« Tooley on Radio | Main | Not a Parent Here »
November 08, 2005
An Evangelical Rethinks the Pill
Those of us who are conservative, confessional evangelicals often use the term "Christianity Today evangelical." By this we mean one who is a bit ambiguous on key issues of conviction and who seeks to get along with the regnant culture, by almost any means necessary. Summed up in that term are years of frustration about a magazine that once brimmed with conviction and theological gravitas.
Nonetheless, there are times when CT can surprise us. Today is one of those days.
CT correspondent Agnieszka Tennant writes a thoughtful, provocative piece on her broken love-affair with the birth control pill. Tennant reveals that her attitude about the Pill was at the start precisely the same as most other evangelicals, a viewpoint that only came into question when she wrote a piece on the anti-contraceptive position of Sam and Bethany Torode. She admired their idealism, but, still:
I had to wonder, though: Did no one tell them that newlyweds are supposed to secure some essentials before risking the intrusion of a baby? Didn't they want to make love without visualizing cribs? Didn't they need to get used to one another as husband and wife before succumbing to the asexual roles of sleep-deprived young parents? How would they find time to travel, to secure academic degrees, well-paying jobs, and a mortgage? And would they be able to afford Starbucks?
She goes on to say that she ended what she considered an intimacy with the birth control pill that surpassed in some ways the intimacy she had with her husband. When she stopped taking the contraceptive, it was almost as though she began to "cheat" on the Pill.
Tennant hasn't exactly sorted out her position entirely, but she is thinking about what it means to be open to the gift of children. And she's thinking about it in ways evangelicals aren't accustomed to doing. For instance, the old Christianity Today, the one we conservatives reminisce about in its glory days under the editorship of my hero-theologian Carl F.H. Henry, endorsed the post-Griswold contraceptive culture without a wince, even to the point of giving a very uncertain sound about Roe v. Wade and the "Catholic" opposition to it.
Tennant though surveys her previous habit of regulating her hormones daily with the question of whether there's another way to think about such things. She wonders whether being pro-life doesn't encompass more than opposition to surgical abortion. Perhaps, she writes:
It's about opening ourselves to the risk and mess and uncertainty that accompany any God-sent guest we allow into our lives. The least we can do is leave our doors unlocked. Like Rahab did for the spies. Like Mary did for Jesus.
Not all of us are going to agree with all of her conclusions. Some evangelicals will argue that Tennant's conscience is more sensitive than Scripture's demands. And some others of us will wonder whether Tennant goes far enough, given her generally egalitarian tacit acceptance of female careerism, and her openness to condoms, and so forth. Still, there's something refreshing about Tennant pondering aloud what it means to apply a biblical worldview to her bedroom, and her medicine cabinet. It's a welcome reminder, even from a Christianity Today evangelical.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 01:07 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8342521cf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Evangelical Rethinks the Pill :
» Evangelicals and the Pill from Stones Cry Out
Thought-provoking piece at Mere Comments by Russ Moore.... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2005 6:13:31 PM
» Off the Pill, "Open to New Life," But Condoms OK? from The Japery
The Amy Laura Hall piece I recommended earlier--"Better Homes and Children"--is now online, for the time being. Hall and others apparently convinced CT editor Agnieszka Tennant (I thought she is Catholic?) to "get off the pill." The motivation was one... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 11:13:57 AM
» Off the Pill, "Open to New Life," But Condoms OK? from The Japery
The Amy Laura Hall piece I recommended earlier--"Better Homes and Children"--is now online, for the time being. Hall and others apparently convinced CT editor Agnieszka Tennant (I thought she is Catholic?) to "get off the pill." The motivation was one... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 11:14:54 AM
Comments
And the counter-revolution continues.
Just last night on the way home from work to spend the evening with my wife and now three children--the youngest being less than 3 weeks old--I heard a lady call into the Bible Answer Man radio show and ask the host his views on birth control. The host, Hank Hanegraaff, warned her that he was probably the wrong person to ask as he has nine children. He then gave many of the Scriptural arguments for not using contraceptives, though he stopped short of saying that Scripture condemned it.
If you are interested in hearing the exchange, it is available at http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/bible_answer_man/Archives.asp. Choose the 11/7/2005 broadcast.
It is becoming ever clearer that a generation of Protestant Christians of reproductive years are slowly beginning to call into question their twentieth century ancestors' rejection of the Church's historic condemnation of contraception. I have my theories as to why that is, but I'll not offer them here.
Posted by: GL | Nov 8, 2005 3:18:53 PM
I always thought it was odd that this one magazine out of Carol Stream, Illinois though it was the voice of the whole worldwide Christian faith--as if it could adequately express all that was going on in Christianity today.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 8, 2005 3:47:26 PM
Interesting to read Russell's comment about Christianity Today. I too began subscribing to it back in Carl Henry's day but gave up about 15-20 years ago in disappointment. However, I do check out its internet news service regularly.
I agree that we Protestants took a wrong turn on the contraceptive pill. I remember as a young person being embarassed by the Anglican Prayer Book, giving as the first reason for marriage, the procreation of children. Whether the Prayer Book was assigning priority to its three stated reasons, I know not, but I now think it was right and indeed on this issues more generally the Catholics got it right and the Protestants wrong. I am involved in a project in its early stages called "Youth Matters" for our young people (Presbyterian Church of Victoria) and will be giving the issue reconsideration including I suspect recommending the Torode's book. In passing I notice our young marrieds (and geneally they marry young, praise God) do seem to be getting a move on with their families, though some who are still students or trying to save for a home are holding back presumably with the aid of the pill.
Posted by: David Palmer | Nov 8, 2005 4:55:36 PM
I'm not a Catholic, but the Vatican's Humanae Vitae did a good job of convincing me Tennant's position has a great deal of merit. For instance:
17...consider how easily [artificial birth control] could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Other stuff on chastity, etc. Worth a scan. Pope Paul VI's writing was inspired, and given that it was written nearly 40 years ago, prescient.
Posted by: Don Bosch (Evaneco.com) | Nov 8, 2005 6:02:43 PM
No mention of the pill actually being a chemical abotive agent as well? I'm suprised how little many "pro-lifers" address this issue.
Posted by: Matthew | Nov 8, 2005 7:03:42 PM
Exactly, Matthew; I've long been opposed to the Pill (even though I'm not 100% sure what I think of other forms of birth control (I'm Reformed, BTW; there is not tradition-wide stance on the matter of birth control, though we lean against it)), because of the Pill's abortifacient properties...
The Pill dissolves the uterine lining regularly each month, whether or not a zygote has been implanted; it does this precisely because it doesn't necessarily kill all sperm; it kills some, slows down others / deforms them, but some may get through. The biochemical action is threefold, and one part of it is that forced clockwork shedding regardless of implantation, which is why people who are opposed to abortion really should be consistent and oppose the Pill, because one may be aborting zygotes / fetuses, and not even know it!
Posted by: Will S. | Nov 8, 2005 11:05:39 PM
As someone whose elderly father, a very conservative retired minister, still keeps my subscription to that publication current, I have to smile at the notion that Christianity Today is a dangerously liberal publication.
and geneally they marry young, praise God
What are the arguments against marrying later or remaining chaste and unmarried? From what I've seen of the statistics, the median age at first marriage in the United States dropped in the 1950s and then returned to something more in line w/earlier historical patterns for men (about 26 or 27) and crept up a bit for women (about 25 rather than about 22 in the early decades of the century).
I think there's quite a difference between advocating chastity (in and out of marriage) and pushing marriage (especially at a young age) as the only acceptable option. Aren't some people called to the single life, to celibacy, and isn't marriage a vocation to be entered into with discernment, not simply as the default option?
Posted by: Juli | Nov 9, 2005 7:34:05 AM
I think timing of marriage depends largely on region and demographics. But speaking for my own demographic (college-educated urban professional in the northeast), people are taking longer to get married because of 1) desire to advance in career, 2) fear of commitment, and 3) greater involvement in serious pseudo-married relationships (aka why get married if there's no social stigma against living with a significant other and having premarital sex?).
So at least for people in my demographic, there needs to be more encouragement from the church for them to get married because the greater culture is telling them they don't have to.
Posted by: Peter Kim | Nov 9, 2005 10:11:01 AM
Peter Kim, exactly. When the culture encourages advocates -even celebrates! - marriage and childlessness for self-centered motives, then it becomes an excellent witness when Christians marry young and remain open to children.
I'm not suggesting that singleness as a discerned vocation is any less an honorable state for a Christian. (And, of course, there are those of us believers who are, as it were, single against our will). But in this day and age, there are way too many believers who are claiming a "call" to singleness when what they really want to do is devote themselves to self-fulfillment and self-actualization through education, careerism and the unfettered pursuit of leisure activities.
Posted by: Jenna | Nov 9, 2005 10:53:21 AM
Oops! I meant "when the culture advocates DELAYED marriage..."
Sorry!
Posted by: Jenna | Nov 9, 2005 10:54:40 AM
Not everyone who's still single at 25, or even 30,(of those who intend/want to marry) is single for selfish reasons. Sometimes you don't meet the right person until you are a bit older, and for some, there won't ever be anyone. This is especially true in places like India, China,
parts of rural Australia, and modern university campuses where one sex makes up far more than half the population. The right age to marry at seems to be more a function of maturity than of chronological age. (That said, I'd like to be married and have children while I'm still young, but that seems less and less likely to actually happen with every day that passes)
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 9, 2005 11:15:38 AM
Tennant's piece actually does go a bit into the abortifacient effect of the Pill..
Posted by: amy | Nov 9, 2005 11:32:14 AM
Hank Hanegraaff has long been leery of birth control of any sort: I think he's waiting for the arguments to amass before he finally decides against it. He's not one of those who thinks that the Catholic church is not a true church, but he advises Catholics who call to hightail it out of there, fast.
One note on marrying late: it allows you to harden in your daily selfish habits. That seems to be the real reason why a lot of 20-somethings I know wait. They want absolute smoothness, a kind of cruise control for life.
Another note: in days of yore, your grandfather might still be a strapping man in hale middle-age. Delaying marriage separates the generations even further than they already are.
Posted by: Tony | Nov 9, 2005 12:08:07 PM
Tony,
I was somewhat hesitant to cite Hank Hanegraaff because I know that he may offend some -- perhaps many -- of the readers of this blog. My noting the call was merely to demonstrate that the caller, who presumably was a Protestant, was questioning whether it was licit to use birth control. Ten to twenty years ago, few young Protestant women (or men) would have even recognized that there might be a spiritual and moral issue about the use of birth control. That's progress -- or, probably more accurately, regress in a positive sense. Many Protestants who likely have never given the moral and spiritual questions about birth control much consideration listen to the Bible Answer Man radio program. Perhaps that little exchange will cause some of them to consider the issue. Let's celebrate the victories, however small, wherever we can find them.
Posted by: GL | Nov 9, 2005 1:10:34 PM
As a young and single male, I have recently begun to suspect that these arguments for the validity or advisability of delaying marriage are often (not always) just excuses -- to avoid responsibility, or sheer fear of the commitment.
That being said, I have also just begun to realize that many, perhaps most, women (and this is not only true of Christians) really want to get married and have children. Only of course we men are avoiding responsibility and afraid of commitment -- and traditionalist women believe (I think rightly) that the man should initiate the relationship.
Leon Kass has written an interesting article on how our culture has lost its framework for pursuing matrimony. Those who get married seem to have more or less blundered there by accident. Those of you interested in the subject might want to read the article -- to know what we're up against, if you're a member of my generation, or to start looking for ways to help us if you're older (please!).
As a man who would like to marry and have children young myself, it's a sad situation.
And don't get me started on the artificial reality created by the college situation (even at really good colleges like mine).
Of course there are some people who God has called to marry later. But why do we assume they're in the majority, and why do we assume that that group must necessarily include ourselves?
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 9, 2005 5:59:37 PM
Firinnteine, may I be so bold as to ask where one moght find the article by Leon Kass?
As a young single woman (and not single by choice) I need all the advice there is to be had! You certainly hit the nail on the head...although what exactly letting the man initiate the relationship means in practical terms I'm not sure. Young men are, generally speaking, not the sharpest as far as such things are concerned. (I speak from sad experience. A rather shocking number of my schoolmates remain as convinced as they were in seventh grade that annoying a girl is the surest way to prove undying devotion to her. Don't you ever try it. It doesn't work :) ) To what, if any, extent can one show openness to a relationship beyond frienship without being too much of a flirt or initiating things? (assuming that one is already friends with the young gentleman in question, and would very much like something more to develop) Most young men either forget I exist when they're not using me as a human spell-checker/grammar goddess/tutor-of -all-subjects or just want to be friends, the remainder being creeps (there is no more academic term for it, you'd have to know these guys to understand) who persist in asking me out and refuse to go away. Or should I just give up and decide that this is, in fact, a vocation to celibacy?
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 9, 2005 11:05:16 PM
Firinnteine, may I be so bold as to ask where one moght find the article by Leon Kass?
As a young single woman (and not single by choice) I need all the advice there is to be had! You certainly hit the nail on the head...although what exactly letting the man initiate the relationship means in practical terms I'm not sure. Young men are, generally speaking, not the sharpest as far as such things are concerned. (I speak from sad experience. A rather shocking number of my schoolmates remain as convinced as they were in seventh grade that annoying a girl is the surest way to prove undying devotion to her. Don't you ever try it. It doesn't work :) ) To what, if any, extent can one show openness to a relationship beyond frienship without being too much of a flirt or initiating things? (assuming that one is already friends with the young gentleman in question, and would very much like something more to develop) Most young men either forget I exist when they're not using me as a human spell-checker/grammar goddess/tutor-of -all-subjects or just want to be friends, the remainder being creeps (there is no more academic term for it, you'd have to know these guys to understand) who persist in asking me out and refuse to go away. Or should I just give up and decide that this is, in fact, a vocation to celibacy?
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 9, 2005 11:05:50 PM
Ladyluthien: I believe the article by Kass can be found on the Boundless Webzine website: http://www.boundless.org/ The article is lengthy, 3 installments, actually. I have seen it published elsewhere, but it appeared there in the last 3 weeks.
Kass' article is excellant at pointing out the problem, but lighter on pratical advice. But, Boundless has many articles with pratical advice, much of it dealing with marriage and finding suitable partners. It is written to a college aged, Christian audience.
I hope the Touchstone crew do not mind my posting this.
Posted by: Buttercup | Nov 10, 2005 5:38:01 AM
If you hadn't recommended Boundless, I was going to. :)
Kass only points out the problem, so far as I recall (I had read the article before -- Boundless republished it -- and it's been a while). Here are some articles that I've been distributing, mostly to various men within my sphere of influence; probably some of it will cross-apply. None of them are written to men per se -- and actually, come to think of it, one is aimed mostly at women, only it had a very pointed aside toward men that I thought we needed to hear.
Here's a good article by none other than J. Budziszewski (he's a regular contributor to Boundless): http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/theophilus/a0000398.html
Here's the one aimed at women (warning, it really doesn't address the gift of celibacy as also a good gift from God -- which it is -- but it gets some things very right on the called-to-marriage side, I think): http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001145.cfm
This one is especially good: http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001156.cfm
I suppose for me (an unmarried college male) to be advising you (an unmarried college female) is probably kind of ironic, but I've never been smart enough not to do these things -- and I've spent a lot of time recently thinking through these things, so a few random thoughts, to be corrected by those with greater wisdom (please?).
[I realize this is WAY off-topic, but frankly it's something that needs to be adressed (there are wise people at Touchstone... hint... hint...).]
Kass is right. There's no social structure remaining in our culture for becoming married. There are various things that can be done -- arranged marriage is a system, the man going and setting it up with the girl's father is a system, some town elders setting up the whole thing is a system, the man "coming calling" is a system, even the high school sweethearts method was a system. There's some culture I read about once where a woman interested in a likely young man will wash and fold his laundry. If he's interested in her too, he accepts this; if not, he has to wrinkle (and probably dirty) it again. I wouldn't recommend this method, personally, but at least it's a system.
Also -- as I just finally completely grasped last night, talking through this with my roommate -- the modern college culture gives women a thoroughly bad deal. Here's the problem. Many women at college are gifted by God for marriage and family, they have the desire for it, they're more or less spiritually and emotionally mature enough for such a venture... but men mature more slowly than women, and our "being ready" for marriage includes the ability to support a wife and children, which traditionally is not a prerequisite for the woman. Thus the "marriage pool" for college women is made up of a lot of men many of whom aren't ready for marriage.
It's a problem. I'm working on the solution -- I think it involves us as men making a definite plan (with much fasting and prayer) for what career we intend to pursue, how we're going to go about it... and then to determine whether or not we're called to marriage. If so, we need to look at our plan and work out where in that plan we'll be able to fulfill the joyous duties of marriage (I think it's healthy to talk of marriage in terms of "duty" more -- a useful corrective to the common view). When we approach that time, we should look around at the various Godly women we know, pick one who would likely make a good wife, talk to her (and perhaps her father) and examine whether that's a real possibility. If she's not interested, or it is determined that such a union would not be a good marriage that would glorify God, he should honorably back off and reconsider, find another woman, and repeat the process. This doesn't give much lip-service to the whole "soul-mate" theory so prevalent at present, and it's not perhaps awfully romantic-sounding (I think the reality could be) -- but I'm okay with that.
I should admit at this point that, as usual, my theory is way better than my practice. I don't have my own plan worked out yet. On the other hand, a lot of what I just said I only thought all the way through last night (into early this morning), so....
I'm not quite so sure what women need to do -- here are some speculative thoughts. Feedback is appreciated, as I'm honestly trying to work through all this and find a good solution to the problem described above.
- We don't realize you all want to get married. Yes, okay, in a general sort of way -- but I've only quite grasped this semester how common and deep the desire runs in many women. It makes absolute sense, now that I see it; but I didn't know. We're dense. We can't figure out these things all the time.
- Women (such as yourself, and several female friends of mine), feeling that marriage is not likely to happen, make other plans. Yes, honestly they may be backup plans... but again, we don't know that. We look and say, "Oh, wow, she has this plan for where she wants to go, what she wants to do after college..." -- and, besides feeling a bit put out because we may not know those things ourselves (this is our own problem, not yours), this puts us off thinking about marriage. Y'all seem to have it all together, why would you need us? (Silly? Maybe, but I think it happens.) Particularly with highly educated women, you go on to grad school, you become a professor or something -- and who looks and says "I bet she'd really like to get married. Hm. I wonder..."?
I realize that contentment with singleness is difficult (believe me, I know). And backup plans are okay. But I don't think it's necessarily healthy to pretend, publicly or privately, that the backup plan is really the main thing you wanted to do all along -- even if it helps hide or drown the discontentment.
And this is where your last question comes in -- celibacy is NOT, repeat NOT, a fallback option. It is a good and glorious gift from God, not the result of just failing to get married. If you're gifted to be single and serve God in the particular ways that enables, great! But if you desire to be married, you feel called to be a wife and mother, don't settle for second best. Be content where God has you; but desire marriage. That's okay. Pursue womanly vocations. I'm gonna get shot for saying this, but -- learn to cook well. Learn to be thrifty. Become wise. Be the sort of woman who wants to be a wife, not just an academic with hidden hopes. Be a woman of prayer, care for the men you know simply as brothers and friends, not demanding more from them that those relationships allow. Most of all, pursue God and learn to love Him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength -- this is not only the first and greatest commandment, it is the first thing any Christian man seeking a wife should look for.
Again, a lot of this is pretty speculative... but I think I'm on to something with a fair bit of it, too. Feel free to e-mail me, post corrections or clarifications here, help me fix bits I've got wrong, make suggestions -- everyone, not just LadyLuthien.
I see a problem. Leon Kass has described it in general, and I've commented on its specific application to the college situation.
Now. How do we fix it?
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 10, 2005 10:08:43 AM
Wow, I'm verbose. :)
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 10, 2005 10:09:49 AM
Not verbose, Firinnteine - wise.
Would that other single Christian men were listening to you...
Posted by: Jenna | Nov 10, 2005 12:03:37 PM
Firinnteine,
Given that plans b-y are currently total world domination (is this the first ever confession of such plans on mc?), I seriously doubt that it's likely to drown out plan A. And amazingly enough, I can already cook (my mother has a masters degree in nutrition. I'm addicted to sweets. It was self defense), sew (thanks to many years of 4-H competitions), and budget. I don't think, though, that a vocation to marriage and a vocation to academic pursuits are really mutually exclusive. I want to teach English in France (assuming the rioting stops) for a year or two and then possibly go on to grad school, but I'll be 18 when I finish my bachelor's degree and ESL cert., which is a bit young to get married. (and rest assured, I'm not trying to change any friendly relationships to anything else, just privately pining for a very dear friend)
Does anyone else think that the rise of online dating sites is part of an attempt to recreate some sort of framework for getting married? Even the high school/college sweetheart system seems to be on its last legs in most areas (although two of my cousins did marry their h.s. sweethearts, and two of my friends at school are engaged to theirs and planning to get married right after graduation.) I rather like the laundry system. It would work pretty well in colleges, since most of the men here have plenty
of laundry to wash... :)In some part of Europe (I can't remember where)a couple hundred years ago, if a woman made a man a shirt it meant she was interested in marrying him. That was also a system, albeit a sort of weird one. Your idea of a system seems pretty good, but once again it just leaves women totally clueless about what to expect and is likely in application to lead to a
lot of young women getting tired of being so unsure and executing plan b. While it's a bit silly for me to give you advice, these are things that single young men ought to remember.
1) Most women actually DO have a deep desire for marriage and children. Just because she doesn't talk a whole lot about it doesn't mean you should assume she doesn't want that future. In fact, unless a woman is vocal about not wanting to be married, whether because she has a calling to celibacy or for some other reason, you can usually assume that she is at least open to the possibility of marriage.
2) Don't assume that because a young woman is your friend she would never marry you. The reverse is very often true.
3) Don't leave us in suspense. Women are not dragons and we don't bite! If you want to show that you're interested, do. Even the worst case scenario does not involve death.
4) This is a bit superficial, but try to keep youself tidy, and for goodness' sake wash your clothes. While this doesn't solve the basic problems, it can make young women more likely to think highly of you!
And yes you are verbose, so is almost everyone who posts on mc :P
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 10, 2005 12:25:58 PM
Jenna -
I'm trying. I do actually have some spheres of influence -- I've only thought through a lot of these things this semester, but I am (as you can tell) rather fond of giving my ideas and opinions on things, and I've not been at all reticent to do so. I think (I hope) some of them are listening....
LadyLuthien -
I didn't mean academics and marriage were exclusive; only that academic proficiency can scare men off (should it? I'm gonna say no, but it does, anyhow). See, the man says, "O, well, she wants to go teach in France, she's not interested in marriage right now." Which may not be the case... as I say (and re: your first reminder), I've recently come to realize that most young women are not at all opposed to the idea of marriage -- quite the opposite. But I'm not at all convinced most of my peers have figured this out.
I'm wondering (and again, I fully expect to get shot for saying this, it's not exactly politically correct, and we already had the million-comment equality-of-men-and-women post)... Men are given particular callings from God, I believe. This may mean being a carpenter or plumber, or CEO, or pastor/priest, or high school math teacher, or nuclear physicist, or whatever. Do women have the same sort of calling? Or (if not gifted with celibacy, obviously) are they called to contribute toward their husband's call? What does "helper suitable" mean, precisely? I'm wondering this because it seems to me there's a distinction between looking for a lady who has a calling in a similar direction to mine, and looking for a young lady who is called to my calling -- that is, the calling that is particularly mine, because it's mine.
Tangent. :)
Why is 18 too young for a woman to marry? Go read those Boundless articles. :)
Now -- to tackle the "leave us in suspense" mess. Oy.
This is why, ideally, I would support arranged marriage.
See, for women, you can say "Well, if some good man of God comes along and wants to marry me, great!" And your frustration is that he doesn't. For men -- we're told we're supposed to initiate the relationship. If we're Christian men, within the semi-Christian subculture at least, we're told that we need to be careful to guard women's hearts, not to date around or have relationships for their own sake but honestly pursue marriage, etc.
This is kind of scary. You have to wait for a good man; but we have the impression we have to find the RIGHT woman. I've recently started to rethink that... but it's still there as a cultural assumption that needs to be dealt with. Then there's this "soul mate" concept (read the last of the Boundless articles for a lovely debunking) that we've also absorbed to various degrees. In short, because dating around is so discouraged and we have things like the courtship model -- which has a lot to say for it, but has rapidly gathered connotations that complicate things -- getting into any relationship at all is really serious. We can't just "express interest" -- with the courtship mindset (have I mentioned that courtship, though a neat idea, doesn't work on a college campus, what with parents living a thousand or so miles away and so on?), and us reticent to commit, and women wanting commitment and so on, "expressing interest" in any way that commits us to anything feels tantamount to engagement, or something. The idea that occurs to the man's mind is "But... what if I don't want to marry her? I don't want to hurt her...." So we do stupid things like letting emotional attachment build up without any commitment at all, which is probably worse; nevertheless, it happens.
Note: all this is peculiar to certain corners of the Christian subculture. Most places just have dating, which has its own set of issues, particularly as it's pretty disfunctional at this point. But I go to the home school college. :)
In short -- we're afraid of commitment, and any commitment we can meaningfully make seems like a huge one; there's no graduated scale (I think there ought to be, but it's not there).
It's stupid. A lot of it is bad excuses we make to ourselves. I'm not asking you to buy them, or sympathize with them, or think they're okay. Just trying to help you understand what it can feel like from the other end.
*end verbosity* ;)
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 10, 2005 2:34:19 PM
P.S. Online dating services probably are such an attempt, but they're based on all the wrong assumptions I've been decrying, including the terms in which they try to decide who would be "right" for whom. You can't measure spiritual maturity like that, or in fact most of the factors that are really important. It's still operating on the premise that marriage is about fulfillment rather than sacrificial self-giving. Which -- hullo! -- brings us back to the subject of the actual original post. Cool. :)
Can we define marriage as "A man and woman completely giving themselves to one another [properly speaking, to Christ in one another] within the committed mutually participatory operation of the sacrament of matrimony"?
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 10, 2005 2:39:20 PM
You all have many good points... I am new here and have a few questions as this question has come up between my husband and I and others.
where does the question of providing for and being responsible come in??? My husband and I are often confronted on this as we had two children 18 months apart. When my son was born 8 years ago, we were in a bad position financially. We were initially berrated by many (including my parents). If not berrated, many thought it. I got over it and went on with life but made sure I had the shot so we wouldn't be put in this situation again.
8 years later, we found ourselves having another baby 5 years after I went off of birth control by choice believing as many do here that God will and has provided and He had made it clear I needed to trust him.
Now that we have our 10 month old, I want more ... as many as God will allow but my parents and many others say that we should not as we do not have the means to provide for them all. It is being strongly suggested that I get "fixed." So, I ask you, what is someone supposed to say to the popular view in churches that God wants us to be wise and plan ahead wisely?
Posted by: Melissa Ruth | Nov 10, 2005 5:01:39 PM
Buttercup and Firinnteine, thankyou for the the direction to Boundless! I meant to say that on the earlier post, but was, yet agian, running late for class and needed to do a couple things. Research papers... ( btw, Buttercup, you have the loveliest name!!!)
Firinnteine,
Ok, about 18 being a bit young to marry. I must have mistyped, since for some it's not too young, but it is for me, since my parents would never go along with it. Actually, my mother keeps encouraging me to marry young (she and my father were 28 and 26 respectively when they met, and she regrets not having been younger than that), but her definition of young is 20-24 or so. I'd rather just do what they want and wait two or three years, since thus far every time my parent's and I have disagreed, they turned out to be right, and we are commanded to honor our parents. Besides, I seriously doubt there will be much risk of such a conflict actually arising. Sorry for the verbose tangent :)
Could you give some insight about why men get scared off by academic accomplishment? I really don't think it ought to scare them. Do you really want to marry a woman who is far less intelligent than you are? (that was a rhetorical question! If you want to marry a ditz who lacks brains, please don't tell me about it.)
Most of your peers still don't realize that women want to get married. Highly annoying of them! I don't know if this is the result of brainwashing by the womens' studies department (but your school prolly doesn't have one) or just ignorance. Is there anything to be done about that?
Now for the question of whether or not women have callings like men. I'm going to get pretty well mauled for this, but I believe that we do. (of course, I could be wrong and imagining things, but bear with me). I think the callings of a husband and wife will tend to complement each other, but that a woman can, in fact, have a calling which will, while complementing her husband's, be seperate. I could go on for a long time about this and be far more coherent, and will later if anyone wants to listen, but just now I'm exhausted and still have homework left to finish. One last note on that: I don't think that being called to do something for a while means you have to do it forever. A vocation to go teach ESL in France for a year isn't permanent. You're called, you go do it, then you do something else, like get married and raise a family of second-generation homeschoolers. (2nd generation homeschoolers? a scary thought!)
This is a pretty dumb question, but what exactly is courtship? I grew up pretty much in the center of the homeschool movement, where dating vs. coutship isn't really much of an issue; most of my friends are more liberal than I and the others are just to busy with school and such to be dating, courting, or whatever or are already engaged. My inclination is to have some sympathy for your trap, but if you're going to talk about manly courage, boldness,fortitude, and leadership, you ought to walk the walk and slay the dragon of fear. As I said before, women don't bite. I know what you go through is scary, but at least you don't fell bound to just wait. The thought that no man will ever want to marry you gets absolutely terrifying, and felling powerless does not help. Even when you're still young, you wonder what you're doing wrong, and if anyone will ever want to marry you, and it is pretty easy to lose hope. Which brings me something I meant to ask earlier. How much should a woman's looks have to do with marriage? In a perfect world, even us plainer, nerdier women could be happily married,but in the real world, even Christian men seem to prefer the pretty but vapid girls, especially if thet're blonde. That doesn't seem right. Any comments? Enough verbosity! Good night!
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 10, 2005 10:44:25 PM
Now for the question of whether or not women have callings like men. I'm going to get pretty well mauled for this, but I believe that we do. (of course, I could be wrong and imagining things, but bear with me).
I can't believe you have to worry about being mauled for asserting that women have vocations (beyond marriage).
In retrospect (I'm close to 50), I think I spend way too much energy in my younger years (early 20s) worrying about who I would marry and let that preoccupation become a stand-in for the more daunting question facing every adult: who am I meant to be? what is my calling and what are my gifts? It was all too easy to channel spiritual longings into fretting over romantic relationships, even in the free-wheeling 1970s. It was almost (at least for me) an excuse not to grow up and take responsibility for adult choices and authority. I think men and women, in general, are tempted by different sins, and for some women, a big temptation is not to claim the responsibilty for directing our own lives. Lady Luthien, you do seem more discerning and self-aware about these temptations than I was at your age. If it's any consolation, vapid blond(e)s face their own set of temptations and challenges.
Posted by: Juli | Nov 11, 2005 8:47:54 AM
Anyone who's been called a rabid feminist for believing that women have a right to vote gets a bit nervous after that! (to be fair, that did not occur on mc, but i'm afraid the kid in question is lurking here. )
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 11, 2005 11:29:14 AM
As I may've mentioned above (I can't remember for sure), if it were a cultural option I'd pretty much support arranged marriage, so absolutely and by all means follow your parents' direction on this matter; I'm just opposing the general tendency toward marrying later, as it frequently happens for wrong reasons. When it happens for right reasons (yours is one, in my book), that's perfectly all right. That being the case -- 18 is too young for you to marry. :)
I want to marry someone intelligent... but I'm more interested in marrying someone who's wise. Actually a lot of men DO seem not to want to marry women smarter than themselves. This is partly rooted in a true fact -- women want to be married to men they respect, and men need to feel that their wives respect them -- but it's still wrong. Respect can be based on things other than intellectual superiority; actually that's pretty far down the list. I don't think there's any room for such uncomfortableness in a Christian view of marriage. Just observing that it happens.
And wisdom is definitely a lot more important; see Proverbs 31.
Even places without womens' studies are influenced by them -- it's culturally pervasive. I tried to suggest something you might be able to do through keeping it clear that you'd like to get married, although (being wise) you have a backup plan, till you get married. Of course, on the other hand, you can't seem like someone who's really actively trying to get herself married off -- willing, and glad should it come along, but trusting God if He chooses to have it come along somewhat later.
I'm not certain on the women's calling issue; that's why I raised the question. :) I do think women's callings, for those God has gifted for marriage, must somehow be rooted in their husbands' -- but that doesn't mean that women don't have their own calling as well (and we might want to distinguish between short-term callings and lifelong vocations, or maybe particular gifts that can be used in several different areas over the course of a lifetime).
I know feeling like no one will marry you is bad -- that's part of the problem I'm trying to grapple with here, because the current situation simply isn't fair to women. On the other hand, feeling like you'll never meet the woman you want to marry (and you keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting) is rather difficult too. The pressures are different precisely because we're the ones who initiate the relationship -- is this a woman I should pursue? Is she someone I could seriously marry, based on what I know of her? How well should I get to know her first? How "prepared" should I be, and in what ways, and what does that mean anyhow? These are all questions we need to ask (and yes, we're cowards sometime, and spend way too much time asking the questions and not nearly enough answering and doing something about it). I'm not discounting the problem, and I do think in this particular area it's probably harder on women in a lot of ways. Just trying to explain the "other side". :)
I'm not even going to try to explain what's happened to courtship. :) Maybe some other time.
Pretty but vapid is nice to look at, but not much good for anything else. Most of the good men I know have no interest in marrying anyone vapid. Men are heavily visually wired -- so, yes, I'm going to say that some visual attraction is necessary. But that doesn't mean (as Mr. Hutchens wisely observed a few weeks ago) that a man necessarily will or should pay attention to the current fashion in women. It is my considered opinion that nearly all women are pretty. Some, granted, are prettier than others -- but there's also debate as to which are the prettier ones. Attraction is important, but marriage ain't a beauty contest. Fret not. :)
Incidentally, this gives me an opportunity (which I am now taking) to put in a plug for modesty -- please please, ladies, be careful how you dress. Most women don't understand the particular struggles men go through on this issue -- some idea, yes, but not real deep understanding. Frankly, it's just as well you don't. But briefly: we're seriously wired through the eyes. God made us this way, and it's good, 'cause y'all are pretty and someone needs to stand around and be amazed at God's goodness in making such beauty (and I don't mean just the ditzy blondes). But there's a difference between general appreciation and desire, and it's a REALLY easy line to cross. Some women like the attention -- some good women, not understanding what it means. But think of it this way; if a man doesn't love you for more than your looks, you don't want him. And if he's a really good Godly man, he'll like you all the better for it. I have the deepest respect for women who have inculcated a spirit of modesty (not claiming to be a really good Godly man, but I'm beginning to learn). And just to keep things clear... sometimes Christian women can get the idea that they're being held responsible for the mens' sins of lust. That's wrong. Our sin, our fault, our driving the nails into Christ's hands and feet (Lord have mercy...). But it's a war, and to put it in those terms, we really appreciate all the allies we can get. There are young ladies I know, may God bless them in every way to the hundredth generation, who are easy to not sin against. They help one out. And those respites in the storm are worth gold. So be conscientious about this -- I ask it not as a command, but as a trench-soldier for Christ offering a pleading request between bursts of shrapnel. And pray for your brothers; and teach us how to pray for you.
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 11, 2005 3:48:25 PM
Melissa Ruth -- I am too tired and swamped to try to respond to your excellent question just now, and would actually prefer not to do so publicly. Please feel free to email me at the link below and I would be glad to share with you our own experiences with 5 children, 4 of whom were born within the first 6 years of our marriage and the 5th several years later. The responses of various acquaintances over the years were interesting . . . :)
Blessings,
Beth
Posted by: Beth | Nov 11, 2005 3:54:50 PM
Maybe part of the problem is that men and women don't know each other well enough because they have, to too great an extent, been encouraged to do only those things "appropriate" to their sex in childhood. If we gave boys and girls common ground while they are young, maybe they would be friends already and better able to contemplate marriage by the time they're in their late teens and early twenties. I don't mean that boya and girls should be raised alike or always do the same thigs, but the fact that very few girls can appreciate "boy books" like Treasure Island, Swallows and Amazons, Beowulf, Sir Nigel, Rosemary Sutcliffe's more boy-oriented books, Scottish Chiefs, etc. (all of which I grew up on and love) seems artificial, and can, I think, seperate boys from girls and make later relationships harder, when they are older and don't have such a common background. Of course, boys ought to be far more conversant than most are in Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, The Little House books, the works of Jane Austen, and all the other classic "girl books". My father has, after getting my sisters and me hooked on all the "boy books" finally learned to love Jane Austen! Bibliophile (or biblioholic?) that I am, I could be overstating the value of giving all children a common literary heritage of childhood. Do you think it's totally crazy? From my own experience, it does seem rather true. (but that could just be because I'm addicted to reading and would rather discuss books than anything else)
I didn't think I meant to ask why men are usually uninterested in women who are smarter than they are. I was actually wondering why girls who are B and C or even D students seem so much more admired (except in a purely bloodless academic sense) by most men than girls with A averages. I would think it ought to be the opposite. At a decent school (mine is very good in all but its chronically weird departments), maintaining very high grades is usually a sign of diligence, responsibility, and organization, which I had always thought were qualities a good wife ought to have. However, I am, once again, biased. On the question of beauty and lust: you were encouraging! It's nice to know that at least someone appreciates it when we try not to be too tempting. (and the idea that most women are pretty kinda helps, too :) )
Back to the vocations (aren't you sick of that word by now?), I probably didn't really convey what I meant to say very well. If it's any comfort, my New Year's resolution will be no more ppsoting while sleepy and caffienated :) Some vocations only take a few years, and the experience can be used in other ways later on. For instance, I intend to raise my children bilingual in French and English, which would be nearly impossible without living in France. Teachimg experience might well be helpful while raising the next homeschooled generation! I think that a husband and wife's vocations will work together as a larger whole or merge into a vocation of working towards a common goal. If you'd like to continue the discussion, why don't we take it to e-mail and leave the rest of the MC readers in peace? I think you can get my e-mail addy of the link at the bottom of the post. And thank you for sending me to Boundless! (of course, I realized that Leon Kass' article was the same one I'd found on the Anscombe Soceity website. Oh, for dumb! If you haven't ever seen the Anscombe society's page, you might want to consider googling Anscombe Society. They have a lot of good articles about marriage and related topics :)
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 12, 2005 1:01:56 PM
Bibliophile (or biblioholic?) that I am, I could be overstating the value of giving all children a common literary heritage of childhood.
Not in the least. We read aloud to both our children, lots and lots and lots. Knowing the "girl books" better myself, I made a point of reading the classic ones to my son, who listened happily to Little Women, Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, and more. His younger sister seems to have a taste for adventure stories and, more recently, sci fi. They both loved the Oz series enough to sit through *all* the sequels. Why cheat children of part of their literary heritage? Besides, they'll all need to all sorts of books in the course of being educated, so they may as well get the idea early that it's good to have catholic tastes in literature.
I know men who belong to the Jane Austen Society, just to give one example of adults who reaped the benefit of reading widely early in life. Recently I was chatting with one of the dads connected with a school team; he mentioned that he rereads Pride and Prejudice just about yearly. (Btw, I hear the new film version is very good.)
Oh, for dumb
OK, you must be Scandinavian!
Posted by: Juli | Nov 12, 2005 3:11:11 PM
How did you know? I'm actually just 1/8 Danish, all the rest being English, Scottish, German and Lithuanian, but my grandparents are from Minnesota (grandfather a native of Minneapolis, grandmother born in Moorehead, grew up in Hawley, moved to Minneapolis in Middle School), and we've still got a lot of family out there, and we're pretty close despite the distance. My grandmother, whose mother's parents had come over from Denmark, had Danish cousins staying with her family during WWII. The father of the family was the captain of one of the first commercial ships sunk by the Nazis during the war, so his wife and children, who were visiting their cousins in MN got stuck in Minneapolis for the duration of the war:) (plus, I've had lefse, swedish meatballs, and jello every Christmas Eve of my life, and remain convinced that the clocks will be stuck at 11:59:59 December 24 if we don't eat those foods!)
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 12, 2005 11:08:22 PM
First, these italics are all my fault. I meant to italicize my two quotations of you, including "Oh, for dumb." Instead, my whole post was italicized, and yours as well. Oh, for dumb (except I think I just fixed it).
It was that expression (oh, for dumb) that gave away your Scandinavian (or is it Minnesotan?) roots.
You said, "plus, I've had lefse, swedish meatballs, and jello every Christmas Eve of my life." What, no lutefisk?
Posted by: Juli | Nov 13, 2005 1:39:19 AM
No, I didn't fix the italics. Maybe this time?
Posted by: Juli | Nov 13, 2005 1:40:57 AM
I read (and enjoyed) all those "girls'" books you listed as a child... (well, okay, I only read the first five "Anne of Green Gables," but otherwise.... [wow, I almost left the "e" off "Anne" -- that would've been bad.]
I know an awful lot of girls, including some who are decidedly NOT tomboys, who like most of the "boys'" books you listed, too.
Good books are good, period. But I'm not sure if it really helps bridge all the divides (even if Leon Kass and his wife do cite Pride and Prejudice as the best book on courting, as I am told they do).
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 13, 2005 2:33:30 PM
Quoting:
(well, okay, I only read the first five "Anne of Green Gables ...)
That's it, Lady Luthien. Snap this guy up at once!
Posted by: Juli | Nov 13, 2005 11:33:14 PM
Nope, no lutefisk. I don't think it's quite legal out east :) (and one of my uncles calls it codfish à la drano...) It looks like I forgot to mention that the jello has to be lime, and made with applesauce and 7-up and a maraschino cherry on top. Have you ever had that? It's great!(not to get off topic or anything)
Firinnteine, (if you're still there after that digression. Do you like jello?) I didn't mean to say that books could totally bridge the gap, (I really will stop posting under the influence of caffeine and fatigue), just to suggest that it might help if boys and girls were raised to be friends and actually know and be at ease with each other from childhood. Now, get thee to the library and read Anne of Ingleside, Rainbow Valley, and Rilla of Ingleside. Those last three are as enjoyable as the others (Rilla may make you cry, so be warned...), and actually raise some very interesting marriage and courtship related issues. You could make that a Christmas break project, along with Little Men and Jo's Boys if you haven't read them yet. (My own Christmas break reading list is the Faerie Queen, something French to be determined after finals week, rereading Beowulf, and all the Shakespeare I have time for.) And shame on you for almost forgetting that it's Anne with an E! You're almost as bad as Gilbert!
Serious, unforgivable digression from the topic of the post (but you're the only lit major I've ever "met" who would be able to answer this, so could you pity a poor, confused French major?): Is it true that the Faerie Queen is an allegory of the Reformation? If so, why does a saint appear? Merci beaucoup!
Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 13, 2005 11:36:33 PM
I've read Little Men, and I'm pretty sure Jo's Boys as well (it's been a number of years, and I didn't reread those as I did the Little House books... repeatedly). My roommate is actually a pretty thoroughgoing fan of the Anne books, and has been after me to read the other three... O well.
I haven't read all of the Faerie Queene yet (!!! I know... I asked for a copy for Christmas, however, and it was the copy recommended by a friend of mine, who did an independent study on it under Dr. Esolen [distance], so it should be good). That being said, although Spenser is from all I've heard quite decidedly Protestant, he seems in my very limited reading to be retaining a lot of Medieval (and Renaissance) tendencies, imagery, etc. So maybe... but more likely not. The glories of Protestant England (by which he meant England under Elizabeth), on the other hand.... But that was a fairly "via media" sort of Protestantism.
Ask Dr. Esolen. :)
Jello's okay, but not my favorite. The blueberry pie at dinner tonight, on the other hand....
Posted by: firinnteine | Nov 14, 2005 10:57:27 PM
Any good allegory can't be reduced to a description of the form "It is an allegory of X." Further, "The Reformation," "Protestantism," "Anglicanism," and "via media" are all retrospective, anachronistic projections on the past. 16thC Christianities, particularly in England, were contested, conflicted and in an identity/authority/legitimacy crisis. FQ is "about all that" in many ways. Open questions and confusions that are sometimes too much for Spenser to handle. Bk. 5 is the most simplistic part of the poem (and often deemed the worst) as it is the most obviously topical and most clearly about current political-religious events. It is also representative of the aspect of Spenser's writing that C. S. Lewis says indicates how his mind was perverted by the English colonial project in Ireland.
Posted by: DK | Nov 18, 2005 11:00:30 AM
Well I learned the hard way how horrible chemical forms of birth control are. I almost died while taking the depo shot. (my body stopped being able to fight off simple germs and I began to bleed and bleed.) Then I went back to the pill. It soon took away any real emotion that I had. I was feeling sick all the time. I put that stupid pill down a month ago and I haven't looked back. What about the diaphragm? How do people feel about this form? It doesn't involve any chemicals altering your hormones etc. Its just a barrier to prevent pregnancy. I will stick by the fact that any hormone based BC is evil and I refuse to ruin my body by taking it anymore!
Posted by: Annie | Jan 11, 2007 9:39:52 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004