A New Moral Code

New Barna survey on morality. Here's the bottom line analysis from the story:

According to George Barna, who directed the survey, the results reflect a significant shift in American life.

"We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America," said the researcher and author, who has been surveying national trends in faith and morality for more than a quarter-century. "Mosaics have had little exposure to traditional moral teaching and limited accountability for such behavior. The moral code began to disintegrate when the generation before them - the Baby Busters - pushed the limits that had been challenged by their parents - the Baby Boomers. The result is that without much fanfare or visible leadership, the U.S. has created a moral system based on convenience, feelings, and selfishness.

"The consistent deterioration of the Bible as the source of moral truth has led to a nation where people have become independent judges of right and wrong, basing their choices on feelings and circumstances. It is not likely that America will return to a more traditional moral code until the nation experiences significant pain from its moral choices."

Indeed. Who can deny that we live in a society with a "moral system based on convenience, feelings, and selfishness?" The separation of sex from procreation is certainly a shining example of this new "morality." Is this a perversion of the "inalienable right" to the "pursuit of happiness?" Or, is it a natural outcome of believing in such "rights?" The "pursuit of happiness" had a somewhat different meaning to the people who signed the Declaration of Independence than the meaning people take from it today.

"The Life of the Mother"

A common question that comes up when discussing procreation is: "What if the life of the mother is in danger?"

My typical first response to this question is: "The mother's life is always in danger with every pregnancy." Many people in today's world don't really even think of childbirth as being dangerous. Relative to year's past, it isn't. But, just for the sake of perspective, let's consider the actual statistics.

First, let me introduce a technical term: "Maternal Mortality Ratio" (hereafter "MMR"). This is the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In the United States in the year 2000, the MMR was 17. To put that in terms some might find easier to understand, an MMR of 17/100,000 equates to an approximate 1 in 6000 risk of dying with each childbirth experience. The current MMR of 17 is just a bit higher than the risk of death in automobile accidents (15).

If you happen to be one of those who do not pay much attention to the risks of driving a car, consider that auto accidents represent the number one cause of death in children and young adults. Some people take all kinds of precautions for other risks that they don't realize are relatively negligible and then throw their kids in the car without proper safety restraints and drive down the road talking on their cell phones.

Back to the point of this post... Even with modern medical advances, each pregnancy still places a woman at a relatively high risk of death.

Now, let's put that in some historical perspective. Below is a chart showing the reduction in the MMR since 1890, when statistics were first reliably recorded (source: Irvine Loudon, Maternal mortality in the past and its relevance to developing countries today, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 72, No. 1, 241S-246s, July 2000 ).



As you can see, the risk of death from childbirth used to be 20-50 times higher than it is today (10 times higher just in our parent's lifetimes). Compare a previous normal 1 in 200 risk of dying with each pregnancy versus today's greatly improved 1 in 6000 risk. One can only speculate what it was like in previous eras. I wonder what the risks were 1000 or 5000 years ago.

So, the honest ethical questions I would like to ask in this post begin as follows:

How much higher than today's normal (15/100,000) would the risk need to be for a mother to decide it is "too dangerous" for her to consider getting pregnant? If you are 50 times more likely than average to die from childbirth because of a particular medical condition, your risk of death is probably pretty close to the average risk of death of a woman prior to 1935 in the United States, and probably much better than the average in Luther's day.

Does the fact that modern medicine has greatly improved one's chances of surviving pregnancy make the risks women used to take morally unacceptable for today? Should they have refrained from having children back then because of the high risk of pregnancy? Should we refrain now when the risks approach their levels because it isn't normal for today?

It sounds pretty harsh when looked at in these terms, but what do you think?

I give thanks for all the mothers throughout history who have risked their lives to give life. Thanks be to God for our mothers!

Michael Medved: "Conservatives are having larger families than Liberals"

Medved

More news of Taranto's Roe Effect:

"An analysis of birth trends shows why Liberalism is doomed.  Do you know why Liberalism is doomed?  Because liberal, left-wing, secular people are not having babies!"  -Michael Medved

>>> Listen to the conservative talk-show host discuss this trend HERE. <<<

Blessings.

PS.  My family and I just returned from a camping trip up north in the Leelanau Peninsula of Michigan, and before our departure, I looked up mp3's for the drive. I found the above talk by Medved as well as many other worthwhile recordings (Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, David McCullough, Steven Ambrose, et al.) and have consequently subscribed to this worthwhile podcast:  American Conservative University.

Lenski's Commentary

Here are some excerpts I pulled out from the new Libronix electronic edition of R. C. H. Lenski's commentaries. I thought our readers might find them as interesting as I did.

Interpretation of John 1:13 -

"The subject of v. 13 is the Logos, who constitutes the beginning, middle, and end of the entire prolog and thus needs no formal mention as John proceeds to describe his human birth. This birth was οὑκ ἐξ αἱμάτων “not due to bloods,” i.e., the mixture of blood from two human parents as in cases of ordinary human procreation. “Blood” is the material substance from which the human organism is formed. The plural “bloods” is the more necessary in the Greek, since the singular might be misunderstand. For the human organism of the Logos actually began with a bit of blood in the womb of the Virgin Mary; it was thus that she “conceived in the womb,” Luke 1:31. The explanation of the plural from the analogy of other Greek expressions must be dropped. Blood that is shed in drops or in streams, animals that are sacrificed, wounds and the slain in battle, murderous acts and the like, justify the use of the plural in the Greek but are no analogy for the generation of a human being. Where a real analogy occurs, as in the reading of some texts in Acts 17:26, the singular is used in the Greek, “hath made of one blood.” When the Logos became man, this was not due to, did not start with (ἐκ), the blood from two parents.

"From the act of procreation in which the blood of man and woman join so that the blood of both flows in the child’s veins, John advances to the impulse of nature which lies back of this sexual union, “nor of the will of the flesh.” The term “flesh” denotes our bodily nature as God made it, male and female, adding the blessing, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” “The will of the flesh” is thus the natural urge and volition implanted in our bodily nature to beget and to rear offspring. Like “bloods” this “will of the flesh” includes both man and woman. It is true that our blood as well as our flesh and the will of our flesh are now corrupt because of sin and death, yet this corruption is not stressed. The human birth of the Logos is not due to our nature either as it now is or as it once was. The will to beget children, implanted in man by God, had nothing to do with the incarnation. A far higher, an entirely different will, brought that about.

"Yet the decisive will in the act of procreation is that of the man not that of the woman, hence John adds, “nor of the will of man,” using ἀνήρ in distinction from γυνή and thus not to be identified with ἄνθρωπος, the generic term for man as a human being including both male and female. The three phrases used by John in stating how the birth of the Logos as man was not brought about are not coordinate, merely placed side by side; nor should we subordinate the second two phrases and regard them as merely defining more closely the first phrase. These phrases are like a pyramid, one placed on top of the other. They are like three circles, the second being narrower than the first, the third narrower than the second. Thus the first phrase includes the other two, and the second includes the third. Beyond the final, most precise specification John cannot go and need not go in his negations. The Logos was born entirely without a human father. In his conception no male parent was active. The detailed history of this conception and birth John’s readers know from the records of Matthew and of Luke, which John also takes for granted. Neither v. 13 nor v. 14 can be properly understood without the other two Gospels. What John here does is to restate with exact precision the vital facts contained in the full historical records of the other Gospels."

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The interpretation of St. John's gospel (67). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Ephesians 6:1, "For Children and Fathers" -

"1) Paul takes it for granted that the Christian home contains children. Nowhere has he cause to treat the modern crimes of abortion and so-called birth control which defeat the divine purpose of marriage as instituted by God (Gen. 1:27, 28) and its chief blessing (Ps. 127:3–5). Children, keep obeying your parents in the Lord, for this is righteous."

Lenski, R. C. H. (1937). The interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (646). Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern.

Revelation 20:7 - After listing several misinterpretations of "Gog and Magog", Lenski favorably quotes Graebner, saying:

"Here is sanity: 'Whatever is in league today against the Christian Church—anti-Christian scientific speculation, higher criticism, the New Theology, New Thought, Mormonism, Eddyism, materialism, sensualism, secretism, birth-control, all the forces of Sin and Carnality which seek to corrupt the Church and to slay her inner life, are the ‘Gog and Magog’ of Ezekiel and John. But the great day of the Lord is even now approaching, which will witness their irrevocable doom.' Graebner."

Lenski, R. C. H. (1935). The interpretation of St. John's Revelation (596). Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern.

Fertility as Gift

Good question from Rev. Paul Beisel:

What can husbands do to help our wives see their fertility as something of great value when so many other factors in day to day life seem to scream out: "Stop the madness...NOW!"

If you have a suggestion, visit his blog.

Bonhoeffer on "the right of life that is to come into being"

Dietrich Bonhoeffer had this to say in his Ethics [1940-1943]:

"Marriage involves the acknowledgment of the right of life that is to come into being, a right which is not subject to the disposal of the married couple. Unless this right is acknowledged as a matter of principle, marriage ceases to be marriage and becomes a mere liaison ... To raise the question whether we are here concerned with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder." [emphasis mine]

Of course the subject he was writing specifically against abortion, but his logic applies equally to the subject of contraception. His words echo those of Augustine:

"Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife but a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented; for then there is no wife." [The Morals of the Manichees 18.65 PL 32:1373]

Wall Street Journal, 7/31/08: "Treating the Pill as Abortion"

Stephanie Simon over at the WSJ has picked up the story Erich posted about on July 19.

Compare the Bush Administration, as described in the Wall Street Journal:

Set aside the fraught question of when human life begins. The new debate: When does pregnancy begin?

The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying "the life of a human being." [...]

...with LCMS World Relief and Human Care.

Would our Lutheran leaders identify popular forms of contraception as "abortifacient" and then unequivocally condemn their use, since they can cause the destruction of human embryos?

U.S. One-Child Policy?

Carter Dillard has published an article, "Rethinking the Procreative Right" (PDF), in the Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal calling for a one-child policy in the U.S.
HT: The Population Research Institute

Happy Birthday Humanae Vitae?

Humanae Vitae turned 40 within the last week.

It isn't long and it is an interesting read. And don't worry if you are a Lutheran, it is not like you are communing at a Roman Catholic altar by reading it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Article 17 is downright prophetic.

Now, before anyone gets their nose of joint let me state the following: Admiring a Pope's application of Christian thought and Natural Law does not mean that one sees the Papacy as good thing.

It does blow my mind that we followed in the steps of the Church of England into such gross error on this topic. We Lutherans have a serious problem that needs to be addressed in this case. I think the development of the overall Lutheran approach to contraception is something akin to our penchant in some circles of avoiding crosses with a corpus. In other words - no we can't go buying into that, it is just too Catholic.

Truth is truth - even when those who drove us out see it as truth too. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy makes for bad policy, dogma and doctrine.

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.