tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) (01/04/90)
Given the recent comments in soc.religion.christian on the subject of birth
control, here are some observations I made a couple years ago for interested
members of my own congregation.
I would appreciate feedback, public or private
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Matter of Sterilization
Preface
This paper was presented to the session of Immanuel Presbyterian Church as
part of their investigation into the matter of birth control and steriliza-
tion. It represents the view of the author only.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the subject of birth control, in
particular sterilization, and answer the questions: 1) is birth control or
sterilization a legitimate option for Christian couples and 2) how should
the church instruct its families on this subject?
May God be glorified in our decision and may His will be done in our lives!
The Purpose of Sterilization and Birth Control
Birth control, and in particular voluntary sterilization, is a means of
limiting the size of one's family. Davis gives evidence of Egytian writing
from 1900 B.C. giving birth control information via salves and potions. (1)
In this country, birth control and sterilization gained public acceptance
through the efforts of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. As recently
as 1968, states outlawed the use of birth control devices by even married
couples. Those legislatures which enacted laws forbidding the use of birth
control did so in the belief that the widespread use of such devices would
harm the family by lowering the fertility rate. It was also argued that
once contraceptives were available to one group, married couples, it would
be impossible to control their use by others engaged in unsanctioned sexual
intercourse, e.g. unmarried youth.
However, through the concerted efforts of humanists like Sanger, birth con-
trol was soon seen as a means to bring about true sexual freedom. No
longer would women be afraid of unwanted pregnancy. It is difficult to
examine today's practice of birth control without understanding the rela-
tionship between it and the feminist movement.
It is interesting to see how the increase in the use of birth control and
abortion on demand parallels the rise in the feminist movement. Feminism at
its very heart is a movement to "unshackle" women from the traditional
bonds that have "enslaved" them, namely childbearing and homemaking.
Christians would be quick to note that the "bonds" of the feminists are
those things central to the teaching of the Bible; family and work. Birth
control is a means by which women can have a career and children on the
side. To the feminists, children become yet another possession like a
house or a car. You can have as many or as few as you want. (2)
Voluntary sterilization, vasectomy for the male and tubal ligation for the
female, is an extreme form of birth control. Except for rare cases of med-
ical necessity, all sterilizations are done for birth control purposes and
should be considered permanent.(3)In the US, the number of elective sterili-
zations performed has been steadily increasing so that today vasectomy is
the most popular form of birth control among couples. Some 750,000 are
performed on American men each year. (4)
It must be pointed out that the most popular methods of birth control,
namely sterilization and the contraceptive "Pill", involve some degree of
risk to the patient. The Pill has been linked to conditions in women such
as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and many lesser problems.
Vasectomy is thought by some to cause problems in the autoimmune system of
the man. In certain situations, the body can actually produce antibodies
against its own sperm cells which may lead to autoimmune disease. (5)
The ultimate purpose of birth control and sterilization, then, is to allow
the couple to engage in sexual intercourse without fear of pregnancy.
The Creation Ordinance
"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds
of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"
(Gen. 1:28; cf. Gen. 9:7) The command to be fruitful and multiply was also
repeated to Jacob as part of the covenant promise when God changed his name
to Israel (Gen. 35:11). In Genesis 2:23,24 we read, "The man said, 'This
is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman,
for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Both Jesus and Paul restate this verse in their discussions on the subject
of marriage (Matt. 19:5, Eph. 5:31).
It seems clear from Scripture that there is an inseparable relationship
between the companionship aspect of marriage and the procreative aspect.
It is said that for Adam "no suitable helper was found." No suitable
helper for what? Obviously, someone to help Adam carry out God's commands
regarding work, worship and procreation. Marriage and sex involve more
than meeting the need for companionship. If all Adam needed was a compan-
ion, any of the beasts would have been suitable. Dogs make wonderful com-
panions. But a dog could not help Adam be obedient to the command "be
fruitful and multiply."
On the matter of marriage the Westminster Confession of Faith says the fol-
lowing:
Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife;
for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the
church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness. (6)
In commenting on this section with regard to the error of the Roman Cathol-
ics and the error of the "Puritans", G.I. Williamson says:
To say that Scripture does not state that the satisfaction of the
sex desire must always include the procreative purpose is not the
same as to say that the procreative purpose may be neglected.
God has ordained marriage not only for the proper satisfaction of
sex desire, but also "for increase of mankind with legitimate
issue, and of the church with an holy seed." This is the divine
commandment (Gen. 1:28). The chief end of man is to glorify God
in every sphere of life. When sex desire is not governed by this
purpose it is most certainly abased. When it is governed by the
desire to glorify God it becomes the instrument of God for the
increase of His church with the promised seed (Mal. 2:15, Acts
2:39, etc.). To avoid bearing children for selfish reasons is
the very opposite of a proper fulfillment of the divine purpose
of marriage. We must fully recognize this present-day abuse of
the modern knowledge of convenient means of avoiding the beget-
ting of children. And this abuse must be condemned. But abuse
of a thing does not justify absolute condemnation of it. (7)
John Murray concludes his discussion of the marriage ordinance with this
observation:
We have been following the course of the history of progressive
revelation in reference to the first institution regulative of
human thought and conduct with which revelation as deposited in
the Scripture confronts us. It is that of procreation and fruit-
fulness (Gen. 1:28). We have found that there is no suspension
of this institution but rather repeated emphasis upon it. The
entrance of sin into the world radically affected the conditions
under which it was to be exercised but, however aggravated these
conditions of curse and travail are, they do not remove the obli-
gation to be fruitful and multiply: they rather intensify the
necessity or the urge to its exercise. Indeed it is the tendency
to abuse the instinct and impulse to the procreative act that
makes the necessity of marriage all the more urgent.(8)
On the matter of the purpose of sexuality, Philip Hughes writes,
The biblical teaching concerning the scope and purpose of sexual-
ity is clear and consistent. The primary function served by the
creation of the two sexes is the _procreation_ (emph. orig.) of
children and the propagation of the race. The design of the sex-
ual organs is obviously for this purpose, enabling man to contri-
bute and woman to receive the male sperm for the impregnation of
the ova in her womb, ... Erotic stimulation is meant to serve
this end, not to be an end in itself. Hence God's command to
man, whom He created male and female, to 'be fruitful and multi-
ply, and fill the earth' (Gen. 1:28). Before all else, then,
human sexuality is designed for the increase and perpetuation of
mankind. (9)
In the Bible, marriage is linked to childbearing to such an extent that one
hardly ever finds mention of a couple without reference to their children.
In the case of Abram, his wife is named and then follows the statement,
"Now Sarai was barren; she had no children." (Gen. 11:30). The begetting
of children was considered an act of God's will. (Gen. 25:21, Gen. 29:31,
Gen. 30:2, 1 Sam. 1:10ff). John Murray says:
We cannot think of the duty of procreation in abstraction from
marriage. And we cannot think of marriage apart from the dignity
and privilege of the procreative acts and processes which are
bound up with it. (10)
The Blessing of Children
Sons are a heritage from the Lord,
children are a reward from Him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.
Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
Blessed are all who fear the Lord,
who walk in His ways.
You will eat the fruit of your labor;
blessings and prosperity will be yours.
Your wife will be like a fruitful vine
within your house;
your sons will be like olive shoots
around your table.
Thus is the man blessed
who fears the Lord.
(Psalm 127:3-128:4)
Throughout the Scripture children are described as a blessing from God
(Psalm 127). One measure of a man's success and his favor with God was the
number of children he had. The story of Job is a prime example of this
fact. Job was blessed by God with material wealth and a large family.
Satan's first attack was directed at Job through his material possessions,
then through his children. But like everything else, Job understood that
his children were a gift from God, not something of his own making. After
the death of all his children is announced by the messenger, Job declares,
"The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be
praised." (Job 1:21).
After the final exchange between Job and his "comforters", the Bible
records how God gave Job twice as many possessions as he had before his
time of trouble. It also states that God blessed Job with ten children,
and that the daughters were the most beautiful women in all the land (Job
42:15). Finally, he was blessed to see his children's children to the
fourth generation (cf. Ps. 128:6). This was the ultimate mark of Job's
prosperity.
Where is the longing today among God's people to see their children's chil-
dren? What has happened to the extended family in the Christian church?
Paul tells Timothy that we are to provide for our relatives, especially our
immediate family (1 Tim. 5:8). In our modern lives, Christians have lost
that sense of family so prevalent in the Bible.
The Role of Women
Woman was created to be a helper to the man in Eden. She was to assist him
in his God-ordained purpose which included work, worship, dominion and
fruitfulness. She was to be a spiritual as well as a physical companion.
After the fall, and working under the effects of the curse, man and woman
brought forth children in the image of God. With varying degrees of suc-
cess, believing parents raised up believing children. But the model for
family life was established: husband as head, wife as helper and co-worker,
and children in loving obedience to them both. Husbands are to work to pro-
vide for his family while the wife stays at home to care for their chil-
dren.
A principle role for a woman in the family is homemaker, what Hughes calls
"the loving focus of family life."(11) Proverbs 31, the description of the
ideal wife, makes it very clear that women as mothers are to be workers at
home, bearing children and raising them up to the glory of God. This is
what Paul told the older women to teach the younger women, "Likewise, teach
the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanders or
addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the
younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled
and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, to be subject to their husbands,
so that no one will malign the word of God." (Titus 2:3-5). First of all,
it says that the elders (Titus) are to teach this to older women, and that
the older women are to pass that wisdom on to younger ones. And Paul's
reason: so that, in the eyes of the world, the integrity of the word of God
can be maintained.
Mothers are not to bear the burden of breadwinner outside the home. Hus-
bands are commanded in Scripture to provide for the financial welfare of
their family (1 Tim. 5:8). In times past, a husband often worked two or
three jobs to give his family food, clothing and a place to live. This
seems to have fallen out of fashion with some. Today, it seems easier to
send mom out into the workforce. This should not be, especially in the
church.
The apostle Paul gives us two statements as to legitimate areas of author-
ity for women:
But women will be saved through childbearing - if they
continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety
1 Tim 2:15
So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to
manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for
slander. 1 Tim 5:14
The first verse is given within the context of Paul's admonition that women
are not to teach or exercise authority in the church. It says that the
woman's responsibility to bear children and to raise them up to the glory
of God is a good work which gives evidence of salvation.(12) Paul is making
the point that women do have areas wherein they exercise a great deal of
responsibility. The primary area is the home. They are the childbearers,
teachers, doctors, counselors, and nurturers.
The second verse teaches that young widows, like other young women, should
marry and manage a home in order to avoid the temptation that comes about
as a result of having too much free time. Paul says, in verse 13,
"Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house
to house." Idleness is a habit that needs to be broken, and for young
widows, marriage is the best cure. They are to be "busy at home".
God is Provider
The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is the one who provides for
all our needs, wants and desires. All that we possess is a gift from Him.
Too often we hear the excuse among Christians that they don't want more
children than they can provide for financially. But who is it that pro-
vides for our family's needs? Who gives us the job that provides the
salary to put food on the table and clothes on our backs? Is it not the
Lord himself? When we take our eyes off Him then we will begin to worry
about where the next meal is coming from regardless of how many children we
have.
But are we not told in Scripture that we are not to worry about tomorrow?
Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you
will eat or drink; or about you body, what you will wear. ... For the
pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you
need them. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these
things will be given to you as well." (Matt. 6:25,31-33).
Selfless Love
As stated earlier, the ultimate purpose of birth control and sterilization
is to allow the couple to engage in sexual intercourse without fear of
pregnancy. Except in rare cases of medical necessity, the fear of preg-
nancy is a selfish fear. It is certainly a sinful fear because God has
declared over and over again that He is in control and that He wants to
bless His people by giving them children. What other blessing that is
offered to us in the Bible creates this type of behavior among God's peo-
ple? What other blessing that is offered to us do we respond to God by
saying, "Enough!"?
We are commanded to love God first and foremost, and to love our neighbors
are ourselves. This is the definition of selfless love: thinking of others
before we think of ourselves. We must ask, is sterilization an act of
obedient love, or something less? If it is something less, then how can we
as elders recommend it to God's people as even an option for them?
But sex without reproduction is subversion of the primary purpose
of sex; sex merely for the pleasure of the individual is the
perversion of sex to selfish and licentious ends which will soon
pall in surfeit and disgust. (13)
Be Not Conformed
The question we must ask ourselves as evangelicals is this: how much have
we allowed the thinking of the world to influence our decisions in the
whole matter of human sexuality? Have we been leaders on this subject,
especially the matter of birth control, or have we been taking our cues
from the world? The Bible says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern
of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you
will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing
and perfect will." (Rom. 12:2,3).
What is God's perfect will for married couples? If we allow God's word to
be our guide the only conclusion is to pray for God's blessing of children.
The paramount concern for the Christian is faithfulness to God and His
word. We must not accept any of the world's thinking without a critical
examination of the issue in the light of God's word. Compromise with the
world has always meant the downfall of God's people. Francis Schaeffer
says,
It is hard to imagine how far these things have gone (speaking of
homosexuality and feminism in the church, ed.). Evangelicalism
is deeply infiltrated with the world spirit of our age when it
comes to marriage and sexual morality. Few would go so far as
the extremes mentioned above. But there are many who quietly
tolerate these views and in practice, if not in principle, view
the biblical teaching on marriage and order in the home and
church as quaint anachronisms which are culturally irrelevant in
the modern world. For some the accommodation is conscious and
intentional; for many more it involves our unreflective acquies-
cence to the prevailing spirit of the age. But in either case
the results are essentially the same. (14)
John White says much the same thing in his book "Flirting with the World":
The sexual behavior of Christians has reached the point of being
indistinguishable from non-Christians. ... in our sexual behavior
we, as a Christian community, are both in the world and of it. (15)
Conclusion
We need to acknowledge three essential facts from Scripture in order to
resolve the problem of the use of birth control. First, man was commanded
by God to "be fruitful and multiply". This command was repeated three
times and has never been rescinded. Second, that children are a blessing
from the Lord and evidence of His promise to bless a faithful couple. And,
third, that God is sovereign and in control of all the event of our lives;
including the giving and withholding of children (see Gen. 29:31ff for one
of the clearest statements on this fact). He has promised to provide all
our needs when we seek to be faithful to His revealed will. This provision
extends to our covenant children as well. "I was young and now I am old,
yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging
bread." (Ps. 37:25).
Sexual intercourse is an expression of godly love between a husband and
wife and is a source of pleasure for both. It is also designed to provide
covenant offspring for the couple and the church. Not every instance of
sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. That fact, however, does not give
Christians the right to permanently alter their sexual capability in order
to prevent conception. There may be times when the use of birth control is
justified, such as when the health of the woman is in question or when the
spacing of children would seem prudent. But this action should involve
much prayer and seeking after godly wisdom and counsel.
God alone is the Lord of the womb; we may not take any action which puts
this fact in jeopardy. Simply because medical science gives us the ability
to prevent conception, doesn't mean we have the right to use that ability.
This is especially true if our purpose in preventing conception is a self-
ish one. If a Christian decides that another child would be a burden,
rather than a blessing, then their motive for preventing conception is cer-
tainly selfish.
Birth control is not a private matter to be left up to the discretion of
couples. It is a matter that strikes at the very heart of the family and
the church. With all the positive statements in the Bible about children
as the fruit and blessing of marriage, and the absolute silence on the
matter of birth control,(16) it seems that it would be better to trust in
God's sovereign love for us and avoid anything that could interfere in His
plan for our families.
Finally, the advocates of birth control bear the burden of proof on this
subject. What biblical reasoning can be offered to support the notion that
birth control is a private matter? Doesn't this strike at the very heart
of Christian faith and practice? Doesn't it say to the world: we can trust
God for salvation (eternal) but I am in control of my own body (temporal).
Our bodies are not our own, they were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:19,20).
Recommendations
This outline should be the clear teaching of our church on the matter of
children and birth control:
o Children should be viewed as a blessing from the Lord and desired
within the framework of a Christian family.
o God has revealed Himself in Scripture as the sovereign provider of all
material needs, both for us and our children.
o Conception does not happen apart from the sovereign will of God. He
has formed us in the womb (Isa. 44:2).
o The bearing of covenant children should be viewed as an effective
means of enlarging the church.
o Birth control, and especially sterilization, is a means of circumvent-
ing God's prerogative in the creation of new life.
o Sterilization should not be undertaken by Christian couples except in
the rare case of medical necessity. Other forms of birth control may
be used only if their use is not meant to permanently prevent concep-
tion and should only be undertaken after much prayer and godly coun-
sel.
o Childless couples, and those who have come to question their own
sterilization, should be encouraged to pursue adoption as an alterna-
tive to natural children.
Tom Albrecht
7/12/88
v. 2 (nroff)
Footnotes
1. Davis, John J., Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the
Church Today (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1985) p. 22-24
2. For a more detailed look at the relationship between
birth control and the modern feminist movement, see
Davis or Pride.
3. Through new surgery techniques it is possible in a few
cases to reverse the sterilization, but the operation is
long and costly.
4. Davis, p. 33
5. Davis, p. 34-35
6. WCF, XXIV:2
7. Williamson, G.I., The Westminster Confession of Faith
for Study Classes (Philadelphia, 1964) p. 182
8. Murray, John, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical
Ethics (Grand Rapids, 1957) p. 78
9. Hughes, Philip E., Christian Ethics in Secular Society
(Grand Rapids, 1983) p. 151
10. Murray, p. 45
11. Hughes, p. 166
12. 1 Tim. 2:15 literally says that woman will be saved in
(or through) childbearing. The translators of the NIV
apparently thought that the idea expressed by Paul
sounded too much like salvation by works so they came up
with the improper wording, "kept safe through child-
birth."
13. Hughes, p. 167
14. Schaeffer, Francis, The Great Evangelical Disaster
(Westchester, IL, 1984) p. 138
15. quoted in Alcorn, Randy C., Christians in the Wake of
the Sexual Revolution (Portland, OR 1985) p. 24
16. The case of Onan was not an issue of birth control, but
rather of Onan's levirate obligation to his dead
brother's wife.
Bibliography
Alcorn, Randy C., Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution
(Portland, OR 1985)
Camping, Harold, Feed My Sheep (Nutley, NJ)
Davis, John J., The Christian's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth
(Westchester, IL, 1986)
Davis, John J., Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today
(Phillipsburg, NJ, 1985)
Gilder, George, Men and Marriage (Gretna, LA 1986)
Hughes, Philip E., Christian Ethics in Secular Society (Grand Rapids,
1983)
Murray, John, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand
Rapids, 1957)
Pride, Mary, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism and Back to Reality
(Westchester, IL, 1985)
Schaeffer, Francis, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL,
1984)
Williamson, G.I., The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
(Philadelphia, 1964)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Tom Albrechtkilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (01/16/90)
It is important to note that the Scriptures do not directly address the topic of contraception (reliable technology did not yet exist), and any determinations must therefore rest in part on human reasoning and interpretation, which (as we all know) is somewhat prone to error. I read Tom Albrecht's recent posting with interest, and will attempt to show areas in which I believe his conclusions are faulty. (Tom's article primarily addresses sterilisation, but some of his comments seem to apply equally well to contraception in general.) In his introduction, Tom makes a statement which does not actually contain any argument but which I comment on because it raises my hackles a bit: > Birth control is a means by which women can have a career and children on >the side. To the feminists, children become yet another possession like a >house or a car. You can have as many or as few as you want. This section, especially the second sentence, is bothersome: not only does it seem to require knowledge of another person's motivations, it makes the most uncharitable estimation possible. Unless you can read another person's heart, I have to question your qualifications to make this statement. In addition, you have implied that all feminists think exactly alike, and that only feminists advocate birth control. How can we know what another person's reasons are for wanting a small family? Later on, Tom has a section about `be not conformed to the world', which doesn't make any real argument but which I felt worthy of commentary in that its use seems to be a way of warding off counterarguments: if I agree with conventional wisdom then I've not studied the Bible enough.# There exist Christians who do not use organs in church because they are not mentioned in Scripture; and they can use `be not conformed' on you just as easily.& ------ # - I don't know that Tom intended this, but that's how I read it. & - In the event Tom is a person opposed to organs in worship, I can come up with another example (maybe high technology like computers) -- there is almost nothing you can do that won't offend _somebody_. ------ Moving on to the actual argument from Scripture, Tom refers to the command `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.' And while it is true that this instruction has never been retracted, it only says to `fill' the earth -- implying that we are supposed to stop increasing in number when we have done so. Given that there are *millions* of starving people _right now_, there are those who feel that we've already filled the earth; there are many people who feel that in an overzealous effort to carry out this command, we are actually breaking it by not knowing when to stop.% The obvious counterargument is that it is God who decides when to create a life, and if he didn't want any more he would sterilise everybody himself -- but this argument is seriously flawed as shown by the case of murder: while it is God who decides when to end a life, many people commit murder and God does not interfere. Since God often does not interfere with our free will, it is not obvious that he would interfere with our reproducing _even if_ it was not what he wanted. ------ % - Note that I am not claiming this is true OR false -- I am simply saying that there are people who accept this command and who disagree about the proper way to comply with it. ------ Tom's next argument went like this: > > It is said that for Adam "no suitable helper was found." No suitable >helper for what? Obviously, someone to help Adam carry out God's commands >regarding work, worship and procreation. Marriage and sex involve more >than meeting the need for companionship. If all Adam needed was a compan- >ion, any of the beasts would have been suitable. Dogs make wonderful com- >panions. But a dog could not help Adam be obedient to the command "be >fruitful and multiply." Which fails on several counts. Firstly, the command to `be fruitful and multiply' is only given to _both_ Adam & Eve -- there is no indication that Adam was ordered to do so alone, and therefore the lack of a suitable companion must hinge on other than this one command. (I can find no reference to a command to worship in the first two chapters of Genesis, and therefore do not consider that a relevant issue.) Secondly, there is a bit of guesswork in the `any beast would have been suitable': how do you know? Can you imagine living an entire lifetime without poetry or music, without sharing and laughter? I am fortunate to hang out with a fairly well-read canine, but he is hardly the perfect companion -- and without other people to write books, what would we have to read? (Indeed, without someone to invent tennis balls we can't even play fetch.) Tom then quotes Philip Hughes (with whom I am assuming Tom agrees), who wrote: > > The primary function served by the creation of the two sexes is the >_procreation_ (emph. orig.) of children and the propagation of the race. >The design of the sexual organs is obviously for this purpose, enabling >man to contribute and woman to receive the male sperm for the impregnation >of the ova in her womb, ... Erotic stimulation is meant to serve this end, >not to be an end in itself. Which ignores an import subset of Christianity: those couples who cannot have children. If, as Mr. Hughes implies, erotic stimulation has only one end, then in cases where it will not serve to to accomplish its supposed goal it ought not occur. However, sex between married partners who cannot have children can serve other ends than procreation, and denying that any other end is important seems to require that infertile couples abstain permanently. The same basic problem appears in another quote from Mr. Hughes: > > But sex without reproduction is subversion of the primary purpose of sex; >sex merely for the pleasure of the individual is the perversion of sex to >selfish and licentious ends which will soon pall in surfeit and disgust. Which more clearly sets up a false dichotomy between `sex for reproduction' and `sex merely for the pleasure of the individuals,' and not addressing, for example, `sex to strengthen the marriage relationship.' Once again, the result of such thinking is to deny that infertile couples should engage in sexual intimacy, a position I doubt anyone wishes to take. Do you accept this result of the argument? Or do you recognise that there are other acceptable reasons for couples to engage in sex? I should also note that I find this implicit claim that sex is acceptable only for purposes of reproduction at odds with 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. In verse 6 Paul says that his advice is a concession, and not a command; but the main thrust of the passage is that sex has benefits beyond children and that Paul considers these valid (or, at least, not invalid). On the role of women, Tom discusses the traditional model of family life. Without getting too involved in this particular topic, I do not know that these comments are necessarily relevant: even if I accept the traditional position on women vis-a-vis teaching in Church and staying at home, this does not speak directly to the issue of controlling a family's _size_, which is my perception of the actual matter at hand. (Had reliable contraception existed at the time, perhaps Paul would have given us his opinion -- but I think it is overly speculative to make an inference from the (relatively brief) comments he has left behind on the women & the family.) Tom also gives us an argument based on God's position of total provider, and cites Jesus' words from Matthew 6 about worry. I usually complain when those I see those, and today will be no exception. 8-) The problem I have with quoting the `do not worry' passage to argue against careful planning is that there are other passages of Scripture which should be considered and aren't. Proverbs 6:9-11 specifically address the `sluggard' who does not engage in the work he should apparently be doing, and that sort of admonition is at odds with the impression I am getting from Tom; he seems to be saying `do not worry' implies `do not take action', with which I disagree. (Later, Tom writes that `There may be times when the use of birth control is justified, such as when the health of the woman is in question or when the spacing of children would seem prudent,' which gives me the impression that I am missing some of the subtleties he intended. Would you care to add some light?) The most compelling portion of Tom's argument (IMHO) was the position that children are a blessing, and contraception is an attempt to refuse God's blessing (and is therefore a form of disobedience)*; but when asked > What other blessing that is offered to us do we respond to God by > saying, "Enough!"? I feel obliged to point out that good weather is a blessing from God, but there are many farmers who have irrigation systems for when there is not enough rain, and many who pay cloud seeders to _stop_ `good weather'.$ And there are many people in countries that have't had enough rain who are starving because they don't have such modern technology. ------ * - I do not necessarily agree with this interpretation, but if that is Tom's opinion then it can surely buttress the other arguments which I feel are weak. $ - It is true that some of these farmers are going out of business because the systems cost too much and the money to be made was not up to the government's expectations -- but there are other farmers who went out of business because they _didn't_ have the systems and the cloud seeding was unsuccessful. ------ Tom's article ended with some other (probably rhetorical) questions, which I am going to answer in the hopes that this will help us to understand each other [ in separating them out I shattered the context, so I've inserted what I interpreted them to mean in brackets -- Tom's original paragraph was clear and only needs the comments due to my breaking it up ] . > What biblical reasoning can be offered to support the notion that birth >control is a private matter? Well, there's Romans 14; especially verses 11 & 12. I cannot follow your rules if I think that they are wrong; I must act in faith and do the best that I know how. I may (and probably would) seek others' guidance in any matter about which there was controversy -- but the final decision must be my own. > Doesn't this [ leaving birth control a private matter ] strike at the >very heart of Christian faith and practice? Not in my opinion; I believe that the heart of Christian faith & practice is acting in love (something I hardly claim to be expert at) -- and I do not feel it is loving to make others' decisions for them. It is generally accepted that we are no longer under the OT Law, and I do not see that the church at large is qualified to establish new laws (except perhaps in the area of improving interpersonal relations -- which shouldn't be needed, but That's The Way It Goes). > Doesn't it [ contraception ] say to the world: we can trust God for >salvation (eternal) but I am in control of my own body (temporal). Not if the implication is "I cannot trust God to take care of my body" -- I think it says `God has given us abilities that we must use responsibly, and we are trying to do so.' kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "It is dangerous to confuse children with angels." -- Sir David Maxwell Frye
nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (01/16/90)
Tom Albrecht's paper, "On the Matter of Sterilization", makes, as I
understand it, the following arguments (as always, corrections are welcome):
1. Children are a blessing from God, both in the sense that
a. God decides when children will and will not be conceived, and
b. The creation of children is good.
2. The use of contraception in a marriage, resulting in a small
family, allows married women to invest time and energy in
activities (including employment) outside of the home if they
choose.
3. Concern about being able to provide for a large number of
children financially is unwarranted, because God will supply
all our financial needs.
4. Because the Bible speaks of children as a blessing but is silent
on birth control, the use of contraception is not a private
matter to be decided at the discretion of a couple.
From these points (and observe that he presents (2) as a *negative* consequence
of contraception), Tom concludes that sterilization should be avoided except
for serious health reasons, and other forms of contraception, while not
necessarily morally wrong, should be used only after much serious prayer and
reflection (he seems to be discouraging but not forbidding contraception here).
I will address the major points in turn.
(1): The Bible does speak of children as a blessing. The extent to which
one agrees with (1a), that children come into being because God specifically
wills it so, depends on one's general understanding of the relationship between
God's will, human will, and natural events, but I am willing to let the
statement stand for now.
I do, however, raise this objection to point (1): Something may be a
blessing, a good gift from God's creation, without its being an unqualified
good to be enjoyed in unlimited abundance. Food, for example, is a good gift
from God for our nourishment and enjoyment, but gluttony is considered a sin,
and continual overeating can be unhealthy. In the case of production of
offspring, there is a limiting factor which Tom does not mention, namely, the
ecological capacity of the planet on which we live. Because we are commanded
to be good stewards of our resources, we must at least consider the
consequences of an exponentially growing human population for the earth that
God has given us.
(2): I will spend little time on this point, since the possibility
of married women being able to exercise the non-domestic gifts and talents
given to them by God seems to me an obvious *benefit*, not drawback, of
medical advances in contraception.
I will, however, as a side point, object to two gratuitously offensive
remarks made by Tom in his discussion of women:
> To the feminists, children become yet another possession like a
> house or a car. You can have as many or as few as you want.
The power to choose how many children one will have most certainly does not
imply that one will view those children as mere possessions. The statement
is a sheer non sequitur, contributing nothing to the paper except an occasion
to insult those with whom the author disagrees.
> It seems clear from Scripture that there is an inseparable relationship
> between the companionship aspect of marriage and the procreative aspect.
> It is said that for Adam "no suitable helper was found." No suitable
> helper for what? Obviously, someone to help Adam carry out God's commands
> regarding work, worship and procreation. Marriage and sex involve more
> than meeting the need for companionship. If all Adam needed was a compan-
> ion, any of the beasts would have been suitable. Dogs make wonderful com-
> panions. But a dog could not help Adam be obedient to the command "be
> fruitful and multiply."
I'm not sure who should be more insulted by this piece of exegesis, Tom or
me: I, apparently, differ from a dog only in my ability to bear human
children; Tom, on the other hand, has just declared dogs to be his intellectual
equal. Ahem.
The story in Genesis 2 does not explicitly mention reproduction at all.
It says that Adam was alone and (despite the presence of animals) did not
have a suitable helper. Eve, unlike the animals, was like Adam; she, unlike
the animals, was "suitable" for him, able to cure his aloneness. Since the
story mentions companionship but does not mention reproduction, I take this
to be the kind of "suitability" that the Genesis author has in mind. While
I can't speak for Tom, most humans find dogs to be only limited companions
and would be extremely lonely without the presence of other humans in their
lives.
(3): I agree that there are Biblical passages indicating that God will
supply all our needs. Empirically, poverty does exist -- which is what makes
those passages difficult ones to interpret and apply. The empirical
observation that one's financial well-being is often correlated with activities
such as working, saving money, spending carefully, and so on, lead me to try
to make wise money-management decisions, on the theory that good stewardship
actually may have good consequences.
(4): I agree that the Bible is silent on contraception (to my knowledge,
the medical technology simply did not exist), but I draw from that the opposite
conclusion from Tom: where the Bible is silent on a subject, and offers no
clearly relevant general commands, I prefer to consider that subject a matter
of personal discretion. (Yes, I am occasionally stubbornly Protestant. :-) )
The Biblical principles that I find most relevant to choices about
contraception are a) Tom's principle (1), that the Bible sees children
as a blessing from God, and b) that we are to be good stewards of our
resources. Because of (b), it is important to me to limit the number of
children I have. Modern contraceptive technology (including sterilization)
allows a couple to limit family size without having to interrupt the sexual
intimacy of their marital union; hence, I see that technology as not only
morally permissible but as a positive good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Nancy Tinkham
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his nlt@cs.duke.edu
To the Father through the features of men's faces." rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt@sun.acs.udel.edu:correll@sun.acs.udel.edu (correll) (01/18/90)
Hi, I am a relatively new netter and I've never written anything in here
before, but I felt motivated to write something relating to the discussion on
birth control that's come up, since this is an area that I've been thinking
about quite a bit lately. I'm not sure I'll be saying anything new, but at
least I'll be clarifying my own thoughts on the subject if nothing else.
When I first heard the point of view expressed by Dave Mielke and Tom Albrecht,
(several years ago now) I thought it was really radical and extreme, but the
more I've been challenged to think about the Scriptural principles involved,
the more my thinking has leaned in that direction. I haven't been totally
convinced by the arguments about the purposes of sex; I think there are a
number of different purposes for it, not all of which are present at any one
time. In and of itself that doesn't seem adequate to totally ban
contraception. Also the line of reasoning about God being sovereign over the
creation of life seems a little fuzzy to me. Sure, God is sovereign, but that
means He is also sovereign over whether I use practice contraception or not,
or whether it is effective. If God is sovereign over life, He can always
override my actions if He really wants to. So that does not seem like a clear-
cut enough reason to ban contraception either.
The one principle in the whole issue that seems really clear-cut to me is this:
CHILDREN ARE A BLESSING FROM THE LORD
Now we give lip service to this, but honestly I don't think the average person
really sees children as a blessing, or at least not as much of a blessing as
other things. People tend to see children as a lot of trouble, and having a
large family smells a lot like a life of sacrifice and inconvenience for
the sake of others, and that just doesn't sound too appealing to most people
(including myself). You can see this is the reasons people give for not
having children, like the following:
1) I just don't like children; I don't have a maternal/paternal instinct.
This seems an outright denial of the teaching that children are a
blessing, and it also implies that God would give you children without the
capacity to care for them adequately.
2) We can't afford (more) children.
Usually this really means one of the following:
2a) I don't want the pressure of having to provide for a large family.
This denies the provision of God taught in Matt. 6:25-34. God promises
to provide for our necessities of life.
2b) Sure, God will provide necessities of life, but I want more than that.
I want to have some nice things, and with a large family we'd really
have to scrimp.
The Bible says to be content with food and clothing (I Tim 6:8). To
prefer luxuries above children is an unbiblical value.
2c) I can do more materially for my children if I have just one or two.
Who says that doing more materially for your children is better for
them? Maybe they don't need those THINGS, maybe a little brother or
sister would be a greater blessing. Heb. 13:5 and I Tim 6:8 apply
here as well.
3) Children are SO much work--I need some time for myself.
Now this issue really convicts me, because I am basically a lazy person
and love my leisure time. But there doesn't seem to be a scriptural basis
for this attitude. Both hard work and a large family are held in high
esteem in the Bible.
4) I don't want to bring children into this terrible world.
This is the worst argument of all. It totally denies the power and grace
of God operating in the lives of the children and the parents.
Now the thought occurred to me that perhaps some of the emphasis on children
can be interpreted within the light of Hebrew culture. When God made His
covenant with Abraham, His promise was to multiply Abraham's descendents and
give them a land to inherit. So for a Hebrew, having a family was a way of
participating in God's covenant and seeing His promises fulfilled. In other
words, procreation was the principal way of extending God's Kingdom. Now under
the new covenant, procreation is one way of extending God's Kingdom, but I
don't think it is the principal way; the main way is through the preaching of
the Gospel. So you could argue that in a sense, the "pressure is off" of
Christians to have large families.
Like I said, you could argue that way, but I wonder if it's sort of a cop
out. The principle of children being a blessing from God is still valid,
and certainly nothing in the New Testament contradicts it.
Having said all that, my current position is that contraception in and of
itself is not wrong, and there are some legitimate uses for it, but I would
guess a large majority of Christians who practice birth control do so for
unscriptural reasons. I think there are times when it is practical and wise
to avoid or delay conception, for instance:
* for medical reasons, where the woman's health would be endangered
* if there is a strong likelihood of a serious genetic disease being
passed along, adoption might be a good alternative
* when faced with certain special circumstances (for instance, within the
next year I will be going through several months of missionary "boot
camp," which involves very primitive living. I would probably try not
to get pregnant before or during that time.)
* to serve others. This is often used as an excuse (as Tim Stafford of
_Campus Life Magazine_ said, "Who can you serve better than you would
your own children?"). But I think there might be people who have a
special ministry to others that would be hampered by having a large
family. If that's truly the motivation, I think it would be legitimate.
Now I can't afford to be too dogmatic about all this, since it's still theory
to me: I'm not married yet. But my boyfriend and I have discussed this quite
a bit, and if/when we do get married, I want to have the most godly attitude
possible and not just be swept along by popular opinion, which does not have
a particularly good track record as far as being pleasing to God.
--
---\ Sharon Correll \---------------
----\ University of Delaware \--------------
-----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \-------------
------\ Research and Development \------------crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (02/05/90)
The situation so far: Sharon Correll (sp?) posted an article listing possible reasons why a Christian couple might, after consideration and prayer, decide to use birth control. Dave Mielke responded saying no, they shouldn't use birth control, but place their trust solely in God. In between, I asked a crucial question which no one has answered yet, so I will repeat it here, a bit more emphatically. The major point of Dave's articles has been this: we should place our trust in God rather than in physical actions. I agree completely. But Dave seems to draw the conclusion that we should thus never perform any physical actions at all, and ONLY trust in God; and this I disagree with. Consider the example of the farmer. If he follows the line of reasoning of the above paragraph, he will say something like: I am supposed to trust in God, therefore I will not do any actions to betray that trust, such as planting seeds, watering crops, etc. But we all know that it doesn't work that way. Instead, God's will is that the farmer do his work planting the crops, trusting in God to provide the growth; to this God (usually) responds by providing the harvest. Here's another example, perhaps closer to the point: suppose your child was playing in the middle of the street, blissfully unaware of an approaching car. Suppose also that you were standing nearby, close enough to run in, pick up the child and move out of the car's path. Now it's true that God is in control of the situation, and nothing we can do will change that. But what if God's will for that situation is for you to be present and make the rescue? In that case, the prayer, "God, your will be done," would ring a bit hollow, since God's will would involve you doing something which you in fact are not doing. If I were the parent in this situation, I would by all means attempt the rescue; hopefully I would have the presence of mind to pray at the same time, "God, if it's your will, please let this work..." In summary: we should always trust in God's will. But sometimes God's will is for us to take action. The people who have written articles supporting limited use of birth control in special circumstances, have (as far as I can tell) used the following principle: God has provided us with the means to make a compassionate, prudent decision about whether and/or when to have children; and sometimes, it may be God's will for us to use this means. Unless there is a Biblical precedent saying, "it is never God's will for birth control to be used," (and I haven't seen such a thing posted yet) this seems to be a legitimate option for Christians. Provided, of course, that this decision is reached after much consideration and prayer, and that the restrictions that others have mentioned (no selfish purposes, etc.) are taken into account. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (02/07/90)
Dave Mielke writes: >[God] says, for example, that one who looks lustfully at another person has >already committed adultery within his heart whether or not he proceeds >to commit the actual physical act. A person who uses contraceptive >measures has, within his heart, already attempted to overrule an area >of decision making which God has reserved for Himself, whether or not >God chooses to make this behaviour ineffective. This rests upon an extremely flimsy analogy. God has given us a considerable degree of control over life and death-- particularly the latter-- and at times he has specifically demanded death as righteous. At other times he has utterly forbid it. I don't think that you can extend "be fruitful and multiply" into an unalterable law anymore than "you shall not murder" turns into an unalterable law against killing, at least in OT law. This whole line of argument is speculative in a way that very rapidly becomes absurd. For instance.... >> * for medical reasons, where the woman's health would be endangered >God knows the current state of the woman's health. If He did not want >her to conceive then He would not create the child within her womb no >matter how often she had intimate relations with her husband. I'm sorry, but I have to complain about this attitude. If you follow this through to its illogical end, one could conclude that if God didn't want anything to happen, he would stop it. That's patently absurd and utterly against scripture. The only reason (I think) that people are willing to tolerate this notion here is that conception is a small and hidden thing, where God can easily be hidden. But God does in fact allow lots of fatal pregnancies-- indeed, it would seem that the fruits of modern medicine have forced him to clean up his act considerably.... Also, this seems to be drifting into a very contradictory sort of predestinarian mode. At what level is an action NOT governed by God? How about the visit to the abortionist, for instance? At this level, there is no moral argument at all. It is not enough to argue that God has control, since he can always have it even lacking predestination. It must be conveyed to us that the action is evil. Dave's argument implies that the proper action for married couples is to go straight to bed and hump away vigorously, to menopause and beyond, spawning as abudantly as possible. Somehow, I also don't think that Dave would be against tipping the divine scales with vaccination or with operations to try and restore fertility. I think this attitude is silly, and I also think it is unloving, as are most fiats delivered into intimate situations such as this-- and I don't just mean sexual intimacy either. -- C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace, + but strife closed in the sod. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet let us pray for but one thing-- mimsy!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."