LCMS - what is the Church's stand on birth control?

[PreachersWife2004]

Back in the dark ages when I went to public school, we were taught sex ed but were also taught abstinence.
This just goes to show how far in the toilet our public schools have sunk in recent years.

Not even that recently, Rev. I graduated class of '92. That was, uh, 15 years ago.

 

[RandomLayman]

A lot of how the WELS feels about things depends on the motive behind them.

I'm in your boat. I have a 12 year old, two babies and one on the way. After this last baby is born, we are taking permanent steps ourselves because we realize that we just can't afford any more children. It is a responsible decision to make.

I'm married to a staunch WELS doctrine preacher-man, so if the WELS was against measures like this, he would be against them. He's even willing to get the procedure done instead of me, simply because he heard that there are many risks with the woman getting tied and fried.

The leaders of the WELS had a change in thought in contraception in the 1960's. However, before that, it was condemned as a sin:

This article is from the Lutheran Witness, June 26, 1917. It is a reprint from the WELS publication, the Northwestern Lutheran and is in the public domain.

Birth Control a Curse.

The world is stricken with reform madness. To the reformers of our time nothing is so sacred that it must not be tampered with. Institutions that have grown old with the world and are of divine origin must needs submit to the activity of the “reformer”; nor can God expect anything else: where He Himself has been “reformed” out of existence, His institutions can hardly expect to be spared. One of the reformers of to-day makes the following statement: “It now seems to many people that the time has come to take childbirth out of the realm of chance, that the birth of human beings is too important to be left to irresponsible nature.” How wide-spread the reform movement referred to has become may be understood when the reformers assert: “To-day men if high standing, scientists of international reputation, physicians, psychologists, political economists, sociologists, and literati advocate birth control as a counter-move against poverty and disease.”

Every Christian will readily perceive that this “reform” is a curse to the individual and the State. Dwelling on this point, a Roman Catholic writer says: “Duty and conscientiousness are to throw their mantle of protection over practices that tamper with the very fountains of life and defy the will of the Creator to the destruction of individual, family, and State as exemplified in the fall of pagan Rome.”

Church people are, however, not the only ones who are becoming alarmed at the activity of these reformers. The subject was discussed before a gathering of club-women at Chicago recently, and, addressing the club, Mrs. Leonora Z. Meder said the following:

“Birth control is making us a retrogressive people, returning to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.” “Birth control is immoral, degrading, and stupid. It is a perversion of a natural faculty; it logically and inevitably leads to deliberate childless marriages; it does not attain its purpose of human welfare, and leads to luxurious vice, compared to which the suffering involved in rearing children is a blessing, indeed.

“It is better to improve the economic conditions of the poor than to attempt to remedy matters by decreasing the numbers.

“Statistics compiled in Chicago show that in almost every case where divorces were sought the applicants where either childless or had only one child.

“Theodore Roosevelt compiled these facts, showing that fertility and genius are compatible: Horace Walpole, one of nineteen children ; Benjamin Franklin, one of seventeen ; Peter the Great, one of fourteen ; Napoleon Bonaparte, one of thirteen ; Walter Scott, one of twelve ; Cooper, one of twelve ; Tennyson, one of twelve ; Washington, one of ten ; Webster, one of ten ; Cleveland, one of nine ; Dickens, one of eight ; Longfellow, one of eight ; Milton and Emerson, one of six.

“Genius is rarely found where there is one child. You have only to visit the asylums at Elgin, Kankakee, and Dunning to see the appalling ruin of mind and body brought on by the heinous practise of birth control. Eighty-five per cent. of the women in Chicago hospitals are ill as a direct or indirect result of the same practise.”

This article caused a debate on Lutherquest, which can be read in the following link:

lutherquest . org/discus40/messages/41821/44701 . html

 

[DaRev]

Not even that recently, Rev. I graduated class of '92. That was, uh, 15 years ago.

I graduated in '79 after only three years of high school. I couldn't wait to get out of there and when the opportunity arose, I took full advantage.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

One must only take a look at what birth control methods were available early on in the century to understand why it might've been considered a sin.

BC has taken leaps and bounds since then.

As always, we can point to the motive behind birth control and consider whether the motive is a sin or not.

From the WELS Q&A site, a very good response to the question about birth control:

hen it comes to birth control, there are three key issues to consider--management, methods, and motive.

First let's consider the matter of management. Since God has made us managers of our bodies, including our reproductive systems, we cannot say that it is wrong in and of itself for a Christian to practice birth control. This is but one of many areas where God asks us to apply the principles of Christian management and seek to glorify him with our lives.

This leads to the other key points--methods and motive. Since life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5), as Christians we would want to use a form of birth control that prevents conception, that is, that prevents the sperm and the egg from joining and forming an embryo. We need to be specific here because in some circles the term "contraceptive" is used in a very broad sense to include forms of birth control that would allow conception but prevent implantation. A God-pleasing form of birth control would prevent a life from being conceived rather than prevent that life that has been conceived from implanting in the mother's uterus. In general barrier methods of birth control (condom, diaphragm) prevent conception while a method such as the IUD (IntraUterine Device) allows conception but does not allow implantation. Such a method would be abortifacient and not God-pleasing.

The other important factor to consider when it comes to birth control is motive. Are we motivated by selfish and greedy desires for a higher standard of living or for personal freedom from the care and responsibility of children? Or does our use of birth control flow out of our desire to manage our bodies and lives in a way that gives glory to God? Is it because we see children as a burden we want to avoid, or it is because as we look at the big picture we feel God would have us delay the birth of a child, or place some space between our children? It is not always easy for us to analyze our motives. But motive, together with management and methods, are some of the matters we will prayerfully consider as we continue to look to God's Word for guidance in all areas of our lives.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I graduated in '79 after only three years of high school. I couldn't wait to get out of there and when the opportunity arose, I took full advantage.

Hey! What a coincidence. I graduated in 1979, too!



















From kindergarten!!

I truthfully LOVED high school. But I was a nerd, so that explains it.

 

[RandomLayman]

Does your husband have a copy of the 1945 edition of Fritz's Pastoral Theology (or the recently republished Fritz from I think 2003)?

J. C. Fritz's 6 page polemic against birth control in this book is the best I have ever seen. If he does not have a copy, perhaps some of his friends do.

Sadly, in 1959, CPH published "Planned Parenthood", only 14 years after publishing Pastoral Theology. This spearheaded the doctrinal change toward a pro "Planned Parenthood" orientation. The leaders of the WELS, which had enough sense to reject Missouri's doctrine of church-fellowship, went along with these new Missouri Synod leaders on birth control.

 

[RandomLayman]

Part of the article, "Marriage a Success":

(This is from the 1915 Lutheran Witness, page 100-102. This is public domain, so do whatever you want with it.)

“No home should be without a child, no child should be without a home.” We approach a delicate, but a most important question of the day. It is the sin of the age to prevent conception, or to otherwise frustrate the purpose of marriage, such people foolishly believing that the absence of children would make their union a happy one. Is sin ever a source of happiness? Read what the Bible says of the prevention of conception Gen. 38, 8-10. God slew Onan. He may not visit that same dire punishment at once on such as perpetrate the same wrong to-day, still: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Also, sin without fail has sorrow and unhappiness in its train. True, in some cases marriage is naturally barren. Christian parents will consider that a sore visitation of God, but, no doubt, will gladly apply to our orphanages for a child, or children, and be happy with them.

Yes, thanks be to God, Christian parents will continue to consider children a heritage of God, His most sacred charge. How pious men and women of the Bible yearned for children! How they cherished and nourished them! They rightly considered them the direct gift of God. “Take this child,” God says to parents, when He gives us a child, “take this child, and nurse it for Me, and I will give thee thy wages.” (Ex. 2, 9.) Yes, He gives to parents sweet wages. What, the sleepless nights, the worry, the expense? Yes, add them also; is it not sweet to work and to worry for those whom we love? You go and dare propose to a mother who is passing a sleepless night at the bedside of her child that you will deprive her of her child so she can be at ease. You try that, and see what she will say.—But not all nights are sleepless, not all days filled with anxiety; in fact, only a small proportion of them are such. “I will give thee thy wages.” God says; “you may suffer your little children to come unto Me in Holy Baptism, teach them to know Me, to love Me, their Savior, send them to a Christian school; in short, you may, as a part of your wages, bring them up in My nurture and admonition.” And is it not the greatest and grandest thing on earth to be instrumental in making our children eternally happy? Is not this privilege sweet wages?

The Psalmist says (Ps. 27): “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is His reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that has his quiver full of them.” They, in turn, will rise up and call you blessed when they have children. Your children's children will bless you. Even if the angel of death visits your home, and takes a darling from the family circle, you would not then pronounce marriage a failure, you would then rather pronounce marriage a failure, you would then rather pronounce heaven all the more your home, because that little angel is there awaiting you.


[SIZE=-1]O blest the house, whate'er befall, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Where Jesus Christ is all in all; [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Yea, if He were not dwelling there, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How poor and dark and void it were! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]O blest that house where faith ye find, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And all within have set their mind [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To trust their God and serve Him still, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And do in all His holy will. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]O blest the parents who give heed [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Unto their children's foremost need, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And weary not of care or cost: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To them and heaven shall none be lost. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Blest such a house! It propers well, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In peace and joy the parents dwell, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And in their children's lot is shown [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How richly God can bless His own.[/SIZE]

A. W. MEYER

You can find the full article here:

lutherquest . org/discus40/messages/49356/49347 . html

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Not sure if he does or not. He lost a lot of his library in our house fire three years ago and has not been able to find it elsewhere.

Does your husband have a copy of the 1945 edition of Fritz's Pastoral Theology (or the recently republished Fritz from I think 2003)?

J. C. Fritz's 6 page polemic against birth control in this book is the best I have ever seen. If he does not have a copy, perhaps some of his friends do.

Sadly, in 1959, CPH published "Planned Parenthood", only 14 years after publishing Pastoral Theology. This spearheaded the doctrinal change toward a pro "Planned Parenthood" orientation. The leaders of the WELS, which had enough sense to reject Missouri's doctrine of church-fellowship, went along with these new Missouri Synod leaders on birth control.