Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Monday February 5, 2007

The Christian and Birth Control (Part 2)

Last week I wrote an article about the Christian and birth control. Before I continue this short series, I feel it is important to point out that I do not approach the topic from the viewpoint of a professional doctor or a professional theologian. Rather, I merely offer my reflections based on reading books, discussions with other believers, and study of the Bible. My purpose is primarily to stimulate thought and discussion. Because of this I will not answer every question that could arise, nor will I consider every possible angle. I’ll simply provide the perspective of one believer (me!) who has tried to think this one through.

I closed the first article with the question of whether or not using birth control falls within the realm of Christian freedom. In other words, does God give us the privilege and responsibility of choosing whether we would like to limit the size of our families, or does He expect that we will avoid using birth control and allow Him to set the limits?

It is my conviction that we have freedom in this area. I say this based on what I understand to be the lack of any command to the contrary. The Bible contains no explicit guidance on birth control and I am not convicted that what the Bible does say about sexuality and children is sufficient to point us in a direction other than Christian freedom. I acknowledge, though, that this is a difficult issue and people on one side of the divide often have a great deal of trouble understanding how those on the opposite side could possibly reach their conclusions. It is an issue that must be approached with care.

While the Bible states clearly that children are a blessing and that we are to be fruitful and multiply, I simply do not think we can prove from Scripture that this means we are all to be as fruitful as we possibly could be and that we are to all have as many children as we possibly could. I believe that God has created each of us differently; he has gifted us all differently. I don’t find that there is a one-size fits all answer. We need to exercise wisdom in the issue of family planning just as in every other area in life (This article, compiled by the Desiring God staff, does a great job of addressing several common concerns).

I do believe that Christians must be very careful with their reasoning about why they decide to limit family size and they must be very careful about how they limit their family size. Like everything in life, the issue of birth control has a theological dimension and it is worth thinking about. But, unless I read into Scripture what I do not find there, I am unable to see in the Bible that we must not use birth control. Nor do I see that we must use birth control. And so I have concluded that this is one of those areas where we can choose. Those who decide to avoid birth control and pursue large families can be assured of God’s blessing. Similarly, those who decide to limit the size of their families and who do so for legitimate reasons can also expect God’s favor.

I do believe there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons to use birth control. This begs the question of what constitutes a bad reason to avoid having children. Here are a few:

Bad Reason #1: Fear of Provision - The Bible tells us repeatedly that God will provide for us. Thus we have little reason to fear that we will end up destitute and unable to provide for our children even if we choose to have a large family.

Bad Reason #2: Dislike of children - The Bible is clear that children are a blessing and are to be regarded as a blessing. People who just don’t like children ought to examine their hearts and look for the reasons that they would regard God’s blessings as anything but a privilege.

Bad Reason #3: Selfishness - There are any number of reasons that could fall under this one. Some people simply do not wish to allow children to interfere with their lives. Some do not wish to have their careers disrupted or disturbed by a family. No matter the specific reason, selfishness is not a valid reason to avoid having children.

Bad Reason #4: Fear of Overpopulation - There is very little evidence that human overpopulation is an imminent problem or that it will ever be a problem. God created this world to house and sustain us and He gave us no cause to worry about overpopulating it.

I could go on. We would not have trouble writing up a long list of really bad reasons to avoid having children. Any reason that contradicts a commandment of Scripture or denies the ability of God to provide and sustain would be a bad reason.

Just as there are bad reasons to use birth control, there are bad methods of birth control. I outlined these in the previous article, but it won’t hurt to go over them again.

Bad Method #1: Abortion - The Bible makes it clear that human life begins in the womb and that it begins at the moment of conception. It is also clear that we have no right to terminate human right on a whim. Therefore abortion as a method of birth control is never an option for the Christian.

Bad Method #2: Abstinence - The Bible makes it clear that spouses are to have sexual relations regularly and are never to abstain for long periods of time. A refusal to have sex based on the fear of pregnancy is not a valid method of birth control. Many couples use brief periods of abstinence as part of the “rhythm method” of birth control. Depending on the length of abstinence this may or may not be a valid method. I would suggest that if one or both members continually struggle with lust during these times, this may not be a valid method for them.

Bad Method #3: Certain contraceptives - Certain contraceptive devices, rather than blocking or preventing conception, instead destroy or disrupt pregnancy. If we believe that life begins at conception, we must also believe that these methods of birth control cause abortions and the death of a human being. Therefore they must be avoided.

While there is a huge variety of contraceptive methods available, most fall into one of two camps: those that prevent pregnancy by blocking contraception (condoms and other blockade devices) and those that prevent ovulation (pills, patches, and so on). If you agree with me that Christians have freedom to choose whether or not they will use birth control, you will likely agree that the first group, the blockade devices, are acceptable choices for the Christian. The second group introduces a little bit of difficulty. I will spend a bit of time on this issue because I know it is of great concern to many Christians. And again, do realize that my medical knowledge extends no further than preventing nosebleeds (“Son, get your finger out of there!”) so what I present here is simply the fruits of my research. I rely on the expertise of others.

The pill is an attractive method of birth control for several reasons:

  • Ease of use - No muss, no fuss. A woman need only take a pill once a day to have near perfect protection against pregnancy.
  • Effectiveness - The pill is highly effective. When used perfectly, the changes of becoming pregnant are miniscule.
  • Convenience - Any couple who has fumbled with condoms or other similar methods of contraception can testify to their inconvenience. The pill also increases spontaneity (which those same couples will admit is a good thing!).

Compared to other forms of birth control, the pill is highly desirable. It offers greater ease, effectiveness and convenience than other methods. It is easy to understand why it has come into such widespread use, even among Christians.

The pill prevents pregnancy by essentially fooling a woman’s body into thinking it is pregnant. There are two main types of birth control pills. The first is a combined oral contraceptive that contains two hormones: estrogen and progestin. Estrogen helps prevent ovulation by suppressing the hormones that would cause the ovary to release an egg. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus which hinders the ability of the sperm to travel through the fallopian tubes. It may also prevent the lining of the uterus from developing normally which means that if an egg were fertilized, it would be unable to implant. The second type of pill is known as the minipill and contains no estrogen, so while it does not prevent ovulation, it does inhibit the ability of the sperm to fertilize the egg (both my thickening mucus and by suppressing its ability to unite with the egg) and should fertilization take place, the likelihood of implantation.

It is interesting to note that the “morning-after pill,” a pill which can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to reduce the risk of pregnancy is actually simply a combined oral contraceptive pill that contains both estrogen and progestin. The morning after pill, designed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy is simply a larger does of the birth control pill designed to prevent pregnancy.

A search of resources geared mainly towards women’s health, shows that most doctors affirm that birth control does not cause abortions. However, many of these people would not affirm the biblical understanding of when life begins. If life begins at conception, and we believe it does, then preventing implantation is already causing an abortion. The pill will not, apparently, cause an implanted fetus to be aborted. However, having read the warnings that come with the pill, the companies will not guarantee that the pill will not adversely affect a fetus. It is possible that birth defects and other health problems may be linked to the pill.

Recently some qualified Christians have tackled this issue. These are people who have medical knowledge and who affirm that life is inherently precious from the moment of conception. Such people have a credibility in my eyes that exceeds that of doctors who write prescriptions for birth control on Monday and abort children at a clinic on Tuesday. Interestingly, many of these experts seem to be backing the claims of their colleagues, saying that there is no hard evidence that the birth control pill can cause abortions. A friend forwarded me a couple of interesting statements, one from Focus on the Family (link) and one from Dr. Michael Frields (link), a medical expert at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. Dr. Frields feels that the birth control pill is in no way an abortive method of birth control. The majority of the experts James Dobson spoke to “feel that the pill does not have an abortifacient effect. A minority of the doctors feel that when conception occurs on the pill, there is enough of a possibility for an abortifacient effect, however remote, to warrant informing women about it.” So while it seems that the evidence increasingly indicates there is little likelihood of causing an abortion by taking the pill, the jury is still out. I suppose this leaves Christians having to weigh the evidence on their own and attempting to sort out the facts. On a personal note, my wife and I have decided we will not use the pill. Until we can be convinced that there is absolutely no chance of the pill causing abortions, we just cannot, in good conscience, use the pill. And to be honest (and completely open), I have trouble understanding how Christians can arrive at a position that the pill is absolutely, 100% safe.

There is much more that could be said. I do not wish to drag this series into a third day, so will stop here. In the end, it seems wise to point out that the issue of birth control is important because it is a heart issue. Our attitude on this point will reveal a lot about what is inside of us. It will reveal our attitude towards children, our attitude towards God’s providence, and our ability to trust in God and obey Him. I am convinced that men and women on both sides of this debate can love and value children, can live in full assurance of God’s providence and can trust and obey God. I am convinced that God gives us freedom to use birth control or to decide not to use birth control. I am convinced that what matters most is motives and a desire to live for His glory.

Comments (96) »


1. KC
February 5, 2007
10:04 AM

Tim. Excellent as always. I thoroughly enjoyed how you divided the examination of this topic into unwise (bad) reasons and unwise methods for birth control. God certainly has given you wisdom and clarity on this issue. A definite homerun!!


2. Blake
February 5, 2007
10:12 AM

I still lean more on the side of having as many children as the Lord decides with no pretended ‘control’ on our side—YET it is true that Genesis seems to indicate that the primary purpose of marriage is companionship and expression of God, and having children is second to that.

The question is, are children the kind of second purpose of marriage like free tshirts are the second purpose of going to a baseball game? Or much more imperatively… like works is the second necessitiy of faith in our salvation?

Either way, I resolve to show more patience and love for believers of either set of convictions.


3. B. Minich
February 5, 2007
10:32 AM

Good series of articles, Tim.

As a single, I should be thinking these things through now, so that I have a better understanding of how to approach this issue in marriage - and know how to bring it up with potential wives.

I’m a bit wary of the pill, and would probably prefer other methods - I, like you, believe that birth control CAN be used, but that it must not be abortive, nor can it be for selfish reasons (“well, I just don’t want any more children at the moment, even though our family could handle more.”)


4. Josh
February 5, 2007
11:23 AM

I agreed with most of that Tim but this:

Dislike of children

seems like pretty good reason not to have them. There are things that some grown ups will never learn if they don’ t have kids. There are also some grown-ups that shouldn’t be inflicted upon children no matter how resilient they are.

Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
—2 Timothy 2:9


5. Tim Challies
February 5, 2007
11:27 AM

“seems like pretty good reason not to have them. There are things that some grown ups will never learn if they don’ t have kids. There are also some grown-ups that shouldn’t be inflicted upon children no matter how resilient they are.”

If you dislike children you probably shouldn’t have them. But if dislike children you should definitely bring this before the Lord and ask Him to change you! And then have kids…


6. Jason
February 5, 2007
12:15 PM

I would like to point your readers to one of the most highly effective methods of birth control and family planning - Family Awareness Method - see http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/fam.htm for details. Please understand this is NOT the rhythm method.

My wife was turned onto it by a Registered Nurse friend of ours who objected to the pill on the grounds it could potentially cause abortions. We used the method to free my wife from the shackles of the pill and the potentially negative side effects involved with its continued usage.

In short, this method is based on quantitative and qualitative signs which allow a woman to determine with GREAT accuracy the time at which she is fertile. It is not for everyone, but any woman seeking to understand how her body functions will find it liberating.

I personally think that the fact this method isn’t presented by the medical community is troubling in the extreme.


7. Jason
February 5, 2007
12:18 PM

Sorry - Make that “fertility” not “family” awareness


8. bj
February 5, 2007
12:28 PM

I’m curious if you would apply some of the same type of reasoning to marriage and singleness?


9. Junction
February 5, 2007
12:49 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful post Tim. Here’s the part I have trouble with though and I’ve written about it previously here on my blog.

Isn’t birth control simply man acting upon his own will, versus turning control over to God, as we should? Sex is kind of a unique case because we perform the act, but God in his sovereign power decides if a child is conceived. If we prevent the act in any way, aren’t we circumventing God? Doesn’t God know better than we what we need? How can we ourselves possibly come up with a better reason than God that we should or shouldn’t have a child?

Am I missing something here?

Thanks,
Jon “Junction” Thorsen
The Search For Purpose


10. RS
February 5, 2007
1:34 PM

Very interesting article, and I know this issue is one of controversy within the church. Actually I appreciate your staffs’ work lately on tackling some controversial issues. I especially appreciate the Biblical research and backing for your stances, and I just pray that you all continue to just handle these issues straight, without any compromise to fears of what people will think about what you write. Though I have a different view on this issue, as I believe God does want us to just trust Him for how many children we will have, and of course He can open the womb and close it, I am not willing to divide over it.
I do have one concern, though. The morning-after pill to me in principle seems to leave the possibility that after conception that pill will take effect, and will kill that newly conceived child. I definitely have to take the stance that such a thing would be wrong, and would be killing that baby.
Anyway, let’s all focus on loving and serving Christ, and praying that as a people would be holy as He is holy in everything.


11. Josh
February 5, 2007
1:52 PM

Tim don’t get me wrong, I think kids are just the best ever. I agree with you competely that they are a blessing. Thanks for adding the part I left out about ‘going to the Lord to be changed’. I think we need to do that WAY more often than we do.

Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
—2 Timothy 2:9


12. Mandi
February 5, 2007
3:11 PM

RS - as an employee in the crisis pregnancy center ministry I too had concerns over the MAP. However, there were recently some really great articles on the LTI blog (www.lti-blog.blogspot.com) where they looked at the research on MAP. I’m not advocating the use of the MAP by any means but we need to be sure we are opposing it for the right reasons….one of which does not seem to be that it is abortifacient. I’d encourage you to read over their material and see what you think. Like Tim said though the issue with the Pill is conflicted even among “pro-life” physicians. I like the idea that when life is at stake we always err on the side of caution (life) —- not to mention ladies that the Pill is just plain bad for you. I mean it is on the list of carcinogens…nasty stuff.


13. Ann J.
February 5, 2007
3:14 PM

Excellent post, Tim… well written and thoughtful.

Ann (the childless Ann… I see another Anne has joined us… welcome, Anne… I’ll start adding my last intial so we can be more easily identified)


14. Peter R.
February 5, 2007
3:52 PM

Isn’t birth control simply man acting upon his own will, versus turning control over to God, as we should?

It’s like the old joke about the guy stuck on a rooftop in the middle of a flood who prays for God to save him while turning down help from a helicopter, a boat, and a life jacket that happens to float his direction. He drowns, and when he gets to heaven, he chastises God for not answering his prayer. To which God replies, “I sent you a helicopter, a boat, and a life jacket. What else do you want?”

Birth control CAN be man acting upon his own will, or it can be man seeking God’s leading, concluding that now is not the time to have children, and using the available means in obedience. There’s a difference between trusting the Lord and testing Him.


15. Junction
February 5, 2007
4:56 PM

Peter, I don’t see how your analogy applies. Are you trying to compare having children to being rescued from a flood? Or not using birth control to testing God?

Would you agree that God alone gives the gift of life?


16. Michael Garner
February 5, 2007
5:03 PM

Tim said,

“I do believe there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons to use birth control.”


I clearly see the “illegitimate reasons” laid out and I agree. However, (and forgive me if I missed this somewhere) I have not really see many (any?) legitimate reasons listed. Reading through the previous thread on birth control, it seems that nearly every reason listed in support of birth control (in the comments section) would fall into one of the 4 categories that Tim has called illegitimate. That being said, could some examples of legitimate reasons be provided (if I have missed this somewhere, would someone graciously point me towards them)?

Thank you greatly,
mike


17. carissa
February 5, 2007
5:16 PM

i’m curious to hear that grace community mp3 about birth control. the fact that the pill is potentially abortive makes me think that i’d probably have to side with you and your wife; i don’t know how one could take it in good conscience.

also, i can’t help mentioning that Michael Frields is the doctor who delivered me when i was born, which was twenty years ago today. i just thought that was kind of cool/weird.


18. Peter R.
February 5, 2007
6:00 PM

Are you trying to compare having children to being rescued from a flood? Or not using birth control to testing God?

What I’m saying is that sometimes God uses means to achieve His purposes. If - through prayer and submission to God’s word - you are confident that God is leading you to delay having children, I would say that ignoring the various means of preventing pregnancy on the belief that God will prevent it supernaturally is testing God. We consider such logic to be foolish in other areas of life, such as the example of the guy stranded on the roof.

Would you agree that God alone gives the gift of life?

Yes. Most often, He does so when sperm fertilizes egg. Are miracles possible? Sure. Should we live our life under the assumption that a miracle will occur without any specific direction from the Lord to do so? I would say no. There’s no contradiction in recognizing God’s sovereignty over creation AND the fact that there natural processes in operation.


19. afrikaner
February 5, 2007
6:16 PM

God uses means for His purposes and remains sovereign whether we use birth control measures or not. Indeed He does open or close the womb. He also gives gifts through His common grace and science and technology for man to investigate and use in wisdom. He may perfectly use a means to temporarily close the womb for a season…… I see the various forms of birth control, in all sorts of cultures (developed or otherwise) throughout the centuries as being the use of God ordained means - in fact grace gifts for mankind.

I recall my previous comment which was a bit tongue in cheek. God in His wisdom alone has His definite number of elect people. Even though I postulated that birth control seemingly puts the sovereignty in man’s hands (take that as mankind - women/men) as to the number of children and potentially elect children that may or may not be conceived - none of which can ever take away God’s sovereignty.

I am writing as a 50 yo plus man ….. As a young married couple my wife and I implemented measures to prevent pregnancy occurring. I was undertaking undergraduate study at university at the time, she had only begun lowly employment. I had come through some harrowing childhood experiences and was now entering adulthood as a very young husband. We married because it was biblical and correct to do so. It seemed good/right/wise, or whatever, that we delay having children until we were better established to care and nurture them. That is not to say that another couple could have been lead to have them in the same circumstances - and as I write I think of a fellow Christian undergraduate in similar circumstances and his young wife who in fact did start a family in similar circumstances. Were either of us 2 couples ‘wrong’ or more correct before the Lord? In His grace , I do not believe so. We were just 2 different families exercising gospel freedom - to God’s glory. Neither more right or more wrong, neither more blessed, less blessed. I’m sorry but I am personally not convinced that we are commanded to have as many children as possible throughout our reproductive lives. I would say though, if you are convinced otherwise - may God bless you too - as He does in His abundant grace bless us who believe that there are means available to restrict our family size.

What scares me though is a legalism which puts pressure on families to have as many children as possible, and this is what I was alluding (probably poorly) to in a previous post. There are leaders and otherwise in some churches who guilt trip families into having as many children as possible. You are “outside God’s will if you don’t have as many children as possible”…… “The church will not grow unless you have children”…… “you are being disobedient and sinful if you don’t have as many children as possible”, “you MUST exercise faith brother/sister that the Lord will provide” - all the time knowing that there are real issues in your family that might be better of served by not having children at a particular time. You must avoid that Pharisaical type leadership - it is not wise gospel centred leadership.

As Tim points out so clearly - these are areas of gospel freedom. Yes we all need to search are hearts and motives, in this area of life as in all of life.

May I conclude by saying that we have 6 beautiful God given children - 4 born alive and are now growing into men and women of faith, 2 which died in utero. God is good!


20. Blake
February 5, 2007
8:18 PM

Hold on, I’m wondering about Bad Reason #4 - Fear of Overpopulation. How can someone say that the Lord is in control over the world population and there is no need to worry because he provides—but not be able to transfer that concept to the family? Would God overpopulate your family?

I’m right there with Mike Garner… all the reasons for using birth control listed here are bad reasons, but what other reasons are there? What are the good reasons?


21. Steve
February 5, 2007
8:48 PM

I also wonder about good reasons to use contraceptives. Apart from the health and safety of the mother, I can’t think of anything. Tim’s Bad Reason #3 (Selfishness) pretty much sums up all of the reasons I can conceive for why a couple wouldn’t want to risk conceiving. (Sorry, bad pun.) I’m an evangelical Protestant; but on the issue of birth control I think I stand more closely with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.


22. Peter R.
February 5, 2007
9:36 PM

I also wonder about good reasons to use contraceptives. Apart from the health and safety of the mother, I can’t think of anything. Tim’s Bad Reason #3 (Selfishness) pretty much sums up all of the reasons I can conceive for why a couple wouldn’t want to risk conceiving.

Building one’s family through adoption strikes me as a good (and entirelyunselfish reason.


23. afrikaner
February 5, 2007
9:50 PM

Blake asked: What are the good reasons?

Dear Blake

I’m writing as non-north american….

I’m not sure whether there are ‘good reasons’ but there are reasons, which God in his wisdom, grace and providence, gives to each individual couple - which must therefore be good. Then there are reasons which clearly are unwise and selfish reasons - in fact sinful reasons in rebellion against God - greed and selfishness would seem to be upper most here. (In third world countries there might well be good reasons to restrict the size of families - and I speak from first hand experience, not from theory or by pontificating from a distance).

When we were first married, I was studying for a university degree, my wife was just starting at her first job after finishing uni (she being older than myself). We did not have much money, we lived in a 1 room apartment - no great shakes, so do many people when they’re first married. My wife was sole income earner and for her to have become pregnant would have placed us in economic position whereby I could not have completed a five year medical degree. (My calling at that stage in life was to work in the medical field, which I have done since graduation.) In addition at the beginning of our marriage I was coming to grips with a number of tragic family circumstances, and frankly could not have coped with being a father so soon after marriage. So it seemed ‘good to us’ (ala it seemed wise before God) to use contraception - a technology which I believe God has given us for good - temporarily delaying the beginning of our family.

However having completed my degree I could then be a supportive husband to my wife and so we then attempted to have children. It took several years and 2 miscarriages later, but God then allowed us to have 3 children in quick succession. We then had our fourth many years after our other 3 children. Where do we stand now? Do we still practice family planning now? Yes - but not with active intervention…… maybe we’re just too haphazard with the technology… but we avoid intercourse based on the time of the cycle. Why would we want to restrict the size of our family? Because we believe God is moving us to begin ministry in a third world country where by having dependent children, it would be very impractical to achieve that which God is giving us to do. In addition my wife has some medical issues. Then there are issues of care, finance, education etc….. I know these things can change and be provider for - we live under His sovereign providence, but remain convinced that it is not against the will of God if we seek to now restrict our family to four children.

So to summarise - each person needs to be convinced in their own mind but not lay a burden which is inconsistent with gospel thinking on any other.

Grace to you.


24. junction
February 5, 2007
10:04 PM

Peter, I think we have a fundamental difference. I could be wrong, but your responses seem to indicate that you believe there are some “natural processes” that God can intervene into if he so chooses, but that otherwise these natural processes will work apart from God. Why does God need to “prevent” something supernaturally that he created and has complete control over?

What’s your opinion of someone like George Mueller? Was he foolish?


25. Mandi
February 5, 2007
10:47 PM

This may seem harsh —- but I wonder if a couple should delay marriage until they are ready for children. Many of you have listed education as a reason for not having children….it seems to me these are perfectly legitimate reasons for not getting married. It seems a bit selfish to say to a woman, “I’m not quite ready to support you or a child but I still want to have sex with you so let’s get married.”


26. Lynnette
February 5, 2007
10:47 PM

Thank you for the articles and I will refer them to those who ask me. My husband and I have 9 children (yes they are all ours and they came from my very own womb.) I truly love it when others tackle this subject. I am seeing a whole new generation of young people taking this on and making some good thoughtful decisions. At least they aren’t assuming that birth control, i.e. the pill, is the normal way. But, I also see that so many are very fearful of having children. Not the raising of them so much, but the process of birth fill them with fear. As a midwife, my mission is to help women understand that women can be blessed through birth.

And to address the adoption part being unselfish. Why does it have to be one or the other? Do both. Or adopt if the natural way doesn’t work. Let God do the deciding. I could go on and on, but will spare you all.


27. afrikaner
February 5, 2007
11:08 PM

Dear Mandi
I’m sorry - it was better and biblically correct to marry - ‘better to marry than to burn’. Again I feel no biblical condemnation from having delayed having children within wedlock and my the gracious means God had provided. I would have been condemned though if my passions caused me to commit fornication.


28. Peter R.
February 5, 2007
11:25 PM

I could be wrong, but your responses seem to indicate that you believe there are some “natural processes” that God can intervene into if he so chooses, but that otherwise these natural processes will work apart from God.

Not quite. A sexually mature and healthy man and woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant. What happened?! On one level, we would say that God has exercised His sovereignty and blessed them with the gift of a child. Absolutely. But on another level, a physical process has taken place - the strongest swimmer reaches the egg and fertilizes it. Does this process take place “apart from God”? Well, no. God does not look down from heaven, aghast that sex has resulted in pregnancy. God created it. Could a pregnancy occur without the natural process? Sure. Off the top of my head, I can think of three examples from the Bible where this happens - Sarah and Elizabeth were barren and Mary was a virgin. These are examples of God suspending the natural order (“super-natural”) to accomplish His purposes.


29. DrLiz
February 6, 2007
12:32 AM

Only one thing you said concerned me, and that was about the “rhythm method” and abstinence being possibly unbiblical if one partner struggled with lust.

While couples are not to deny one another, that doesn’t mean sex on demand any day or time. Orthodox Jews observe a specified time of abstinence centered around a woman’s cycle (a period around the period, so to speak), as they believe God commanded to Moses (see Lev. 15, and 20:18). I’m not saying that Christians are bound by these laws, btw, but these certainly would indicate that a length of time as long as 7 days is not “denying” one another excessively. (Yes, men had multiple wives, but that was not God’s plan for marriage.)

Of course, most of the time, a period does not last 7 days, and neither does a woman’s optimal fertile time. So, if a couple wishes to delay or avoid children, they may have to abstain approximately an extra 4 days a month around her fertile time. I don’t think this comes close to denying one another. If so, why would we expect a man to wait, for example, after a woman has given birth — if he lusts, must she accomodate him or is she otherwise denying him in opposition to scripture?

By the way, I second the guy above who recommended natural family planning and noted that it is NOT just the “rhythm method” that Tim dismissed so readily.

I’m single, so I realize that I haven’t walked a mile in the shoes of those who have to make these decisions. Or, I could more accurately say, those who get to make these decisions. Facing 40, I find myself struggling with (unexpressed) anger toward those friends who are in their early 30’s and have decided to limit their families to one or two children (and taken definitive steps toward permanent prevention). I find it hard to imagine why they would so limit the blessing of children that I desire but God has not provided (and I suspect married but infertile couples struggle with the same issues).

By the way, this does not mean that I think every couple should try to have as many children as physically possible - it’s absurd to assume that those who don’t believe in using birth control think that pregnancies should follow one on top of another as soon as physically possible. Of course, in biblical times, women would exclusively breast feed longer, which would delay a return to fertility. (And to address the inevitable comments, yes, I know that breast feeding - especially as done by most women today - is not necessarily reliable birth control.)


30. Ralph H
February 6, 2007
4:53 AM

Ok, don’t flame me, I hesitate to even bring this up, but I have always had a very queasy feeling on this subject….I don’t want to bring any children into the world because the chances are they will spend eternity in Hell. For the damned, it would have been better if they had never been born…..so I think it would be infinitely selfish to bring someone into the world when there is a chance they will be tortured forever. Were I facing the lake of fire, I would wish never to have been born.

I can’t imagine tossing the dice on someone else’s behalf.


31. Emily Payne
February 6, 2007
7:42 AM

Very interesting and thoughtful discussion (and well kept free of acrimony), thank you.

A few thoughts, though.

1) Pregnancy is harsh on a woman’s body. It depletes the strength of her bones, saps her muscular strength and so on and so forth. It takes time (read, years) to recover from this and I don’t think it’s unreasonable (or selfish) for a couple to space their children apart to guard the health of the mother. Often the full effects of too many children too close together are only seen much later in life with bones weakened with severe osteoporosis, and so forth.

2) I also agree with what some of the people above have said. We have not heard much in defence of valid reasons for using birth control. This would be a valuable addition to the debate.

3) Someone suggested that those not ready for children should not marry. I agree to the extent that if you are not prepared to face the possibility of children you should not marry (nothing but abstinence being a perfect method), but I don’t necessarily think that means you should wait until you are ready for a child, to marry.
From my own perspective, my husband and I have been married less than a year; we aren’t in a position to lose my income, and if I’m honest I am neither ready nor willing to become a mother at this point - but I am committed to becoming so.
That doesn’t mean God wouldn’t provide if I did become pregnant; it doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be healed enough to cope with motherhood; it doesn’t mean that my heart wouldn’t fill with love and joy and blessing at the experience. But it does mean that we make the choice to wait before having children - but our marriage is such a joy and blessing that I cannot believe that God wouldn’t want us to share it in the meantime.

4) And one last thought…I know that the reluctance of young women like myself can be painful to people who haven’t been blessed with children. This is not something I write wanting to hurt anyone, as I can’t control what they have and don’t have. But when I look at my life and with reverence and in obedience to God as best I understand it make my decisions, I would hope no one would condemn me for choosing to focus on other things before becoming a mother. There is so much to life that I would like to learn and experience and do, so much that is difficult or impossible with a young child, I find it hard to understand that anyone would begrudge me a little time for other things first. Once a mother I will never be able to go back, that burden and responsibility and duty will always be there.

I hope this is a useful contribution…


32. lauren
February 6, 2007
9:17 AM

Emily-

I want to make it clear from the start that my message is coming from a loving and prayerful place. It’s hard to clarify tone online and I don’t want this to be misunderstood as blind condemnation.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to delay childbearing, but it really seems like your thought process is coming more from a worldly arena than a Godly one.

“There is so much to life that I would like to learn and experience and do, so much that is difficult or impossible with a young child, I find it hard to understand that anyone would begrudge me a little time for other things first. Once a mother I will never be able to go back, that burden and responsibility and duty will always be there.’

This statement worries me because it screams of our child-as-burden society. The feeling I get from reading this is that you see motherhood as a burdensome obligation, rather than a blessing. I encourage you to prayerfully ask God direction in this matter.

My other concern deals with your assumption that fertiliy is something to take for granted. I can not tell you how many women I see who were on birth control for many years only to find themselves infertile when they finally felt ready to “settle down”. Yes, God is in control of your fertility and can bless you at any time, but it is unwise to take fertility for granted.

I say this as someone who did just that, and am now finding myself functionally infertile at a very young age. I belive that God wil provide, but how I wish I hadn’t been so arrogant as to close my own womb, even only for a short while.


On the subject of birth control in general, I belive that any artificial method interfers with the bond of sex. It moves sex from a realm of mutual giving(literally) into a form of self-centered, but mutal gratification. If there’s interesst I’ll go further into this, but for now I think I should wrap up this comment before it becomes too long.

God bless,
Lauren


33. Lynnette
February 6, 2007
10:18 AM

I would also argue that God designed women to bear children and that pregnancy alone is not “harsh” on her body. Stress is harsh on the body. We can make good decisions about how we care for the body. In my studies, I have not seen that pregnancy is a time of depletion of the bones (it is a time of positive calcium absorption) or saps muscular strength (we don’t have to become inactive through pregnancy.) Lifestyle choices in how we live, work, and eat are more important. I am much more healthy after bearing nine children than my mother was after bearing only two. The stress of a full time job has taken a much bigger toll on her health than my life of less money and more kids.

Just wanted to say that science hasn’t proven the statements made by a previous response.

As for potentially bringing children into the world that might go to hell- whew, I am glad that I am part of a church family that doesn’t believe that. I prefer to see it as a potential to build the Kingdom.


34. TeresaHT
February 6, 2007
10:50 AM

Many couples use brief periods of abstinence as part of the “rhythm method” of birth control.

Just a quick correction: it seems that you are mistakenly using the term “rhythm method” to refer to all methods involving “periodic abstinence.” This is not correct. In fact, it’s a pet peeve of Natural Family Planning users. The “rhythm method” is a method which makes predictions about fertility based solely on past cycles. I know that some people still use it, but it is not widely encouraged these days. A modernization of it, the Standard Days Method, may be gaining in popularity, but the SDM can only be used by some women.

I think you are probably thinking of Natural Family Planning, which determines fertility based primarily on physical signs, including cervical mucus and waking temperature. Though it operates on the same basic principle as the rhythm method, in that the goal is to abstain during the time of fertility, modern NFP methods work very differently, and NFP users do not like their methods to be inappropriately labeled the rhythm method, since the latter method has, justly, a reputation for inaccuracy. You can use the term “periodic abstinence” if you wish to refer to all the different methods at once (rhythm, Standard Days, symptho-thermal NFP, ovulation method, Marquette model, Creighton Model, etc.).


35. cmatt
February 6, 2007
10:51 AM

I write concerning the use of the pill… The medical literature describing the action of the pill is clear… it prevents a fertilized egg (person) from implanting (abortion).

Unless Dr. Frields et al have done the research necessary to determine that this has never happened, and will never happen, then the possibility of abortion exists (regardless of the perceived liklihood), thereby making it an illegitimate choice of a contraceptive for Christians who don’t want to murder, whether by knowledge or by ignorance.

A professional’s “feelings” don’t count as much as the hard scientific evidence. But, who is going to perform such experiments to verify the truth or falsehood of the statements of the pill manufacturers? Do they have any interest in doing so? Can Christian leaders? Dr. Frields? Nazis? Who would stand to benefit from the tests?


36. katie
February 6, 2007
11:16 AM

The birth control pill does not terminate, it is a preventative method. Once the egg is fertilized the pill has proven to be ineffective. Even if one believes that life begins at conception, the pill cannot interfere with this belief because again the pill does no terminate the pregnacy but attempt to revent it. The same rule holds for the morning after pill. It is an intense form of birth control and is not 100% effective and only works to prevent pregnancy, it cannot terminate. Therefore, it seems to me that all forms of birth control are Christian as non of them actually terminate life they merely prevent it from occuring in the first place. Ironically, if birth control were more readily available, especially the morning after pill we would see a severe decrease in abortion, which to some Chritians is termination of life.


37. GodsControl
February 6, 2007
11:55 AM

Funny thing this argument boils down to one point for me, “The sovereign control of God to open and close the womb in spite of our best efforts to prevent or propagate.” But maybe this is just the Calvinist inside me screaming a point.


38. Ann J.
February 6, 2007
11:57 AM

Please read literature about the morning after pill very carefully. For example, here is a short article from the well-respected Mayo Clinic (link below). Notice this sentence “So taking emergency birth control the “morning after” isn’t too late to prevent pregnancy.” Then this:

“Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation).”
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592

They obviously don’t think a fertilized egg, an embryo, is a fetus, a baby. If you want to learn more about the morning after pill, check out this Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=morning+after+pill+abortifacient&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 (morning after pill abortifacient)

(Someone please tell me how to make *bold* show up in these comments—using Word, then copy paste,—or another way—thanks in advance)


39. Mike
February 6, 2007
1:08 PM

Wow, Tim. You really like to stir the pot, don’t you? I thought your post to be well thought-out, we reasoned, well put. Thanks.

I shouldn’t have read the comments, however, because it really hurts me to see the condemnation believers have for each other. Just saying “I’m not condemning anyone, BUT…” does not make it less of a condemnation.

To say that one’s choice to not have children at some point is arrogant infers a motive that the writer would have no way of knowing. To say that having sex with your spouse is self-centered if you’re using birth control is just a bit presumptuous. Engaging one’s spouse in one of the deepest forms of the expression of marital intimacy, seeking to give one’s spouse pleasure, is not self-centered.

Finally, why is it said to be selfish to not have children at some point in the marriage? One could say you are being selfish by having children. Selfishness is a motive, and one can only surmise what someone else’s motives are. I tire of people ascribing selfishness, or whatever motive, to others.


40. Mandi
February 6, 2007
1:35 PM

Katie,

You should consider reading the actual research concering MAP and it’s effect on unplanned pregnancies/abortions (basically there is none in any of the research that has been done…they even gave the women free pills which they had at their home in advance and it still impacted unplanned pregnancies in no way).

And your summary of the Pill is correct in that it can’t actually kill an embryo (directly). No one here is saying this. However studies have shown that women who are on the Pill rarely achieve an endometrial thickness of more than say 3-6mm. A thickness of @15mm is needed for an embryo to be able to implant in a woman’s uterus and continue thriving. If the endometrium is not thick the embryo will literally die from starvation and be expelled out of the body. So while the Pill does not directly seek out and destroy the embryo it is indirectly the cause of the embryo’s death.


41. DrLiz
February 6, 2007
2:06 PM

Tim:

I would agree that one could be selfish by having children - for example the 66 year old woman who lied to have IVF. Like, this woman can be seen as selfish because she considered her own desire to have a child above the likely good of the twins born prematurely to a single mother who is 66 (this same combination of donated egg and sperm could have been implanted in a more suitable candidate and would likely face a very different life). In this sense, this has become all too common to be selfish not just in decisions to have children - especially in situations that would not result in children in nature, such as a lesbian couple having “their” baby - but also in wanting to “design” the perfect child and abort any seen as less than desirable.

But just because one can be selfish in having children does not mean that we should not consider the selfishness that may be part of the decision to not have children. And considering motives that are common in a situation is not the same thing as impugning someone’s motives given a specific situation.

Plus, we tend to think of selfish in terms of whether we make a decision without taking others (humans) into account, because that is the most common, everyday usage of the word. But, one can be selfish by not taking God into account even if one would not normally ascribe a selfish motive in our everyday usage of the word. (In fact, we can take other humans into accounty and not take God into account). Undoubtedly, we are all selfish because even if we take God “into account”, we are still in the process of sanctification and thus take ourselves too much into account and God too little into account in everything we do. The point of sanctification, I gather, being to take us from “more me, less God” to “more God, less me”.

But I don’t think that to say something is selfish because it puts a person’s desires before God’s desire is ascribing a “selfish motive” in the same manner as the everyday usage of this word.


42. Dallas
February 6, 2007
2:25 PM

“But just because one can be selfish in having children does not mean that we should not consider the selfishness that may be part of the decision to not have children. And considering motives that are common in a situation is not the same thing as impugning someone’s motives given a specific situation.”

This is very true. There COULD be selfish reasons for not having children, but there does not HAVE to be selfish reasons for not having children. There is no doubt that children are a great blessing from God. So is marriage, so is martyrdom. Choosing to forgo one blessing from God to experience different blessings is not selfish. Just as choosing to remain single, or choosing to marry. In both you forgo some blessings to experience others.

I think this is a very personal matter. One that Christians should not go out of our way to condemn each other about if there is not a blatant scripture verse proving the point. Much grace and love should be considered in this debate.


43. Margaret W.
February 6, 2007
3:08 PM

ANY form of birth control which involves chemicals has the potential to act as an abortifacient. That is why they are so “effective”.

Is anyone here aware of the fact that until 1930, EVERY major denomination of Christians condemned ALL artificial methods of birth control as immoral and “tearing asunder” what “God hath joined together? For 1900+ years, the church fought on just about every doctrinal matter imaginable, but Christians stood shoulder to shoulder on this issue. For more information, you can check out www.ccli.org.


44. Mandi
February 6, 2007
4:37 PM

I wanted to comment on the thinking that it is okay to use birth control because it can’t really stop God’s will anyway. I have actually counseled “Christian” women who had abortions who said to me, “If God wants this baby to live He will stop me from going to the clinic.” How is the first line of reasoning any different from the example I’ve given? This sort of logic is frightening to me.


45. Sally
February 6, 2007
5:06 PM

Dear Mandi,
You have raised a good point. In the end it boils down to whether God is actually controlling and influencing everything we do and everything that happens to us. If He wants someone on the pill to become prgnant will be cause her to miss a pill and thereby cause a pregnancy. if He doesn’t want her to become pregnant will he prevent conception even at her fertile time? I personally do not believe God controls at the level of the fine details and that we have to have responsibility for the outcome of our decisions and not just say that God’s will is going to determine every detail. So the babies’ souls may come from God, but I don’t believe he preordains exactly who is going to have those babies and when or what exact embroyos those souls end up in. I know a lot of people feel otherwise, however. To use a less emotional example, since I teaxhc at a college, why should students bother to study for my exams? I could argue that if it is God’s will for them to get an A in my class, he will cause them to remember the answers to the questions without studying. And if it is God’s will for them to fail, no matter how hard they study it will not make a difference.


46. afrikaner
February 6, 2007
6:03 PM

To Emily

Your reasoning is fine. God has given us all things richly to enjoy and there are seasons in life to do so. We are blessed in developed nations materially and with things such as time for recreation, travel etc. Here where I live sometimes it takes years of both couples earning as well before it is possible to be financially stable for the wife to stop work to have children. That’s just the way it is culturally. It would be nice if it weren’t so - but that’s the way it is…

I would encourage you to use wisdom - which you sound like your doing. Enjoy your spouse and the time together without children and maybe one day God in His sovereignty will grant you children - enjoy that period of life too. I’ve ‘been there - done that’ - God has blessed us in both periods. (Now He is blessing us in our middle age years - we are becoming empty nesters. Do we practice birth control now? Yes - for many reasons…… and I don’t in any way feel condemned by my conscience or other people’s opinion. Nor do I condemn other people if they wish to continue to have their family grow. these are faith issues, freedom in Christ issues.

As I said in an earlier post - it would have been very unwise of us to have started a family (or attempted to) in our early position of marriage. Please - enjoy your gospel freedom and all the good things God gives us - including your mind your will and your emotions, and all the riches of where we live in terms of technology or understanding.

Try not to be spiritually blackmailed into thinking that somehow or other you are being disobedient in not starting a family as soon as you are wedlocked…. but God gives freedom to you if you also do want to start a family soon.


47. Michael Garner
February 6, 2007
6:20 PM

“For 1900+ years, the church fought on just about every doctrinal matter imaginable, but Christians stood shoulder to shoulder on this issue.”


I do think that this is something that is often overlooked in our culture where the majority of people believe Birth Control is not only acceptable, but even encouraged. Of course we should not make arguments solely on the tradition of various denominations, but the fact that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Weslyan, Reformed, Anglican, etc., have all agreed on this issue should at LEAST make us think very carefully before declaring that it is perfectly acceptable, indeed condemning those would suggest otherwise as “Pharisaical.”

In Christ alone,
mike


48. afrikaner
February 6, 2007
6:55 PM

It does become Pharisaical when one’s gospel freedom to make choice is removed by those who want to make it law. As Tim so well put it - it is an issue of freedom where the Bible is silent.


49. lauren
February 6, 2007
7:13 PM

Mike, I would ask that if you take issue with what I say you direct your response to me rather than indicting the entire group while “quoting” only my statements.

That said, I don’t think you’re quite understanding my stance. To begin, I never called Emily arrogant, but rather called my own thinking arrogant and warned not to make my same mistakes. If the “glove fits” so to speak, then my message wil have personal meaning in her life. It would be irresponsible of me as a sister in Christ to not share my own shortcomings in order to help prevent another from going down the painful road.

The idea of birth control cheapening sex is something that I see again and agian with my work in the prolife community. Because the reproductive and, indeed, consummative aspect of sex is seen as a “failure” the overall act of sex is weakened. When partners are refusing part of themselves, it is impossible to fully give to the other. It is common sense that one can not both hold back and give fully.

While I agree that seaking to give your partner pleasure is far from selfish, if the gift of pleasure is not accompanied by the gift of self, it becomes a gift of hedony rather than love.

I understand that this is not the thought process of birth controling couples, but it is the natual consequence of seeking to seperate the end from the means so to speak.

The issue becomes even more profound when we realize how the birth control mentality has affected the abortive mentality. Children are seen as a “failure”. I can not reiterate this enough. The paradigm of children as blessing is replaced by one of children as curse. It is not a far reach then, for parents to “fix” the curse through abortion.

I ask that my words are considered. I know that to be against birthcontrol is not a popular position, but it is one that I feel very strongly against. I worry that the mentality is so infused in our society that my loving words seem overly harsh.

Our societies views on birth control and children have influenced the body of Christ. I pray that Christians will evaluate their worldview and prayerfully consider to stop the use contraception.


50. Sally
February 6, 2007
7:21 PM

Emily,
You said”The issue becomes even more profound when we realize how the birth control mentality has affected the abortive mentality. Children are seen as a “failure”. I can not reiterate this enough. The paradigm of children as blessing is replaced by one of children as curse. It is not a far reach then, for parents to “fix” the curse through abortion.”

While this may be true for SOME people, it sounds as if you are implying it applies to all people who may use birth control. I can assure you that in my experience, most of my friends used birth control to space and time their children but they would never in their wildest dreams have had an abortion. And not a sinlge one of them considered their children to be a curse or failure.


51. lauren
February 6, 2007
7:47 PM

Sally, I think you’re talking to me, I’m actually Lauren. My first post was in response to Emily. I’m sorry that I made that confusing. Also, I don’t think I did a very good job explaing the link of the birth control mindset and abortion so I’m going to try again.

I don’t mean that couples individually begin to devalue life because of birth control (though I’m sure this happens), but rather that our social view of children is altered because of their status of “birth control failure” or “curse” and this in turn influences the cultural view of prenatal children.

Christians are culpalble in this only because their acceptance of birthcontrol allows the cultural perception to expand. I don’t know if I’m explaing this very well, but essentially the Christian acceptance of birth control allows the social view of child as “failure of contraception” which in turn devalues children and proliferates abortion.

Though individual Christians may never dream of aborting a child, and churches may never advocate it, the overall acceptance of birthcontrol by the Body has contributed to the widespread issue of abortion.

To be clear, this is not an individual critique of Emily or any other Christian who uses birth control, but rather of the religious communities complacency regarding the issue.


52. Michael Garner
February 6, 2007
9:17 PM

Afrikaner,

“It does become Pharisaical when one’s gospel freedom to make choice is removed by those who want to make it law. As Tim so well put it - it is an issue of freedom where the Bible is silent.”


My point was that 1900 years of church history argued that it was NOT a matter of Christian liberty (freedom). I am fine with you calling every single avenue of Christianity for 1900 years “Pharisaical,” but would simply caution you to think twice before using such strong language for a view that Christians have only mildly accepted in the last 80 years.

Furthermore, the fact that you (or even Tim) claim that something is “freedom” does not make it so. Constantly appealing to yourself (and experiences) as an authority is unconvincing. In any case, even if we are to use Tim as an authority, the majority of reasons listed to support Birth Control in the comments have also been included in Tim’s Illegitimate Reasons section.

I’m still hoping that he will provide some of the Legitimate reasons for birth control. When you actually have reasons, you can evaluate them on their merits (just as Tim did in the illegitimate reasons section). Hopefully we will be given an opportunity to do that.

In Christ alone,
mike


53. Jerry M
February 6, 2007
9:52 PM

Great posts, Tim - - - and interesting discussion as well. Thanks for covering this topic. I think it is an issue that Christians should be discussing more of. I agree that it needs to be seen as an area of freedom - but I also feel that far too many people make the decision based on selfish, material motives without even considering the morality of their decision.

I once heard a Catholic position stated on the issue and the bottom line was that all forms of birth control [excluding natural family planning or rhythm method] are unnatural and go against what God intended the sexual relationship to be. i.e. many of the arguments against auto eroticism could be turned against birth control as well. I think where Protestants generally go is to argue that the purpose of sex is not only to produce children but for marital bonding, etc. On and on the debate goes.


54. Jerry M
February 6, 2007
9:58 PM

Michael - I don’t know if it’s fair to argue 1900 years of church history. I think it would be better to recognize that most Christians throughout history never even had the option. We are facing new moral [or immoral] ground on this one starting about 75 years ago.


55. afrikaner
February 6, 2007
10:29 PM

Dear Michael

You paint a thoroughly incorrect view as to what I have been saying wrt to legalism. I sir, certainly am not appealing to myself as any sort of authority. Scripture is the only authority - that is where you find gospel principals. Simply teaching a moral principle in a way that’s elevated above its real applicability becomes legalism. And there are gospel principals of Romans 14 which I appeal to. To my conscience it is not sin to use the means of contraception within marriage. Methinks it must be to you - I am not to bind your conscience - nor you mine. If or when you do - it becomes legalism.

Interestingly a search on a Christian View on Contraception on wikepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Individual_conscience_or_commandment.3F
shows the spectrum of Christian opinion on the subject.

I’m not alone in stating that for one Christian to bind the conscience of another becomes legalism.

From the article above:
“Jeremy R. Pierce states …. Is held by those who are weak of conscience and can’t get around an extremely simplistic reading of some biblical statements. For them, it is wrong to use birth control pills and condoms, because it would be doing something that they believe to be wrong. It isn’t wrong in principle, however, and those who have thought through the various moral principles that apply will realize that sometimes it’s wrong to use such methods and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

Pierce further notes that when more mature Christians impose one “correct” view of contraceptive use or non-use upon less mature Christians, “It becomes legalism much like that of the Pharisees”, a view that Protestant leaders such as Rainey, Dobson, Jordan, Mohler, Payne, and the Feinbergs maintain”.

Methinks I have touched on a raw nerve so will back off and leave the subject.

Thank for your strong admonishment. I believe it was well intended to bring me back into line to search for scriptural principals. I’m sure too that is what some meant when the early church saw gentiles being saved but not obeying the food and ceremonial laws of the jews, and became stressed that they should do so.
Thankfully we have the teachings of grace.


56. Todd H.
February 6, 2007
10:29 PM

I find it interesting that I’ve read through every comment here so far, and I don’t recall reading one reference to a Scripture passage.


57. Ginger
February 6, 2007
11:36 PM

Definitely some interesting and well thought out discussion. A quick observation about bad reasons vs. acceptable reasons to use birth control: the decision to delay child bearing until you are in a better position financially is not necessarily a fear of provision. Maybe I’m mis-reading the implications of some of the posts, but I get the feeling that some see any decision to delay child bearing or limit family size because of finances as either a fear or selfishness. I’d like to suggest that this is not always the case. It’s a difference that can only be seen in the heart and mind of the ones who have made the choice.

A fear of provision indicates just that- a fear. An attitude that can’t possibly trust God to provide for you no matter the situation. Selfishness might trust that God would provide but, knowing that will mean more work in living on a tight budget, doesn’t want to put forth the effort. An God-honoring reason might be acknowlegement that the delay would result in a better life for the child, whether that be that you can provide for them better or they benefit from not having to have a mom who has to work for extra income. Or perhaps, in the case of limiting the family size, you can better provide for the children if the family is a certain size (and that can go for both the attention and time that goes into raising each child as well as financially). All three cases would look the same on the surface, but in the heart and mind God can see the true motive.

Thanks to all those who commented for challenging me to think about this issue and explore my own motives and attitudes about it! Thanks to Tim for beginning the discussion as well.


58. Stenides
February 7, 2007
1:05 AM

People who do not think they can provide for their children should have them?

People who do not like children should have them?

Children are people brought into the world by the decision of one or both of their parents. They are a privilege and an enormous obligation and responsibility. They are obliged to live in this world, and endure its troubles. You, as the parent, are obliged to provide the very best nurturing and preparation for them. This is not a task for a person who has been guilt-tripped into having a child they really did not want in order to conquer their selfishness or display their loyalty to the full quiver verse in Proverbs.

I cannot imagine what could provoke a person to say that people who do not like, do not want and believe that they cannot provide for children should have them.

Would the ASPCA give someone a DOG under those circumstances? And yet Christians are encouraging each other to have babies under those circumstances.


59. Michael Garner
February 7, 2007
1:37 AM

“I find it interesting that I’ve read through every comment here so far, and I don’t recall reading one reference to a Scripture passage.”


The simple fact is that Birth Control is not something covered explicitly by scripture. Both sides of the debate get to their respective views with inference. In some senses, you could say it is similar to the Smoking/Drinking debate held between some Christians.

This, at the very minimum, should remind us to be charitable in the midst of an explosive issue.

————————————————


“We are facing new moral [or immoral] ground on this one starting about 75 years ago.”

I wouldn’t say that this a fair statement. It is true that some forms of Birth control are relatively new and therefore most of church history would not have had to interact with them. Nevertheless, the issue of Birth control in general has been addressed throughout church history (This is especially evident if you look at the Reformation era writers: Luther, Calvin, etc).

In Christ alone,
mike


60. Alex Moore
February 7, 2007
1:40 AM

This late in the game it’s almost pointless to bring it up, but in response to, “Bad Reason #4: Fear of Overpopulation - There is very little evidence that human overpopulation is an imminent problem or that it will ever be a problem. God created this world to house and sustain us and He gave us no cause to worry about overpopulating it.”

Errgh… I dunno. In the event that all the Republicans and major Christian leaders in America are wrong and global warming is a real threat and can be linked to the equally real threat of overpopulation, I would hate to be part example number 10,957 that Christians hate science.

God created this world to house and sustain us, but he also gave us brains and scientific method, and ignorance of the latter means sacrifice of the former.

Every thanksgiving we see some idiot with a turkey fryer burn to ruins what was originally created house and sustain him.


61. ianmcn
February 7, 2007
4:29 AM

For those who believe birth control interferes with God’s sovereignty over the womb, would you also say that using something like a pacemaker interferes with God’s sovereignty over your death?


62. Ann J.
February 7, 2007
7:54 AM

ianmcn, you have a good point.

Things to think about:
1. God is sovereign over all things.
2. God has given mankind the responsibility to manage the earth.
3. God allows us to sin.
4. Even our best motives are tainted with selfishness.
5. The Bible does not explicitly or implicitly forbid birth control— be gracious in our judgments of others.


63. Mandi
February 7, 2007
9:57 AM

Sally,

In a book called “Answering the Call” by John Ensor he makes a point that if just Christians stopped aborting the abortion industry would take a huge hit financially ——- possibly to the point of not being able to financially support itself. I can’t even tell you the number of women who I have seen end up aborting but also claiming Christ. I just had a young married girl abort because she knew “God would forgive her.” I also had another girl abort because she had a dream and her baby did not have a face in the dream and this was God telling her the baby was not meant to live. I could go on and on with these stories. The common thread was that EVERY single one of these women were using some sort of birth control — whether it be condoms, the Pill, Depo-provera, etc. More birth control equals more abortion. California spends more money than any other state on birth control - and they have the highest abortion rate in America. Then you have a state like Nebraska that spends the least amount of money on birth control and has one of the lowest abortion rates.

How many people reading this have more than 3 children and have heard horribly mean things at church about their family size? I have 4 boys and have personally heard (at church) “What are you 2? Rabbits?!” —- “Better you than me.” —- “Don’t you know how that happens?” —- etc. This story repeats with other friends in other churches. This is not a body of Christ that is valuing and treasuring children.

Mandi


64. DrLiz
February 7, 2007
11:48 AM

Mandi - I agree that it is very sad that in the church the most rude comments (under the umbrella of “just kidding”) seem to go to those with large families - even just 4 kids is enough to earn status as an abnormally large family these days. And that’s sad. (Not that the way to fix this is to start saying rude things to those with small families, btw!)

Alex Moore - the myth of world overpopulation as a serious fear was debunked long ago. The bigger problem most countries have now is low birth rates, too low to sustain economic development, in some cases not even half the “replacement rate”.

And I agree completely with Lauren that modern birth control (“the pill”) is one more thing (in addition to abortion and euthanasia, which have unmistakably obvious connections) that contributes to the devaluation of human life that modern cultures have experienced. (There are other things that have also contributed, but that’s another thread.) As far as I can tell, women “lost” the sexual revolution. I’m using the term “sexual revolution” to refer to the sexual “freedom” and promiscuity that came with supposedly “consequence-free” sex. (This is completely separate from issues of equality under the law that came about when gender was added to the civil rights act of 1964 - by the way, gender was added by a southern senator who did not want the act to pass, and so added gender figuring no one would take it seriously - ha ha for him!)

(That last part is your free U.S. history lesson for the day!)


65. DrLiz
February 7, 2007
12:36 PM

Many who condemn those of us who disagree with the use of birth control sound a lot like the liberals who urge “tolerance” with regard to “lifestyle choices” then condemn anyone who disagrees with their definition of tolerance (as “fully support and celebrate those with ‘alternative lifestyles”). [And no, I am NOT suggesting that the use of any kind of birth control is comparable to homosexual behavior, so don’t bother using that in some falsely indignant argument slamming me.]

At some point, you make a mockery of belief if it is merely something that you hold true for yourself but don’t care what anyone else thinks is true. That doesn’t mean you want to force it on others, or legislate it into dogmatic legalism. Being able to disagree on “non-essentials” (and even on what are “non-essentials” and what are not) does not mean that we have to agree that everyone’s beliefs or choices are equally valid. “Agree to disagree” means that perhaps we will politely avoid the subject, or we will debate it, but only when both parties are interested in engaging fully in the debate. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree that one side is doing what’s right for them while we’re doing what’s right for us.

That kind of thinking is the essence of the kind of relativistic humanism that has become so prevalent in society. It has been working its way into the church for some time now, and is such a part of culture now that it is very hard to identify how it affects the thinking of those within the church. [Including some of my own thinking, no doubt.]


66. deborah
February 7, 2007
12:38 PM

There hasn’t been much discussion about using birth control because of a serious medical issue (other than depression - which is serious).

Everytime I am preganant, I develop a condition that is fatal to the mother 1 out of every 3 cases and the baby is usually born premature. We wanted more children but decided during my last pregancy to have my tubes tied.

It was very difficult and sometimes I miss having more children, but we believe that God directed our decision. Having more children would have robbed our sons of a mother for 7 months - if it didn’t kill me in the process (or the baby).

Is God in control? Absolutely. No birth control is 100% effective and if he chooses to, we could have another child, but it isn’t likely.

We look at it this way: Driving a car can be dangerous. God is in control and in an accident, his will alone determines if I live or die, but I still put on a seatbelt.


67. Todd H.
February 7, 2007
1:10 PM

I have a question for those opposed to birth control.

Do you:

A) have sex as much as possible in order to have as many children as you possibly can?
OR
B) refrain at any given time in order to avoid becoming pregnant?

If your answer is B, you are exercizing a form of birth control and your logic (in my mind) is inconsistent.

If your answer is A, I’ll give you credit, but I’m still not buying the notion that it is a sin not to have as many children as humanly possible.

BTW for those looking for a legitimate reason for birth control, would 4 kids 4 and under be a good one? How about if the woman’s doctor strongly urges her never to become pregnant again? Yes both of those apply to me (well, my wife I mean). I would like to hear someone tell me I am sinning by using birth control in this case (we don’t use the pill)

TH


68. Dallas
February 7, 2007
1:47 PM

Your argument sounds good to me Todd. You are not killing babies, or saying killing babies is ok, and are practicing a form of birth control that is certainly not condemned in the Bible.

You are certainly not sinning, and I would not take seriously any argument from someone who is telling you you are sinning.


69. Mandi
February 7, 2007
1:49 PM

Todd - I will attempt to answer your question. I don’t believe that anyone here has said that each person should try to have as many children as possible. In all truth women are actually only fertile for 4% of their reproductive lives. It’s quite amazing that we get pregnant at all if you think about all the needed mechanisms that have to be precisely in place.

Now about NFP - I don’t see how NFP is similiar to birth control. God designed a woman’s body to have fertile and infertile times. NFP is working within God’s design. I or my husband are not doing anything to interfere with this design (either with barriers or chemicals). I will agree that couples can use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. I believe that most married couples report making love approx. 6-12 times a month (with the average really being more in the 6-8 range). If my husband and I were to take advantage of every “safe” day in NFP we could make love about 20 x’s per month. If I am in a fertile time and my husband really wants to be with me or I really want to be with him then we don’t refuse each other because of the “rules.” We practice NFP but we are very open to having more children. The only reason we started NFP was because after my last son (#4) I had a really horrific c-section experience (they have all been by c-section). Add to that my Rheumatoid arthritis and weight gain from pregnancy and I just felt my body needed a little bit of time to recover. I did nurse to extend my infertility but it returned when my son was 8 months old. What is funny is that since I have started charting I have discovered that right now I cannot get pregnant. My luteal phase is only 8-9 days when it needs to be more like 10-14 for a pregnancy to occur.

And about the doctor “strongly urging” —- I have found that most ob/gyn’s will give women any number of reasons to not have more children (they make alot more money pushing birth control and it takes less time then delivering). My own doctor told me it is unwise to have more than 3 c-sections….but when I did the research on my own all studies show no increased risk with subsequent c-sections. My problems during my last one were related to my undiagnosed anemia and not the c-section itself. I do believe there are legitimate medical reasons for a woman to delay childbearing — but I still think this can be done naturally via NFP (which is over 98% effective and couples who practice it have less than a 4% divorce rate).


70. Meredith B.
February 7, 2007
1:57 PM

I’ve read most of the comments and just wanted to add my two cents.

First of all, I echo everyone who has stated that we must enter a debate like this with humility and charity towards all. With that said, let me say something about our family’s situation. We have been married almost 11 years, never used birth control and have three children. I’ve also had two very early miscarriages. We hope God will bless us with more children. That said, let me make a few quick points.

I used to be quite prideful about this issue. I judged people’s motives without knowing their hearts. That is wrong and God has continued to show me where I need to repent in this area.

I think we can all agree on two facts - 1. Widespread use and acceptance of birth control in the church has only happened in the last 30-40 years. Before that it was rejected. 2. The most influential person in developing and promoting birth control was a eugenics minded racist named Margaret Sanger. While all of us would steadfastly reject her motives and philosophy I think we still need to investigate how much this worldview has permeated the church and our own thinking. I AM NOT SAYING that those who use birth control have the same worldview as Margaret Sanger. What I am saying is that we each have to be aware of how certain cultural beliefs and practices have influenced our thinking.

Just because a woman with a clearly anti-God worldview promoted and encouraged birth control technology doesn’t make that technology inherently sinful. If Thomas Edison happened to be a Nazi that wouldn’t make the lightbulb unacceptable. Some of you have wanted some legitimate reasons to use birth control. I have two. My sister-in-law gets so ill during her pregnancies that she is almost constantly vomiting. In all three of her pregnancies she has had to be hospitalized. I think in her case, it is wise not to put her body under such life threatening conditions by getting pregnant. Could God heal her of that? Yes, if that was His will. But I think it’s just wise stewardship for her not to have any more babies. Second, there is a family at church who had a child with very severe disabilities. They did not know it until after he was born. They then discovered that it was genetic and the chances of future children getting this disability would be 1 in 4. Their son is precious and the mother’s testimony of how God has worked in caring for him is very powerful. However, the son’s disability is extremely rare and very expensive to treat, not to mention very physically draining for the mother. Could they go ahead and trust God with the odds? Yes, but I am not going to condemn them if they decide to use birth control.

Another point - I agree with those who have been disappointed in the de facto response of most Christians to families with more than 3-4 children. While some may think it’s funny and don’t mean anything by comments such as, “Don’t you know what causes that?” I think we need to step back and really examine how we view children. Are they a blessing or a burden?

Finally, while my husband and I have chosen not to use birth control, I think it’s imperative that whatever our convictions may be, we need to show charity to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Too often the world sees us biting and devouring one another instead of loving and serving one another. It’s difficult to debate an issue like this in a God-honoring way. We (myself included), need to weigh our words and make sure they’re edifying.

Blessings to all.

P.S. - The chapter Doug Wilson wrote about this in his book Reforming Marriage is very balanced I think. Check it out.


71. Peter R.
February 7, 2007
2:20 PM

Mandi - I’d be interested to hear you elaborate on the logic that NFP is not birth control. I see an inherent contradiction in what you said. You list a 98% effectiveness rate as one of the merits of using NFP. How, exactly, is actively doing something that will prevent pregnancy 98% of the time (as good or better than the pill, condoms, IUDs, etc.) not birth control?


72. DrLiz
February 7, 2007
2:41 PM

One can always look at the difficult cases and find a reason to justify something universally based on the tough cases. For example, when the pro-choice people want to argue for abortion, they never bring out the woman who selectively aborted 3 or 4 babies because they all had an extra finger. They bring out the horrible incest-rape victim with the deformed fetus with the likelihood that full term pregnancy will kill the mother. Do I know what’s the right thing in that case? No, but I also don’t think that case then gives everyone a reason that abortion is okay (and I’m not talking legal or illegal, I’m talking moral).


73. Michael Garner
February 7, 2007
3:14 PM

Todd,

You said,
“If your answer is B, you are exercising a form of birth control and your logic (in my mind) is inconsistent.”

I will give you credit here. Although I definitely lean more in the direction of opposing Birth Control, I have never found NFP (Most popularly used by RCC members) a convincing alternative. It seems that most of the arguments against Birth Control (when the argument being used is not “this type of BC is abortive) could also apply to NFP.

So on that point, I strongly note your argument.

Regarding Point A, I think you already sense the weakness of that view. There is a substantive difference between not having sex as much as is humanly possible in order to increase the likelihood of conception and using artificial means to prevent children. The reason that I can be sensitive to your NFP argument is because that is still an artificial means to prevent pregnancy (even if the means occur outside of actual intercourse).

If you really do want my opinion on your situation, I’m not sure that 4 kids under age 4 is a great reason, but certainly understandable. I just want to thank you for raising kids in what is surely a very difficult situation! May God extend grace upon grace to you and your wife! The Medical question is something I am still wrestling with, so there is no way I would condemn you for that decision at this point.

May you continue to serve as a godly parent raising your 4 children in the fear and admonition of the lord.

In Christ alone,
mike


74. Lynnette
February 7, 2007
4:08 PM

I think the difference in viewing NFP or FAM as not the same as other forms of contraceptives is that it does not assume action without consequence. When a barrier or chemical is used to prevent conception, it is assuming that the sexual act will NOT be fruitful. In other words, saying I WILL do the act, but don’t want to consider the potential of the consequence of conception. When a couple abstains (or not) during fertile times, then they are accepting the natural, or God-given if you will, consequences of that action.


75. Todd H.
February 7, 2007
4:43 PM

Thanks everyone for your comments. I’m still trying to sort this one out.

Lynnette,
I would say NFP or FAM DOES assume that the sexual act will not be fruitful, otherwise what’s the point of NFP or FAM? Is it just to reduce the chances? My point is if you are doing NFP or FAM you are attempting to reduce the likelyhood of getting pregnant from sex. And that, in my opinion, is birth control (or maybe better put - conception control).

Are you saying the sole purpose for sex is to reproduce? or put another way, is it wrong to have sex unless it for the intent to reproduce?

If the true answer is no, and I believe it is, then it should also be true that I can have sex with my wife without the intent to concieve or even with the intent not to conceive - hence “contra-ception”.

TH


76. Peter R.
February 7, 2007
5:31 PM

I think the argument that non-abortive physical or hormonal birth control is sinful but NFP is OK is a little, shall we say, half-pregnant. :-)

As Todd points out, those who allow NFP by definition accept that exercising stewardship over the timing of children is acceptable. To put it differently, human control (to within a 2% margin of error, if you do your NFP correctly) over conception is acceptable. Sex with little or no possibility of conception is acceptable.

This reduces things to a debate over “natural” versus “non-natural” methods. We can have such a debate over practically anything pertaining to the human body. Is it a sin to drink pasteurized milk? You could hardly call it a “natural” product, especially if you’ve ever tasted the real thing straight from the cow. How about processed food? Whole, organic food is better for your body in the long-term. But we wouldn’t say that someone who eats processed food (non-gluttonously) is sinning. Medicine? Nettle tea does wonders for a stuffy nose, but it’s not a sin to take a Sudafed.


77. DrLiz
February 7, 2007
5:51 PM

Todd - it’s absurd (and a logical fallacy) to argue that NFP supporters would say that the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce — obviously, they believe in having sex (even) when the woman is not fertile!

Lynnette was very clear in her argument - whether the couple has sex or does not have sex, there are consequences to this decision. If y