(This excerpt was part of a blog series I posted a few years ago that I called “The Bondage of the Pill” – which, by the way, if I ever write a book about birth control, I think I want to call it that. Anyways, not much has change in the family planning argument since then, so I figured I’d post it for a first time on Lawn Gospel. I’ve done a some minor editing (like fixed some spelling mistakes, lol) but most of it was written in summer of 2006. – ‘BH)
====
In speaking about birth control, I recently wrote:
I don’t see this issue as one of stewardship either. How many times have we told God, “Lord, don’t let me make that much money this year — I just don’t think I’m ready for it”, or “I appreciate these spiritual gifts that you have given me, but that is enough for now. I don’t think I could deal with anymore.” The truth is, God knows what we are ‘ready’ for [and when we are ready for it]. Like folks always say, “God won’t give you anything that you can’t handle.”
What this quote deals with is the prevailing view that birth control is permissible if it is being used to allow the family more time to ‘prepare’ for having children, and/or control the quality of life for other children in the home. Much of this preparation amounts to financial preparations. I continue here with an example:
–Couple A has just been married. Both are still in college and have student loans. That being the case, they decide to use birth control until they are financially stable enough to raise a child and, in a sense, tell God that they “don’t want any kids right now – it’s just not the right time.”
–Now, let us say, for the sake of argument, that we have a pastor of a church, a “family of God”, and just for consistency we will call it Couple B. Couple B has been a church for many years, and has had many ‘new additions’ to the family throughout the years (i.e. conversions and baptisms). However; once its pews are filled every Sunday, Couple B decides that it can’t handle any more ‘members’ of its family. If they kept growing, they’d have to build a bigger church, and would have less leisure time to themselves. So in order to ‘control’ its new ‘births’, it decides to quit presenting the gospel. After all, it’s already a big family – why add anymore?
Okay, so Couple B is a stretch. But, does it pull any heartstrings? I hope so. It’s a hideous thought to think that a preacher would decide that his church had ‘enough’ members so he decided to close its doors. They couldn’t do that! Not with the command, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19. That’s a preacher’s job, isn’t it? To proclaim the word of God, and “[teach] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” Matt. 28:20.
And what about this Couple A? What is their deal? Well, they have decided to close their own womb. They have said, in effect, “Bless us later God. With school, and work – children will have to wait”. Oh my! What would Rachel think? Or Sarah? While these women went out of their way to try to force the Lord to bless them with offspring, Couple A is doing the opposite and (I think the case could be made) attempting to stand in God’s stead. “And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, ‘Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?’” – Genesis 30:2. God’s exhortation to Couple A was, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” Would you say they were obeying that command? What about the Pastor? Did he have the right to decide when he had enough spiritual children? What would the bible say about ‘closing your own womb’? Or the closing the doors of your church?
In closing:
If the issue is economical stability, perhaps the question should be — Should marriage wait until the couple is economical ready for the blessing of children? That seems to be a faith filled outlook, and one that is many times easier to reconcile with biblical and historical precedence. I think it is a crying shame the Ben Franklin has been gotten into our marriage beds when he doesn’t care one iota about you or your family. Think about it. Ben has no vested interest in your family. He’d be just as happy spending your money on a flat screen or a new car, rather than on baby #3 (or #1 for that matter). I think it’s time we told Mr. Franklin Lightnin’ Bolt to sleep his greedy little butt on the couch, and let us get our family wisdom from God.
====
6 Comments
April 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I genuinely appreciate your articles!
April 18, 2008 at 11:43 pm
A.M. -
Thanks for the visit brother, and the encouragement! To God be the glory.
‘BH
April 20, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hey ‘BH,
Here is part of a debate I’m currently in with a fellow believer. How would you address him?
>>What you read into the Scriptures needs to apply across the globe, and NOT just in Maine. How would you answer the devout Christian Philippino woman who has to leave her family to be a house helper in another country, in order to put food on the table for her parents, husband, and any children she might have? Her husband cannot make enough money in the Philippines for the family to survive, and has few alternatives outside of the country. Should she have your attitude that “I should just go ahead, trust God, and have another one when I get together with my husband once per year”? That is blind and misguided trust, and nothing else. To say God will provide food for that family because of their ‘trust’ is downright arrogant, and I hear it many times from the incredibly wealthy American religious right, including people in Maine. God gave us a brain for discernment in all things, not all things except reproduction. How do you answer this dilemma?<<
I grew up hearing, and seeing through pictures and visits, the devastating poverty of my mother’s family. She is one of twelve. I have not trusted God in this area of my life out of ignorance. I have counted the cost and I fully understand that He will provide, but not always in the manner I deem fit.
How do you reconcile a husband and wife who have opposing views on this topic. He/she wants more but the other wants to ‘move on’ from this stage of life. God’s word says that husbands and wives have rights to each others’ bodies, does that mean rights to eggs and sperm as well? Or better yet, rejection of? Aren’t we tempting God when we take a natural function of marriage and say, “We’ll control the process because if God REALLY wanted to He can override our use of BC and bless us with another child (if He HAS to).”
What about when Jesus says to cut of the part of your body that is causing you to sin rather than burn in hell, but we cut our tubes for functioning as they were created to function?
Any thoughts?
April 20, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Genoise -
Sounds like you’ve got a great convo going on there. I had a similar talk with a buddy who had spent some time in China as a journeyman. He was wondering about how these family ethics issues would play out “practically” in those kinds of countries.
First and foremost, we must affirm that the doctrine of children and marriage is not to be formed in response to cultural or economic norms, or even apparent cultural necessities. As Christians, we can not make doctrine. We can not just take a look at the world and then surmise how we should live in it. Instead, we Christians are called to be students of the Word. As J. Gresham Machen wrote, “…the Bible not only is an account of important things, but the account itself is true, the writers having been so preserved from error, despite a full maintenance of their habits of thought and expression, that the resulting Book is the “infallible rule of faith and practice.” And it is this faith that we must seek to put into the practice of having marriages and families that reflect the glory of God in a lost and dying world.
Since therefore, doctrines of family ethics (and our responses to them) must have their primary foundations and cornerstones in what God says about marriage and family, we can not then seek to argue their relevance based upon cultural “exceptions” or “hard cases.” If God says children are a gift – then that means children are a gift – all the time, every child – no exceptions. If God says marriage is between a man and wife, that is true, all the time – no exceptions. We must affirm not only the infallibility of Scripture, but its eternal relevance in the life of the believer.
That being said, there are two quick issues that I want to address in the quote you posted.
First, this person that you are debating with (at least in this quote) is bypassing a moral and biblical analysis of birth control and merely evaluating its use in society. In other words, they are taking the possibility of birth control for granted, because it is an accepted cultural and scientific norm. Because of this, they can use language like “blind and misguided” and “discernment” with out addressing “morality”, “ethics”, “blessing”, “dominion”, and “rights”. Until these latter issues are addressed we are putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
Secondly, these questions must be addressed in the context of the Church. The American church in particular has done a truly lamentable job at reflecting the value that the Bible gives to marriage and children. By and large birth control has been assumed, and adoption has been forgotten (or pushed to the fringes). Marriage with the option of children has become the norm, and any children that are chosen to be conceived are viewed as more as “willful sacrifices” than “heritages from the Lord”.
Call it rugged individualism if you will, but the issue is the same, we have lost the meaning and the message of Christian community. Families now see themselves as autonomous enterprises operating totally free from dependence on or care of the larger community of believers in their local church. But this should not be so.
I do not pretend (nor does the Bible) that the Christian life or the Christian family won’t look crazy to the world. I do not pretend that it won’t entail radical sacrifice, and faithful obedience not to “conform to the image of this world.” But that radical sacrifice is not a call to Lone-Ranger Christianity or Lone-Ranger Parenthood for that matter. It is a call to the body of Christ – a call to look like the Church in Acts – and to look different from the world.
The answer for that Philippino woman is not to ignore biblical principles of marriage and family – the answer is for the Church to come up along side of her and reflective the love and sacrifice of Christ – caring for the least of the brethren, for the glory of God.
Does that help?
‘BH
April 21, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Yes it does. Being a woman it can be diffucult not to let my emotions trip me up in lieu of doctrine.
On a more personal note I would really appreciate your input on the final questions in my post:
How do you reconcile a husband and wife who have opposing views on this topic. He/she wants more but the other wants to ‘move on’ from this stage of life. God’s word says that husbands and wives have rights to each others’ bodies, does that mean rights to eggs and sperm as well? Or better yet, rejection of?
Aren’t we tempting God when we take a natural function of marriage and say, “We’ll control the birth process because if God REALLY wants to He can override our use of BC and bless us with another child (if He HAS to).”
What about when Jesus says to cut of the part of your body that is causing you to sin rather than burn in hell, but we cut our tubes/vas for functioning as they were created to function?
Am I taking the Word out of context in these instances, or do those principles apply?
April 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Genoise -
Sure. I didn’t answer them the first time because I wasn’t quite sure what you asking, but I’ll try to answer them as best I can.
This is of course an issue that needs to be understood and addressed prior to marriage, with both husband and wife prayerfully submitting themselves to the authority of God’s Word in regards to marriage and family.
Where we run into many of the struggles relating to this issue is when couples enter in to marriage with little or no long-term understanding of what their marriage and family might (or rather should) look like. When decisions are made upon a shallow idea of discernment – like how the couple feels about children when they get married – they are not taking into account the understanding that children are not purely matters of discernment. But when they are seen in this light, every decision to have or not to have them is an unanchored ship drifting around in a sea of culture, emotionalism, and circumstances.
Husbands and wives should live in agreement – like all believers – but even more so, as the covenant of marriage is the closest bond known to mankind; a literal “one-flesh union”. This of course does not mean that they always have the same opinions about things, but it does mean that at the end of the day, the husband acts as the loving and protective head of the home, desiring to lay his life down for his wife — and his wife does all that she can to lovingly submit to his leadership, being a fellow heir with Christ, and her husband’s irreplaceable “helper” in the task to which they are called.
In the context of our discussion this means that the feministic language of it being “the woman’ body” and “her choice” – or even something as benign sounding as “I’m the one who has to be pregnant and give birth”, while true in a sense, has no ethical bearing on God’s Will for marriage and families. If God wishes for our marriages to be open to the blessing of children, then whether or not a spouse feels ready to “move on from this stage of life” is a moot point. It would be like a husband saying he is ready to “move on” from being the head of the house, to taking the place of a wife. Why does he not have the right to do that? Because that is not how he was created. That is not God’s will for marriage and family. And the same can be said of birth control. The allusion to 1 Cor 7 while helpful is not needed when the idea of arbitrary stages is found to be unbiblical.
I assume the language of “tempting God” can be used in this context, I’ve just never used it before myself. I’m just not sure what that means, and if there is a way to say it clearer or in other words, I’ll usually try to do that. But the idea you allude to is widespread. Basically what it says is “I’m going to make some decisions and if God wants me to make the right decision, then he’ll have to make it for me, despite my intentions.” If that sounds problematic, it’s because it is…
Your allusion to Matthew 5 is probably taken out of context, and not rightly applied to this issue. The point that Jesus was making there was that it’s not our hands and feet that cause us to sin, rather it’s our hearts. When couples spurn the will of God for their marriage and (in spite of, or more likely in absence of, true discernment, prayer, and biblical understandings of marriage and family) sterilize themselves, it is a heart issue – and not one primarily of the reproductive facilities.
Thanks so much for the thoughtful interaction. Let me know if you have any more questions.
‘BH