February 04, 2006

'Woman, submit': thus saith God's messenger

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr to women: 'God wants you barefoot and pregnant, sweetcheeks'


LOUISVILLE, KY—Does God care whether couples have kids?

R. Albert Mohler Jr., ever-controversial president of Kentucky's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has stirred debate by asserting that it's "an absolute revolt against God's design'' if husbands and wives purposely avoid bearing children.

To him, raising children is both a God-given duty and "one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints.''

Following Southern Baptist style, Mohler based his case on the Bible, saying it teaches that "marriage, sex and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation — and his mandate revealed in the Bible.''

"Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation,'' he contended. "To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts.''

Mohler also said he wasn't talking about couples who desire children but are unable to have them, only those who are capable of bearing children but "reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.'' The Bible "points to barrenness as a great curse,'' he noted, alongside its depictions of children as divine gifts." (Southern Baptist seminary president: Bible opposes intentional childnessness)

Really, Rev. "Ear-to-God, Lips-to-Republicans" Mohler, you certainly provided answers to questions I never thought to ask of you. Based on your telephone to glory, though, you must already be anticipating the next package of "marriage, sex and children" questions, so here's a start:
  • What are the guidelines on preferable negligee colors, or is sexy attire optional?
  • Would anything discouraging reproductive acts -- flannel nightgowns and headaches, for example -- be sinful?
  • Is dancing OK only when it leads to the bedroom?
  • Does one pretend to have fun, but pray throughout the act as a matter of Christian duty?
  • How much foreplay, if any, is appropriate?
  • Which positions, if more than one is ever acceptable, are suggested for increasing the probability of fertilization?
  • In fulfilling one's reproductive duties, are clocks and calendars forbidden -- or mandatory?
  • Does the church have a position on breastfeeding, too?
  • Exactly how many children are enough?
  • How many children can a male head of household, earning minimum wage, support?
  • Who pays the medical bills for the family you envisage -- or will God reward big families with perfect health?
  • Are sabbaticals from childbearing permitted, or must the submissive wife, like Proud Mary on a river, just keep on a-rollin'?
Hard questions, but I'm sure you're up for these and more. Speaking for God is hard work, so let's get'er done, preacher man.

Here's a more important question for the rest of us, however; one that each of us must answer for ourselves: When is enough enough?
After all, the holy Mohler's opinions are well-rooted in his church's doctrine -- a doctrine that many believe is "right" for America. (Baptist Faith and Message, XVIII. The Family)

Is this the voice of a future theocracy? Will Americans harken to the rantings of a man who claims to speak for God; a man whose religious and political goals are inseparable; a man whose influence already extends to the top levels of government -- a man who, ultimately, would remove every vestige of freedom and personal decision making we hold dear?

* * *

Rev. Mohler probably solved another scientific puzzle as well: "Italy's frozen mummy may have been sterile" -- or perhaps ye ole mummy suffered "a great curse" for an "absolute revolt against God's plan."

11 comments:

StealthBadger said...

Please feel free to delete this comment if you find it too offensive, and I apologize in advance if it offends.

People who abuse spirituality like this... Grrr.

---------------------------

Another question for you:

"Is rhetorically rimming Republicans a sin if you're "doing it for the children?"

aikane said...

Are you sure it's all "rhetorical"? How soon we forget the Guckert Principle -- one rimming for righteousness = two reamings for repentance. :-)

Based on the word of some fundamentalist leaders, apparently NOTHING done in the name of "God, family or national security" is EVER a sin -- and God tells them, not us mere mortals, what qualifies as sin.

For example, torture is occasionally salutary, killing foreign leaders is sometimes mandatory, spying on Americans is usually laudatory -- but criticism of Bush is always negatory.

Typically, the distinction requires great "godliness" to discern, for what is righteous today may be evil tomorrow. Sin is determined on a on a case-by-case basis, but goodness, simply put, is whatever works for the Republican Party -- oops! -- whatever God reveals to his humble servants on earth.

Missouri Mule said...

Stop the world and let me off.

aikane said...

Yeah, these are the people whose religion is based on LOVE. They stand in the pulpit and preach that God is love, they love the sinner but hate the sin, ad nauseum.

The Scriptures have another name for them: wolves in sheep's clothing.

Mohler's latest bit of "love" is to weigh in on "End of the Spear," a Christian movie that features a gay man. Oh. my. god. Lock up the children.

Upon learning the film featured a great big sinner man, the right reverend responded lovingly:

"What were they thinking?" demanded the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

StealthBadger said...

Are you sure it's all "rhetorical"?

Nope. I wish I was, because then I wouldn't be suspecting that there is some D/s-esque (or at least feudal, if you count droit de signor) establishing of the pecking order (no pun intended) involved in the slavish devotion that is involved in being part of the Republican machine. Like most Goreans, it's as if they're taking an internally and externally unworkable fantasy and trying to pretend it's real.

How soon we forget the Guckert Principle -- one rimming for righteousness = two reamings for repentance. :-)

:D Thank you, that's a good one!

aikane said...

Stealth, I agree with you... now that I had my partner explain the Gorean references. :-)

And, sadly for Repub adherents at the foot soldier level (but perhaps tragically for all of us) their smug feelings of superiority and assumed access to power exist only in their own world of inverse reality.

StealthBadger said...

Yup. It's one thing to be a part of something larger than yourself. It's another thing entirely to be owned by it, body and soul.

And sorry for being obscure. o.o;

Though... the way the GOP is obsessed with power exchange and dominance displays (think McCain/Bush after the South Carolina primary)... it's very hard for me to believe there aren't more than a few St. Andrew's Crosses tucked away in the playrooms of Washington's current power elite.

StealthBadger said...

And apologies - I spotted the AOL story on your sidebar, ranted about it and forgot to link to you. It's corrected.

^.^

aikane said...

I seldomly recall where I've seen a story by the time I get around to writing a comment or adding a link, so no problem there.

As for the obscure allusion, I like it when someone makes me think. It's the best way to learn. So thanks. :-)

Anonymous said...

Truthfully, I'm just refreshed that you saw the insanity in it.

Meadow

meadow.wordpress.com

aikane said...

Meadow, thanks for your comment and thanks for visiting.