Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Rebuttal - Too Smart To Have Children

Trigger warning: rape, death penalty, and adultery are all mentioned in passing.

One of my iFriends just pointed out an article titled Too Smart To Have Children on a blog called "Set Your Heart." To be fair, I should point out that I don't ordinarily read that blog, and I am unfamiliar with the belief tradition that its author is working from. (In fact, I wasn't initially sure that he was even a Christian; there's an awful lot of Jewish terminology in his writing. But the Statement of Faith for the place where he's an Elder explicitly includes both the Old and New Testaments as the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word Of God. So, y'know, pretty clearly Christian.) Also, this particular piece is from all the way back in July of 2011, so this is not what you might call a timely response.

Having said that... well...

Okay, first of all, it opens by quoting from Psalm 127. Understand, I don't think there's anything wrong with that particular Psalm in itself; it's just that people seem to read it... oddly. In particular, that's precisely the same Psalm that a father in the Quiverful movement recently told me that he "prayed over" before coming to embrace that particular lifestyle. (This was the same man who insisted that the "Godly Model" of marriage was obvious to anyone who prayed over it, and that anyone whose marriage was set up differently didn't have the faith to follow God's Plan For Everyone. I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly.) So seeing this particular passage again throws up a huge red flag for me.

Then I started reading the post itself, and the red flag was suddenly joined by all sorts of flashing lights and blaring sirens.
The recent census has reported that children are now making up less of America's population than ever before. According to the passage of Scripture above, children are a heritage (an inheritance, a gift) and a reward from Adonai. What can we deduce from these two facts?
Okay, I can actually answer this. What can we deduce from these two facts? Not much. From a Biblical perspective, the U.S.A. now has less of the blessing of children per capita than it had before. That's about all you can deduce here.

Unfortunately, deduction isn't actually what our author has in mind.
Adonai has given us a choice; we choose if we want to be blessed or cursed. The Bible says that children are a blessing but Americans don't want children. In fact they consider them 'inferior goods.' The Bible says that debt is a curse but Americans will take take as much of it as they can get.
See? This isn't a deduction. It's a mess of assertions and rampant over-generalizations. Frankly, I'm a bit irritated to be told that Americans don't want children: I'm an American, and I wanted children - and now I have two boys, and guess what? I still want them. I just don't want any more children.

Look, I'm down with the idea that children are a blessing. Thing is, they're also a responsibility. They take work, and use up resources: time, money, energy. They require attention. Saying that they're a blessing doesn't change that. I generally consider beer a blessing, too, but that doesn't mean I should be drinking as much of it as possible as often as possible.

That said, it's a nice rhetorical setup, isn't it? There's a choice between Good and Evil. Children are good. Debt is evil. Everybody wants debt, nobody wants children. Who has time to deal with nuance or complexity when the world is clearly going to Hell in a handbasket?
As our nation moves further and further away from God and His Torah (instructions), it becomes more and more profane. In the US it is now the norm to choose curses over blessings because the curses make more sense in this secular society and the ways of God are seen as archaic, antiquated and flat out foolish.
Okay, first of all, these sorts of blanket statements about the rise of evil in the world? People have been saying that since at least 2800 B.C. So at this point in history, I'm having a hard time taking the assertion seriously.

Second, the ways of God are seen as archaic, antiquated, and flat-out foolish? Nonsense! The only reason I don't stone disobedient children is that I don't have a gate to drag them out to. Here in Texas, we're all in favor of imposing the death penalty for adultery. And, of course, the country has really never been the same since we gave up on the idea that anyone convicted of rape should have to marry his victim and pay her father fifty shekels of silver.
Last week I came across an article from Time Magazine that labels fertility [in women] as a stumbling block to higher education. A recent study has found that:

"...women who had children early — by their mid-20s — were much less likely to continue their education beyond the required first two years of high school; they were also less likely to achieve a higher degree later in life than women who delayed childbearing until they finished their education."

The researchers of this study find it is necessary to inform young women about this potential difficulty in pursuing an education. It is their belief that by educating young women, they will be able to make better decisions, like how many children to have. But what does God have to say about education?
The researchers of this study "find it necessary" to inform people of their findings, because that's what researchers do. It's not like they're conducting a smear campaign against pregnancy, here. They're pointing out that women are far more likely to finish their educations if they do so before they have children. This is factually correct, and something to consider if getting an advanced degree is one of your goals. So why would our author object to this?

I can make a guess, of course: children are a blessing, so if women are putting off having children in order to pursue advanced degrees, then clearly they aren't receiving all the blessings they could be... and by extension, they're depriving the rest of us of those blessings as well. But, of course, our author does not explicitly say this.

Instead, he asks: "But what does God have to say about education?" I'm just going to go out on a limb here, and suggest: "Not much."

And, look! I'm right!
With the help of Bible software, I searched for the word 'education' in a few of the more popular translations of the Bible and did not find it once.
But is that going to stop us from drawing conclusions anyway? No, of course not.
However, the Bible does mention the word 'knowledge' 130-169 times, depending upon the translation. In fact, Proverbs 1:7 declares that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Before we can have a proper understanding about anything, we must first acknowledge Adonai as God and His Holy Word as relevant for our lives today. Only then will we be able to see the world through His eyes and make decisions that are in alignment with His will.
And this is relevant how, exactly? I mean, okay, points for a boilerplate restatement of basic Christian doctrine, but this has nothing to do with higher education. It does nothing whatsoever to support your thesis.

And then, just as I'm shaking off the whiplash from that abrupt change of topic, our author changes direction again:
Am I saying that women should not pursue a higher education? Of course not.
See? His Christian beliefs aren't repressive. Education is fine for women, as long as they understand that having as many babies as possible is far more important.
The point I am trying to make is this: we must be very careful when we handover our young adults to professors and teachers in secular universities and colleges.
Oh, and we should be careful about letting women get educated. It might be dangerous. He's saying that, too.

So, to recap: education is fine for women, and it's dangerous so we have to be very careful about it.
When believing young women become immersed in a secular educational system, they can sometimes become too smart to have children. They may end up rejecting the blessings that our God desires for them.
That's right. God desires the same blessings for all women, and those blessings are children. Advanced education, rewarding careers, and personal development are never blessings from God; babies are always blessings from God. Get your priorities straight, people: babies. Babies are the priority. Face it, if you're not having babies, you are not being blessed!
We may be one of the smartest nations in the world but we are obviously[1] not receiving all the blessings that God intends for us to have.
And the solution for that is clear: less education and more children.

But wait! The Apostle Paul clearly states that celibacy is the Christian ideal, and marriage is for people who lack the self-control for celibacy. So by delaying having children, and possibly even educating themselves to the point of complete unmarriageability, these young women that our author is so worried about may actually be moving closer to a Godly lifestyle! Clearly,[2] this is something we need to encourage.

[1] I love the way "obviously" gets tucked in the middle of that sentence. It's the sort of thing that college Sophomores tend to stick into papers when they haven't actually defended or supported a conclusion, and they're hoping the professor won't notice.

[2] See the note on "obviously", above.

12 comments:

  1. Nice post. However, are you saying that not carpet bombing a post with obviously is the obvious choice?

    ReplyDelete
  2. We may be one of the smartest nations in the world but we are obviously[1] not receiving all the blessings that God intends for us to have.

    Obviously, children are a sort of supernatural magnet: God is chucking these blessings in the vague direction of the Earth, and if there's enough kids, the blessings will land there. (And, blessing respect national boundaries.) I am surprised to learn that it's not the *number* of kids but the proportion that matters.

    Also, if kids are as awesome as a bundle of arrows to a warrior . . . well, I'm not a service member, but I think these days there are other things they find more useful.

    Joking!

    I think that the US is just getting its blessings a different way. We're doing more in the "blessed are the poor" and "blessed are those that hunger and thirst for righteousness" department.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Either that, or children are like box tops - you know, if you collect enough you can send off for other blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, to recap: education is fine for women, and it's dangerous so we have to be very careful about it.

    Sounds like a whole lot of "I'm not a misogynist, but...".

    ReplyDelete
  5. When believing young women become immersed in a secular educational system, they can sometimes become too smart to have children. They may end up rejecting the blessings that our God desires for them.

    Please tell me that they are trying to be sarcastic here. In my mind, there's no such thing as "too smart." If a woman decides she shouldn't have children because she has no interest in raising children or is not in a social/economic/personal situation in which it would be appropriate, good for her.

    The thing that bothers me about all of this sort of thinking is that despite their cries of "do it for the children," their attitude is inherently dehumanizing to children. They are treating children as objects, seeing them as blessings in the same way that getting a raise is a blessing. They don't seem to care if women or men are ready or want to have children or what kind of parents they would make. They only care about the quantity of kids, never the quality of the situation they are born into.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The thing that bothers me about all of this sort of thinking is that despite their cries of "do it for the children," their attitude is inherently dehumanizing to children. They are treating children as objects, seeing them as blessings in the same way that getting a raise is a blessing. They don't seem to care if women or men are ready or want to have children or what kind of parents they would make. They only care about the quantity of kids, never the quality of the situation they are born into."

    Thank you. That's a succinct and well-stated summary of precisely why I object to this sort of screed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Mock,

    Thank you for reading my blog post and interacting with the content. I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly examine and critique my handiwork. I will take your criticisms and comments into consideration.

    Blessings to you in Jesus Name,

    Michael Gonzales

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Gonzales,

    Thank you for a polite and, well, not-angry response. I am particularly impressed because - while I stand by my basic points of disagreement - the way I expressed my criticisms was not especially friendly or charitable. I suppose I could hope that you at least found it amusing, but I can see how it would easily come across as insulting instead. So, do please accept my apologies for taking such a snarky tone to something that I'm sure you put some real time and effort into writing. And thank you again for your patience in responding.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Mock,

    I accept your apology however; I do not think it is necessary. If ‘snarky’ is your style then I’d say go for it. I did wince a few times when reading your comments (and those of your friends), but I did appreciate the fact that expletives were not used. If the point of a blog post is to convey a message and if I failed do this, then I appreciate someone letting me know. I’m an amateur writer with aspirations of someday writing a book or two. Feedback like this is only going to help me improve. I’ve been a graphic designer for many years and I’ve had my work criticized and critiqued over and over again. I’ve learned to look past the sarcasm and facetiousness of my critics in order to find the real issues. With this entry, I was not effective in conveying my points. I admit that I don’t spend a lot of time on most of my posts. They are usually just ‘train-of-thought’ rants. I should probably put more time into each of them—quality, not quantity.

    I do have one suggestion for you; if you are going to write a rebuttal to someone’s blog post, let him or her know so they will have an opportunity to respond. I have no intention in trying to argue my points with you. This time I will just cower in the corner and lick my wounds ;) But if you know that the person you are about to pick apart will actually read your rebuttal, you will write with this in mind and be more selective with your approach. That’s my plan anyway. One of my goals this year is to write some challenging responses and engage in online debates. But, alas, one was written about my work first and my lunch was handed to me.

    Thanks again for taking the time.

    Blessings to you in Jesus Name,

    Michael Gonzales

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I do have one suggestion for you; if you are going to write a rebuttal to someone’s blog post, let him or her know so they will have an opportunity to respond."

    That's an excellent suggestion, and I thank you for it. To be honest, it simply didn't occur to me - I don't do these sorts of responses very often, and the last time I did, well, that particular author provides no contact information.

    "One of my goals this year is to write some challenging responses and engage in online debates."

    Feel free to comment here if you like. I'm sure I will write some things that you can take issue with. I'll try to keep an eye on your blog as well, if you like, and leave comments there (or, for longer responses, write them here and leave a link in your comments).

    Ordinarily, I'd also suggest that you check out The Slacktiverse - it's not without its flaws, but it's home to a wide variety of religious and non-religious perspectives, and it's a good place to get well-reasoned input and feedback. At the moment, however, they are dealing with an influx of really unpleasant people, resulting from an article that one of the atheists wrote about certain sorts of atheism. So this isn't the best time to drop by and introduce yourself... though I hope it will quiet back down in another week or two.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My objection to Mr. Gonzales's thoughts centers around the premise that by limiting our families we are refusing God's blessings. I have noticed that children are the only blessing from God that those in the Quiverfull and similar camps want us to pursue with reckless abandon. The pursuit of money for example, also a blessing, must be tempered lest money become an idol.

    I do wonder if the relentless pursuit of super-fecundity carries a similar risk. The iconization of the Duggars seems to indicate that could be the case.

    To Mr. Gonzalez, I do agree with the blog author that your interactions here have been most cordial and pleasant :)

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to leave comments; it lets me know that people are actually reading my blog. Interesting tangents and topic drift just add flavor. Linking to your own stuff is fine, as long as it's at least loosely relevant. Be civil, and have fun!