"Quiverfull" questions...

[Lorna in the boonies]

May I ask a question, since this seems to have turned into more of a general discussion? I don't think I understand the quiverfull idea very well. Can someone direct me to an explanation of the ins and outs? Also, what does one do if, say, the wife is still fertile but more pregnancies would be very bad for her health?

 

I'll take a stab at addressing your second question, at least as far as it has affected my own personal situation.

 

I was one of those people, my mother says, who just were not ever meant to have babies. The difficulties I have had are just ridiculous (my OB has told me that, if my situation weren't so awful, it would almost be funny, given the sheer variety and magnitude of my problems).

 

I'll spare you all the details, but I will say that my 7 pregnancies have ended in three healthy children, two stillbirths, a miscarriage, and a neonatal death. With the baby who died after birth (baby #6), my blood pressure was 52/15 when I got to the hospital (I'm no doctor, but I've been told that what that means is that I shouldn't be typing this right now).

 

At that point, dh wanted to quit. He kept telling me that I was more important to him than any as-yet-unborn babies, that he was tired, and that we needed to stop.

 

I held my tongue for a long, long time.

 

Eventually, he was willing to give it one more shot, in the event that this was IT, no matter how things turned out.

 

So we tried one more time. It was the scariest time of our lives. (I actually blogged about it just last week, though I focused more on how scared I was for the baby than on how scared dh was for my health.)

 

After #7 arrived here safely, my OB and my dh ganged up on me and said 'absolutely no more', with my OB telling me that there was only a slim chance that any future baby could even survive to term, but that, if it somehow managed, there is no way my body could make it to term itself without a rupture -- he said my uterus looks like a jigsaw puzzle at this point, that the scar tissue is pervasive, and that any future pregnancy would be, without a doubt, life-threatening. My parents, my siblings, my friends, my neighbors, strangers in Wal-Mart, and the entire world were happy to hear this and agreed with him.

 

Dh got a vasectomy. My parents asked if they could pay for it. The knowledge that I wouldn't scare them half to death anymore was worth it to them.

 

Most days, I'm okay with it. These days, I'm having a bit of a difficult time. My SIL is expecting a little girl on the same date that I delivered one of my stillborn daughters in 1995, and that is bringing up feelings that I thought I had dealt with (not that SIL even has a clue that the date even means anything to me, as I would never dream of telling her right now).

 

I'm 40 years old. Practically, I know that stopping was a good thing for us. But my mind and my heart are entirely two different things. I'm not sure my heart will ever be okay with it.

 

(Editing to add that, while we weren't QF, per se, we were very open to the idea of lots of kids and we both really wanted a houseful. We did use NFP with great success and certainly never felt like we were doing anything wrong by doing so -- so maybe my post isn't entirely appropriate here?)

[Susan in TX]

True. But it also doesn't say "more is better".

 

The "quiverful" verse, IMO, is meant to be applied to however many you HAVE - not to suggest that more is better.

 

I have to respectfully disagree here. The quiverful verse is not the only one in the Bible dealing with children. And, if you were going to battle wouldn't you want to have as many arrows as possible?

 

Here are the verses that indicate that more is better:

 

"You will know that your children will be many,

and your descendants like the grass of the earth." Job 5:25

(This is referring to the blessings that will come to "the man whom God corrects")

 

"The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters."

Job 42:12,13

 

This is what the LORD says—

your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

"I am the LORD your God,

who teaches you what is best for you,

who directs you in the way you should go.

If only you had paid attention to my commands,

your peace would have been like a river,

your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Your descendants would have been like the sand,

your children like its numberless grains;

their name would never be cut off

nor destroyed from before me."

Isaiah 48:17-19

 

 

 

 

" Blessed are all who fear the LORD,

who walk in his ways.

You will eat the fruit of your labor;

blessings and prosperity will be yours.

Your wife will be like a fruitful vine

within your house;

your sons will be like olive shoots

around your table.

Thus is the man blessed

who fears the LORD."

Psalm 128:1-4

 

 

 

I'm sure there are more verses like these but I think this is enough to prove my point.

 

 

 

Susan in TX

[FloridaLisa]

Aubrey,

 

I've read this thread with interest. I have no answers, but I want to encourage you with my personal journey. I'll make it short and sweet.

 

I was an attorney, had always planned on working part-time and having my 3 kids in Christian school. Along came #4 and then #5. At that point, I was home full-time and, though I loved my children dearly, realized I'd have a dozen quickly. So, without any prayer whatsoever, I had a tubal ligation after my 5th was born.

 

A year or so later, God began working on me. Out of the blue. From nowhere. I didn't read any books, had never heard of *quiverfull*. God himself began speaking to me about Who controls life. All of life. He met every single objection I had. It was simply about MY trust in HIS control over LIFE.

 

Simple and yet, not easy. I sat dh down and told him my convictions. He completely agreed. We decided that I'd have a reversal. God provided the money from some unforeseen circumstances and I underwent reversal surgery. Then after getting pregnant so easily, I waited and waited and waited. I've had two post-reveral children. But each time, I had to resubmit my trust to God. Importantly, both whether we did or did not conceive. Neither were within my control.

 

I could tell you story after story about God's provision. I could tell you story after story of blessing.

 

In the end, it was a matter of God calling my dh and me to something and whether we would obey. It was really, IMO, not a question that we could reasoned with. If it were, WE would be back in the control seat.

 

Two roads. I followed one. And that has made all the difference.

 

Many blessings,

Lisa

[nancypants]

Would we say abortion was acceptable if a very poor family found themselves unexpectedly pg?

 

Not that bc is NECESSARILY the same, but the principle applies, kwim? .........

Everyone around me (it seems) is making ends meet here at seminary by accepting whatever gov't aid they can get, & I'm the ONLY one who sees a problem w/ it.

 

First of all, no, we would absolutely not say that being poor makes abortion okay. Even if a family is so poor that they really cannot feed another mouth there are other options, namely adoption. The same principles do not apply. One is about being extremely poor, to the point of bringing in absolutely no money (as my brother and SIL that I mentioned in my PM to you were) and doing your best to prevent further pregnancies in such a time. The other is about being poor and getting pregnant, whether by not being careful or whether by BC just not working and then choosing to do away with the child. Not the same principle at all because one does not require someone to die. Saying the same principle applies is like saying that doing whatever possible to prevent a disease (please don't think I'm comparing babies and diseases!!!) is along the same lines as having a treatable disease and choosing not to treat it. Preventing it costs no lives but not treating it costs a life.

 

As for the money issue, I also think the mindset matters. Suddenly finding yourself in the position of needing govt. assistance is quite different than willfully creating more expenses while knowing that you are not footing the bill. (I am using "you" in the general sense here.) Knowing that you do not have enough money to even feed the mouths you have and purposefully creating more mouths is just irresponsible and the Bible does speak about it. I Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." While this doesn't really speak to contraception specifically, one can easily gather that it's important to God that we provide for our own families to the best of our abilities.

 

Obviously God is sovereign and can and does work over and above contraception and when that happens when we are "poor" we continue to trust His sovereignty and we continue making plans and choices based on the wisdom and resources He has given us.

[KristineIN]

I have not had a chance to read all of the responses, but I think anything in a marriage needs to be prayfully decided between husband, wife & God. Before dh & I had children, he kept saying that we were going to have a bunch (here we were living in a run down 2 bedroom house and I kept hearing, we're going to have as many kids as we can.) So we got pregnant, all was going well until dd decided to come 6 weeks early, a planned home birth ended up with a week in NICU leaving us financially stricken (he was self employed at the time with no insurance.) We thought Anna coming early was a fluke, I breastfed and we just let nature take it's course. About 18 mos. later I was expecting again. Baby #2 decided to also come early and spend a week in NICU. At this point, we did qualify for Medicaid and used it. 18 mos. later, I was pregnant with #3, who also came early and I finally was like, ok, I can't keep doing this. Dh agreed and we did not have anything done permanently but decided that our calling in life was not to have a large family. After living in the same house for almost 10 years with kids, in a financial mess, my FIL not knowing everything, offered to help us get into a larger house. I know not everyone would take help, but we would have been stupid to turn it down. Dh was too prideful to just move out, cut our losses and start over. We have made terrible choices, but are learning and doing much better now that we've had a "fresh start" I don't like being on Medicaid, but dd wears glasses, ds's both had tubes in their ears when they were younger, dd required an umbilical hernia surgery and regular sicknesses. Anyway, I don't know what my point is, but I know that God has different plans for everyone. We look back and admit that our first mistake that we made, buying an older home that we thought we could fix up and then having an early baby that sent us into financial trouble early on. Dh has never really made a lot and has tried to live above his means (want, want, want kind of guy) but when your FIL gets involved it's very humbling and makes you think about what you REALLY need.

 

Kristine

[Storm Bay]

If it helps, the concept of the pre-existance of the soul has no biblical roots, but rather comes from other religions. It had been incoporated by many of the Hellenistic Jews. As for the soul life and when it starts, that is a highly controversial theological topic that you're free to pm me on if you'd like to know what I understand from studying the Bible on it.

 

As for bc, there is nothing either for or against it in the Bible. All I am aware of, other than Roman Catholic church tradition are 2 things.

 

1. The interpretation of scripture to say that God controls the womb. I think God gave us free will, but then that gets into the whole predestination thing, and, in a nutshell, I believe that God, who is all-knowing, predestinates based on what He already knows people are going to do by their own free will. But a lot of scripture buildup is involved in explaining this.

 

2. The theology of Onanism being a sin. This came up on the old board. If I were Roman Catholic, I would accept this as the teaching of the church and combine it with church tradition. I have good friends who are RC, and understand that it's not just about the Bible, but about church tradition and what the pope states ex cathedra (if there's more, I apologize for missing it.) However, I have studied that account that included Onan (in Genesis 38) and do not see that it implies that you can't use bc, but rather that Onan refused to take the responsibility of levirate marriage, which his father, Judah, told him to do. I think that if bc were truly wrong, it makes no sense to have millions of sp**m each time as almost all of them "go to waste" and what happens when you're already pr*gn*nt? Not one of them will be used to conceive.

 

Now, since I have known women to conceive after v's, tl's and one with 1/4 of an ovary, I think that if it's truly meant by God for more babies to happen, it can still happen. I think you have to take care of the dc you have and that it's not separate viable life before conception. If it were, murder would be committed each and every time s*x occurred.

[Storm Bay]

I think we can prevent babies God intends--whether or not that means all bc is always wrong.

 

Ah, I don't think so--I put something about this in my post below before I read this answer of yours. I do not believe God oversteps freewill or that He ever gives us more than we can handle, but I also think we have been entrusted with thinking skills to use them. The question I forgot to put in my other post is this: Can you handle more children soon and still put God first in your thoughts and life? Can you still maintain a healthy marriage if you have more children soon? How can you balance your relationships with God, your dh and your children if you have more soon?

[Karen FL]

Conception is a natural process, and I think in most cases, God lets nature take its course. Just as I don't think God causes natural disasters, I don't think God personally causes each conception. (Hmm. That makes it sound like babies are natural disasters, which isn't quite what I wanted to say.)

 

I think God is capable of supporting us in whatever life circumstances we find ourselves . . . but I also think he approves of us taking an active role in our family size. I think the analogy to trusting God to provide while working hard to get a job is appropriate.

 

Of course, I've been known to say that we *all* have full quivers--some of us just have bigger quivers than others!

 

I believe, based on reading of scripture, that God does personally cause each conception for He is the Creator of all living things. Here is one example from scripture below to that effect. There are many more scriptures where God tells us he opened or closed wombs.

 

"Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb." Gen 30:22

 

Karen

[Storm Bay]

I know, but that's just the thing. I'm fine with trusting him if his plan is 4-5 dc. Beyond that, I'm not fine w/ trusting.

 

So I guess that's really not trusting at all, is it?

 

The Bible tells us to trust God, not man. I cannot think of a single verse that instructs women to trust their husbands. As for obeying our husbands, the scripture I know of talks about submitting, which is to be done with proper arrangement and according to what's biblically correct. Husbands are not perfect and may not always make the right decisions.

 

And the context also discusses all believers submitting one to another (what's right, not who's right) and that a man should love his wife as his own flesh. One of the more old-fashioned (aka old school) clergymen I've ever known said that a man should leave this decision to his wife because she is the one who bears the children and does most of the work involved with caring for a baby. Sorry, but no dh, no matter how wonderful he is, knows what it's like to carry and bear a child. Not even the passing of a 10 pound bowling ball really covers it, IMO, nor does wearing those things they now have, really cover it (but it helps!) Each of us who chooses to be a Christian is repsonsible for our own walks with God.

[Aubrey]

The question I forgot to put in my other post is this: Can you handle more children soon and still put God first in your thoughts and life? Can you still maintain a healthy marriage if you have more children soon? How can you balance your relationships with God, your dh and your children if you have more soon?

 

No. Absolutely not. If it's His call to abandon bc AND if that results in another pg soon, I'd need Him to step in & help. Change me, give me grace, something.

[Aubrey]

If it helps, the concept of the pre-existance of the soul has no biblical roots, but rather comes from other religions.

Yes, I realize. I said somewhere in here that I realized later that that sounded heretical. I'm just trying to describe an idea I have that I'm willing to admit might be way off. Kwim?

 

As for bc, there is nothing either for or against it in the Bible.

Yes, I know. I guess my question is, are there *principles* there that lead to one conclusion or the other?

 

I mean, I had a friend in college who took this to the extreme: Since the Bible doesn't say anything about drugs/smoking, they're both ok. (Fwiw, I did point out the obey the laws of the land thing, but that could really only be applied to the drugs.)

 

The theology of Onanism being a sin. This came up on the old board. If I were Roman Catholic, I would accept this as the teaching of the church and combine it with church tradition. I have good friends who are RC, and understand that it's not just about the Bible, but about church tradition and what the pope states ex cathedra (if there's more, I apologize for missing it.) However, I have studied that account that included Onan (in Genesis 38) and do not see that it implies that you can't use bc, but rather that Onan refused to take the responsibility of levirate marriage, which his father, Judah, told him to do.

I agree. I think reading this story as a statement against bc requires a little bit of a stretch. I'm glad I'm not the only one!

 

I think that if bc were truly wrong, it makes no sense to have millions of sp**m each time as almost all of them "go to waste" and what happens when you're already pr*gn*nt? Not one of them will be used to conceive.

I think this is a difference in RCC doctrine. They believe that ea, er, intimate act, should be open to life. So, uh, other...types...of intimacy...that are purely for...pleasure...can't result in life, therefore are selfish, therefore are sin.

 

Otoh, I don't feel that way at all. That's the problem (sort-of) that I have w/ NFP. I think intimacy is OK to be enjoyed, for its own sake. Iow, if a couple were engaging in, um, some of these other acts, for the sake of bc, that would be wrong if bc is wrong. Otoh, if they're...you know, swinging from the chandeliers for fun...well, that's a different issue. So that would make intimacy during pg NOT an issue of bc. See what I mean? (I hope!)

 

Now, since I have known women to conceive after v's, tl's and one with 1/4 of an ovary, I think that if it's truly meant by God for more babies to happen, it can still happen. I think you have to take care of the dc you have and that it's not separate viable life before conception. If it were, murder would be committed each and every time s*x occurred.

Just for argument's sake, if you don't mind, I wouldn't say that the question of a separate viable life before conception necessarily means murder ea time things occur. Rather, if one wanted to look at it that way, those would be natural deaths. But really, if the question is of the soul, then the only deaths are of the ones that have souls.

 

Again, that gets heretical, so I'm just saying for argument's sake. :o

[Storm Bay]

Yes, I realize. I said somewhere in here that I realized later that that sounded heretical. I'm just trying to describe an idea I have that I'm willing to admit might be way off. Kwim?

Yes, I do. There were so many answers I wrote, then read!

 

 

Yes, I know. I guess my question is, are there *principles* there that lead to one conclusion or the other?

 

I mean, I had a friend in college who took this to the extreme: Since the Bible doesn't say anything about drugs/smoking, they're both ok. (Fwiw, I did point out the obey the laws of the land thing, but that could really only be applied to the drugs.)

Right! How do we walk the fine line between licence and legalism? But I would argue that many drugs fall under the same command as to avoid drunkenness, pharmakeia (sp), etc. As for smoking, there is no command against it. I'm an avid nonsmoker, but it's because I don't think I can honestly pray for health and smoke at the same time. However, I don't condemn people who smoke--I've never been part of a church or fellowship that does.

I respect people deciding to not use bc as a personal decision. And even if I don't agree with the theology used to support not using bc, I understand not everyone is going to agree. I jumped in because you seem to be feeling so much pressure and I do believe God gives us the choice. We do understand basic biology, and I don't agree that no Christians ever practiced it before the last 100 years. But there were few options.

 

Otoh, I don't feel that way at all. That's the problem (sort-of) that I have w/ NFP. I think intimacy is OK to be enjoyed, for its own sake. Iow, if a couple were engaging in, um, some of these other acts, for the sake of bc, that would be wrong if bc is wrong. Otoh, if they're...you know, swinging from the chandeliers for fun...well, that's a different issue. So that would make intimacy during pg NOT an issue of bc. See what I mean? (I hope!)

I do see what you mean. This issue is a lot more clear to me than it is to you, and you have so many different opinions here to think about I'm not sure how much it's all helped other than to help you think it through. I'd go to God about it, too, and discuss it with your dh. Ultimately, they're the two you need to decide this with.

 

 

things[/i] occur. Rather, if one wanted to look at it that way, those would be natural deaths. But really, if the question is of the soul, then the only deaths are of the ones that have souls.

 

Again, that gets heretical, so I'm just saying for argument's sake. :o

 

I understand that you're doing this for argument's sake. I just don't think God would plan it in a way that causes so many natural deaths. I believe that the devil is the author of death, but that gets into another sticky theological debate if we get into that one! But I do understand what you're saying and I often ask questions when I think things through.

 

btw, I see nothing wrong in discussing things with God when you don't or aren't sure you agree with Him if your goal is to get to where you do. How many times do the Psalmists pour out their problems to God? As long as the goal is to get His answers. I tell my kids they can complain to God the way the Psalmists do--to get to the point where they're thankful for His blessings and agree with Him.

 

I'm signing off for the night now as I've way overdone my normal computer quota. Guess I missed it more than I realized when I was away.

[amy g.]

I have not read every response, so forgive me if I am way off base.

 

I am okay with NFP. That is all we have used in our marriage, and all 4 of my children were plan and prayed for.

 

I look at NFP as saying to God, "I'm not really ready for another baby right now, But I'll accept it if you give me one." I feel like it is about intention.

 

 

My Dh is 7th out of 8 children. His mother really thought he was the last. Then she had my youngest BIL who is learning disabled. He ended up never marrying, and living at home taking care of my MIL all of these years. They are best friends. She has had such a nice old age because of him. That really inspires me.

 

I also think about how you have to live if you are open to as many children as God sends you. Well, it wouldn't really work if you were a two income status seeking couple. I think about the 1 bathroom and the close quarters. What if that really IS the blessing?

 

I'm almost 42. I doubt I'll have a 5th child. If I did, it would really cut down on the number of private lessons my older kids get to take. It would drastically slow down our lives. What if that is God's intention? I would have to believe that it was, and embrace it.

[Aubrey]

Aubrey,

 

I've read this thread with interest. I have no answers, but I want to encourage you with my personal journey. I'll make it short and sweet.

 

I was an attorney, had always planned on working part-time and having my 3 kids in Christian school. Along came #4 and then #5. At that point, I was home full-time and, though I loved my children dearly, realized I'd have a dozen quickly. So, without any prayer whatsoever, I had a tubal ligation after my 5th was born.

 

A year or so later, God began working on me. Out of the blue. From nowhere. I didn't read any books, had never heard of *quiverfull*. God himself began speaking to me about Who controls life. All of life. He met every single objection I had. It was simply about MY trust in HIS control over LIFE.

 

Simple and yet, not easy. I sat dh down and told him my convictions. He completely agreed. We decided that I'd have a reversal. God provided the money from some unforeseen circumstances and I underwent reversal surgery. Then after getting pregnant so easily, I waited and waited and waited. I've had two post-reveral children. But each time, I had to resubmit my trust to God. Importantly, both whether we did or did not conceive. Neither were within my control.

 

I could tell you story after story about God's provision. I could tell you story after story of blessing.

 

In the end, it was a matter of God calling my dh and me to something and whether we would obey. It was really, IMO, not a question that we could reasoned with. If it were, WE would be back in the control seat.

 

Two roads. I followed one. And that has made all the difference.

 

Many blessings,

Lisa

 

I was really encouraged to read your story. I still don't know how the Lord is leading us, but I'm glad you shared.

[Joanne]

Here are the verses that indicate that more is better:

 

"You will know that your children will be many,

and your descendants like the grass of the earth." Job 5:25

(This is referring to the blessings that will come to "the man whom God corrects")

 

"The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters."

Job 42:12,13

 

This is what the LORD says—

your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

"I am the LORD your God,

who teaches you what is best for you,

who directs you in the way you should go.

If only you had paid attention to my commands,

your peace would have been like a river,

your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Your descendants would have been like the sand,

your children like its numberless grains;

their name would never be cut off

nor destroyed from before me."

Isaiah 48:17-19

 

These are beautiful. They are Truth. They are also poetic.

[StaceyinLA]

Not because I'm the only person who has been in my situation, but because I'm sure it is not THAT common (though I know it is getting to be moreso).

 

I'd love to go into tons of detail, but it's 2 a.m. and I HAVE to go to sleep. Long story short, I DID have a tubal reversal. I never really wanted to have my tubes tied, and I wanted LOTS of kids. Well, first dh leaving me during my 4th pregnancy abruptly changed things for me. I decided, at 28 with 4 kids, to have my tubes tied. When ds was 6 weeks old (and 2 weeks after my dad died), I had the surgery. I think I regretted it from the moment I woke up.

 

Anyway, fast forward a couple of years and I remarried dh and had a reversal a year later. I have lost 4 babies to ectopic pregnancies, each one a heart - wrenching and emotionally devastating blow to one who wanted more babies. I wound up having a hysterectomy because I couldn't bear creating life knowing it could just not survive. Knowing I did it to myself only made it all the worse.

 

So, how does all this help you?? Well, mainly to say that I would NEVER do anything permanent, especially not at this age and this stage (young kids). You cannot make a decision like that without LOTS of prayer, and, in fact, I am not convinced that it is ever a really wise idea because only God knows our future and where we will be years from now.

 

I do NOT disagree with all forms of bc. I absolutely disagree with abortifacient b/c, but do not believe that true barrier b/c or natural family planning is against scripture.

 

Do I believe children are a blessing? ABSOLUTELY!! Do I believe that the Lord gave us wisdom to make choices about what we are capable of? YES! Do I think that all qf families are Godly, wonderful families just because they have allowed God to plan the number of children they have? NO.

 

We have several WONDERFUL qf families in our home school group that I have TONS of respect for. We also have a family with 9 kids that are horribly neglectful and abusive and have had CPS remove children from them twice. I just don't think that because you CAN have lots of children means you SHOULD.

 

Let your husband lead you. He is the head of your home. If He chooses for yall to allow God to plan your family 100%, trust that the Lord will give you what you need when you need it; He will. If He chooses for yall to be more in charge of your fertility, do let him know your feelings on certain forms of b/c and on permanent methods. Ultimately yall will have to come to an agreement, or you will have to follow his leading. Either way I believe the Lord will provide you with what you need to do His will.

[Scarlett]

I just don't think that because you CAN have lots of children means you SHOULD.

 

I think this sums up my entire feelings on the matter. And in thinking in reverse, what about the women who wanted lots of children and for whatever reason could not.

[SparrowsNest]

I mean, I had a friend in college who took this to the extreme: Since the Bible doesn't say anything about drugs/smoking, they're both ok. (Fwiw, I did point out the obey the laws of the land thing, but that could really only be applied to the drugs.)

 

I don't think smoking in moderation is sinful. The principle is treating your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. If you smoke two packs a day, you are abusing your body. If you have an occasional cigar after a particularly tasty dinner, I don't see that as sinful. Then again our church used to host Poker Smokers, where the men got together, smoked cigars, and played poker, so my take is extreme liberality on things which are not forbidden by Scripture, i.e., where we have freedom in Christ according to our conscience.

 

I guess my question is, are there *principles* there that lead to one conclusion or the other?

 

Because Scripture isn't specific in either condemning birth control or commanding maximized reproduction (i.e., actively trying to conceive as many children as possible), I still maintain that the guiding principle at play is prayerful submission to God's will for your life and your family. That means drawing close to him and seeking his will for you. The end result might be not using birth control, or it could be (as in the case of a friend of mine who nearly threw herself and her baby out their apartment window during a struggle with suicidal tendencies and PPD) permanent surgical birth control. We can trust that God will make his will known to us when we seek him. :)

[Lizzie in Ma]

After our 2nd, dh had a vasectomy and THEN we became convicted the other way, that we should have let God decide for us. Sadly, we have had neither insurance or funds for a reversal since then and biologically my time is running out. I get teary these days as my youngest is 7 and growing so fast and I think, wow, I only have 6 years left with hsing my oldest and see....now i am crying again. Oh well.

[beansprouts]

Because Scripture isn't specific in either condemning birth control or commanding maximized reproduction (i.e., actively trying to conceive as many children as possible), I still maintain that the guiding principle at play is prayerful submission to God's will for your life and your family. That means drawing close to him and seeking his will for you. The end result might be not using birth control, or it could be (as in the case of a friend of mine who nearly threw herself and her baby out their apartment window during a struggle with suicidal tendencies and PPD) permanent surgical birth control. We can trust that God will make his will known to us when we seek him. :)

 

I completely agree. I believe that God does call some people to have large families. He also calls some to be missionaries: "Go and make disciples of all nations". That does not mean we are ALL required to pack up our families and move to Guatemala. God's word is True for all, yet carries a unique message for each of us. I read the scriptures that were posted and they did not speak to me in the same way they have spoken to some. That does not mean you are wrong, nor does it mean I am. All I ask is that you understand and respect that God has a unique plan for my family which might not be the same as yours.

[Melinda in VT]

I believe, based on reading of scripture, that God does personally cause each conception for He is the Creator of all living things. Here is one example from scripture below to that effect. There are many more scriptures where God tells us he opened or closed wombs.

 

"Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb." Gen 30:22

 

Karen

 

To me, the story of Rachel tells us that God can cause a conception, but does not tell us that God causes every conception.

 

Like Joanne, I have a hard time with a God who causes crack babies.

[SparrowsNest]

All I ask is that you understand and respect that God has a unique plan for my family which might not be the same as yours.

 

 

That is so important! Everyone is gifted in different ways. Those who are gifted in the care and management of large families should follow God's lead in that way. The couple who is called to missionary work in a war-torn area of the world may rightly use birth control so that they can do what God is calling them to. There is such freedom in our faith to follow the promptings of the Spirit. That freedom scares us, I think, because it's easier to have rules, rules, rules, so we know where we stand. But we have amazing freedom within God's loving limits (i.e., no adultery, murder, etc.). We want everything to be to the nth degree, but it quelches the process of learning to listen and to trust God and that lifelong process of growing into Christlikeness. I mean, if every last thing is spelled out, then we simply follow all the rules and we are done. God wants so much more than that for us -- he doesn't want to create mere rule-followers, he wants to make us prophets, priests and kings!

[beansprouts]

That is so important! Everyone is gifted in different ways. Those who are gifted in the care and management of large families should follow God's lead in that way. The couple who is called to missionary work in a war-torn area of the world may rightly use birth control so that they can do what God is calling them to. There is such freedom in our faith to follow the promptings of the Spirit. That freedom scares us, I think, because it's easier to have rules, rules, rules, so we know where we stand. But we have amazing freedom within God's loving limits (i.e., no adultery, murder, etc.). We want everything to be to the nth degree, but it quelches the process of learning to listen and to trust God and that lifelong process of growing into Christlikeness. I mean, if every last thing is spelled out, then we simply follow all the rules and we are done. God wants so much more than that for us -- he doesn't want to create mere rule-followers, he wants to make us prophets, priests and kings!

 

I think I am going to like you :)

[Susan in TX]

We do understand basic biology, and I don't agree that no Christians ever practiced it before the last 100 years. But there were few options.

 

The teaching that the use of artificial birth control was a sin was universal in all Christian denominations until 1930. The Episcopal Church was the first to change the teaching and allow for the use of birth control. In 1930 it was only allowed for those extreme cases and total abstinence was the preferred method. In 1958 the concept of "family planning" was fully embraced.

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Resources/Contraception-Lambeth.htm

 

Now, I'm sure that there were Christians who went against the teaching of the church just like many Catholics do today...but the official teaching in every Christian denomination was that birth control was a sin.

 

It is interesting that almost all Protestants today would say that the passage about Onan has nothing to do with the use of birth control yet, Martin Luther and John Calvin both interpreted that passage as a direct condemnation of contraception:

 

Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . 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. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

 

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

 

(These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control)

 

Susan in TX

[Storm Bay]

I believe that God does call some people to have large families. He also calls some to be missionaries: "Go and make disciples of all nations". That does not mean we are ALL required to pack up our families and move to Guatemala.

 

YES!!! I wish I'd remembered this last night when I was in major jet lag. This is so true--each of us has our unique calling in the Body of Christ. Sometimes God calls us to do things we're not sure we can do, but He doesn't call us all to do the same thing. Moses and Isaac had only 2 children, but I wouldn't say they were less blessed than Job who lost 10 and then had 10 more (but his children will be double in the resurrection--his other wealth was restored double, but that was just for that lifetime). And this is before there was a Body of Christ.

[Storm Bay]

The teaching that the use of artificial birth control was a sin was universal in all Christian denominations until 1930. The Episcopal Church was the first to change the teaching and allow for the use of birth control. In 1930 it was only allowed for those extreme cases and total abstinence was the preferred method. In 1958 the concept of "family planning" was fully embraced.

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Resources/Contraception-Lambeth.htm

 

 

Susan in TX

 

Well, I'm not convinced that this includes all Christians. For one thing, when I grew up I was taught that the trinity was universally taught in the churches for centuries, which I learned when studying the history of the church wasn't true--there have been biblical unitarians all along. In fact, the church was split in half over this issue (I'm not arguing for or against the trinity, just bringing this up for the sake of making my point). So, I now question all doctrine that isn't spelled out in scripture. I am definitely sola scriptura. I am passionate about doing as we are admonished in the NT and searching the scriptures to see if what I've been taught is true--that I stand approved before God, not man. This is a lifetime goal I don't think any of us is capable of completely finishing. But I don't just read it in English, I also try to study the original words, oriental customs, figures of speech, etc. Hebrew is tough because of all the homonyms, etc., and I'm newer to that.

 

As for men like Luther, for whom I have great respect, I think each of them made contributions to prostestantism but only went so far away from their former Catholicism. How much can one do in only one lifetime? Also, they did not have knowledge of pre-Mosaic levirate marriage law and custom. For one thing, the code of Khammurabi wasn't even discovered until the early 20th century. Until then, scholars knew of no written code of law in that area prior to the law of Moses. Cultural studies of the area began in the nineteenth century, when various forms of levirate marriage were discoverd to be still in existance. Onan REFUSED to raise up seed, or offspring, for his brother, and that was sin. The Mosaic law broke from the past by making levirate marriage a choice; prior to that it was mandatory.

 

Just for the sake of another illustration of recent learning, I'll bring this one up. Until the dead sea scrolls were discovered, the words agape/agapao was thought to have been first recorded in the Bible, and it's major interpretation in theology reflected this. Once the scrolls were discovered, it was learned that they word predate the NT, which really helps, since not all t he uses in the NT line up with the traditional definition of "the love of God".

 

I'm of the strong conviction that we're always learning and coming to a knowledge of the truth. I also believe that a lot of gnostic, pagan and Greek philosophical beliefs were incorporated into theology. This is not unknown, of course, but it's far more wide spread than many realize. One of the books I've been reading that discusses this is I Suffer Not a Woman by the Kroegers. This is a scriptural examination of part of I Tim 2, and includes quite a bit on pagan and gnostic beliefs, which is what Paul was refuting in that entire epistle. There were so many variations on Biblical accounts, many which were mixed with pagan and gnostic beliefs that even in the first century Paul was handling a lot of this. Eve was conflated with mythological women as well as goddesses in various places (gnosticism isn't one set of beliefs, there are many variations.) For example, in I Tim 2 Paul was telling them not to teach the common (but not universal) gnostic/pagan belief that Eve came before Adam, that Adam was deceived not Eve, etc. Now, the Christian Church doesn't teach that, but it was being taught by some early Christians, et al, in Ephesus back then. Even with this book, I go back and work this from scripture the best I can, and to see how it fits with the Bible as a whole (remote context--I'm really big on scope and context, not just isolated scriptures.)

[6packofun]

Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . 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. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

 

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

Susan in TX

 

There are many Christian leaders and founding church fathers, etc. who were, quite frankly, wrong about some things. :) I don't hold any human being above the word of God and know that we're all capable of misinterpretation. I feel like Martin Luther may be saying that it was a sin for Onan because God had directed against it at that time--even Luther says it "was" a crime, not "is" a crime. For Onan, then, it was sin. This is what I believe to be true about this passage.

 

And I believe Calvin was/is just wrong on this based on that one quote. I don't throw out everything else he's ever said or believe he's a false prophet because of it, but I hold his words against the word of God...and believe he was in error on this issue.

 

When God speaks specifically to an individual or group of people, it's our duty to really use discernment to discover if that applies to all believers or is being used as an example of a greater principle OR to show that God cares about our hearts and motivations. The word picture or story is sometimes simply the illustration used to convey a greater truth. The actual truth He intends for us to receive. :)

 

I believe this explains why the "be fruitful and multiply" issue has caused such division and some have based an entire theory of childbirth/childraising on verses such as these.

[Susan in TX]

As for the money issue, I also think the mindset matters. Suddenly finding yourself in the position of needing govt. assistance is quite different than willfully creating more expenses while knowing that you are not footing the bill. (I am using "you" in the general sense here.) Knowing that you do not have enough money to even feed the mouths you have and purposefully creating more mouths is just irresponsible and the Bible does speak about it. I Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." While this doesn't really speak to contraception specifically, one can easily gather that it's important to God that we provide for our own families to the best of our abilities.

 

 

I Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with parents supporting their children. It is talking about the widows in the church and which ones should be supported by the church. The passage here is simply stating that those poor widows who have family members should be supported by their family, not by the church. And if that family member has the means to support them yet refuses to do so "he is worse than an unbeliever".

 

I have heard this verse used so many times to try to convince those who were quiverful minded, or leaning that way, that their views were unscriptural. It was used on my husband and I (by a church leader) when we were a young married couple struggling with this issue and in no way financially prepared to start a family. Yet, our conviction was very strong so we took a step of faith and God was faithful.

 

I knew a couple who were convicted that BC was wrong yet they were struggling financially. The husband was especially struggling. They were expecting #3, he was laid off, and their car only had room for three children. His pastors used this verse to pressure him into getting a vasectomy, against his wife's wishes. She was devastated. It wasn't long after that he got another job and he began to regret the decision.

 

There may not be anything in the Bible that prohibits the use of birth control, but there is also nothing that commands it or says that we are sinning if we are not "good stewards" and choose to have more than the socially acceptable number of children. There is also nothing in the Bible that says it is a sin to accept government aid or other forms of charity.

 

Susan in TX

[Susan in TX]

There are many Christian leaders and founding church fathers, etc. who were, quite frankly, wrong about some things. :)

 

My argument is not that the teaching was right or wrong, just that it was the *universal* teaching of Christendom until 1930. If anyone can cite sources that show otherwise, I'd really like to see them.

 

Susan in TX

[nancypants]

I Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with parents supporting their children. It is talking about the widows in the church and which ones should be supported by the church. The passage here is simply stating that those poor widows who have family members should be supported by their family, not by the church. And if that family member has the means to support them yet refuses to do so "he is worse than an unbeliever".

 

I have heard this verse used so many times to try to convince those who were quiverful minded, or leaning that way, that their views were unscriptural. It was used on my husband and I (by a church leader) when we were a young married couple struggling with this issue and in no way financially prepared to start a family. Yet, our conviction was very strong so we took a step of faith and God was faithful.

 

I knew a couple who were convicted that BC was wrong yet they were struggling financially. The husband was especially struggling. They were expecting #3, he was laid off, and their car only had room for three children. His pastors used this verse to pressure him into getting a vasectomy, against his wife's wishes. She was devastated. It wasn't long after that he got another job and he began to regret the decision.

 

There may not be anything in the Bible that prohibits the use of birth control, but there is also nothing that commands it or says that we are sinning if we are not "good stewards" and choose to have more than the socially acceptable number of children. There is also nothing in the Bible that says it is a sin to accept government aid or other forms of charity.

 

Susan in TX

 

Susan I think you have misread much of what I have said. I have never said it is wrong to accept government aid when one finds themselves in a tough situation. I have most emphatically never said it is wrong or sinful to have more children than is socially acceptable. If you are really addressing me here, you are most certainly putting words in my mouth. But to suggest that this passage is ONLY talking about widows is just plain ridiculous.

 

I Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

 

If anything it underscores that a person should not only be caring for his own children, but also his widowed mother or mother in law or sister, etc... It most definitely is about what you speak of but to say that it has NOTHING to do with providing for the children you already have is silly. They are obviously in your immediate family.

 

I personally have very close experience with several families who have several children. Some of my dearest friends have 9. They care for them and provide for them and the husband's widowed and aged mother also lives with them.

 

However I also have personal experience with families who have purposefully gotten pregnant as soon as humanly possibly, one on top of the other despite the fact that both parents were not working regular jobs, the father was in and out of jail (and yes, these were professing believers though obviously they had a great many struggles), their family was having to constantly be picking up the pieces and caring for the children that they had. The mother all but ignored the children she already had and yet they continued having more and wasting what money they did have/get on frivolities to excess. They have four little boys with less than 5 years between them all now. And now the wife is a widow. I know this, and a great deal more, because this was my brother's family.

 

I know plenty more families like this. And I don't think you can honestly look at these married Christian people as they bring their children to church each week completely unwashed, noses unwiped and wearing only diapers (the family I am remembering in particular had seven children -- and I babysat for them so I know how they lived... and it wasn't that he didn't make money... it was that they managed it poorly) and suggest that they should consider having more.

 

Nobody is making this passage say something it doesn't say unless they are suggesting that people only need provide for their extended family and not their immediate one. It very clearly does not say that!

[6packofun]

My argument is not that the teaching was right or wrong, just that it was the *universal* teaching of Christendom until 1930. If anyone can cite sources that show otherwise, I'd really like to see them.

 

Susan in TX

 

Oh! I'm sorry if I missed your intent. :) Sometimes I just get going... lol ;)

[FloridaLisa]

I personally have very close experience with several families who have several children. Some of my dearest friends have 9. They care for them and provide for them and the husband's widowed and aged mother also lives with them.

 

However I also have personal experience with families who have purposefully gotten pregnant as soon as humanly possibly, one on top of the other despite the fact that both parents were not working regular jobs, the father was in and out of jail (and yes, these were professing believers though obviously they had a great many struggles), their family was having to constantly be picking up the pieces and caring for the children that they had. The mother all but ignored the children she already had and yet they continued having more and wasting what money they did have/get on frivolities to excess. They have four little boys with less than 5 years between them all now. And now the wife is a widow. I know this, and a great deal more, because this was my brother's family.

 

I know plenty more families like this. And I don't think you can honestly look at these married Christian people as they bring their children to church each week completely unwashed, noses unwiped and wearing only diapers (the family I am remembering in particular had seven children -- and I babysat for them so I know how they lived... and it wasn't that he didn't make money... it was that they managed it poorly) and suggest that they should consider having more.

 

 

Don't mean to pick on you, Nan, but there has been plenty of this reasoning in this thread. The bottom line is what scripture teaches (unless you are Catholic and also include church teachings). In any question about what scripture teaches on an issue, we cannot look to good or bad examples to determine or affect our answer. Imperfect humans will always mess up God's perfect order.

 

Lisa

[SparrowsNest]

Martin Luther and John Calvin both interpreted that passage as a direct condemnation of contraception:

 

Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . 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. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

 

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

 

 

But we aren't bound by Luther or Calvin in anything. We are bound by Scripture and our conscience. Luther himself said...

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason---I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other---my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

 

 

You could substitute "Luther and Calvin" for "popes and councils" and the sentiment is the same for myself. If I call myself a Calvinist, it's not because of some slavish devotion to every word of Calvin, it's simply because the term has become synonymous with the views espoused in Reformed tradition.

 

In other words, I admire Luther and Calvin, and I'm sure they were convinced in their hearts that preventing the births of children was sinful. But neither one of them will sit in judgment of me. That the church held an anti-birth control position historically is frankly a more convincing argument to me. Yet at the same time, we are warned not to heed the traditions of men, and especially not to use traditions to browbeat others or to compare who is more holy. Absent a clear prohibition of bc (and God seems to have no problem making these!), I think we are in the gray area of reasonable interpretations.

 

To be clear, I don't have a problem AT ALL with quiverfull families. If that is what God is calling someone to, then I think that is wonderful! I think it is a very high calling! But I do think it is a calling, and not a command. I guess that sums it up best!

[nancypants]

Don't mean to pick on you, Nan, but there has been plenty of this reasoning in this thread. The bottom line is what scripture teaches (unless you are Catholic and also include church teachings). In any question about what scripture teaches on an issue, we cannot look to good or bad examples to determine or affect our answer. Imperfect humans will always mess up God's perfect order.

 

Lisa

 

Yes, I do understand that anecdotes are anecdotes. But scripture very clearly teaches that we need to provide for our families. My example was to point out what good is it to pick the "children are a blessing" passages OVER the "care for your own" passages? I heartily believe children are a blessing and I truly love seeing big families. I do!! :) (and I don't feel picked on.)

 

But I also believe we are to be good stewards of the blessings we are given. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Though the Bible doesn't specifically speak about these truths in terms of contraception, there are a great many things the Bible doesn't specifically mention and yet we still draw from scripture certain ideals. If we have to give a scriptural proof for every single important decision we make, I think we would all be emotionally crippled and unable to make any decisions (for as much as anecdotes are worth, I know people like this and it's almost painful to watch them in their inability to make a decision without divine revelation.) Either that or we would find ourselves doing what is done all too often, attempting to make the scriptures say something that they do not say, which may even be worse than being crippled by the lack of a passage!

 

A Christian doesn't have the luxury of choosing between "children are a blessing" and "provide for your own immediate family" and that's what I was trying to illustrate with my examples. So really these examples don't determine or effect my convictions (my convictions on this issue have always been as they are now); rather, they illustrate them. We have to embrace both. What I was responding to was the fact that Susan seemed to be pitting those two things against each other, when in fact they must go hand in hand.

[ereks mom]

Our calling is to bring up children who can be *effective* arrows, Godly arrows. And that means that choosing to space or limit those arrows may be wise.

 

I agree. And I like the analogy about the farmer. I believe that God gives us intellect and wisdom so that we can make good choices.

 

A dear friend once asked my dh his opinion about the 'quiverful question'. The friend and his wife were wrestling with whether they were "refusing God's blessings" by using birth control instead of "allowing God to determine" the size of their family. Dh answered with a wink, " I think that by not using birth control, a couple is allowing God to control the bottom half of their bodies. I choose to let God also control the top half of mine."

[Storm Bay]

But we aren't bound by Luther or Calvin in anything. We are bound by Scripture and our conscience. Luther himself said...

 

 

You could substitute "Luther and Calvin" for "popes and councils" and the sentiment is the same for myself.

Agreed!

 

That the church held an anti-birth control position historically is frankly a more convincing argument to me. Yet at the same time, we are warned not to heed the traditions of men, and especially not to use traditions to browbeat others or to compare who is more holy. Absent a clear prohibition of bc (and God seems to have no problem making these!), I think we are in the gray area of reasonable interpretations.

 

 

Yes, this is a rather gray area. Where we differ is that I'm not convinced by things because the church held the view traditionally, but I'm happy to agree to disagree, because many of my IRL friends think the same as you. IRL I rarely get to speak up so much because often I get so intense and passionate when I speak about scripture that it's hard for people to see that while I hold strong opinions I respect that others have different ones. I've asked God many times why I couldn't have been born with a quieter, milder, sweeter personality, but He called me anyway...

[Karen FL]

To me, the story of Rachel tells us that God can cause a conception, but does not tell us that God causes every conception.

 

Like Joanne, I have a hard time with a God who causes crack babies.

 

I only listed only one of the scriptures but there are many more in which God says He opens and closes the womb. And in Psalm 139:13 the psalmist wrote, "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb."

 

Yes, God does allow crack babies to be born. I have a friend who is a neonatal intensive care nurse. She states that most of those babies do very well after they withdraw from illicit drugs. They even look more glossy and healthy in some ways than the rest of the babies in the neonatal unit. I'm not advocating illicit drug use.

 

God is God. What He allows or doesn't allow is difficult for us to comprehend. Why He allows conception to take place in a person who daily or occasionally uses alcohol or drugs while pregnant is difficult to understand. But He is God. He doesn't answer to us. Psalm 100:3 says, "Know that the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture."

 

Karen

[kdeno]

I think that if we each seek God's will for our lives with a consecrated heart, not matter what the issue (children, education, dresses, headcovering) and if we are truly willing to do *whatever* He calls us to He will show us. Perhaps it is different for each family.

 

May God bless you with wisdom from Him,

 

Kari

[Joanne]

Yes, God does allow crack babies to be born.

 

The biology He created allows it. Free will allows it.

 

But I will NEVER believe that my God willed for *that* child to be born under those conditions, for my 8 year old self to be molested, for.......

[Aubrey]

After our 2nd, dh had a vasectomy and THEN we became convicted the other way, that we should have let God decide for us. Sadly, we have had neither insurance or funds for a reversal since then and biologically my time is running out. I get teary these days as my youngest is 7 and growing so fast and I think, wow, I only have 6 years left with hsing my oldest and see....now i am crying again. Oh well.

 

Oh! Now I'm crying, too!

[Aubrey]

I completely agree. I believe that God does call some people to have large families. He also calls some to be missionaries: "Go and make disciples of all nations". That does not mean we are ALL required to pack up our families and move to Guatemala. God's word is True for all, yet carries a unique message for each of us. I read the scriptures that were posted and they did not speak to me in the same way they have spoken to some. That does not mean you are wrong, nor does it mean I am. All I ask is that you understand and respect that God has a unique plan for my family which might not be the same as yours.

 

First, I can definitely respect different calls, no matter what conclusion I come to.

 

Second, I really like your example of some being called to missions. That's a helpful way for me to look at it!

[Aubrey]

The biology He created allows it. Free will allows it.

 

But I will NEVER believe that my God willed for *that* child to be born under those conditions, for my 8 year old self to be molested, for.......

 

Oh, Joanne! Whether or not God plans those specific babies, I think we'd all agree that He certainly doesn't plan the sin involved.

 

Fwiw, I agree that crack babies raise a big ? as to God's will & plans for conception. I don't want to say he planned them, but I also don't want to say that all babies come into the world as a matter of chance or biology. So I'm stuck.

[Aubrey]

I Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with parents supporting their children. It is talking about the widows in the church and which ones should be supported by the church. The passage here is simply stating that those poor widows who have family members should be supported by their family, not by the church. And if that family member has the means to support them yet refuses to do so "he is worse than an unbeliever".

 

This is what I've heard, too. Now, if you have a father who REFUSES to support his children, then I think the verse could certainly be applied. Otoh, if you have a father who's temporarily laid off, etc., I think using this verse is cruel.

 

I knew a couple who were convicted that BC was wrong yet they were struggling financially. The husband was especially struggling. They were expecting #3, he was laid off, and their car only had room for three children. His pastors used this verse to pressure him into getting a vasectomy, against his wife's wishes. She was devastated. It wasn't long after that he got another job and he began to regret the decision.

 

This is what I meant earlier about abortion. My point was that nobody would tell a poor family that they were expected to have an abortion if they had an unexpected pg.; everybody would try to help. Otoh, that same family does *not* have the freedom to hold convictions that bc is wrong, because they cannot nec. support the children that are produced. Do you see the correlation?

 

Saying that we have responsibility & brains means that because the speaker does not see bc as wrong, the hearer can't, either, unless he/she has enough $ to hold that view.

 

There may not be anything in the Bible that prohibits the use of birth control, but there is also nothing that commands it or says that we are sinning if we are not "good stewards" and choose to have more than the socially acceptable number of children. There is also nothing in the Bible that says it is a sin to accept government aid or other forms of charity.

 

I don't think anybody here really has a problem w/ people accepting charity. The problem is w/ people not using bc & then accepting charity, and I think the problem seems to be primarily based on ex's of families who exercised, er, "freedom from bc" but then abused the children that were produced. Or treated their dc fine & abused the families around them by proclaiming their greater holiness.

 

I hope that a final analysis of the question does not ride on those who act like that, because, on that basis, one might choose not to be a Christian at all w/ equal validity.

 

Many keep talking about it in terms of how big a family a couple wants. I can tell you, I want a family of 4. I want enough dc for them to play a board game together when mom & dad are busy. I want to, at some pt, know that I'm done being pg.

 

But...I guess I don't think it's about what I want. There were times earlier in my life when I thought I wanted to marry whomever I was dating at the time. Looking back, I can see how badly ea of those would have worked out. Even if what I want is relevant, I've made enough mistakes in that regard to know that I don't even really know (as well as God does) what I want.

 

Iow, if dh & I have more dc after this one, for one thing, I don't want people to think that I'm just greedy & want a lot of children. (There we go again, though--I did just start that sentence w/ what I want! LOL)

 

Anyway, thanks for a great discussion so far!

[Susan in TX]

This is what I meant earlier about abortion. My point was that nobody would tell a poor family that they were expected to have an abortion if they had an unexpected pg.; everybody would try to help. Otoh, that same family does *not* have the freedom to hold convictions that bc is wrong, because they cannot nec. support the children that are produced. Do you see the correlation?

 

Actually, I do. I also believe that the acceptance of birth control ultimately leads to the acceptance of abortion. I'm not saying that those who use birth control will then automatically accept abortion as okay, it is just that, logically, one leads to the other. In other words, if I am being responsible and using birth control to prevent a pregnancy than why is it not also responsible and right to terminate a pregnancy when birth control fails? Also, the most effective forms of artificial birth control (aside from sterilization) are also abortificants (or can be). Condoms, diaphrams, and spemacides are simply not that effective. In fact, NFP is more effective if it is used correctly.

 

As far as knowing that you are done being pregnant...even if you don't use any birth control that day will come. Eventually you will go through menopause and you will know that you are done being pregnant:-) But, seriously, if you are quiverful minded or even just want a big family, you come to see things differently. You view your childbearing years as a long stretch between marriage and menopause...not a few years in your mid-twenties or thirties.

 

And if I can gently offer some advice: stop worrying about what other people think. You need to do whatever you and your dh believe is right even if others look down on you and judge you for it.

 

Susan in TX

[SnowWhite]

Condoms . . .<snip> are simply not that effective.

 

Oh, boy, if only that were true for my family. I am in quite a different predicament from most of the moms posting on this thread. My dh is completely done having children. If we have another, it will only be because he is unwilling to withhold from me what he knows I desire. So it becomes a matter of how much am I willing to impose upon him? It would certainly make my life easier and less stressful if God would allow our <ahem> barrier method to fail.

[Joanne]

I also believe that the acceptance of birth control ultimately leads to the acceptance of abortion. I'm not saying that those who use birth control will then automatically accept abortion as okay, it is just that, logically, one leads to the other. In other words, if I am being responsible and using birth control to prevent a pregnancy than why is it not also responsible and right to terminate a pregnancy when birth control fails?

 

I fail to see the actual "logic" in this.

 

I do, however, see some insult.

 

To assume that those of us who use bc would ever, let alone eventually, feel it's ok to end infant life is:

 

1) Untrue

2) Insulting

3) Assumptive

4) Not logical

[ereks mom]

...abused the families around them by proclaiming their greater holiness.

 

Dh & I have definitely been victims of this. I've shared before about a couple that we know (fellow pastor & wife) who asked friends of ours (other pastors & church leaders) to pray for us because of our sin of "refusing to accept God's blessing" by limiting our family size (2 children). The couple who wanted others to pray for us are aquaintances of ours, not close friends at all. They NEVER mentioned the issue directly to dh & me, never discussed it with us. They have NO idea of our situation, and how or why we made the decision to have only two children. Yet they felt it was permissible for them to proclaim to our friends that we were wrong!!! It just makes me mad all over again every time I think about it.

[Aubrey]

Actually, I do. I also believe that the acceptance of birth control ultimately leads to the acceptance of abortion. I'm not saying that those who use birth control will then automatically accept abortion as okay, it is just that, logically, one leads to the other. In other words, if I am being responsible and using birth control to prevent a pregnancy than why is it not also responsible and right to terminate a pregnancy when birth control fails?

 

Well, I guess I meant it as an illustration. I can't quite carry it that far. This is one of the things that bothered me about Catholic doctrine. Dh & I had been very careful in choosing bc that did not have any form of abortificant, & I was very insulted for them to compare our use of barrier methods to abortion, esp since I knew that they were LESS effective than NFP. Between the 2, I guess I'd consider c*ndoms to be more of a yes to life than NFP, based purely on statistics. Either way, we certainly never would have considered abortion.

 

My point in bringing up abortion was not to compare it to bc in that way, but simply to illustrate that we wouldn't ask a couple to go agains their conscience in that way, so sometimes it seems incongruous (sp) to me that we will ask them to go against their conscience w/ regard to bc.

 

I think you probably meant your statement as a societal view, though, and not a personal one. Iow, a society that accepts bc will easily accept abortion, too. Individuals may not be so easily swayed. I see your argument, if that is what you meant. I might agree with you, but I'd have to give it more thought.

 

I still consider bc to be a pretty gray area, & some of my dearest friends use pills that do have abortificants, so whatever my conclusion for myself, even if it seems "scriptural" to me, I really don't want to offend.

 

And if I can gently offer some advice: stop worrying about what other people think. You need to do whatever you and your dh believe is right even if others look down on you and judge you for it.

 

You're VERY right about this. LOL. Other people's opinions have always mattered to me, not just too much, but to a really strange degree. I was raised in a...less than healthy home environment, & so...having & following my own opinion can be difficult. I mean, I'm super stubborn & strong-willed, but that's mainly because I wait until I'm absolutely. 100% sure. that I. AM. RIGHT. before doing anything.

 

Which makes mistakes & disagreements a real booger. (I might be kinda hard to live w/! lol)

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[nancypants]

I fail to see the actual "logic" in this.

 

I do, however, see some insult.

 

To assume that those of us who use bc would ever, let alone eventually, feel it's ok to end infant life is:

 

1) Untrue

2) Insulting

3) Assumptive

4) Not logical

 

Ditto that! :mad:

[SparrowsNest]

there is also nothing that commands it or says that we are sinning if we are not "good stewards" and choose to have more than the socially acceptable number of children. There is also nothing in the Bible that says it is a sin to accept government aid or other forms of charity

 

 

I missed this part yesterday but wanted to ask... do you not think that we are instructed in Scripture to make wise use of the resources -- financial, physical, and otherwise -- that God has given us? And if we are so instructed, what would poor use of those resources be if not sin?

 

In other words, if I am being responsible and using birth control to prevent a pregnancy than why is it not also responsible and right to terminate a pregnancy when birth control fails?

 

 

Just to add... because what is better called contraceptive control, methods such as condoms of NFP aim to prevent the intersection of egg and sperm. Human life is not AN egg or A sperm. It is only the coming together of the two into a completely new, unique human being at the moment of conception. If no sperm makes it to the egg, then there is no human life. Period.

 

On the other hand, if contraceptives have failed and there IS a human life, then we have an entirely new question on our hand, and that is now can we end that human life. That is a new set of propositions and, in the final analysis, a new conclusion.

 

If people use birth control to justify abortion, it is because their thinking is faulty and their sin nature (which wants to exalt their own rights over the rights of others) has taken the day, not because the argument is logically sound or that people can simultaneously use birth control nad abhor abortion. I can want and love children and *because of that* make prayerful decisions about spacing/family size that are right for *my* family, yet gladly welcome a child should God's sovereign plan overrule my own exercise of judgment and prudence.