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…

[Steps down from soap box.]

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.

Not to enter the birth control debate, but aren’t there a lot of blessings that we are not required to pursue fully? What happens if, in the place of “children,” we substitute food, wine, air, sunlight, sleep, work, etc.? I think the idea falls apart pretty quickly. The fact that something is a blessing does not mean that it cannot legitimately be limited for various reasons.

So I think you have created a false dichotomy. We can both receive children as a blessing and at the same time not have as many as possible.

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

[Larry] Not to enter the birth control debate, but aren’t there a lot of blessings that we are not required to pursue fully? What happens if, in the place of “children,” we substitute food, wine, air, sunlight, sleep, work, etc.? I think the idea falls apart pretty quickly. The fact that something is a blessing does not mean that it cannot legitimately be limited for various reasons.

I think you set up a false argument. I’m not talking about being required to “pursue fully” as if we do absolutely everything we can (fertility drugs?) to get as many children as we can. I simply suggest accepting what God chooses to give as opposed to actively seeking to prevent it. With your analogies, we seem to continue eating, breathing, sleeping, and working, and don’t seek to cease doing any of those “for various reasons” do we?

[Larry] So I think you have created a false dichotomy. We can both receive children as a blessing and at the same time not have as many as possible.

Again, it’s not an argument of “as many as possible.” It is an argument of recognizing children as blessings from God (which should then be received) or not blessings from God (curses?). Are children from God? If so, why would we turn them down?

[Rob Fall] 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…

With your analogies, we seem to continue eating, breathing, sleeping, and working, and don’t seek to cease doing any of those “for various reasons” do we?

Uh, yes. Or at least we should. We should quit eating so we don’t sin in gluttony. We should quit sleeping so we don’t sin in laziness. We should quit working so we don’t sin in overwork, neglect of family, pursuit of materialism, etc. We should pursue fitness and health which will regulate our breathing.

So I think you have created a false dichotomy.

I think you created the false dichotomy with your statement that “Either children are a blessing, and are to be received, or they are not, and need to be prevented.” The fact is that we can both receive them as a blessing and at times prevent conception for various reasons that are perfectly acceptable.

We can both receive children as a blessing and at the same time not have as many as possible.

Exactly my point. But not having as many as possible means taking some sort of steps to “turn them down” (to use your words which I totally reject).

It is an argument of recognizing children as blessings from God (which should then be received) or not blessings from God (curses?). Are children from God? If so, why would we turn them down?

I think “turning them down” is a rather strange way to put it. Preventing conception is not the same as “turning them down.”

With your analogies, we seem to continue eating, breathing, sleeping, and working, and don’t seek to cease doing any of those “for various reasons” do we?

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.

If our starting point is to ask, “Does Scripture forbid birth control?” we won’t find a direct prohibition in Scripture. We will work hard to find a prohibition in principle.

If our starting point is to ask, “Does God tell us to use birth control?” we won’t find a direct endorsement in Scripture. We might, in some cases, find that principles of stewardship or other principles, might support such a decision.

If our starting point is to ask, “What does the entire tone of Scripture tell us about the heart of God on this matter?” we’ll be very hesitant to use birth control outside of perhaps medical necessity or very severe financial hardship.

Until the last 40-50 years, Christians were virtually unanimous in opposing birth control. It’s hard for me to see that we’re really a lot more spiritually discerning now than we were down through the centuries.

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.

[Larry] Uh, yes. Or at least we should. We should quit eating so we don’t sin in gluttony. We should quit sleeping so we don’t sin in laziness. We should quit working so we don’t sin in overwork, neglect of family, pursuit of materialism, etc. We should pursue fitness and health which will regulate our breathing.

Larry, we don’t quit eating, breathing, etc. We might stop at any given meal, but we eat every day, and breathe all the time. We sleep every night. Babies aren’t meals or breaths. You miss the essence of my argument. (We don’t quit intimacy, either, I’m guessing…)

[Larry] I think you created the false dichotomy with your statement that “Either children are a blessing, and are to be received, or they are not, and need to be prevented.” The fact is that we can both receive them as a blessing and at times prevent conception for various reasons that are perfectly acceptable.

I would be interested in your Scriptural evidence for the “various reasons that are perfectly acceptable,” please. When does preventing conception become perfectly acceptable? (And I’m not saying there is never a reason, but such reasons are few and far between, and are mandated by other commands or principles.)

[Larry] But not having as many as possible means taking some sort of steps to “turn them down” (to use your words which I totally reject).

You argue (as many do) that the opposite of conception control is “having as many as possible,” which is not my argument and smacks of the other extreme. I argue that, since God gives children, that we should take them as He chooses to give them in the course of life, as the result of intimacy. Also, I’m not sure how else you would put “turn them down,” as that is what conception control is - refusing what God would normally give. What would be your description or phrase?

Thanks for the discussion.

[jcoleman]

With your analogies, we seem to continue eating, breathing, sleeping, and working, and don’t seek to cease doing any of those “for various reasons” do we?

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.

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.

[Anne Sokol] 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.

I agree, though the method of conception control / birth control is a huge discussion, I am even talking about the pursuit of not having children, whatever the means.

[JG] Until the last 40-50 years, Christians were virtually unanimous in opposing birth control. It’s hard for me to see that we’re really a lot more spiritually discerning now than we were down through the centuries.

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).

[Kevin Subra]

[jcoleman]

With your analogies, we seem to continue eating, breathing, sleeping, and working, and don’t seek to cease doing any of those “for various reasons” do we?

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.

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 think we ought to distinguish between children, who do have eternal souls, and an unfertilized egg and sperm, which do not.
Preventing potential fertilization, which is never guaranteed, is not the same as destroying the fertilized ovum. Taking steps to minimize the likelihood of the egg and sperm ever meeting does not constitute the rejection of a blessed child from God.

[J Ng]

[JG] Until the last 40-50 years, Christians were virtually unanimous in opposing birth control. It’s hard for me to see that we’re really a lot more spiritually discerning now than we were down through the centuries.

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.