The Sound of Comfort in a Picture

A beautiful post by Rev. Dr. Rick Stuckwisch:

http://sword-in-hat.blogspot.com/2008/07/sound-of-comfort-in-picture-worth.html

Keep that Law off my lifestyle, you legalist!

It is disheartening that some confessional Lutheran leaders, those who would gladly call themselves pro-life, would also happily call folks who have expressed reasoned, biblical, and historical concerns about contraception as wackos. At the very least, genuinely pro-life concerns about the abortifacient nature of some of the more popular forms of contraception should be honestly considered.

Such volatile responses from our "antinomian Lutheran culture" have begun to sound strikingly similar to the specious "keep your laws off my body" cliches of the pro-abortion movement: Keep the Law off of my postmodern Lutheran lifestyle, you legalist!

The 'pro-life' stance of the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Committee begins to ring hollow.

Rob Olson

Bush Administration on Abortifacient Birth Control

This news comes on the heels of our recent discussion of the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Committee's report on contraception.

According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has made a move to further help healthcare workers avoid discrimination for refusing to participate in abortions, including those produced by the Pill and IUDs. To protect these pro-life workers, the Department of Health and Human Services has drafted new rules that would affect hiring decisions.

Here's the most important point: On pages 17 and 30, the proposed HHS rules define abortion as “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

In a letter to the editor in the NY Times, Joan Malin, President and Chief Executive of Planned Parenthood of New York City, rightly states that this proposed federal rule:

"...radically redefines abortion to include some of the most common and effective methods of birth control..."

Unlike many Christians, Planned Parenthood understand that hormonal birth control and IUDs are not purely contraceptive but rather also work as abortifacients.

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, states: “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

To give the complete context, the "Definitions" section (pp 16-17) of the HHS proposal reads as follows:

III. Provisions of the Proposed Rules
§ 45 CFR x.1 Definitions

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus).¹⁷ A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception.¹⁸ Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion."¹⁹ Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation.²⁰ Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation."²¹ Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon."²²

Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion.

Therefore, for the purpose of these proposed regulations, and implementing and enforcing the Church Amendment, Public Health Service Act §245, and the Weldon Amendment, the Department proposes to define abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

________________________
¹⁷ Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines pregnancy as “the condition of being pregnant,” and defines “pregnant” as “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnancy
¹⁸ ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL, AMERICAN VALUES VOLUME V, 15 (January 16, 2001).
¹⁹ Medical dictionaries support this view. For example, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary Defines “abortion” as the “[e]xpulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus before viability[…]” STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 4 (28th ed. 2006).
²⁰ See e.g., FDA Rejection of Over-The-Counter Status for Emergency Contraception Pills, AMA House of Delegates Resolution 443, (2004), at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/res_hod443_a04.doc (The Plan B pill is a post-coital contraception method which […] induce(s) minor changes to the endometrium to inhibit ovum implantation; therefore, it cannot terminate an established pregnancy…”); BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ABORTION TIME LIMITS: A BRIEFING PAPER FROM THE BMA 1 (2005) (“The term “abortion” is used […] to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy [i.e. after implantation].”) at http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFAbortionTimeLimits/$FILE/Abortiontimelimits.pdf
²¹ STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1553 (28^th ed. 2006).
²²DORLAND’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY at http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands_split.jsp?pg=/ppdocs/us/common/dorlands/dorland/seven/000086088.htm

The full text of the HHS document, which states that it is "a confidential, deliberative, pre-decisional document and does not necessarily reflect current policy efforts or plans. For official use only", is available at:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf

The Lambeth Conference of 1930:

its continuing influence on the Morals and Behavior of Anglicans.
by Peter Toon

“It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that the continuing implosion of The Episcopal Church is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930” [The Vindication of Humanae Vitae, by Mary Eberstadt, First Things, August-September 2008, page 40].

So what happened in 1930 of such consequence? Whatever did the assembled Bishops (mostly from the West in those days) do or say to be so important and far-reaching?

Read Peter Toon's post here.

Newsweek: "Having Kids Makes You Happy"

Lutheran journalist Mollie Hemingway posted today about a news story on declining fertility rates. A commenter on Mollie's blog pointed her to another interesting story in the latest issue of Newsweek: "Having Kids Makes You Happy."

On a personal note, this Friday and Sunday I witnessed the birth and then the second birth of my seventh living child, Grace Katherine. What a joy! Having children most certainly makes me a happy man! And that is precisely what God says it does:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.
[Psalm 127]

I am a very happy man indeed. Praise be to God!

Catechism on Procreation

What if Luther had foreseen today's anti-child contraceptive culture and thought to include Scriptural teaching on it in his catechisms? What would it look like in that context? Well, here's what I think he would have written - in fact he did write most of what is below. The blue text would be for the Small Catechism, and the rest of the text would be his longer explanation for the Large Catechism.


The First Divine Ordinance

Be fruitful and multiply. [Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 35:11, Jeremiah 23:3]

What does this mean?

We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things so that we do not despise His gift of children, but rather welcome them with praise and thanksgiving as an heritage unto the Lord and as a reward and blessing, and raise and nurture them in the admonition of the Lord.

“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.
. . . from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19:12, 'There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.' Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end. [Luther's Works, vol. 45, page 15 ff]

1 Timothy 2:15: “But women will be saved through bearing children—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

“That subjection of women and domination of men have not been taken away, have they? No. The penalty remains. The blame passed over. The pain and tribulation of childbearing continue. Those penalties will continue until judgment. So also the dominion of men and the subjection of women continue. You must endure them. You will also be saved if you have also subjected yourselves and bear your children with pain. 'THROUGH BEARING CHILDREN.' It is a very great comfort that a woman can be saved by bearing children, etc. That is, she has an honorable and salutary status in life if she keeps busy having children. We ought to recommend this passage to them, etc. She is described as 'saved' not for freedom, for license, but for bearing and rearing children. Is she not saved by faith? He goes on and explains himself: bearing children is a wholesome responsibility, but for believers. To bear children is acceptable to God. He does not merely say that bearing children saves: he adds: if the bearing takes place in faith and love, it is a Christian work, for to the pure all things are pure (Titus 1 :15). Also: 'All things work together,' Rom. 8:28. This is the comfort for married people in trouble: hardship and all things are salutary, for through them they are moved forward toward salvation and against adultery.... 'IN FAITH.' Paul had to add this, lest women think that they are good in the fact that they bear children. Simple childbearing does nothing, since the heathen also do this. But for Christian women their whole responsibility is salutary. So much the more salutary, then is bearing children. I add this, therefore, that they may not feel secure when they have no faith." [Luther's Works, Vol. 28, p. 279]

“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]

Genesis 38:9-10 “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. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.”

“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, page 20]

Genesis 30:2 "Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said: 'Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?'"

“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, page 332]

Psalm 127: “Except the LORD build the house, they labor 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.”

What If?

I used to love the Marvel "What If?" comics as a kid.

Uatu the Watcher, an alien with super intellect and power, observed the lives of the various heroes and villains in the Marvel Universe and would ponder questions such as; "What if Spiderman had not been bitten by a radioactive spider?" Or "What if Wolverine did not join the X-Men?"

If you were a comic geek like I was, this stuff made for some good reading.



So let's play "What if?"

"What if the learned men and women who put together Christ in Your Family, Thoughts on Christian Marriage and Contraception didn't accept the concept of gray areas?"

Back in Lutheran high school, during Christian Family class, the teacher told us that barrier methods were permissible, but the pill was not, because it does not prevent sperm and egg from coming together and when they come together that is life. Whether or not the fertilized egg implants is God's will.

No grey area there. The teacher had a basic premise and he stuck it out to a conclusion. I am not saying it is the correct conclusion, but he at least had the sanctity of life in the womb in mind. I remember more than one of the females in the class being very unhappy.

For better or worse, let us say that what I was taught in the 80's is more or less the default Lutheran position. In short - keep sperm and egg from meeting and you are in an ethically sound position, add artificial chemicals to change the way sperm and egg are processed where they normally meet and you are into an unethical situation.

So, let's say the learned men and women who put this document together were in my Christian Family class back in 1989 and what we were taught stuck and they came out and said - package says breakthrough ovulation can occur, it doesn't explicitly state that some sort of super mucus is generated that will keep sperm and egg from joining so that you don't have to worry about an intentional willful thinning of the uterine wall that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg - we cannot in good Christian conscience recommend this product.

I don't need to write a comic book on the result of such a statement. Millions of women in the USA are on the Pill. That translates to hundreds of thousand of Lutherans. Boom. Bang. Crash. You have just seriously offended lots of women and you are going to lose money.

Programmatic and business reasons, right?

So they settled on the 'grey area' position - in real life.

I must ask the question, what do we need learned men and women for, if they are going to just leave something as important as life in its sacred and wondrous beginnings in a grey area?

The Church has a primary duty and that is the administration of the Gospel. It also has a duty to to be salt and light. One way to be salt and light is to create informed Christian consciences. This cannot be accomplished by seeing grey when the truth is inconvenient.

I am afraid that those from whom we expect heroic statements are not to be found amongst the learned men and women who publish statements under the auspices of synodically sanctioned bodies.

It is up to those of us who do not have an advanced degree in theology to do it.

LCMS World Relief Position on Contraception

LCMS World Relief and Human Care's Life Ministries has finally come out with the long anticipated position paper: Christ in Your Family: Thoughts on Christian Marriage and Contraception.

Read it and weep. And then come back here and comment.

Hat tip to the ladies over at CSPP

Conflicting Absolutes Revisited (Part III)

Erich clearly pointed out, “we can do NOTHING without sinning.” Hard to be more clear than that (although one could jest, “Ok, I’ll just do nothing and I should be fine – after all, I can do nothing without sinning! :) )

Anyway, Erich’s point raises a question I need help answering. What do we make out of the promises Scripture gives to reward Christians for our good works?

Let me try to explain:

I agree with Chemnitz, “God loves the regenerate not because their nature is in every part perfectly pure, unspotted, and harmless but on account of the Son, the Mediator, whom we have put on in Baptism. (Examination of the Council of Trent I, 356)

Later he says, “the good works in the reconciled, since they are acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly mercy and liberality, for the sake of Christ, has promised that He would honor with rewards the obedience of His children in this life, even though it is only begun and is weak, imperfect, and unclean.” (Examination of the Council of Trent I, 653)

Apology IV states, “Works are meritorious for other bodily and spiritual rewards, which are bestowed both in this life and in the life to come. For God defers most rewards until He glorifies saints after this life, because He wishes them in this life to be strengthened through mortifying the old creature. The gospel feely gives the promise that a person is justified and made alive on account of Christ. However, in the law rewards are not free; they are offered for works and owed to works. Since therefore works constitute a kind of fulfillment of the law, they are rightly said to be meritorious, and it is rightly said that a reward is owed them. And these rewards produce degrees of return, according to that passage in Paul [I Cor. 3:8], “Each will receive wages according to the labor of each.” These degrees are rewards for works and afflictions.” (Apology, Article IV, paragraph 366ff)

And Solid Declaration IV states, “It is God’s will and express command that believers should do good works which the Holy Spirit works in them, and God is willing to be pleased with them for Christ’s sake and He promises to reward them gloriously in this and in the future life. (Formula of Concord; Solid Declaration, Article IV, paragraph 38)

Okay, God promises to reward the works of those regenerate in Christ. Yes, our works are only begun, imperfect, and unclean, which we could call sin. And yes, the rewards aren’t offered because we are so good in and of ourselves. The rewards are offered to those redeemed by Christ – Christ makes works good. Having said that, I think “we can do nothing without sin” might be going a bit far (even if it is technically right). No offense to Erich.

Good works done by those redeemed by Christ are good because of Christ and will be rewarded. Yes, I am a wretched man who needs to be saved from this body of death, but I have been redeemed from the law of sin and death and have been given the Spirit. Certainly those controlled by the sinful mind cannot please God, but Paul says those baptized into Christ are “controlled not by the sinful nature.” We are controlled by the Spirit. And the Spirit works good works in us which fulfill the law. As Paul later says, “he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” Yes, the good works are only begun, imperfect, and unclean (even sin), but in Christ our works are indeed good and will be rewarded. In fact, Jesus says anyone who has faith in Him will do “even greater things” than He did!

So, if in Christ our good works will be rewarded, aren’t they in some sense free from sin? If not, is God rewarding sin?

So, I guess I’m just trying to complement Erich’s picture. Yes, we’re hopelessly wretched, but we’re redeemed wretches with the Spirit of God who will be rewarded for the good works we do in Christ.

Your thoughts?

Conflicting Absolutes Revisited (Part II)

Given that conflicting moral absolutes exist, they often rear their ugly head in the hard case. Say a married woman has a debilitating disease which requires a potentially abortifacient drug.

What to do?

Here are the options on the table (saying nothing about their relative morality at this point):

1) don’t take the drug and do no family planning

2) take the drug and do no family planning

3) take the drug and do family planning

a. Use NFP or NAAC

b. Render reproduction surgically impossible

c. Take a contraceptive pill

What to do? Pretend you are counseling a couple in this. Give reasons why/why not for each number and letter.

And…

Which is the lesser evil?

Which is the graver evil?

BTW, this isn’t just for my amusement. I want to be prepared for real life situations.

Conflicting Absolutes Revisited (Part I)

Thanks to Erich and Greg for their thoughtful conversation on conflicting absolutes. I missed the original conversation, so I hope you don’t mind if I reopen the bag of worms. (I’ll do it in three separate posts to try to keep the discussions organized and brief.)

As do most people, I struggle with the law of conflicting absolutes. I agree they are real. We are left at times with the choice between the lesser of two evils (both of which would be sin – no passes on God’s law).

Having said that, isn’t Greg’s point about mercy tempering the law similar to Erich’s point about relying on Christ? I know Greg was saying mercy provided a way out from sinning whereas Erich was saying Christ forgives sin (and I genuinely appreciate what Greg is saying). But Christ’s mercy provides the ultimate tempering of the law – it forgives the transgression of the law. So, when faced with a conflicting moral absolute, choose the lesser of two evils (i.e. sin) and rely on Christ for absolution and not a pass. Have I summarized this correctly?

More vexing to me is the fact Jesus never encountered a conflicting moral absolute. In my mind, this produces some potentially sticky problems. If Jesus became man and was “tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin” as Greg pointed out, how is it possible we all encounter conflicting moral absolutes and Jesus didn’t?

I know Erich discussed temptation as being given the OPTION to sin whereas conflicting absolutes isn’t temptation because no option exists, but aren’t conflicting moral absolutes a reality in a fallen world? As Erich wrote, “moral conflicts arise out of the fact that this is a fallen world.” If Jesus became flesh in a fallen world, wouldn’t he encounter this fact just like us or did God miraculously protect him and how does this influence our understanding of conflicting moral absolutes? I have no answers.

Chemnitz on Marriage and Procreation

This is from the Examination of the Council of Trent by Chemnitz:

CANON I

If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law instituted by Christ the Lord, but that it has been brought into the Church by men and that it does not confer grace, let him be anathema.

Examination

1 The chief question in this decree is whether matrimony is a sacrament of the New Testament. Now the simplest and most correct way to explain a matter is to speak first of the thing itself. For after that it will be easy to agree about the name. But it is strange that the papalists want to appear to honor the conjugal estate more than we, on account of the appellation “sacrament,” which they contend should be given to matrimony just as to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, although their complaints and accusations are public over the fact that matrimony is extolled with too great praise by men on our side. They on their part do not hesitate to apply these statements to wedlock: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Therefore they imagine that the Holy Spirit cannot bear an honorable marriage in ministers of the Word and sacraments, namely, because it is written: “You shall be holy, because I am holy.” Likewise: “Cleanse yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.” And yet they argue valiantly that matrimony is one of the seven sacraments. Such protectors of its dignity has matrimony been allotted who would rather, as a man at Cologne says, grant their priests 100 prostitutes, although successively, than one lawful spouse!

2 Because they allege that they number matrimony among the sacraments of the church for the purpose of asserting and illustrating its dignity and sanctity, I will briefly recite the chief points concerning its dignity and sanctity which our churches both learn and teach from the Word of God.

[1.] Wedlock existed also among the Gentiles, just as there is true marriage also today among unbelievers, but they think it is only a civil arrangement, although the law of nature, demonstrating that promiscuous copulation, lewdness, and adultery are against nature, shows, although very obscurely, that it is something greater than a human invention. The church, however, learns and understands from the Word of God that God Himself is the Author of wedlock, because He instituted it in paradise before the fall, when human nature was still without sin and troubles, whole and happy. He repeated this institution and its blessing immediately after the fall, and again after the flood, and established it also for fallen nature (Gen. 4:1, 25–26; 9:7). Moreover, in the New Testament the Son of God does not abrogate or change this first institution, but repeats and confirms it, not in words only (Matt. 19:5–6) but also by His presence and first miracle at a wedding, as told in John 2:1–11. The apostles explained this teaching in many statements and discourses.

3 2. God not only instituted matrimony in order that men might of their own accord join themselves in this conjugal union, but even as God was the first bridesman, who brought Eve to Adam, and Himself joined the first spouses together (Gen. 2:22), so Christ affirms that today also it is God who joins spouses together in lawful matrimony and unites them when they come together according to His Word. He says: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” He uses a word which is properly spoken about the joining of spouses. Thus in Tobit 7 Raguel, in giving his daughter to Tobias, says: “May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob join you together and fulfill His blessing in you.” And in Gen. 24:7, when Abraham sent his servant that he might fetch a wife for Isaac, he says most charmingly: “The Lord of heaven and earth, who spoke to me, etc., will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there.” Later the servant prays: “Lord God of my master Abraham, come, I pray, to meet me today; be merciful, and show whom Thou hast appointed for Thy servant Isaac,” etc.

These things must be set forth in the church in order that marriages may be contracted in the fear of God, with faith and prayer to Him, because God is not only the author but also the promoter of matrimony. Thus Prov. 19:14 says: “House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord.” And Sirach 26:3: “A good wife is a good fortune; she falls to the lot of those who fear the Lord.” V. 14: “A good wife is a gift of God,” etc. Eccl. 7:26: “I have found a woman more bitter than death … he who pleases God shall escape her, but the sinner is taken by her.” In Mal. 2:13 ff. He admonishes spouses most earnestly on this basis about the duty they owe: “I will not receive any peace offering at your hands. Why does He not? Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and your wife, your companion, and the wife of your covenant.” Now 'ud2 means to confirm and establish something by witnessing to it. Therefore not any and every union is lawful and pleasing to God, but one which does not militate against the Word of God. Thus in Lev. 18:6 ff.; Gen. 6:2 ff.; Ezra 10:2 ff.; Neh. 13:23 ff.; Luke 17:26–27; and Mark 6:17–18 conjugal unions which are not lawful are disapproved.

4 3. Because of this divine joining together, marriage is not like other civil associations, which, just as they are entered into by mutual consent, are also dissolved by mutual consent; but it is an indivisible connection and an indissoluble union. For what God has joined together man must not put asunder. Indeed, Scripture asserts that it is a much closer union than that of parents and children, for it says: “A man will leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, so that those who are two become one flesh.” The word dabaq signifies an adhering or joining which comes about through an embrace with the most ardent emotion of love, as is said in Gen. 34:3 of Sichem’s love for Dinah, in 1 Kings 11:2 of the love of Solomon, in Ps. 63:8: “My soul clings to Thee.” This word is properly used of the union of the skin, flesh, and bones. Job 19:20: “My bones cleave to my skin and to my flesh.” Job 29:10: “Their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth.” Ps. 102:5: “My bones cleave to my flesh.” From this meaning of the word it is possible to understand what God asserts such cleaving to be, namely, that the two become one flesh. And Paul says: “No one hates his own flesh” [Eph. 5:29]. The Lord says (Jer. 13:11): “As the waistcloth clings to the loins of a man, so I shall make the whole house of Israel … cling to Me.” But God did not form the woman from Adam’s girdle but from his side, in order that the closest possible union might be indicated. Solomon says (Prov. 16)3 that a friend often “sticks closer than a brother.” But in wedlock there is a closer connection than that of parents and children. For “a man shall leave father and mother,” etc. The Septuagint renders this word with proskollasthai (to fasten on to), which is used when two things are joined together by glue in such a way that they are, as it were, one thing. So it is used in Is. 41:7. Therefore Paul teaches that neither spouse has power over his own body (1 Cor. 7:4). Likewise: “He who loves his wife loves himself.” [Eph. 5:28]

5 4. Scripture also explains for what causes God instituted this conjugal union. For while He founded the angel hosts all at one and the same time, He willed according to His sure counsel that the preservation and multiplication of the human race should take place through propagation by generation, that in it we might perceive His presence, wisdom, and goodness. He willed also that the first nursery of the church should be in the pious rearing of children, wherefore churches are in Paul called households. He willed that the exercise of faith, prayer, love, patience, and all godliness should in their beginnings be practiced in the family circle, and be from there propagated more widely. “For if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:5). Likewise: “If any one does not provide for his … own family … he is worse than an unbeliever.” [1 Tim. 5:8]

By the institution of wedlock God shows that He is a pure Spirit and that He hates roving passions. Therefore He gave and prescribed certain laws about wedlock for those who do not have the gift of continence. Then God Himself, in the most beautiful words, sets forth another reason for the institution of wedlock (Gen. 2:18): “It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make for him a helper who shall be, as it were, before him and around him.” All the animals had indeed been created for the service of man; but there was not found a helper who might be before him. Therefore God instituted wedlock for mutual indulgence and help, in order that all things might be shared, whether joyous or sad.

Eph. 4:4 “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil …. Woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up.” Eccl. 9:9: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life … because that is your portion in life and in your toil which you toil under the sun.” Sirach 26:13: “The grace of a wife delights her husband, and her knowledge fattens his bones.” Gen. 3:16: The desire of the wife is for her husband. Eph. 5:33: The husband loves and cherishes his wife, and the wife respects her husband.

Finally, God also willed that wedlock should be used in our fallen state as a remedy against incontinence. 1 Cor. 7:2 ff.: “Because of the temptation to immorality each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Likewise: “Lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” … “If they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” This is what the ancients mean when they say that matrimony was instituted before the fall to be a service to man; that it was given after the fall as a remedy. Augustine says: “What is for a service to those who are well is for a remedy to those who are sick.”

6 5. This also is certain, and known from Scripture, that in a chaste and godly marriage God is present with His blessing and with various gifts of grace, as Paul speaks of grace in Rom. 12:6 ff. For whom God joins together, them He blesses (Gen. 1.28). For the blessing was not promised to marriage only when nature was whole, but it was repeated and confirmed also to fallen nature (Gen. 9:1 ff.) This blessing embraces first fruitfulness and generating, according to the word: “Be fruitful and multiply,” and secondly the happy state of wife and children. Ps. 128:3–6: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine … your children like olive shoots …. Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord …. May you see your children’s children.” Also Ps. 127:3–5: “Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord …. Happy is the man who has fulfilled his desire5 by means of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” Thirdly, the blessing includes success in home and community. Ps. 128:2–6: “You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you …. Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord …. May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life …. Peace be upon Israel.” Ps. 127:5: “He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies at the gate.” This is what the first blessing (Gen. 1:28) means: “Subdue the earth, and have dominion … over every thing that moves upon the earth.” In the fourth place, admixed with this blessing on account of the fall there is some difficulty and pain of the cross (Gen. 3:16–19), even as in remedies, such as wedlock has become after the fall, certain troublesome and painful things are generally mixed in. But for those who fear God this pain is mitigated by patience, comfort, aid, and divine liberation, even as the presence of Christ at the wedding (John 2:1–11) shows both the cross and the comfort.

Marriage has besides, from its divine institution, also this privilege, or this grace, that it is a holy kind of life and pleasing to God. And although copulation outside of marriage is abominable in the sight of God (for the Lord will judge whoremongers and adulterers), in wedlock intercourse is honorable among all, and the marriage bed undefiled (Heb. 13:4). “If you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries, she does not sin” (1 Cor. 7:28). Rather, in a marriage of the godly this is called sanctification and honor (1 Thess. 4:4). Thus in 1 Tim. 2:15 sanctification and chastity are ascribed to women who bear children. And in Titus 2:4–5 women who love their children are called chaste. In 1 Peter 3:5 women who are submissive to their husbands are pronounced holy and hoping in God. In 1 Cor. 7:13–14 cohabitation of a believing woman with an unbelieving husband is pronounced holy, and there [Paul] says that begetting of children, which would under other circumstances be something unclean, is holy in wedlock, especially in the case of believers. In 1 Tim. 2:15 he asserts that a woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith.

This also is a grace of God in marriage, that God joins the minds of spouses so that they both will and are able to cultivate this indivisible partnership of life, to preserve conjugal faithfulness, and to remain in this indissoluble union, so that the loving embrace between spouses becomes closer and more fervent than between parents and children, according to the saying: “He will leave father and mother, and will cleave to his wife so that they are, as it were, one flesh …. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” [Matt. 19:5–6; Mark 10:7–9]

God also bestows this grace on spouses who fear God and walk in His ways, that the man loves, cares for, cherishes, and gives honor to his wife as to the weaker vessel (Eph. 5:25 ff.; 1 Cor. 3),6 that the desire of the wife is for her husband (Gen. 3:16), that she is respectfully subject to her husband (Eph. 5:21 ff.), is a helper to her husband (Gen. 2:18), and gladdens the heart of her husband (Sirach 26:2, 13; Prov. 31:28–29). In short, there is need for the guidance of the Spirit of God for a godly marriage, in order that both may perform their proper duties, bear one another’s infirmities, sustain one another in their common difficulties, train their children in a godly manner, govern the household, perform domestic tasks, patiently bear the cross, and that their dwelling together may be with consideration (1 Peter 3:7) and in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39). For these things godly spouses pray God, and there is no doubt that God abundantly bestows this grace on those who ask for it.

[Chemnitz, M., & Kramer, F. (1999, c1971). Examination of the Council of Trent. Translation of Examen Concilii Tridentini. (electronic ed.) (2:717). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.]

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.