Research indicates "morning-after" pills are non-abortive

We have to prevent those blessings from happening somehow... (Yes, said very sarcastically).

We as Christians spend so much time trying to talk ourselves out of children, and as much time trying to justify preventing them, all the while making sure we say they are God's gifts, etc. If children are truly a blessing, and they are God's heritage, and "happy is the man that has his quiver full of them," then why the extensive efforts to circumvent all of this? We voice one thing, but pursue the opposite. Either children are a blessing, and are to be received, or they are not, and need to be prevented. You can't really land on both sides of this fence.

Though I don't agree wholly with Al Mohler (I'm even more conservative than he is on this issue), he did a re-post on this yesterday. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/05/can-christians-use-birth-control-4/

[Steps down from soap box. ]

are those of us who are childless. Not by choice, but by the Providence of God. Are we somehow less blessed?

I believe you answer your own question, Rob. "by the Providence of God." I believe that this is outside of my point. I'm discussing actively rejecting God's gifts of children.

The Bible does recognize the pain and emptiness of the barren womb...

By that logic, it'd be wrong to eat/drink diet food/drinks so that you can enjoy them without gaining weight.

Limiting/planning the gift is definitionally not the same thing as not treasuring the gift.

I think people need to be really careful here, about what we accept as truth about hormonal contraceptives. Because, bottom line, you probably can't know if they're causing abortions or not.

So, I had to ask myself, am I willing to risk causing an abortion?

No.

My friend, food and drink are commodities, not eternal souls as children are (!). We do not consume children, we bear them as God's gifts. I do see that we are talking about the same thing when you are thinking pounds vs. souls.

We continue to do all the things I mentioned each and every day with whatever consequences that result (diet or otherwise). Why not the same with intimacy (which we enjoy).

Thanks for the discussion.

I don't know about that. My Christian Ethics professor in college told me quite the opposite, that the classic Protestant position is open to birth control (as opposed to the Romish one).

Did he actually cite any "classic Protestants" who held that view? Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon, to name three, were unalterably opposed.

Why was it still illegal in at least parts of America, even for married couples, until the mid-twentieth century, if the majority Protestants saw nothing wrong with it? It wasn't just that people spoke against it as a moral failing, it was actually illegal in Connecticut and other places until 1965.

Your professor may have been citing the "standard" Protestant position that most hold today, but it's a major stretch to call it the classic position. Provan claims he could find no one before 1900 that accepted it.

BOLD ADDED
Kevin,

would you make the bolded argument across the board in life? We believe God is sovereign over all things. Do you take the illness that come along without fighting them, since they are sent by God and used by Him (remember Paul's infirmity)? I am on dialysis for kidney failure. Perhaps I turned down God's intentions three years ago when I was diagnosed by seeking treatment to prevent my death at that time.

Well, if you haven't read their literature, catholics don't actually support the idea of "no family planning." Like their Couple-to-Couple League and stuff. They do a lot to teach natural family planning, so they are not anti-family-planning. They are just careful about what methods they use/promote. We all should be so thoughtful in this area, too.

I cannot follow your logic. Why would you seek to prevent (reject) the "meeting" of the egg and sperm if not to prevent the conception of a child? What other reason would there be? If God, from the very beginning, makes a male and a female (their distinctions are primarily reproductive), and commands them to be fruitful and multiply via the mechanism (and blessing) of intimacy, why would we work to prevent what God has designed to happen as normal result of this? If it is a good thing ("and God blessed them and said,..."), I still go back to my original post and ask why we are so bent on keeping that from happening?

Good question, Chip. This concept of medical treatment comes up often in the discussion of conception, but usually in a hypothetical realm. I first want say that I have first paused and prayed for God's grace, strength, and provision for you in your dialysis. May God continue to grow you close to him.

To respond to your question, I do not think that this is comparing apples to apples. My comments need to be taken in the context in which they are presented. Preventing life and preventing death are two separate issues, and are covered under different commands and principles. Treatment of a disease (or a result of a disease) is not the same as preventing pregnancy (which is NOT a disease). Seeking to prevent what God would give as far as conception goes is not in the same category as seeking medical assistance to heal or repair.

I am glad you are on dialysis. I am glad you are alive. I am glad we can have this discussion.

May God's strength uphold you, Chip.

I guess the arguments boil down somewhat to the question of whether we're permitted to enjoy things that don't fulfill their "primary function," whether it be procreation or nourishment or house raising.

Some among us have no qualms about using their God-given ivories to chew and suck upon calorie-free gum, which gives little if any nourishment to the body.

Yet is it at all possible to enjoy the taste (dare I say, artificially flavoured) per se to the glory of God?

And, for those able to make a further connection, is it possible to enjoy sexual intimacy and/or its physical pleasures per se to the glory of God without its "primary function" of procreation?

Actually, that's an excellent illustration--I should've thought of it!

There have been summer afternoons when I've enjoyed sitting behind the tinted windows of my minivan to simply chill by myself all quiet and all--going nowhere.

Is it at all possible I might have glorified the Lord while departing from Toyota's design altogether?

I mean, if we change the illustration to something other than the combative issue of contraception, could we get closer to an understanding of Christian liberty?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think--if all of life, including its intimate details, is in some way corporate worship and testimony (Eph. 3)--the question of Regulative vs the Normative Principle comes into play here?

The fifth Baptist distinctive is individual soul liberty. I believe this issue falls into that category. My wife comes from a large family (11 children) and we have 4 children (4 and under). Sadly we have seen that the ignorance of individual soul liberty in areas of non-abortive family planning can go both ways. Some people are very judgmental of large families and others are quite judgmental of those who do not have large families. When people are constantly questioning your family size, it is easy to get quite defensive- especially when the outcome is the result of an admirable trust in God.

On the other hand, we must be careful about judging decisions others have made from a stewardship standpoint. For example, my wife's cousin was facing some very serious health problems related to her multiple pregnancies. (she just had twins and they now have 12 children). Please do not misunderstand what I am saying- I am not suggesting that every woman will have health problems because of multiple births- but this mother did. Each couple will have to make a decision before God as to whether it is good stewardship before God to continue to have more children and risk having the children they already have lose their mother or whether to stop having children.

I recently tried to figure out how many arrows a quiver held. There is not one answer. A warrior on foot would typically carry a different amount of arrows than one on horseback. The point is that not all of us have the same size quivers. Let us be careful not to judge someone whose quiver is already full nor discourage someone from continuing to fill their quiver. I have also heard of families who have refilled their quiver (They have more children after the older children have grown), but I would not insist that others had to do it that way.

I understand that we all answer to God, and that ultimately what we are accountable to God for what we believe, and that we will give an answer to Him for every choice. There is no argument from me here.

Where I do find it interesting is what we have come to consider "matters of conscience" as opposed to essential core doctrines. We consider the trinity as one such core, and yet the doctrine of the trinity has to be developed through a collection and construction of passages throughout the Bible. (For the record, I am fully trinitarian.) However, something as clearly stated in Scripture regarding such things as the commands to married couples in the very first chapter of the Bible are considered "gray areas." Who decides what is essential, and who decides what is what is non-essential. I think that the Church has missed the Big Boat on this one, and it has resulted in confusion of marriage, s*xuality, gender identity, and our view of children. That's downright essential to culture, the Church, the family, and every area of life.

I believe that a proper view of marriage and gender are essentials, and they are worthy of discussion. I also believe that we have a tendency to argue with culture, not Scripture, and, as I stated earlier in this interaction, we ignore the Elephant in the Room. The church embraces what culture has taught, and largely ignores teaching on this, and even more so, discussing it.

Individual soul liberty is based upon differing understandings of Scripture in gray areas. I personally don't think this qualifies as a gray area. Individual soul liberty does not give us the right to reject things that we do not want to believe. It gives us the responsiblity to believe once we've studied, understood, and still find ourselves at odds with others.

It is true that people just in both directions. I believe that this is a result of bad teaching (you wouldn't believe what I was taught in Bible college...), and the Church's embracing of the world's views rathering that holding to what the Bible says. It is from both a lack of Biblical teaching and a result of outright erroneous teaching that has brought us to this point.

I find that this argument is often put forth. I don't think it to be part of the larger discussion, but as I've mentioned earlier, it is still a fair issue. First, I don't see the issue of "stewardship" as being the Biblical point here. Stewardship is often used as the excuse for not having children (I'll not present my arguments here for the sake of focus), which I do not find anywhere in Scripture (regarding not having children). If the issue is truly the life of the mother, then I think other principles apply. Most do not face this, and it is a straw man argument used to validate all arguments. (By the way, we've personally been there in that situation, so I'm not arguing from theory only. It has been the faith and understanding that any pregnancy has potential dangers that my wife has researched that has allowed us the privilege of having the children God gave us.) For the most part, people run from God's gifts, and use many arguments to do so.

If God is the Giver, who is to say that his/her quiver is full? I hope that is a fair question. I don't think anyone could argue that some will end up with no children, and others will end up with many. The issue is whether we decide or whether God decides. It seems evident that God commands, expects, and privileges us with children throughout Scripture.

If I were to proclaim modalistic view of the trinity, I would be condemned without the privilege of calling you judgmental. However, when I hold to something and express my disdain at the fact that the church avoids most discussion on this, we are quick to call them judgmental. I think this to be inconsistent when considering this topic.

I believe this to be an issue of theology (God's sovereignty in our design and in His involvement in conception). It has huge ramifications which have impacted marriage (roles of men and women), gender (functionally homos*xual marriages where the men and women are the same), our view and rejection of children which God would otherwise give, etc. Even the idea that we, as fallen human beings, can rightly determine of other eternal beings (and their offspring) should come into existence should cause us to evaluate who is God in our view.

Even Lewis takes time to discuss this latter issue:

And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument. ... And all long-term exercises of power, especially in breeding, must mean the power of earlier generations over later ones. (C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, pp. 68-69)

I believe there is much to talk about - much more than what has been talked about for a long time.

I do appreciate your input and perspective. It does bring to light circumstances in which one command or principle of God may overlap another, possibly causing us to change directions.

I would like to know who wrote the list of essentials, and who threw out the family as one of those essentials.

If you are arguing that God is in control of conception, and he is, and if every conception is then of supernatural origin (in that God is the one who ultimately decides when/how often a couple conceives), then what's the problem with contraception that does not destroy a fertilized egg? God's power to give the gift of a child is not diminished or hindered by modern medical science.
We just had a couple in the church get pregnant after she had her tubes tied. Clearly God was able and willing to overcome that interference, and if medical intervention is wrong in order to prevent pregnancy, then what about medical intervention to prevent death?

Congrats, Anne!! Wonderful!

Thank you for your questions. Here are my brief answers, along with some clarification afterwards:

No. It is not addressed. Neither is the make-up of marriage (though many churches are now adding a definition of marriage).
No. My teaching, when I have taught on the topic, has been to encourage people to consider what the Bible has to say. There is no requirement, written or unwritten.
There is no unanimous view on this. I don't believe I've ever had a discussion with our branch ministry leaders (deaf / Spanish).
I have not made it a stipulation. When I counsel couples, I encourage them to consider Scriptural teachings on the matter. I also warn them, if they choose to use birth control, to avoid any method that would potentially be abortive. I encourage them to consider children as a normal part of marriage, not an optional addition to it.
No. I would exhort them strongly regarding conception prevention versus life-ending methods, but encourage them to embrace the gifts of children God would give.
I do not differentiate an absolute from a conviction (a conviction, as I would understand it, would be something that I am persuaded to be true in Scripture, not an arbitrary choice or functional path, which would be an opinion). I would land on "absolute," because the Bible shares much about this that is hard to ignore or explain away.

To clarify, I would not be for "birth control" by definition (which includes abortion, as well as potential or confirmed abortifacient methods) which I believe to be the wrongly taking of life - murder). I believe that believers are limited to contraceptive methods, IF, upon studying the Bible, they land on the belief that they can claim that right before God. (I personally do not see that taught, or even hinted at, in the Word.) Most, I have found, have either never studied, or they have been told by pastors or professors that the Bible is silent on the matter (!).

To shed a bit more light on my perspective, teaching on this in our extremely anti-child, pro-prevention culture (in and out of church) is like teaching on the origins of the Bible in a KJV-only church. People are so steeped in the worldly perspective (as I would label it), and wrongly taught or ignored (in and out of church, including Bible colleges and seminaries) that you have to get people to begin thinking Biblically, and that takes time and gentleness.

Thank you for your examination and interaction. I truly appreciate it, and look forward to further sharpening.

Thank you. I do think that we need more serious study on this at all levels, and I think we are too quick to categorize "conception control" as wholly an area of individual liberty while ignoring the many clear things the Bible does say about it, God's involvement in it, God's design for it, etc. I do restate that individual soul liberty is not based on preference or convenience but upon revelation and our understanding of it. ;>D

Thank you for the interaction. Your spirit is refreshing!

It would be great if there was more discussion on this topic (and even this verse). I would be interested in knowing why people are fine applying the "only once" commands of subduing the earth and having dominion over creation now (we have no other authorization to build, plant, corral, etc. beyond Genesis 1:28) when they would reject the first three as only applying to Adam and Eve. (It would also be very tough for Adam and Eve to "fill the earth.")

I'm not looking to create a new discussion. I am just suggesting that most people come to conclusions based upon what other people have said (offered without serious study), rather than from true study and analysis of the Word. I truly believe most have not studied this in detail. I truly believe we (Christians) have too easily embraced the world's view of children, rather than God's view.