Psalm 127 in practice

Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. ~Psalm 127

Less than a century ago, and for the entire history of the world previous to that, a man could depend upon the church teaching his children and all their potential spouses that children are a blessing, and that one should feel blessed to have as many as the good Lord desires (i.e. that contraception is a sin).

As a father of seven children, the oldest being 16, I am facing the stark reality that the choice of spouses for my children in this postmodern culture of death is almost non-existent. That is, if I they don't want to marry someone who will despise the blessing of children by contracepting most of my grandchildren from ever existing.

What's a man to do? How am I going to help my children find spouses who not only truly believe in the pure Gospel of forgiveness as confessed in Lutheranism, but also truly believe the words of Psalm 127?

A. Start a new e-harmony.com group that confesses both these truths.

B. Sit back and trust God to bring them together somehow.

C. Convert the heathen masses.

These potential answers are worded in humorous terms, but there's a thread of true sentiment in each of them. I have ideas in my head as to how to search out potential spouses. At the same time I tell my maturing children not to worry - God will take care of them. But then I realize that my children may have to convert their spouses to Lutheranism, fecundity, or both, if they're ever going to get married.

This question brings everything we've talked about on this blog home to roost. The issue of "Lutherans and Procreation" is not just a question for each individual to wrestle with. It is a question that has implications for us all, including our posterity.

Paper on Pastoral Care for Those Grieving the Death of a Stillborn

Liturgy as Instrument of Pastoral Care: Burial for a Stillborn Child or Unbaptized Child


Undoubtedly, the death of a child in the womb must be one of life’s most gut-wrenching tragedies. When this happens, a pastor must be diligent in his use of God’s Word and the Lord’s Supper in caring for his grieving people. The rite of “Burial for a Stillborn Child or Unbaptized Child” in Lutheran Service Book: Agenda is foundational to the cure of mourning souls even outside the funeral service itself. Its prayers, Scripture readings, and resurrection proclamations guide a pastor in his care for people at all stages of their bereavement.

Martin Luther wrote a short work that sheds light on the issue of pastoral care to those who mourn the death of a stillborn child.[1] Although Luther lauded baptism as the great treasure that it is, he acknowledged that it is possible for an unbaptized child to be saved by the same undeserved grace of God given in baptism. The death of the unborn is not a sign of God’s anger or judgment against the parents. The Holy Spirit sanctifies stillborn children on the basis of the unspoken prayers of the mother[2], the prayers of the Christian congregation, and His eternal election of that child unto salvation. Thus, only a Christian mother can be assured that the soul of her deceased child is in heaven. Luther adds that the Christian mother of a stillborn should be confident that her desire to bring her child to be baptized will be accepted by God and made effective by Him. He points to Christ’s resurrecting the son of the widow of Nain and His exorcising a demon from the daughter of the Canaanite woman as examples of miracles performed on the basis of the faith of the mothers apart from the faith of their children. Luther’s main point is that one should not let go of God’s promises in spite of how difficult the circumstance might be.[3] These considerations are crucial to pastoral cure of souls in this heartbreaking situation.

The Rite of Burial for a Stillborn Child or Unbaptized Child

Every Christian funeral or burial service is based only upon what those gathered hear. This applies no less in the case of a stillborn. God’s promises to all of His children, but especially to the deceased, are the focus of the service. The stillborn is not to be refused a Christian funeral service, for, as is the case with all funerals, the deceased might have been an unbeliever. Only God knows the individual’s heart. However, the deceased Christian is always assumed to have been a believer on the basis of God’s grace given to him in baptism and his outward confession in this life. Obviously, this is not as apparent in the case of a stillborn. The first element of the rite is the invocation of the name of the Triune God, the same name that would have been placed upon the stillborn in baptism. Thus, the rite begins like any other Christian service. Those gathered will be blessed with the Gospel message of Christ’s death and resurrection.

The pastor speaks an extended consolation to those grieving the baby’s death. His words testify to the reality that God’s will sometimes “allows our anticipation and joy to be changed into disappointment and grief.” What at first might seem insulting, if not altogether untrue, is in reality a message of comfort. God is in control of the situation. His unsearchable will was done. There is no room for Deism here. God is active in both blessing and testing His people. By the Gospel, God calls those gathered to a faith that will withstand such times of testing. As impossible as it might seem, the excruciating loss felt especially by the parents is somehow for their good. They will not be given more to endure than they can handle.

The Trinitarian confession continues in that although the grieving recognize that they do not have answers to all of life’s questions, they know that God is their “loving Father,” their “Brother in suffering and death,” and the “Comforter who even now brings peace” to their grief-stricken hearts. They know this only on account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is the objective source of all legitimate comfort. Pastors work with what gives certainty. They do not throw the hidden God at their people. Only the revealed God, the Lord Jesus Christ, calms the troubled breast.

Along the lines of Luther’s address to women who have had miscarriages, the opening consolation recognizes that the child was prayed for and commended to Christ while alive in the womb. This should encourage prayer for all unborn children in all Christian congregations throughout the world. “We should not doubt that these prayers have been heard, for we have God’s own kind and comforting promises that such prayers in the name of Jesus Christ are heard by Him.” Once again, there is an objective basis for comfort rooted in God’s promises. Although the child was not baptized, the power of baptism is recognized, and the grieving are exhorted to trust that God has received the stillborn child in His mercy and for the sake of Christ’s death and resurrection. The extended consolation ends with the confident confession that the stillborn will be raised to life with Christ on the Last Day. Those gathered are admonished to remain steadfast in the Word and faith until they too come to the joys of everlasting life.[4] The interrelated themes of comfort in Christ’s work and the hope of heaven have been set forth as the purpose of the rite.

God’s comforting promises in His Word are the foundation of the rite. The pastor has eleven pericopes to choose from, and there are certainly other appropriate readings that could be added to these. Psalm 139 acknowledges that the stillborn is God’s creation, one whom He knit together in his mother’s womb. Like any funeral, the gift of life that the deceased once enjoyed is celebrated. It may have been short-lived, but the deceased infant did have life as a gift from his Creator. After all, whose life is not short-lived when compared to the vastness of eternity? Related to the efficacy of the prayers for the child is the idea that God looked upon the child in loving care even while he was still being formed in his mother’s womb. Each day of life, written in God’s book,[5] is a gift that He has planned out from eternity. The Gloria Patri that concludes the three psalms once again reminds those gathered of their baptism and the Triune name that would have been placed upon the stillborn in his baptism.

The Gospel is proclaimed anew in Psalm 23. The Lord’s sheep have no need that He cannot provide for. God’s people can take comfort in His presence even in the midst of death. Although the stillborn never ate and drank the Good Shepherd’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, he will partake of the marriage feast of the Lamb and His bride which has no end. His Lord will prepare a table before him, and he will dwell in the Lord’s house forever.

Psalm 130 is the cry of the grieving parents and other relatives and friends. They plead for the Lord to hear their cries for mercy. They recognize that forgiveness is found only in Him. They place their hope in the Lord’s “steadfast love” and “plentiful redemption,” trusting that the stillborn child is in heaven. God has redeemed all people through Christ. For now, the souls of those gathered in mourning and hope must wait for the Lord.

In Jeremiah 31:15-17 the Lord proclaims that weeping should cease because the captives (or deceased) will come back from the land of the enemy. Here is the glorious promise of the resurrection of the body in which the stillborn will “come back to their own country,” the New Jerusalem. In Job 1:21 the Lord is acknowledged as the Giver of life who alone can take it away. He controls the destinies of all people. Job is not afraid to confess the harsh reality that he is dust (naked from his mother’s womb) and to dust he will return (naked in the grave).

Paul posits a rhetorical question: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31). Not even sin, death, and the devil combined can take God’s children away from Him. Paul writes that God gave His Son to die for all. No one can bring a charge of condemnation against God’s elect. Not even a death in the womb can prevent the elect stillborn from eternal life with his God. In Romans 14:7-9 Paul writes that humans are not autonomous creatures. They are the Lord’s whether they live or die. Christ died and was raised from the dead in order that He might be Lord of both the living and the dead. He is Lord of the stillborn and all those who grieve his death. Revelation 21:1-7 presents the eternal glory that all Christians hope for. There will be no tears, death, mourning, crying, or pain in heaven. This is quite the opposite of the vale of tears in which the grieving now live out their days.

Jesus’ attitude toward children is very comforting. He said in Matthew 18 that one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he has faith like a little child. God’s people are not to despise any of the little ones entrusted to their care, for whoever receives a child in Jesus’ name also receives Him. Once again, prayers for the unborn and reading Scripture to them are important in utero activities. In addition, little children have angels in heaven who watch over them. In Mark 10 Jesus said that God’s kingdom belongs to little children, and He took children in His arms and blessed them. He does the same to the stillborn commended to His care. Jesus said in Matthew 11 that God has revealed the things of salvation to little children, those who stand totally passive before Him in terms of their redemption. Jesus offers Himself as rest to all who are heavy laden. He shoulders all of His people’s sorrows, much like He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself on the cross.

After the pastor provides further words of consolation, the rite ends in prayer. The prayer recognizes once again that Jesus bore our griefs and carried all our sorrows. The pastor prays that the faith of the grieving parents might be strengthened and that they might rely on God’s mercy in trusting that their little one who has been gathered[6] into His loving arms will rise on the Last Day. The pastor then invokes the name of the Triune God, asking that He would keep the remains of the stillborn until the day of the resurrection of all flesh. The Lord’s Prayer follows. The Third, Fourth, and Seventh Petitions are especially pertinent to the situation. By faith, the mourners pray that God’s will be done, even in the midst of such tragedy. They pray for daily bread, which includes the blessing of children. They pray for deliverance from the evil one who would take away every one of God’s blessings if he was able. The benediction follows, and the service ends with the pronouncement of God’s peace upon those gathered.

The Rite of Committal for a Stillborn Child or Unbaptized Child

This rite follows the funeral or burial service, and it provides further pastoral care at the time of the actual interment. The rite begins with a fourteenth century hymn that is reminiscent of David’s penitential prayer in Psalm 51. It is a cry of both desperation and hope. Those gathered confess that they are dead in their sins in the very midst of life. Even though the Lord is justly angered by their sins, from Him alone can they seek help. They ask that the Lord would not deliver them into the bitterness of eternal death. They pray that God would not shut His ears to their prayers even though He knows the evil secrets of their hearts. The hymn is very appropriate for the mournful reality of the stillborn’s death in that it reminds those gathered of their own impending deaths and of the certain hope that they, like the stillborn, will be saved from eternal death.

The prayer that follows acknowledges that Jesus made the graves of all His children holy by His own three-day rest in the tomb, promising resurrection to their mortal bodies. The grave is blessed, and the pastor asks that God would grant the stillborn’s body to sleep in peace until he is awakened to glory with the rest of God’s people. This prayer is perhaps the most comforting non-Scriptural portion of either rite. St. Paul offers words of comfort concerning the resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. A stillborn child is the epitome of things perishable, dishonorable, and weak. However, in the resurrection he will be raised imperishable, glorified, and powerful. Then death will be swallowed up in the victory of Christ’s resurrection.

The pastor makes a bold statement: “It pleased our heavenly Father in His wise providence to call this child to Himself.” What is foolish to the world is really the wisdom of God. Although this child died, God still cared for him from his first to his last breath. Now the child’s soul is with its Maker. The fleeting nature of life is presented: “earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” The comforting words of the “sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life” are proclaimed. Even the body of this stillborn child will have a body like Christ’s glorious body in eternity.

Christ’s death destroyed death and redeemed God’s “little ones.” Christ’s bodily resurrection brings peace and hope to all who die in Him. Christ is the Resurrection and the Life. The everlasting communion of saints who await the bodily resurrection is mentioned in the closing prayer. Thus, the mourners are united with the stillborn. This will be proclaimed week after week in the Proper Preface, Sanctus, and at the Lord’s Supper itself. The proclamation of the Easter season follows the singing of an appropriate hymn. The congregation confesses, “Alleluia! Christ is risen. He is risen indeed. Alleluia!” Once again, the resurrection of the body is proclaimed. The mourners go forth in peace in the Lord’s name, having been blessed by the pastor.

[1] See “For Women Who Have Had a Miscarriage” (AE 43:247-250).
[2] David also entrusted his unborn son to the Lord after he found out that he would not live for very long after birth. David prayed to the Lord on his son’s behalf (2 Samuel 12:16) and confessed that he would one day go to the place where his newborn son would go before him (2 Samuel 12:23).
[3] Luther’s focus was more on the words of promise that God will deliver those who call upon Him in the day of trouble than on the fact that the unborn (such as John the Baptist) can believe.
[4] These words are reminiscent of Luther’s explanation of the Third Petition of the Lord’s Prayer in the Small Catechism.
[5] One cannot help but think of the “Book of Life” which Paul and John write about in Philippians and Revelation.
[6] Note the certainty with which the pastor speaks about the stillborn’s eternal salvation.

Conflicting Absolutes

Devona asked me to post again on this ethical principle and how I believe it relates to the issue of contraception. First, let's look at the broader picture of the ethical principles Christians have to choose from:

An excellent exposition of these principles is found in Norman L. Geisler’s Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), pages 97-100:

What about moral conflicts? What should one do when two or more of his absolute obligations come into unavoidable conflict?

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...

The central assumption of the ethical position of conflicting absolutism is that we live in a fallen world, and in such a world real moral conflicts do occur. The accompanying premise, however, is that when two duties conflict, man is morally responsible to both duties. God’s law can never be broken without guilt. In such cases, therefore, one must simply do the lesser evil, confess his sin, and ask for God's forgiveness.

Conflicting absolutism has roots in the Greek world, was incorporated into Reformation thinking, and finds expression in both modern existential and popular thought. The colloquial "I did the lesser of two evils" is an expression of it. In fact, it can be called the lesser-evil view.

Although there are Christian roots for conflicting absolutism, they grow in Greek soil. The ancient Greek tragedies often portrayed lesser evil situations. In the fifth century B.C., Sophocles and Euripides wrote dramas about heroes who contended against forces of fate they could not avoid. These dramatized dilemmas reflected the nature of the real world of moral conflicts with which conflicting absolutism struggles.

The concept of lesser evils was given a new dimension with the Reformation doctrine of depravity, particularly as that was developed by Martin Luther. There are two things imbedded in Lutheran thought which give rise to a form of conflicting absolutism, the first being Luther's theory of two kingdoms. He believed that Christians live simultaneously in two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. Since they are opposed and since Christians have responsibility in both, it is inevitable that there will be conflicts.

...Perhaps the most comprehensive contemporary exposition of the conflicting absolutist viw is found in Thielicke’s works. There are several elements in Thielicke's form of conflicting absolutism. Fundamental to his view is the belief in real, unavoidable moral conflicts, for "to deny the conflict situation is to deny decision." In conflict situations, says Thielicke, "I may have to face the possibility that what is involved here is a borderline situation which does not allow of any easy solution." And "I can reach such a decision only by going through the conflict and enduring it, not by evading it in the name of some kind of perfectionism. In the conflict situation sin is unavoidable, for we "constantly fall into sin in the borderline situation." In view of human depravity, these kinds of conflicts should be expected, since "the form of this world is no more able to produce absolute righteousness than our human heart." The consequence is that in this fallen world "conduct is de facto a compromise between the divine requirement and what is permitted by the form of this world.... by the manifold conflicts of duty. Even the so-called just war unavoidably involves injustices. For "there is no such thing as a wholly just war, and my decision to endorse a given war and participate in it can be made only from the standpoint that I see, or think I see, greater wrong on the one side than the other..."

Moral depravity is the cause of moral dilemmas. A moral conflict is “not due to the character imparted to the world by creation, as though 'from the beginning' (Matt. 19:8). . . ." No, "it is due rather to the complex of wrong decisions which lie behind us, which have their ultimate root in that primal decision recorded in the story of the fall." In brief, moral conflicts arise out of the fact that this is a fallen world. In such a world, there will be times when we cannot avoid evil. When decisions are made in conflict situations, we must choose the lesser evil, for "there are heavier sins and lighter sins." They are both sins, but "they do not have the same weight." Thielicke makes it clear that there is no justification of doing the lesser evil. Neither is there any pragmatic justification. For “the slogan’ to prevent something worse’ is always ethically destructive because it subjugates our action to a non-Christian pragmatism. In fact, “readiness to do wrong in order to ‘prevent something worse’ is a very dubious principle, because it implies that the end justifies the means...” We must simply recognize that in conflict situations both commands are our moral duty and that sin is inevitable. Nonetheless, since there are lesser and greater sins, the Christian should do the lesser sin, knowing forgiveness is available. “He knows that her in this world there is no perfect righteousness, but he does not therefore draw the conclusion that everything is under the same condemnation and that everything is equally permissible....” On the contrary, he realizes that there is a “quantitative distinction between reprehensible and less reprehensible, between good and less good possibilities.”

According to Thielicke, “we can undergo and endure borderline situations and...inescapable conflicts only under forgiveness.” The Christian knows “that even in a war which– given things as they are– is ‘just,’ [he] must always stand in need of forgiveness.” Thus our “certainty that acts done under the guidance of the Spirit are, despite their ‘crooked’ form, done in God’s name as his affair, and that at the same time they nonetheless stand in need of forgiveness...” Thus in the conflict situation the Christian “acts in the knowledge that even those actions which conform to the ultimate norms perceptible in this aeon must stand under forgiveness...” In short, even our best effort in obeying God’s commands is an evil that needs to be forgiven.

With that in mind, is the goal of preventing conception always sinful? I say yes. But I also believe there are potential situations when contraception might be the lesser evil. But no one has an entirely sinless reason for contraception. This makes the license Roman Catholicism gives for NFP fall on its head. Can abstinence ever be sinless within marriage if it is for the purpose of preventing a life from being created by a man and wife? 1 Corinthians 7:5 tells us that couples may abstain for a time, but only for the purpose of more devote fasting and prayer, not for the purpose of family planning.

My contention is that any acceptable use of family planning will always be an example of trying to chose the lesser evil. These are rare but difficult decisions that cry out for the aid of one's pastor. But how many pastors understand God's law in the area of procreation? Sadly almost none.

So, let me take this a step further and confess my own sin. Even my best effort at obeying God's command to be fruitful is in need of forgiveness. I do not use any form of contraception [pat self on back - sinful pride], yet I am still guilty of being contraceptive in my heart. We're expecting #7 in another couple months, and it's already hard raising six children. My sinful hope is (and I'm sure will be) that my wife's on-demand nursing will prevent conception for a time. 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 know I should be open to God's will at all times, even when it seems inconvenient to me.

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. Even my best good works stand in need of forgiveness. I sometimes wonder if I should even get out of bed in the morning, because I know it will lead to more sin. But it is a greater evil to stay in bed and not fulfill my vocations as much as humanly possible, so I get up and accept the sad reality that I will keep sinning.

"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]

If Children are a Blessing

I've been wanting to write a post here for a while, and Erich's last post was a good spring board for me to jump off.

About a year or so ago I was very hesitant to agree with Erich that any contracepting (even NFP) is a deviation from God's intentions for marriage. There are many logical reasons to avoid having a child. Some of them are very very logical, like health issues, multiple miscarriage, or extreme poverty. Some of them are very very superficial, like the reason that I am hoping not to get pregnant this year... I'm training for a marathon.


But if what Scripture says is true, and that children are a blessing and are only given by God then I have to conclude that actively avoiding that blessing is Sin. And when facing a logical reason to avoid pregnancy one must not consider it their right, but a deviation from God's plan as the result of Sin in the world. I have had to quit charting my fertility because knowing with any certainty when I am fertile will tempt me to avoid pregnancy in order to train for my race. And training for a marathon is not a good reason to turn down a blessing from God.

I'd like it if Erich would explain again his "lesser evil" description of contraception. I am interested in having that conversation again.

Contracepting Questions

When considering the issue of contraception we must ask questions and look at the issue scripturally:

- What is God’s purposes for marriage, and can these be separated at different times?

Companionship, procreation, help, completion, intimacy, to curb sin, and as an expression of the relationship between Christ and the church are founded within Scripture.

Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them.

And God said to them,

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it”

Genesis 2:18-24: “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5 also shed light on marriage.

There church rightly declares it to be sin for separating some of these from marriage and sex without companionship and intimacy you have rape, without help and completion there is a lack of love and an inaccurate picture of what marriage is to be, without the curbing of sin there is fornication, and without Christ and the church there is unbelief. And no one would encourage a couple to be married without these elements present in their marriage.

So why this approval for separating procreation?

- The next question is, how ought Christians to view children?

Psalm 127, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,

the fruit of the womb a reward.”

God has blessed us to be fruitful and multiply. He has not said how much nor given any indication of this being fulfilled. To think that we have fulfilled this by having 2, 3, 4, or however many children is to bring a sense of legalism within this blessing. The mindset that one has been fruitful and multiplied or that one intends to be fruitful and multiply is to seek and look to the self for fulfillment. But as with all of God’s promises, there is nothing that we can do to fulfill anything. Only God fulfills his promises, God gives blessings.

Trying to control God’s blessings is beyond our Christian freedom, with any of God’s blessings we are only recipients. To attempt to control God’s blessings, to control the blessing of life itself, is to put yourself in the place of God!

God alone is the giver of life. He created us to join together in one flesh, and gave us the blessing of being fruitful before the fall. This is God’s created order.. He has created us to be his creatures, and even though we have fallen in sin he gives us forgiveness, life, and salvation. And He continues to give us other blessings. As children of God, we continue to do what it is we do with all of God’s gifts – receive them by faith.

Spain needs 2 millions foreigners until 2020

More on the Demographic Winter that is approaching and the increased percentage of Islamic populations which are temporarily filling the gap:

Jihad Watch covered this story from ANSAmed.

MADRID, APRIL 3 - Spain needs over two million new foreign workers, 157,000 a year, until 2020, according to a study by the Group for Reflection and Proposal on Business and Immigration quoted by ABC daily today. According to the report, the main cause for this need is the ageing of the Spanish population, with a proportion of young people that has decreased twice in the past 25 years and the local universities loosing over 300,000 students until 2015. The percentage of foreign workers, who generate nearly half of the Spanish GDP growth, will grow from the current 20-25% to 35% of the Spanish workforce in 2010. The authors of the report said they would meet the various political parties to try and convince them that the arrival of foreign workers is "an opportunity for the economy" and will call upon the government to adopt a new law on immigration "to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration".

Jihad Watch comments: "From the days of Pelayo, it has been a long descent. The senescent population now needs massive immigration just to keep the country going -- and after 2020, what then? I suppose the question will be moot as the new Islamic Republic takes power in Madrid. ... I hope at least that Spanish authorities will take careful note of the fact that the immigrants in question are generally being taught to resist assimilation in Europe."

Hat tip to Dan at Necessary Roughness

National Review: Tax Cut of the Century

What the GOP can learn from the 1948 Revenue Act.
By Robert W. Patterson (of the Howard Center)

Excerpt:

The 1948 act was not the largest tax cut of the century. But unlike the tax cuts of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush eras, the measure nursed near-record levels of industrial growth and economic expansion without sacrificing family size, moving nearly half of all married mothers into the full-time labor market, or reducing the relative earnings of married men. Nor did the good times coincide with the unraveling of the family, another plus that puts the economic performance of the past generation in perspective.

In fact, the 1948 Revenue Act contributed to a turnaround — between 1945 and 1963 — of social indicators that some sociologists claim today are irreversible. Not only did marriage rates rise, but the proportion of adults reaping the joys of marital bliss hit a record: 95 percent of Americans coming of age then would tie the knot. Marital fertility rates doubled between 1944 and 1957, raising average family size from two to nearly four children, securing baby boomers a wealth of siblings and cousins and their progeny a wealth of aunts and uncles. Also good for the younger set, the divorce rate declined for the first time in history, reaching a low of about 9 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1958.

Muslims officially surpass Roman Catholics

Vatican: Islam Surpasses Roman Catholicism As World's Largest Religion
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population — a stable percentage — while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.

Formenti said that the data refer to 2006. The figures on Muslims were put together by Muslim countries and then provided to the United Nations, he said, adding that the Vatican could only vouch for its own data.

When considering all Christians and not just Catholics, Christians make up 33 percent of the world population, Formenti said.

New Carlson MP3

Not Safe, Nor Private, Nor Free: Wendell Berry on Sexual Love and Procreation — a NEW MP3

Allan C. Carlson, President of The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, and Founder and General Secretariat of the World Congress of Families

This lecture was given at the conference “The Humane Vision of Wendell Berry,” held October 20, 2007, in Louisville, Kentucky, and co-sponsored by The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Philadelphia Society, and The McConnell Center at the University of Kentucky.

It is also available in written form at the Howard Center.

Contraception's "Dolorous Stroke"

C. S. Lewis made an interesting allusion to contraception from a story in Arthurian legend about the misuse of the "Spear of Longinus" - the lance supposedly used to pierce our Lord on the cross.

I was reading an earlier post of mine on C.S. Lewis and contraception in which I quote from That Hideous Strength, the third book of his space trilogy, an excerpt which refers to a particular character's use of contraception:

"‘Sir,’ said Merlin, ‘know well that she has done in Logres a thing of which no less sorrow shall come than came of the stroke that Balinus struck. For, Sir, it was the purpose of God that she and her lord should between them have begotten a child by whom the enemies should have been put out of Logres for a thousand years.’"

Who was "Balinus" and what did he do?

Balinus (Balin) was a would-be knight of King Arthur's Court. At one point in the legend he sets out to avenge a man slain by an invisible knight traveling under his protection. The villain turns out to be the brother of the Grail King Pellam, and Balin kills him at a feast in Pellam's castle. Pellam goes to avenge his brother, shattering one of Balin's swords. Balin then goes from room to room in the castle to find another weapon. Though a voice warns him not to, he enters the room where the Holy Grail and the lance used to pierce our Lord were kept. Balin seizes the lance and runs the weapon through both of Pellam's thighs. This "Dolorous Stroke" maims Pellam, and turns the Grail kingdom of Logres into a barren land for years to come - the curse for using this sacred spear as a weapon.

So, now we know who Balinus was and what he did. Lewis never ceases to amaze me with the depth of his writings. Perhaps he didn't intend the obvious parallel readers of this blog might draw from his allusion, but it is certainly undeniable that contraception is, indeed, a thing which is turning our world into a barren wasteland. We are on the verge of a demographic winter caused by contraception's dolorous stroke.

"Open Embrace" no longer quite so open?

Originally celebrated by some as champions of the anti-contraception argument, Sam and Bethany Torode have experienced a reversal of opinion. Originally they were big proponents of NFP. But after using NFP for five years (and intentionally having three children during that same period of time) they now see something I have always claimed was a problem with NFP - that is, it is unnatural and quite burdensome. It demands that a couple abstain during the time when the desire to have marital relations is often the strongest.

The Torodes now have no problem with any non-abortifacient method of contraception. In short, this high profile couple who were champions of NFP have joined the ranks of your garden variety "anti-abortifacient" contraceptors. Personally, I never found their book to be something I'd recommend to anyone in the first place. While they made some valuable points, their ultimate position was never truly anti-contraception, mainly being an apologetic for NFP as the best means of family planning. They were not Roman Catholic and did not hold, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that NFP is only for extraordinary circumstances. In any case, here's the Torodes' new (2006) position from the main page of their web site [no longer online as of 4/1/2009] -

AN UPDATE FROM BETHANY

Five years down the road from writing Open Embrace, we’ve inevitably changed somewhat. Since we still get letters from people assuming that we haven’t changed at all, we wanted to give a brief update. We've become parents of three children, and experienced many joys and struggles (from postpartum depression to whooping cough). While we still believe in the importance of family, we're more mellow about encouraging others to have more children.

Our personal experience in the past five years has shown that we had a lot to learn about NFP, and that there is a dark side we weren’t aware of. Though Open Embrace said that it only involves a short period of abstinence, we didn’t know that during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence and dehabilitating [sic] stress. During such times (as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons), strict NFP reaches a point where it is more harmful for a marriage than good.

Where are the Youth?

Rev. Terry K. Dittmer - LCMS Director of Youth Ministry - had these comments to make when a concern was brought to him about the number of youth in the LCMS. (This was part of a larger interview done with The Wittenberg Trail, a networking site for Lutherans) He brings up good points about the issue of the church contracepting itself out of existance, as well as retaining people and sustaining them through their entire life in their faith.

(WT)
2) Recently I read a statistic that there are "only a little over 100,000 high school youth in the LCMS out of 2.5 million". Why do you think that so few of our high school aged youth are part of the LCMS? Another way of asking that question is, "What is attracting the 100,000 to the LCMS?"

(Dr. Dittmer)
The reason there are so few youth in the LCMS is that we are an aging church and we are not reproducing ourselves. We have had 2.5 million members for the last 30 years. At this time, the average age of an LCMS member is 62. We’re not having children. In that time, our youth population has shifted from 198,000 in 1980 to 102,000 in 2007 based on confirmation statistics. (If it’s any consolation, we aren’t the only church body with this challenge. It’s true of nearly every denomination).
We actually do a good job of retaining our youth. The National Study of Youth and Religion finds that the LCMS is in a category of churches that retains about 86% of its teens through high school. When they graduate, however, in their post-high school years, church connections drop dramatically.

The Culture of Death isn’t really so (Post)Modern after all

On the 12th of April 1204, soldiers of the Latin West made a stop in Constantinople and sacked it. They looted it for 3 days. They raped and pillaged. According to Pope Innocent III they even molested nuns. The Great Schism was now irreparable. The plans of Pope Innocent III to revive Christian enthusiasm through a fourth crusade went terribly wrong. There was a deeper problem than the threat of Islam – the Latin West had spiritual and theological problems.

Historian R.H.C. Davis, Emeritus Professor at the University of Birmingham until his death in 1991 summarizes the problems with the Latin West, (that Innocent lamented at the time), in his 1957 book “A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to St. Louis”

The desecration committed by the crusaders was an outrage that reverberated through Christendom and made the schism between the Greek and Roman Churches definitive. Instead of reviving Christian enthusiasm, the conquest of Constantinople demonstrated the cynical lust and depravity which had overcome the Latin West.

What was the cause of this debasement of the ideals of the previous century? To Innocent III it seemed to lie in the fact that the fundamental tenets of Christianity were no longer understood or sincerely believed by a large part of the population. In the great towns of northern Italy and southern France the rapid growth of the population had far outstripped the parochial organization, with the result that many people, receiving none of the proper ministrations of the Church, had fallen a prey to false doctrines particularly to Manichaeism. This was a heresy of Eastern origin, founded by Mani in the third century, and it had spread to the West primarily through the agency of traders. By the end of the eleventh century it had churches in Constantinople, Bosnia, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Dalmatia, and during the twelfth century it was or less officially tolerated by the municipal authorities in towns such as Milan, Viterbo, Ferrara, Florence, Prato, Vicenza, and Spoleto, while in the south of France, particularly in the region of Albi, its success was even greater since the Count of Toulouse and the ruling factions in many of the towns were said to be numbered among its converts.

The central belief of these heretics, who were usually called Cathari, or Albigensians, was in the dualism of the Perfect and Imperfect, the Eternal and the Temporal, the Spiritual and the Material, the Good and the Evil. They believed that God, being perfect, had created only the world of the spirit, which was eternal, and that the material world, being corruptible, had been created by and evil God (Satan, Lucifer, or Lucibel) who was identified as Jehovah, the God of the Jews. Consequently, they not only rejected the Old Testament, but also denied Christ’s Incarnation (for how could God have had a body which was the creation of Satan?) Having thus rejected the central doctrine of the Christian Church, they proceeded to undermine the fundamental institution of society, which was the family. Carrying their belief in the wickedness of all matter to its logical conclusion, they held that it was a sin to add to the amount of evil in the world by the procreation of babies; and while they preached chastity for the ‘perfect’, they declared that prostitution was normally a lesser evil than motherhood. (Davis, 333-334)

This was an issue before Innocent III became Pope and the Church sent many preachers to the effected areas, even St. Bernard. Innocent III intensified the preaching efforts and although the men sent to preach against the heresies of the Cathari repeatedly vanquished their opponents in public disputations, they failed to manage wide spread conversion. According to Davis “The heretics remained obstinate because they were encouraged by their temporal rulers.”

Innocent appealed to Philip Augustus, King of France, to take temporal action against the worse of the temporal rulers of the Albi region, Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse – but Philip was busy fighting King John of England. Emperor Otto IV was busy on other fronts. Innocent III took matters into his own hands and preached Crusade against the Albigensians. The call to arms was wildly successful and in a short time, Raymond, Count of Toulouse who tolerated and supported the Albigensians turned and joined the Crusade against his own people. Shortly after this "crusade", the 4th Lateran Council was convened and Innocent III managed to demonstrate an outwardly unified Catholic Church. The faithful were enjoined to report heretics and the rule was instituted that all Christians must confess their sins to a priest at least once a year, in order to ensure that priests could keep heresy in check amongst the faithful charged to their care.

Is the “Culture of Death” a byproduct of (Post)Modernity or of Latent Heresy?

In addressing the “Culture of Death” in which we find ourselves, quite often we see the problem as a child of Modernism and Marxism (e.g. Margaret Sanger) or of Post-Modernism (too many examples to list). While the spirit of Post-Modernism is our enemy du jour, I believe the enemy is really the same heresy that Innocent III confronted: Manichaeism.

Re-read the citation from Davis. The twelfth century countries listed could be substituted with any country in the present day West. The cities listed could be any modern day metropolis in the West. The region of Albi could be Southern California and Hollywood. Have you seen any of the specials on TV about “The DaVinci Code” in the last few years? Notice how the research leads time and time again to Southern France. The Incarnation is attacked again and again, from long buried heresies “repackaged” to the fantasies of atheists.

As for the general state of belief amongst Christians and the role of the government:

How many times in conversation amongst Christians has this phrase been uttered? “Oh, it is such an evil world, I feel guilty to bring children into it.”

Sounds down right Manichean, doesn’t it?

Prostitution is not necessarily encouraged by any respectable interest group, but pornography and the violations to personal chastity that result from it are widely accepted in Christian circles.

Or to quote Davis, “they declared that prostitution was normally a lesser evil than motherhood.”

Governments and various NGOs are concerned about population in certain areas of the world and instead of correcting political and economic factors that make life especially miserable they simply want to reduce the amount of humans through birth control, abortion and sterilization.

Public Service Announcements run on television discouraging teenage pregnancy with phrases like, “I don’t want a kid to mess up my life.”

The Government not only tolerates the “culture of death”, it is infiltrated by it.

Scientists beam with joy about the beauty of a humanless world on television shows like “The World after People.”

Then we will all be spirits right? Free to enjoy the beauty without the evils of the flesh??

All of this is nothing new. The religion of Mani is still alive and in practice – and it is more alive than most Christians are willing to perceive.

Learning from Pope Innocent III

Even those of us condemned by Trent would have to agree that Innocent III fulfilled the duties of his office by sending preachers out to dispute the Cathars and Albigensians. It is the sacred duty of Church to call sin out for what it is; sin. This is the first part of preaching. The Gospel must follow – there is more mercy in Christ for the greatest sinner than could ever be imagined. The ordained must call out the culture of death in all its forms and bring us to repentance. It is an evil world, but a reduction of the pinnacle of God’s creation won’t make it less evil. Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection scream out that the Holy Trinity finds humanity so precious that God would die to redeem it. Our pastors must instruct us about the sins of population control, abortion and yes even contraception – because the Incarnation stands as the ultimate antithesis to such things.

As far as the lack of “ministrations of the Church…” (or organization to support the population) addressed above as one of the causes that Innocent III sought to correct: In America there are churches a plenty, but how many of them truly carry out the ministry of Word and Sacrament? Again we have the same problem as in the 1200’s – the solution is to call and send men who will baptize, preach, commune and absolve but do not want to gain fame with the world. We do not need any more men who want to follow the next fad in American Evangelicalism.

Pope Innocent III, however, made a fatal flaw… one that we must not repeat. He encouraged the laity to arms to root out the heresy from the region of Albi. He had every right and duty in his office to pronounce the government and population of these areas dead to sin, unregenerate and even excommunicate their leaders, such as Raymond VI. The Church possesses the Keys for just such purposes! But our pastors cannot encourage us to arms and to confiscate the property and domain of those who are at odds with the faith and natural law. But those of us who are not ordained do not have our hands tied in such a way that we cannot combat the “culture of death” through material means within the limits of our vocation and citizenship, so long as we do not break the 10 Commandments. We can donate time and money to organizations that fight the culture of death. We can spend and invest our money in ways that uphold the sanctity of life from conception to eternity. We can use the means guaranteed in our Constitution. We can protest. Recall leaders. We can make temporal life for such people in Public Office and Public life very uncomfortable and unprofitable.

There must be a two pronged approach to combating the modern incarnation of Manichaeism and it must be in line with Two Kingdoms Theology. 1. The Church must teach and preach on the subjects of life and call sin as sin. The Church must use the keys when necessary and even excommunicate politicians who have shown themselves as manifestly unrepentant. 2. In the civil realm we must use all tools that are lawful and moral to combat the culture of death.

Manichaeism must be named and stopped.

If God in His omniscience knew that we would sin and bring sin and death into the world and He created us anyway, how can we who are not omniscient ever think that we are smart enough to limit or reduce His creation – especially since it is a creation that His dearly beloved Son took into Himself and redeemed? *

This is the argument that must be repeated again and again to the Manicheans inside and outside of the Church until this heresy is put down.


A History of Medieval Europe From Constantine to St. Louis R.H.C Davis. Longman, London and New York. Originally Published 1957. Second Edition 1988
* Reworking of a quotation from Fr. John Ricardo. Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic Church. Plymouth, MI

Contraception now one of the "Seven Deadly Sins"

WARNING: Poor journalism follows...

Vatican Adds Seven New Deadly Sins Including Abortion, Contraception and Drug-Dealing

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence.

It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes,” including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

UPDATE: Get Religion has provided a fog cutter post on this sensationalist story.

But all kidding aside, I wonder if the Vatican would even include NFP, when used for a reason not approved by the papacy. Many, even Roman Catholics themselves, don't realize that they are not even supposed to use NFP except in extreme circumstances.

I have made the argument here on L&C that from a Lutheran perspective, NFP is potentially a more dangerous sin than some other "spur of the moment" contraceptive methods. NFP requires one to be very active in the process every day of the month. There's a difference between stumbling into sins we struggle with (even if we stumble into the same sin often) and the kind of sin that is "lived in" - i.e. the sinful activity that you constantly accept and are active in. NFP is not something you can just "stumble" into. It takes a great deal of premeditative effort and active discipline.

But of everything I read in this story, this statement from the Pope really caught my attention:

Those who trust in themselves and in their own merits are, as it were, blinded by their own "I", and their hearts harden in sin. Those who recognize themselves as weak and sinful entrust themselves to God, and from Him obtain grace and forgiveness.

WOW! The undiscerning might actually hear the pure Gospel in that statement. But this story left out the rest of what the Pope said. Here is the context. It doesn't sound quite as Lutheran once you understand what else is involved. As Lutherans, we are blessed to know that it isn't "confession" that brings us the joy of God's forgiveness, but rather the unconditional absolution which follows it! The Pope speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he continues what he said above with this:

"...What is most important is to make it clear that in the Sacrament of Penance - whatever the sin committed - if sinners recognize it humbly and entrust themselves to the priest confessor, they will always experience the soothing joy of God's forgiveness"

Penance (specifically, that part called "satisfactions") is one of the serious abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. In a RC sacramental understanding of the term, "penance" applies to the whole activity from confession to absolution, much of which we do not differ on in practice. Generally speaking, however, the word "penance" is used to characterize the works of satisfaction imposed or recommended by the priest on or to the penitent. It ultimately directs one to make his own satisfactions for his sins rather than trusting in Christ's perfect and complete atonement. For more on the disagreement regarding this matter between Lutherans and Roman Catholics, read here.

Be Fruitful and Multiply: Command or Blessing?

The title of this post presents a false dichotomy. I'm not arguing that "be fruitful" is not also a blessing. God always blesses us with the means to achieve what he asks. His Word itself often directly provides the means. But the argument is often made that "be fruitful" is ONLY a blessing, and not a command. This is the false dichotomy that I will here expose.

It should first be noted that 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 meant merely as a blessing. Their argument seems odd anyway, since I've never heard the same people argue that "subdue the earth and rule over it" was ONLY a blessing. Yet these commands were given in the same breath.

So, what is the nature of this divine imperative statement? Is the command still valid today?

An interesting take on the passage is given in the Formula SD VII:75-76, citing Chrysostom, showing that it is the Word of God that is effective in the Sacrament.

For where His institution is observed and His words are spoken over the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.) in his Sermon concerning the Passion:

Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body," the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper. And just as the declaration, Gen. 1, 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," was spoken only once, but is ever efficacious in nature, so that it is fruitful and multiplies, so also this declaration ["This is My body; this is My blood"] was spoken once, but even to this day and to His advent it is efficacious, and works so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and blood are present.

Here God's imperative statement is seen as more than a command - not less than one. In other words, it is the power behind the command which is fulfilled as well when God speaks.

Consider this from the Roman Confutation pt. II, art. II, with regard to the marriage of priests:

At that time a command concerning the procreation of offspring was given to fill the earth, but now that that has been filled so that there is population pressure, the command no longer pertains to those able to be continent.

To this the response in the Apology [XXIII.8] is:

Our opponents trivialize these arguments. They say that in the beginning there was a command to fill the earth, but now that the earth has been filled marriage is not commanded. Look at their clever argument! The Word of God formed human nature in such a way that it may be fruitful not only at the beginning of creation but as long as this physical nature of ours exists. Likewise, the earth became fruitful by this Word [Gen. 1:11]: ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants tielding seed.’ Because of this ordinance, the earth commenced to produce plants, not only in the beginning, but yearly the fields are clothed as long as this natural order exists. Therefore, just as the nature of the earth cannot be changed by human laws, so neither can human nature be changed by vows or by human law without a special act of God.

And here are the words of Luther on this verse of Scripture, from which I believe Melanchthon likely fashioned his wording in the Apology.

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]

"Be fruitful and multiply" is both command and blessing - more than a command - and still applies to man "as long as this physical nature of ours exists.".

Postfertilization Effects of "The Pill"

After several recent discussions (in person and online) with others about the abortifacient potential of hormonal contraception, I am convinced that misinformation unfortunately still abounds on this issue. Many people are of the mistaken opinion that the technology of hormonal birth control has been perfected to the degree that NO abortifacient potential exists when certain modern hormonal preparations are taken faithfully.

This belief is simply FALSE. It is not consistent with the research, leading to the unrecognized loss (death!) of babies. These hormones do not always prevent ovulation, but do always thin the endometrium of the uterus to some degree, making implantation of the fertilized egg more difficult, and therefore causing an unknown percentage of spontaneous abortions before the mother even knows she is pregnant.

I refer you to one of the most comprehensive and well documented studies I am aware of: Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent. And here is a personal note by the author of that study:

I have prescribed “the Pill” since 1978. My wife and I used the Pill for years, having no moral concerns about it. Then, in 1995 my friend and practice partner John Hartman, MD, showed me a patient information brochure — given to him by a friend — that claimed the Pill had a postfertilization effect causing “ . . . the unrecognized loss of preborn children.” John asked me if I had ever heard of such a thing. I had not. I did read the brochure and its claims seemed to be outlandish, excessive, and inaccurate. So, I decided to begin a literature search to disprove these claims to my partner, myself, and any patients who might ask about it. The more research I did, the more concerned I became about my findings. I called researchers around the country and interviewed them. During this process I met Joe Stanford, MD. Joe volunteered to assist in the research that ultimately became this systematic review. We were concerned enough about our findings and about the fact that so many of our colleagues and patients seemed to share our ignorance about this potential effect that we presented the preliminary results of our research at a number of research forums, just to see if we were off base. Most of the reviewers suggested that, although this evidence was new to them (as it was to us), it seemed accurate and not off target. Furthermore, several said that they thought it would change the way family physicians informed their patients about the Pill and its potential effects.

The most difficult part of this research was deciding how to apply it to my practice. I discussed it with my partners, my patients, ethicists I know and respect, and pastors in my community. I studied the ethical principle of double effect and discussed the issue with religious physicians of several faiths. Finally, after many months of debate and prayer, I decided in 1998 to no longer prescribe the Pill. As a family physician, my career has been committed to family care from conception to death. Since the evidence indicated to me that the Pill could have a postfertilization effect, I felt I could no longer, in good conscience, prescribe it — especially since viable alternatives are available. The support and encouragement that my partners, staff, and patients have given me has been unexpectedly affirming. It seems that my patients have appreciated the information I have given them. Many have been surprised or even shocked (as I was) to learn about this potential effect. Many of my patients have chosen to continue taking the Pill, and we have physicians in our practice and community who will prescribe it for them. Patients who take the Pill tell me that they are much more careful with their compliance. Others have chosen other birth control options — especially one of the modern methods of natural family planning. So, this is research that has changed my soul and my practice. It has been an extraordinarily difficult issue with which I have had to wrestle. I suspect it will be so for many who thoughtfully read and consider the evidence contained in this review.

Walter L. Larimore, MD
Kissimmee, Fla

New Documentary: Demographic Winter

The theme of World Congress of Families IV in Warsaw 2007 has been made into a documentary movie. World Congress of Families was actively involved and was the inspiration for a new documentary movie, “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family,” scheduled to be released in early February. The documentary produced by our friends at the Family First Foundation (Berry McLerran, executive director and Steven Smoot, the president and founder) discusses and analyzes one of the most portentous trends of the 21st century – the dramatic, worldwide decline in fertility rates. The hour-long documentary examines the economic and social consequences of below-replacement birthrates and rapidly aging populations. Initial interviews for the documentary took place in Warsaw at World Congress of Families IV. Those interviewed for the documentary included WCF leaders and speakers at past Congresses, among them Dr. Allan Carlson, WCF Global Coordinator Larry Jacobs, WCF Communications Director Don Feder, Austin Ruse (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), Christine Vollmer (Latin American Alliance for the Family) and Phillip Longman (author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity”). A portion of the proceeds from DVD orders will be donated to The World Congress of Families.

To view a trailer or order the DVD, go here:

www.demographicwinter.com

U.S. birth rates rise, media finds negative story

Story by Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow.com - 1/25/2008 4:00:00 AM

Birth rates are up in the United States, and most are saying that's a good thing. But Associated Press began its reporting of the highest U.S. birth rate in 45 years with a negative spin -- describing Americans as "bucking the trend in many other wealthy industrialized nations." However, Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family has a different take. "We consider this to be very positive," she reports.

But according to Associated Press, unnamed experts blame the rise on "a mix of reasons, [including] a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty." Other media reports blamed lack of career opportunities for the increase in U.S. fertility rates. But Earll thinks the media may be missing the real reasons behind the shift.

"What it says is, to a great degree, Americans are still pro-baby. They are pro-child, and they're having children," she points out. "And we think that also speaks to the resilient message of the pro-life movement -- that children are a good thing, they are blessing, and that we want to be having them.

In light of the negative reports, Earll warns media consumers to take any analysis of new statistics propagated by the mainstream media with a grain of salt. "You do need to take into consideration their political and ideological perspective," she maintains, "because that will have an impact on how they interpret the data."

[Source]

Freedom of the Christian

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.

Luther writes:

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)]

A friend has pointed out that many people argue that just because the church fathers, Luther, and others claim that intentionally non-procreative sex is a Sodomitic sin, does that mean it really is. Are they not also prone to error? We are certainly free as Confessional Lutherans to disagree with the non-confessional writings of Luther.

This is one of the major arguments people make against the position of this blog. My response to this argument is that if you disagree with Luther you aren't just disagreeing with him and a few church fathers and other wackos. You're disagreeing with the consensus of orthodox theologians throughout all ages, both liberal and conservative. There are few issues of exegesis on which there is the same unanimity with which the sin of Onan is interpreted. There was absolutely NO disagreement in ANY church that Genesis 38:10 condemned contraception until the middle of the Twentieth Century.

All the new interpretations I have encountered are not based on some new exegetical finding or correction, but rather on a desire to legitimize non-procreative sex in these latter days which celebrate individuality, self-fulfillment, and free-love. The new interpretations I've run into usually even contradict each other. More importantly, the new interpretations are inconsistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Charles Provan (THE BIBLE AND BIRTH CONTROL) does a thorough job of debunking the most common of these modern interpretations using Scripture alone. I have also had some VERY productive arguments with others based only upon Genesis 38:10.

Ultimately, we must hold this as one of the clearest verses in which Scripture condemns non-procreative sex.

I'm not saying that one must always agree with an historical interpretation of Scripture. Indeed, we must be willing to throw out Luther and the Confessions themselves if and where we can prove them wrong on any point. But if one is going to disagree an historical interpretation of Scripture which is as solid in it's unanimity as that for Genesis 38:10, the burden of proof certainly is on that person to show why the historical interpretation is wrong. In all my years of studying this issue, I've never heard a single argument against the historical interpretation of Genesis 38:10 that is even slightly credible. Have you?

When you read modern discussions of the issue of contraception, I rarely see ANY reference to Scripture, nor any debunking of the historical position of the church. It is just assumed that we are "free" to plan our families because Scripture is silent on the issue. But the church has never before seen Scripture as silent on this issue. If they are going to disagree with doctrine that has been so consistently taught for 2000 years, they can't just say "Scripture is silent." They must prove the historical Scriptural position of the church to be in error! Until they do so, the church must hold to the teachings of our fathers.

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).

And, until a half-century ago, all Lutheran theologians agreed that Scripture condemns contraception.

Let these modern antinomians contend with these historical, biblical interpretations of Genesis 38:10. Show us where they are wrong! Otherwise, hold your tongues about the "freedom of the Christian." Scripture condemns family planning.

Procreation Euphemisms

We often complain that "Pro-Choice" is just a euphemism for "Pro-Abortion." However, I'd suggest that the "Pro-Life" group is just as guilty of misusing terms. I believe it would be more accurate to call the "Pro-Life" group "Anti-Abortion." You see, to me "Pro-Life" means you are in favor of procreation. But I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those who claim to be "Pro-Life" are actually "Pro-Contraception."

Certain contraceptors would be correct to call themselves "Anti-Abortion" but not "Pro-Life." They are "Pro-Life" only in the sense that they don't believe in murder. They are in favor of preserving life. But they are not necessarily in favor of life beginning in the first place. More often than not, they actually suggest various forms of contraception in order to reduce abortion numbers. "Contraception" means "against conception" (i.e. against procreation). These Anti-Abortionists really are just simply against murder. "Don't murder a person," they say. "Instead, you should prevent the person from even being conceived!"

You see, both abortion and contraception are "Anti-Procreation." In fact, most of the birth control measures used by people are themselves abortifacient. The "pill" and all other hormonal birth control methods, not to mention the IUD, depend at least to some degree on abortion to successfully prevent birth. People who use these are being inconsistent (or just plain ignorant) when they claim to be Anti-Abortion.

In fact, those of us who are truly "Pro-Life" could be called "Anti-Contraception." But that's a double negative (anti-anti-conception). And Pro-Procreation is a double positive. We should be the ones to claim the term "Pro-Life." The Anti-Abortionists and Anti-Euthenasia folks will just have to accept this. We are with them in their battles against abortion and euthenasia, but they shouldn't pretend to be Pro-Life if they're not.