Part III - Is birth control something "new under the sun"?
"...there is no new thing under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9
I am glad to see that Edmund has indeed stepped "into the foray",and has taken care of our beloved readers in my absence.
Let me first address a few of his arguments, and then summarize the issue:
1) As to Luther's quote on the purpose of marriage "deny[ing] Song of Solomon its canonicity", I must take issue. In reading Luther's writings on the subject of marriage and birth control (albeit I have read only bits and pieces, here and there) I see a consistent train of thought emitting from his theology. Let's take a look at the quote in question:
"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
Okay, now forgoing the Lutheran tendency to add words to better explain the meaning of text, that is already implicit in it's meaning (faith alone, etc.) - let us look at what Luther is saying.
So most of us know that Luther was eventually married, right? If you talk to some Catholics, they will tell you that's why he broke with "the church" in the first place, so he could have a wife (not to rid the church of all that heresy, mind you, but to wed....ahh Catholics...lol).Buanywaysys, he had a wife and one could only imagine that he enjoyed sommaritalal pleasures with her, correct? But is that what Luther is commenting on? Is he stating that pleasure has no part in marriage? Of course not. Luther says that the "purpose" of marriage "is not pleasure and ease". He doesn't say that marriage does not entail pleasure and ease, just that pleasure and ease is not it's purpose. He doesn't attack the canonicity of the SOS, he just claims (and rightly so) that pleasure is not the cheif purpose of the construct of marriage.
It is easy to miss that point in Luther's writings, but maybe this will help:
"the purpose of marriage is not [only] pleasure and ease but [also] 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
Luther maintains that man's pleasure is not the chief ends to marriage. That belief couldn't be clearer from scripture, and most certainly does not contradict it. Afterall, as C.H. Spurgeon's "Purtian Catechism" simply states:
"Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31), and to enjoy Him for ever (Ps. 73:25-26)."
And if we are asked, what is the chief end of marriage?, what shall we say? I would argue that the biblical weight for marital ends lies heavily on Genesis 1:38 and scriptures like it.
2)"the weight of scholarship and theological prowess in the nineteenth century and before is against birth control is undoubtedly the case" -- Right you are. The examples of the history of birth control methods (while interesting and gruesome at times)does little to unseat the historical Christian stance against it's use. I believe the issue for the reformers was much less the 'hows' of birth control, and more of the 'why nots'. They need not argue the chemical and scientific facts of pills, and shots, and medical procedures of birth control -- just to question it's morality, scriptural support (or lack thereof), and meaning for the Christian life. Simply put, there is "nothing new under the sun". People were using birth control back in biblical times and they still are today. The means is not the most important question. It is, again, the ends that it attains.
Here I'll tie in Edmund's "Argument of Faith":
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.
There are some logical issues with that logic...lol. But seriously. The issue is not that God wants married couples to have as many children as possible. Just as the issue is not that God wants us to have as much money as possible, as many wives as possible, as much food as possible, etc. The truth is, God wants us to have the children he wants us to have. Follow me here:
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 the spouse that God wants them to be married to (no more - divorce, and no less - militant singleness)
4. By marrying only the person that God wants me too, I enjoy God's blessing of marriage. If I refuse His will, I sin, and do not enjoy what He would have me to enjoy.
Again:
1. Food is a blessing
2. God wants us to have food to eat
3. God wants us to eat the amount of food that God wants us to eat.
4. By eating that amount of food, I am blessed. By eating more or less, I am unhealthy, and not walking in God's will.
Do you follow the change in logic? Now lets look at an example that Piper uses:
"Farmers don't just let the wind plant their crops in the fear that actively regulating what is grown on their land somehow interferes with the provision God wants to give them."
The "farmers" in this example sow the seed that God has given them to sow. They do not refuse to sow in order to enjoy the planting season swimming in the creek or lazily sitting on the front porch. They sow! And in so doing, are blessed with their reward. Would you say that the farmer would be a bad steward if he took his seed and locked it in his silo for a few years? What about the harvests he would miss? Aren't we to live as if tomorrow is not promised? Farmers plant! They do not cast their seed on sterile soil. They make sure it will grow by fertilizing and preparing the ground for growth,-- not by going out of their way to ensure that nothing is grown, so they can have the harvest season off.
The issue is not making sure to get all of the blessings you can from God in the manner of children - that would logically lead to me supporting the use of fertility drugs to get the 'biggest bang for your birth'. (Twins all around!) No, I am saying we should not force God's hand in the matter! This leads to Piper's quote:
"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."
Piper brings up an interesting point here: God's sovereignty in the creation of humans. Like everything else, God is at the center of it all. However; (and this is a BIG however) God has means to this end (birth). Just as God uses the proclamation of the gospel to draw souls unto him (who by His sovereignty must come), He uses intercourse as a means to procreation (birth of human beings). Sure we can stand back and say "Who can stay the hand of the Almighty?" If He wants it to happen, it will, right? Yes! But God uses means. God commands means. We can not remove the means because we do not know the true end.
In this issue, we must deal with what we know from scripture, not from what we infer from society. We KNOW God has ordained marriage. We KNOW that God chooses to bless most marriages with offspring. We INFER it is scriptural to 'wait' to have kids. We DO NOT KNOW this. We INFER that God accepts birth control as a means to an end. We DO NOT KNOW this...nor do I believe Scripture teaches it...
More to come...
Brother Hank
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home