You raise an important topic the church would do well to wrestle through both to ensure the blessing of children and the double blessing of knowing obedience.
I would only critique the use of Onan in support of your argument. While related to the topic of children, Onan's sin was deliberate disobedience to a direct command of God to raise up children in his dead brother's name. There is no indication that his act was otherwise sinful. The Catholic Church hangs far too much on this passage and misses the important point of obedience and caring for the widow and orphan.
I have a companion document to this, which I think I’ve already published but I don’t remember and I’m on the road, where I go back deep into the depths of the Protestant reformation church and show how they hang Owens sin onto the issue of birth control and abortion.Calvin goes so far as to call murder, and he’s not alone. Until about 1930 the entire Protestant church was basically on the same page here.
Oh, and by the way, it would’ve been a command from his father, not God. At least not directly by God that we have evidence of in scripture. The leveret law did not come until years after this.
That we know of, but now I have to go back to digging.
Under this system, a command from father was tantamount to a command from God, caveats understood. God certainly considered it to be so in this case. Thanks for the link.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by under this system. But certainly God commanded later that we should honour our fathers, which includes obedience. And I certainly believe that the law which was given to Moses is a universal applicability, and so was valid even before it was given.
But as for the specific point which made it sound as if he specifically violated a love Moses obviously no he didn’t. Because of not having been given yet.
That was unclear. Even before Moses, God had communicated his laws to his people. Honoring father and mother was no new command and the strength of the patriarchy long predates Sinai.
Regarding your argument, I take no exception to the spirit of it but am not pursued as to the letter. With no little trepidation I am unable to follow your great cloud of witnesses to the conclusion they draw regarding Onan's sin; nor Er's for that matter.
Be that as it may, I am in agreement that the church has not led its people to a more healthy, and obedient view of marriage and children.
A very interesting, thoughtfully written and biblically defended argument. Many thanks. I can't really disagree with your points, which I think are very reasonable conclusions from the scripture texts in question.
I'm a Catholic, and one of the several reasons I remain a Catholic is that I think the church teachings in this area - which appear to align with your points here - are quite correct. By which I mean not simply that I assent to them as articles of belief, but that they strike me as deeply morally true.
However I must admit that I struggle with the framing of them. I mean that the RC church teaching, and your own position, is that certain things are 'a blessing' by nature of what they are, rather than by the circumstances of their reality in our lives. "Babies are always a blessing", for example.
I quite agree with this in the sense that the life of a baby is always sacred: and in that sense always to be embraced (and cherished, protected, sacrificed for, etc) regardless. But in the sense of being a 'good thing' as an event or a reality within a set of circumstances, it avoids the rather obvious fact that the arrival of a baby can in fact be very bad news. For instance in the case of a baby born out of wedlock, the former understanding of 'blessing' still stands - ie, the clear duty of the godly is to cherish, protect it etc - but by the latter definition we can probably assume that in many cases the arrival of a baby out of wedlock would in fact be terrible news: and we can easily imagine other circumstances in which the arrival of a baby could in fact spell disaster for family or married relationships (affairs? R*pe? Inc*st? Rebellious daughters? Unrestrained sons?) - So are babies only a biblical blessing to the godly, and specifically when the godly are behaving in a godly manner?
What about severely disabled babies born to godly parents? A severely disabled baby is certainly a blessing in the former sense (sacred, to be cherished, protected etc) but is clearly at the same time a massive burden, a cross to bear that in being bourne may produce much spiritual fruit, but is still, for all that, a cross.
I don't mean that the parents of disabled babies will (or should) necessarily consider them to NOT be blessings: this is not my point AT ALL, I'm sure we all know parents and families of disabled people who love them and cherish them - I certainly do in my own life. My point is that the use of the word 'blessing' to include occasions of obvious suffering and hardship rather makes the use of the term redundant.
So it may be, that according to your article and church teaching, we ought to interpret "babies are a blessing" as actually meaning "babies born to godly parents, who conceived them in a godly manner and into godly family circumstances, are to be considered a blessing regardless of whether their arrival brings great hardship, suffering, sadness, ruin, marital breakup, family breakdown etc".
It might be a reduction to the absurd, but I think the argument against using the word blessing at all is fairly clear. I would have more time for a framing of the moral teachings that said "babies are sacred and it is your duty to protect and care for them regardless of whether or not their presence in your life constitutes a great blessing or great suffering".
But this of course leaves open the way for godly parents to decide if or when a baby would constitute a blessing for them: presumably by using some form of birth control/natural family planning/abstinence, which I understand from your other articles you do not accept.
I think a fair critique of my position is that if I were a godly person I would consider babies to be a blessing in the first sense anyway, so it's a moot point. This seems circular, but it may be true. I'm not sure I have the authority to define 'godly', let alone claim it, however much I may aspire or hope for it. However, if this critique stands, it means your argument can never persuade the ungodly to become godly, because only the already godly can accept it as true, and by definition they do not need to be convinced: they are already godly and thus acting accordingly. I don't believe that is your position, or purpose in writing the articles.
Lastly, I was interested in the tragic example of the father who accidentally killed his own son. I accept your point that it may have been better emotionally for the father to not have had a child, but that nevertheless the child was still a blessing. However, your example did not articulate a case where the blessing himself (the son) was a burden: but rather that the tragic accident on the part of the father was a burden. The whole point is that it would have been less of a burden if it had not occurred TO the blessing, i.e to his own son. What about if the son had grown up to be a mass murderer, or r*pist, or child abuser? "Better for him that he had never been born" and yet we are still to consider his arrival to have been objectively a blessing to his father and mother? What on earth does blessing mean in such a circumstance? And what if the circumstances of the mass murderer's birth themselves made him a burden? What if his godly mother had died in childbirth? In what possible sense is the godly father blessed by a son whose arrival caused the death of his wife, and who grows up to be a person of which the gospels say "better he had never been born"?
My problem is that, despite still believing the moral teachings of the church, their framing in the terms both you and the church present, appear to make the use of the term 'blessing' meaningless as an argument for acting in accordance with those moral teachings.
By all means insist that I must be faithful to my wife until death, that I must care for the babies we create, and that I must not use condoms along the way. I accept my duty on these regards, very willingly. But there is no use in using the language of promised happiness to persuade me, when these things more generally constitute a cross.
Wow, what an interesting and long reply. I will probably come at more when I have time, but for right now I think the important thing to note is that a lot of what you’re doing is playing with the meaning of the word blessing. It is perfectly true that something can be a blessing and not be something enjoyable.and even it can be something that it happens you look back on it and are very glad it happened, but which you found very difficult at the time.
You raise an important topic the church would do well to wrestle through both to ensure the blessing of children and the double blessing of knowing obedience.
I would only critique the use of Onan in support of your argument. While related to the topic of children, Onan's sin was deliberate disobedience to a direct command of God to raise up children in his dead brother's name. There is no indication that his act was otherwise sinful. The Catholic Church hangs far too much on this passage and misses the important point of obedience and caring for the widow and orphan.
I have a companion document to this, which I think I’ve already published but I don’t remember and I’m on the road, where I go back deep into the depths of the Protestant reformation church and show how they hang Owens sin onto the issue of birth control and abortion.Calvin goes so far as to call murder, and he’s not alone. Until about 1930 the entire Protestant church was basically on the same page here.
I agree on the travesty of abortion. Not there on birth control.
I will look forward to further discussions
https://open.substack.com/pub/vonwriting/p/contraception-is-immoral?r=6csnm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Oh, and by the way, it would’ve been a command from his father, not God. At least not directly by God that we have evidence of in scripture. The leveret law did not come until years after this.
That we know of, but now I have to go back to digging.
Under this system, a command from father was tantamount to a command from God, caveats understood. God certainly considered it to be so in this case. Thanks for the link.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by under this system. But certainly God commanded later that we should honour our fathers, which includes obedience. And I certainly believe that the law which was given to Moses is a universal applicability, and so was valid even before it was given.
But as for the specific point which made it sound as if he specifically violated a love Moses obviously no he didn’t. Because of not having been given yet.
That was unclear. Even before Moses, God had communicated his laws to his people. Honoring father and mother was no new command and the strength of the patriarchy long predates Sinai.
Regarding your argument, I take no exception to the spirit of it but am not pursued as to the letter. With no little trepidation I am unable to follow your great cloud of witnesses to the conclusion they draw regarding Onan's sin; nor Er's for that matter.
Be that as it may, I am in agreement that the church has not led its people to a more healthy, and obedient view of marriage and children.
A very interesting, thoughtfully written and biblically defended argument. Many thanks. I can't really disagree with your points, which I think are very reasonable conclusions from the scripture texts in question.
I'm a Catholic, and one of the several reasons I remain a Catholic is that I think the church teachings in this area - which appear to align with your points here - are quite correct. By which I mean not simply that I assent to them as articles of belief, but that they strike me as deeply morally true.
However I must admit that I struggle with the framing of them. I mean that the RC church teaching, and your own position, is that certain things are 'a blessing' by nature of what they are, rather than by the circumstances of their reality in our lives. "Babies are always a blessing", for example.
I quite agree with this in the sense that the life of a baby is always sacred: and in that sense always to be embraced (and cherished, protected, sacrificed for, etc) regardless. But in the sense of being a 'good thing' as an event or a reality within a set of circumstances, it avoids the rather obvious fact that the arrival of a baby can in fact be very bad news. For instance in the case of a baby born out of wedlock, the former understanding of 'blessing' still stands - ie, the clear duty of the godly is to cherish, protect it etc - but by the latter definition we can probably assume that in many cases the arrival of a baby out of wedlock would in fact be terrible news: and we can easily imagine other circumstances in which the arrival of a baby could in fact spell disaster for family or married relationships (affairs? R*pe? Inc*st? Rebellious daughters? Unrestrained sons?) - So are babies only a biblical blessing to the godly, and specifically when the godly are behaving in a godly manner?
What about severely disabled babies born to godly parents? A severely disabled baby is certainly a blessing in the former sense (sacred, to be cherished, protected etc) but is clearly at the same time a massive burden, a cross to bear that in being bourne may produce much spiritual fruit, but is still, for all that, a cross.
I don't mean that the parents of disabled babies will (or should) necessarily consider them to NOT be blessings: this is not my point AT ALL, I'm sure we all know parents and families of disabled people who love them and cherish them - I certainly do in my own life. My point is that the use of the word 'blessing' to include occasions of obvious suffering and hardship rather makes the use of the term redundant.
So it may be, that according to your article and church teaching, we ought to interpret "babies are a blessing" as actually meaning "babies born to godly parents, who conceived them in a godly manner and into godly family circumstances, are to be considered a blessing regardless of whether their arrival brings great hardship, suffering, sadness, ruin, marital breakup, family breakdown etc".
It might be a reduction to the absurd, but I think the argument against using the word blessing at all is fairly clear. I would have more time for a framing of the moral teachings that said "babies are sacred and it is your duty to protect and care for them regardless of whether or not their presence in your life constitutes a great blessing or great suffering".
But this of course leaves open the way for godly parents to decide if or when a baby would constitute a blessing for them: presumably by using some form of birth control/natural family planning/abstinence, which I understand from your other articles you do not accept.
I think a fair critique of my position is that if I were a godly person I would consider babies to be a blessing in the first sense anyway, so it's a moot point. This seems circular, but it may be true. I'm not sure I have the authority to define 'godly', let alone claim it, however much I may aspire or hope for it. However, if this critique stands, it means your argument can never persuade the ungodly to become godly, because only the already godly can accept it as true, and by definition they do not need to be convinced: they are already godly and thus acting accordingly. I don't believe that is your position, or purpose in writing the articles.
Lastly, I was interested in the tragic example of the father who accidentally killed his own son. I accept your point that it may have been better emotionally for the father to not have had a child, but that nevertheless the child was still a blessing. However, your example did not articulate a case where the blessing himself (the son) was a burden: but rather that the tragic accident on the part of the father was a burden. The whole point is that it would have been less of a burden if it had not occurred TO the blessing, i.e to his own son. What about if the son had grown up to be a mass murderer, or r*pist, or child abuser? "Better for him that he had never been born" and yet we are still to consider his arrival to have been objectively a blessing to his father and mother? What on earth does blessing mean in such a circumstance? And what if the circumstances of the mass murderer's birth themselves made him a burden? What if his godly mother had died in childbirth? In what possible sense is the godly father blessed by a son whose arrival caused the death of his wife, and who grows up to be a person of which the gospels say "better he had never been born"?
My problem is that, despite still believing the moral teachings of the church, their framing in the terms both you and the church present, appear to make the use of the term 'blessing' meaningless as an argument for acting in accordance with those moral teachings.
By all means insist that I must be faithful to my wife until death, that I must care for the babies we create, and that I must not use condoms along the way. I accept my duty on these regards, very willingly. But there is no use in using the language of promised happiness to persuade me, when these things more generally constitute a cross.
Wow, what an interesting and long reply. I will probably come at more when I have time, but for right now I think the important thing to note is that a lot of what you’re doing is playing with the meaning of the word blessing. It is perfectly true that something can be a blessing and not be something enjoyable.and even it can be something that it happens you look back on it and are very glad it happened, but which you found very difficult at the time.