General Theology
Be Fruitful And Multiply, But Only If It Won’t Mean Taking More Than Your Share Of The Earth’s Resources
by Clay Staggs
I ran across this article by Mark Steyn, who I believe is one of the best opinion writers in the business. What I found fascinating about it was the quote from the newly installed presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, Katharine Jefferts Schori. The original is on the NYT’s paid site, but here’s Steyn’s write-up, including the bishop’s quote:
Bishop Kate gave an interview to the New York Times revealing what passes for orthodoxy in this most flexible of faiths. She was asked a simple enough question: “How many members of the Episcopal Church are there?” “About 2.2 million,” replied the presiding bishop. “It used to be larger percentage-wise, but Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations.” This was a bit of a jaw-dropper even for a New York Times hackette, so, with vague memories of God saying something about going forth and multiplying floating around the back of her head, a bewildered Deborah Solomon said: “Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?” “No,” agreed Bishop Kate. “It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”
Wow. I’ll leave aside for a moment the incredible arrogance of that statement and concentrate on its substantive implications. For a long time, I have thought that the ECUSA’s train was off the tracks, but I had no idea that it had come to this. It’s bad enough to completely abandon everything that your church has stood for theologically in some misguided attempt to curry favor with the sundry liberal interest groups (read: the world). However, consciously deciding to commit demographic suicide in the name of saving the planet is, well, just plain old crazy.
The argument has been made that political liberals (and states with higher concentrations of them) have lower fertility rates and political conservatives (and their states) have higher fertility rates. Given the bishop’s comments, perhaps this trend extends to liberal and conservative Christianity too.
In my view, this is a sad, sad commentary on the state of mainline Christianity. In Tim’s sermon a couple of weeks ago, he said that God was terrible, but good. My perception is that liberal Christians, who believe that God is the exact opposite - some kindly celestial grandfather, but detached, uninvolved, and maybe even powerless over what happens on earth - don’t really want to bring children into the world as they see it. Those who hold to the terrible/good view, though, have less (or no) problem with this because they believe God’s promises, made to them and to their children - and that He has the power and the desire to carry those promises out.
Assume for a moment that the bishop’s comments are predictive of the demographic future of liberal mainline protestantism. Now apply a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest analysis to the overall protestant church in the US. If those that are reproducing hold to a more orthodox Christianity and those who fail to reproduce are theological liberals, given that the liberal mainline denominations aren’t adding members from the outside, what is the long-term viability of the mainline protestant denominations in the US?
Posted by Clay Staggs at December 4, 2006 07:07 PM
Clay, wow, this is fascinating. This is an excellent synthesis of wide and varied sources. I read Steyn’s article and then I re-read the first part. What struck me the most, was the eerie similarity between Fatma An-Najar and my own mother. Yes, my own mother. My sweet, mystical, and extremely fundamental Christian mother birthed seven humans into this world. When my sister asked her why they decided to have so many children, mom replied, “They will be missionaries for Christ, and then we’ll outnumber the intellectuals who are having no children.” Hmmm…that sounds oddly familiar to Muslim sectarians. Aside from an improper demonization of educational advancement and a strange missional methodology, my siblings and I were always forwarding the “quality of life” argument to each other(and to my parents)— have only the kids you can properly feed, raise, and educate. To date, I am the only child to have kids. I guess something backfired with Mom’s plan. I think my mom and the ECUSA suffered from the same malady: they see the Church as powerless and/or irrelevant in the transformation/redemption of culture. My mom would leave it to individuals (regardless of doctrinal orthodoxy) who outnumber the “heathens” and the ECUSA can not see the importance of having a vital church made up of many united by their orthodox faith. Great post and great thoughts— I’ll definitely read some more of Steyn.
The ECUSA is really beginning to fascinate me more and more. I think it is reality to say that it exists in a vacuum, divorced intellectually from everything that gave it birth and value; but, by virtue of being “religious,” at least symbolically and liturgically, not fully part of “The Society of the World.” One almost wishes to tell them, since the ECUSA denies Biblical thought and teaching; that they might consider Paul’s words regarding those who denied the resurrection; “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.”
Very interesting and very well considered post.