FYI before I begin – I’m back in Louisville, Kentucky for another semester at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I still need your prayers. God has promised and has proven to do mighty things through the prayers of His people, and I for one do not want to take that for granted. The three things I need most are prayers for grace, for discipleship, and for wisdom. I know the Lord has amazing things in store for ‘08, and I’m plum tickled to be a part of it.
————
“All the ways of man are pure in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the spirit.” – Proverbs 16:2
So believe it or not, birth control is not all that I think about. But don’t feel bad, I get that question all the time. It’s usually that and abortion – because those two issues (along with Christian political action) are definitely my heartbeat right now, and they are ever on my mind. I realize most people just aren’t used to a single guy being so excited and burdened for children and families, and to tell you the truth, I’m constantly surprised myself. I catch myself sometimes and think, “Dude, where on earth did you get so passionate about this?”…and then I give the same answer I give to other people: “I have no idea.” But it’s there, and it only seems to get more ingrained – and truthfully, I wouldn’t have it any other way. All that to say – whatever passions that God has given you, be willing and persistent in sharing those passions with others. I understand that many brothers and sisters will never be quite as driven by issues of ‘life’ as I am, but that’s okay. God has given us unique gifts and unique callings for a reason: to build up His church, and glorify Himself. The important thing is to be intentional about sharing those passions and desires with others, encouraging action, and highlighting grace. So if you notice a brother or sister that is passionate about worship – encourage them, and be encouraged by them. If one is passionate about missions – examine your own heart, and encourage theirs. Without a doubt, we are all called to be “wholly” Christians, but we are not made so apart from the ministry of others. Each has a part to play, and let us be ready and willing to play it.
—
But today, I want to talk about two things in this post: assumptions, and the burden of proof — both in the context of the birth control debate. As with any question, the assumptions that you arrive at the table with will drastically affect the answer you arrive at. For instance, if you are under the assumption that the Police Department is there to prevent crime, you will be quite upset if you call to report a crime and they hang up on you. However, if you were not under that assumption, then you would have no more reason to call them, than you would to call the Rotary club. I know that’s a fuzzy example, but I think you get the point. Assumptions matter.
And when we consider something such as birth control in light of the Bible, the assumptions that we bring to the debate have the ability to lead us in two very different directions. The answer? Well, the answer is not to come to the Bible without assumptions, because first of all that’s impossible, and secondly that’s dangerous. The answer is to draw and test your assumptions against biblical truth, and be willing to conform and inform your assumptions with principles found in the Bible. For instance, George Whitefield once said something to the effect of “We are all born Arminians, but it is grace that turns us into Calvinists,” by which he highlighted the tendency to naturally assume the free-will of man as we approach the Bible. Whitefield understood however, that free-will (as Arminians understand it) is not something that can be drawn from biblical texts; therefore it is a false assumption — and will prohibit a proper understanding of what the Bible is trying to say.
Likewise, when we begin considering the biblicity of birth control, at the outset we must question our assumptions. Why do we believe birth control is even an option? Is the ethical use of birth control something that has been revealed to us in the Word of God, or alluded to by biblical understandings of marriage and family? Or are we coming from a culturally induced worldview of “if its possible, then it’s permissible”? Where did we get the idea that God has given us the right to control the size of our family? It is the answers to these kinds of questions that will provide for us a firm foundation to build upon as we answer the actual birth control question, of whether or not it is ever right, or sometimes right, or always right (or as some have argued, neutral) to use it.
Which brings me to my second point. Upon which camp should the burden of proof rest? Unfortunately, in the case of birth control it seems that the burden of proof has been unduly laid at the feet of those who reject its use, demanding of them clear and convincing evidence that birth control is unethical and unbiblical. 
And although opponents of birth control have for many, many years answered these demands quite comprehensively from every angle of faith, science, and reason, etc.; I still believe the burden of proof is misplaced. As Christians, exalting and humbling ourselves before the Word of God, we should be the ones demanding proof that God has given us the right to “close the womb”. Birth control is a force that we are encountering that has come to use from outside of the biblical text, and therefore it is the one that must “prove” itself. We should be demanding that proponents of family planning prove without a shadow of a doubt how birth control is congruent with a biblical model of marriage and family, and not lay the sole burden of proof upon opponents of its use.
In issues such as this, we should demand with Martin Luther – “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason” that birth control is biblically permissible, then any thing that is so intrusive, impactful, and starkly incongruent with rest of God’s revelation of his heart toward marriage and family should be incessantly questioned at least, and zealously rejected at best.
What do you think?
‘BH
29 Comments
January 27, 2008 at 11:13 pm
As with a few other things I can think of, there is, of course, no verse in the Bible that says “Don’t wear a rubber. It’s bad for your soul.” Nevertheless, the opposition to birth control is rooted deeply in the way we as Christians are called to view our lives. Where I’m coming from, and this may differ a bit with some of y’all, there are three callings a person can have: Married life, Clergy or religious life, and Single life. None of these are any more or less important than the others, but each carries with it a purpose. The purpose, hands down, of getting married is to have children and raise them in the faith. Yes, the love of a man and a woman is extremely important in God’s eyes, but again, the higher purpose for that relationship is children.
Not to be crude, but sex when the possibility of children is completely removed from the picture is something of the theological equivalent of saying to God,”God, you gave me this hammer. But the thing is, I don’t want to use it to hammer nails. I’m going to use it instead as decoration, so I can enjoy how pretty it looks on the wall, but it won’t be of any use.” I’ll leave that metaphor in your hands.
I apologize a bit for the rant-like nature of this post, but this is a very important issue to me. Hank, you are once again to be commended for your posting about it. In a more direct response to your post (lol) I think you’re right that the burden of proof SHOULDN’T lie on the anti-birth control camp. The fact is, though, that it sorta does. Something that was unthinkable 100 years ago is now, unfortunately, common practice. The intellectual movement that made possible amazing things like the Civil Right Act of 64 and votes for women carried too far into the realm of legalized abortion and contraceptive machines in every gas station bathroom. Our job, then, is to expose the contradictions of birth control in a right to life, Christian philosophy, and let them speak for themselves.
In Him,
Sean
January 28, 2008 at 12:33 am
Brother Hank, you have taken the discussion directly where it must go – to the Scriptures! Too often we think that the Bible speaks to some areas of our lives but then there are other areas where we are free to do as we like. The truth is that we are slaves of Jesus Chist, bought with His blood, and bound to worship and obey Him out of love and gratitude. Therefore we MUST ask what the Scriptures say, and you have done a great job explaining the Word of God and also dealing with potential objections.
Keep up the good work. I pray that God will raise up more men and women with your passion for life, to the glory of God.
~pastorway
January 28, 2008 at 1:06 am
I think in this case the burden of proof is with those who are trying to change minds. I do not see a bunch of people running around trying to convince the world that it is o.k. to use birth control. I do see a few people trying to convince the rest of us that it is not.
I think you would have a hard time applying your principle consistently across your life.
Where in Scripture is the support for using the internet? There is lots of evil, and porn, and lawlessness associated with the internet? What justification do you have for being associated with it when the default position of Scripture is that we not be associated with evil?
Where in Scripture are you allowed to vote? Scripture plainly tells us to pray for our leaders and submit to them, never to choose them. Secular democracies are starkly incongruent with rest of God’s revelation of his heart toward kingship and rule – should we zealously reject the very notion of America?
Where in Scripture does it say that you are allowed to go outside of your local church for theological education? The only evidence of ministry preparation in the Bible is that of direct mentorship. Do you incessantly question Dr. Mohler and his deans as to why they have structured the course schedules for impersonal pick-and-choose academic exercises divorced from local church ministry?
These are all forces that come to us from outside of the biblical text. How have you “proved” them in order to allow yourself to participate in these areas?
The regulative principle is hard (and sometimes dangerous) to apply to all of life. It is good to wrestle with Scripture and be blessed with a biblically informed view of life. Most of the time, we follow more a normative than regulative approach. Why do you reject the normative principle in the area of birth control?
January 28, 2008 at 4:26 am
Recently I’ve been thinking about Pirates of the Caribbean. Capt. Sparrow says there are two rules to live by: what a man can do, and what a man can’t do. I like the wit, but object to the assumptions. Sometimes I tell God I can’t. I know better, but still… I refuse to consider things He may be calling me to not because I believe they are wrong (or wrong for me), but because my abilities and resources seem maxed out. What I need to do is ask God what He wants me to do, and bee willing to obey Him regardless, to trust Him for the extra strength, the words, the boldness, the time, etc.
The burden of proof may be on those who want to do something not taught in the Bible, or it may be on those who are trying to change minds. I don’t know. It seems to me that proof doesn’t matter in our postmodern world. Hearts have to change, and arguments don’t do that… which is not to say that I don’t think arguments should be made. The case was never made for use of birth control in the first place, to bring it into common use (the majority position where now the pro-life crowd is changing minds). If they didn’t have to prove anything when they changed minds or practice, why should we? And does that even work? Are we after pragmatism though; or are we doing what we do because we believe it’s right?
I actually like the questions LeStourgeon asked. Though I disagree with his logic at times, I think we should question more. Then we can proceed (with the things we conclude are biblically acceptable) with passion.
LeStourgeon said it would be hard to apply the regulative principle to life. I see that, but I wish I did it more. What if I considered the authority by which I buy a new sweater? Or spend my time reading a book. Isn’t this the principle of relationship, of being Spirit-directed? Shouldn’t we be submitting all of life to God and the Light unto my Path?
Somehow we are the heirs of a church and Christian culture that let down its guard. I wonder if I’m being too radical by questioning so many things. They’re all connected, though.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
January 28, 2008 at 1:13 pm
LeStourgeon-
I agree that the burden of proof should be on those who seek to change minds, but I think the historical Christian perspective that we get from men such as Calvin, Luther, and nearly every Christian theologian from Augustine up until the 1900’s is that the Church had its mind pretty well made up that birth control was unbiblical. And the reason that you don’t see a lot of “birth-control crusaders” seeking to promote birth control is because that ground work was laid by the earlier generation, and today’s culture is left to enjoy its liberating fruit and wallow in its unquestioned assumptions.
Internet and Voting, etc. – It’s not quite that simple. The issue with children and family is that the Bible IS NOT silent about God’s view and plan for them. If the Bible said as much about the internet as it does about children, fertility, barrenness, marriage, family, etc., then it would not behoove us to pretend that internet usage is merely up to the discernment of the private individual. But cleary, that is not the case. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that media technology and the democratic process are worlds apart from human procreation. “To vote or not to vote” may end up being a theological question to ponder, but “to be or not to be” is without a doubt addressed and exhorted in principle and in the spirit of the Holy Scriptures. (BTW, if you are interested in how democracies and government interact with the Bible, I would recommend Abraham Kuyper’s “Lectures on Calvinism”, and Francis Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto”. They may shine some light on the apparent incongruities…)
Seminary – You bring up a great point, and one that Dr. Mohler himself incessantly brings up. He makes no bones about the fact that his ultimate aim is “to put the seminary out of business” for that very reason. Local churches are indeed charged with the responsibility to train up their own leaders from within their midsts. And most of us here understand that the seminary system is not “the way it should be”. Additionally, it is worth noting that each seminarian is required to be involved in a local church setting here; it’s not like we take 3 years off of “direct mentorship” to pursue academia ala carte. Note as well that unlike most other seminaries that are unaffliated with local churches, SBTS and other Southern Baptist seminaries are accountable to local Southern Baptist congregations, as well as funded and supported by them. If any place understands the need for biblical pastors, its SBTS and Dr. Mohler.
Normative principle: Unlike many cultural issues, birth control deals with giving or prohibiting life. Since that is the case, it falls more in line with medical ethics than social studies. Scripture does not expressly command us to only use natural means of reproduction either, but then why the fuss about human cloning? Because we understand that there are implied prohibitions against such actions that threaten to tamper with the imago Dei. We reject the freezing of embryos, not because God said “Thou shalt not freeze”, but because we understand that mankind does not have the right to freeze each other. We reject birth control along the same lines – God has not expressed nor implied the right of man to close the womb, therefore we should not just assume that right in absence of a direct prohibition. It a simple understanding, but one that flies right in the face of today’s cultural worldview.
Thanks for the thoughtful interaction. I hope I adequately addressed your questions.
‘BH
January 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Brother Hank, thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree that questions regarding the appropriateness of birth control ought to be asked, but question your conclusions as to what the bible says about children and family.
Where does Scripture inform us that God’s plan for the family is for each one to be as large as possible? Where does the Lord express his desire for the womb to stay just as wide open as it can be? Sure, a man is blessed with a full quiver, but does it follow that every man’s quiver is the same size? In the event that Scripture does not supply these kinds of explicit commands to birth and birth on, then it seems as if you are placing what you think God implies up against what birth control users think God implies (assuming they’ve thought about it at all, which I understand was your main point).
Assuming they have thought about it, I think many might follow something along the lines of Bruce Ware’s teachings – that male and female, distinct but equal, separate but one in marriage are related to and a reflection of the Trinity. Further, marriage correlates to the Godhead in that through marriage Man (generic) is able to create, reflecting the image of God, the Creator. Following these lines, the question then becomes, was God forced to create anything beyond what he joyfully willed and desired to create? Why then should Man, who is made in his image?
The use of birth control then becomes part of a reasonable and allowable fulfillment of the creation mandate – yes, to reproduce and fill the earth, but in a realm over which we have dominion – the ability to decide how best to accomplish the ends God has set before us. Thus, you find theologians like Dr. Mohler teaching that it is sinful to thwart the Creation mandate by refusing to produce any children, but it is not sinful to exercise some control over how that occurs.
Further, this understanding is grounded in the Creation and the essence of humanity – predating, both temporally and theologically, biblical comments regarding children and the family that were first communicated to agricultural nomads in a far different culture than our own.
My point in all this is not to sway your basic convictions regarding family planning (in the best use of the term). You’ve clearly thought long enough and written enough that a few comments by one lonely blogger is not likely to change your mind. I merely point out that there are faithful, and eminently conservative, ways of understanding the biblical witness that conflict with your understanding of what should be the assumed position. Perhaps the Scriptures are not quite as regulative in this area as you propose them to be. Perhaps there is room (and biblical warrant) for sinners this side of the Fall to agree to disagree.
January 28, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Where does Scripture inform us that God’s plan for the family is for each one to be as large as possible?
That is one of the leading misunderstandings about opposition to birth control. Though some may hold to that belief, I agree that Scripture never says “make as many babies as you possibly can”. But I do believe that Scripture does say that it is in fact “God’s plan for the family” to make it as large (or small) as he sees fit. And I believe that a few conversations with an infertile couple, as well as a prayerful meditation of Matthew 2:18 would put some of this in perspective. (“A voice was heard in Ramah,weeping and loud lamentation,Rachel weeping for her children;she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”) When we ask questions like this, we betray our assumptions of fertility, proving that we don’t really believe it is God who gives children, rather it is us who “make” or produce them out of the exercise of our own volition. But for 1 in 6 couples today (which are the approx. statistics for infertile couples in America) that presumptuous spirit is shattered, and the reality of what “in pain you shall bear children” really means begins to set in. Infertility is never presented ( I believe) as a specific curse upon anyone, but a general consequence of the fall. But even in the midst of that understanding, many in evangelicalism still cling to a worldview that assumes children come upon command. We say, “We’re going to wait until after grad school to have children”, or “We’re going to wait until we get a decent job”, etc. When all the while, we are really saying, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit…” (James 4:13), again showing our true perspective.
Where does the Lord express his desire for the womb to stay just as wide open as it can be?
See answer above.
Sure, a man is blessed with a full quiver, but does it follow that every man’s quiver is the same size?
Again the issue is not that every man’s quiver is the same size (which I don’t think anyone is arguing), it’s who gets to decide the size of the quiver – and how many “full” is? Again, verses such as Proverbs 30:15-16, which says “There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough”, show us quite well that those who are barren NEVER believe they have a full quiver. To be overly hyperbolic here, God didn’t inquire of us as to which pieces of the armor of God to cloth us with – nor I believe does he intend to allow his soldiers to determine their supply of arrows either.
In the event that Scripture does not supply these kinds of explicit commands to birth and birth on, then it seems as if you are placing what you think God implies up against what birth control users think God implies (assuming they’ve thought about it at all, which I understand was your main point).
Let us not ignore the second part of God’s revelation to man. Although I’ll set the Bible’s view of children and family against any argument in support of birth control, God has not spoken only through the special revelation of Scripture. God’s general revelation to man has a great deal more to comment on these questions. The whole ideal of an artificial barrier (be it chemical or physical) in sexual intercourse is about as unnatural as it gets. We must not forget things such as puberty (God’s people not being able to reproduce until this point), menopause (the daughters of Eve not being able to reproduce past this point, typically), natural monthly cycles of fertility and infertility (meaning that every time you have intercourse you “naturally” don’t get pregnant), and even the fact that a pregnant or nursing mother normally does not get pregnant during that same period. All this is not merely a mistake that inconveniences mankind. This has all the marks of a perfect, sovereign creation of God – not something that He has left to mankind to attempt to circumvent in the name of liberty.
Assuming they have thought about it, I think many might follow something along the lines of Bruce Ware’s teachings – that male and female, distinct but equal, separate but one in marriage are related to and a reflection of the Trinity. Further, marriage correlates to the Godhead in that through marriage Man (generic) is able to create, reflecting the image of God, the Creator. Following these lines, the question then becomes, was God forced to create anything beyond what he joyfully willed and desired to create? Why then should Man, who is made in his image?
Bruce Ware is brilliant, and you can tell him I said so. But men such as Oliver O’Donovan and Paul Ramsey are just as brilliant who (at least in terms of the philosophy of “creating) understood that there is a distinction between Creator and created that God reserves for himself alone. We see this in places such as 1 Samuel 2:5-6 which reminds us ” “They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.” We cannot add one day to our lives, and yet we assume that we have the right to prohibit life before it begins.
The use of birth control then becomes part of a reasonable and allowable fulfillment of the creation mandate – yes, to reproduce and fill the earth, but in a realm over which we have dominion – the ability to decide how best to accomplish the ends God has set before us. Thus, you find theologians like Dr. Mohler teaching that it is sinful to thwart the Creation mandate by refusing to produce any children, but it is not sinful to exercise some control over how that occurs.
I think Dr. Mohler is close, and perhaps one day soon, Dr. Moore (and the Holy Spirit) will sway him completely. But again, arguments such as this are functioning under an assumption that the “some day” children are a guarantee. Dominion is good! But who chooses the domain is the question. Did we pick where we were born? Or how affluent our parents were? No, but God did. Adam didn’t pick to have dominion over Eden (and the world) – it was given to him by divine fiat. We must indeed steward our dominion, but we don’t get to choose the stewardship (as I posted in a recent blog post)
Further, this understanding is grounded in the Creation and the essence of humanity – predating, both temporally and theologically, biblical comments regarding children and the family that were first communicated to agricultural nomads in a far different culture than our own.
Careful about that “different culture” stuff. Though I agree that New York ain’t Eden (although Texas is a little closer…lol), the principles that we find both there, and through the rest of Scripture are attainable if interpreted in context and culture, and then applied to the Church today. But I have a feeling God knew what he was saying, and who he was saying it to when all this stuff began. And again, the testimony of the historical Church up until the turn of the 20th century fails to flinch at applying these principles to a “modern” civilization.
–
Disagreement may be inevitable because of the Fall, but that does not mean that our consciences are excused from the responsibility of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. God seems to be quite serious about life. After all, he came to earth as a baby…
January 28, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’m at work — on break — so I have but a minute to write. I comment far to infrequently on this blog, by the way.
BH, allow me to extend a warm welcome to your thoughtful comments. It’s always good to have this type of discussion in a way that provokes the mind to think and the heart to yearn for more of God. If I had more time, I would love to comment because I am barely over one month away from marriage. Obviously, this topic is on my mind.
Perhaps I will take it up on my blog tonight if I get a chance. Peace, bro, and see you in March.
Travis Mitchell
January 28, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Travis-
Just so you know, I can not wait until you’re married! You seriously don’t know how much joy this little displaced aggie feels knowing that God has plans for y’all’s lives that would floor you if you knew! What amazing love hath God for His children and His Church!
January 28, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Just a note in case there might be interest – I have a sermon online that has been an encouragement to infertile couples. It deals with a Biblical view of barrenness, answers the question about whether or not being barren is a curse from God, and gives applications to help infertile couples deal with their infertility to the glory of God.
This sermon is part of a series of messages titled God’s Design for the Family and is titled:
God’s Providential Exception: The Barren Womb – Psalm 113:9; Prov 30:16
~pastorway
January 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Pastor Way-
Thanks for posting this.
I would encourage all of you who are interested to take the time to listen and mediate further upon this.
January 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Hank,
I enjoy reading your comments on birth control…challenging to say the least; and they are good in the way that they help us question some of the “freedoms” we take to be our right. When we get in that mode, it’s always good to be faced with some of the questions you present, whether we agree or disagree.
I would like to know what you mean by meditating on Matthew 2:18. Looking at it in context, and reading from Jeremiah 31:15 (where it is drawn from), I don’t see the connection you are speaking of. This is used as a fulfillment of prophecy in Matthew (as I read your post, I also read about this in Schreiner’s NT Theology that he’s coming out with…I thought that was providential). Rachel weeping over her children is referring to the children of Israel returning to their land from exile, not just the absence of children. When we hang out tomorrow, you’ll have to enlighten me as to what you were thinking.
January 28, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Brandon-
I hope you mean Wednesday, cause that’s what i was planning on…. and I hope you’ve blocked out a few hours for me…lol.
We will talk more about it Wednesday, but for the other readers, what I was getting at was the fact that couples engaging in “family planning” – who are trying their best to keep themselves from having children, stand in stark contrast to the weeping and lamentations of those who have sought and/or conceived children and either never received them at all, underwent miscarriages, or lost them in birth or infancy. It was meant to be viewed in conjunction with the reality of infertility. As far as this particular verse, wasn’t the fullfillment of this prophecy the murder of all of the children (the “antetype”), even if the “type” dates back to the exile? Both meanings are correct, right?
Either way, the flow of my thought was centered more on the “weeping” vs. planning realationship than anything else.
January 29, 2008 at 12:56 am
Hank, you’ve brought up a point that I can’t believe I never thought of before, and it’s so obvious.
You could relate this to the regulative principle, couldn’t you? God has decreed a certain design, and if you’re going to deviate from it, you need to find a specific Biblical mandate.
January 29, 2008 at 2:35 am
Hi Brother Hank,
I agree with your argument about the burden of proof. Although the the Bible does not say “Thou shalt not use birth-control,” there are many passages that reveal to us the truth about it. When we look at Genesis, we see that God gave us sex within marriage. In fact, the beauty of marital sex is revealed to us though the fact that marriage mirrors the Holy Trinity. From the reciprocal love of the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is produced. Likewise, from the reciprocal love of the husband and wife, a child is produced. This mirroring of the Holy Spirit indicates God’s plan for giving us sex within marriage and making it desirable: He wanted us to be fruitful and bear children. When we read about Abraham, we can clearly see that children are a gifts given by God. Unfortunately, in today’s society, children are not seen as gifts, but rather, burdens.
If we can get to a point where we can agree that children are gifts of God (just read the Bible), we have to ask ourselves “What does it mean to contracept?” We are essentially saying “Thank you God for the pleasure of sex, but we cannot accept any gift that may result from it.”
I would like to refer you to the work of Christopher West:
http://www.christopherwest.com/
West has dedicated his life to helping Christians in dealing with issues like sex and marriage. His arguments are way more extensive than anything I could probably write here.
January 29, 2008 at 8:44 am
David-
To be truthful, I hadn’t thought about the relationship between this argument and the regulative principle either, until Brian brought it up. It is most definitely worth further study…
Kurt-
Thanks for the link to Christopher West. I look forwarding to checking that out. And that reminds me of a theologian named Christopher Ash that wrote a fantastic book on the same issues entitled, “Marriage: Sex in the Service of God”. I got a chance to read it last fall. He doesn’t end up the same place I do on the birth control issue, but man does he get a lot of stuff right….
January 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm
There is one thing that confuses me. (One thing?!?)
You write that Christians should be demanding proof from God that you have the right to “close the womb”. Now, perhaps this is inherent in your global beliefs, something with which I may not be familiar. But are you implying that you are a strict constructionist of the Bible? If it is not written there, if God has not addressed it in His word, then it is not permissible?
I think of the scene from “A Few Good Men,” where Kevin Bacon asks Noah Wylie to show him in the field manual where it say the Mess Hall is. Wylie responds that it doesn’t say anything about that. So Bacon retorts, “How do you know when to eat, or where to go?”
There are thousands of things that God did not address in his Word. From where to Christians find guidance on these issues?
Following Luther’s admonition about Scripture seems far simpler than following “plain reason”. Reasonable men can disagree about what is reasonable, even more so than they can disagree (and have disagreed) about the interpretation of the word of God. Who decides what is reasonable, or whose “plain reason” Christians should follow?
Further, do you view that everything in this terrestrial life has to be inerrantly “right” or “wrong”? Is it possible for some things that are not mentioned in the Bible — okay, maybe not this issue — to be neutral?
January 29, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Frank-
I’m glad you found the blog brother.
As to you questions:
Implicit in everyone of your questions is the underlying belief that God has been silent about children (their orgin, their place in marriage, and His sovereignty over their conception, life, and death), families (the biblical picture of what they should look like), marriage (its purposes, limitations, and symbolism of Christ and the Church), and sex (its purposes, limitations, and symbolism as well).
But the fact is, God does speak to all these things, and he speaks in no uncertain terms. We are not left as blind men to wander guide-less around a dark world, seeking to find a sign as to the biblical model of the family. In this regard, the “constructionist” argument is a straw-man.
In the same way we can gather the doctrine of the Trinity from a Book that never mentions the word – we can form a sound, sure theology of the family apart from a specific prohibition that has rather been implied throughout.
There may indeed be things that are “neutral” in their static state, but as soon as that ‘thing’ has the human will impressed upon it – it takes on a quality of service to either the prince of this world (the devil) or the King of Glory (Jesus Christ). This is the same idea we see in Joshua 24:15, “And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” Because men are spiritual beings, this relationship to the world is inevitable…
January 30, 2008 at 1:05 am
Brother Hank,
Thank you for your courage on this subject. Many times, Christians are afraid to speak out against contraception because it’s use is so ingrained into our culture.
Believe it or not, your views are in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church has always taken a strong stance against contraception, and at times, has become very unpopular for it. In fact, I would encourage you to read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The book contains some very dense material, which is usually why I refer to Christopher West’s material for a simpler breakdown. However, I am sure that you could easily break down the dense stuff.
Whenever one discusses the problems with contraception, I feel that it is important to discuss alternatives. People assume that if you advise them not to contracept, you are telling them to go out and have 20 children. The Catholic Church instructs families to use Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP enables families to responsibly regulate family size while still being open to God’s will.
My wife and I currently practice NFP. We strongly feel that it has dramatically improved our relationship with God and each other.
January 30, 2008 at 11:44 am
Kurt -
I appreciate your encouragement brother. And yes, I knew the similarities between my stance the stance of the catholic church. And unfortunately, you bring up a major point in this whole issue. For many, many Protestants, birth control is “just a catholic issue”, which for them means that Protestantism as a whole takes no issues with birth control. But clearly that is not the case. I’m about as “protesting” as they come, and so were nearly every other classic Post-Reformation theologian who came down decidedly against the use of birth control.
The Catholic argument of the ‘unitive nature’ of marriage and procreation (which they use to oppose birth control) centers primarily on the general revelation of God in nature, drawing more heavily on philosophical arguments than special revelation. Although I do not ignore the plain “nature” of things (as I mentioned in a comment above), I prefer to use that revelation in tandem with the special revelation of Scripture – rather than leaning primarily on the authority of the Pope or councils.
Natural Family Planning:
For Catholics, the answer of “NFP” (monitoring the more fertile parts of the month for a women and either abstaining from sex or pursuing sex – depending on their plans for having a child) fits in quite well with the “unitive nature” of sex, allowing couples to forgo using artificial means to plan their family.
BUT, (at least for me) it does not solve many of the questions that the Bible raises about “family planning”. And it definitely does not address the deeper issues of the heart. A couple pursuing “natural family planning” and a couple pursuing chemical birth control can have the EXACT same heart in the matter – “Lord, please don’t give us a child; but if you find a way around all the preventive measures that we took…well, then we’ll be glad to bear a child.” NFP seems to soothe the conscience while leaving the “regulating” stronghold intact.
The issue is that Natural Family Planning still assumes that God has relinquished his family sovereignty over to man. It still undermines the stewardship question, and fails to address a host of other related questions.
Hence the danger in creating a theology of sex that focuses too heavily on only one aspect of revelation. Natural revelation is great, but it is not sufficient to form the ‘redeemed’ understanding of marriage, family, and sex that we get when combining it with the special revelation of God’s Word.
January 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm
For what it is worth – using NFP causes couples to violate the instructions Paul gives us in 1 Cor 7:3-5:
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (ESV)
~pastorway
January 31, 2008 at 3:30 am
Dear Brother Hank,
I think it is great that you have taken your own initiative to discover the truth. Unfortunately, many Catholics do not do this. Many agree with the church on several issues but tend to disagree with the church on tougher issues like contraception. Unfortunately, this disagreement is based less in scripture and more on society. Society tells us that there is nothing wrong with contraception, so people assume the church must be crazy if it opposes contraception (even though church teaching is based on scripture and tradition). So, it is refreshing to find someone who , though independent study of scripture, has come to the same conclusion as the church. My main point is to let you know that there are people who strongly support your arguments. Since the Catholic Church has never wavered on its stance on contraception, many authors have produced a wealth of information on this topic. The Theology of the Body and Christopher West’s material are probably the best places to start. Reading these texts will only make your argument richer. And please, never be afraid to agree with the Catholic Church. If there is one Truth, then we should find ourselves agreeing a lot with our brothers in Christ.
You bring up a classic anti-NFP argument: How is NFP any different than contraception? Suppose, for example, that two students planned to make A’s in their class. One student makes the A by studying hard, and the other, by cheating. Even though both student’s results are the same, the path taken by one student is wrong. Likewise, with contraception and NFP, the end result may be the same: a child is not conceived. However, the fundamental difference is that with NFP, the couple is fully open for God’s will. This openness to God’s will is evident: no condom, pill, or coitus interruptus is used to prevent God from performing a miracle.
You bring up a good point about the heart. It is quite possible for a couple to use NFP in a legalistic fashion without really being open to God’s will. This incorrect use of NFP is equivalent to contraception. However, I strongly feel that if a couple is willing undertake the challenge of practicing NFP (NFP takes a great deal of commitment), then hearts are probably in the right place. While I agree that that a couple practicing NFP will say “we’ll be glad to bear a child” if they get pregnant, the contracepting couple will probably say “How did this mistake ever occur?” These contrasting statements underline how the proper practice of NFP leaves the couple open to God’s will.
I practice NFP and feel that it has enabled my wife and I open to God’s will. If you know of an alternative to NFP that would allow us to be more open to God’s will, I would love to hear about it.
~Kurt.
January 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi Phillip,
In my opinion, this passage is actually an endorsement for NFP. Please see following page for a good explanation of why this scripture is pro-NFP:
http://ourhomeschoolfaith.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/quiverfull-scriptures/
January 31, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hank,
I must agree with both you and Kurt. Yes, NFP can promote exactly what it is that you disagree with about family planning, rejection of God’s will for the marriage. However, the true purpose of NFP is in fact remaining open. A couple who uses NFP with no intention of ever having children might as well, in moral terms, be on the pill. NFP is about a constant awareness of God working in our lives, and being open to His will. Its about knowing that the conjugal act always could be the honor of assisting God in the creative process. The heart of any person is a personal issue. Just as one who goes to church/worship just to go is not truly open to God’s will, so also could someone practicing NFP. But I don’t think that is an assumption to be made of all those who use it. Otherwise, we would find ourselves standing in a congregation constantly wondering who the hypocrites were.
If God is calling me to marry, I pray every day for the strength to answer that call. I also know that I will do my best bring children to the world that know and love Jesus Christ. and I pray my heart will be fully focused on that.
-Sean
March 5, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I’m sure you’ve read this already.
March 6, 2008 at 1:31 am
I hadn’t seen that brother. Thanks for the heads up. He actually seems a little more hesitant towards birth control than the older DG posts on the subject. Perhaps he’s been reading my posts….lol. (Sound familiar…? hehe)
The biggest assumption that Piper is functioning under (it seems) is the idea that children are (or can be) a hindrance to gospel work. Therefore, (he argues) if their presence is thought to be detrimental to your ‘higher’ calling, then it would be wise to medically “close your womb” (my words). This however, is impossible to prove (other than by a narrow postpartum examination of apparent “ministry” fruitfulness), and runs counter to historical witness – as the examples of mighty workers of the gospel with families quite often go hand in hand (Piper’s own hero Jonathan Edwards is a prime example – one of 13 children himself, and the father of 12). The fact is, man cannot peer into the infinite wisdom of God in giving and withholding children in a marriage, nor should he think he has the right to — be it in the name of “ministry” or “worldliness”…
March 6, 2008 at 4:06 am
I don’t know where I saw it, but I’m almost positive I read something today where John Piper said you’ll have the number of kids God wants you to have whether you use birth control or not. So that’s a different position from the blog Travis linked.
But that’s a cop-out, and I don’t think it’s necessarily true. If it’s true, it should have no effect whatsoever on our behavior. That’s where we Calvinist’s go wrong. We forget that not only does God ordain what will happen (or at least who will be saved), but He also ordains good works for us to do and shares His instructions and truths implicitly to us in the Bible.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
March 6, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Ah, Brother Hank, I remember several diatribes on this topic long ago on the journeyman blog. In fact, I think I only recently deleted the word files from my laptop. At any rate, let me take a moment to encourage you in those passions God has given you. It’s a blessing to see you pursue them.
I’ve read all that’s been written here, and I don’t have much to add so I’ll make a few brief comments.
First, I agree on NFP. The way it breaks down is anything but natural.
Second, the idea (not stated by you I don’t think) that procreation is the only, or ‘higher’ purpose of marriage, would require a good deal of Biblical and logical backing in order to be accepted. I’m not sure you can just throw it out there as an axiom.
What is my position? Were I getting married any time in the near future, it would be that the discerning Christian couple may use (certain) contraceptives if their conscience is clear. Of course that would be my position because I would want to enjoy the marriage bed, take time to travel, get adjusted to married life, etc. before having children.
In short, purely selfish reasons. And truthfully, enough rational philisophical arguments can be made for the use of birth control that it wouldn’t cause me to lose much sleep at night.
I can’t say my feelings are based on firm Biblical convictions, but rather on personal preference. They’re also influenced by culture of course.
The reasons most Christian couples give can be rejected with this simple statement:
“Don’t get married until you’re ready to have children.”
e.g. “We want more money to provide for them.”
answer- don’t get married poor, and with large amounts of debt. Guys, you’re future wife will appreciate this anyway.
Basically, I would like to use birth control, but I don’t think it’s the right choice for Christians. (I prefer non-abortive birth control to abortions so for non-Christians, I would vary answers).
Keep pursuing, Brother.
-E.P.
March 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm
EP-
Glad you still roam the cyber-halls of another former-Journeyman…lol.
I think you make a great distinction in what the purposes for marriage are. I think when I first began to debate this issue, I would have argued (and maybe even did) that procreation was the primary purpose of marriage. Since that time however, with much prayer, study, and counsel, I have come to the believe that the Bible teaches something a little deeper than that. Christopher Ash tackled it best in his book Marriage:Sex in the Service of God, when he said the “task” is of primary importance in the marriage (ie. God’s grand design for humanity in general, and the couple in particular) – and procreation and relationship are two of the most integral parts of that task. In that system, the blessedness of procreation can still be upheld, without making any unsupported arguments about its imminence in the marriage (leaving room for infertile couples to have “good” marriages even if they have no children, etc).
….more later…