Stonestreet once again misleads his audience as to the real
questions concerning world population. For years the consensus has sounded the
alarm about population and the far Right has responded with scepticism
regarding their claims dismissing them as alarmist and agenda driven.
I don't doubt there are ideologues on both sides of the issue
who have made their share of exaggerated claims. The world has proven resilient
with regard to hunger although the costs are enormous and when considered long
term the solutions of today may prove disastrous for tomorrow.
From GMO foods to unsustainable resource extraction, the
world has muddled through... so far. But one thing is clear, the pressure is
increasing and not a few analysts and intellectuals believe the long predicted
'resource wars' are already underway. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to say that
much of what has happened since 11 September 2001 (or even November 1989) has
really been about geopolitical control and in particular control of resources
more than any silly or specious narrative concerning terrorism.
As we speak the world is engaged in a series of epic
struggles for basic resources like water and of course oil, the heartbeat of our
petro-economy. Additionally the tech revolution has created a new drive for
precious minerals and already places like Latin America, Africa and Central
Asia are experiencing the stresses and in some cases the outright wars as a
result of this.
Stonestreet who is part of the Evangelical faction that
frequently flirts with Roman Catholicism won't quite come out and decry
contraception altogether but has suggested as much on more than one occasion.
The truth is the majority of Evangelicals (not to mention Catholics) are
unwilling to abandon middle close mores and embrace large families... and ironically
if they did so, the economic price would mean a significant loss in cultural
impact which is at the heart of the Evangelicalism Stonestreet represents.
In other words, these folks have a tendency to speak out of
both sides of their mouth when it comes to this issue.
Stonestreet wants culture warriors and yet not every large
family can pull off the Duggar swindle. The truth is large families will often
mean that cultural aspirations are somewhat limited. For all their talk
regarding the sanctification of regular daily life, the truth is they're
looking for elites. There are some wealthy families that are able to afford
lots of kids, maintain the lifestyle and launch those same kids into the world
of middle class affluence and respectability. But in most cases large families
mean economic sacrifice and financial struggle. This is especially true if they
have consciences more robust than what is typically found in the Evangelical
mind.
But this is all something of a distraction. Stonestreet's
motivations are ultimately political.
What he and many like him are really against is the idea that
the state would encourage or enforce birth control measures. Is this a valid
concern? It certainly is and yet are we concerned as Christians for the
Christian community or does our concern extend to the larger population?*
Actually from a Christian standpoint we shouldn't be terribly
concerned if the lost people of the world want to reduce their populations. And
yet the mindset of population reduction contains some inherent threats to the
Church. One is the increase in consumptive lifestyle and an ever higher (and
thus wasteful) standard of living. Christians in general (but especially the
world affirming masses of Evangelicals) feel the pressure to conform and stay
respectable and thus the pressure to live a certain way, a way that requires
fewer children and it becomes a trap for them. But to be honest this battle was
lost long ago. Evangelicals sold out not in the 2000's but in the culture shift
that occurred subsequent to World War II when they began the process of joining
the middle class bandwagon.
Secondly there's a danger that appears when the state starts
to exercise a heavy hand and seeks to impose its values upon the Church. This
is less of a problem if the Church would follow through on the teachings of the
New Testament and live as a pilgrim-separatist community within the larger culture.
General nonconformity, an embrace of second class status, a rejection of
economic norms and a refusal to hand over our children to the state significantly
reduces the risk and ability of the government to influence our thinking and
shape our families.
Ideally we would hope for a state strong enough to arrest
chaos but weak enough to allow individuals to pursue the lives they would lead.
All human models are flawed and essentially unredeemable. Additionally there is
no static or universal model. The situation will always be dynamic and so we as
Christians must always be thinking and vigilant. Our best hope (practically and
humanly speaking) is for moderation, a state possessing a fairly weak
ideological base.
The New Testament is clear; this present evil age is doomed
to perish in the fires of judgment. There's not much we can to do 'redeem' or
sanctify this world, a notion at the very heart of Stonestreet's false
Dominionist gospel. This present evil age that is under the dominion of Satan
cannot be sacralised or transformed into the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is transcendent
and eschatological. It's not of this age. That's why we also call it the
Kingdom of Heaven. It belongs to the new order, the New Heavens and Earth that
we by the Holy Spirit are able to experience in earnest even now. But our hope
is not here, but in the Kingdom that stands in judgment and opposition to the
present order the Kingdom that will be ushered in with the fiery destruction of
this world and all its works.
This is why we're told to seek the things that are above, to
set our affections there, lay up our treasures there and as good soldiers (in
the real spiritual war) to disentangle ourselves from the affairs of this life.
We are told to live as foreigners and exiles, to work with our hands and study
to be quiet... the antithesis of what Stonestreet advocates.
Though this Earth is doomed we don't exacerbate the tensions
and abuse the gift of common grace. We don't destroy the beauty that radiates
through the curse and seek comfort at the expense of others. Profits are not a
legitimate reason to exploit either the Earth or its people.
In some cases the concerns surrounding population growth are
generated by fear over a reduction in standard of living. And it's clear the
many Christian families with 1 or 2 children have bought into this way of
thinking.
In other cases the fears are more dire and pressing. There
are genuine ethical concerns about people in the developing world being forced
off lands, starved and caught in conflicts that intertwine resource competition
with ethnic and religious concerns.
To further confuse the already crowded debate, Millennials
are likely to cite the environment or other social concerns as a reason to
limit population and yet in many cases I believe it is actually their
narcissism and immaturity that fuels their arguments against children. In some
ways having children and growing up would be the best thing for them. And yet,
such hopes can also backfire and amplify the social disaster we have at
present. Additionally do we really want a generation of young adults who will
produce a crop of dysfunctional mentally broken brats? That's what you're going
to get.
Christianity should represent a break with this trajectory
but thanks to Evangelicalism, the world and many of its self generating problems
are brought into and perpetuated by the Church.
As to questions of economics, once again the schizophrenia of
the Christian Right comes into play. Wall Street and its international
brotherhood fuel much of the conflict as profits and monopolisation of
resources drive markets, politics and geopolitics. Nations act out of self
interest and once again I point to Lower Manhattan as an annex of Washington
DC... or maybe it's the other way around? In any case the relationship is
symbiotic and the institutions of power... from the FBI and Foggy Bottom to
Langley and the Pentagon, not to mention the Congress... all act in the
interests of Wall Street and often at its behest. Have we forgotten the lessons
of the 2008-2009 financial crisis?
The economic system so treasured and defended by the
Evangelical Right is no small part of the problem. The drive for profits is
exacerbating conflicts with regard to resources and putting strains on
populations. It has also fueled the consumer revolution of the past sixty years,
a social transformation that turned obscenely decadent in the wake of the
Reagan era.
The Evangelicals defend this but will on occasion urge people
to restrain themselves... a bit. But if anyone speaks out too loudly they're
quickly decried as being socialists or subversive. They comically urge
restraint in the midst of a system dependent on excess and usury. They think
they can frolic in the cesspool and yet come out fresh and clean. The truth is
not only do they destroy themselves (as the Scriptures warn) but they (as parties
to the system) generate evil that radiates throughout the world.
Stonestreet and others criticise population control because
it will put too much strain on the social security safety nets by causing fewer
workers to support greater numbers of elderly people...
But then on the other hand they are some of the same people
that would dismantle the system if given the chance and view it as a
socialistic redistribution scheme and something contrary to Capitalist
orthodoxy.
They speak of the Church-charity alternative in which the
Church could provide the 'safety net' in lieu of the state but the Church is
unable to take care of its own let alone the rest of society. Unless the Church
is willing to radically re-think many aspects of the social order and the norms
of everything from lifestyle and consumption to ecclesiastical models and medical
care, they have no hope of ever even attempting to finance these things for the
Christian community let alone the larger society.
I would add at this juncture that many of the so-called
Christian 'sharing' ministries are deceptive in this regard. They've done
nothing to solve the larger societal problems and are really geared (like the
many Christian financial 'ministries') to middle class folks with a surplus of
money.
So what does the Christian Right want? Do they want social
security programmes? Or do they want to be rid of them? And if they do want
them eliminated, then quit disingenuously using the argument that a drop in
population will lead to the implosion of the safety net.
It's clear their arguments are not made on the basis of
clarification or rooted in a desire to bring out the truth. They are tactical
politicised and self-serving arguments meant to manipulate their audiences and
donors.
-------
*This question of course becomes muddled when one makes the Sacralist
mistake of associating society as a whole with the Church or viewing society as
somehow Christian. These are serious errors and require the redefinition of
Christianity to a concept far beyond what is delineated in the New Testament
itself.
Another error is to assume that all moral questions are
universal in their scope, viz. they are applicable to all people at all places
and at all times. While some would say this is a fairly basic concept in many
cases it's actually erroneous. There are many commands and ethical imperatives
which pertain only to those within a covenant relationship with God. The
Sabbath, sacrificial codes, dietary laws and much more were covenantal and had
no application to the nations outside the covenant. The nations are condemned
for their evils but never for failing to follow the Mosaic Law.
On the other hand there are a larger and more general set of
laws that are universal in scope by which all people are held accountable. But
these 'natural' laws are not specifically Christian or covenantal in their
scope. They are tools of God's restraint in which individuals and nations are
restrained from absolute evil even though in every case they will push the
envelope and fall into ethical failure.
In the end the most basic 'law' or obligation is that of
belief and it is this lack of belief in the most basic truth... God's existence
and Lordship as revealed in Christ... that will condemn the lost. Getting them
to eschew birth control or making them attend church services will create
Pharisees at best. God is not glorified in unbelief parroting godliness. In
fact the Scriptures give every indication that He finds it offensive.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2