Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

Oh Matt. Don’t know how to respond to such things either…but I can offer you another t-shirt. I want to order 25 and give them to all the female MDiv grads at convocation…

…

ok. I’m having trouble pasting the image, so just go to
http://revgalblogpals.blogspot.com

[ADMIN EDIT: I can add photos, so here it is ]

Meanwhile, have you read Silence by Shusaku Endo? It’s a fantastic novel about Jesuit missionaries in Japan during a time when there was a lot of persecution of Christians…threw a whole new light on the “standing up for Jesus” idea for me. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

ajt

I agree with you on this one Matt. Not only is the t’shirt possibly offensive, it is dangerous. The spread of sexually transmitted disease is the biggest factor in my mind.

I’ve had a similar experience. Remember when I posted a rant about church closings on Xmas (ooh, that’d really get them going. It’s Xi! A Xi!), and it sparked this firestorm of controversy? Well, once it got past all the people spouting their reactionary viewpoints, I thought we could get down to some real discussion about the nature of the church. Not one response from the people who disagreed with me. It seems when people have strongly impulsive religious beliefs, they only want to go far enough to get their views out there. They don’t feel like open discussion. Admittedly, I do this too, but I’d like to think that if somebody wanted to discuss something with me - not argue - I would be open to it. I was this time, but not a peep from anybody who disagreed with me. I think it’s good to keep up dialogue with “fundies” because it helps us engage with Christianity at a popular level (i.e. people who don’t go to Christian grad schools for enrichment and who don’t read theology in their spare time), and it keeps us from villifying them.

Hi, Matt!

I saw some traffic coming from your blog and so came over here to check it out. I usually don’t respond to these sorts of posts, but I’ve been wanting to respond to you ever since you asked about why I didn’t post your second comment, so I guess I’ll do it here.

For the record, I’ve never been called a “fundie” before that I know of. Not even sure what that means. If it means that I believe in the whole counsel of Scripture and that I believe Scripture should be our Standard for all matters of life and practice, I’ll take it.

I’m sorry that my blog upset you. I wish that I could always please everyone and that I had 50 hours in my day so that I could respond to all comments, explain why I don’t post certain things, and the like.

I won’t get into a lot of detail here, but if you will search the archives in my blog more, you may understand why I have chosen to moderate comments and limit discussions. The bottom line reason is that I just don’t have time. I used to have lots of discussions on my blog (I love argumentation and debate — no wonder I’m married to an attorney!) and we had a weekly up-for-debate feature which garnered comments and discussion from all sorts of views — athiests, humanists, feminists, conservative Christians, “liberal” Christians, etc. It was great, but it also took me about 1-2 hours per day to keep up with and other things suffered. I found myself blogging instead of taking care of my home and family. Even though the discussions were excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed them, I knew that God was not pleased if my family was suffering so that I could minister to others.

At the beginning of this year, I drastically cut back on blogging time (15 mins a day or less) and have had to seriously limit discussions as a result. I’ve missed the discussions, but I’m so grateful that I am honoring my husband by keeping a more clean and orderly home, making good dinners, and not neglecting the many other responsibilities I have as marketing and advertising manager with The Old Schoolhouse Magazine and my own business obligations.

I still always welcome opposing opinions and do post them when, and if, I have time to respond then, or if they can just be posted as is. So, please, if you disagree and have a Biblical basis for your disagreement, feel free to post it.

It is hard to have to make decisions on which comments to post and which not to post. I know I don’t always make the right decisions and I know that people are often offended — something I wish never happened. I want my blog to be a haven of hope and an encouragement, while at the same time confronting the culture. Finding the balance is not always the easiest thing. I want to encourage people to think and I don’t want to discourage good discussion, but I also don’t want people to come to my blog looking for encouragement and leave feeling upset (which was happening on a very regular basis).

I won’t even touch on the birth control issue, other than to say that I believe Christians should value life more than anyone else. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any Scripture which denigrates human life and children. As such, I do not believe it is Biblical to prevent life. On the other hand, I have no problem with medical technology that helps preserve life. I don’t see it as a contradiction. Maybe you do. That’s okay. I know this is a hot-button issue and I’m not here to condemn anyone to hell who disagrees with me on it. But, I’m not going to back down from promoting the blessedness of children and the wonderful, glorious calling that parents have to raise up the next generation to the glory of God!

Thanks for taking the time to read this and thank you for your desire to earnestly seek the Lord. May the Lord be glorified in and through us as we strive to become “conformed into His image.”

Hey Matt, I’m glad you posted this in the open trackbacks. I have them on Mondays and Thursdays, and you can put any post you want to recommend in them, whenever it was written. It’s a free for all.

Matt,

I think you are sorely underestimating or, at least, not considering the full implications of your position on birth control. While I agree with you that the t-shirt is needlessly offensive and sends an improper message, birth control is a matter which Christians have left too far on the backburner. I suspect that within Protestantism, there is a strong tendancy to not get “preachy” on it because the Catholic Church does. Still, it should be noted that the move towards endorsing birth control as ok within any Christian branch is a relatively new phenomena. There is good reason to believe that such an endorsement, coupled with the general lack of sexual morality in society as a whole, has contributed greatly to the decline in family size; the positive place of children in marriage; and the efficacy of marriage as a holy institution.

Aside from this “utilitarian” arguments, the fact is that chemical contraception (what is usually at issue) runs the risk of preventing implantation, and thus has the same effect as the morning after pill or, for that matter, abortion; it deprives a conceived human being of life which should never be seen as “ok” by any Christian, regardless of their affiliation.

I haven’t read your blog extensively yet, so don’t really know where you’re coming from theologically, but the interesting thing I see in your issues w/ Crystal’s blog is that both issues depend on the same thing:

Christians who deny Christ because they think their ministry depends on them are not submitting to God’s sovereignty. Many of the early Christians may have had to spend less time in the Catacombs by denying the Gospel, but they knew that God could save them any time He wanted and that their only task was faithfulness (Acts 7-8).

Christians who use birth control should consider that, like Christians who deny Christ, they may be held accountable for not completely submitting to God’s Sovereignty. I realize that this argument can be extended to all healthcare, but both cases are those which require us asking whether our faith revolves around us or Him.

Matt,

I just read up on all these various comments, and call me crazy, but I think that you and Crystal have some fundamental differences over what it means to be biblical.

I’ve been thinking about your statement, “But, for many, I don’t think the issue is “do I have enough faith to die for Christ?” but “do I have enough faith to deny Him to those around me to further His work?”” and I want to point out that the only disciple to deny Christ was Peter, and you know how that turned out. I don’t think there is any “exemption” in the bible for Christians to deny Christ for any reason. I know of Chinese Christians who have - I am the communications gatekeeper for a missionary who was in China, and is now in another country - and they regret it because it hurt their testimony. If we don’t worship Him, the very rocks and stones will cry out. The heavens testify to His glory. In short, we’re not essential to the furtherance of His plan. He uses us for OUR sake, not for His. So if we deny Christ, we hurt ourselves. Just my 2 cents…

Wow. This HAS been quite a hotbed of commenting!!! Well done.

As a newly married woman, (3 months) we are using birth control. When we were looking into our options, there were those that made us uncomfortable…but in the end, we were able to find something that made sense for us and still was ethically acceptable to us. (see http://themarriagebed.com/pages/biology/birthcontrol.shtml for a good description of the different kinds)

On a more practical level, it seems prudent that I should finish my Masters degree before we try to have kids. If we DO have kids, I truly believe that I will be a better PERSON for having completed my Masters work…which will translate into me being a better parent. Of course, it will also make me a better leader, whether I am working for pay or volunteering. And I feel ‘called’ to pursue good leadership, so I would be ‘denying’ Christ if I did not follow through.

Thanks for all your responses…VERY pastoral.

Thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.

Also - for what it’s worth - I was careless and rude in my verbiage about Crystal’s blog in my trackback. I had not even clicked to visit the blog when I wrote it, I just knee-jerk replied to the concept of birth control being for wimps. When I did get around to actually looking at the blog, I realized that I’m an idiot. (Not the first time I’ve noticed that.) I’ve read Crystal’s blog many times, and while I don’t always agree with her, my smart aleck remarks implying that she may be a hypocrite were uncalled for and undeserved. I apologize especially to Crystal, and also to Matt, and Matt’s readers.

Please don’t clump all of us “fundies” together! As in all “sections” of Christianity, there are people to the left, the right, and in the middle. As a fundamentalist, I don’t always agree with Cyrstal’s blog, but who is ever going to agree completely with anyone?
I can see your point and agree with you in many areas, and thank you for your insight.
In the end, when we Christians are all in heaven together, will we see the foolishness of our ways and how we were wasting time on silly things when we should have been focusing on the one needful thing?

I’m coming late to this discussion — been busy starting a new job — but I can’t resist adding my $0.02…

In order to discuss fundamentalism, we need to distinguish between the “literal” meaning of the word, and its use as a technical term describing a certain historical trend.

It certainly sounds good to say “I believe in the fundamental truths of Christianity.” However, when I use the term “fundie”, I’m thinking of a particular attitude that is characterized by spending immense amounts of energy on irrelevancies, supported by self-righteous isogesis, in order to be able to feel good about oneself while ignoring the massive real problems in the world.

This movement was formalized in the publication of The Fundamentals in the 1910′s. I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that its roots lie in southern slavery and racism — if you concentrate furiously on petty sins, you can ignore the far greater evil that surrounds you.

People who voiciferously condemn birth control (and Harry Potter, and the Horseless Carriage) would still keep women in virtual economic and intellectual slavery.

People like Crystal who automatically say “I believe in the authority of the Bible” are a clear example of this kind of thinking. What they uphold is a particular interpretation of the Bible that is often out of sync with the thrust of orthodoxy. The first step in geniuine reflection and dialoge on these issues it to acknowledge that we’re fallible humans reading fallible humans’ translations of the Bible, so our interpretation is two steps removed from the reality of the Bible.

The church’s historical opposition to birth control is based on an erroneous interpretation of Genesis 38. Onan’s sin was not in preventing conception per se, it was in denying his brother’s wife the economic stability of children who could care for her in her old age. To suggest that women now should be kept in a permanent state of morning sickness is to limit their economic, social and intellectual potential, and thus a sin.

And the argument that “I’m just going to leave it up to God” is a clear cop-out — a clear abdication of the free will that we have as a part of the imago dei. When I go out walking in rainy Vancouver, is it a sin to carry an umbrella? Shouldn’t I rather trust God to decide whether or not I get rained on? We make choices to modify our circumstances all the time, exercising this God-given power.

I’m very late to this discussion, but had to throw this out there as well.

Until I got pregnant with my first child, I thought I wanted many children, as many as God would give me. Not because of any particular ideology, but simply because I loved children and wanted several.

Then we found out that I had a massive uterine fibroid.

Now, many women have them, and they do affect their pregnancies, and I have to say they did not affect the pregnancy itself in my case either.

But. I was lucky.

There are several factors in my case that make it dangerous for me to have as many children as I’d hoped to have.
1) Fibroids pose a threat to a pregnancy. One of the risks is a second-trimester miscarriage. Thankfully that has not happened to me with either of my two pregnancies.
2) The location of my fibroid creates enormous pressure, and it is very painful once into the second trimester.
3) The location of it also makes it necessary to have C-sections. And not the lovely bikini line ones, either. The old-fashioned, scar-to-the-belly-button kind. Which leads to
3) These types of scars (vertical) are far more likely to rupture than the horizontal kind. Making it dangerous to continue to get pregnant over and over again. Not to mention that when I get pregnant, it’s not just the pressure from the child, it’s the pressure from the fibroid as well, so there is more pressure on the scar tissue than there typically would be.

I have two children now. My husband and I had a very hard time deciding whether to have a third, given the risks, but we are going to go for a third and then not have any more.

All this to lead to my point(s).

God gave us free will for a reason. He expects us to use it responsibly. I am convinced it would be extremely irresponsible of me to continue with my original plan of several pregnancies given my medical issues. As it is, we are going to have to take steps medically to make this last pregnancy safer than it would normally be.

There is a name for people who do not believe in any form of birth control. They are called “quiver-full.” And I wonder what they would say to someone like me.

Would they expect me to continue to get pregnant and trust God to make sure nothing happened to me or to the fetus? Of course he could do so - he’s God. He could also protect me from breaking my leg if I jumped off my roof or keep a car from hitting me if I run out into the street but I’m not going to test him. Because going into something knowing the consequences and asking God to protect you anyway is foolish, in my opinion.

Would they expect me to not use birth control, and trust God to prevent further pregnancies? Again, of course he could. He’s God. But in my opinion that is akin to telling someone to not take medication for a condition that they have, and let God heal them. It would irresponsible for them to do so. To say that birth control can be used irresponsibly by some people and that they use it in order to be sinful without immediate consequences of having children may very well be true, but I fail to see what that has to do with my particular situation.

God gave us freedom of will, and we are expected to use it, and use it responsibly. God also is giving men the wisdom to discover medical advances, and without them I would not even have the two sons that I have. Medical advances have also given me the means to prevent further pregnancies that would be dangerous for me or the fetus or both. And I intend to use them.

I’m not a great writer, but I tried to make my points at least somewhat clear. And again, I know I’m late in commenting, but there are few things I feel so strongly about, and one of them is the quiver-full mentality with their belief that birth control is a slap in the face of God.

Hey! Good discussion going on. Just have a random thought about the term “birth control”. We typically use the term to describe acts or methods which prevent conception. But what about those acts which actually increase the odds of conception. I’m thinking of everything from fertility drugs to the rythm method to the extreme cases of women who stop nursing early so their cycle will return.

If trying to prevent conception is an attempt to take into our hands what God should control then why wouldn’t trying to increase conception fall into the same category.

Don’t have a definite answer on this one. Just musing.

Also late to the discussion, but keeping the thread moving…

I’ve been in these discussions before - talking to “Full Quiver” people who seem to believe that having more children is more faithful than having less; that not using birth control represents a position of greater trust in God than “taking control” of conception. One person I talked to about this issue said “I guess you have to decide if it’s about what you want or what God wants.” (with the implication that not using birth control was leaving things up to God…)

I think Matt is right on when he comments that central to this debate is how you think about the sovereignty of God. I don’t know anyone who uses the same sort of logic about (not) going to the Doctor (“I’m leaving my health up to God”) or (not) wearing a seatbelt (“I’m trusting God for my safety instead of trying to take control of it myself”). I love Barth’s phrase “the free determination of man in the free decision of God” as a description for how the sovereignty of God works in and through our own efforts. I highly recommend reading a little from Ellul’s “The Politics of God, the Politics of Man”[http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1506&C=1333] (one of my favorite books and the place I first saw the Barth quote).

The usual response to this is that “Children are a blessing from God” and to reject God’s blessing must surely be wrong. And how can you argue with that? It says it right in the Bible… Psalm 127 - 3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. (KJV)

(Hence the “full-quiver” moniker, if you hadn’t figured it out already). Taken as a legal statement one can clearly infer from Psalm 127 that God as an act of deliberate will gives children as blessings, hence “rejecting them” (using birth control) would be wrong. Conversely God must be punishing the childless by withholding blessings from them. Clearly as well, the more children you have the more God is blessing you. Some people go so far as to say that children are weapons of offensive spiritual warefare (arrows, don’t you know) and people who refuse to, uh, arm themselves aren’t fighting on God’s side…

I think these sorts of interpretations are based on an incorrect approach to reading the Bible. Psalm 127 is not trying to establish that sort of logical/legal framework to think about children, but rather is affirming the Biblical message that all good things are ultimately blessings from God and he is to be thanked for them. Ecclesiastes asserts that work and enjoying work is a gift from God; the Lord’s prayer affirms that our daily bread is a gift from God, even the rain that falls is a blessing from God. Can you imagine talking to someone who demanded that we eat all the food that we can because it is a blessing from God? (Imagined conversation: Here, have another muffin. Oh, you don’t want it? Well who are you to reject a blessing from God?) A good wife is a blessing, and yet I would never tell a teenager who does not feel ready for marriage that he is rejecting God’s blessing unless he marries immediately.

Fundamentally, I see conception as a natural part of this natural world: we eat, we work, we sorrow, we laugh. We reproduce, and we die. All of the good we experience in this world is a gift, by faith, from God, and for all good things we must give thanks. Children are a blessing (I should know, I have an 1 year old daughter) and I do think God’s intent, his design pattern, is for humans to find a mate and have children. In doing this there is great satisfaction and joy: God is a creator God, a parent, and we are designed in his image. That said, the idea that failing to have as many children as physically possible is rejecting God’s blessing or failing to trust Him comes from our misreading of Scriptures.

To get into Psalm 127 a bit: I don’t think God’s point of view in regards to children in Psalm 127 is that He is establishing some sort of spiritual law “Many Children are a Great Blessing” and then bestowing that blessing upon faithful followers, as much as He is saying, I want to bless my faithful servant and what my servant wants (as his culture and time and place dictate) is lots of children. Ok, I will bless him with lots of children.

In fact, it is even more specific than that. Ps 127 is translated by the KJV “children” are a heritage and “children” are like arrows. The hebrew word used, however, is “ben” and literally means “sons”. It can be used in a gender inclusive sense as well (like english gendered nouns), but the KJV translates it as the masculine ~3000 times (sons, son, grandson, etc) and in the inclusive (children, offspring, etc) ~1500 times. It’s the translators choice by context which way to go, and I would argue from the context that other versions (RSV for instance) made the right decision in translating it “sons”. Look at the context:

Why is a man happy with a quiver full of children (sons)? “They shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” “Enemies” in this sense likely refer to legal/social disputes (as “the Gate” is a place of business, see ref in Prov. 31 and I think the story of Ruth has legal business conducted at the gate.) Why will they not be ashamed? Jewish culture saw barrenness as a specific curse from God (which parenthetically I would argue we cannot any longer; see Jesus’ attitude towards physical ailments, etc) and so not having any children is a shameful thing. Further, however, not having a son means a family name does not go forward and so not having any sons is also seen as a calamitous thing and likely sign of God’s disfavor. (See the very many rabbinic sayings about sons being better than daughters, the general superiority of being a man, etc, for good examples of this kind of thinking.) Finally, I strongly suspect (and some commentators agree) that the reason “they shall not be ashamed” is that a mature man with multiple adult sons (remember, these are the children of his youth) is more imposing physically and socially.

From the context, then, I would say would be a very poor reading of Psalms 127 to say that it is teaching that children are offensive weapons of spiritual warfare and it is the Christian’s duty to have as many as possible in order not to reject God’s Blessing. A much more likely reading (free rendering to get sense right here, not word order or literally correct) “Happy is the man whom God has blessed with many sons while still young. He can stand strong and be confident, like a warrior with a good weapon, when he deals with his competitors in his daily business.”

Ok, I’m going on way too long here. Guess I’ve had this discussion one too many times. Anyways - I have nothing against people who choose to have large families. I just think everyone plans: some to have as many as possible and some to have a certain number. We shouldn’t, however, be making family size (either way) a measure of spirituality or faith…

Where to begin? (though I’m hoping this will be fairly brief)

There is a fundamental difference between medicines that PROMOTE health and the body’s natural funcitioning (Tylenol, chemotherapy to rid one’s body of a terrible mutation, fertility drugs that may help to restore the ‘unnatural’ infertility, etc) and those that act only to PREVENT the body’s natural, healthful functioning. In fact, outside of an immuno-suppressant that might help a transplant recipient’s body to accept a new organ, chemical birth control is the only, ahem, “medicine” that I can think of that acts in such a way. Fertilization is the natural result of sex; the pill suppresses ovulation (not natural) and thins out the uterine wall, making the uterus inhospitable, ‘just in case’ an egg should manage to sneak by and get itself fertilized.

I used to be a believer in the pill. However, in order to justify this, I had to change my idea of when life begins, arguing that it begins at implantation. It certainly begins at conception, with the fusing of egg and sperm, and any other contention is just silly.

There is this little thing called Natural Family Planning, but I think that most people balk at the idea of exercising this little thing called “self-control” (yes, even within marriage). Separating the sexual act from the possibility of procreation essentially changes our bodies into machines that we can use for only pleasure (no babies!) with the pill. This separation is a gnostic idea if I ever heard one, that is, “it doesn’t matter what we do with our physical bodies as long as our hearts are in the right place” (anyone remember what they say that the road to hell is paved with?). Despite its reputation as a rhythm method that only fools and Catholics would use, NFP works HOLISTICALLY with body and soul to achieve an end, either pregnancy or prevention. Yes, it requires sacrifice, but doesn’t everything valuable require sacrifice?

I too am a Master’s student at what is most certainly a much better school than probably anyone else on this blog, and my husband and I may have preferred to wait a bit longer than I will be to have a baby (one year into a 2-year program). We’re having one though, thanks be to God, and, though I am at times terrified of the year to come, I would never change a thing that led up to us expecting this child, including shunning the pill. I am certainly no fundamentalist-for example, I would say that my view of one’s ‘call’ is a heck of a lot more liberal than that of many posts I’ve read above-but I do believe that there are principles and basic ethics that transcend time and space. This is certainly one of those issues.

Matt,

I have come across the Origenator before and I can tell you that she is in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. I suspect, unless there are Oxford posters on here, that she can lay claim to being in a “better” school. Still, I read her remark to imply that whatever excuses others may have concerning putting off babies b/c of their grad school work doesn’t have much purchase with her considering she’s in one of the most rigorous programs in the world in her field. Also, I think it distinguishes her from any possible accusation of being uneducated or a “backwards fundie” in her thinking. Perhaps the tone could have been better, but I can understand where she is coming from and why she would feel put off by the comments on here.

Matt, I also think you are using a rather mishmashed approach to what NFP is all about. NFP does not profess to leave all in God’s hand, but rather embrace what God has given us. It seeks to work with the natural functions of the human body, fulfilling always the procreative AND unitive purposes of the sexual act. Also, it promotes what was and still is a long standing Christian practice (at least in churches that still take a holy life seriously): abstaining from sex…even in marriage! Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, placed before us for the common Salvation of all in it. It is not a “free ticket” to partake in sex until one explodes.

I have to confess, Matt, that I’m just not sure where your “theology” is coming from on this matter. Your argument appears to be based a lot on your own personal “feeling” of what God does/does not want. Perhaps that is as far as it needs to go for you, but obviously for myself-being Orthodox-I tend not to rest with my subjective assessments of what God does/does not want. Obviously, we also part ways on using Scripture as an “exhaustive source” of moral teachings. I’m not sure what your opinion is of the matter, but for the life of me, I can’t imagine why Christ-being God-would have laid out to his Apostles an entire script of every moral problem that was going to arise over the “X” number of years until the Second Coming. To say there is no prohibition on birth control specifically would also have to come with an admission that there is no prohibition against slavery specifically or dumping radioactive waste in rivers and so forth. I doubt you have a problem extrapolating from the text of Scripture and the teachings of Christ answers to many issues not specifically mentioned-why the difficulty with birth control?

As for the University of Chicago, I think it’s hard to touch in certain areas. It’s Biblical Studies Department has both Hans Joseph Klauck and Margaret Mitchell, both of whom are pillars in the field. Whatever Regent’s virtues (and I’m not trying to imply there aren’t any), it’s size and positon simply can’t compete.

First, my apologies. I made a snotty remark, and for that I apologize. Its intent was not to say, “I go to a better school, therefore I am smarter” or anything like that-much like you, I’m sure, I don’t like it when people pull rank with their institutions. What I did mean to say was (in line with Mr. Sanchez’s explication of my remark) that 1) school in general is not a justification for using the pill to deny life (for crying out loud, one family I know of, not Christian thus not fundamentalist, started having children while BOTH parents were in med school!); and 2) I am not at some institution that is telling me that my job is to have babies, and is, so far in my experience, not entirely hospitable to students with families. True, it may be easier to stay awake in class without having a baby wake you up during the night, but the ends do not justify the means in any case.

Second, you asked “what is natural?” As you should be able to tell from my post, I certainly do not take it that “no chemicals” necessarily equals “natural.” The larger question for me is “what is medicine?” I would argue that it is an art and science that ought to be used to preserve the body’s natural, healthful functioning, thus the idea that curing illnesses is not somehow against God’s will. However, this is not a free ticket to do whatever we want with medicine; again, the ends do not justify the means. For example, using the bodies of aborted babies for research is reprehensible. You also argue that the planning aspect ultimately goes against God’s will. Why? God gave us minds to use; we are not creatures subject to our passions; they are within our control. I plan to exercise a number of times each week to kepp my body functioning adequately and to counteract the effects of certain things that I may have put into it. This is an exercise of reason. If I don’t want to be pregnant, guess what?, I don’t have sex, even within marriage! Again, ends do not justify means. In this case, we ought to work with the body’s natural functions to achieve a desired result. It seems to me that this is an entirely appropriate use of our reason and scientific knowledge. Yes, some fundamentalists may disagree, whatever their religious denomination, but most spiritual leaders, from my knowledge, will condone Natural Family Planning as a way of planning that uses our God-given reason while leaving room for God to work (which the pill fairly precludes, at least as far as we are concerned in our mentalities).

From my experience, reliance on NFP has the incredibly positive effect of changing one’s mentality concerning children from, “oops, the pill failed” to “a child!” (happy exclamation). An oversimplification, yes, but true in general.

Regarding your response to Mr. Sanchez that “God made sex to feel good”, yes, that’s true, but again, when you separate the “feeling” and intimacy-building aspect from the procreative one, this is a gnostic division between flesh and spirit. While it’s great if one’s “heart is in the right place”, I question the extent to which that matters when one is careless of the body. God made us soul AND BODY. What we do with most matters. I can eat lots of ice cream because it makes me feel good, but if I disregard what it does to my body, there is a big problem.

There lots of ways to justify lots of things, especially by way of our fallen human reason. This is a common thread running thru this discussion, that “this works for me (by my justification), therefore it must be okay.” This is not always true, and I think that Mrs. J’s challenge that at the very least, we ought to be ready to be held accountable for our actions is right-on. Justify birth control all you want, but if you’re not actually prepared to answer for the possibility that it is completely out of line with what God asks of us — well, maybe you’d better look more carefully at the issue. The late Pope John Paul II’s Humanae Vitae is a great place to start.

Thanks Matt - I was wondering what happened to my comment. I’m still lurking, watching the discussion with interest. I’m thinking more about Origenator’s points now

There is a fundamental difference between medicines that PROMOTE health and the body’s natural funcitioning (Tylenol, chemotherapy to rid one’s body of a terrible mutation, fertility drugs that may help to restore the ‘unnatural’ infertility, etc) and those that act only to PREVENT the body’s natural, healthful functioning. In fact, outside of an immuno-suppressant that might help a transplant recipient’s body to accept a new organ, chemical birth control is the only, ahem, “medicine” that I can think of that acts in such a way. Fertilization is the natural result of sex; the pill suppresses ovulation (not natural)

I don’t think things are quite so clear cut - many medicines interfere with the “normal” functioning of our bodies if you define “normal” as “what they would do without interference.” I’m not a medical expert so pardon any errors, but off the top of my head: arthritis medicines also suppress natural immune responses since these natural responses may destroy your joints. Stroke patients are given medicine that diminishes the natural ability of the blood to clot (since the clot is likely what caused the stroke). And of course the entire field of psychoactive drugs alter the natural chemistry of the brain to reduce depression or whatever. People take hormones they aren’t producing to grow (testosterone) and to reduce the effects of menopause (estrogen). Each of these sorts of things is “unnatural” in the sense you’ve been describing - they stop a behavior on the part of the body that is natural but not desired. You do normally want immune response, blood clotting, normal brain chemistry and normal levels of testosterone and estrogen. Except when you decide that for whatever reason you don’t…

More generally, I’m not much impressed by what boil down to arguments from natural law. The argument that because something is, it is moral has always seemed weak to me. In our case, because sex naturally is tied to reproduction it is immoral to artificially separate the two? Such an argument could be used to justify abortion: Women “miscarry” w/o (realising it) a signifigant percentage of fertilized embryos (I’ve heard as much as 20% or 30% of fertilized embryos do not sucessfully implant). Oviously then by natural law early abortion (preventing implantation) is “moral”. Or how about homosexual activity among animals: doesn’t that imply it might be acceptable for people since it is “natural” (people do actually make these arguments, you know). Because something exists in nature does not automatically carry a moral implication.

I do recognise that in God’s created order sex is the means of and carries the possibility of reproduction and I recognise that children are consistently treated throughout Scripture as a gift from God (as are all good things). Scripture, especially the New Testament, has a nuanced view, however, towards voluntarily not reproducing. Both Jesus and Paul recognise the possibility of giving up sex (and reproduction) for the sake of service to God. I do not see that scripture deals explicitly with the issue of married couples mutually choosing to plan (as much as possible) their families (when, how many, etc) and I see this act (apart from issues like whether specific contraceptives are abortifacient) as morally neutral.

There is this little thing called Natural Family Planning, but I think that most people balk at the idea of exercising this little thing called “self-control” (yes, even within marriage). Separating the sexual act from the possibility of procreation essentially changes our bodies into machines that we can use for only pleasure (no babies!) with the pill.

So what do you say to the sterile and the post-menopausal? Is sex only worthwhile if it carries the possibility of procreation? I honestly don’t know what to make of the statement the using the pill “changes our bodies into machines that we can use only for pleasure”. Does that negative condemnation of sex apply to all sex that doesn’t have the possibility of procreation? On the contrary, I think the Bible has at least hints of appreciation for sex as purely pleasure driven (Song of Solomon) and as a unifying experience for a couple and means of satisfying the biological imperatives God has given us. [cf Richard Hayes most excellent take on 1 Cor 7]. All those appreciations are placed within God’s intent in the created order of course (lifetime marriage) but they do exist none the less.

This separation is a gnostic idea if I ever heard one, that is, “it doesn’t matter what we do with our physical bodies as long as our hearts are in the right place”

Well, yes I see how you could say that from a certain vantage point. Of course it could also be seen as gnostic to completely devalue the purely physical appreciation for sex (it’s fun, makes you feel good, eases stress and tension) while only valuing it if engaged in a spiritual, procreative sense.

I don’t really mean to pick on you Origenator- I know plenty of people in Catholic and homeschooling circles (both the back to nature hippie and strict fundy groups) who value large families and make similiar arguments about the benefits of NFP. My response is that I’m glad you’re happy with it. I’m even willing to listen to you explain why I should be interested in trying it. What always baffles me are people who argue that it is more moral, more faithful, and that somehow the scriptures have pronounced definitively on this subject…

What’s funny is the omission on the part of Mr. Sanchez and the “Origenator” (as they stick up for each other) that they are, in fact, married.

If one waits until one is completely ready for children, one will probably never have them. Most just wait until they want them. Thus, they are following their own wills and not God’s. I would agree with you that it is just as unbiblical to use drugs that enhance fertility. It is just as unbiblical to time intercourse for when a child is unlikely to be conceived. Actually, this is more unbiblical; we are commanded not to deny our spouse of sexual gratification. It seems that the reason Catholics feel that this method is okay has to do with their belief that Mary and Joseph remained celibate in their marriage. This is not part of my own beliefs. I believe that remaining celibate is nigh impossible for just about anyone; I believe in short courtships/engagement periods and early marriage. Not having sex is even harder, of course, if you’ve had it previously. Paul gives burning (lust) as a good reason for marriage. I think that it is far more biblical to not prevent conception in marriage at all, either through drugs, barrier methods, or surgery. (However, I do think that barrier, spermicidal and surgical methods-that is, ones that do not destroy a child-should be legal.) I have not always had this view; God and my experiences have led me to this conclusion. Birth control has always felt wrong to me, and I was very relieved to stop using it. (I have since repented of this sin.) Married couples will have plenty of time to practice self-control anyway, out of respect for each other. Marriage is a deep and permanent commitment to another human being. Marriage was created for children. If you aren’t ready for kids when you get married, don’t worry; you’ll have 6-8 months’ notice.

dude, you missed the point. The shirt is a joke, nothing more. It would be quite hilarious seeing a woman who is expecting, wearing that shirt. Need to lighten up just a tad here.

Yes…I’ve been to that site and read about how a real Christian woman doesn’t:
1.)use birth control
2.)go to college
3.)work outside the home…ever
4.)choose her own clothes, jewelry, or hairstyle (because hubby will do it for her)
5.)send her children to public school…ever
6.)leave home until she gets married…because she needs to be under male authority until death
7.)etc….it could go on forever

I notice that when I offer an opinion that does not agree with her own that it usually is not published. When it it…all of her “supporters” quickly attack.

Oh…and I feel the need to add that I am a Christian who loves my husband and family…I’m not an atheist in the least! And, as a side note, some friends of mine have been going to classes on natural family planning for about 4 months. They have been married for one month and one week…and they thought they were doing well on the natural plan…until the test came back positive this past week!