Trusting God vs. Tempting God

[eponymic]

I’ve been mulling around a moral quandary recently, and I figured I should ask to see what people think. This question has no basis in any particular situation; it’s just an academic exercise at this point.

I’ve seen many posts on here that state that we should trust that “God will provide”, and we shouldn’t worry if we are always properly squared away in life if we feel we are being called to do something. Most often, this seems to be in regards to adding children to a family, so for sake of argument, I’ll use this as an example, but it’s hardly the only possible situation. The recent gospel reading of Jesus’ temptation in the desert got me thinking about this. If a married couple was in dire straights in life, barely scraping by and clearly not fully able to take care of themselves, let alone be able to take care of a new baby, would it be akin to “tempting God” if they tried to conceive?** If we take this a step further, since every sexual act must be open to the possibility of life (NFP or not), would it be a similar sin to engage in sex at all, since even if the couple is trying to avoid pregnancy, it could still happen?

I guess my particular issue with this lies in the eagerness of some people to claim that any surprises in life (such as the surprise of becoming pregnant after having sex) are just “God’s will” and He must have a plan, therefore God will provide. However, in reality, some (if not most) of these surprises are really the results of our own actions, so they are really our doing. Therefore, if we act in ways that either disregard or are contrary to our own ability to provide basic welfare to ourselves and our families, are we not just tempting God to make up the difference?

** Disclaimer: I’ve heard, and agree with, the arguments that if we always waited until we were financially and emotionally ready for children, that nobody would ever have children. This situation is not meant to represent a “borderline” case or one where it just means that they’d have to sacrifice some of their luxuries.

 

[otjm]

Basically, you seem to be asking how to define the term “reasonable”. I suspect that you will get a lively discussion.

We live in a very materialistic world, here in the US. Most people don’t truly understand what poverty really means, as most people are not in a position of having a full lifetime of poverty - a lifetime that may be shortened by 20, 30 years of more of expected lifetime due to malnutrition on a daily basis. Having said that, where one draws the line in terms of material goods - clothing, food, housing, transportation, healthcare - is an interesting exercise. If one has the mental and physical capabilities or earn a decent living, then does one have the moral duty to do so? Or is one morally justified in failing to do so and thereby living off others generosity?

And granted that God often does care for those in need, is that care directed to the parents who may not be exercising common sense, or to the children of those parents who get to bare the brunt of their parents’ choices?

If they are living in rented housing with no assurances, should they lose that for no fault of their own, of having anywhere to move to; if their food budget is already strapped to provide adequate nutrition tot he children they do have; (you add to the list here) is it then responsible to have another child?

Or is it a matter that they might have to do without what realy are unnecessary additional items? Is hand-me-down clothing not good enough for them? Do they have to have new (whatever - you supply) instead of second hand?

Most people I know could do just fine with another mouth to feed. The would just have to put off a bit longer getting that new (whatever).

 

[teachccd]

so for sake of argument, I’ll use this as an example, but it’s hardly the only possible situation. The recent gospel reading of Jesus’ temptation in the desert got me thinking about this. If a married couple was in dire straights in life, barely scraping by and clearly not fully able to take care of themselves, let alone be able to take care of a new baby, would it be akin to “tempting God” if they tried to conceive?**

What about a couple who already has children and falls into dire straights? Do they give away their children?? Would it be “tempting God” if they tried to keep these children?? Just turning the coin over…God Bless…

 

[eponymic]

If they are living in rented housing with no assurances, should they lose that for no fault of their own, of having anywhere to move to; if their food budget is already strapped to provide adequate nutrition tot he children they do have; (you add to the list here) is it then responsible to have another child?

Well, to play Devil’s advocate for a minute (in a manner of speaking), if it’s really God’s will that a couple has another child, then do we have to be responsible at all? If all children are gifts from God, and we’re not supposed to pick and choose the gifts God gives us, then is that even a valid question to ask?

Most people I know could do just fine with another mouth to feed. The would just have to put off a bit longer getting that new (whatever).

That is really the reason why I put in the disclaimer. Most (probably all) couples will have to make some sort of sacrifices when a new baby is on the way, but for some it’s only sacrificing luxuries, not essentials, and that’s really not what I’m pondering.

 

[eponymic]

What about a couple who already has children and falls into dire straights? Do they give away their children?? Would it be “tempting God” if they tried to keep these children?? Just turning the coin over…God Bless…

Well, no. The question I posed stated that the exacerbating cirumstance was caused by an intentional human action. If there was some accident that caused money to be tight, then it wasn’t the couple’s intentional doing, and they are not to blame in that situation. I’m not saying that nobody would ever fall into such a situation, but isn’t it our responsibility to avoid it if we can?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I see you’re asking a much BIGGER question than your example entails… the example is good, but hopefully the responding posts won’t get caught up in it without addressing the bigger question…

Hmmm… that’s tough…

I think the concept of “Trust in God” needs to address the very fundamental ideas about God and our gift of free will.

Does God CAUSE everything that happens to us? Do we really have the “free will” to make choices on our own? Are we not personally responsible for our actions and decisions?

Unless we claim personal responsibility for our own choices, then, yes, statements like “trust in God” may be a form of tempting God.

But we DO have the gift of free will.
We ARE responsible for our actions and decisions.
If we truly acknowledge our responsibility, then yes, we may make sinful choices.
God can, and does, turn difficult situations caused by sin into learning experiences that draw us closer to Him.

So… to address your specific example…
Yes, I believe sometimes the act of bringing a new child into the world may be motivated by sinful selfishness.
Does that mean that child is not made in the image of God or is not part of His plan? No, of course not. And God will use that child to bring the parents closer to Him in faith.

But we DO have to be cautious to not tempt God. We do that through prayer… asking God to help us all make the right decisions, and trusting that God leads us to holy choices (vs sinful ones)…

 

[otjm]

Well, to play Devil’s advocate for a minute (in a manner of speaking), if it’s really God’s will that a couple has another child, then do we have to be responsible at all? If all children are gifts from God, and we’re not supposed to pick and choose the gifts God gives us, then is that even a valid question to ask?

No, it is not the presumption of the Church that one has no responsibility in the issue of having another child. The question of God’s will as you posit begs the question; it presumes that if one has intercourse that results in a child, that the child was God’s will.

Put another way, that is an easy arguement from a child being born as the result of rape, and the child being God’s will to the rape being God’s will. It is too simplistic a treatment about what is or is not God’s will.

That is really the reason why I put in the disclaimer. Most (probably all) couples will have to make some sort of sacrifices when a new baby is on the way, but for some it’s only sacrificing luxuries, not essentials, and that’s really not what I’m pondering.

All children cause some sacrifice; not always economic. I was talking about people who are in a tight economic status, but not immediate crisis.

The Church charges people to be open to children, and says that people need to follow Gospel mandates. Nothing in the Gospels tell us we have no need to use common sense, nor is there any mandate to simply do whatever we choose to and coll the results “God’s will”. They do, however, speak often and very succinctly to issues of materialism. It is a lesson we too often do not heed well, if at all.

There are, in addition to economic issues, other issues that need to be addressed; it may well be that economics would not indicate that another child would not be appropriate, but the ability of the parents to physically, emotionally and psychologically care for another may be at risk.

 

[teachccd]

Well, no. The question I posed stated that the exacerbating cirumstance was caused by an intentional human action. If there was some accident that caused money to be tight, then it wasn’t the couple’s intentional doing, and they are not to blame in that situation. I’m not saying that nobody would ever fall into such a situation, but isn’t it our responsibility to avoid it if we can?

So then, it’s my understanding that it’s WHEN the couple is in financial distress not IF they should have the children. Do you see my point? If a couple is meant to have a child it is God’s will not whether it occurs before or after financial ruin.

Anyhoot, I don’t see God’s will equating with financial status. If it were, then He would take the couple in death and put them out of misery also as we are all of God’s children…God Bless

 

[Cari]

I’m not sure about this (I may have changed my mind tomorrow after more thought), but just throwing it out there:

We are told, over and over again by Jesus’ own words, by Sacred Scripture, by writings of the saints, that we are expected to trust God as a little child trusts.

As a mother, when my 20 month old climbs into his high chair and asks for food, I don’t see it as tempting me. When my 4 year old climbs the tree in the yard and asks for my help getting down, I don’t see it as tempting me (yes, she’s allowed to climb the tree). When my children follow house rules, and trust that I will be there to help them out shoud they need it, I don’t see it as tempting me.

So I think it is with this. When we are following God’s Will, as best as we understand it though Church teaching, I don’t think He takes it as tempting him. Of course, presuming to know what God thinks is sheer folly, so I could be wrong. Now, when we ignore Church teachings, or twist them to suit our own agenda, then, like my kids who yell for my help after getting stuck trying to wash the dogs on their own (not allowed), then they’ve tempted me, and then consequences follow.

Cheers,
Cari

 

[eponymic]

No, it is not the presumption of the Church that one has no responsibility in the issue of having another child. The question of God’s will as you posit begs the question; it presumes that if one has intercourse that results in a child, that the child was God’s will.

Put another way, that is an easy arguement from a child being born as the result of rape, and the child being God’s will to the rape being God’s will. It is too simplistic a treatment about what is or is not God’s will.

So you would then agree that we, as humans, cannot assign events as being “God’s will”? My personal thought is that “God’s will” may not cover actual events whatsoever, but just how we deal with those events, much like in your scenario. His will does not dictate that the rape should occur, but how we respond to the fallout from the unfortunate event. If we stipulate that pregnancy results from sex (as seems to be the general consensus these days), then saying that a given pregnancy is “God’s will” is not true, seeing as it required a soley human action (having sex) to bring it about.** Therefore, saying “it was just part of God’s plan that I be pregnant” is just shifting the responsibility of one’s actions onto God, and freeing oneself of any guilt or shame over how the situation may negatively affect them, and thus tempting God to make up for “His” mistake. If one accepts responsbility for their actions, then they are free to ask God to help out and then trust that He will instead of demand that He will.

(** Yes, God can make a woman pregnant without a man being involved, but that’s pretty rare, and the children that result are clearly exceptions to the norm.)

All children cause some sacrifice; not always economic. I was talking about people who are in a tight economic status, but not immediate crisis.

The Church charges people to be open to children, and says that people need to follow Gospel mandates. Nothing in the Gospels tell us we have no need to use common sense, nor is there any mandate to simply do whatever we choose to and coll the results “God’s will”. They do, however, speak often and very succinctly to issues of materialism. It is a lesson we too often do not heed well, if at all.

There are, in addition to economic issues, other issues that need to be addressed; it may well be that economics would not indicate that another child would not be appropriate, but the ability of the parents to physically, emotionally and psychologically care for another may be at risk.

Agreed.

 

[Evan]

Let’s consider what St Thomas More wrote:

His example in trusting God was a hungry man. He could ‘Trust in God’ and wait for food to come his way. That would be the sin of presumption. Thomas argued that he should make his need known that

1. He needs a job. He must actively search for a job.
2. He needs food. He must actively seek food.

If neither he nor the community respond to his needs then either

1. The community sinned in not providing a job or food or
2. It is God’s will that his life come to an end and he proceed to be forever with God.