The Monkey and His Wrench..

I again apologize for the extended delay in between posts. Dial-up internet access is like a slow acting poison so I pray for a quick death. At any rate, I have read the previous posts on the issue in my absence and I feel there is little left to be said of great importance on either side so I am going to throw a wrench into the discussion if anyone wishes to continue it. I’ll try to make this short.
First, a couple very quick responses on what has been said:

On the Biblical Nature of the Discussion
In an earlier post regarding the ‘problem’ with the SOS, Hank says, “Let me clarify the issue again: Marital intercourse without the "natural" responsibilty of offspring is unbiblical.” This, though it was not his intent hits on what I believe is a very important point. The current discussion is not UNbiblical but it is EXTRAbiblical meaning the specifics are external to the Scriptures. In principle it may be addressed in Scripture but believers on both sides have exegeted those verses differently. And on such matters, though we may disagree, it is not a matter directly dealt with in Scripture and so it falls to the matter of exegeting those verses upon which one may make a case, but again, it is only making a case and not Biblical proof. To say, ‘it is not mentioned, therefore it is against it’ is a really poor argument, just as to say, ‘it is not mentioned, therefore it is for it’ is a really poor argument (and not one that I made).

On the Treatment of Song of Solomon
“. SOS seems like it would cause some trouble for the "marriage is chiefly for procreation" side of this debate, but it doesn't make the case for "marriage is chiefly for pleasure" either. It beautifully describes the passionate love and affection between a married couple - yes. Does it speak of birth control? Nope. That's an important observation there. All that intimacy, all that pleasure - and yet no birth control. They must've been crazy! Don't they know they could've had kids... Oh, the horror! Haha”

Now first, SOS was NEVER used to present a case that marriage is ONLY for pleasure. It was meant only to show ONE purpose of marriage is pleasure. Second, I am not one who believes in situational ethics, but that is a very big stretch. The reason for using birth control discussed and defended by myself and nobody has been primarily for the time necessary for the preparation and provision for children. Solomon was not quite in this position. Solomon had 700 wives and princesses and 300 concubines so he had the pleasure of many beds, marriage and otherwise (1 Kings 11). He was also the richest man perhaps ever and would have no trouble providing for his family. He was the KING of a nation and from Scripture we have little evidence he was either a good father or good husband. This does not seem to be a fair comparison, but you be the judge.

The Wrench
Now, with all that being said, I believe in my original post I said my stance was this, “birth control that is not abortifacient (nor presents that possibility) and does not interfere with the pleasure of the marriage bed (in any substantial, unnecessary way) is fine and dandy.’ Now that’s not exactly what I said, but it’s the gist of it. I would look it up, but it takes too long to open. So, here’s the wrench: God provided us with a natural form of birth control that is in line with the natural functions of the body and does not require the introduction of any foreign articles or chemicals or the addition of any naturally produced chemicals. This has been discussed in passing in an earlier post and is commonly known as the ‘rhythm’ method. This is a method that has been employed for centuries and is in fact discussed in Scripture in the Levitical law. Basically it requires a thorough understanding of the body and close attention to the woman’s cycle. Now, previously I also stated the argument that is made against this and it is the same as that against the pill. People will say you cannot believe this form is not showing a lack of faith in God while using the pill is because there is no difference in principle. Perhaps one is a "lesser level" of faith than the other, but neither is done completely in faith.
I think that misses an important point that transcends even this discussion. The issue is not the action, it is the heart of the action. The people I have spoken to regarding this issue and to whom this is a very real issue have sought counsel, have prayed, have studied the Word and have not simply taken the argument as face value and have still ended up on different sides. Again, I say the issue is not simply faith, there is something deeper. I do not mean an issue deeper than faith, I mean a root problem with our understanding of the world in which we live. We are in a world saturated with quick fixes, chemical combinations and concoctions that can do almost anything imaginable. You can lose weight, you can gain weight, you can gain muscle, you can be virile longer, you can prevent this or encrouage that, you can do crazy things. Many of these things, so called miracles of modern medicine, are good things and are necessary because we live in a fallen world of sickness and disease. Some things today because of mutations etc., it seems we are no longer able to control using only natural methods. A prime example is cancer. To a large extent it is now ‘in the genes’ though many kinds are a result of lifestyle and diet. After a life of eating a very unhealthy diet it is not surprising we have lots of heart attacks. Previously this would have resulted in death much more quickly, but now we have bypass surgeries and heart transplants and a hundred other ways to keep us alive. All of these things, and believe me, I know I have summed up this argument with a minimal amount of evidence and explanation but let me continue and upon your pressing I will expound at a later date; all of these things have led us to a culture of the quick fix and an extreme lack of discipline.

My thought is this: The pill and other chemical means of birth control are bulemic in nature. That requires explaining so I will. Let me preface it by saying, I do NOT in any way believe bulemia is practiced because of pleasure. Most certainly it reflects a person greatly troubled by any number of factors and I think it’s a tragedy. I speak to means and ends in this comparison, not motives. So, how are they alike? Bulemia is an unnatural means, using natural tools to lose or maintain weight. People with bulemia force themselves to throw up after meals. Many do this because of image issues and there are many negative side effects for those who practice it consistently, but others do it for different reasons. Let us imagine an individual who wants to have a certain figure. This individual also loves to eat. They love fatty foods and sugary foods and all sorts of foods they cannot eat or at least cannot eat much of if they desire to maintain this figure. Now, the natural way to maintain this would be to eat a disciplined diet, excercise, etc. A certain amount of pleasure is given up. That’s just the way it works. In this case you cannot have the cake and eat it too. The bulemic has their cake and eats it, but does not digest it. Now please do not think I am making light of bulemia any more than I am making light of the issue of birth control. The comparison is this: In both, we have been given a purely NATURAL way by God to maintain our bodies. In both, these ways require us to be disciplined and make certain sacrfices in order to obey certain commands. The glutton is not taking care of his temple and by throwing up meals, he/she has not corrected the problem they have simply found a way to conceal their sin. The way around the natural is unnatural and does not require discipline.
The difference between the ‘rhythm’ method and other non-natural methods is not merely an issue of faith, it is an issue of what God has provided and what man has usurped. I welcome Hank and Nobody to address this issue. I am well aware I have left much unexplained.
Peace in Jesus, our Lord, Sovereign over all
Edmund Pevensie