Contraception

[bach90]

I was wondering what the LCMS and WELS view is about the use of contraception (between married couples, it goes without saying it would be sinful as part of fornication).

I've become convinced that the use of contraception, even between couples, can be viewed as objectively sinful. For a couple of reasons:

1) I view Gen 1:28 as a command, and not just a blessing. I see contraception as trying to go around this command by God, in a way, the first commandment given.

2) I view the so called sin of Onana as being one where he was commanded to produce children, but deliberately decided not to. (Gen 38).

3) I view some statements in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 5 as implying, but not proving, that the primary purpose of marriage is child rearing.

4) I see no evidence before the Lambeth conference in 1930 that contraception was allowed by Christians and many instances where it was viewed as sinful.

I realize that none of these reasons by themselves proves my view. However, I've become convinced that the use of contraception should be viewed as objectively sinful. Am I way off the mark here?

 

[RDKirk]

I was wondering what the LCMS and WELS view is about the use of contraception (between married couples, it goes without saying it would be sinful as part of fornication).

I've become convinced that the use of contraception, even between couples, can be viewed as objectively sinful. For a couple of reasons:

1) I view Gen 1:28 as a command, and not just a blessing. I see contraception as trying to go around this command by God, in a way, the first commandment given.

2) I view the so called sin of Onana as being one where he was commanded to produce children, but deliberately decided not to. (Gen 38).

3) I view some statements in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 5 as implying, but not proving, that the primary purpose of marriage is child rearing.

4) I see no evidence before the Lambeth conference in 1930 that contraception was allowed by Christians and many instances where it was viewed as sinful.

I realize that none of these reasons by themselves proves my view. However, I've become convinced that the use of contraception should be viewed as objectively sinful. Am I way off the mark here?

After a while, you get into deciding whether it's a sin to flip on a light switch on the Sabbath.

"Everything is permissible to me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying."

Paul's point is to stop trying to live according to an interpretation of written law ("Everything is permissible"), but to put on the mind of Christ and determine what the will of God is for you (not everything is beneficial, not everything is edifying)...realizing it might be different for someone else.

The question, to be honest, should be asked at every decision point. The last time you bought a pair of shoes, how much time did you spend in prayer about whether it was a sin to buy shoes--or to buy those shoes? If your purpose for those shoes was less than beneficial or edifying to you as a Christian, or to the mission of Christ, or to the Body of Christ, then it was a sin.

This raises the bar substantially from people who are trying to decide whether it's a sin to flip on a light switch on the Sabbath. It get to "what is the purpose of Christ for me, and are all my decisions in line with His purpose for me?"

I have two friends, a married couple, who have been missionaries in some very dangerous places for the last 12 years--places where if their true activties had been known, they would have faced prison or worse. Yet, their mission has been a rare success for the places they've been. But should they have borne children in these harrowing locations? Would that have been either edifying or beneficial to their mission? And would it have been any more edifying or beneficial if they had chosen to be celibate and "burn?"

 

[PreachersWife2004]

After having three children in three years, my husband and I grappled with this, since my health couldn't bear another pregnancy, nor could our finances. After the birth of our fourth child we used birth control for just a little bit, and it was only until we could take additional measures to assure that we wouldn't have more children. In that regards, I am still wholly intact, but hubby isn't, if you get my drift.

As we struggled with it we spoke with our circuit pastor and other friends who are also pastors.

What we mainly came up with is that it pretty much boils down to intent and motivation. Are you taking birth control simply because you don't want kids? That would be wrong, since we know children are a blessing from God. Are you taking birth control for health reasons (such as we were)? That's a different story.

I'm not sure I agree that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. When God created Eve, he did so that Adam wouldn't be alone. The command to be fruitful and multiply came later. And I don't think every married couple is charged with being overly fruitful.

Where I believe you need to be careful with your argument is the fact that many marriages cannot produce children. By pointing out the "command" to have children, and to say that marriage's primary purpose is childbearing you may make some marriages to be less in God's eyes.

 

[RDKirk]

I think if producing children in a marriage was a rigid command of God, Paul would have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians 7.

If Genesis 1:28 were a general command on all mankind, it would be sinful not to marry at all, not just to refrain from bearing children.

In the case of Onan, Onan himself was under law to impregnate his brother's widow--this wasn't even a case of marriage, but a case of obeying a specific codicil of Mosaic Law.

 

[alexnbethmom]

some people are truly not meant to be parents, meaning they do not have the temperament or the patience to be parents, not that they cannot conceive. does that mean that these married couples should never have sexual relations?

in my and my husband's situation, we have 5 children and (almost) 10 grandchildren between us, (but no children that are ours, together, biologically) the youngest child being 12 years old. i am almost 45 years old, and he is almost 51 years old. we are DONE. we are both agreed that we do NOT want ANY more kids. are we wrong for using birth control because we flat out do not want any more kids? i truly don't believe so. we are being reasonable. we are older. we are thinking of age and financial responsibility. to not be on birth control and bring a child into this world because "the only reason for marriage is to procreate and rear children" would be absolutely irresponsible of us.

just my two cents - that and about $6 will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This article sums up how you'd find the WELS teachings.

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

 

[alexnbethmom]

so - again, i ask, people who truly wish to remain absolutely childless (and i have one person in mind, and you know who i'm talking about) - those people should just not have sex, even though they are married. taking health into consideration is the same as taking age, finances, temperament, anything else.

i have a problem with someone taking abortificants. i do not have a problem with someone taking birth control.

 

[cerette]

There is a guy in the ELS (WELS "lil sister") who is very interested in this question and has come to the conclusion that contraceptives are wrong. He is the founder of Welcome to the Hausvater Project (www.hausvater.org) and I am sure he would be able to answer any questions you might have.

Personally I don't know if it's generally speaking sin or not. (But certainly there are some contraceptives that are sinful as they kill a life that has already been created.) I have been struggling with this question and I am personally becoming more and more convinced that in my heart, in my situation, and my life, it would be wrong. I don't agree with all the statements in the OP though, I don't see in the Bible that the primary purpose of marriage is to produce kids. (As someone already mentioned, there are married couples who would love to have kids but it ain't happening. Would their marriage somehow not be a real marriage then or something, if it's not working according to the purpose?!!)

 

[Tangible]

There is currently a lot of interest within the LCMS regarding what is known as the quiverfull movement. I believe Jonathan Fisk is among the strong proponents. Might be worth a google.

 

[alexnbethmom]

There is currently a lot of interest within the LCMS regarding what is known as the quiverfull movement. I believe Jonathan Fisk is among the strong proponents. Might be worth a google.

our quiver is already full, lol....the two of us together have taken "be fruitful and multiply" to the nth degree.....lol

i'll google it and see what comes up...

 

[Tangible]

Lol, I don't think it's quite quiverfull, but I'll bet these gals would be a hoot to have around.

Concordian Sisters of Perpetual Parturition

 

[neen1]

Isn't "quiverfull" what the Duggar's follow (the family with 19 kids who have that TV show on TLC)? That really scares me if that is what the LCMS is looking towards.

 

[Luther073082]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Luther view many commands in the OT as being commands upon the Jews and not necessarily commands to Christians?

Personally I'm with Alexnbethmom on this. Some people shouldn't have children, some people can't afford children very well, others just wouldn't make good parents.

On top of this quiverfull only works if you have a husband who makes a very good income. Most quiverfull advocates shun the idea of the wife even working, and even those who wouldn't have a problem with the wife working would have to admit that the wife wouldn't make much money with all the pregnancies and maternity leave she would have to take.

My wife and I both work, and I'll tell you right now, there is no way we could support 19 kids on our income or anything close to that.

If God commands married couples to just make as many children as their bodies will physically allow then he's commanding a lot of married couples to have more kids then they could afford to raise. Children are indeed a blessing, but a blessing that comes with a certain amount of responsibility. And I just don't see anything in scripture that makes me believe God would desire us to have children we can't afford to feed.

This doesn't mean abortion or abortificants are acceptable. Too many children can be a problem for some people. . . but the solution to that problem is not "kill the kids".

Isn't "quiverfull" what the Duggar's follow (the family with 19 kids who have that TV show on TLC)? That really scares me if that is what the LCMS is looking towards.

Yes, but it's a minority position within the synod.

If you look hard enough you can find someone in the synod who's into one Christian movement or another. I would just worry about what is the normal position of the synod.

I know several LCMS pastors through either meeting them personally or through internet talks. And there is only one who I think is involved with the quiverfull movement. I can't even say that I know he is because he hasn't expressed anything in support of it. . . he just has 10 kids. So my guess is he's more or less a non-vocal supporter of it.

 

[cerette]

I grew up in a church where contraceptives were a big no no. Most families had around 10 kids, I know one family that had 22 and some that had between 15 and 20. But the average would have been between 8-12 kids. So, just because you don't use contraceptives it doesn't mean that you'll most probably end up with 19 kids and counting...

 

[alexnbethmom]

for most people, 8 kids is too many. good grief, i had a hard enough time keeping up with the 2 i gave birth to, i could not possibly fathom trying to run after 6, 8, 10, 15, 20 kids.....it's just really sheer madness. if it's something you truly want, to have that many kids, then more power to you, i guess. i know where my limits lie.

 

[bach90]

Thanks for the link to the WELS teaching, and the other ones including that "order". I do know that President Harrison of the LCMS made a passing reference during his testimony to Congress that, "We are not opposed to all forms of birth control" but I wonder how binding that statement would be as a matter of policy. That seems more like an opinion he was making.

I do not have children, nor am I married. I think on the one hand it makes it more difficult for me to look at the circumstances in a practical matter. On the other hand, I'm freer to look at it in a theoretical perspective, it's easy to look at the law if it's not applying to you.

Of course, this is a law question not a Gospel question anyway. Even though I don't want to end up wondering if you can "flip on a light switch", I still think it's an important issue that the LCMS/WELS needs to discuss.

I would make the statement that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. This would not mean though that an infertile person can never have sex, God opened the womb of Sarah at 90. I would say if they were having sex in a way which is open to the possibility of new life, that is even though they be infertile to not use artificial contraception, then it's fine. There are also many infertile couples who decide to adopt, this can be a great alternative to couples who are bearing the cross of infertility.

 

[cerette]

for most people, 8 kids is too many. good grief, i had a hard enough time keeping up with the 2 i gave birth to, i could not possibly fathom trying to run after 6, 8, 10, 15, 20 kids.....it's just really sheer madness. if it's something you truly want, to have that many kids, then more power to you, i guess. i know where my limits lie.

Yeah I can't imagine ever having enough energy for 8 either.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

so - again, i ask, people who truly wish to remain absolutely childless (and i have one person in mind, and you know who i'm talking about) - those people should just not have sex, even though they are married. taking health into consideration is the same as taking age, finances, temperament, anything else.

i have a problem with someone taking abortificants. i do not have a problem with someone taking birth control.

Usually when my friends ask me those kind of questions, I ask why they don't put their trust in the Lord.

Now, granted, I'm not suggesting going and jumping in front of a train and putting your trust in God that he's going to save you from the train.

But, really...don't you think God knows what he's doing when children are born? The bible specifically says children are a blessing from God.

I too don't have an issue with people taking birth control, but it's really all about their motives as far as I'm concerned.

 

[alexnbethmom]

if you get diagnosed with cancer, or diabetes, or a heart condition, do you take medicine to help the condition or possibly cure the condition, or do you not take anything and trust that the Lord will heal you? the Lord absolutely has the ability to heal, no question - but the Lord also gave us doctors to help us, and medications to help us, and reason to know when enough is enough.

for me the motive is simple. i do not want any more kids. plain and simple. we cannot afford them, i do not have the patience to run after small children full time anymore, and i do not want to bring another child into this world, first, knowing what kind of horrible world this is, and second, knowing that their dad would be at least 67 years old by the time the kid turned 18.

nope nope nope. we absolutely know our limits. period.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

if you get diagnosed with cancer, or diabetes, or a heart condition, do you take medicine to help the condition or possibly cure the condition, or do you not take anything and trust that the Lord will heal you? the Lord absolutely has the ability to heal, no question - but the Lord also gave us doctors to help us, and medications to help us, and reason to know when enough is enough.

for me the motive is simple. i do not want any more kids. plain and simple. we cannot afford them, i do not have the patience to run after small children full time anymore, and i do not want to bring another child into this world, first, knowing what kind of horrible world this is, and second, knowing that their dad would be at least 67 years old by the time the kid turned 18.

nope nope nope. we absolutely know our limits. period.

and God doesn't?