another one of the assumptions you have "drawn out" of the FAQ even though it wasn't there.

I drew the conclusion that Matt and Sora believe that a married couple should continue to have children for as long as the woman is fertile. Whenever she has weaned a child, she should expect to become pregnant shortly thereafter. Thus "as much as biologically possible" is the way I summarized this belief. The FAQ led me to believe this by the following:

1. The FAQ argues against using contraception and assumes the position of answering questions that arise when someone has just finished advocating not using contraception and opens the floor up for questions. Couples who have regular sex without contraception for the duration of a woman's fertile time of life will have as many children as biologically possible. Thus, my conclusion is nearly trivial based on your anti-contraception position. It strikes me as awkward that Matt would call my summary a caricature when "having as many children as biologically possible" is nearly the other side of the coin of disallowing contraception. And of course I didn't mean by my summary that you meant one should engage in cloning or surrogate motherhood to maximize what is biologically possible; you directly speak against such methods in your FAQ and I understood you to mean "as much as biologically possible" in terms of the natural course of married life.

2. There are rather explicit statements in the FAQ that gave me this impression: "Biological fruitfulness, however, is required of all married couples. Obeying God's commands is not irresponsible." This is in the context of a question about adoption. The FAQ praises adoption, but assures the reader that adopted children are lagniappe - something that does not negate what is presented as a responsibility to biological fruitfulness that knows no humanly imposed limit - "For ourselves, adoption is something we have always wanted to do in addition to bearing as many birth children as God will grant us". This is stated again in the theological section: "Even among those who agree with us in practice -- considering children blessings and eagerly welcoming all the children God will grant them". That's the distillation, though stated in terms of providence (what God gives us) the ethical aspect of that position is that one leaves does not demonstrate the kind of willingness to accept the blessings God intends for them when they use contraception, i.e., not opening themselves up to the biologically possible, leaving the actualization up to God, of course.

3. I don't need a point three, but I can use it to quote the FAQ again: "A Christian who is genuinely convinced that he will best serve and glorify God by giving up the blessing of children, should not marry." Giving up the blessing of children, in the context of the FAQ, means using contraception. And contraception is nothing other than preventing oneself from being open to the biologically possible.

For this denial of Matt's, I am left wondering if he is able to read the FAQ with the kind of eyes that I sort of think anyone being fair would use to read it. Maybe I could be faulted for summarizing his position by means of an implication of what he explicitly says, but it is such a trivial implication that I made, that I don't really think it ranks up there with the fallacy of faulting someone for those things that are deduced from their view; I think it is really what the FAQ communicates about his belief. If I'm wrong here, then the task of demonstrating it lies in proving that being against contraception doesn't imply that one is required to conceive as many times as is biologically possible (given that God opens and closes the womb of course, both for those on birth control and those not).

I now move on to Matt's numbered points:

1. Christian schooling is just fine, and a perfectly good and lawful way of educating children. In many cases it is preferable to homeschooling. But you seem to believe that the validity of school choice must determine the outcome of the contraception question. That is quite a large assumption, and wholly unargued. It is quite counterintuitive as well, since many other factors determine school choice, and there is no reason not to suppose that having children is another such factor.

A good point is made here; having many children might be a factor in deciding to homeschool because Christian schooling is so expensive. Matt is comfortable with various forms of schooling, using family size as a factor in deciding what kind of schooling to pursue. But he is not comfortable with the converse; one can't at the outset value Church schooling and limit his family size on the basis of his ability to afford it. First thing to note here is that this is not an inconveniece for him; having a large family doesn't really force him to choose what he would see as a suboptimal form of education. The second thing to note is that while I may have drawn the incorrect conclusion from the FAQ that Matt and Sora think homeschooling is the best kind of schooling, I don't think I'm wrong in pointing out that the FAQ needs homeschooling in order to make its overall point that a huge family can work well, thus dispelling many common objections.

I say this based upon what I see in the question "You won't be able to give as much time or attention to a dozen kids as you could to just two or three." The answer given in the FAQ argues this way: "Our lifestyle -- homeschooling ..., eating meals together as a family, praying together at night -- gives our children enormous opportunity for focused attention from and meaningful interaction with their parents." Personally, I'm left thinking, that's all well and good for parents committed to homeschooling, but if the kids are gone all day at church school, then packing meaningful interaction with twelve people into the time between 5:00 p.m. when dad gets home and 9:00 when they go to bed seems rather like wishful thinking. Add to that some kids will require more attention than others, athletic kids will need to be trucked to practices on occasion, etc. and it strains credibility to think that anything but the homeschooling response will answer this question in the Quiverfull direction.

To me, the question asked of Matt and Sora is a good one - the ability to give enough time and attention to twelve human beings is nearly impossible without homeschooling. So perhaps I'm pushing it by distilling this principle into what I wrote: "Homeschooling is ideal". But I also cannot imagine how the Quiverfull FAQ would answer this question in terms of anything but homeschooling. Can you?

2. Procreation is a blessing that has to be weighed against others. Having children means having many cares in this life, and it may well be better to avoid this for the sake of serving God in other ways. (But see 7 below.)

This is the heart of my disagreement with Matt - namely, that his FAQ treats procreation as a blessing and as a duty that is unlike any other blessing or positive duty.

Matt says that he does think that one can weigh the potential blessings of procreation against the opportunities that would be lost for other blessings, but his chief answer to how one can weigh the blessings of procreation against other blessings is to avoid marriage if one wishes to seek something other than procreation!

Why did I "caricature" his view this way? Because every possible blessing brought up as a reason to limit family size in the FAQ is answered neatly. Blessings such as health, time with one's spouse, time with the kids individually, monetary needs, etc. are all considered and rejected as blessings that could justify limiting family size. Matt may in principle believe that procreation can be weighed against other blessings, but surely he can understand why someone reading the FAQ would draw the conclusion that he sees procreation as a blessing that no married couple can opt out of to any degree in order to pursue another blessing that couldn't be pursued with a large family. Maybe the FAQ doesn't accurately portray his beliefs, but this cannot be my fault, I can only read what's there.

3. Far from being incommensurable, procreation is a duty (and pleasure) that indeed must be weighed against others -- as Uriah the Hittite demonstrates very well in 2 Sam 11. I fail to see how we implied anything to the contrary. Rather, the dispute is over when and how such balancing and weighing should be done.

Here, it appears that Matt is saying that, in the case of war at least, one may abstain from the duty of procreation. But the story of Uriah isn't a story of a guy who showed his loyalty to the troops by going home and having sex with Bathsheba using a condom rather than in a "procreative" fashion. The story is about a soldier who forgoes the pleasure of being with his wife for the sake of solidarity with the fighting men. Yes, that sex he gave up would naturally have been procreative unless he practiced coitus interruptus on a regular basis, something the Bible is silent about. Where in the FAQ does any exception to the duty to procreate crop up? Let me quote from the FAQ: "Acceptance of birth control is reflective of a world-view that is antithetical to God and the Bible. It has far-reaching implications. It is not merely a matter of missing out on a blessing that is ours to give up. It is sin and must be named as such, confessed, and repented of. A Christian who is genuinely convinced that he will best serve and glorify God by giving up the blessing of children, should not marry."

In other words, the duty to procreate for married couples is as absolute as any duty could be; it is like the positive side of the command not to commit adultery - you have to at least not hinder your biological potential when you have sex, except when you're at war or nearly at war and are separated anyway. The only exception Matt adduces (and not in the FAQ, but in his response to me) relates to a situation where a husband and wife aren't even in the same place! Suppose Uriah wanted to put off having children until he retired from active military duty? It sounds to me, and heaven forbid that I be caricaturing here, that Matt would respond, "Uriah, that's fine, but you should also put off marrying Bathsheba until your military duty is complete." Yes, I know, Israel granted a year off to newlywed soldiers, but Uriah might not have felt that was enough time to responsibly start a family (if he had the technology of contraception).

4. Calling to procreate is not identical with calling to marry. Many married couples are prevented, through no fault of their own, from ever conceiving children. Yet their calling to be married is not thereby put in doubt.

Of course I didn't mean to imply that you would use an outcome based assessment of whether or not a couple is procreating. Your FAQ is explicit about barrenness. Perhaps I should have been more specific and formulated it thusly: "Calling to have a sexual relationship that is in principle procreative is integral to the calling to marry". I don't know what other conclusion I should have drawn from statements such as: "A Christian who is genuinely convinced that he will best serve and glorify God by giving up the blessing of children, should not marry."

5. Couples who do not have children still fulfill the dominion mandate in other ways. We are not at all implying that their contribution is second-rate. When we say that "be fruitful and multiply" does not apply to everyone, we are referring to the literal sense of the phrase, i.e. having children. Obviously, the phrase has an extended sense, and a childless couple may well be more fruitful, in this sense, than a quiverfull couple.

Perhaps I read too much into the FAQ at this point; I like what you say here.

6. Regarding Providence, I do not recognize any of my ideas in the notions you critique. It is impossible to thwart God's will. Period. The application of Mark 9:36-37 made in the FAQ involves no presumption of what providence will or will not do, but rather is used as a premise in an argument pointing out that one's attitude toward children is implicit in one's attitude toward conception. God says, "If I give you a child, it is a good thing." But the contraceiving couple says, "Conception would be a bad thing." Our point is that they are thereby also saying, "Another child would be a bad thing" -- however quickly they may change their mind after conception. Providence has nothing to do with it. It is a fairly elementary point, but we thought it important to establish at the outset: it is schizophrenic or at best inconsistent to be disappointed at conception, and then delighted with a new child. And it is to fight with God's revelation to see another child as a misfortune.

Again, your response here repeats the tendency to allow a child that doesn't exist to exert an ethical claim on a couple. The couple who uses contraception in order to take care of their four children in the way that they feel can only be done by limiting their family to six isn't slighting a fifth child by seeing it as a "misfortune". That child doesn't exist as a moral agent. The blessing of that child is not one the couple has an occasion to judge as a misfortune. Perhaps your softer version - "one's attitude toward children is implicit in one's attitude toward conception" - works better, but why keep going back to the stronger version and its attendant rhetoric? I also think it is a bit of sophistry to equate "another child would be a bad thing" with "it would be a good thing to limit our children to four given considerations x,y, and z." An unexpected fifth child in that situation would be a blessing and a challenge all at the same time, perhaps not the challenge that the family thought it wise to pursue, but their priorities at that point would be re-ordered. Only the assumption that their priorities should be to leave themselves biologically open to as many children as God will bless them with would negate the legitimacy of pursuing another priority as a family of six. And that's the very point at issue.

There is a larger problem with providence throughout the FAQ that I need to think through further. I'll just leave you with the suggestion to read your answers to the practical kinds of questions. They often have the form of appealing to the fact that if God gives you N children, he will also fulfill his promise to provide needs X, Y, and Z. That's all well and good, but the promises to provide for needs involve human action, and the process of getting to a place where one has a need involve human action. One way God could fulfill his promises is by allowing you to use judgment that would negate a need in the first place. Providence is tautological. That God will provide for a need is no more relevant to the question of whether one should pursue a need-generating situation than the fact that God opens and closes wombs is relevant to the question of whether one can ethically use contraception. For instance, God will clothe me and take care of me, but that really isn't relevant to the question of whether it is wise to give away all my possessions and set out on a missionary journey depending upon the kindness of strangers.

Regarding #7: "The disciples said to Him, 'If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry!'" You do indeed have a perfect right under God's Law to choose which blessings to pursue. Our disagreement is rather over when and how that choice must be made. Stewardship, by all means, but in its proper time and place.

I think that's very clear - you are asking people to treat the duty to leave oneself biologically open to as many children as God wishes to give a couple by eschewing contraception (a circumlocation that is much less convenient than my other way of putting it - 'have as many children as is biologically possible') - as inseparable from marriage. I just don't think that then allows us to put procreation in the same league as any other duty or blessing. Doesn't this point legitimate nearly all of my inferences?

Finally, regarding #8, we have an honest disagreement. In my opinion, it is a false dichotomy and ad hoc exegesis to separate Onan's bad Levirate-attitude from his sexual behavior and suggest that he was killed only for the former. "The thing that he did displeased the Lord." It is like the question about whether Cain's sacrifice was rejected because of his heart attitude or because he didn't offer blood.

Well, I think applying Onan to birth control debates is just irresponsible and I guess we'll just have to disagree. For Onan's situation to help your case, the text would need to involve some indication that Onan was obligated to provide his brother's wife with as many children as God would be pleased to give her. It is like the question of Cain's sacrifice in that the story teaches us about Cain, it doesn't teach us about sacrifices. Technically, Cain's and Abel's sacrifices are of the same species, as I've heard Dr. Collins argue. Unless I'm wrong about that, then I don't follow how the Cain story helps me apply the Onan story to married couples who deem it prudent to limit the number of children they have to four or two or one, depending upon their circumstances.

Matt closes with:

We will try to revise the FAQ so that such misapprehensions will be impossible in the future. In the end, most people will believe what they want, and then find reasons (and new exegesis) to justify it.

I really don't like that kind of tone because I really don't think my objections have tried to bring novel positive exegesis to bear on this question and the fact remains that we all have our personal practice at risk anytime we consider the ethicalness of this or that. Everytime I tear open a condom wrapper I'm answering the question as to what I think about this issue, but I don't think I'm simultaneously bound to eisegesis or self-justification because of it. Yes, I'm a total skeptic that the Onan passage has relevance here. I just can't imagine God's putting that passage in the bible to teach us that contraception is always wrong. But besides that, I haven't also argued that couples can always use contraception just based upon their own whims. I've presented what I think are serious situations that call for wisdom in limiting family size - issues that involve financial responsibility, mental problems, duties involved in raising disabled or special-needs children, occupation, education, the desire to have a certain level of involvement with each child, etc. And those situations are common and I don't think it's fair to lump them with the "oh yeah, what about this..." kinds of absurdities/exceptional situations that I interpret Matt and Sora as characterizing them to be. I wouldn't even blink if Matt and Sora were trying to convince people that they ought to treat children as a blessing and order their married lives in such a way as to make a place for children. What makes me respond is that they are trying to convince people that anything short of leaving oneself open to as many children as it is possible to produce given a normal amount of sex, breastfeeding, and whatever decisions God may have made about the process is the only way to truly be consistent in holding that children are a blessing. Matt has added that he does see some exceptions, and has adduced military service as one, though I'm not clear on the limits even of that exception. I think I've been fair in my treatment of the FAQ. I will enjoy hearing others contribute to this discussion and would be especially interested in hearing where I have misrepresented Matt and Sora and where you all think Matt has misunderstood me.