Children of the Reformation

Family scholar Allan Carlson relates a short and surprising history of Protestantism and contraception.

In rejecting lifelong celibacy, in casting marriage as the highest order and calling on earth, in elevating motherhood and homemaking, in emphasizing the spiritual authority and practical tasks of fatherhood, in refocusing adult lives around the tasks of childrearing, in celebrating procreation and large families, and in condemning contraception, Luther implicitly laid a great burden on Protestant clerics.

To read all of Children of the Reformation, please click here. Then, please join the discussion by clicking on the comments link below.

Comments

[Landmark]

Another blog's commentary on Carlson's article notes that he doesn't specify exactly what the "economic and cultural changes" were that caused the shift in Protestant thinking on contraception.

I agree that there is a common mentality behind abortion and contraception, but many Protestants would vehemently deny this. They see contraceptives as God-given tools for planning their families in accord with their resources, but see abortion as something else, something contrary to God's will . . . even though it too is often used expressly for planning families (or, more often, preventing them).

What is the best case one can make to a contracepting but otherwise pious Protestant, to make him see that promoting contraceptive use ultimately furthers the acceptance of abortion?

I liked the article very much, by the way.

[Mike]

I also liked the article. It is interesting to see that the evolution of Protestant attitudes about contraception did not hinge on the 1930 Anglican Lambreth Congress where a very qualified acceptance of barrier contraception was officially given, but in the late 1800's with the obvious spread of contraception amongst many church people.

The Protestant opposition to contraception does not seem to be based upon philosophical teleology thinking as in some Catholic circles, but upon natalism from Biblical commands from Genesis. Onan was thus dealt with by God not so much for what he did; an act of withdrawl, but for what he did not do, multiply.

So OK, where are we now? If we have filled up the earth enough, where does that leave us? Is it enough to say "each has to decide only for themselves"? Is there any way to somehow reopen the issue without falling into a Catholic trap?

Dr Albert Mohler is trying to do just this, by asking people who use contraception to continually re-examine their motivation. No judgement is made, but contraception use seems to be one of those things that needs to be periodically looked at to make sure it does not take us places we do not want to go.

[GL]

I too enjoyed the article. I think Dr. Carlson makes a valid point about clergy wanting to limit their own families being a significant factor in breaking with the traditional teaching that contraception is gravely sinful.

I emailed in when he was on Issue, etc. discussing this article to ask his view on the impact of the Great Depression on the Protestant abandonment on the teaching. He answered that he did not believe it was a factor. I disagree with him. Certainly, the impetus was already there, but I think when one sees the significant drop off in fertility rates in the 1930s and how so many Protestant denominations opposed contraception during the 1920s and early 1930s only to accept it either formally or ab silentio by the end of that decade, I think the economic pressures of that period must have been a factor. And, of course, once the cat was out of the bag -- even if in response to a temporary extreme hardship -- it could not be caught and put back in.

I will get back to this blog to address Landmark's question, but do not have sufficient time to address it now. It is a question about which I have given much thought and it is, I believe, one of the most important questions of our time, for I believe that one of the reasons the Evangelical efforts in the culture war have been largely unsuccessful is that they don't fully comprehend the ultimate source of the problem, the philosophical or world view that underlies the other sides insistence for a right to abortion and same-sex marriage, funding for embryonic stem cell research and legalization of euthanasia. It is the same philosophy or world view, extended logically, which underlies the conservative Protestant's justification for contraception. We cannot condemn what we ourselves implicitly accept when we practice contraception. Contraception (or rather the implicit philosophy or world view that justifies most of our uses of contraception) is thus the beam in our own eye which prevents us from seeing clearly how to remove the speck from our brothers' eyes.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Carlson notes:

**"As in England, so in America, the change in clerical family behavior came before the change in doctrine."**

That is perhaps the most damning sentence in the article. (Tho' the quote from Criswell is a close second.) Isn't that always how it goes? I.e., we are always tempted to construct our ethics from the way we decide to live our lives, instead of the other way around.

**"Is there any way to somehow reopen the issue without falling into a Catholic trap?"**

Which "Catholic trap" is that, Mike? The Catholic Church recognizes, recognized at least as early as Casti Connubii,
the licitness of limiting family size for serious reasons. It simply circumscribes the ways this may licitly be done.

What lies between those who tolerate contraception and those who do not is not how one may prudentially answer the question: "How many children can we reasonably afford and care for?", but instead: "If we choose to have sexual intercourse, may we deploy artificial means to avoid the potential consequences of such an action?"

[Mike]

Steve, the "Catholic trap" is not having a basketball squad number of children but is intended to mean either a blind allegiance to certain Catholic dogma or else a certain type of philosphical abstraction that can not easily be put into a Biblical framework. The traditional evangelical and mainline Protestant understanding does not function like that. It may actually sometimes consider such thinking as pagan in origin.

If you imply the rhythm method of family planning, some will point out Paul's advice about abstaining in Corinthians, to do so ONLY FOR PRAYER and not too long less Satan temps husband or wife. Now I am not accusing or even suspecting people who use the rhythm method of being flagrantly unfaithfull during the abstinance period, but there is very little in the Bible on this overall subject.

I suppose there are some hermeneutics that can relate some sorcery to the practice of potients that caused abortion in Pauls
Letter to the Galatians, but this is about abortion, not contraception.

Understand something; I agree the overall Christian world has some huge issues here as Dr. Mohler points out. It is appearant to growing numbers that something has to be done. But it has to be understandable as well as doable. Keeping people in a cautious reflective evaluation of their motives seems more understandable, doable, and Biblical than a ritualistic method of family planning.

[GL]

>>>I suppose there are some hermeneutics that can relate some sorcery to the practice of potients that caused abortion in Pauls
Letter to the Galatians, but this is about abortion, not contraception.<<<

I am not sure that one can dismiss those passages as being only about abortion or abortifacients. The Greek term used is transliterated as pharmakai (or forms thereof). The same term is also used in the Didache as follows:

"And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft [pharmakai -- translated by others as "sorcery"], you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

If pharmakai means abortion then it would be redundant to include "you shall not murder a child by abortion" immediately after its use in the passage quoted above. A plausible reading of the passage is that it condemns (in order) contraception, abortion and infanticide. As magic was also used as a means to avoid conception, its use immediately before pharmakai [possibly referring to contraceptive herbs or medicines] gives further evidence of that possible understanding. Add to that that the passage is about taking life and sexual deviancy, the inclusion of magic and sorcery seem odd and out of place if not somehow related to the taking of life (by preventing its conception) and sex (the means by which life is conceived). On that point, however, so does the condemnation of stealing.

As to the Scriptural case against contraception, both Luther and Calvin thought Scripture forbade it, Luther calling the use of contraception as sodomitic and Calvin calling it murder. Each cited Scripture to support their position. Luther, in particularly, cited numerous Scriptural passages to support his position. Many other Protestants believed the same and not a single denomination approved its use until 1930s. The notion that Scripture is silent on the subject is no more than a century old argument developed to defend what the developers of the argument were already doing or wanted to do -- putting us right back into the point of Carlson's article.

As to NFP, I will admit that I find that practices potentially as troubling as artificial contraception absent some exigent circumstance. My disagreement with the Catholic position is primarily the belief that efforts to prevent conception are sinful absent a need to apply mercy in the case of extreme exigency (e.g., significant risk to the life of the potential mother) and that when such exigencies exist, use of non-abortifacient artificial contraception (space barriers) are no more problematic than NFP (time barriers).

[Steve Nicoloso]

**"either a blind allegiance to certain Catholic dogma or else a certain type of philosphical abstraction that can not easily be put into a Biblical framework. The traditional evangelical and mainline Protestant understanding does not function like that. It may actually sometimes consider such thinking as pagan in origin."**

Well blind allegiance is certainly better than no allegiance at all. Sometimes it might even be called for. But this "philosopical abstraction" to which you claim Evangelicalism to be so averse is nothing less than Natural Law. And in a sense you're right, it isn't easy to harmonize Scripture (ALONE) with Natural Law, and touche' it was in fact influenced powerfully by certain philosophers who happened to be pagan, but who also happened on a large number of questions to be right. (Pagans also managed to plow their fields and invent geometry. Should we hold THOSE against them too?) So what you call the "Catholic Trap" fits precisely on the other foot as the "Evangelical Trap", which being defined is: Having no coherent argument against Gay "Marriage", except that it's icky and is forbidden in the Bible.

[Steve Nicoloso]

GL:

Since fertility awareness **can** be as effective at preventing pregnancy as barrier contraception methods (some claim more effective), I don't see why one method is more "merciful" than the other. If the risk of death is really that great from pregnancy, then what minimum rate of "effectiveness" (viz., in preventing pregnancy) ought be acceptable?

True, fertility awareness **can** be used to per se' prevent procreation. That does not therefore make it contraception, for since when is NOT having sexual intercourse equal to contraception? (I would otherwise be guilty of practicing contraception with every woman in the world, save one.) But as you rightly imply, using fertility awareness with the intention to selfishly prevent procreation generally (and not just this month for carefully considered reasons) is a grave sin. It is recognized as such by Catholic Church.

[GL]

>>>What does not therefore make it contraception, for since when is NOT having sexual intercourse equal to contraception?<<<

A couple using NFP is not "NOT having sexual intercourse." They are using a time barrier to avoid conception by "having sexual intercourse" when the likelihood of conception is low. I really don't see a fundamental difference between having sexual intercourse using a time barrier to decrease the likelihood of conception and having sexual intercourse using a space barrier to decrease the likelihood of conception if the time barrier is as or more effective as the space barrier.

It is the motive for abstaining from intercourse which is the issue. If a man abstains from having intercourse with women to whom he is not married, his motive is not preventing conception, but avoiding sin. The same is true if a woman abstains from intercourse with men to whom she is not married. If a man or woman never marries, he or she must abstain from sexual intercourse to avoid sin. If a married couple refrains from intercourse for a time for prayer or fasting, the motive is not preventing conception but to pray and fast. If, however, a couple refrains from intercourse during the periods of greatest likelihood of conception because they are the periods of greatest likelihood of conception and they want to avoid conception, that seems to me to be contraception. Then the issue is whether using any method with the intent to have sexual intercourse while avoiding conception is justifiable. I am not convinced that the method used (so long as it is not an abortifacient) is relevant if avoiding conception is justifiable. In other words, I believe that if avoiding conception is justifiable any non-abortifacient method is permissible; if avoiding conception is not justifiable then no method is permissible.

Thus, I, like you, oppose contraception absent adequate justification. We likely agree on most cases. Where we differ is (1) on when avoiding conception is justifiable (I believe the Catholic Church teaching on the use of NFP is too liberal) and (2) what methods may be used to avoid conception when it is justifiable.

[Steve Nicoloso]

**"I really don't see a fundamental difference between having sexual intercourse using a time barrier to decrease the likelihood of conception and having sexual intercourse using a space barrier to decrease the likelihood of conception if the time barrier is as or more effective as the space barrier."**

GL, please know we are agreed on the diagnosis of most of the ills of modernity and I mean no disrespect, but...

The notion of "time barrier" is casuistic at best. The thing you call a "time barrier" is merely "abstinence", which is the absence (for a variety of intentions, which admittedly can be good or evil) of a thing and not a thing in itself. But you call it by this name to make it appear to be a thing similar to "latex barrier", which IS a real thing.

From past conversations with Protestants, however well intentioned (including myself just a couple short years ago :-) See: http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1527/all-comments/ for a snapshot of ME in late '04 fighting against the univocal teaching of Christian history. I am now embarrassed by the position I held.), I think this stems from a confusion between the objective nature of a behavior and the subjective or affective nature of intention behind a behavior. To equate "abstinence" with "contraception" is necessarily to conflate, irrationally conflate, the objective nature and subjective intention of an action.

It may, or may not, be licit for a couple to INTEND NOT to have a child 9 months from any given moment. If it is NOT LICIT, then they sin by the mere intention alone. However, if the intention IS LICIT, that does not necessarily give cover to any objective action they may take.

To simply abstain from coitus is licit per se' since neither the moral law nor the Church can command a couple to have coitus in any particular instance. I admit that a couple may have an evil intention behind abstaining, but their sin is in their intention and not in their objective action (or in this case inaction).

Now contraception is a device or technique employed to defeat the natural function of coitus. It exists in the objective world. To pull out is an objective action. To utilize a latex barrier is an objective action. To emit semen into unsuitable orifices is an objective action. These actions are considered objectively disordered by the Church, that is to say they are disordered IRRESPECTIVE of the motivations behind them. Yes, it so happens that the intent to contracept is usually behind such actions. But the sin here is not MERELY contraception, but ALSO a violation of the bodily nature by which we are endowed by God.

So you see GL, you've put the locus of the sin ENTIRELY in the intentional realm: A)If it's wrong to NOT want a child in 9 months then its immoral no matter what action or inaction you take. B)But if it's NOT wrong to NOT want a child in 9 months, then any action (assuming you don't kill the child, which is a different sin) is okay. We agree on (A). But we don't agree on (B), which to me seems rather Manichean. Our bodies DO matter and what we do with them, while not entirely divorced from subjective intention, matters too. Our bodily actions either conform to our God-given nature and may thus be judged (objectively at least) good and right, or our bodily actions fail to conform to that nature and may be judged objectively evil.

Intention and action are two different things. They're related, but not synonyms.

Cheers!

[GL]

Brother Steve,

Well, I have lived long enough to *know* that I may change my views. Indeed, until just a few years ago I not only believed contraception was always licit but also acted on that belief. I have confessed and repented that sin.

As you say, we are in general agreement though we reach our conclusions through different means and those means result in some differences in the boundaries we draw. Maybe someday I'll agree with you and the Catholic Church on this point. For now, I do not. If, however, you and I could convince our fellow Christians (Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants) for forgo artificial contraception where we agree it is sinful and to forgo NFP where we agree it is sinful, that would likely solve most of the problem. Then we could concentrate on resolving our differences.

Landmark,

I'll try to address you very important question in the next few days.

[Mike]

Steve, let us agree that the situation in the world and society has thrown the Christian something of a curve ball and a challenge regarding family life, family size, and the understanding of the meaning of sex. Birth control has been around a long time; Biblically since Onan. But it never was as developed and distributed as it is today, and there never was a time when it was considered as something that almost has to happen to almost all of us.

But to get an understanding of how most Protestants will view the official Catholic position may not be pleasant for you. It will be considered an exaggeration, a Phariseical fabrication, and extra-Biblical add-on. This is similar to the notion that "Catholic" means too many extra books of Scripture, too many sacramants, too many non-Biblical devotions, fabricated prayers to Mary, too many layers of Church governance, and the like.

Now we and not saying that the practice of rhythm/NPF is necessarily sinful anymore than barrier contraception use, but it goes against the advice of Paul so it is not Biblical in the least.

So in any discussions with Protestants about these issues, be prepared to be castigated as the Pharisee, as opposed to the paganized general society. You and your ideas are one extreme, the paganized society is the other extreme. That is how it is going to come off so be prepared for this.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Mike, I was a fracking Protestant (Evangelical) for most my life so don't lecture me on how things might look from the Protestant perspective. I know EXACTLY how things look from the Protestant perspective, and that is probably THE reason I've given up the Protest.

And I DO know that there is no coherent natural law argument against gay "marriage" if you accept the licitness of contraception. All you can do is say, "It's icky", and point to a few prooftexts in Scripture. But given a person who does not accept Scripture as authority and who thinks ickiness is perhaps a poor basis for positive law, this argument is neither won nor lost. It doesn't even happen. And thus, from this perspective alone, the Christian can not have a rational discussion in the public square on the subject. It will simply devolve into power politics. And that's not a good way to run, to rightly order, a free society.

So it's fine if you want to give up on Natural Law, if it's just to pagan or unbiblical for you, but be prepared for the consequences: You have nothing universally meaningful to say about the right ordering of society.

I'm not sure what to make about this supposed "curveball" that technology has thrown at us. Men have always sought Consequence-Free Sex (tm), e.g., contraception, sex with boys, prostitutes, abortion, infanticide. Most societies have tried, for OBVIOUS reasons, and in various ways to curtail it. All that has really changed is that our society has given up the fight. And giving up is tantamount to cultural suicide. Surely, you don't want me to agree that human nature has somehow changed such that a husband and wife cannot abstain from sex for 7 days in order to prudentially limit their progeny! Now THAT would be curveball.

[Mike]

OK Steve I got it! Peace Please!

We agree that we are in a very different and somewhat obnoxious culture in our time. If we can not resolve our differences on birth control by deductive thinking using Scripture, or your recently found Catholic philosophy, or whatever, then perhaps we can do something with induction.

In other words if we can not agree on how rhythm/NFP/fertility awareness, etc differs from barrier contraception from deduction, then perhaps we need to apply induction. Like what are the results? I for one know that use of the Pill tends to lull people into a lazy additude moral trap and contributes to the drug culture. This is not something you can just easily use without a certain strange moral hazard. You have to keep paying attention to your motives. Barrier contraception tends to be more effective at keeping the idea of procreation on the table with man and wife and is not possibly abortificent like the Pill or Patch or IDU. I suppose NFP does the same things as barriers but I wonder if it is much too much of a chore to monitor fertility and to abstain every month. This probably causes a lot of trouble and frustration. Of course one can monitor fertility and use barriers during the fertile period and therefore this would be keeping Paul's advice, as pointed out by Landmark about abstaining only for prayer and fasting.

Do you have any information on the results of "NFP"; including yourself. That is, what are the results and characterists of using modern rhythm/NFP?

I suspect this is probably the last post I will make on this thread.

Peace

[Mike]

OK Steve I got it! Peace Please!

We agree that we are in a very different and somewhat obnoxious culture in our time. If we can not resolve our differences on birth control by deductive thinking using Scripture, or your recently found Catholic philosophy, or whatever, then perhaps we can do something with induction.

In other words if we can not agree on how rhythm/NFP/fertility awareness, etc differs from barrier contraception from deduction, then perhaps we need to apply induction. Like what are the results? I for one know that use of the Pill tends to lull people into a lazy additude moral trap and contributes to the drug culture. This is not something you can just easily use without a certain strange moral hazard. You have to keep paying attention to your motives. Barrier contraception tends to be more effective at keeping the idea of procreation on the table with man and wife and is not possibly abortificent like the Pill or Patch or IDU. I suppose NFP does the same things as barriers but I wonder if it is much too much of a chore to monitor fertility and to abstain every month. This probably causes a lot of trouble and frustration. Of course one can monitor fertility and use barriers during the fertile period and therefore this would be keeping Paul's advice, as pointed out by Landmark about abstaining only for prayer and fasting.

Do you have any information on the results of "NFP"; including yourself. That is, what are the results and characterists of using modern rhythm/NFP?

I suspect this is probably the last post I will make on this thread.

Peace

[Steve Nicoloso]

Arrggghhh... well at least I know that I have Touchstone editors and Allan Carlson on my side...

**"I suppose NFP does the same things as barriers but I wonder if it is much too much of a chore to monitor fertility and to abstain every month."**

Just LISTEN to yourself Mike. No, NFP does not collect semen in a latex barrier and prevent it from reaching the fallopian tubes. Yes abstinence prevents semen from reaching fallopian tubes, but not only those of my wife, but every other woman on earth.

It is a practiced discipline to monitor signs of fertility. It is a greater discipline to be willing to forego coitus for a time. To a person conditioned, against his created nature, to expect Consequence-Free Sex (tm) any time he wants it, yes, it is a difficult transition. But one well worth making none the less.

NFP is not the rhythm method, tho' for a woman with a highly regular menstrual cycle, NFP ends up becoming that only with a highly personalized and accurate "rhythm". I'm not its most able proponent. Just use google, dude, you'll find more than you can possibly need. We have used NFP to successfully avoid conception and to successfully reach conception. Try the latter with any other "contraceptive".

Please understand that we have 6 children, the first 5 of which were conceived while were yet engaging in onanistic and sodomitic behavior. So I'm hardly one to talk. Also understand that I agree with GL that NFP **can** be abused. I know an (otherwise very faithful) Prot couple that used NFP to intentionally remain childless for many years. Fortunately, they gave up on the idea of intentional childlessness before it was too late. But the church suffered for their lack of faith. Any type of control we take over our bodies and lives **can** be a dangerous thing (NFP just as with alarm clocks, cialis, and life insurance). Each echoes back to the Lie of Eden: Ye shall be as gods. Sometimes technologies and techniques are per se' licit, sometimes they are not. Abstinence is licit per se', a condom is not. Both **can** be used for evil motives.

What God calls all of us (and all mankind) to is chastity, i.e., mastery over our sexual desires. Assuming a family planning methodology is to be used at all, which do YOU think best fosters chastity: A) periodic abstinence according to mutual agreement; or B) being able to have (simulated) sex whenever you want? As for me, I'll take my chances with the univocal teaching of all Christian churches and sects prior to 1930.

[GL]

Actually, I believe Natural Law is Biblical. I believe that Paul is referencing Natural Law in Romans (though I know that some commentators dispute that).

To any Protestant who believes the Bible is silent on the issue, I suggest reading Luther and Calvin on the subject. I also suggest reading David Kennedy's Birth Control in America, in which he has a chapter dealing with the resistance of Christians, including Protestants, to the legalization, acceptance and use of contraception. I would also recommend the Lutherans and Contraception blog at http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/.

Contraception was without question condemned by all orthodox Christians of all traditions until the last century and Scriptural support for the position was not in doubt. When it was accepted, it was the liberal mainline denominations which led the charge, the same denominations now leading the charge to have openly and sexually active gay clergy and to recognize marriages between same-sex couples. The tragic consequences predicted by opponents of accepting contraception when it was being debated in the 1920s and 1930s have proved accurate. Any intellectually honest Protestant has to concede that accepting contraception was a dramatic deviation from a theretofore universally and unbroken teaching of the Church and an innovative treatment of the relevant Scripture passages. The question it leaves is whether we are to trust 19 centuries of Christian thought and teaching, including support from the leading lights of the ages, or a modern revision developed by leaders of denominations which are now in crisis because of their manifold heresies and apostasies.

Finally, Steve is correct that we have little basis to oppose same-sex relationships and even marriage if we accept contraception. Remember, Luther called contraceptive sexual intercourse sodomitic. I believe Aquinas held the same view.

[TimC]

As a natural-law-appreciating evangelical Protestant practicing NFP, I want to jump in and say that my wife and I are with Steve on this one.

Mike asks "Do you have any information on the results of "NFP"; including yourself. That is, what are the results and characterists of using modern rhythm/NFP?"
There is a wide array of anecdotal evidence from organizations such as CCLI. Together with my own experience and the experience of friends, I can say that the use of NFP is usually--though not universally--beneficial to the marriages in which it is practiced. Against your expectation that charting "is a chore" and causes "trouble and frustration", it is actually the opposite. Husband and wife gain a deep respect for each other's body. This is especially significant for a husband, who is reminded regularly that his wife's beauty (both physical and spiritual) is "by design" and not something to take advantage of or use improperly. Husband and wife both gain from taking a few days to step back and love each other sans coitus. In a society that equates lust with love, it is sometimes hard even for the most well-meaning spouses to always make this subjective differentiation. Thus, NFP enters to make an objective distinction and prevent physical expressions of love from devolving into lust.

Are there some moments of frustration because of sex? Of course--but you find this to be true in every marriage, regardless of contraceptive use. NFP provides a foundation for working through these frustrations in a way that is constructive and that allows the whole persons of the husband and of the wife to participate. And, hey, if a newly-married husband and wife can do this for multiple months (and we did--for licit reasons), anybody can. :-)

With regard to verse 5 of 1 Corinthians 7, I disagree with the interpretation and application of it to NFP. The specific injunction is to "stop depriving." "Deprive" is the important word here, and it is being defined far too broadly for my hermeneutic. One can abstain without "depriving" (just as one can "deprive" without really abstaining.) If I choose not to feed my child between lunch and dinner, I am causing him to abstain, but no rational person could call that deprivation. Similarly, when both spouses are committed to NFP, abstaining for 7-10 days is not a deprivation. And in fact, my wife and I do try to redeem that time by devoting ourselves together to increased prayer. In this way, each month provides times for us to grow together both physically and spiritually.

[GL]

Landmark,

Actually I would refer you to an editorial by Patrick Henry Reardon published a few years ago in Touchstone, The Roots of Roe v. Wade, available at http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-01-003-e

This one sentence sums up his thesis: "We submit, therefore, that children are now being aborted in the flesh, because they have already been, in large measure, aborted from the mind."

I hope reading this editorial will answer your question. If you have more questions, please ask.

[GL]

"For this word which God speaks, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice."

Luther's Works, Vol. 45, The Christian in Society II, The Estate of Marriage, pp. 15-21.

[GL]

Landmark,

You should also read "The fruitful womb: 'Test me in this,' says the Lord of Hosts...," posted by Presbyterian (PCA) pastor Tim Bayly, available at http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/026792.html

and another Tim Bayly post titled, "Making love without making babies...," available at http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/028538.html

See also a sermon by David Bayly, also a PCA pastor and brother of Tim, titled God's 'No' to birth control?, available at http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/005309.html

For additional resources on Protestants and Contraception, see

Contraception and Christianity, available at http://contraskeptic.blogspot.com/

and

Lutherans & Contraception, available at http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/

[redcrosseknight]

(This is a bit off topic from the previous discourse on the subject. However, some might find it a pleasant read. My wife and I are children of the Reformation, and the following is the letter that we wrote to our extended friends and family announcing future children of the Reformation.)

The Issue of our Issue

In the course of a very pleasant review of the Christian Reformed Church’s beliefs on various issues, we discovered the following surprising and yet refreshingly wholesome position. In a 1936 synodical decision, a decision that remains on the books as the church’s official position, the CRC spoke out against birth control, stating that “married people should follow the biblical mandate to be fruitful and multiply and therefore produce as many children as is compatible with the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the mother and the children.” (Apparently the father’s well-being is not to be considered.) The report calls married church members to “fulfill one of the purposes of marriage, which is to beget children.” The report also testifies against the “growing evil of selfish birth restriction.” http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_birth_control.cfm

In our desire to become above reproach, we humbly submitted ourselves to the discipline and the wisdom of the church in this manner—happy to accept the responsibilities and joys that come with full participation in the church.

Consequently, we are pregnant with joy to announce that [my wife] is great with child. God is good. All the time. God is good. Please join us in prayers of thanksgiving for this gracious gift and prayers of petition that God will carry on to completion the good work that he began in us.

[Robert J Espe]

Hi, I'm new here, but I had a thought.

One of the links in the last post had an excellent point by point breakdown of 3 explanations for why God killed Onan. The author mentioned that when trying to ascertain Onan's sin, we must remember that it was very serious. On a level with, among others, Ananias and Saphira's. The author believed that since the Leviterate punishment for not fathering your dead brother's child was humiliation, that that was not why God killed him (the author came to the classic conclusion).

But, I was thinking, what if it was the same as Ananias and Safira? They were free to not give their money to God, but when they tried to get credit for it while not giving their money, God killed them. In the same way, Onan was free not to marry his brother's wife, but he was trying to get sex from her without fulfilling his duty to give her (and then provide for) her son who wouldn't have his name (in other words, it would have cost him money).

Anything wrong with that possibility? I think that would place the issue back within Christian freedom and stewardship.

Kind of a side point: seeing as the no birth control position is very dependent on the idea that God killed Onan for withdrawl, isn't it worth noting that He condemned Kings of Judah for going to doctors, but we don't consider modern medicine to show a lack of faith?

[Steve Nicoloso]

**"Kind of a side point: seeing as the no birth control position is very dependent on the idea that God killed Onan for withdrawl, isn't it worth noting that He condemned Kings of Judah for going to doctors, but we don't consider modern medicine to show a lack of faith?"**

Not really, because in addition to the unambiguous ancient rabbinical and talmudic understanding of the Onan incident, there are 1900 years of univocal Christian teaching for the one view, and none at all for the other. The Scriptures (and Church Fathers) must be read with the mind of the Church. Even Protestants believe that... which is why it is so crucial that Carlson (a Protestant, alas!) points specifically to Protestant "Fathers" in his article.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Marriage of a Christian man and a Christian woman is ideally lived against the current of this sin corrupted world. It is indeed a high calling.

As to the story of Onan, Love gave sons, even when men denied them or the flesh failed. So Sarah conceived and laughed. So Tamar became the mother of twins. So Ruth, under the robe of Boaz, became great grandmother to David, anointed King. So the Handmaid of the Lord, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceived Love in her womb, the Love from before all time.

Paul's urgency in encouraging a celibate life was influenced by his belief that the Lord would return soon.