Luther vs. Atheism on Women Wearing Themselves Out in Childbirth

This past week I've received traffic from the Patheos blog Daylight Atheism, from their entry, How Catholic Hospitals Flout the Law.  Here's how they cited Beggars All (including comments):

Women who want to get their tubes tied can’t have that done at a Catholic hospital, even though doing it as part of giving birth or having a C-section is often the best and easiest way, meaning that they have to go through the time, expense and danger of scheduling a second, separate procedure at another hospital. Even when a woman’s doctor believes that another pregnancy would jeopardize her life, the ban has no exceptions. The bishops ironically are in agreement with Martin Luther, who said it doesn’t matter if women die in childbearing: “This is the purpose for which they exist.” 

Michael • a day ago
The source cited on the Luther quote argues it was different in the original and means something besides this.

• Adam Lee Mod  Michael • 15 hours ago
  
  

  I picked that article to link to because it had the best sourcing. Their apologetic interpretation of why the quote doesn't mean what it says, however, I considered too weak to be deserving of refutation.y
  • Michael  Adam Lee • 15 hours ago
    Okay, I see.

This atheist blogger links to my article, Luther: If women wear themselves out in childbearing, let them go on bearing children till they die. I do appreciate the blogger credited my entry for "best sourcing." Many of these Luther entries take time and $$ to put together. Other than this, I do not have any positive comments to offer in reply.

First, the blogger appears to think Luther's comment is in agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The blogger does not cite from the Bishops to contrast with what Luther wrote centuries before; they simply offer the comparison, "Even when a woman’s doctor believes that another pregnancy would jeopardize her life, the ban has no exceptions." I don't claim any sort of expertise in exegeting and applying the actual Bishops document Daylight Atheism linked to, but the document does appear to state exceptions and to be saying something different than what Luther said. For instance,

"Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."

"Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available."

Second, Daylight Atheism says my evaluation of Luther's quote is "too weak to be deserving of refutation."Daylight Atheism appears to have overlooked that my entry was a response directed primarily to Roman Catholic historians Hartmann Grisar and Jacques Maritain, not modern-day atheists. Grisar said Luther's comment was "very angry" and directed to those  who "complain" about women suffering. Maritain intimates that Luther had "a base contempt for womanhood" in his "war against Christian virginity." These characterizations are not supported by Luther's context. That was the point of my original entry. 

Third, in my blog entry I did criticize Luther for his holding of an archaic medieval medical view. Luther's comment that it doesn't matter if women "grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing," and that "they should "go on bearing children till they die," is the direct result of this view and served as a polemical argument against the Roman church of his day. In his view, he believed that women who do not bear children become "unhealthy and sickly." Those who do bear children are "healthier, cleanlier, and happier." Luther states, "It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health." This view was a direct argument against the practice of celibacy. When Daylight Atheism applies this Luther quote to a contemporary situation, the result is irresponsible anachronism.

Addendum

In an atheist worldview, why should I care what Luther's view was?  Why should I care if his view is similar or not to that put forth by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?  In an atheist worldview, neither of these things has any true meaning. They are just random facts in a random universe. If Luther's view resurfaces or Rome's view becomes the dominant view, well that's how evolution works: the strongest view usurps the weaker views. In an atheist world, why should I even care if women die in childbirth or feel pain?  There is no ultimate standard delegating that women dying in painful childbirth is either wrong or bad. There is simply women dying in pain as another meaningless fact in a meaningless universe. Daylight Atheism may think it's wrong now for women to die in childbirth when they need not, but in an atheist universe, there may in fact come a time when a collective atheist society believes it's right for women to die in childbirth when they need not.  

In their entry,  Daylight Atheism used such words and phrases as "very bad news for everyone who values secularism" and that bishops are "completely shameless about placing their dogma above human lives," and that there are certain things that are "horrible to say" and there are "horror stories." In an atheist world, why should I accept their standards of bad, values, shame, horrible, and horror? Atheism results in absurdity: they use language of ultimate and accepted meaning, purpose, right, and wrong, but then argue for a world in which these words have temporary meaning based on how humanity understands them at any given period of time. Suppose in Luther's time the collective accepted medical view was indeed that those who are chaste are sickly, while those who are married and producing children are healthy. In an atheist worldview, the majority could easily find it acceptable for women to "go on bearing children till they die." There would not be anything ultimately wrong with Luther's view during his period in history. In an atheist universe, there's nothing necessarily certain that Luther's view would not one day resurface as the accepted view. Yes, that sounds absurd, but it only does so because we assume that things are now as they will be in the future. The atheist worldview has no guarantees for the future, or even the next moment.   

I mention these things not for the purpose of defending the Roman Catholic Church,  the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Martin Luther, women, or even children (born or unborn), but rather, to simply point out that if there is any worldview "too weak to be deserving of refutation," it is the worldview of atheism.

Update:
There were more comments from Daylight Atheism about their assertion that my article was "too weak to be deserving of refutation":

Dragoness Eclectic  Adam Lee • 4 hours ago

Really? The "apologetic interpretation" that you considered "too weak" was simply supplying the surrounding context for the quote. Actually reading the entire passage makes it clear that Luther had some archaic ideas about women's health, but shows no particular animus or contempt for women as such. 

• GCT  Dragoness Eclectic • 3 hours ago
  Believing that women are only there to be baby incubators and that their death is inconsequential is not showing animus or contempt? That's a strange concept.

Getting a militant atheist-homosexual to think

The Infidel Delusion

Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays and Paul Manata of Triablogue have written a critical review of The Christian Delusion (ed. John W. Loftus), aptly titled The Infidel Delusion. I haven't read all of it yet, but so far it's excellent.

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

From my mailbox:

"Here's an alleged Luther quotation that is being at least misapplied by some atheists: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." (source) I know you are one of the on-line experts when it comes to debunking Luther misuse, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Perhaps, if you have time, you could respond to this particularly outspoken atheist website."

Ah, Atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, and agnostics love these type of Luther quotes. I could send them 50 similar in content to put on their websites and blogs. Unfortunately, they usually have no idea what Luther actually means. The person above may actually grip it a bit, but after reading his de-conversion story, I was impressed by the fact, once again, that there is no happy union between Jerusalem and Athens, particularly since Athens steals capital from the worldview of Jerusalem.

Note his commentary on the above Luther quote: "Martin Luther could scarcely have worded it better. For the greater part of my life, I held a faith that I believed was unified with reason." I would suggest, fallen, unregenerate reason, will never produce a faithful Christian worldview. This person was bound to a non-Christian position.

He then says, "I was a devout Christian in every sense of the word, living a life for Christ and striving to place him (or at least my perception of him) at the center of all my endeavors." I would note, he was devout not in every sense of the word, because he sought to unite some form of natural theology with Christian theology. This is a recipe for failure.

He comments, "... I committed the same crime of reason that nearly all believers are guilty of committing throughout the whole of their walk: I never truly questioned my faith." I would suggest, he has not even begun to question his faith. If he was trained like I was in secular philosophy, he would be faced with questioning every aspect of his very being, and arriving where I did: everything, and I mean everything, is reducible to faith a claim. It is not simply Christians who begin with basic presuppositions, it is everyone. At some point, every person can be reduced down to some unproven beginning point. It is simply naive to think Christians accept things on faith, while others do not.

Now, this particular de-conversion story appears to be from a youngster, so I expect him to think reality is not what his parents told him, and he now knows better. He is welcome to e-mail me privately, and I will gladly send him the Bahnsen Stein debate, free, and answer whatever epistemological questions he has.

But, as to the Luther quote: This quote comes from the older version of Luther's Tabletalk. Here is the context:

The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.

An immediate comment must be made: Luther did not write this. The Tabletalk is a collection of sayings attributed to Luther, written down by either his students or friends. That being said, note the context: Luther is responding to Anabaptists who say children should not be baptized. Luther insists that they should, and adds that their reasoning against it is not Biblical reasoning. Whether you agree with Luther or not, something should strike the reader as very odd: Luther is using "reasoning" to denigrate reason! What is going on here?

Luther was quite familiar with “reason.” It is usually the situation that those examining Luther’s use of “reason” lack a significant understanding of his theology. My comments below are largely based on my notes on lectures by Lutheran scholar Robert Kolb, and Siegbert Becker's book, The Foolishness of God (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999). Becker's books is, in my opinion, the best book in print on Luther's use of reason.

When Luther approached the Scriptures, he rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). He thought that theology is not systematic theological "reasoning." It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another. Theology is always a matter of “denote.” For instance, instead of making an argument X + Y therefore= Z, Luther would express the same argument by his use of “nevertheless.” That is, X + Y nevertheless Z. A good example of this would be Luther's approach to the atonement and predestination. Luther believed that specific individuals were chosen and predestined, and that Christ died for these specific individuals. This is Calvinism 101. Nevertheless, according to Luther, Christ died for every single human being. His blood was shed for every single person. This is not Calvinism 101. Do you know what this called? Paradox. Luther was the king of paradox.

Luther though, did not reject natural theology completely (even though he felt it gave rise to false theology attempting to define the “hidden God”). Still, he didn’t think it worth a whole lot. For Luther, God reveals himself in the Scriptures or in the sacraments. Here alone God becomes present to reveal himself.

But what about general revelation? Does not God also reveal Himself there as well? Luther believed that man through philosophy can know something about God, but it cannot determine what God’s attitude toward us is, or how He wants to relate to us. This crucial knowledge can only be known by revelation.

Luther rejected the popular “prove it” mentality found in the popular theology of his day. The popular theology demanded “signs” (empirical epistemology), and also demanded “wisdom” (rational epistemology). In Luther’s concept of the “theology of the cross,” he posited a different presupposition about human knowledge and salvation. In terms of knowledge, God has placed himself above human control; He reveals Himself in the promise that elicits faith. Sometimes these promises will not seem rational to fallen human beings.

In Luther’s theology, faith is a gift from God. God is in charge of our hearing His Word and our learning of Him. God controls access to Himself. The human heart responds to God by faith. God must step out of “hiding” and reveal himself to us. He doesn’t reveal Himself with signs or wisdom (through empirical epistemology or rational epistemology). He reveals Himself with a promise that invites faith. We know God only by the faith that He creates in us. Faith is active and embraces God. Faith places us at the mercy of God. God informs us that the baby in the crib is God almighty, and the tortured man on the cross is God almighty. Human reasoning will never arrive at this, that the supreme God of all reality is found crying in a crib or suffering in agony on a cross. Only faith will embrace this, and if you think about it, it is quite a paradox... that God is found most clearly in a crib or a cross.

In a “traditional” concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. With this mind, Luther says by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason (say, in some anti-Luther work from the late 19th Century), one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

I have only one question to ask the Atheist using this quote. While he claimed to be a Christian, did he ever read 1 Corinthians 1?

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.