|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| Vasectomies and Birth Control Oh My! |
 Is God really sovereign? I was taught in school that live begins at the moment of conception - that very moment that a man's sperm penetrates and fertilizes a woman's egg. It was clear that in the same way you or I might starve to death if we stopped receiving nutrients, so too this fertilized egg would have to embed itself in the rich lining of his or her mother's womb, if he or she was to avoid a very early death.
The beginning of life was not some divine miracle - it was just a biological function that happened, and in fact, science had demonstrated as much by fertilizing eggs in a laboratory - no magic, no divine spark - just a biological event that could be (more or less) recreated at will. I never really thought about our ability to "create" life in a petri-dish - except to take note that it had been done, and could be done - and that the great mystery of life was really just a simple formula that even a child could comprehend: sperm + egg = life.
When I began to regard the bible as the word of God however, certain passages in scripture began to clash somewhat with my scientific certainty. David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah all maintained that it was God who formed them in the womb (Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:2,24 and 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5). David says specifically that God's hands made him (psalm 119:73), and Job gives perhaps the best description of a "blob of cells" I have ever read in Job 10:10 ("Did [God] not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?"). Likewise didn't the Lord close up all the wombs in the house of Abimelech (Genesis 20:18), and wasn't it the Lord who closed Hannah's womb (1 Samuel 1:5), and wasn't it the Lord who opened the wombs of Leah (Genesis 29:31) and Rachel (Genesis 30:22)?
Science had convincingly taught me that life was a formula that didn't really include God. When I read and believed scripture, I simply modified the formula a little: sperm + egg + "Divine spark" = life.
That was good for a while. It allowed me to hold onto my scientific definition of life, but injected a satisfying divine element to it whereby my sovereign God could always "veto" the fertilization process - and remain sovereign.
I don't even want to begin to examine why according to Levitical law (c.f. esp. Leviticus 15), both semen and menstrual fluid were unclean to the Jew - was it merely a hygiene issue? What was being pictured there? Let's not go there today.
Then we have those verses in Genesis 9 where God assigns to all of Noah's descendants the task of re-populating the earth.
They are specifically told to go into the earth and to fill it with their progeny - to abundantly populate the earth (Genesis 9:1,7). Now unless God was suggesting that Ham, Shem, and Japheth's wife were to deliver billions of babes in one lifetime - the command was given to Noah and all his descendants which began with Ham, Shem, and Japheth, but included their children, grandchildren, and all the way down to you and I.
Now many will suggest that this was not really a command, but that it should be taken as a suggestion along these lines: "Hey, if you are inclined - why not chip in a little and populate the earth - you know, as much as you feel comfortable with? that would be swell, but if not - Hey - no pressure."
Others would suggest that this was God's will right up until the whole earth "was" populated - you know, like if I told you you had to paint the fence, and you went out and painted it - once it was entirely painted you could say, "I am free from the charge to paint the fence because the fence is now painted!" - and although they have no biblical criteria to define just "when" the world became populated enough to dispense with this call - yet surely it has happened, and even if mankind was once obligated to populate the world, certainly that obligation has been met and having been met is no longer an obligation.
There are also some who would argue that when Christ came, he set us free from any sort of obligatory nonsense. That because we are in Christ we no longer are obligated (if ever we were) to populate the world.
Perhaps some have other schemes, but they all share the common element that either there never was a real obligation, or that obligation no longer applies to us for whatever reason.
Yet all of this remains in the realm of "theological musings" until one is married and faced with the question of whether or not the ability to prevent the creation of life (through any means of birth control) equates to a "God given" authority to deny life.
One may well argue that abstaining from intercourse is perhaps the first and most effective form of birth control - and since we have the ability to "say no" - that must mean that God has given us the keys of life.
But scripture teaches that if we marry, our bodies are not our own, and that we are =not= permitted to continue in abstinance. If we do engage in abstinace it is by mutual agreement and then only for a time and specifically because we are going to devote our selves to prayer during that time - and that following that time we will again resume our normative sexual activity so that this abstinence won't give Satan room to tempt us to deal with any sexual yearnings in some other way (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7:5).
So on the one hand we certainly have some opportunity to abstain from activities that inevitably produce offspring - but biblically speaking, we cannot soberly claim that the temporary abstinence permitted by scripture for the sake of devoted prayer is some sort of divine endorsement for birth control. Yet some would turn to Hebrews 13:4 and argue first that anything and everything is acceptable in the "undefiled" marriage bed; and from that perspective argue that it is possible for a couple to come together sexually regularly and often without engaging in actual intercourse - and thereby satisfy the instruction to come together, without warranting any activity that might result in procreation.
Now what is acceptable in the marriage bed is not the topic here - so let's just ignore our own opinions about what is acceptable for now - this is only on the table as a rung in the ladder.
So this one may reason that since we have the ability and even the "right" to abstain from procreation (by natural means - i.e. abstinence) - that this is a sort of "birth control" that God gives us implicit permission to exercise. The argument jumps from there to a logical tangent - if we have implicit permission to practice one kind of birth control - surely we have the same implicit permission to practice any kind of birth control.
Now here some might do a little homework and in doing so they would learn that -most- forms of birth control do not "prevent" conception - they simply kill fertilized eggs - either directly, or indirectly. Those who believe that life begins at conception must conclude that killing a fertilized egg (or intentionally forcing it to die) is in fact an act of semi-intentional murder, since although they did not specifically intend to kill any one egg in particular, they certainly intend to kill any egg that becomes fertilized. The pill, IUD's, certain creams, day-after pills etc. all fall into this category - they don't prevent the fertilization of eggs, they prevent that fertilized egg from staying alive. These methods do not stop life from beginning, they stop life that has begun from continuing.
But there are other forms of "birth control" that are in fact preventative - the various barrier methods for example, menstrual cycle methods, and/or the surgical options. These latter methods do not starve out a life that has already begun, but they do deny the possibility of life beginning.
Of the two classes, surely the latter is to be preferred regardless of where one stands on the issue.
But now we come to the great question, the one for which I bothered to post today.
Did God really give us the right to open and close the womb, or is that his providence alone? Yes, we can kill life before it takes root, and we can even prevent life from happening - but is that our prerogative?
Is God sovereign and wise enough to open the womb exactly as many times as He feels is right - or did He intend for us to one day realize that it is all just a biological phenomenon - and that the moment science allowed us to understand the building block of life, we became endowed with authority to open and close the womb according to our own counsel (assuming we have "peace" about our decision of course)?
This is one area where godly men disagree. Some are of the opinion that as long as you have the power to play God - you have the authority to do the same.
I am reminded of a conversation I had only recently, and I suppose that is what sparked this post. A fellow was considering getting a vasectomy because his Christian wife didn't want any more children. She had made up her mind and if he didn't get a vasectomy pronto - she was going to get a hysterectomy!
Now, at that point, the fellow reasoned that because a vasectomy is a much simpler procedure than a hysterectomy, he owed it to his wife to undergo the procedure - regardless of where he stood on the issue of birth control.
Our conversation came back to whether or not God was sovereign. Of course the typical arguments were given - just because God is sovereign doesn't remove responsibility from my shoulders. I can't afford more kids - it would be fiscally irresponsible for me to have more kids - I am justified in my decision to have a vasectomy, and anyway we prayed about it and we feel at peace with our decision. Um.. yeah. Or the other classic: Just because God is sovereign doesn't mean that we are supposed to put ourselves at risk - he gave us brains and wants us to use them! My wife is not a young girl anymore - if she has another pregnancy the likelyhood of having a special needs baby increases. God would never want that - so we prayed about it, and feel at peace about me getting a vasectomy.
The list could go on and on, and it isn't my intention to catalog all the ways a man might justify not wanting to have kids - but they all come back to the same problem - self.
"I don't want kids because we can't afford them." - Oh really? How are you being fed and clothed now, on your own dime or is God feeding you and clothing you. Do you say grace like this, "Thank you God that I made myself talented, and with my self made talents I went out and made money for myself and my family, and with that money which came from my own power, I furnished my family with the shelter, raiment and food you see here this evening - thank you for the food that I was entirely responsible in bringing to our table." It boils down to either "I don't trust God", or more kids will throw a wrench in my plans for the future - that is, I am more concerned about myself than I am for any plan God has.
"I don't want kids because we might have special needs kids" Um, and ...that would be ...bad? Listen: the one who thinks there is something "wrong" with a special needs child thinks there is something wrong with the one who made him or her - that God is not sovereign for if he was every baby would be born "normal". This is just selfishness wrapped up as concern for someone else. I don't want to deal with the stigma and I don't want to put the lifetime of effort into such a child - I just want to come home, read my paper, and use my own time according to my own counsel. A child like that would just be a burden. Me, me, me.
In my own life, I have had to struggle with this very thing. I am zealously against any form of birth control that actually kills babies, and while I am not against abstinence, I am against all other forms of birth control.
Now you might think to yourself as you read this: Daniel, that is easy for you to say, you pompous windbag. It is easy for you to judge from your ivory tower - you don't know me, and you don't know my situation - if you did you would shut your mouth. But bear with me brother, perhaps if I inform you something of my own situation you will cut me slack.
My wife has a heart condition that has been aggrivated by each of her pregnancies. When she talks about birth control it is not about money or fear of having to bring up more kids - she would adopt as many as possible - but her fear is that having another child might harm or kill her, maybe even leaving her other children motherless. There is no guarentee that anything bad will happen - in fact it is quite possible that she could become pregnant again and again without complication. But she is afraid, and this sort of fear is the kind that whatever theological convictions I may have about the sovereignty of God - do little to comfort her.
So trust me when I say, this topic is not something I handle lightly - it is close to my heart. Until this came up I thought there was nothing in my life or that life could throw at me that could cause me to compromise a conviction - but this one has come powerfully close. When I ask myself whether or not God is sovereign, it is no longer a theological question - it is a practical one: Is my God completely sovereign, such that I can walk according to a conscience instructed out of His word, or is there room for me to take matters in my own hands when it really matters.
Now, as a note to all you men who have had vasectomies, or practice birth control with your wives in some form or other - and upon reading my musings you feel inclined to justify your self or maybe you feel offended that my present opinion doesn't mesh with your own opinion - I would absolutely =love= to be convinced that there was some way in God's will for me to take the reins. So you will not find me chomping at the bit waiting to dismiss some contrary opinion, but rather giving perhaps the most careful and prayerful consideration to any contrary opinion that presents itself.
What say you?Labels: autobiographical, birth control, Theology |
posted by Daniel @
10:54 AM
31 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
