The Fiddler on the Roof

Caraboska's Theoblog

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
That the life of Jesus may be revealed in my body
Praise the Lord.

This is a response to the ongoing discussion here. My comment about complete abstinence was in response to the person who observed (rightly, furthermore) that the only 100% certain means of preventing pregnancy is total abstinence, basically indicated that if the risk is that high, then why would anyone want to expose their potential unborn child to any risk whatsoever, and finished with the thought that 6 weeks of abstinence was not too long.

As far as other solutions go, I personally see no difference in moral value between NFP and barrier methods (obviously abortifacient hormonal means are a different matter). There are, however, some people for whom NFP is going to be less effective or even unusable: people who are perimenopausal and therefore have extremely irregular periods, and people in whom ovulation is triggered by the physical stimulation inherent in sexual activity.

But I cite all of this only as thought provoking devices towards the point: what about tradition? I base my claim that Jesus taught that Scripture has to come first on such texts as the Sermon on the Mount, or Mark 7. There are others. I don't want to proof text here, so I'm not going to give more exact references. I come from circles where we were carefully instructed that we must in fact read all of the Bible before we try to come to a conclusion about what it teaches.

Notice who the New Testament writers are: either apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter), or first degree associates of apostles or Jesus Himself (Mark, Luke, James, Jude). These people's letters were in circulation long before the New Testament was codified and compiled in its present form. The fact of the matter is that in Jesus' day and for at least a portion of the apostolic era, 'Scripture' meant the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). This is why Protestants only accept the books of the Tanakh as comprising the Old Testament.

The New Testament books, like the books of the Tanakh, did not exist in a vacuum. There were other books that did not make it into the canon. Protestants accept the same New Testament canon as Roman Catholics not because of tradition, but because while the New Testament books are demonstrably organically related to the Tanakh and in mutual agreement with each other, the other books in some way deviate from this standard - most commonly by introducing Gnostic elements. So that Protestants, likewise, exclude the other books from the canon.

The problem of different interpretations will continue to exist even if we allow for tradition - because there are all different traditions, and how do we know which one is correct? Well, John tells us very clearly in his first letter that we are the ones ultimately responsible for making a determination concerning the correctness of a given teaching. If we have the Holy Spirit and are true believers - both believing and living the commandments to love God with all our heart, soul and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves - then in principle we have all that is needed to make that discernment. Jesus Himself says that His sheep will know His voice.

I once read a commentary by a Roman Catholic priest which observed (rightly) that this places a huge responsibility on the individual to do their own studying of Scripture and verification of their beliefs. It is a responsibility which is taken deadly seriously in the circles I have traveled in over my life time. We are talking about people who come to church precisely in order to hear the hour-long sermon on one verse (the pastor took over 6 years to preach through the book of Romans) - which covers the material infinitely more thoroughly than it would be even in a seminary class.

We are talking about people who start their kids on Scripture memory at age 2. Who start looking for opportunities to lead their child to a personal decision to receive Jesus Christ at as young an age as possible. I've heard of it happening as young as age 3. And these kids' Sunday school teachers report that there is a clear difference in the way the children pray after as compared to before - the child now in an evident manner knows God. And when these kids grow up, few if any will ever commit immorality or get divorced. Few if any will turn away from the faith in which they were raised. At least 1 in 10 of them will be in full-time missionary service - and of those, half will serve in a foreign country.

And none of them will think that their own works or any ecclesiastical ritual contributes materially to their salvation, for they will all have been taught from little on up that salvation is by grace, so that no one may boast. They will understand that works are an effect of salvation, not a cause. And that thinking otherwise amounts to putting those works in a position meant to be occupied only by God.

And to me, that is the litmus test: does the person *truly* have only one God in their life? In all the microdetail? I recommend Anthony DeMello's 'The Way to Love'. He speaks much of 'attachment' - if you substitute in 'idolatry' or 'idol' (depending on the context), you'll get what I mean by the 'microdetail'.

Looking at the problem from that angle, for me, the problem with adherence to tradition is that people are giving over responsibility for a certain part of their lives which properly is to be held between them and God. They are setting that tradition up as an idol, allowing it to occupy a place that is meant to be occupied only by God. It may be comfortable to give up responsibility, but godly - it is not.

And likewise: if we read the Bible, compare what it says about things like the priesthood, confession, baptism, communion... with tradition, we can see that tradition leads us to 180-degree opposite conclusions. These are all items which impact on the doctrine of salvation, so they are really important. The difference between them is that tradition places a certain set of authority figures and a certain system of... control over the faithful.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is at all accidental. I see these authorities as setting themselves up as idols in people's lives, to the eternal peril of all concerned. And I am no idolater, so as long as I remain convinced that this is the case, I will in no wise have any part in this system.

It is a very lonely path I travel. I feel like I have less and less in common with the world as time goes on, that I am slowly being squeezed out of this world entirely. 'I always carry the death of Jesus around in my body, that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in my body.'  (II Cor. 4:10).

  • 1
And actually: I have one more question for you regarding NFP, periodic abstinence, and extended abstinence for peri-menopausal women. If if were offensive to God to use contraception, and if it were truly pleasing to God for husband and wife to sacrifice something good (sex) in order to do His will, don't you believe He would provide the grace to do it?

By the way, we are in complete agreement that we are saved by grace! The Catholic Church does not teach otherwise. :-)

Sure I believe it. God has also provided me the grace to remain celibate for the over 46 years of my life on this earth, for all of which time I have been single. But that isn't the question here. The question is what Scripture teaches. And indeed: Orthodox Jews who are reading the Tanakh but not the New Testament believe that men (only men - not women) are commanded to get married and have children. The reasoning for it being only men is that levirate marriage applies only to a case where men die childless - not women.

But the New Testament does not even require anyone to be married. It does, however, agree with the Old Testament in one respect: we are supposed to refrain from having children as long as we are still single :P So in a New Testament context, it is pretty much impossible to argue that Genesis 1 contains a commandment to have children (i.e. refrain from intentional childlessness) that is binding on everyone individually.

There are those who point out that the passage in Genesis 1 takes the form of a blessing. This would lend credence to an interpretation that having children is one of a number of possible means we can employ to 'fill the earth and subdue it', and that not all of those means are required for everyone. At very least, it is an issue to be dealt with, and if one is going to get married, one cannot just ignore it. Probably, just in case things do not go according to plan, it is necessary to entertain the 'what-if' scenario before getting married. But the matter is then in the realm of stewardship rather than commandment.

So then the question becomes: in what measure are children part of the material of marriage? The definition of marriage in Genesis 2, cited by Jesus in Matthew 19, contains no mention of them at all. There are those who claim that 'becoming one flesh' means having children.

The problem with this thesis is that even in the Torah, a man and woman were reckoned to be husband and wife the moment the mohar was paid - in other words, the moment a public, legal engagement has taken place. If God forbid another man raped the woman after that moment, he was to be stoned as an adulterer. If they wanted to dissolve the marriage, a divorce document was necessary.

In other words, the couple were reckoned to be one in God's sight before they'd even moved in together, much less before they'd slept together or had kids. So my takeaway from that is that 'one flesh' does not have anything to do with flesh at all, but with intention and God's action. Period.

The thing that really does it for me, though, is a close reading of the Song of Songs. An entire book of the Bible about marital, sexual love. A quite thorough treatment. Went through it and counted up all the references to children. Go ahead and do it. I'm not going to spoil the fun by giving the results of my inquiry here :P

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account