And Into the Foray..

Ok, where to start.. Forgive me if this is not entirely well ordered but I'll try to straighten it out as I go. Sorry you are still away Brother Hank, but I look forward to your return and I hope your trip has been good. At any rate, last time I left with a few parting shots regarding the position of the theologians of old in this argument as well as the thought that it would be a good idea to look at some differencese between then and now. So, that will be our objective for the moment. Hank explained the definition of birth control, but has not, as of yet (for obvious reasons) spoken of what birth control methods are available and were available in the past.

Now, before I say this, please note that I am not advocating the use of this organizations services, but if there is one thing they are knowledgeable on then this would be it.. the text below is taken from the Planned Parenthood site and deals with the history of birth control methods:
"Of course, the methods used before the 20th century were not always as safe or effective as those available today. Centuries ago, Chinese women drank lead and mercury to control fertility, which often resulted in sterility or death (Skuy, 1995). During the Middle Ages in Europe, magicians advised women to wear the testicles of a weasel on their thighs or hang its amputated foot from around their necks (Lieberman, 1973). Other amulets of the time were wreaths of herbs, desiccated cat livers or shards of bones from cats (but only the pure black ones), flax lint tied in a cloth and soaked in menstrual blood, or the anus of a hare. It was also believed that a woman could avoid pregnancy by walking three times around the spot where a pregnant wolf had urinated. In more recent New Brunswick, Canada, women drank a potion of dried beaver testicles brewed in a strong alcohol solution. And, as recently as the 1990s, teens in Australia have used candy bar wrappers as condoms (Skuy, 1995)." (emphasis added)

So, from drinking lead and marching around wolf urine medicine has made some advances. The history lesson on the site is quite long and detailed (and fairly boring) but also very informative. It speaks a great deal about the historical beliefs regarding birth control in different cultures and in different religions. I will not however take my theological evidence from Planned Parenthood, so we'll get to that in a minute. For the moment we'll talk about birth control today.
A little ways down in the article we are informed of several more ancient practices intended to control birth, behavioral, chemical, surgical, and just plain weird. Many of them were suprisingly effective and others were not, nevertheless they are common in every culture from Africa to South America to Asia and on and the history dates, in some cases, back to thousands of years before Christ. Now, I am not making any kind of argument that antiquity makes anything right or majority equals morality or anything of the sort. I simply want to lay a quick foundation for the argument I will make. That being said, there is a great deal more regarding the history of contraceptives and birth control and if you are interested I would encourage you to visit the link to PP above.

Moving on.. modern birth control is available in a few different spheres:
1. Behavioral- As the name suggests this deals with behavioral modifications to decrease the likelihood of conception. One method of behavioral birth control, often times called 'natural family planning,' is a method used by those in the Catholic church for hundreds (at least) of years and is still common today. Basically the couple does not have intercourse during periods when the probability of fertility is high. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary and a leading social commentator (blog link available on left of page) said in an address a few years ago that the idea that scheduling certain days to have sex raises a great deal of question regarding a use of the word 'natural' as it is really nothing of the sort.
2. Barrier- Again, the name is fairly self explanatory. Condoms, cervical caps, etc. are all in this category.
3. Hormonal- This is the type getting all the attention in the news and blogosphere these days because of the buzz surrounding the morning after pill. This method of birth control works chemically and is typically taken orally. We normally simply refer to 'the pill.'
4. Permanent- Again, obvious. These methods leave you permanently unable to have children.

Ok, so. The 'bondage of the pill' is a title that addresses hormonal birth control and not birth control in general. So, a couple terms before we continue. You probably know them, but just in case.

Contraceptive- a contraceptive prevents the union of the sperm and egg and thus prevents the formation of an embryo.
Abortifacient- a term used to describe the effect upon an already formed embryo. In effect, it is a very early abortion, many times before the embryo reaches the uterine wall. Nonetheless it is abortive.

So, before I get egged for a. visiting the Planned Parenthood site and b. arguing the less holy side, let me state the argument I will be making. The argument is as follows: Birth control, if it is not abortifacient in nature and does not compromise the pleasure of the marriage bed, can be used by Christian couples with the use of discernment for a season.

With that in mind, I'll begin. Now, Brother Hank already did a little homework for this view and I am very gracious to him for that (thank you brother). In the opening section of 'Bondage of the Pill Part II' he uses a quote from Desiring God ministries and also provides the link to the discussion. He briefly summarizes one of the points and then goes on to rail against the other which is of course the same thing I would do. However, if you followed the link he provided you noticed there are other points made as well and I would encourage you to give them a look. I may draw on them later.

I. Times have changed, truth has not
We are all aware (I hope) that each age has its errors, each person is shaped to some degree by their culture, upbringing, teaching, etc, and that no theologian except those who are in the canon (and even then, I would say only those writings in the canon, not everything they wrote) has ever had EVERYTHING right. Now, that being said, it would be hard to say every theologian prior to the 1900's who made mention of the subject was wrong. However, a quick look will show that many of those mentioned in the previous writings did go wrong at least in some way. Ok, first Luther. Luther took many of his ideas from St. Augustine who had sort of rejected sex as anything but the tool for procreation. This was a natural response from Augustine because of the specific struggle he had with this in his early life prior to salvation. Thus he did what is typical and still rampant in the church today which is to go to the extreme on a view. Luther, it seems did little writing on that subject and one presumes drew similiarly from Augustine at least in looking at the previous quote
"the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family.... People who do not like children are…not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage" – Martin Luther
Calvin, it would seem went along the same lines and the other Reformers and Puritans were likely rebelling against the excesses of their day as we rebel against the excesses of ours. Now, as I said before, this quote from Luther denies the canonicity of Song of Solomon and parts of Proverbs. The purpose of marriage from a Biblical points of view is clearly manifold. Procreation, education of children, understanding of the relationship between Christ and church, teaching, AND pleasure (perhaps not ease) are ALL part of the intent of marriage.

These men also all wrote during a time where the means of birth control were very different and they did not, at least according to any information I could find, write with regards to any specific means of contraception. So, I would ask Brother Hank to please prevent some clearer evidence of what they were speaking with regards to because much of what was quoted was specific to the instance of Onan in Genesis 38, the exegesis of which is another issue of debate.

II. The Argument of Faith
Am I (not literally 'I' because 'I' have no spouse) being faithful by using birth control. Is it that in effect, a sign that I do not trust God. That is the biggest argument I have heard when discussing the issue with friends who have or are in the midst of making these decisions. Can't we simply trust God? Well, Piper answers this question here, but let me make my own conjectures. If the line of logic runs as follows:
1. Children are a blessing
2. God wants married couples to have children
3. God wants married couples to have as many children as possible
4. Using birth control limits God's ability to bless us with children and is thus a sin.

That seems to be the basic logic used. Now, I am with that logic through step 2. Step 3 is really where the argument hinges because 4 is of course contingent upon 3 being true. If you remove step 3 you are simply dealing with an issue of timing. 1 and 2 are straight from Scripture, they have backing, and they are true. Step 3 is NOWHERE in Scripture, not really even alluded to and has no backing. The article on Desiring God addresses this, so let me rephrase the thought and since they strictly forbid changing anything, I will call this my own adaptation and do not insinuate in any way this is their direct meaning:
1. A wife/husband is a blessing
2. God wants men and women to be married (most of them, except those specifically called to singleness)
3. God wants men and women to be married to as many people as possible
4. By marrying only one person I limit God's ability to bless me with other spouses.

Ok, that's a stretch I admit, but this isn't:
1. Food is a blessing
2. God wants us to have food to eat
3. God wants us to eat as much as possible
4. By eating a healthy diet I limit God's ability to bless me with food

Ok, that seems like a stretch too, but it's really not because it uses the exact same logic. It takes something that is a definite blessing from God and something He blesses us with. THEN it takes it and says it has to be to this fullest extent and THAT is where it goes wrong. That is just not logical thinking. Aside from the fact God is Sovereign and as Piper said, "The hands of the almighty are not tied by birth control! A couple will have children precisely at the time God wants, whether they use birth control or not. Either way, then, God is ultimately in control of the size of one's family."

Now, I thought about that statement when I read it and my initial reaction was, well, if He is ultimately in control, you could just as easily say 'don't use birth control, if God doesn't want you to have children right now, He will control it.' And that sounds good and it's true to an extent but it's also dangerous for this reason: If you do not use birth control and simply 'trust the Lord' that can be used by the Enemy who works also in the natural. The Devil is not about to bless you with a child. If you do use birth control, God can certainly go around those means, but the Enemy cannot. As the reference article says, "The "trust God, therefore don't use birth control" thinking is based upon the incorrect assumption that what happens "naturally" reflects "God's best" for our lives, but that what happens through human means does not." It goes on to say this is obviously not the way we live the rest of our lives. Our duty is to do all that we can to prepare ourselves for the blessings we will receive and to be faithful with all we already have. When Joseph interpreted the vision of the 7 years feast and 7 years famine, he busily went about preparing for the famine to come. He did not sit back and say, 'have faith, trust in the Lord and He will provide.'

To say, 'well, we have no money, a small apartment, a lot of debt, and no hopes of job growth- let's just have all the kids we can and God will provide' is NOT a display of great faith, it's a display of great stupidity.

I'm sure there's much more to say, but I'm tired of typing and the 'millions' who read this are probably tired of reading, so that's all for the moment. This is certainly an issue that requires much prayer and discernment by the individual couple. I look forward to Brother Hanks return and response. Until then. Be Blessed.

In Jesus,
EP