Birth Control

[rmwilliamsll]

I just finished rreading for several hours both here and on several other forums about birth control. i thought i'd share a book:
The Bible and Birth Control


and a nightline piece:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1

i'd like to look closer at the issue of means.

Regarding the BC/sovereignty debate: You have two sides – A) those who advocate to let God be sovereign, so just trust Him, and then B) those who advocate that God is sovereign and uses means which is our judgment and our subduing creation.

the positions are not this clear, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Take evangelism. God uses means, he uses literature, preachers, words. But it is God who draws people to Himself. I can spend time working on our church's website thinking and hoping that God will use it as a means of evangelism. I can work on my skills as a programmer, dedicating them to God's service. Yet they and the website, and all the printed material i've ever seen, including Bibles are just human means. Now God could have used divine skywriting to tell people about himself and the Gospel, but He just didn't do it that way. He uses means. Now some means are defined for us: the church is the carrier of the Gospel, the means of grace are: the word preached, the sacraments properly administered and discipline well done and maybe prayer. Now does that mean that a preacher should publish his sermons on a website but only mp3 files (word preached)?

The point is that God gives us means, and a mind to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, aware that we are going to screw up. Now i can completely assent and trust that God is soverign, that He controls the number of kids we had, but yet use all kinds of BC to help get to that point, as means. not as an end in themselves but as a means to glorify God and to trust His providence.

perhaps it is a variant of "trust God and pass the ammunition" but to go into a battle claiming to trust in God but not study, provision, and provide for the best human means i can find, appears to be trusting not in a providential means-using God, but in a God of my imagination who will bail me out even when i don't care enough to plan wisely.

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer's home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says "Jump in, I'll take you to safety."
The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, "Jump in, I'll save you."
The farmer again says, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer "I'll save you, climb the ladder."
The farmer says "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The helicopter goes away. The water comtinues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.
The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says "What are you doing here?"
The farmer says "I put my trust in you and you let me down."
God says, "What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!"

essentially my point is that BC is akin to the boat, and heliocopter.

 

[OrthoJoe]

Birth control in soceity has created an environment where people separate sexual behavior from its consequences. Certainly this has lead to incorrect views of marriage and sexuality. As opposed to beling liberating for woman the rampant use of birth control, and abortion, has lead to the increased objectifcation of women in soceity. American protestantism has fully embraced birth control and has divorce rates much higher than the national level. Heavily Roman Catholic parts of the country have levels lower than those of the country at large.
Any use of birth control should be done directly under the direction of a spiritual father to first determine if the motives are worthy and second to ensure that it is not being abused. Clearly the no holds barred approach to birth control has done nothing for American protestantism.

 

[chris777]

I have some friends that recently found out they are expecting their 4th child.
I am not exactly sure what methods if any they use, but I know the wife doesn't take BC because of side effects.

But the issue has been on my mind before, in that I do believe God to be behind conception, and have wondered, is it wrong for us to interfere, by trying to avert birth.
Due to my own health problems, and the fact im both divorced, and single, I currently do not have much hope of having anymore children myself, so I sort of vicariously pretend his are mine (without the diapers)
But the husband had said he wanted a housefull even after their third.
But so far I have seen the lord provide for them, to the point that their sister in law is jealous of what they possess. Now granted, they hardly ever eat out, and he has joked about tomato sandwiches all week, but they have made ende meet on his salary, with her at home with the kids.

 

[ebia]

Birth control in soceity has created an environment where people separate sexual behavior from its consequences.

This always sounds to me rather like saying "wearing a hat creates an environment where people separate going out in the sun from it's consequences".

 

[chris414]

I just finished rreading for several hours both here and on several other forums about birth control. i thought i'd share a book:
The Bible and Birth Control


and a nightline piece:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1

i'd like to look closer at the issue of means.

the positions are not this clear, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Take evangelism. God uses means, he uses literature, preachers, words. But it is God who draws people to Himself. I can spend time working on our church's website thinking and hoping that God will use it as a means of evangelism. I can work on my skills as a programmer, dedicating them to God's service. Yet they and the website, and all the printed material i've ever seen, including Bibles are just human means. Now God could have used divine skywriting to tell people about himself and the Gospel, but He just didn't do it that way. He uses means. Now some means are defined for us: the church is the carrier of the Gospel, the means of grace are: the word preached, the sacraments properly administered and discipline well done and maybe prayer. Now does that mean that a preacher should publish his sermons on a website but only mp3 files (word preached)?

The point is that God gives us means, and a mind to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, aware that we are going to screw up. Now i can completely assent and trust that God is soverign, that He controls the number of kids we had, but yet use all kinds of BC to help get to that point, as means. not as an end in themselves but as a means to glorify God and to trust His providence.

perhaps it is a variant of "trust God and pass the ammunition" but to go into a battle claiming to trust in God but not study, provision, and provide for the best human means i can find, appears to be trusting not in a providential means-using God, but in a God of my imagination who will bail me out even when i don't care enough to plan wisely.

essentially my point is that BC is akin to the boat, and heliocopter.

We just had a long discussion on BC in the teens forum a couple days ago... this was pretty much my line of argument as well

 

[Sunset2009]

Here are my views on BC (yes, I know I'm just a kid, but I still have views):

I can't stand it when people go on birth control, then say, "If God really wanted us to have another child, a little tiny pill isn't going to stop Him!" That makes no sense.

And, not too mention, that is NOT always true. Yes, God can do absolutely ANYTHING, but I believe that sometimes He respects our free will, and if we are consciously trying to prevent something (like pregnancy) from happening, the above often repeated quote is not alway going to happen, and then we missed out on a great blessing from the Lord.

Secondly, I believe it is up to the husband, the spiritual leader of the household, to decide whether or not his wife goes on birth control or not (given he's been given insight from God), because he is responsible for his household and therefore, can make the decisions for his house.

But all in all, I think a couple should totally and completely ask God how many children HE wants that couple to have, not how many children that couple wants to have. If God wants you to have five children, yet you only have two (because you only want two), that would be disobedience.

 

[steelmagnolia]

Had to fight tooth and nail for my two children (fertility issues). I only wish I had to be concerned about BC. Tell you the truth - I would not be concerned but I would trust in the Lord.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Had to fight tooth and nail for my two children (fertility issues). I only wish I had to be concerned about BC. Tell you the truth - I would not be concerned but I would trust in the Lord.

i appreciate the different POV you express, i have seen the heartache that infertility can bring. but our problems 25 years ago were "excessive fertility" and the fix was getting fixed.

 

[Markec]

Just my humble opinion:

Birth control is inevitable in any marriage. No couple can take care of 10+ children (well, some millionaires can ).

And I also believe, that a couple should have a healthy sexual relationship. Such couples develop a strong bond, are generaly happier and easily overcome problems in their marriage.

Nowhere in the bible I see a passage, which would forbid BC. And yes, at that times, they also knew some methods ... The only passage which gets near to it is about Onan, but I believe that is the other case. Onan was evil in god's eyes, and he didn't want to revive bloodline of his dead relative (jew law), that's s why he tried out some kind of BC. It's not BC, that was wrong, but it was the reason, why he used it, which was wrong. That's what i believe.

 

[Chie]

Just my humble opinion:

Birth control is inevitable in any marriage. No couple can take care of 10+ children (well, some millionaires can ).

And I also believe, that a couple should have a healthy sexual relationship. Such couples develop a strong bond, are generaly happier and easily overcome problems in their marriage.

Nowhere in the bible I see a passage, which would forbid BC. And yes, at that times, they also knew some methods ... The only passage which gets near to it is about Onan, but I believe that is the other case. Onan was evil in god's eyes, and he didn't want to revive bloodline of his dead relative (jew law), that's s why he tried out some kind of BC. It's not BC, that was wrong, but it was the reason, why he used it, which was wrong. That's what i believe.

We are judged by the motives and intent of our heart.
It isn't the question of should there be use of BC, but rather they reason why it is chosen.
BC shouldn't be used as a form to not answer to the consequences of action for someone to be sexually active. For a married couple/a single parent to realize its time to stop "making babies and start raising the ones they got" is totally different.
It is sad to see condoms and BC pills given rather than the Will of God taught to our children concerning sexual relationships.
Raising my daughter, there was many parents that put their teenage daughters on the pill. I never could do it. But I taught the do's and don'ts , both to my daughter and my sons. I gave them no escape in not facing the consequences of their actions.
Even with all forms of BC, we still see children being raised by a single parent with more than one child. Even if one lives outside the laws of christianity they still need to take the responsiblity in BC if they chose to be sexual active, and with the many cases of all forms of STD's this don't seem to make them take that responsiblity to themselves and the children being born.

 

[catlover]

edit

 

[catlover]

Birth control in soceity has created an environment where people separate sexual behavior from its consequences. Certainly this has lead to incorrect views of marriage and sexuality. As opposed to beling liberating for woman the rampant use of birth control, and abortion, has lead to the increased objectifcation of women in soceity. American protestantism has fully embraced birth control and has divorce rates much higher than the national level. Heavily Roman Catholic parts of the country have levels lower than those of the country at large.
Any use of birth control should be done directly under the direction of a spiritual father to first determine if the motives are worthy and second to ensure that it is not being abused. Clearly the no holds barred approach to birth control has done nothing for American protestantism.

. Women were nothing but breeders who turned out babies like rabbits before birth control...if that's is not objectifying a woman I don't know what is.

The divorce rate is higher because of no fault divorce.

Also spousal abuse is now frowned upon so people experiencing an abusive marriage can divorce without being ridiculed..

 

[She]

Birth control in soceity has created an environment where people separate sexual behavior from its consequences. Certainly this has lead to incorrect views of marriage and sexuality. As opposed to beling liberating for woman the rampant use of birth control, and abortion, has lead to the increased objectifcation of women in soceity.

Why put birth control together with abortion? Most Christians would draw the line at abortion.

Any use of birth control should be done directly under the direction of a spiritual father to first determine if the motives are worthy and second to ensure that it is not being abused Clearly the no holds barred approach to birth control has done nothing for American protestantism.

Clearly the no holds barred approach to non-contraceptive intercourse has done nothing for women. Women are being abused by certain teachings which state that all forms of birth control are intrinsically evil. This form of abuse leads to: prolapse, post-natal depression, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, poverty, homelessness. In these circumstances a woman would be too crushed to get a divorce. Perhaps that's why there is less divorce amongst Catholics.

American protestantism has fully embraced birth control and has divorce rates much higher than the national level. Heavily Roman Catholic parts of the country have levels lower than those of the country at large.

 

[Sunset2009]

Birth control is inevitable in any marriage. No couple can take care of 10+ children (well, some millionaires can ).

That's not true. Even the richest couple on the face of the earth can neglect 10 children and not give them what they need emotionally. They may have financial stability, but may also have emotional and mental instability.

While on the other hand, a couple that is just getting by could give each of those 10 children everything they need emotionally and mentally, which, in my book, is much more important in the long run, then giving them everything and more financially.

My great-grandmother was very poor, yet raised 13 children (this was back in the '20's and '30's) and none of them starved to death. You can't say that someone cannot raise 10 children just because they may not be as rich as Bill Gates.

I mean, seriously? You said no couple can care for 10 children.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That's not true. Even the richest couple on the face of the earth can neglect 10 children and not give them what they need emotionally. They may have financial stability, but may also have emotional and mental instability.

While on the other hand, a couple that is just getting by could give each of those 10 children everything they need emotionally and mentally, which, in my book, is much more important in the long run, then giving them everything and more financially.

My great-grandmother was very poor, yet raised 13 children (this was back in the '20's and '30's) and none of them starved to death. You can't say that someone cannot raise 10 children just because they may not be as rich as Bill Gates.

I mean, seriously? You said no couple can care for 10 children.

if it means anything, my experience says that each kid divides up the time available by the parents on his or her behalf. Having more does not multiple the time you have, but at some point, with some number of kids plus just one more, there will be diminishing amount of parental time available.

i see it clearly in my kids, but even now see no way to prevent it. God unwisely did not give us 2 hours more in each day, each time we became parents. or clone the parents after 4 kids or some other unusual but useful thing.

the most common solution is that the older kids, especially the daughters begin to raise their younger siblings. so perhaps in a way, God did clone my wife with the daughters *grin* to help with the younger ones.

but if i where to honestly answer:
I mean, seriously? You said no couple can care for 10 children
i'd reply that no parents can really care for even 1 child and it is solely by the grace of God that any of us survives childhood, voluntarily becomes a parent, or survives that experience.

to this:
My great-grandmother was very poor, yet raised 13 children (this was back in the '20's and '30's) and none of them starved to death. You can't say that someone cannot raise 10 children just because they may not be as rich as Bill Gates
i can only say that my wife and i raised 6 kids to adulthood, in a fully monetized society, without income for 10 of those 30 years. and it was hard. but none starved to death, but that doesn't prove either that it is a good idea to do so, or that just anyone can do it without childhood deaths, or that we weren't just plain lucky by the grace of God. but in any case an anecdote is not a pattern to be followed, or really even good evidence that it can happen now. (your grandparents probably had access to land and could raise their own food, sit down in the middle of a big city now, and tell me how you will eat by raising your own food--where?, you basically have 2 options: begging and dumpster diving)

 

[She]

That's not true. Even the richest couple on the face of the earth can neglect 10 children and not give them what they need emotionally. They may have financial stability, but may also have emotional and mental instability.

While on the other hand, a couple that is just getting by could give each of those 10 children everything they need emotionally and mentally, which, in my book, is much more important in the long run, then giving them everything and more financially.

My great-grandmother was very poor, yet raised 13 children (this was back in the '20's and '30's) and none of them starved to death. You can't say that someone cannot raise 10 children just because they may not be as rich as Bill Gates.

I mean, seriously? You said no couple can care for 10 children.

The only couple I know who raised 10 children, ended up with a couple of schizophrenic sons. And I don't think it was a coincidence.

Just because some peope in the 1920s managed it, does not mean that people in this present time will manage it. We live in a very different world now. It is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to buy homes, in most civilized countries in the world. People who live in the Western world now, are, increasingly finding themselves in situations where they are homeless and hungry. The third world is moving towards the west. We are already seeing it in Europe.

With the pressures of poverty and homelessness it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to raise emotionally stable children. How can parents who are placed under extreme stress from financial pressures and homelessness, raise happy, balanced children? It is not possible. Something has to give.

The ideal of a happy, large family with a happy mum and dad and happy children is, just that, an ideal. It rarely, if ever, exists, especially in these modern times. In most countries of the world the reality is very different.

 

[Sunset2009]

The ideal of a happy, large family with a happy mum and dad and happy children is, just that, an ideal. It rarely, if ever, exists, especially in these modern times.

And yet, I've seen it so many times...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And yet, I've seen it so many times...

then both you and they are very fortunate and blessed.
i can count the number of above average-good marriages i've seen on two hands.

i can count the number of them with happy, well adjusted, Christian kids on one hand.

and none of those families has more than 3 kids.

but i suppose that could just be a sampling size problem with me.

 

[ebia]

then both you and they are very fortunate and blessed.
i can count the number of above average-good marriages i've seen on two hands.

i can count the number of them with happy, well adjusted, Christian kids on one hand.

and none of those families has more than 3 kids.

but i suppose that could just be a sampling size problem with me.

Or maybe your standards are higher. (Assuming that you don't literally mean average-good, which would set your total sample size at around 20 families if I'm not mistaken. If it's really that small you need to get out more )

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If it's really that small you need to get out more

from your keyboard to my wife's ears.