[*] I also wanted to say ...

... that Pat Buchanan is a blustering jackass. Look: I've not said much about Harriett Meirs because there's nothing to say -- she's a blank slate. You can't complain about something that is not inevidence except to say, "I don't see anything."

Buchanan, in this editorial, is simply out of control rhetorically. Is this really as bad as it gets, Mr. Buchanan? Could George Bush really have done nothing worse than this? In the worst case -- the worst possible case from where we sit in history -- we have no idea who Harriett Meirs is. In 2 years, if she was appointed, we could say something based on her record. But right now all we can say is, "there's nothing to talk about."

Right now, there's nothing to say about her.

There is something, however, to be said about Pat Buchanan who bills himself as a maverick political entity and complains when someone not built into the system is nominated for a place in government. What could be said is, "I'm sure those grapes were sour anyway, Pat." Saying that does not undercut the seriousness of this appointment to the Supreme Court. Saying that simply derides Buchanan for thinking he can be a maverick and an idealistic rebel and an insider all at the same time.

UPDATED: I was trying to research this topic myself, but it turns out that the Christian Science Monitor has discovered that nearly half of all Supreme Court Justices had little or no prior judicial experience before serving on the bench. While you may have some problems with some of the justices cited in this list, and it may actually incite the case against Harriett Meirs, it is information to put in the hopper before getting all bent out of shape, and then mixing your metaphors.

[#] A small but interesting word (1)

For those of you who have not downloaded the MP3 or bought the DVD of the Crossan/White debate, you should do so right now. I have to admit that I do not think James White "won" the debate on technical grounds, he did something much greater: he exposed Crossan's view of the Bible and of the Gospel itself to a very stark white light. It is an instructive exercise in practical apologetics and in worldview thinking.

However, this post is not a review of that debate. This post is about a word that is in-play in that debate and in a new book by Prof. Peter Enns (HT:TheBantyRooster) titled Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2005) which also makes an appearance in some form in the Crossan/White debate: myth.

Prof. Enns' book uses the word in this way: "an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?" (50) That is to say, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase Prof. Enns, narratives which demonstrate truth as art but not necessarily as empirical truth. Interesting, isn't it, that this is exactly what the Catholic bishops in the UK were saying about the Bible last week? Yes, I thought you would see it that way.*

At any rate, this word "myth" is an interesting one. Somehow saying that the Bible contains "myths" and therefore we have some liberty or obligation (depending on how the argument is being phrased) to read it less-rigidly than we would a history book or newspaper apparently makes one's hermeneutical approach better. For example, Prof. Enns uses this word (as I have read in John Armstrong's counter-review of the work) not to denigrate Scripture but the patch up the home-job Evangelicals and Protestants have made over the years in reading the interpretations of the OT made by the NT.

This criticism/approach comes from the neighborhood in which "modernity" and Enlightenment epistemology are seen (by some) as the low-point of intellectual wrestling in the West or (by others) as a rigid filter which is incompatible with the worldview and epistemology of the culture(s) in which the Bible was written, causing those who are stuck in "modernity" to miss the point of ancient texts pretty significantly.

To those in that neighborhood who have stumbled onto the blog, I say, "welcome to the other side of the tracks." I have a problem with this assertion, and in the next 5 or six installments on the blog I'm going to spell them out. All the rest are subsequent to the major point in question, so I might as well start there.

One of the major assumptions of your criticism ("you" being those critical of "enlightenment" mojo) is that Peter, Paul and the other fellows writing the NT didn't view text the way an Enlightenment reader would view text. If you're going to try to make me answer yes or no to the question, "Did Peter, Paul and the other fellows writing the NT view text the way an Enlightenment reader would view text?", I admit I'd have to answer "no". But their view of text was not as loose as your critical opinion demands, either.

Now how do I come to that conclusion? It comes back to that little word "myth" – a word we can find in the NT 5 times.

Now, of course, unless we want to veer into the dark swamp of KJVOism, the word "myth" does not actually appear in the NT: the word "muthos" does. And it appears in the following 5 verses:

1Tim 1:4
1Tim 4:7
2Tim 4:4
Tit 1:14
2Pet 1:16

Now here's my theory: if we can determine what the writers of these verses meant in context by using the word "muthos", we can have some insight into their view of the epistemology of language and their view of how to handle texts.

We're going to look at each passage individually, then take a look at the cumulative effect at the end. It is my (yet to be substantiated) thesis that the way Paul and Peter use this word in these passages undercuts the view of "myth" being proposed actively by some quarters today.

Say tuned.

This series has other parts: 1 [2][3][4]

---

*NOTE: I'm not claiming Catholic conspiracy here. Keep your shirt on.

[$] At right angles with experience

I was cracking on my favorite internet whipping boy (C-Train Jack Russell), when I came across a link at Wikipedia for Art Bell. If you don't know who Art Bell is, you sould read up on him as he may have been the second-most popular radio host of the 1990's.

Be that as it may, you should read the Wikipedia article on Art Bell for the links alone. Very often I find Wikipedia helpful in providing a digest-version of complicated issues, but this particular article demonstrates what's just under the floorboards of the Wikipedia living room. It's a good gut-check for those who think that the free flow of information always provides access to Truth. Just to be clear, I think that free speech does always lead us back to the truth even when someone uses that freedom to spread lies -- you just have to be able to see the relationship of truth to the falsehoods to get from here to there.

[*] Speaking of evolution …

Faithful reader GeneMBridges gave me the heads-up that apparently the Roman Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible. At least, that's what the headline from the Times UK Online says.

Here are a couple of things you should think about before, during and after reading that story:

ITEM: The doctrinal statements listed in that story are not new statements from the Roman Catholic church. It's been a long time (if ever) since Rome upheld the categorical, literal truth of Genesis 1-3. So to say that Rome has "changed" or "no longer" does something here is an overstatement.

ITEM: Supeficially, the statement attributed to the Bishops as “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” is not really very controversial. For example, any decent Protestant might tell you that the parables of Jesus are not descriptions of historical events – they are a different genre than an historical account, and as such testify to truth in a different way than, for example, the "begats" in Matthew.

ITEM: The article I read there at the UKTimes Online was, frankly, inflammatory toward Catholics. It's one thing to reject Rome as a Christian communion, and it's another to reports facts haphazardly or as if statements which have been in-play in official teachings from Rome for decades are new revelations that leave the Catholic at a severe loss. Look: whatever Rome thinks of Scripture, it doesn't teach that Scripture is complete, and it doesn't teach that Scripture is clear. It teaches that Scripture requires the Tradition to fill in the gaps – Scripture may be true, but that doesn't mean it is infallible or inerrant. That's not new. And the things reported in that article are not themselves new. To report them as a new wrinkle is not to know very much about the last 500 years of history and why Protestantism exists at all.

So that's what I think. Somebody else might have more to say about that, but I think dissecting that article is not a great use of time. If you are interested, you should go visit the Catholic Catechism, then re-read that article and see if you found anything that those who wrote the catechism didn't already say.

[$] STOP THE PRESSES! EVOLUTION!

What?! "LARGE MAMMAL"?!

Never underestimate the forces of random chance and fickle readers.

---

UPDATE: Well, TTLB just dropped 70% of my inbound links and I'm a Marsupial again. So much for genetic engineering.

[%] Someday, he'll get his own category

Doug Wilson says something that you should read carefully. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to read it in order to be a credible person in my book.

Whatever you think in the end, you'll be better for thinking about this stuff.

I think he's bucking for his own category. He may be crazy when you count all the marbles, but he's the right kind of crazy.

[#] More on the topic of the week

Before we go into the next round of responses on the contraception discussion, let me say that on-principle I have a disinclination to interact with people who post 2 pages of argumentation under the disclaimer "I don't want to get in the debate, but ..." If you don't want to get into the debate, don't get in. Feel free to read, think, consider, discuss with your friends at home or church, whatever – but if you post a comment, you're in the debate.

Expect to have to stand next to the things you say in some way. It is irresponsible to do otherwise.

Centurion-
I don't want to get in the debate, and I am not arguing that children are not a blessing. But obviously God does not think that they are always an appropriate blessing: He often withholds them. Scripture also teaches that whoever finds a wife finds a good thing, yet Paul can wish that everyone were like him, in the present distress.

So there is a general argument from sovereignty and from scripture that to be bereft of a blessing- or even to avoid it- in certain circumstances is not to deny its blessedness.

Case in point. With as much gentleness and reverence that I can muster, this is talking in a circle. It amounts to the classic "not that there's anything wrong with that". Certainly, God withholds some blessings for His own reasons. Certainly, because He does this we are not then to say, "well, it must not be a blessing if I don't get any". But to use Paul's wish that everyone was like him – that is, past the age of sexual passions – as a guideline for how to view the bearing of children in marriage is, in the best case, uncalled for.

So far then, as the argument from stands on the fact that children are a blessing, it is inapplicable to Alana's reasoning.

Alana is arguing against something that is a far cry from not having any kids: she's saying that there is a right time to say, "Thank you, Lord: isn't enough enough already?" And frankly, as I told her, it's somewhat obtuse to say that a family with 4 or 5 kids has somehow denied the operating principle that children are a blessing from the Lord; in that same mind-set, it is equally obtuse to say that a husband and wife who have no children but also actively practice birth control are living inside the paradigm than children will be a blessing to their marriage.

More specifically, the command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, in connection with filling the earth. We are not under the same obligation as Adam and Eve to populate the earth. That reason for the command is no longer binding.

It's times like these that theonomy looks really good. The command is "no longer binding"? When was it rescinded? For example, did Jesus rescind it? When?

The NT expectation for marriage is that married people will have children. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate some evidence from the NT about that.

Then we are given in Scripture other commands. Often the Christian life is a matter of learning which one takes priority. It is not that they are at odds, if we keep them in the correct balance. *But they would be at odds, if we always tried to do all of them.*

I beg to differ. If it were logically impossible to keep the law – that is, that the law demanded competing objectives from us – then even Christ could not keep the whole law.

Because Christ did, in fact, keep the whole Law, I propose to you that the Law does not provide logically-competing objectives. We fail to keep the Law not because we are "out of balance" (whatever that means) but because we are sinners. The miracle working out in the world when men obey God is not one of overcoming a logical minefield but of God overcoming the sin-natures of men.

For instance, we are commanded to honor our parents by giving to their physical needs- Christ makes this clear in His denunciation of the Pharisees. We are also commanded to give to those that ask of us. But if I gave to everybody that asked of me, I would not have the means to take care of my parents. Another clear case of this which I think you would agree with, as that the command to obey one's husband trumps whatever the wife thinks about contraceptives.

Phil Johnson said this yesterday, and I liked it so much I'm going to paraphrase it here: this answer is based on a jejune approach to Scripture and an absurd misapplication of some commandments for the sake of trying to make a point. However, rather than beat up on the verses I think Kamelda is talking about, I defer to Kamelda to produce the passages she believes says these things so that we can listen to Scripture rather than just two fallible people talking.

In this case, I would bring out just two other commands. One is the command to be good stewards. This does include our health, as Paul instructs Timothy to take care of his. I would violently disagree with a woman who refrained from having children because of her physical appearance or personal career goals. That is vanity, nothing; and she will reap vanity. But a woman who is already ill, or has been warned that she might die in childbirth, or who has five kids and has to spend nine months in bed every time she gets pregnant, or nine kids and is simply at the end of her physical tether, is not primarily thinking about herself. She is trying to be a good steward with what God already has given to her, and that is the only thing we can be good stewards of. What God has given us has to take priority over what we think He might. I would also not judge a woman trying to put her husband through school, etc. Again, she is not thinking of herself, trying to take care of what God has given.

As I said above, it's somewhat obtuse to say that a family with 4 or 5 kids has somehow denied the operating principle that children are a blessing from the Lord; in that same mind-set, it is equally obtuse to say that a husband and wife who have no children but also actively practice birth control are living inside the paradigm than children will be a blessing to their marriage.

The other is that we are commanded to care for orphans. I would not fault a couple who refrained from having children in order to do this more effectively, if that was what God brought into their sphere.

I agree that we should take care of orphans, but I don't see what that has to do with whether a couple who is able to have their own children should not do that in favor of caring for orphans. Scripture does not make it an either/or command, and we should not, either.

I have heard an argument that we ought to leave all these things in the Lord's hands. This argument is undermined by the whole teaching of Scripture that God ordains the means as well as the end. (Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will he go without being sent?) Nature also teaches us that God works through means, for instance, of the law of gravity. And He works through us: the command to stewardship demonstrates that He expects us to take responsibility and make decisions concerning what He has given us, in order to fulfill His will. If God has not ordained for a family to have children until the husband is through school, then the whole of Scripture teaches that there will be a means to that end. The woman could be barren. But God doesn't always use the same means: the woman could also use contraceptives. If God has ordained for a family to have children before the husband is out of school, contraceptives aren't going to stop him. My sister is the result of contraceptives.

Dragging God's sovereignty into this discussion – which, I admit, Kamelda is not the first to do, but she is the first one I am getting to here – is simply misdirection. Using this kind of reasoning, I can fire a gun into a crowd of people with indiscretion and impunity because only the ones God ordained to die will die. In the metaphysical sense – the ultimate, eternal sense – it may be true that those who die were ordained by God to die in that way, but in the immediate sense in which we live our lives, we are still responsible moral agents.

And it is in that which we have the obligation to view the gifts of God – and the gifts which result from the gifts of God – with some kind of respect and right-minded reasoning.

In that, let's examine Kamelda's example. If a man and a woman get married before one (or both) of them finish college, I suggest to you that they have done the right thing – they have followed the explicit teaching of scripture that it is better to be married than to burn in passion and then sin (cf. 1Cor 7). But in that, we do not have a false choice of either finishing college or having children. Yes: it is a financial burden to finish college. Yes: children will cost money. Yes: the laws of economics say that we have to count the opportunity cost. But to say that children automatically make it impossible to finish college is simply false. There's certainly no Bible precept that says this is true, and there is no logical reason why one cannot do both.

Moreover, there is no Biblical principle that says college is more important than children. None. I would go so far as to suggest that in many cases college is far less important to teaching someone what is important about life and the faith than having children. This example is a great way to demonstrate that we do not have our view of the world straight, and we do not abide by God's view of the way things ought to work. When we have placed the achievement of a college education above the formation of family, we have made a mistake.

Now, as I sit here and type this, I think to myself, "cent, what if [innocent child] comes home from college with some boy after one semester who passes the shotgun test (that is, when I take him out to shoot the guns, he doesn't decline and doesn't turn pale when I tell him I own the guns to keep boys away from my daughter), and while out there shooting guns he tells me he'd like my blessing to marry my [innocent child], how does that change your answers, above?" And then I think, "What if [cent jr.] comes home with some girl at mid-semester break his freshman year and tells me she's the one he's going to marry and he has to go meet her parents at Christmas break, does that change your ideas about what's right and wrong inside marriage?"

I'll tell you: what worries me about both of these examples is not the marriage part – it's the timeline. Doesn't seem like anyone has used a reputable method of courtship to determine who they think they are going to marry. However, why that is important is because marriage is not some kind of free ride or party. Marriage is a sacrificial commitment to the order which God has set in place and to the good of another person, spiritually and physically, which includes the derivative outcome of having children. And in that, my answers do not change. I don't want [innocent child] to marry some kid who doesn't have a job because a kid who doesn't have a job isn't going to support her the way the Bible says a man should support his family. I don't want [cent jr.] to get married after about 27 minutes of college because he's not prepared to support her in the way the Bible says a man should support his family. Period. When either one of these "men" want to step up to the plate and show me the 1Tim 5 and Eph 5:25 money, I'm ready to stand up with them and encourage them to be family men.

On the basis of all these things, I would suggest that there is a Biblical case for us to weigh one thing against another in light of the responsibilities and circumstances. In short, the whole Scriptural teaching of the means to an end-- and of the end being to keep *all* of God's commands-- makes it very possible that a woman is not taking birth control to hinder God's will, but to accomplish it.

yeah, that's interesting in its own way. Where, again, does it say in Scripture that God wants us to have small(er) families? I didn't catch your reference there. The crazy thing is that I agree that God allows us some liberty to exercise birth control – just not for selfish reasons. If you want an example of a selfish reason, I think that refraining from having children inside marriage for the sake of finishing college is a selfish reason.

Just to keep all the cards on the table, I say this because I was this person: it takes one to know one.

A few warning words though, about contraceptives. The doctors will tell you they are harmless. The fertility doctors will tell you they are not. Hormones are not a thing to mess with lightly, and everyone's are different: yet doctors prescribe the same contraceptives with the same dosage across the board, without testing first. Before taking contraceptives, a woman should definitely find out what they are doing to her hormones, and what her hormones are already doing. This is only good stewardship.

I would say that, unless there is another medical reason to take synthetic progesterone (and there are some very legit reasons to take these drugs that benefit many women in terms of duration, frequency, and "strength" of their period), using oral contraception is a bad idea. It can (and does) result in the rejection of conceived human lives from the womb. It's not as vigorous as the "morning after" pill, but it can have the same effect on the unborn life looking to implant.

I won't be defending this; just wanted to put it out there for consideration.

See above

BTW- the blessedness of Mary- of having the world's best child, and the one who grew up to redeem all creation, is outweighed, Christ tells us, by the blessing of those who hear and keep His commands. The blessing of obedience trumps all other blessings, in every circumstance.

Again, citing this passage would improve the interpretation given here significantly. When the woman in the crowd yells out, "blessed is the breast which nursed you, and the womb which bore you," Christ does not say, "Oh yes! That's True! And better still ...", but "but rather, blessed is he ..."

Jesus is not saying, "that is one blessing and here is another", but "rather than count that as a blessing (that is, something you will never have), you should look to the blessing which is right here before you."

This is good for me to reflect on because I cannot have children. And believe me, I know they are a blessing.

Let me be clear that I have a lot of sympathy for those who cannot have children – specifically because children are a blessing from God. It is a blessing that nurtures your marriage and forces you to either "get" commitment or prove that you have no idea what commitment is.

My suggestion to Kamelda is that she think about defending the things she has said here – because it will either improve her argument in order that it should challenge those of us who disagree with her, or it will help her understand why this line of thinking is not very good.

[#] Big Families and my Big Mouth (2)

Continuing from yesterday, Alana said:

The reason prevention is different from abortion, not just in degree but in kind, is that abortion sins against an existing human being, while prevention does not. So the command not to murder, and the reason of not de-valuing the imago Dei, simply does not apply to prevention. If there is no child there is no imago Dei to de-value.

The odd part of this objection is that I do not apply the imago dei reasoning to the hypothetical child: I apply it to one's spouse. When one makes sex only about pleasure (even if it is intimate pleasure) and actively thwarts the reproductive end of sexual intercourse, one has to determine if he/she is reducing one's mate to an object of one's own pleasure. Making one's mate merely an object of selfish pleasure defaces the image of God.

That's a lot different than saying we deface the imago dei of hypothetical children by not having them.

I do like your idea that it's silly to grasp after far-off blessings and never accept the immediate blessing (children) offered here. Over the years my Mom developed a theory that every woman has her breaking point. With some it's five kids, with others it's nine. It's better for the woman and family if she's not pushed to cross this barrier.

Let's keep something in mind: it's somewhat obtuse to say that a family with 4 or 5 kids has somehow denied the operating principle that children are a blessing from the Lord. In that same mind-set, it is equally obtuse to say that a husband and wife who have no children but also actively practice birth control are living inside the paradigm than children will be a blessing to their marriage.

If someone is willing to ask the question, "well, cent, how many is enough?" I admit openly that I do not know how many is "enough". The question is if zero is enough, and the answer there is plainly "no". Under normal circumstances, where the husband and wife are both fertile, it is difficult to say that they are demonstrating the premise that children are a blessing from the Lord by having no children.

I'm the oldest of eight, and I've almost always enjoyed that. My husband and I are planning on having a few less, because I want to do a really, really, good job and keep the value of potential children in balance with other values like the well-being of my marriage, not getting in debt (which the Bible also warns against) and so on. I'm so thankful that I have the freedom to set a limit and try to keep within it.

This statement brings us back to something important: the biblical reasons to stop having children. Another clear statement of Scripture is 1Tim 5:

7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Let's be honest that, in its context, this verse has no direct bearing on contraception. But what it talks about is the necessity to "provide for" the member of one's household in the same way the church should "provide for" widows. In that context, "provide for" does not mean "make sure they have X number of presents at Christmas" or "make sure they have a college savings fund": it means "make sure they are fed and clothed and have a roof over their heads".

In that, the legitimate question regarding whether one more child is going to change the financial balance of a family from solvent to insolvent is a good one. I come from a family of 3 sons, and 3 was plenty in our house – my Mom (mostly) stayed home with us and my Dad was a high school teacher at a private high school, so we were not updating our wardrobes every quarter. We lived in the middle of necessity, and all 3 of us started working as soon as we could to make our own money to buy extra things. In that context, one more would have been a challenge.

Let's keep in mind that this is not the same thing as saying, "well, we want to be able to keep up the family camp site, so we're not going to have any more kids," or "in order to buy a new car next year, we're going to 'put off' having another child," or "when I get that promotion and we buy the new house, (as opposed to the house we have right now) then we'll have a child (or another child)." When you are obviously making less than what it requires to "provide for" the members of your own household, I'd suggest that the first place to start is contraception – but this takes a right-minded view of what "provide for" means, and I think it's a good bit less than what the average American thinks is necessary.

And I'd still be interested in any Scripture Alana (or anyone) could provide that says that a smaller family is a better family under the circumstance "X".

[#] Nephew Update

For those who prayed and are still praying, Nephew is fine. The Neurologist reviewed the film and after examining the boy declared (in words to this effect), "That's boy's got a lumpy head. He'll grow out of it. And tell your radiologist to leave the diagnoses to the experts."

We'll call that "answered prayer" and move on. Thanks to all who lifted him up to Heaven for mercy and healing. I'm not sure that overturning a faulty diagnosis is a miracle, but it'll do.

[#] Big Families and my big mouth (1)

Well: Alana Roberts has offered her brief thoughts on the series here on contraception. Let's start first of all with thanks to her for being bold and brave and also kind enough to join us. In normal blogorific style, we'll stroll through her thoughts and respond to them in kind.

Many of my arguments were aimed against the anti-prevention folks - i.e., no one should listen to them too carefully, here's where it ends, and here are some arguments against their position.

Before we wade in too deep, I think there are extremists at both ends of the spectrum – and both fall off the biblical world view table. That doesn't mean there's not a biblical worldview at stake here.

And let's be clear: what is important in this issue is that we respond to the world with the Gospel – which includes God's plan for marriage and family.

Towards the end I was more addressing your views specifically. I agreed that children are seen as a blessing in the Bible. I don't want to argue with your point that children are a blessing, or with your interpretation of the scripture you use. I think I can narrow down my objection to one simple counter-warning.

Go ahead and criticise "the pandemic view that children are a burden and not a blessing". But be careful how you establish a connection between viewing children as a burden and prevention.

I think that is a completely valid place to start. However, I also think that it must come down to interpreting Scripture. We can invent all kinds of arguments if we ignore Scripture that have no bearing on the matter because those arguments ignore the precepts God has laid down in Scripture.

It may put it in perspective if I tell you where I'm coming from. I've been in three churches and all of them preached anti-prevention loud and clear, always on the basis that "kids are a blessing and if you prevent pregnancy you are devaluing that blessing". They were filled with large families. Many of these families were suffering under marital or financial problems which they just couldn't seem to get under control because there were always three babies in the house and one on the way. If you've never been in this situation or viewed it up close you have no idea of the organizational, emotional, and spiritual bewilderment and chaos that results. But they felt guilt about the idea of identifying this as a problem. Because of the argument used to bring them there, they felt the same sense of responsibility toward the non-existent child that could be created tonight as they did toward the kids they already had. If they valued children they wouldn't move a finger to stop one from coming into being. In the process the children they had suffered.

Anecdotally, there is no one reading this blog who hasn't seen a family of 5 kids, 7 kids, 9 kids (or more) toward which one hasn't thought, "brother: cut your wife a break. Take a walk or something." I also don't doubt that we have also seen large families that are great families – families with many kids in which the whole clan apparently gets along and keeps on keeping on.

But there's a significant flip side: we also see plenty of families of a few children (and even no children) to which we want to say, "brother, cut your wife a break. Get a job/Get a life/get a clue," or in which we want to say, "sister, cut the brother a break."

The issue, ultimately, is not about economics: the issue is about whether we are living the way God intended marriage to work, and whether we are striving for that objective and not some lesser, mundane objective.

It is also important to note that divorce is more prevalent among the newly married and those with older children, and infertility actually is a major self-identifier in the causes of divorce. Additionally, two-income families are more likely to divorce apparently because they have a lower fertility rate. This again points to whether we are living the way God says we should live instead of the way that seems right to a man.

I.e., your articles were apparently prompted by a nasty attitude you see in your circles; my counter-warning was prompted by a difficult situation I saw in my circles accompanying the attitude you suggest adopting.

There are many good reasons to prevent pregnancy at one time or another or limit the number of children one will have, besides simply not valuing God's gift of kids.

I don't think I would call what I see a "nasty attitude". I think that most people who think this way (like me, personally) don't mean any harm by it – we just have forgotten that Jesus is Lord of All, and that we have a greater responsibility than simply to get by, or to get a new PDA, or a whatever your personal consumer weakness might be.

I want to talk specifics, and to talk about the rest of Alana's comments, but I have a meeting about to start this morning. I am hopeful I will get back here tomorrow. Let's keep the powder dry until we can get all the way through Alana's comments completely, shall we?

Be well. If you think about it, pray for my wife's sister and her husband and son. The boy has been diagnosed with water on the brain, and he's only 5 months old. They are seeing the specialist today. Prayer would be appreciated.