Monday, December 6, 2010

Exceptions and Crushing People

Again, I'm just going to write more on comments from this post.

First, Mike Baker, in perhaps the best thing written on this blog, writes:

That's precisely my point. Whenever this topic comes up, people who think contraceptives are "evil" like say that we shouldn't argue from the point of view of the exceptions.

...but I'm telling you that the exceptions are the only ones who care enough about this topic to listen to you. You'd better take their situation into account.

Yes, contraceptives are often used for evil purposes... but they have positive and even life-saving purposes as well. The last thing America needs is more reactionary attitudes from people who have not done enough research to have an informed opinion on a given topic.


To which I respond

"...but I'm telling you that the exceptions are the only ones who care enough about this topic to listen to you. You'd better take their situation into account."

This may be the most brilliant things you've said, and precisely what people forget. We don't live in some rosy, idealized world. We live in a world of exceptions, where even the Law of Moses is centered and wrapped around exceptions.

There are cities of refuge.
For the hardness of your heart - divorce.
If you can't afford the Sacrifice, two doves.

Over and over and over the Law of Moses made exceptions for people in various situations. It seems quite foolhardy and unbiblical to not do so in our discussions.


This gets to the heart of why I can get so nervous on how many people treat issues with Law. Instead of painting the ideal as a goal to strive for, it becomes how it is to be. It becomes "be perfect, as Your Father in heaven is perfect". Yes, that is Law - but it is Law that runs roughshod and crushes people. "Be Ye Perfect" is not guide, is not shaping your life, it shows how messed up you are.

Period.

When it comes to life in this sinful world there are always exceptions made for the frailty of our flesh. God understands that we are not perfected, that the Law, while good, is a burden we cannot bear. So exceptions are given. Allowances are made for the impact of sin.

Consider the 2nd table of the Law.

4 - Honor your father and mother. Yet, what else does our Lord say? That He will set father against son and mother against daughter. Why? Because of the sin of unbelief, and we are to follow God rather than men. This is not to be of our own devising (bad Korban, bad!), but it happens.

5 - You shall not kill. Yet, in this world there is violence and evil and wickedness, and so the sword is given to the State. This is an exception to the rule.

6 - You shall not commit adultery. Not to happen - yet, even though He hates it, God Law allows for divorce in certain circumstances. He understand that marriages will fall apart, and allows for how things can be handled when they become messy. Shoot, Paul even acknowledges that marriage can be entered into not for lofty ideals, but as a way of curtailing lust.

7 - You shall not steal. Hmm. Actually, I can't think of exceptions to this one (although the Libertarian in me wants to shout out "Taxes, Taxes" - but that's a political argument). Perhaps you could point to if someone takes your coat, give him your robe -but that is more from the victim's perspective.

8 - You shall not bear false witness. Again, I can't think of too many examples of where lying is spoken of well - I do see plenty of lying, but not exceptions.

Although many people would assert that one could steal or lie in order to prevent or hinder wickedness - and perferable state sponsored (a la the 5th).

As for 9 and 10 - The two commandments on coveting highlight just how wretched man is and how often we can fall into the temptation of covetousness. It's a very realistic view of what we are like (and it's interesting how we so rarely talk about these - probably because there's nothing we can point to in order to say, "See, I HAVEN'T coveted." It's hard to be self-congratulatory about coveting).

And of course. . . if your son or ox falls into a well....

The point is this. In the Scriptures you see two things - there is the ideal, the goal to strive for that is given. However, you also will see a baseline that you are not to fall below, that even in the frailty of your flesh you ought not transgress.

What happens? Instead of phrasing that ideal in the same sort of lofty terms Christ does (love your neighbor as yourself) or Paul does (love is the summation of the Law), we can be tempted to treat specific acts as the ideal (and make no allowance, give no sense of when there should be allowances).

I worship this way.
I don't use contraception.
I don't drink.
I don't dance.
I only listen to the right music.

That's all nice... but what does it have to do with me.

Literally - what does it have to do with me? How does that show me love? Also, why do I have to do that as well.

Is the worship at my congregation as idealized as I'd like? No. Why is it not? Because I am evil and vile? No. Because out of love and care for my people I have not tried to force them into a pattern into which they have not yet grown.

Do some people use contraception wrongly? Sure, but sometimes it is used for the sake of showing love and concern for one's spouse, what he or she needs or fears, for their sake. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Can drinking and dancing and music lead to wickedness? Sure - but it can lead to good and God pleasing joy as well - so I'm not going to willy nilly tell other people not to enjoy things simply because I in my frailty can't - my frailty doesn't shape their life.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

But why, why do you lament all this stuff about the Law so much? Why do you rant about this, oh Confessional Gadfly?

Because, ultimately, errors about the Law attack the Gospel.

"Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven."

The Gospel is this - Jesus condescends.

Con - with
De - down
scend - comes.

Jesus comes down from heaven to be with us, to be our Savior. He comes to those who could not bear the Law to lift us up and win us salvation. The heart of the Gospel is that Christ Jesus comes down. That when He sees people transgress, He has mercy and compassion on them instead of a desire to simply whip them into shape.

The Law says I must die. Period. Christ Jesus comes down and makes the ultimate exception - fulfilling the Law in my place, dying in my place, all out of His great and wondrous love for us.

We are taught that God desires love, not sacrifice. Why, when we speak about the Law do we speak in a way as to try to force people to sacrifice rather and thinking about dealing with people and their flaws in love and compassion?

(The answer is that too many people end up celebrating flaws in today's society and we can be tempted to over-react. We are in the world, not of the world - our statements are not to be reactions to the world, but rather the proclamation of the Word of God to the World).

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Do some people use contraception wrongly? Sure, but sometimes it is used for the sake of showing love and concern for one's spouse, what he or she needs or fears, for their sake. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing."

Why is it that children are the only gift of God that it is acceptable to be scared of. To the extent that going out of our way to avoid them is God pleasing?

Chuck Awesome's Awesome Friend

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

I think you make an assumption there - children are not the only blessing we can seek to avoid.

Paul tells us that if one desires to be a bishop, one desires a good thing. I know many people who do not desire this, and hence take no steps to become a bishop (and I also know some who unduly desire this!).

Money is a blessing - but I have conscienciously chosen to avoid some other professions which could have made me more money. There are opportunities for an excess of that blessing which I may choose to avoid - even as a pastor. If I receive a call to another parish, and they offer me a better salary, am I bound to accept it, as it gives more of a monetary blessing to me? By no means! (And again, there are times people seek too much blessing).

Wine is given to gladden the heart. There are times I choose not to avail myself of this - generally for my own good, but also for the good of my neighbors. If someone from my parish is in the hospital with anything semi-serious, I won't drink anything so there is no question of me heading there at a moment's notice. I avoid one blessing for the sake of another.

My days off are a blessing. However, I often sacrifice them so as to be give aid or comfort to someone (although my wife will say that I do this too much to my own hurt, which hurts others because then I am not well rested to help them).

There are times when I would not want a bigger house, because of the responsibilities that come with carrying for it - that I would not want to have my business expand too quickly.

We are stewards of the blessings we receive - all of them - and in acknowledgment of our own weakness, there is nothing wrong with being cautious about enlarging any blessing.

Now, if God chooses to bless - so be it. But to say, "You must seek this blessing or else you are bad. . ." well - I live in Oklahoma. I hear all sorts of Name it and Claim it theology - or a theology of glory that says, "IF you just had faith, you'd have a better house and a better car."

That's idolatrous. Why are children the only blessing that we want to wag a finger at people and say, "If you really had faith, you'd have more and more"?

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what my assumption was. You had said being scared of children is an acceptable reason to avoid them.

Your examples above are places where limiting a blessing shows love to the neighbor. They are blessings that fall in the realm of Christian freedom.

The only purpose of birth control is to prevent the blessing from being able to be given to you. How can you be a steward of a blessing that you have not received because of your own intervention?

If children are a blessing then we are stewards of our children. Not the children we might have.

As I had mentioned on another post. Just because you do not use contraception does not mean that you are seeking to have more and more children.

Not seeking more money does not violate a fundamental part of God's design for your vocation. Purposefully, avoiding children denies that procreation is a fundamental part of marriage. This then runs up against something that is not in the realm of Christian freedom.

Chuck Awesome's Awesome Friend

Anonymous said...

I guess I see what you said about me making an assumption about other blessings that we avoid, but they are fundamentally different. What I am thinking, in addition to the things above, is that children are the only ones we avoid for fear that they will result in negative consequences. The fear of these perceived negative consequences is not an acceptable reason to avoid the blessing.


Chuck Awesome's Awesome Friend

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Ah ha - I see.

I did not say that "being scared of children" is an acceptable reason to avoid them. At no point here have I argued yet under what situations one could rightfully seek to avoid pregnancy. Rather this - there are times where legitimate concerns might cause one to postpone or avoid having children.

I'm not going to cart blanche say "That's evil!" Is it ideal - by no means! But you know what - we are in a sinful, rotten world - and that often has consequences.

You also say, "Not seeking more money does not violate a fundamental part of God's design for your vocation. Purposefully, avoiding children denies that procreation is a fundamental part of marriage. This then runs up against something that is not in the realm of Christian freedom."

How far do we say that procreation is a "fundamental" part of marriage. It is a normal part of marriage, it should typically be a part of marriage, indeed, all procreation is supposed to take place in marriage.

However, consider what you say. A widow and widower in their late fifties desire to marry. There will be no procreation. Do we allow them to marry - or does such a thing end up denying that procreation is a fundamental reason for marriage? Is their marriage an affront to marriage?

Again, I think this can be an over-reaction against proposals for gay marriage - but marriage is not defied simply by procreation.

+++++++++++

One other thing. You note: "What I am thinking, in addition to the things above, is that children are the only ones we avoid for fear that they will result in negative consequences. The fear of these perceived negative consequences is not an acceptable reason to avoid the blessing."

Again - I think you overstate this. Ever talk to anyone that didn't take a job offer that would force them to move? Or someone who didn't join the military because of fears of war? Or even St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 where he warns that it is good to remain single -- but if you fear the temptations of lust - get married.

The point is - if one should say, "Contraception can never be used, and a Christian can never seek to avoid having more children, they are wrong", then no concern has been shown for the weakness of man or the hardness of man's heart - and that's just not how we are to deal with each other.

Is every fear equal? Of course not. The fear that a child might mean we don't get to vacation in the Alps is different from the fear that come from the doctor saying, "If you get pregnant again, you'll probably die."

I'm definitely willing to make concessions to the second and not burden that couple more than they have already been burdened. As for the first - there is a problem, but their problems do not start with profaning marriage, but with greed and hardness of heart. Telling them, "No, condoms are bad" will do nothing for the hardness of their heart.

Anonymous said...

"but marriage is not defied simply by procreation."


I would certainly never say marriage is defied by procreation :) I realize you meant defined.

"I did not say that "being scared of children" is an acceptable reason to avoid them. At no point here have I argued yet under what situations one could rightfully seek to avoid pregnancy. Rather this - there are times where legitimate concerns might cause one to postpone or avoid having children."

You did not argue specific cases but you did use the word fear in talking about cases that would be acceptable. Thank you for defining what you meant. The problem is then who gets to decide what is a "legitimate reason". Unlike things like divorce we don't have this for children.

I think this whole issue comes down to can man affect God's will when it comes to procreation. Yes, he can go against it. Man is bound by God to create life.

"If you get pregnant again, you'll probably die." You said probably. Everything in the medical world is a probability, even a medical fact. Why is that? God is in control of the medical world too.

As far as procreation being fundamental: Can the hypothetical couple you mentioned still procreate? By our medical logic Sarah and Abraham were not able to conceive either.

"Again, I think this can be an over-reaction against proposals for gay marriage - but marriage is not defied simply by procreation."

Sure this could be a reaction against gay marriage but that's not what I am saying. I am in no way talking about gay marriage here. I am saying the procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Purposefully, attempting to frustrate God's will is the issue.

Chuck Awesome's Awesome Friend

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

To CAAF =o)

You say, "I am saying the procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Purposefully, attempting to frustrate God's will is the issue."

Here is what strikes me as odd here. If it is God's will that a person become pregnant - that will happen. Period. God's Will will be accomplished, over and against our will. Don't give too much to man here. (Or in otherwords - God can thwart laytex, and often does)

However, you do drive home something that I think can be often lacking from the discussions on contraceptives - and that is that a couple using contraceptives still needs to be open to the fact that children may be given to them (just as the couple that is trying for children needs to understand that children might not be given to them, and be moderate in their use of medical tools that can aid conception. Some of those are flat out wrong, at least as currently practiced).

However, you do point to something that I don't understand - birth control is viewed as a fundamental denial that procreation may happen or should happen in marriage. That's a leap. I think that is playing the point too hard. Now, can many have that attitude? Sure - but the abuse of a tool doesn't invalidate all proper uses.

Just because some get drunk doesn't mean that all alcohol is bad.
Just because some commit crimes with guns doesn't mean that all guns are evil.
Just because some are greedy does not mean that money is evil.

And simply because some use contraception as a way of despising life and children does not mean that every use there of is for the same purpose or is evil.

Mike Baker said...

If we are to emulate Christ, we must come from a place of weakness and not strenghth... service and not tyranny... healing and not death. We are little physicians and not police, judges, or executioners.

Yes, secure sinners should be rebuked... but the weak in faith, the wounded, the bruised reed, the smoldering flax must be cared for and healed. You have to know who you are dealing with before you apply a remedy.

Good physicians do not throw out blanket advice to cover all circumstances. They know that individuals with similar symptoms, problems, and complaints have drastically different problems. They diagnose illneses carefully and apply the proper remedy as appropriate. Like good medicine, a Christian's responsibility to his neighbor is not a theoretical thought experiment. It is a practical mission with real people and real situations. These things must always be considered before a harsh or risky treatment is even considered.

I submit that the "bedside manner" of most Christians could use a great deal of improvement.

Phillip said...

Also, I'm not RC. I just find standard Lutheran legal theory terribly lacking. I don't think everything can be solved by saying two kingdoms and freedom of the Gospel. I need the Law to curb me from my sins. I lack the virtue of chastity in sufficient quantity to trust myself to that virtue instead of letting the law protect me from having to find out. I can't say on temperance, but being under-21 the law has kept me from being tested. I feel comfortable with charity to not worry there. Diligence is typically fine. Patience, I'm definitely lacking. Law please still my tongue. Kindness is so-so. I'm typically okay, but a reminder in this would never go to waste. Kind of along the lines of a lack of patience hurting me here, though I would definitely say I possess the virtue of kindness. Humility, yah, let the Law keep reminding me how evil and weak I truly am. My vast blessings make that one a challenge. I'm all for the Law having my back, so I don't fall into sin on these when my virtues are overcome by my vices.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Mike, when you hit retirement age in the service - hie thee to the Seminary.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Phillip,

The Law won't keep you safe. You will sin. Period. You cannot keep the Law - and while threat and punishments might keep you from doing great harm to yourself, what you will see as you grow in the faith is this:

Life is not just about keeping myself from harm - it is about doing go to others. And in this, we always, always, always fall short. Over and over. Good that we could do is left on the table.

But at the same time, as see how utterly short of the Law you fall, you will see something else. You will see and marvel not that the Law stilled your tongue, but rather that God put your tongue to good use without your having planned it (fear not what you will say...). You will see that you are given to show love to others without your expectation.

This is the point - you are God's workmanship, created for Good works, those works prepared before hand for you to walk in them. You do not need the Law in order to walk in them - you need simply be a new creation in Christ - and you are.

You give too much important and strength to the Law. The Law is good - but what Christ does in you and through you is better - and as you grow, as you learn to see Christ more - Christ upon the Cross, Christ working through you - then the Law will lose its luster, for just as Moses merely reflected the Glory of God, so too the Law is but a pale reflection of the Love of God that is at work on you and in you and through you.

So, my counsel would be this. Repent. Ponder the words of John the Baptist - for he told his disciples, "I must decrease that [Christ] may increase." It is good that you see your weakenesses - repent of them, hammer them - but do not think that this is what will give righteousness. Rather, this will simply make you, your desires to decrease in order that Christ may increase.

And this is something that will continue - never think you have gotten it - there is still more growth. Never despise those who are not yet grown to where you are (and certainly don't try to think the Law will make them grow quicker). Show mercy and kindness - fight against any desire that would hinder love and kindness - and above all, receive the forgiveness of sins and the life that Christ gives.

Phillip said...

My previous post was appended to another (hence the also at the beginning). But as I've failed three times to not have my comments on that topic disappear, I give up. I'll try to retype them and send them to you later.

Anonymous said...

Rev. Brown,

Is it God's will that men go to hell. No, but it is a real place and there are real people there. Why? They despised and rejected the gift. So God's will is frustrated by man.

"However, you do point to something that I don't understand - birth control is viewed as a fundamental denial that procreation may happen or should happen in marriage. That's a leap." I don't really remember saying that although I agree with what you thought I said. There is only one use of birth control to prevent birth. How can someone use birth control and be in support of birth.

You did mention something that I actually think is wrong. A couple using birth control is not open to having children. They may be if the method fails but really they aren't. Also if God can thwart latex if he wants then what is the point of using contraceptives at all other than wasting your money on them.

Mike I like your thoughts, but I'm not sure they have a lot to do with the argument at hand. We have not argued the hard cases that I think you might be getting at.

I probably won't continue much longer. We are always going to miss each other on this one. I have read your other debates before so I think we will just end up in circles here as well.

One thing I am curious about though, if you are so set on your position why keep bringing up the argument over and over again with new people?

Chuck Awesome's Awesome Friend

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

CAAF - Mike's point is this - you might think you aren't arguing a "hard case" - but you don't know who is listening - and if they are in a hard case, sweeping pronouncements about how using birth control points to a lack of trust in God CRUSHES them.

But here is the big thing - One can support something, but not wish or plan for it at the moment. We can crave and desire order - nothing wrong with that, but we need to be willing to submit ourselves to God's plans if they turn out to be different than our own.

Otherwise - why ever plan? Why buy insurance? Just put everything in God's hands and let him get you out of troubles. That's not good.

Anonymous said...

If you never know who is listening. Don't start the discussion in a public forum. This works both ways for those in hard cases and those that aren't.

Ok now I really am done.

CAAF

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

CAAF,

Using Contraception, in my opinion, is not sin. If someone doesn't want to use it, or if it goes against their conscience - that's fine.

But, as there are some who a crushing folks with law, I will speak out against it, as I have been given to do.

Anonymous said...

I guess I need to call myself out too. This might not be the place for me to debate it either.

CAAF