Reproduction: Sin of Omission
Even in the times when I’m tempted by marriage it always inevitably comes back to the same wall, which is procreation. Some people are against birth control because it’s unnatural, goes against God’s purpose of sex (“spilling the seed” so to speak), or if nothing else because it’s been proven to cause abortions by accidentally killing the embryo after conception, just a tad too late. However, the reason I’m against it is because it’s not 100% effective. There’s still a slight chance life could be conceived. I feel strongly that to have a baby is the sin of omission. In other words, in a world like ours where over 2/3 the world is on their way to Hell, how can we leave all those innocent, dying children out in the cold by bringing in new children? Brand new souls who will never know starvation, or likely damnation, to lavish on them all the love, support, and basic needs we could’ve given to the ones already here and already without it, the ones who likely won’t ever get it. And the reason they won’t get it is mainly because of us keeping it from them.
It’s not just giving to the needy, it’s giving the opportunity of salvation to those on their way to Hell (who are dying faster than Americans, by the way); it’s the Great Commission. So what, instead we give our amazing gift of Christian parenthood to souls we make from scratch, who otherwise wouldn’t exist to go to Hell? What is so beneficial and selfless so as to entice people to have babies? Desires to live a life that’s physically and emotionally fulfilling in every way? Experiencing the joys of sex? Pregnancy? Parenthood? Passing on good genes? Legacy? The only things I can think of are not selfless– they’re selfish. It’s all about you. It’s not even about the baby.
Q: “What about raising a godly family to impact the degrading society?”
But is that even a truly noble goal? Of course saving people from a life of starvation, oppression, and spiritual blindness is among the noblest of endeavors, but raising a family itself? Perhaps the end result is noble, but nothing in the means of getting there. And the end result is still less noble than other options. Godly parenthood is so time-consuming that you might as well be living a life of solitude in your homey comfort-zone, away from the world outside that threatens the safety of your family. Again, a huge temptation- as in the temptation to protect your children from evil and danger (as is your responsibility as a parent). But at the expense of actually being a light out in the world, so that you and your godly family are absent from the world, making it just as well that you and your godly family weren’t godly at all or even in the world in the first place. It’s kind of extreme, but I wonder if parents rightly trying to fulfill their responsibility of being a good parent end up being so consumed by it that they themselves are made almost useless for ministry themselves. Almost as if they’re hiding from ministry behind their children saying, “Well, it’s too late for me. I’m too overwhelmed to minister now, but I’m raising up godly children who will be able to do what I couldn’t.” Putting off their own responsibility of ministry on someone else, as if expecting their kids to make the sacrifices they weren’t willing to make.
[Of course that argument breaks down somewhat because a father still spends his time being a light at his job, may actually be full-time in the ministry, and does have some free time to minister, especially when his kids are older and out of the house. Still it’s an interesting point worth noting, and I do think there is truth to it.]
A: What could make more of an impact and be a testimony of Christianity than adoption.
I can’t think of a single good reason to have your own children instead of adopting. You don’t know that that soul you’re bringing into existence will be saved, and if that soul you brought into eternity is damned for eternity it will be better if it had never been born. If you want to raise up a godly legacy and leave behind salt in the world why not raise up the souls who are already in existence, already in eternity and soon to be judged, and who will go to Hell if you don’t adopt them?
“But adoption is so expensive!”
Then adopt from America.
I mean, in the U.S. they pay you to adopt! As is the case with being a foster parent. American adoption is less ideal because American orphans have infinite more resources and opportunities for life and salvation than 3rd world orphans, but there’s still a desperate need. American orphans and foster kids are more likely to live broken adult lives after having broken childhoods, thus multiplying the slippery slope in America. If you really wanted to “impact the degrading society” wouldn’t you try to fix it yourself instead of just leaving behind salt to take care of it? Society is degrading at an exponential rate because the people who are degrading it are also having all these kids who will do the same (just in greater numbers now), and so on. If you really cared so much about America then why wouldn’t you step in and stop the cycle?
Jesus never said be fruitful and multiply. No, he said take care of the widows and orphans for the end is near.
Here’s my question:
What good for society and the Great Commission does romance and sex produce?
I’m not against marriage, in fact I think that the greatest defense for marriage is the prospect of adoption (which wouldn’t be nearly as effective outside of marriage). But I am against procreation, and thus against sex. What greater temptation to have sex is there than marriage? Where suddenly satisfying your God-given desires and experiencing the single greatest physical euphoria of your life is not only legal, but encouraged. Of course I guess you don’t actually have to have sexual intercourse to satisfy your sexual desires, which is how it’d be with my marriage. But who would be up for that? I mean, sure, give up going out to eat, but SEX?!?!
To be married is to sleep in the same bed which is to inevitably have sex sub-consciously. So if you don’t plan on having sex and thus don’t take birth control then you can’t sleep in the same bed or you’ll accidentally have sex while not fully awake, when you aren’t conscious enough to choose to restrict your body’s primal instinct. So what are you going to do, be married yet sleep in separate beds or rooms? I say there’s no point in even being married, you should just be engaged for life. “This is my fiancee with a ring on her finger; she’s off limits.” And that’s it. (…a cheap ring of course. ;))
Having such ideals as these make it seem marriage is not God’s will for me, or others with whom this essay resonates in their souls, and thus why torment yourself longing for the perfect mate that fits all of these requirements when it’s inconceivable aside from God’s sovereignty? Rather we are called to be content in our lives of sacrifice and obedience, longing for the Spirit alone, and if it’s God’s will to confound the improbability of a soul mate then it’s up to Him and He will do it in His time by His means, one way or another. I mean, it’s not like we’re celibates for ourselves, in spite of God’s real calling that we’re denying. If we are celibate for ourselves, then we are in sin.
We are the ones who will discontinue our surnames, the dead ends of the family tree.
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” 4 For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, 5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.” Isaiah 56:3
The Great Commission vs. The Great Omission
What is the sin of omission? It’s the sin of not doing something you were supposed to. In that sense, not feeding the starving keeps them starving. Not saving someone who is dying is murder. If you can’t afford foreign adoption but can afford reproduction/procreation then why not give that money to sponsor a child who needs it more? Through Compassion International and other ministries you can pay to have a child get fed, clothed and shown love and the Gospel in a 3rd world country where they might not have any of those things otherwise. Why waste the resources they need by making a new soul? Why keep them out in the cold, starving, just so you can create a little you? The ultimate selfishness. Don’t you know that these people will either live or die by your choice to aid them or not? When these people live on a dollar a day, you have the choice of going out to eat tonight or letting 10 people live another day, who will die if you don’t. That puts everything into perspective. Shouldn’t that be our whole life’s perspective? Sponsor 3 children for the price of your one hypothetical American, Christian one.
Let’s be liberal for a moment and assume that there are 50 million Christian couples in America right now. If each of those American couples adopted or even just sponsored one foreign child that would be 50 million people taken out of their dark, hopeless fate. If they each adopted 2 children that would be 100 million souls removed from the road to Hell and raised on the road to Heaven, with abounding opportunities for salvation and the personal examples to make those opportunities extremely persuasive. And it doesn’t just have to be Americans that adopt.
It’s a little haunting to note that of all the things God could teach man during his time on earth, one of the main things he stressed was the necessity of helping “the least of these.” His emphasis on this in Matthew 25 was so stern that he warned those who neglected this duty as being in danger of Hell.
Have your sentiments changed since 2011?
Wooooowwww…. I have to admit that I’m embarrassed that someone actually read all that. I haven’t read it for years and… YIKES!! This is INTENSE!!! Hm.. It was very healthy and convicting to read this again. Things to point out: Jesus never actually said “take care of widows and orphans” that was borrowing from the mindset of the New Testament writers, such as James.
I think what was said about someone staying engaged and not ever getting married (because sex is then inevitable and thus there’s the chance of procreation) seems absurd to me now. I think a man could get a vasectomy to eliminate the possibility of procreation, and there are other things a couple can do to satisfy sexual desires without actual intercourse being involved. So I don’t agree with that section anymore mostly.
The rest of this essay still seems to be mostly strong, matter-of-fact logic, and since writing this I haven’t been presented by any other logic that would refute this. I still do think that the vast majority of Christians who choose to procreate are not actually doing it because it will be the best outcome for advancing the Great Commission, even if they say that’s the reason. When everything boils down it’s ultimately selfish. This is black-and-white logic. Parenting a soul that already exists is always better than creating a new soul to parent, every single time in every single scenario. I’ve had many conversations with people about this over the years. They’re all completely floored when I express these sentiments, and yet no one has ever been able to offer a reason why procreation is better than adopting/fostering/sponsoring. It just makes the most sense.
Thanks for reading and asking the question. It forced me to reconsider all this information.