I am always open to correction, in fact I desire correction. Therefore, I am interested in exploring, once again, whether there is a defensible "half-way" position that would allow for clear cases in which there would be absolutely NO SIN in contracepting. I propose that this would require one to believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contracepting - that only the motives for using it could be sinful.
My position against this "half-way" position is that there is something intrinsically wrong with contraception - that "be fruitful and multiply" is a moral absolute.
As such, what should we do if two or more of absolutes come into unavoidable conflict? At this link to an earlier post of mine on Christian ethics, you will read:
"Basically, there are three answers to this question. First, unqualified absolutism [Roman Catholicism favors this one] affirms that all such conflicts are only apparent; they not real. In short, no two absolute obligations ever come into unavoidable conflict. Second, conflicting absolutism [the more Lutheran position in my opinion] admits to real moral conflicts but claims that one is guilty no matter which way he goes. Third, graded absolutism (or the greater-good position) [favored by Calvinists] agrees with the view that real moral conflicts do sometimes occur, but maintains that one is personally guiltless if he does the greatest good..." [Geisler]
These ethical principles for moral dilemmas are the only ones open to honest Christians, and stand in stark contrast to the moral relativism or "situation ethics" of our secular culture.
I hold that contraception is either wrong or it is not. The "situation" does not make it right unless God has given a clear exemption in His Word.
It seems even those who take a "half-way" position agree that a married couple needs a defensible reason to contracept. Most people, even non-Christians, usually offer some sort of excuse or rationale for limiting their family. I think most of us on this blog would even agree on what might be defensible reasons - for instance, rare cases in which we should preserve the life of the mother (i.e. obeying the Fifth Commandment).
That brings up a moral absolute all Christians still agree on. God said "Thou shalt not Kill." Killing is always a bad thing. However, God has given us clear exemptions to this moral absolute in which there is no sin in killing: the vocations of executioner and soldier. Outside of these legitimate vocations, killing is ALWAYS sinful. These vocations are not cases of "conflicting absolutes" because God has given these vocations as specific exemptions to the Fifth Commandment.
So, if one accepts the premise that "be fruitful and multiply" is a moral absolute, has God given any specific exemptions to this divine ordinance? Luther writes regarding this as follows:
"...from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19:12, 'There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.' Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end." [Luther's Works, vol. 45, page 15 ff]
In addition, 1 Corinthians 7:5 allows for abstinence within marriage for a very specific and limited purpose: "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
It is my position that outside of these Biblical exemptions, contraception (whether "artificial" or so-called "natural" family planning) is sinful.
Again, so there is no confusion, I agree there are "hard cases" which would allow for the use of contraception. These are not illusions, but real moral dilemmas. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contracepting, there can be no dilemma, and no sin in contracepting. In fact, one would need no excuse to contracept if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
On the other hand, if you agree that there is something intrinsically wrong with contracepting, the only disagreement I think we can have is what to call our actions in these "hard cases." I believe these are cases in which contracepting may be considered the "lesser evil" - not the "greater good." In these rare moral dilemmas, we try to choose the lesser evil (we can never be certain we have) and throw ourselves on the mercy found in Christ. We don't trust our decisions and actions to justify us, but rather Christ.
Let me take this a step further and, again, confess my own sin. Even my best efforts at obeying God's divine ordinance to "be fruitful and multiply" are in need of forgiveness. I do not use any forms of contraception, yet I am still guilty of being contraceptive in my heart. With our ninth child only eight months old, my sinful mind often hopes that my wife's on-demand nursing will still prevent conception for a time. I struggle with this sin. Don't get me wrong, I do LOVE our large family and believe I am very blessed, just as it says in Psalm 127. But I am at the same time saint and sinner, just as Paul confesses in Romans 7. I believe I should be open to God's blessing of children at any time He chooses, trusting that He will always provide our daily bread.
My knowledge of God's law regarding procreation curbs me from utilizing overt methods of family planing through the first use of the law. And it instructs me in loving God and His immutable good will for us via the third use of the law. But it also on this earth will always convict me via the second use of the law.
"What a wretched man I am. Who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" [Romans 7:24-25]
Posts
23 comments:
Having nine children was much easier in times and cultures where whole families (mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.) lived together in close proximity.
Having said that, I agree that as much as possible we should let God be God and be in control of our reproduction, blessing us with as many or as few children as he so desires. This is the ideal.
Unfortunately, because of sin, the Church in this life can only begin to reflect the perfection of Eden. So, even Christians who hate divorce find themselves getting divorced, having split families, etc. Christian couples who believe that children are "an heritage of the Lord" and a divine blessing nevertheless find the challenge of increasing family size and "perpetual parturition" to be too daunting a prospect and take steps to stop reproduction altogether.
If the Lord was willing to make concessions for his people in Deuteronomy concerning divorce and other laws, perhaps in his mercy he will not pass judgment on those who have chosen to limit their family size because they have had enough of the breast feeding, the crying and sleepless nights, and the general mayhem that comes with having several young children at once. I certainly will not.
Pr. Beisel,
Thank you for your comment.
This first paragraph is really not pertinent to the point of my post, but I'd like to say that I'm not so sure that having nine children was easier in previous times and cultures. There were advantages with regard to the greater support of extended families living in close proximity. Our present culture is also very anti-child. However, I would assert that the present period we live in has many more advantages for the vocation of parent, making it much less difficult and heartbreaking than in previous times. Not the least of these changes is the dramatic decrease in infant mortality and morbidity rates over the past century. Two of our nine children never saw the light of day. I cannot imagine the pain and anguish experienced in previous generations. In our modern culture we also don't have to worry about whether we're going to have enough food to keep our children alive. Yes, there are modern challenges, but I believe parenting large families is, considering all factors, much easier today than it was in previous times.
That said, on to the meat of your comment. With regard to your thoughts about concessions for those who "have had enough of the breast feeding..." - if God was willing to make concessions for contraception like He made concerning divorce, would He not have given us those exceptions in Scripture? Are we free to dream up possible exceptions that God has not specifically given in Scripture?
When we find God's law difficult or even impossible to keep and we start to give-in to our temptations, should pastors ease our consciences by softening God's law and sympathizing with our "difficult" circumstances? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Mercy and comfort is found in forgiveness, not in imaginary concessions.
I just think your post, though you try to make exceptions for hard cases, lacks compassion. Though I agree with you in principle, I think that your post heaps unnecessary guilt upon those who lack the strength to do what you are doing in your family, which is commendable.
Correction: I make no "exceptions" for hard cases. I believe contraception may be the "lesser evil" in true moral dilemmas (i.e. hard cases when there is no sinless option available). The concept of "exceptions" is the more Calvinist principle of "graded absolutism" which pronounces a man guiltless in disobeying the lesser absolute if he chooses the "greatest good."
And, for what its worth, I most certainly do have compassion for all who struggle with this issue. I struggle with it myself. I am also not a stranger to those who "have had enough of the breast feeding, the crying and sleepless nights, and the general mayhem that comes with having several young children at once." That describes our life!
In this post I am honestly asking for correction if I am wrong in my arguments against the "half-way" position. You say you agree with me in principle and only criticize me in lacking compassion. Did you miss the fact that I ended my post with the Gospel? Mercy and comfort are found in forgiveness in Christ, not in sentimental compassion and imaginary exceptions to God's law not found in Scripture.
If we were talking about homosexuality I'm quite certain you would not have written:
If the Lord was willing to make concessions for his people in Deuteronomy concerning divorce and other laws, perhaps in his mercy he will not pass judgment on those who have chosen to be a practicing homosexual. After all, because of sin, the Church in this life can only begin to reflect the perfection of Eden.
You say you agree with me in principle, but your comments here seem more consistent with the "half-way" position. Are you sure you agree with me in principle?
You believe that there is something intrinsically immoral about contracepting, no matter the circumstances. You believe that Scripture supports this, and you have Church tradition on your side. I can't argue with that. I've read all the papers, seen all the arguments, etc.
But if you were a pastor, would you be willing to use the Office of the Keys and church discipline for those in your congregation who did not share your belief, and withhold forgiveness from those who are "unrepentant" as long as they do not repent? Would you be willing to follow this to the letter, and say, with as much confidence as you would with something like adultery or murder, that your people who have had their tubes tied and have no qualms about it, that they are outside of the holy Christian Church? I'm not willing to say this.
Excellent question. The answer is yes. If I were a pastor I would be conscience bound to a proper use of the keys in this matter, as was practiced in the LCMS prior to the current generation. Admittedly, it would be just as difficult to do this now in the LCMS as it is to bind the sins of homosexuality or abortion in the ELCA.
I'm quite certain that if I were a pastor in the LCMS, I would not keep gainful employment for very long - that is, if any congregation was willing to call me in the first place.
Nevertheless, I believe the following statement found in the LCR document on procreation describes the proper use of the keys with regard to procreation:
"Pastors should counsel families both publicly and privately to observe these principles. The churches and ministers should not take it upon themselves to investigate the private practices of their members (Eighth Commandment). Refusal to reproduce should be treated first by patient instruction and counsel. Nevertheless, when a situation becomes a public scandal then evangelical discipline is in order (Matt. 18:17)."
That statement was adopted by the LCR at their 1989 convention, but it is consistent with the practice of the church from the beginning of time, including the Lutheran church up until the last half-century or so.
"...for those in your congregation who did not share your belief..."
Pastor, it is not merely Erich's belief and nor is it just the belief of those on this blog. It is a matter of Holy Scripture and what the Church has always taught, that is, until the last, most bloody century where our culture made such social "progress".
Erich, I, and others do indeed seem out-of-step, for we do tend to listen to the traditional interpretation of God's Word in this matter, not contemporary innovations. As GK Chesterton put it, "Tradition refuses to submit to that small arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around." (Orthodoxy)
I find the comparisons between this and other contemporary social issues mentioned here to be spot on.
Blessings.
Look, I am not disagreeing with you that ideally, we should not attempt to block conception, *under ordinary circumstances*. I'm just not willing to put contraception up there with sins against the Ten Commandments. Intentionally blocking conception after one has had 3-4 children might be done out of love and concern for the mental and emotional state of one's spouse. For families that are committed to perpetual parturition (I love that term) I say go for it.
This is a neverending debate, and there is no winner. It is an issue of casuistry, that perhaps someone like my colleague Rev. Benjamin Mayes can offer more counsel on. I commend what you are doing on your blog, but I don't think one can be a perfectionist when it comes to this.
Erich, I noticed looking back in our comments that you keep speaking of God's "Law" as if it included the command: "Be fruitful and multiply." I was not aware that the Law as it was given to Israel, included such a command. Nor do I see any threats in Holy Scripture voiced against those who do not carry out the "be fruitful and multiply" command to its fullest extent. This is why I simply cannot put it on the same par as other sins that are clearly forbidden not only in the Old Testament but in the New as well.
Pr. Beisel,
You seem to have a rather narrow view of the application of the Decalogue. The issue of contraception is most certainly covered by the Ten Commandments, just as the issue of homosexuality is. Contraception primarily falls under the Sixth Commandment, but also under the First. There are also other commandments in play in various situations.
With regard to the Sixth Commandment, Luther characterizes contraceptive sex as follows:
"This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin." [LW 7:20]
With regard to the First Commandment, it seems clear that the common reasons for using contraception involve the "other gods" we all worship, primarily material wealth. Luther has the following criticism for those who avoid children because of material concerns:
"Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is very difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: “Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden of poverty alone and not load myself with misery and want.” But this blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God’s goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God’s blessing. For if you had trust in God’s grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper." [LW 5:332]
There are other applications of the Decalogue I could get into, but I think I've made my point.
In addition, "be fruitful and multiply" is, itself, a specific command. The grammatical construct in the Hebrew of "be fruitful" is that of a plural, masculine imperative (i.e command) - not a second person indicative (merely blessing). That basically kills the argument that this is merely a blessing. I've never heard anyone argue that "subdue the earth and rule over it" was ONLY a blessing, yet these commands were given in the same breath.
"Be fruitful and multiply" is a command, and the sin of contraception is also covered by the Ten Commandments. Unfruitful sex (sodomy, bestiality, etc.) was also a serious offense in Mosaic law, punished by death, not to mention God's direct punishment of Onan: "And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also."
Okay, you've convinced me. I guess I'd better start binding some sins. I'll start with my wife.
Excellent discussion. The problem with making concessions to be compassionate is that you fail to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel. To make a concession is to not call something what it truly is. It is to declare that a sin is not a sin, and to do that you destroy the gospel in the process.
Erich, you're right after all. I don't agree with your position against the "half-way" position. I thought I did, but when you started saying that we pastors should be binding consciences with this, that's where I draw the line. I remain unconvinced that failing to carry out the command to 'be fruitful and multiply' is inherently sinful. You have not convinced me by Scripture alone that intenionally limiting family size is contrary to God's Law.
Interesting discussion. Really.
Thanks, Pr. Beisel. I appreciate the discussion too.
However, I suggest you examine your motives for changing your mind. It appears that your reversal on this has more to do with an unwillingness to exercise the keys than an epiphany with regard to the Scriptural arguments against contraception.
February 20th you wrote "I agree that as much as possible we should let God be God and be in control of our reproduction, blessing us with as many or as few children as he so desires."
February 21st you wrote "Look, I am not disagreeing with you that ideally, we should not attempt to block conception, *under ordinary circumstances*.
The same day you wrote: "You believe that there is something intrinsically immoral about contracepting, no matter the circumstances. You believe that Scripture supports this, and you have Church tradition on your side. I can't argue with that. I've read all the papers, seen all the arguments, etc."
Now, strangely within hours, you write: "I remain unconvinced that failing to carry out the command to 'be fruitful and multiply' is inherently sinful. You have not convinced me by Scripture alone that intentionally limiting family size is contrary to God's Law."
Quite a reversal! We haven't even been discussing the scriptural arguments against contraception, yet within a matter of hours you have changed your mind. Did you suddenly realize a fatal flaw in the Scriptural arguments that you hadn't seen before? If so, I'd like to know what that new revelation is.
Or, perhaps, did you realize that if you refuse to use the keys in this matter, you must abandon the position you previously said you "can't argue with"?
I also am not sure you actually disagree with my arguments against the "half-way" position. You are not taking the "half-way" position I am arguing against in this discussion. You are simply disagreeing with the truth of one of the premises.
I posted this question about the "half-way" position because I realize that if one holds to a given theological position he must be willing to accept its full pastoral implications.
Contraception is either inherently sinful or it is not. A half-way position on that question is untenable.
I believe the only defensible position that allows for sinless contraception, in fact, requires one to believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with limiting one's family. In this position, "be fruitful and multiply" cannot be considered a command (or that it is no longer valid today) and, therefore, one needs no excuse to limit one's family.
All theology is pastoral theology. That is why your question about how I would apply this as a pastor is so key.
I submit the following: If a pastor is unwilling to use the office of the keys with regard to contraception per se, he must FIRST disprove the historic biblical doctrine of procreation. The burden of proof is upon those who argue against the Biblical understanding of this issue held by God's people for thousands of years, believing that for all but the past half-century, the entire Christian church erroneously bound consciences on this matter - that only the current generation understands Scripture properly on this issue.
On the other hand, if a pastor "can't argue with" the historic position that Scripture teaches there is something inherently wrong with intentionally limiting one's family size, he must abandon any "half-way" position and use the keys with regard to this sin in the same way he would with any other sin. In other words:
"Pastors should counsel families both publicly and privately to observe these principles. The churches and ministers should not take it upon themselves to investigate the private practices of their members (Eighth Commandment). Refusal to reproduce should be treated first by patient instruction and counsel. Nevertheless, when a situation becomes a public scandal then evangelical discipline is in order (Matt. 18:17)."
Again, the reason I am discussing this here is that I seek to be corrected if I am in error. There is one premise I am not arguing in this particular discussion, and that is the belief that there is something intrinsically wrong with contraception. I am willing to continue to argue that premise in other discussions, but for the purposes of this discussion I am only arguing about the necessary implications of that belief - specifically, whether one who holds that belief can take a defensible position that would allow for "exceptions" in which there would be absolutely NO SIN in contracepting.
I propose that there is no defensible "half-way" position. Allowing for clear cases in which there would be absolutely NO SIN in contracepting would require one to believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contracepting - that only the motives for using it could be sinful. There are no "exceptions" to God's law except those He Himself has given in Scripture.
If I am wrong on this, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of my error(s).
If you are going to compare contraception to homosexuality, and you are willing to say that there may be hard cases, where contracepting is the "lesser of two evils," would you also say that in the case of homosexuality, there may be so-called "hard cases" where a person is allowed to practice homosexuality as a "lesser of two evils"? I suspect that you would not, but it proves my point that there is a difference in nature between the two.
If contracepting is intrinsically wrong like homosexuality, then how can there even be "hard cases" allowed? I think that if you follow your argument through to its logical end, then a person should never, for any reason, under any circumstances, be permitted to prevent conception, even if pregnancy would put mom or baby in danger--if it is intrinsically wrong. It seems to me that permitting contraception in hard cases as a "lesser of two evils" would be closer to a half-way position than to what you are suggesting. Don't you agree?
Let me just synthesize my comments really quick, so you understand where I'm coming from Mr. Heidenreich. One of them doesn't count because it was pure sarcasm. The others express shock over the fact that you would suggest treating contraception as any other sin, and that a pastor who does not exercise church discipline on couples who refuse to carry out the command to be fruitful and multiply to its fullest extent is not faithfully exercising the Office of the Keys.
My last comment was simply a "throwing the hands up in the air" comment because by taking such an absolute stance, you forced me to be on the other side of the issue, which is a place I don't want to be. That is why I said finally that I did not agree with your position.
I honestly don't want to be on the other side of the issue. I know where church history stands, have had multiple conversations with my good friends Pr. Curtis and Dr. Stuckwisch, and have striven in my own life to carry this out as much as possible. I want to stand with you on this as much as possible.
I admit that my points on making concessions for the sake of weakness are...weak at best. We should stick with what is revealed in Holy Scripture and not let our sentimentality trump God's Word.
I guess I am just not willing to say at this point that it is an issue requiring church discipline, or that I am not faithfully exercising the keys by not binding consciences of those who have used or are using some form of contraception or have voluntarily stopped having children. If this makes me a poor pastor, then so be it. Under the cross, right?
Pr. Beisel,
I appreciate the continued discussion, and I am glad you have not had an actual reversal of opinion at this point. I too would like to stand with you on this, but I do not see where you have refuted my position.
Yes, the law against homosexuality is an absolute that has absolutely NO exceptions. However, I did not make a comparison to the sin of homosexuality because I believe it to be completely analogous to contraception. The only reason I brought homosexuality into the discussion was because it represents an absolute which other modern churches have made similar concessions to recently, while the LCMS has not. It was a good analogy to illustrate my point when you brought up the question of whether one could bind this sin in today's environment. Beyond that, the analogy breaks down (as all analogies ultimately do).
A better analogy with regard to this discussion and the ethical principle of conflicting absolutes is the Fifth Commandment. God has given us clear exemptions to this moral absolute in which there is no sin in killing: the vocations of executioner and soldier. Outside of these legitimate vocations, killing is ALWAYS sinful. These vocations are not cases of "conflicting absolutes" because God has given these vocations as specific exemptions to the Fifth Commandment, just as God has given the gift of celibacy to some as an exception to the divine ordinance to "be fruitful and multiply."
There are also cases of conflicting absolutes when killing might be considered the lesser evil. For instance, killing (aborting) a baby in the case of a tubal pregnancy might be considered the lesser evil.
There are other manifest sins that might work well as analogies for the issue of this discussion. How about lying (Eighth Commandment)? Don't you agree that there are cases when lying would be the lesser evil? Do you agree that an unrepentant habitual liar is just as much outside of the holy Christian Church as an unrepentant killer? Isn't any unrepentant sin a certain sign of falling out of faith into unbelief.
I think I have established analogous absolutes with regard to which you would have no trouble binding sins. I think you also agree with me with regard to the issue of contraception, except when it comes to the question of hard cases. The only debates between you and I appear to be 1) what constitutes a hard case, and 2) whether the action decided upon in a hard case still constitutes sin. Those two questions, I think, are where we disagree. Your treatment of ethics in this discussion seems to fall more along the lines of "graded absolutism" which pronounces a man guiltless in disobeying one absolute if he chooses to obey the one that produces the "greatest good.
I don't think you accept the principle of conflicting absolutes, and therefore your principle of "graded absolutism" allows for a broader inclusion of cases where contraception would not be sinful.
I really think the principle of "conflicting absolutes" might be the premise upon which our disagreement actually hinges. Do you agree?
Thanks for your clarification on the homosexuality point. I see your point. I also see your point with regard to true moral dilemmas.
I do accept the principle of conflicting absolutes with regard to the examples you mentioned, such as murder. I could add in there divorce. Divorce is despised in the eyes of God, but are there cases where divorce is the lesser of two evils? Certainly. That's why Moses "gave a certificate of divorce"--to prevent the greater sin of adultery. But, as Jesus says, "It was not this way from the beginning." Divorce was granted because of the hardness of hearts, not because God liked it. So, I don't disagree with the principle of conflicting absolutes. I think you have made a good case for that, and I cannot refute that concept.
If, as you say, "be fruitful and multiply" truly is a moral absolute such as "You shall not murder," then it would certainly follow that the only 'exemptions' would be those that God in His Word clearly states (as he does with divorce and murder). Luther's quote speaks more to the divine ordinance of marriage, not procreation. I'm not sure it applies in this context. And 1 Cor. 7:5 speaks to the marital union, again, not to procreation. I don't see those God making allowances for contraception, but rather for marriage and the marital union. I see nothing in those verses regarding the command "be fruitful and multiply." In other words, Luther is speaking about those who are exempted from marriage itself, and Paul is speaking about the "only acceptable times" for married couples to abstain from sex.
That would be my only refutation of your point--that these texts do not apply to the moral absolute: "Be fruitful and multiply."
Here is something else to consider: sins committed in ignorance. Scripture does seem to indicate that God has, in the past, overlooked sins that were committed in ignorance (Acts 3:17; 17:20) or that at the very least, he shows mercy in such cases. Certainly the majority of people who have used some form of contraception or have been permanently sterilized, even in our churches, have done so in ignorance, meaning that because our church and ministers have had such a weak stance on this for so many years, they did not know that it was sinful. Is it wise to burden consciences of those who now cannot do anything about it (their children have all grown and they are beyond the age of child-bearing)? What fruits of repentance could be born? If, in the course of teaching, their consciences happen to be pricked by the Word of God, what more can a pastor say than: "God has forgiven your sins"?
Good points.
To your first point:
The "exceptions" of celibacy and marital abstinence (1 Cor. 7:5) definitely apply more broadly to the sexual relationship of husband and wife. You say that, therefore, these points do not apply to the moral absolute: "Be fruitful and multiply. I disagree. There is an unavoidable connection between marriage and procreation. Obviously, those who do not marry should not have children and are thus exempted from the divine ordinance to "be fruitful and multiply." And, if married couples abstain from sexual relations for a time for fasting and prayer, they certainly will not be conceiving a child during that period of time either.
The church has always interpreted Scripture as teaching that procreation and the sexual union of man and woman are not to be intentionally separated. Onan is an excellent example of this, on which there is unanimous testimony throughout church history. Natural law teaches this as well.
I believe Rome gets the natural law argument wrong on this, looking too narrowly at only the sexual act itself rather than the complete sexual one-flesh relationship. They allow the marital union to be separated from procreation via NFP (only in hard cases) because they believe the natural law only prohibits the separation of the individual sexual act from procreation. No intentionally unfruitful sexual act occurs in NFP, yet the overall sexual relationship itself IS separated from procreation. In their theology, NFP is not intrinsically sinful like "artificial birth control." They do, however, believe that one can have sinful motives for using NFP.
On your second point:
Yes, I do believe the issue of "sins committed in ignorance" should be considered. I'm currently somewhat undecided on how to apply this concept to contraception. For one thing, I'm not so sure that this sin can be committed in ignorance. If people think there is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting their family size, then why do they always offer excuses as to why they do it? I believe natural law is very strong on this issue. In fact, it is the only thing that kept my wife and I from using it early in our marriage. It was not until later that I learned the historic Scriptural teaching on this.
Considering again the issue of homosexuality, which I know is an imperfect analogy for reasons already discussed, a practicing unrepentant homosexual is not given a pass on this sin just because he happens to be an Episcopalian.
The problem we are discussing is certainly not solved by leaving contraceptors in ignorance.
Remember, it is not the unrepented sin itself that damns, but rather the unbelief that it is a sign of. A person who hates his neighbor or cheats on his taxes and does not repent of it is damned just the same as an unrepentant serial killer or rapist. All sins have been covered by the blood of Christ. It is unbelief that damns.
You wrote: If, in the course of teaching, their consciences happen to be pricked by the Word of God, what more can a pastor say than: "God has forgiven your sins"?
What more needs to be said?
Well said Mr. Heidenreich. I realize that you have put much more thought and for a much longer time into this than I have, and I respect your outlook, and that of the contributors to this blog. I admit that at first I was not addressing your main topic, but was allowing myself to get emotionally involved. Now that I have relaxed a bit, this is much more fun. I hope you will forgive my lack of depth on ethical discussions, as I have not had much experience with this.
I wholeheartedly agree with your point on homosexuality. Clearly just because someone does something in ignorance does not relieve them of responsibility or accountability to God. I admit I have progress to make on my pastoral practice, no doubt, but that is probably an issue for another discussion.
I agree too that this is not an issue that should simply be "left alone" or that we should simply "look the other way" or pretend that it is not a big deal. Clearly it is, and we have the responsibility to make known the Word of the Lord, even if it is unpopular or unwanted.
I admit my weakness on the idea that Scripture speaks clearly and unambiguously about the moral duty of all married couples to procreate as long as they are physically able. I hear God's Word: "Be fruitful and multiply." And I see the dangers in separating the marital sexual union from procreation, and I see very positive and good fruits in carrying this Word out to its fullest extent.
But I have also seen the other side too. Besides my own selfish reasons for not wanting to leave ourselves open to God's blessing of children any more (we have four already and have had at least 3 miscarriages), and the fact that my wife develops severe migraines that incapacitate her 2-3 days at a time for the first two tri-mesters of pregnancy, our midwife has also instructed us to hold off either temporarily or permanently on having more children for other health reasons. So, this is a real moral dilemma for us. At one time we were "gung-ho" on disavowing all forms of contraception. But now that we are in the midst of this ourselves, we have had to take another look at it.
We could, most certainly, ignore the health of my wife, and the wisdom of a trusted midwife, and commend ourselves into God's hands. But isn't this a bit like saying, "You know, God will take care of me, so I'm not going to bother getting life insurance, or do anything to plan for our future. It's all in God's hands."?
Pr. Beisel,
The conditions you describe regarding your wife do, indeed, sound like a case for casuistry with regard to procreation. As a result of the fall, childbearing is hard on all women, and complications in pregnancy (and after) are not uncommon. Rare is the couple who can spend two decades procreating without ever having any serious concerns for the health and life of the mother.
Nevertheless, it is very difficult in moral dilemmas to determine whether or not one is actually choosing to do the lesser evil. That is why "conflicting absolutes" is the best of the three ethical principles. It accepts the fact that we live in a fallen world and that we cannot infallibly negotiate our way around all the potential sins that moral dilemmas surround us with. We must try to make the best decisions we can, trusting that our inevitable failures to follow God's will perfectly find sure and complete forgiven in Christ. This leaves us trusting in Christ rather than trusting in our own decisions and morality. A full understanding and application of God's law never leaves us guiltless.
"Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"
Good point Dr. Heidenreich. I couldn't have said it better myself. I definitely need to reflect more on the point that intentionally limiting family size is a violation of the dominical command: "Be fruitful and multiply." My reluctance to accept this may simply arise from the fear of accepting all the implications included in it. I'm sure you can understand.
Yes. I most certainly do understand.
Peace and blessings to you.
Post a Comment