The natural fertility in a healthy woman. Part 2

We're on to breastfeeding: God's intended food for babies; and as I am about to discuss, God's intended way to heal a woman from the physical trauma of birth...

Since we're talking about the fertility of a healthy woman, I won't take the time to discuss all the wonderful benefits of breastfeeding for children, though it is not hard to find information on it. I will say, though, that supplemental formula is NOT the "next best thing."

The way breastfeeding works into a woman's fertility, and overall health, begins right at birth. The uterus, which has just spent the last 40 weeks growing from less that one pound to almost 20 pounds is all stretched out and has worked harder than any other muscle in a woman's body. Everything that was inside it is now gone and all you have left is a big empty worn out bag. Breastfeeding, if attended to immediately after birth will help a woman's uterus to work itself back into shape, and will also help eliminate the after-bleeding that can cause a woman to hemorrhage after birth.

It does this because nipple stimulation causes the hormonal release of natural oxytocins, the hormone responsible for uterine contractions. Some women who practice extended breastfeeding (up to two years and beyond) have been known to rely on their nursing toddlers to help augment a stalled labor instead of resorting to the synthetic version of oxytocin: Pitocin, the ob-gyn's drug of choice. Pitocin is also used regularly, even in women who've birthed naturally, to contract her uterus because doctor's take our babies away immediately after the birth to do all sorts of tests. But the natural nursing relationship of mother and baby is strong enough on its own to shrink down the uterus, work out the placenta, and close up the bleeding openings that the placenta leaves behind on the uterine wall.

Breastfeeding is so effective at shrinking a woman's uterus, in fact, that the "after pains" that came from nursing my newborn Olivia were so severe that I was in tears each nursing session for three days after her birth. She was an expert eater from the moment she was born, and my uterus shrank back to an immeasurable size before I left the hospital.

A less immediate benefit of nursing is the Amenorrhea, or lack of menstrual period, that it creates. A woman who is exclusively breastfeeding her baby will experience this Amenorrhea for the first 2 months to 2 years after birth. That does not mean that there won't be after-bleeding, or lochea, which is present after every vaginal birth for about 3 to 6 weeks, but once the lochea is finished there will be a break in the woman's "monthly" cycle.

HAVE NO FEAR! Caspar, I'm not about to go on and on about how we can rely on this to space our children, though it is very effective for that (so effective I was night-weaning Olivia in order to conceive our next dearly longed-for baby due this September).

But, as I mentioned in Part 1, the hormonal break that the uterus enjoys during pregnancy is continued during the nursing relationship as well. It has been studied that breastfeeding will in fact reduce your chances of breast cancer. And if that isn't good enough, it also reduces the risk of other reproductive cancers in woman as well.

I hope that this information has been interesting to learn, and that I might have shed some light on things that aren't generally known. There are even more things about a woman's natural fertility that I have found fascinating since I started studying it three years ago, but at this moment more pressing things are upon me and this post has sat as a draft long enough.

I'm going to go share popsicles with the 18 month old result of my healthy fertility since she has a 102 degree fever, and I don't want her to get dehydrated. :(

Thanks for reading.

Individualism and Society

Here are some wise words by Harold O. J. Brown, of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, & Society.

The whole article can be read here.

Where individualism reigns, society ceases to exist. Nowhere is this more evident in the beginning of this new century than in the transformation of sexual morality in Western "Christendom." One of the most fundamental imperatives for living beings is the perpetuation of the species, of the race. It is contrary to natural law to suggest that the woman, the bearer of the new generation, should be able to dispose of it at will without any restraint by her spouse or by her parents. The traditional covenants, marriage and family, mean nothing to the individualist. The elevation of abortion to a fundamental right through Roe v. Wade and a series of concurring Supreme Court decisions breaks totally with the biblical and natural principles of reproduction as a human duty.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is God's first command to human beings (Genesis 1:28). Homosexual behavior does not reproduce, and abortion negates reproduction that has already taken place. A society that not merely tolerates but extols and praises both - as our society does - has clearly repudiated the reality of nature as well as the teachings of religion. No animal species exchanges reproductive sexual behavior for sterility. Only homo sapiens are clever enough to see this as a "right" to be enjoyed and praised. Throughout the Western world, the rate of human reproduction is not sufficient to preserve the society. The individual has no duty to society, no more than to God. She or he is autonomous, a law unto self. Individualism taken to this extreme is solipsistic. When solipsistic man dies, he dies alone. There is no one to mourn him, for there will be no one to come after him.

When there is no common sense of the good, traditional virtues are mocked or banned, and traditional vices go from disapproval to tolerance to acceptance to dominance. Tradition becomes a disqualification, rather than a reason for approval. Tolerance of the old style is rejected as implying acceptance, not disapproval, as indeed it did. What it means today is approval, acceptance, and preferential treatment. Tolerance comes to mean approving that which in principle was intolerable. And as Jean-Paul Maisonneuve said, it becomes the worst kind of intolerance.[6] The tennis players are ruining the putting greens.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," St. Paul wrote (Romans 1:22, NASB). In the final paragraph of The Crisis of Our Age, Pitirim Sorokin asks that the grace of understanding be vouchsafed to us, so that we may make the necessary decisions to escape the fiery dies irae and be able to continue man's divine creative mission on earth.

What is the Nature of "Natural Fertility?"

I am trying to understand the point Devona is making regarding the natural fertility of a healthy woman. To be honest, I enjoyed my Lenten blogging fast so much that I was tempted not to begin blogging again! ;-) My home blog, beggarsall, is closing in on its 50,000th visitor. That's overwhelming, and scary insofar as it is like a black hole that can suck in a lot of time - something I don't have a lot to spare, with 6 kids and lots of jobs and responsibilities at home, church, and school.

Anyway, Devona writes: "It [a healthy woman's natural fertility] very much relates to the topic of contraception inasmuch as the culture (as we have discussed before) treats fertility as an illness to be treated and controlled by medication. But if one understands the natural unmedicated workings of a healthy woman's cycle, by which I mean more than just her monthly cycle, we can learn a great deal about the great care God took when making us reproductive beings."

The first question I have is this: Is learning about God's creation of man and woman as reproductive beings the true extent of your purpose in expounding upon knowledge gleaned from NFP teachers? Are you sure you do not have any motive tucked in here (intentional or unintentional) of advocating NFP prior to making the case for its being God-pleasing? If not, why the statement: "I could go on and on in order to help explain this, but it is really best if you find a good source for NFP and learn from a trained professional."

I certainly agree that a knowledge of how God designed us as reproductive beings would be helpful. However, there is a huge difference between a general knowledge of human physiology and the charting of one's own personal fertility cycles - the former possibly being helpful in understanding God's creation, the latter being a matter of being able to use such personal knowledge to our own selfish purposes. We are by nature 100% sinful! If we are to fear, love, and trust God alone, are we not tempting ourselves by tracking our personal fertility on a daily basis?

Finally, I'd like to ask: Are you sure that the way our natural fertility works in this fallen world tells us what God's initial perfect plan was in the beginning? Creation was fatally damaged in the fall. Many excellent theologians theorize that pre-fall fertility was intended to be much higher than that which resulted post-fall - possibly not inhibited at all by days of the month or nursing, etc. Pain and tribulation were certainly increased. Is it not possible that studying the relative times of fertility and infertility will tell us more about our fallen world than about God's perfect creative plan?

Once again, I think the problem here is a matter of getting the cart before the horse. What do the cycles of the natural fertility of the so-called "healthy" woman really tell us about? I think they tell us about the perversion of God's creation by sin, death, and the Devil. The image of God is so damaged that we can only see a shadow of it in the current state of nature, as if we are looking in a shattered mirror.

Rather than looking at nature, we should be looking at God's Word in an attempt to discern God's will.

What think you?

Blessings,

Caspar

The natural fertility in a healthy woman. Part 1

I thought I'd post this, since I have found that many women, even those who are in their fertile years, do not know. Most men don't, though that doesn't surprise me as much.

It very much relates to the topic of contraception inasmuch as the culture (as we have discussed before) treats fertility as an illness to be treated and controlled by medication. But if one understands the natural unmedicated workings of a healthy woman's cycle, by which I mean more than just her monthly cycle, we can learn a great deal about the great care God took when making us reproductive beings.

You will find a TON of contradictory information about these matters. But if you consider the affiliation of the source you will find that the majority of pro-life and non-contraceptive organizations will provide you with the same, or at least very similar information. I learned most of this from my Natural Family Planning(NFP) teacher, Dr. Sears, and the La Leche League International.


First off, as has been discussed in the past, a woman is only fertile for a short period of her monthly cycle. It ranges from 5 to 9 days, depending on the exact time of her ovulation and the quality of her cervical fluid (I could go on and on in order to help explain this, but it is really best if you find a good source for NFP and learn from a trained professional). The fertile period is near the middle of her monthly cycle. The cycle begins on the first day of menstruation. Ovulation does not always occur on the same day after her first day of her cycle, but the same number of days always pass between ovulation until the beginning of her next cycle. This is called a luteal phase. Mine is 15 days. I tend to think that this is pretty cool, but that's just me. ;-)

The statistics that I have been given from my NFP teacher were that a couple not avoiding or attempting to conceive, but having natural relations would conceive on average within 6 months if both partners are healthy. And a couple which is able to observe and follow their fertile patterns when trying to conceive, can after as little as one month, but often after 4 if they are both healthy. If there are fertility problems but the woman is still ovulating, a couple who can determine their fertility can conceive within 8 months on average. Of course, that last stat can vary a lot depending on how often a less fertile woman ovulates.

Let's continue now onto the next phase of a woman's fertility: pregnancy. We all know that women carry their children on average 40 weeks, but it is really more like 41 weeks for first time mothers. This varies depending on your race and health conditions, but is pretty static over all.

Pregnancy benefits the woman's over all health by giving her ovaries a rest. The monthly surges of hormones are relieved and replaced by a steady increase of the hormone progesterone, which I like to call "the happy-hormone" because it really makes you feel good, you know that thing they call the "pregnancy glow"? In fact there have been a few studies which link post-partum depression and the length of pregnancy since progesterone levels peak right at the end of pregnancy and then drop to nearly zero after birth. Theoretically, if a woman has not been pregnant for the 40 to 41 weeks her level of progesterone will not reach that peak and will therefore be lower over all and the after birth change will not be as drastic.

The other benefit of pregnancy is the lowered risk of cancers in her fertile system, such as breast and ovarian cancer. Pregnancy gives your body a rest from the back and forth high levels of estrogen, which is a cancer causing hormone in too high of levels. That's pretty cool, too, if you ask me.

Once a woman has given birth we begin the next phase of her fertility. And it's not "trying not to get pregnant too soon." God has made a natural way to space our children, and lucky for us it has sooooooo many other benefits for mom and baby that you'd be silly not to give it a try.

This is, of course, breastfeeding which I will discuss in my next post. I think I've already given everyone enough to chew on for one day. :)

Touchstone: News and Views

First the News: Eric brought to my attention that this blog has been sited by the editor of Touchstone Magazine - David Mills. He comments on 'Lutherans & Contraception' in the Touchstone Blog 'Mere Comments'... It is an encouraging boost in what has been a slow time for this blog.




As for Views: In David Mills' blog post he also sites an essay by Juli Loesch Wiley entitled 'The Well-Connected Mother'. It is a good read and reveals a level of meditation on marriage, motherhood and the Lord that moves beyond the all too often chronic refrain within our own spheres of 'the freedom of the Christian'.

First Things, Hobbits & Children

I was recently filing some old articles I had read in past years when I came across an incredible little piece on The Lord of the Rings that I had forgotten about. It is quite pertinent to our discussion and cuts to the heart of my concern over the Christian Church's near whole-hearted buy-in to the contraceptive age. Here is an excerpt from it:

The virtues of mortality are most obvious in the great paradox of the book: that the very mortal Hobbits are the only ones who can resist the Ring’s seduction and destroy it. Seemingly the most insignificant and lowliest race of all, they spend their (relatively) short lives in small pursuits. They have little use for lofty “elvish” ideas. As most characters in The Lord of the Rings remark, they are unlikely saviors of the world. In fact, their lowly mortality may be their greatest asset.

The Hobbits are firmly enfleshed. They love gardening, visiting, eating and drinking—“six meals a day (when they could get them… Also, unlike the other lands we see, the Shire is full of children, for Tolkien tells us that Hobbits have very large families, Frodo and Bilbo being “as bachelors very exceptional.” This is true of no other people in Middle Earth. The immortal Elves, of course, need few children… The Dwarves, though mortal, are very long-lived, and they have children so seldom that many believe they are not born, but grow from stones… The Ents seem to live more or less forever, but even they are dying out.

It is not only the older and the lesser races that have ceased to bear children. Barrenness also characterizes Gondor. Once great, the city has declined. Pippin sees there many houses that have fallen empty, so that “it lacked half the men that could have dwelt at ease there.” Beregond the guard tells him, “There were always too few children in the city…”

Click here to read the full piece written by Anna Mathie entitled ‘Tolkien and the Gift of Mortality’ (2003 First Things 137 – November 2003)

Lenten Blogging Fast

In preparation for the Resurrection of our Lord, I will be fasting from blogging on both BeggarsAll and LutheransandContraception. If that and my fasting from beer and other carbohydrates (are there other carbohydrates?) doesn't kill me, I'll be back after Easter Sunday.

Lenten blessings to you all,

Caspar

Birth Control to be Outlawed in New Town

Returning to those black and white days of the baby-boom of the 1940s and 50s - the theme of Pleasantville in reverse!

Pleasantville was a comedy about two '90s kids shockingly thrust into the black-and-white TV world of Pleasantville, a Leave It to Beaver-style town complete with picket fences, corner malt shop, and warm chocolate chip cookies, where everyone knew right from wrong. This time-travel occurs when a one-of-a-kind remote control (provided by repairman Don Knotts, who I'm very sorry to report died this past Saturday of lung cancer) transports them from the real world to the obligatory G-rated TV land. They are forced to play along as "Bud" and "Mary Sue," the obedient children of George and Betty Parker. Mary Sue starts shaking the town up, most notably when she takes basketball stud Skip up to Lover's Lane for some modern-day fun and games. Soon enough, Pleasantville's teens are discovering sex along with rock & roll, free thinking, and soul-changing Technicolor. The movie gradually transforms from all black and white to color, building by building and skirt by shirt.

Now, imagine this process in reverse...

Domino's Pizza Founder Plans "Catholic Only" Town
February 27, 2006 2:00 p.m. EST
Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer

Detroit, Michigan (AHN)—A former marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles, the Times reports. Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

Read more HERE.
________________________________________

I'm concerned about the pietism of this Amish-style retreat from the world. However, there is no indication that these people will never leave the town, like poor Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, or the sheltered children in The Village. This RC town could be a shining example of what life under a government that pays attention to God's law could be without the error of the Amish of avoiding all innovation. I'd love to live in a works-righteous Roman Catholic town! Unfortunately, NFP will probably be legal - though serious Roman Catholics know that it is officially only sanctioned for extreme cases.

I think this would probably be an excellent place to live and raise a family if one could find a confessional Lutheran church nearby. I wonder if we Lutheran "catholics" would be welcome to purchase real estate in this new town. Alas, I believe the ideals of Tom Monaghan are doomed to failure, as legal battles will likely prevent such a town from ever existing. Let's see how long South Dakota's ban on abortion lasts.

A good article from Touchstone

I'm in a poasting links kind of mood today. Here's a really good one.

The question is, where is your treasure? And this question is for fathers as well as for mothers. Is your treasure your job, your career, your earning power, your advancement, your house, your car, your vacation, your computer, your money, and the things that money can buy? Or is your treasure your children? For where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.

Something Applicable from a Pastor I trust...

This would make Caspar happy.

World Population Hits 6.5 Billion!

Oh no!!! We're all going to starve to death!!!!!!

According to the best calculations available to modern man, on Saturday, Feb. 25, at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the population of the world hit 6.5 billion people. Thomas Malthus, the British economist who famously predicted in 1798 that the world’s population - then just under a billion - was growing so fast that people would soon be without enough to eat. In the days of the Industrial Revolution he formulated his notorious "law of population" which asserts that while food supplies expand only arithmetically, population soars geometrically.

This theory, with its controlling factors of survival of the fittest through famine and war, influenced the birth of Darwin's theory of "natural selection" and ultimately the eugenics movements of Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler. The popularization of family planning for undesirables led to its acceptance for undesired pregnancies, and thus the philosophy of the "pro-choice" movement of planned parenthood and the legalization of abortion: The death of the West! The western world is now at below replacement level fertility, while Muslims continue to procreate since they have not forsaken Islam's hatred of birth control.

The theory of Malthus has since been proven wrong (we're still here!), but we're stuck with all the subsequent sequelae of his preaching. Technological improvements have shown themselves to be so great that a much more rapid increase in food production (than in population) has been possible for centuries. The world is not just surviving, it's generally FAT! There are areas which experience famines, but these are not caused by population problems. Famines are associated with naturally-occurring crop failure and pestilence, but more today because of war and genocide.

We Christians must continually remind ourselves in this postmodern world that we can and should trust in the goodness of God in providing what is necessary for body and soul. The Western culture's myth of overpopulation has led us today to have below replacement level fertility in the West. We are looking today at the impending death of the West because of the suicidal mindset of "planned parenthood."

Caspar

Trusting God to Plan Your Family

Relative to the exchanges Devona and I have had in the most recent posts below, it seems appropriate to proceed to the final point of the LCR document.

10. God desires that we put our trust in Him in all matters, also in His will and ability to provide for the children that He gives us (Exod. 23:20,26; Psalm 30:7; 37:25f.; Phil 4:13; 1 Pet. 5:7).


Exodus 23:20

“Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.

Exodus 23:26

No one shall suffer miscarriage or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

Psalm 30:7

LORD, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong;
You hid Your face, and I was troubled.

Psalm 37:25

I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his descendants begging bread.

Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

1 Peter 5:7

...casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.

And, at the risk of being repetative, here I quote Luther again:

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.

[Luther's works, vol. 5: Lectures on Genesis, page 332]

Read the post below this one first.

A definition of Natural Family Planning, by a woman who uses it.

This will not likely change Caspar's opinion of what NFP is. But it might help some of our readers (are there any left?) to understand what NFP is since it is widely misunderstood.

NFP is the understanding and charting of a woman's fertility. That's it. It is simply the knowledge of when a couple can, and cannot conceive. What a couple chooses to do with that knowledge is not defined by NFP.

My husband, Rob, and I do practice NFP although we have never used it to avoid conceiving. In fact, we used it to conceive with this current pregnancy. I chart with NFP (sometimes more regularly than others) in order to know my body, mostly so that I will know if something is wrong with me if things change. We don't have any reasons to avoid children, and likely won't have any in the future, Lord willing. It will be good to know when to abstain, though, if anything should arise in our lives which would necessitate avoiding conception (see post below).

The thing that makes NFP different than any other form of contraception is that it is a hibernating form of contraception unless you choose to abstain. And if you do choose to abstain for one day of your fertile period, you have the chance to change your mind tomorrow. You have not avoided conception until you have continuously abstained for the whole of a woman's fertile period which lasts 7 to 10 days.

Sin and why I don't think all contraception is sinful

I have to apologize for my lack of scripture and confessional references. I do not have a profession which allows for extended free study time (all I have time to read is Where the Wild Things Are), and so you'll have to accept that my opinion is based on my basic understanding of Scripture and the Confessions. But that's all I have, a basic understanding.

Caspar believes that all contraception is sinful. I disagree, though. Rather, I believe that if it weren't for Sin (the state of mankind since the fall) contraception would never be necessary, but that is not the case.

It is easy to view the world through the lens of our own lives, and from where Americans sit, there are extremely few selfless reasons to contracept. We have cushy lives with cheap water and fuel, lots of food that's easy to come by, and most of us have jobs that support our families as well as buy us really awesome cars and TVs. But since Sin is a reality, this cushy life is not the norm for the rest of the world. And there are Christians in much more dire lives than we could ever imagine. As well, there are Christians in America dyeing of Cancer and Diabetes. There are any number of ways that Sin is eating away at the good things that God wants to bless us with, and it isn't any one specific person's fault, it's the whole world's fault.

So what's your point, Devona?

My point is that I do not believe that it is sinful for a married couple in China to avoid conception when they already have a child. While it is no longer "illegal" to have more than one child in China, there was recently a story on NPR about a pregnant woman in China. This was her second child and so she went into hiding. The local authorities discovered her and forced her to have an abortion just days before her due date and then forcefully sterilized her.

To avoid this fate, a Christian couple in China might choose to abstain during their fertile periods to avoid contraception. If I were to go visit them and say, "God forbids all contraception, even abstinence," what would that do to their faith? If I were to say, "I understand that you are just choosing the lesser of two evils," what would that do to their faith? Instead, I should mourn for them and the crush of Sin (not personal sin, but Sin) and offer them the Gospel of Christ which says that the evil of the world which we are all guilty of by Adam is crushed by Jesus' death on the cross, Amen!

Or what about the American couple whose wife suffers from bloodclots during pregnancy and is at risk of death. If they choose to abstain from conceiving would it be a comfort to them to say, "it is the lesser of two evils. It's better that you sin by contracepting than sin by killing your wife"? What comfort from Sin is there in that? Rather we should comfort them and say that the Lord of all life has conquered death, and that they are free from the curse of Sin which is the cause of the wife's illness.

How about the woman who has 7, or even 10 children, spaced years and years apart? Has she been fruitful? Has she multiplied?

An example I have used before is the couple who intends to adopt. Any adoption agency requires that a couple fit into very specific guidelines, one of which being that they promise not to become pregnant during the adoption process and for a year afterwards. I disagree with these requirements, but they are the requirements none the less. Even though the command to be "fruitful and multiply" is in Genesis it does not trump the command to take care of the "widows and orphans." So a couple who is longing to adopt must contracept in some way in order to bring home their child who is waiting for them.

I know (through a message board) a Catholic woman who was in the process of adopting a 4 year old blind girl from an Eastern country. She and her husband used NFP and ecological breastfeeding in order to postpone conception until the adoption process was over. In the end God over-rid her cycles and though she was practicing NFP perfectly she became pregnant almost exactly 3 weeks before she left to the East to bring her daughter home. She ended up hiding the pregnancy, and her daughter is home with them, but it would have been a tragedy if she had gotten pregnant sooner for she and her husband (they would have obviously loved their birth child, but they would have lost their daughter who they'd been waiting for for over 8 months and met twice) as well as for their daughter who likely would never have found another adoptive family with her age and disability.

I do not, and cannot, believe that this couple was sinfully avoiding conception.

There is a big difference between "personal sin" and "Sin" and when we condemn a person for "Sin" when they are already being crushed by it we are doing nothing more that damaging their faith. The suffering that "Sin" causes is enough to condemn us on its own, and it drives us to the foot of the cross.

All that said, there are definitely personally sinful reasons to avoid conception. In those cases we would be wise to bring our brother and sister to God's commands so that they can be called to repentance. But to say that all contraception, all the time, is a personal sin is to see the world through a very narrow lens. To call it "the lesser of two evils" is little consolation to those who feel the need to contracept for their safety or their survival. The crush of Sin is bad enough without us heaping condemnation on them to boot.

The Onan Incident

I'm going to jump ahead in the LCR document to point #9, which is the most direct condemnation of family planning in Scripture.

9. The Bible exhibits the wrath of God upon those who defy His will (Gen. 38:8-10; Exod. 21:22; Rom. 1:18).


Genesis 38:8-10

8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.

Exodus 21:22

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Romans 1:18

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

The church throughout all ages has universally condemned the sin of Onan as the sin of family planning: St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron, 5.18.58; Athenagoras of Athens, Letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro Christianis ("Supplication for the Christians"), page 35; St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus ("On Marriage and Concupiscence"), 1.17; Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle, Volume II, page 19; St. Basil the Great, First Canonical Letter, Canon 2 (A.D. 374); Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons, 1.12; Clement of Alexandria, "The Father of Theologians" (c. 150-220), Christ the Educator, Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius, c.30, nn. 2-3; Ephraem the Syrian, De Timore Dei, page 10; St. Jerome, Letter to Eustochium, 22.13 (A.D. 396); St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391); Letter of Barnabas 19 (A.D. 74); Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (A.D. 228); Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307); Minucius Felix, Octavius, 30 (A.D. 226); Origen of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies, page 9; Tertullian, Apology, 9:8 (A.D. 197), and The Soul, 25,27 (A.D. 210).

Augustine had this to say about Onan's sin:

And why has Paul said: 'If he cannot control himself, let him marry?' Surely, to prevent incontinence from constraining him to adultery. If, then, he practices continence, neither let him marry nor beget children. However, if he does not control himself, let him enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse. There are some lawfully wedded couples who resort to this last, for intercourse, even with one's lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, whenever the conception of offspring is avoided. Onan, the son of Juda, did this very thing, and the Lord slew him on that account. Therefore, the procreation of children is itself the primary, natural, legitimate purpose of marriage. Whence it follows that those who marry because of their inability to remain continent ought not to so temper their vice that they preclude the good of marriage, which is the procreation of children.

Luther:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him. [Luther's Works, vol. 7 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44 (Ge 38:9-10)]

Lukas Osiander:

[What he did] which was an abhorrent thing and worse than adultery. For such an evil deed strives against nature, and those who do it will not possess the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. And the holier marriage is, the less will those remain unpunished who live in it in a wicked and unfitting way so that, in addition to it, they practice private acts of villainy.

It is simply a denial of orthodox theology for one to deny that Onan was killed for family planning. Our postmodern world would like this to be interpreted otherwise, but it simply cannot be.

"Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them."

2. Children are a blessing from the Lord (Gen. 1:28; 15:2-5; 17:5f.; 24:60; 33:5; 48:9; 49:25; Lev. 26:9; Deut. 28:4; Josh. 24:3; Ruth 4:11f.; Psalm 107:38; 127:3-5; 128:3-6; 147:13; Prov. 5:18; 17:6; LC 4th Comm., # 105, Trigl. p. 611).


Genesis 1:28

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 15:2-5

2 But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!”
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

Genesis 17:5

5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.

Genesis 24:60

60 And they blessed Rebekah and said to her:

“Our sister, may you become
The mother of thousands of ten thousands;
And may your descendants possess
The gates of those who hate them.”

Genesis 33:5

5 And he lifted his eyes and saw the women and children, and said, “Who are these with you?”
So he said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

Genesis 48:9

9 Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me in this place.”
And he said, “Please bring them to me, and I will bless them.”

Genesis 49:25

25 By the God of your father who will help you,
And by the Almighty who will bless you
With blessings of heaven above,
Blessings of the deep that lies beneath,
Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.

Leviticus 26:9

9 ‘For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you.

Deuteronomy 28:4

4 “Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.

Joshua 24:3

3 Then I took your father Abraham from the other side of the River, led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac.

Psalm 107:38

38 He also blesses them, and they multiply greatly;
And He does not let their cattle decrease.

Psalm 127:3-5

3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;
They shall not be ashamed,
But shall speak with their enemies in the gate.

Psalm 128:3-6

3 Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine
In the very heart of your house,
Your children like olive plants
All around your table.
4 Behold, thus shall the man be blessed
Who fears the LORD.
5 The LORD bless you out of Zion,
And may you see the good of Jerusalem
All the days of your life.
6 Yes, may you see your children’s children.
Peace be upon Israel!

Psalm 147:13

13 For He has strengthened the bars of your gates;
He has blessed your children within you.

Proverbs 5:18

18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.

Proverbs 17:6

6 Children’s children are the crown of old men,
And the glory of children is their father.

Large Catechism, 4th Comm., # 105, Trigl. p. 611

"To this estate of fatherhood and motherhood God has given the special distinction above all estates that are beneath it that He not simply commands us to love our parents, but to honor them. .. He separates and distinguishes father and mother above all other persons on earth, and places them at His side."

Children are a blessing, the more the better! Family planning seeks to prevent and decrease the frequency and number of these blessings. Thus one shows contempt for God's blessings. Let us consider again Luther's words on this very point:

For one must also consider that at that time fertility was regarded as an extraordinary blessing and a special gift of God, as is clear from Deut. 28:4, where Moses numbers fertility among the blessings. “There will not be a barren woman among you,” he says (cf. Ex. 23:26). We do not regard this so highly today. Although we like and desire it in cattle, yet in the human race there are few who regard a woman’s fertility as a blessing. Indeed, there are many who have an aversion for it and regard sterility as a special blessing. Surely this is also contrary to nature. Much less is it pious and saintly. For this affection has been implanted by God in man’s nature, so that it desires its increase and multiplication. Accordingly, it is inhuman and godless to have a loathing for offspring. Thus someone recently called his wife a sow, since she gave birth rather often. The good-for-nothing and impure fellow! The saintly fathers did not feel like this at all; for they acknowledged a fruitful wife as a special blessing of God and, on the other hand, regarded sterility as a curse. And this judgment flowed from the Word of God in Gen. 1:28, where He said: “Be fruitful and multiply.” From this they understood that children are a gift of God.

Luther's works, vol. 5, p. 329

"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.

[Luther's works, vol. 5: Lectures on Genesis, page 332]

Also consider these words from the Luther's (Large Catechism) explanation of the First Commandment:

13] Thus you can easily understand what and how much this commandment requires, namely, that man's entire heart and all his confidence be placed in God alone, and in no one else. For to have God, you can easily perceive, is not to lay hold of Him with our hands or to put Him in a bag [as money], or to lock Him in a chest [as silver vessels]. 14] But to apprehend Him means when the heart lays hold of Him and clings to Him. 15] But to cling to Him with the heart is nothing else than to trust in Him entirely. For this reason He wishes to turn us away from everything else that exists outside of Him, and to draw us to Himself, namely, because He is the only eternal good.

26] For even though otherwise we experience much good from men, still whatever we receive by His command or arrangement is all received from God. For our parents, and all rulers, and every one besides with respect to his neighbor, have received from God the command that they should do us all manner of good, so that we receive these blessings not from them, but, through them, from God. For creatures are only the hands, channels, and means whereby God gives all things, as He gives to the mother breasts and milk to offer to her child, and corn and all manner of produce from the earth for nourishment, none of which blessings could be produced by any creature of itself.

27] Therefore no man should presume to take or give anything except as God has commanded, in order that it may be acknowledged as God's gift, and thanks may be rendered Him for it, as this commandment requires. On this account also these means of receiving good gifts through creatures are not to be rejected, neither should we in presumption seek other ways and means than God has commanded. For that would not be receiving from God, but seeking of ourselves.

Fruit and Multiplication Beyond Genesis.

One comment to the previous post cast doubt as to whether the Lord's command to "Be fruitful and multiply.." was one that extended beyond Adam and Eve (Gen1:28), Noah (Gen 9), and Jacob (Gen 35:11). Such arguments have been made elsewhere and in other circles.

I would like to take note of another pericope that the LCR document fails to take into account. It is one more instance of the Lord's Word on the matter and it furthermore offers a serious challenge to the comment on the last post that is mentioned above.

And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. "For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless. Malachi 2: 13-16 (ESV)

And what was the One God seeking from marriages some 1400 years after Jacob during the time of Malachi? He was still seeking Godly offspring. He was still looking for His people to be fruitful and multiply. Adam and Eve have accomplished the starting of the human race. Noah and his wife have replenished the earth. And Jacob and family have successfully given rise to the Lord's promised Israel. Yet the Lord still wants more Godly offspring here in Malachi. As a brother once said, "Now, that MIGHT be just a coincidence, but I find it hard to believe in coincidences that big."

We can draw a line after the patriarchs of the faith and declare that the command to be fruitful and multiply has been fulfilled. Yet to do so we would have to ignore the Lord's clear word on the topic as it comes to us from Malachi (and elsewhere). We can even join some in liberal bastions throughout the church who commend us to simply look at the world around us and see that we have sufficiently multiplied, subdued, and filled the eath. It certainly would be another line we could draw between us and the Lord's clear word to "be fruitful and multiply." Unfortunately, to do so is to draw a line between the Lord and us - the fruits of His Gospel.

"Be Fruitful and Multiply..."

Let us now examine the first point in the LCR document:

1. The command of God to be "fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,17; 35:11; 1 Tim. 5:10,14; AC XXIII, #5 & 8, Triglot p. 61; AP XXIII, #7-8, Trigl. p. 365-7; LC 6th Comm., # 207, Trigl., p. 639).

Genesis 1:28

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 9:

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Genesis 35:11

Also God said to him: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

1 Timothy 5:

10...well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

AC XXIII, #5 & 8, Triglot p. 61:

"God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28 ... No man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God."

AP XXIII, #7-8, Trigl. p. 365-7:

"First. Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to fruitful and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite which was to have been in nature in its integrity, which they call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

"The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth, but that now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded. See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so forced by the Word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist; just as the earth becomes fruitful by the word, Gen. 1:11: Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God, the nature of a human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law (that a woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman)."

LC 6th Comm., # 207, Trigl., p. 639:

"Therefore, He also wishes us to honor it (matrimony), and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should (legiti­mately) live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God."

I will also add here an excerpt from some of Luther's comments regarding the divine ordinance "Be Fruitful and Multiply."

The following translation, the first into English, is based on the text published by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg, Uom Eelichen Leben, as reprinted with annotations in WA 10, 275–304.

Jesus

How I dread preaching on the estate of marriage! I am reluctant to do it because I am afraid if I once get really involved in the subject it will make a lot of work for me and for others. The shameful confusion wrought by the accursed papal law has occasioned so much distress, and the lax authority of both the spiritual and the temporal swords has given rise to so many dreadful abuses and false situations, that I would much prefer neither to look into the matter nor to hear of it. But timidity is no help in an emergency; I must proceed. I must try to instruct poor bewildered consciences, and take up the matter boldly. This sermon is divided into three parts.

Part One

In the first part we shall consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another. In order to proceed aright let us direct our attention to Genesis 1[:27], “So God created man … male and female he created them.” From this passage we may be assured that God divided mankind into two classes, namely, male and female, or a he and a she. This was so pleasing to him that he himself called it a good creation [Gen. 1:31]. Therefore, each one of us must have the kind of body God has created for us. I cannot make myself a woman, nor can you make yourself a man; we do not have that power. But we are exactly as he created us: I a man and you a woman. Moreover, he wills to have his excellent handiwork honored as his divine creation, and not despised. The man is not to despise or scoff at the woman or her body, nor the woman the man. But each should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is weil-pleasing unto God himself.

In the second place, after God had made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply. Now this [ordinance] is just as inflexible as the first, and no more to be despised and made fun of than the other, since God gives it his blessing and does something over and above the act of creation. Hence, as it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man. For it is not a matter of free choice or decision but a natural and necessary thing, that whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man.

For this word which God speaks, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance 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 created 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.

In the third place, 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, The Christian in Society II, The Estate of Marriage, pp. 15-18]

So, is there any doubt that only those with the gift of celibacy are exempt from thie divine ordinance to "be fruitful and multiply?"

Semantics, Pt. II. Implications

I just received in the mail the new CTCR document 'Christian Faith and Human Beings: Christian Care and Pre-Implantation Human Life' (more to come on the document itself). In it they quote at several points a Christian ethicist by the name Oliver O'Donovan. One quote in particular serves as a fantastic follow up to the previous Kaas quote on semantics. It demonstrates not only the changed in the words we use but some of the freight and implications of those words.

When we start making human beings we necessarily stop loving them; that which is made rather than begotten becomes something that we have at our disposal, not someone with whom we can engage in brotherly fellowship.

Oliver O'Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 65. Found in the new CTCR document (named above) on pg. 28.

Semantics and the study of God's Word

The following is a quote from Leon Kass. It shows in short order how the language employed by mankind concerning parents and child has changed over the centuries. As the language has changed so has the worldview. It is instructive for us in our current discussion in that it helpfully lead us to take stock of what language we employ and see if that is the language that God's Word employs.

Consider the views of life and the world reflected in the following different expressions to describe the process of generating new life. Ancient Israel, impressed with the phenomenon of stransmission of life from father to son, used a word we translate as "begetting" or "siring." The Greeks, impressed with the springing forth of new life in the cyclical processes of generation and decay, called it genesis, from a root meaning "to come into being." ... The premodern Christian English-speaking world, impressed with the world as given by a Creator, used the term "pro-creation." We, impressed with the machine and the gross national product (our own work of creation), employ a metaphor of the factory, "re-production."

Leon R. Kass, M.D., Toward a More Natural Science (New York: The Free Press, 1985), p. 48.