And the gloves come off...!

Just kidding. Thought that might at least get someone browsing past the title in the article. In all seriousness, Bro Hank has a lot of logic in what he says. Though I must say, I never said procreation wasn't a motivation of marriage; just that I think scripture supports the notion (and not just in SOS - "Song of Solomon", but in Genesis with Adam and Eve, Proverbs 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5,33-34 and other places throughout the Bible) that it is not the primary motivation of marriage. Rather, I say it is the spiritual and emotional intimacy and the relationship behind them. But call me crazy, I am nobody after all...!

So let's look at Genesis 38 which is often used as the "definitive" proof of the Bible's stance on birth control. According to GotQuestions, "Genesis 38 tells of Judah's sons, Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord killed him, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might sire on Tamar on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control. Genesis 38:10 says "What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so He put him to death also." Onan's motivation was selfish: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his “brotherly” duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often pointed to as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death, but rather Onan’s selfish motives behind the action."

One of the central themes of the Bible and especially the New Testament is that Jesus is after our hearts. It's not what we necessarily do or not do, the root goes back to the heart. I think the argument that Got Questions employs is in line with scripture. Genesis 38 isn't speaking against birth control itself, it's speaking against the pride and deceit of Onan to use Tamar.

Clearly, the Bible loves children. Jesus said we have to be like children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Scripture does say in Genesis to "Be fruitful and multiply," though that was also about populating the Earth from 2 people to now over 6 billion. And Psalm 127:3-5 makes it clear that children are a blessing. I'll even go as far as to say that we should want to have children if given the opportunity.

But the argument of stewardship goes a lot further than many people give it credit. Scripture makes it clear, when we die to Christ, our bodies are not our own. But it is still our responsibility to be stewards of those bodies for the Lord's glory. Now, don't misunderstand me, remember, I pretty much consider myself a Calvinist so God is sovereign over that stewardship and He is in control. But scripture also makes it clear that true Biblical sanctification only happens when we put forth the maximum effort, and then realize and praise God by recognizing that it is from Him and not of us. Clearly we are called to obey God's word and as Paul said, we must test ourselves to make sure we are constantly in accordance with His revealed will to mankind, the Bible. 1 Corinthians 7:4 makes it clear that a husband's body is his wife's and his wife's is her husband's. In a marriage, we are stewards of our partner's body as well as our own. In Matthew 25, Jesus tells us the parable of the master gives 3 slaves a talent (monetary unit- LOT of money) and them using it wisely in the master’s name. To the slave who had been most faithful, the master replied "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'" Clearly, we are supposed to be responsible for our bodies under the direction of the Spirit. As one writer put it, " This stewardship must be exercised under God, however. He is the owner, we are the manager. While I believe that God does not oppose limiting the size of one's family, Christian couples MUST check with the owner to see how he wants us to limit or not limit the act of creation."

For instance, let's examine the case of someone who is on medication for some illness like epilepsy, cancer, heart disease or many other illnesses. Now I specifically listed those illnesses because while some things we do or don't do can affect or increase the risk of say cancer or heart disease, they are largely hereditary. And things like sickle-cell anemia or epilepsy are essentially entirely genetic or shaped by other factors that people can't control. Now many of the people who are on a drug for one of these illnesses to protect their life (and most including Hank have agreed that medicine is not against scripture) also can cause severe birth defects. In fact, many doctors make sure those female patients who are on such a drug take birth control if they are sexually active to protect the unborn child. If a person wants to have children who is on medicine like that, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to modify their medicine under doctor supervision and take supplemental vitamins, etc, to reduce that risk and allow them to have children. Others are forced to adopt because it is virtually assured there will be enormous impact on the child if it is conceived. I think that it is the Biblical responsibility to actively protect that child in that case by doing whatever is necessary, and at the same time, recognizing that the protection is totally God's doing. However, that doesn't preclude us from responsibility. Because I think scripture is patently against abortion, it's not a choice, it is a life and thou shall not murder, and so once a child is conceived, it is in God's hands largely. But even then, that doesn't preclude a pregnant mother from eating right, refraining from drinking alcohol, etc, even though the child is in God's care.

And even if your case is not medical, if you are protecting the unborn child from financial hardships or other things with the benefit of the Child and the glory of God foremost in your heart and mind, I find it hard to see how one could argue against birth control, thou Hank does make a very thorough argument. I agree with Hank that a lot of weight should be given to what Christians have said throughout the history of the church. However, he ignores one crucial fact. Things change. Now, I am not saying that the Bible changes, quite the opposite. I'm talking about the beliefs held by people that are not firmly grounded in scripture. For instance, birth control even 20 years ago was not nearly as safe for the mother, as advanced to protect the child, etc, as it is now. I'm not saying Luther would agree now. But I'm saying that one cannot say with certainty that he would agree with his previous sentiments either.

Children are a blessing that all couples should prayerfully hope for if He so blesses them. But even with all blessings, we are called to exercise stewardship. As another website says, We are called to make decisions about what and how much we can handle. There are good reasons to limit the number of ministries we have, the amount of money we possess (Proverbs 30:7-9), and the number of children we have. Each couple must decide between God and themselves, what God wants them to do."

The world's lies about children are that they are a burden, they're too expensive, you'll help overpopulate the earth if you have too many, etc. And to an extent, that's true, but the Bible does make it clear that they are a blessing. But God's grace and His blessings and His sovereignty does not preclude us the demand to be obedient and responsible. That's my take on the issue.