tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post4307372851797058855..comments2023-11-03T04:50:42.128-05:00Comments on Confessional Gadfly: Seeing Through Dame Reason's Stylish SunglassesRev. Eric J Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-29786227350481051792012-02-08T14:48:38.570-06:002012-02-08T14:48:38.570-06:00Maybe following Solomon he would have said that yo...Maybe following Solomon he would have said that you should be content with just half a child =o)Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-1670054111593855392012-02-08T12:30:44.251-06:002012-02-08T12:30:44.251-06:00Luther was willing to say something about communin...Luther was willing to say something about communing four times a year, minimum. Oh, and something about going to confession. :)<br /><br />Perhaps had he been our situation, he might have made some prescription for the number of children one might have to be called a Christian? Ha!<br /><br />I think we're on the same page now. Thanks.Christopher Gillespiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06665531626315066953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-5228398400160921822012-02-08T12:24:03.700-06:002012-02-08T12:24:03.700-06:00I think the comparison to the Sacraments is intere...I think the comparison to the Sacraments is interesting. Consider - the Lord's Supper is a blessing, but someone only communes once a month. Would you say to them, "This is a blessing - if you would be a real Christian you must receive it more often"? No - and one of the things Luther resisted was saying how often (in terms of number) that a person needed to commune. It's a good thing - commune. But I'm not going to make it into a law.<br /><br />Likewise, kids are a blessing. Go enjoy lots of kids. But I'm not going to turn having lots of kids into a law or a sign of being a true Christian. I'm not going to make up a new law in order to browbeat the weak or fearful into enjoying a gift. It's just not... right to do so, it's not safe.<br /><br />And of course -- if you want to change the culture and attitudes, no Law is going to do that... especially not one of our own devising.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-1199543148584377382012-02-08T11:32:58.691-06:002012-02-08T11:32:58.691-06:00Thanks for the clarification. I think you're g...Thanks for the clarification. I think you're getting to the heart of the matter, at least pastorally. You'll agree that speaking of a good gift of God in the positive will result in the condemnation of the law for those who refuse it. <br /><br />This is especially the case for the Sacraments. Sure, you can be saved without baptism but why would you deny its blessing? Ouch, that's some painful law for the weak or obdurate. Same with the Supper. Yeah, you don't have to receive it but why would you refuse?<br /><br />In both cases, we can probably come up with reasonable cases of exception. Perhaps by baptizing the infant you will offend the tender conscience of the Muslim father, who heretofore was moving towards Christianity. Or someone is struggling with an oral sickness and doesn't want to cough in the chalice, so abstains. Is this fitting? Probably for a time unless a better solution can be reached.<br /><br />Children are the normal result of Christian marriage. We need to be sensitive in language for the tender consciences bearing the curse of infertility or struggling with single or marital chastity. Rarely, this will necessitate difficult choices, such as abstinence. Contraception is normally not part of the Christian life. Its only used when the curse of creation gets in the way biologically or physically and it ought to be communicated as a last resort. <br /><br />That's the heart of the matter. Its dogmatic banning or lack of coverage by CHP in no way removes the possible necessity. Yet, we have a duty as a church to speak positively (from the rafters, as you said.) This will de facto be contra culture, which is neither chaste nor largely procreative. This is unavoidable and the sticky matter of contraception will be revealed.<br /><br />That's my $0.02 for the time being.Christopher Gillespiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06665531626315066953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-72247125598805029362012-02-08T09:08:17.775-06:002012-02-08T09:08:17.775-06:00Pr. Gillespie,
"While there are exceptions, ...Pr. Gillespie,<br /><br />"While there are exceptions, why not speak in the positive of what is natural course of marriage as given by God?" <br /><br />That is an excellent question. But here is the thing - I don't see <b>that</b> being done. I am passionate because I see such a focus on "nature" and what is natural that two things happen:<br /><br />1. The exceptions never get mentioned, or if they do they are brushed aside, or they are put in a category of being so rare an exception that *you* can't possibly have any reason for using contraception at all.<br /><br />2. The Scriptures are thrown onto a back burner. I just despise it when people go off instructing people on how they are to live without being in the word of God.<br /><br />From my study of history I know this to be true - every heresy has its equal and opposite heresy. You have Marcion and you have the Ebionites, you have Euctyches and you have Nestorius. Sinful man in his zeal to reproach one error can swing past what is scriptural and on into another error.<br /><br />I have no problem with people speaking positively about marriage begetting children. I have no problem with teaching and shouting to the rafters that children are a blessing. This is true -- but what I do find problematic is when there is that "therefore, you cannot do ...." which gets added. <br /><br />That's what leads to error.<br /><br />We speak where the Scriptures speak. We remain silent where the Scriptures are silent.<br /><br />The Scriptures say that children are a blessing - so let us say that loudly and gladly.<br /><br />The Scriptures nowhere say, "You cannot use contraception or try to postpone birth". Therefore, let us be silent in that condemnation as well. <br /><br />+++++++++++++++<br /><br />Also - "The ontological argument does not necessarily rely upon reason. You could simply use the Genesis account (myth?) to demonstrate that creatures were given to procreate. This givenness was repeated after the fall to Noah and implicit to the promise to Abraham."<br /><br />Yes - this is true. Now, what do you do with this? Do you thus say, "You, oh Christian, must go make babies for Jesus!" That's pretty close.<br /><br />See, here's the thing - we will by our sinfulness turn blessings into curses. We will take a blessing and make it an idol (is not money often turned into an idol), we will make a blessing a burden, a hoop, a litmus test for being a real Christian (if you only had more faith and were more open to God, you wouldn't need contraception)... and that just crushes people.<br /><br />What good is it to say to the world, "World who hates children, it is a good and God pleasing thing to have children, and I will delight in it" if the next words out of your mouth then crush people by saying, "and if you aren't having kids, this isn't natural and you are just a tool of abortionists and death dealers!"<br /><br />Seriously - what good is that?Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-5263071731935204712012-02-08T07:59:22.851-06:002012-02-08T07:59:22.851-06:00Pr. Brown,
Out of curiosity, what has motivated t...Pr. Brown,<br /><br />Out of curiosity, what has motivated this latest series arguing for a righteous use of contraception? I understand your arguments despite not agreeing with your conclusion. Your posts are full of passion, which gives me pause to consider what life situation has motivated them. I'm curious if you have something personal at stake? Its probably none of my business.<br /><br />The ontological argument does not necessarily rely upon reason. You could simply use the Genesis account (myth?) to demonstrate that creatures were given to procreate. This givenness was repeated after the fall to Noah and implicit to the promise to Abraham. <br /><br />Your argumentation is severe and may give the impression that Christian couples are free of their created nature. That's the dangerous road leading to antinomianism. While there are exceptions, why not speak in the positive of what is natural course of marriage as given by God?Christopher Gillespiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06665531626315066953noreply@blogger.com