Life Without the Opposite Sex: Why Not?

Women should never "settle" with a man in order to have a child. Granted, women are created by God to have longings for procreating and nurturing, and I believe this is evidenced in the fact that women will go to all kinds of technological extremes to have their own biological children. But this desire should never supersede the proper context ordained for raising children. While there are purportedly many different family models that work in our world today, the family model that is the true cornerstone of civilization, that honors God and respects life at all stages, is one that begins with a God-centered relationship between one man and one woman. A woman who "settles" so that the alarm on her biological clock does not sound before the childbearing milestone slips through her fingers is the personification of self-centeredness. Actress Jennifer Aniston argues that women should not settle, not because of any reason I just offered, but because so many other options (assisted reproductive technologies - ARTs) are available to women today. 

“Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with a  man just to have that child...Times have changed and that is also what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents’ days when you can’t have children because you waited too long.” 

Aniston made this statement at a press conference discussing her new movie, The Switch, another story about a woman who decides to get pregnant with the help of a sperm donor.This movie is certainly not the first to discuss the options women have in this biotech century, The Switch comes after two other recent movies about sperm donors including The Back-Up Plan and The Kids Are All Right. Going mainstream with these options is not just about promoting scientific progress in reproductive technologies, but about removing so-called prejudice against alternative families. But we shouldn't be surprised that Hollywood would be the purveyor of secular-feminist propaganda.

Christianity Today recently asked some evangelical leaders about their response to the defeat of Prop 8 in California. Matthew Anderson's comments speak well for what I believe should be the church's focus in areas of bioethics and women's issues in general.

Practically, I think we have relied too heavily on the will of the majority as our foundation for our legal actions. While political orders must on some level be representative of the people to be legitimate, our founding fathers set up a representative democracy for a reason. Without rejecting efforts like Proposition 8, politically conservative evangelicals should shift their focus toward equipping the next generation of leaders with the philosophical and theological training they need to affect society and government from the "top-down." Majorities are unstable, and while traditional marriage has the upper hand now, it may not in 20 years.

Christians definitely need to stay engaged in the public square on all issues that continue to impact our culture, but in agreement with Matthew Anderson, we need to be intentional and focused about equipping the next generation to think through these issues theologically, and prepare our future Christian citizens and leaders to be unabashedly Christian as they argue these issues in the market place. But this isn't just about the future of culture, but the future of the church and the role that Scripture plays in the lives of believers. New traditions will be in place in a few short years, and terms like "traditional marriage" and "traditional family" will have been shed of all meaning. But terms like "biblical marriage" and "biblical family" will always have meaning because they always point to a source.

But back to Aniston's comments, she is correct, women today don't have to "settle" in order to have children--from a technological perspective, anyway. But without a Christian worldview framework to consider the purpose and role of family and childbearing, what more can we expect? No matter what the law or science may permit, the people can willingly reject it when they have the ability to think theologically.

Childless Fathers and Fatherless Children

On Friday's episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, several young women were introduced as products of the sperm donation industry. In fact, one of the young women said of herself that that is exactly what she is--a product--emphasizing the dehumanizing nature of the industry. Two sperm fathers were also present during the show, there to discuss the many children they are starting to become aware of and have relationships with.

What struck me about this program is how the natural implications of the industry were viewed so casually, the emptiness of the children created by what our culture has said is a valid and even ideal family model--single parent and child. Regrets were not communicated by the mothers or donors of these young people, but the offspring certainly felt cheated out of a part of their own identity.

Is it really any surprise that the children of anonymous sperm "donors" are forced to address the decisions made for them by their mother and sperm father? We're not surprised--we've always understood the implications associated with reproductive technologies that make the marital union unnecessary. And Oprah and her guests didn't seem surprised--they too have understood the implications, but they are not looking for a corrective for the industry, they just want to change the rules of the game. In hindsight, each of us sees and knows that fatherless children lack a substantive piece of their life. And now we have to contend with the issue of childless fathers, those who regret the literally hundreds of donations many of them made at sperm banks and wonder where their children are.

It was also said on the program that up to 30,000 children a year are born by this manner of conception. As a society we've been terribly worried for our children with deadbeat dads, now our society is electing to make this paradox the norm--fatherless children and childless fathers.

Women's Ministry & Apologetics

I continue to encounter women who, like myself, wonder why church women's ministries do not make efforts to train women in apologetics. I'm confident the problem runs deeper, most churches don't teach apologetics. In fact, most churches don't teach theology-proper, to expect that they'd teach a subset of theology is probably to expect too much.

But there are many churches doing a solid job in Christian education, yet women's ministries continue to flounder in the excesses of entertainment disguised as fellowship. There exists a misnomer that women don't need to do the heavy lifting of of concepts and ideas, that that's men's work.

In a world where women have careers, are waiting til later in life to marry and have children, and for those then who do have children, isn't a solid theological foundation important to pass on to the next generation? I say it is, and this would include apologetics. The role of women in church and culture continues to be considered of little importance by compartmentalizing isolationists. Women are in the world, in culture, and have a tremendous influence on the present and future. Theology and apologetics are necessary, not only to answer objections and give an answer for the faith (1 Peter 3:15) but if we are to take every thought captive (2 Cor. 10:5) and seek to liberate Christianity from it's cultural captivity (thank you, Nancy Pearcey) then we must be training women in apologetics, in Christian worldview.

Ok, so you're unsure about curriculum? Here are some books that are phenomenal for classes curriculum and book discussion groups. Invite speakers who know something about theology and apologetics. Check out one of these books today:

Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt
Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Van Til
The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, He Is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer

Inspirational, Spiritual.......Christian?

A blogpost by Cari Johnson expresses concern about the public witness of faith by the Women of Faith speakers that recently appeared on Dr. Phil. I have not seen this episode but would like to.

Cari expressed about the program,

The show had NOTHING to do with spreading the Word, NOTHING to do with Christianity, and NOTHING to do with the Women of Faith. They barely even referred to the WOF as such. Mostly they called them inspirational speakers who speak at inspirational women’s conferences. It was completely a marketing ploy.

Inspirational is a "safe" word, sort of like spirituality. But both can exist without a robust or even casual mention of Christ.

Trading Spouses/Wife Swap - What Christians can learn from Television

Ok, I don’t watch that much tv. And the one thing I stay away from is reality tv except for the shows where one family gives up their mom for a week or two and gets some other family’s mom for a week or two. I am addicted. Why? I’m glad you asked.

First of all, the producers of Trading Spouses and Wife Swap do their best to pick polar opposite moms/families. You can end up with a home schooled, free-wheelin’, hygienically relaxed, “us four, no more, close the door” home against a public schooled, overly scheduled, antiseptically clean, family boot camp.

Second of all, these homes tend to be extremist families - every week I wonder where in the heck did they find these people? Oh, yeah, they apply.

You couldn’t write stranger fiction than the family of modern day pirates, or the religious mom who wigged out at the pagan house seeing Satan everywhere, or the medieval family who didn’t have a home phone, or the beauty pageant mom sent to the antithesis of pagentry family, or even the mom who smoked and slept her way through the stress of the adventure.

But lastly and most importantly – you realize that each family can and should learn something from the other. Because they are polar opposites and extremists (read weirder than my family or yours) they can both afford to come towards the middle ground. And most of the time they do – which is where we as Christians can learn something.

It isn’t about compromise – it’s about growth - being mature enough to realize that sometimes we can actually learn something from someone who lives his/her life a little differently than us.

CT: What Married Women Want

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, Stan Guthrie interviewed the presenters of a recent study, sociologists Brad Wilcox and Steven L. Nock. What's Love Got to Do with It? Equality, Equity, Commitment, and Women's Marital Quality, reveals some interesting statistics about what married women say they want today:

1. "Women who have more traditional gender attitudes are significantly happier in their marriages. They are more likely to embrace the idea that men should take the primary lead in breadwinning adn women should take the primary lead in nurturing the children and managing the domestic sphere, managing family life."

2. Around 35% of women in the population still hold to these traditional views.

3. "Spouses who share weekly [church] attendance had happier wives. Spouses who share a strong, normative commitment to marriage-that is, who are opposed to easy divorce...hae wives who are markedly happier."

4. "Women want things to be fair in their homes, but they don't equate fairness with equality."

As a married, Christian woman whose husband lacks the desire to have the "head ouf household" title and lacks the passion or desire to be the "primary bread-winner," I don't find myself desiring that he change. Hmmm. I'm not saying anything particularly negative or positive about this study...but perhaps there is just something odd about me -- or not.