Contraception, Part I: A Quiverfull?

Well, I’ve already tackled the subject of sex here (Sept. 4); might as well take this one on too. LOL

But please be assured that I do not take it lightly. Not at all.

First, the preliminaries:

The dilemma of contraception and its ramifications have been kicking around in my head for a long time. Jeremy Pierce’s excellent piece on the subject recently brought it to the fore. I’ve since been trying to coax along a decent representation of my own thoughts, but it hasn’t been easy. Some of what I write seems so – radical. Not to mention rambling. Not to mention stumbling.

(I admit that I’m also running scared from the imaginary thought police. An awareness of the personal, highly-charged, and profound nature of the topic does this to my mind...)

Know that I am writing not because I have anything earth-shaking to add to the discussion, but because I want to honor God with my thinking. As with my entire life. But on my own I'm not worth much; I need the help of the community of believers. I Cor. 12:20-27. Therefore I will write this series (of questions as well as statements) as an open book, as a record of my thoughts worthy or faulty, and hope that fellow comrades in the faith will join in. Thanks in advance!

ultimate raison d’etre: Use of contraception is a private matter, as are decisions regarding its use. This does not, however, make the moral aspects undeserving of public attention or discussion. Insomuch as (absolute) morality is involved, there must be public discussion. So here goes.

Wait, one more thing: (Is the suspense killing you?) One of the reasons this topic is so hard for me to write about is that the ramifications are so far-reaching. The process of thinking through them has been mind-boggling. I’ve always been a sort of “all the pieces have to fit” kind of person; before I can accept something, it has to bear out under every kind of scrutiny I can come up with. Naturally, not every worthy thing passes this test, nor does the test work for everything. But I’m looking for a certain basic consistency. I came to believe in the truth of the God of the Bible because it was the one explanation that repeatedly seemed to ring true no matter what question I could throw at it.

Sometimes, however, this consistency or lack thereof is something I can only sense rather than articulate.

(Don’t say I didn’t warn you...) Now on with it:

There is a philosophy in Christian circles known as “Quiverfull”, based on Psalm 127: “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it... Children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is a reward. As arrows are in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” From this verse (and a few others), the Quiverfull philosophy finds that God does not desire those to whom He grants fertility to do anything to limit or prevent the blessings of this fertility (i.e., no contraception).

However, neither Psalm 127 nor any other part of Scripture states this explicitly (except in the case of Onan, in Genesis 38:9-10, which is not addressing contraception per se. Mr. Pierce has covered this already so I will not go into it further.) The verses on barrenness and child-bearing in the Bible seem to address those who have no children. The childless are reassured that God grants these blessings as a reward for Godly living. A response to that might be, “Then why do so many ungodly people have children?” But regardless, it’s clear that children are inherently a blessing from the fact that they are imbued with life. But of what sort is this blessing?

Children as referred to in these verses are not blessings in a sentimental or even instructive sense (as they may be viewed today) but rather are material blessings: the future of a family, community, tribe, or race. They are a defense against enemies, a help. In a parallel way, children can offer social protection and help in our current society.

My interpretation of Psalm 127: It is not by striving and building things in our own strength that we gain true prosperity; any worthwhile or necessary gain is granted (given as a gift) by the Lord. Likewise, the Lord grants children as a form of prosperity. A man with a “quiverfull” will not be put to shame when battling enemies because he has an “army” of children.

The point of the Psalm is to define true prosperity. Does this definition of children as prosperity hold true today? In some ways yes, and in other ways no. The issue is a societal one, not merely an individual one. But more on that later.

Along a similar line, another “quiverfull” response to the proposition of using contraception is, “if children are a blessing from the Lord, why would anyone want to limit the Lord’s blessings?” I would answer, "Well, because there are other blessings which also come from the Lord that may be 'withdrawn' when a family has more children than they can handle." But more on that later as well.

What of the “quiverfull” idea that the Lord “opens and closes the womb?” (Genesis 17:20, 20:18, 21:1-2, 29:31, 30:22) I agree that this is so (after all, He is sovereign), but I also believe that God has made woman’s reproductive system to work with a predictability nearly on par with, say, the ability of her GI tract to digest a meal. If a reproductively healthy woman has a reproductively healthy husband, her womb is pretty much guaranteed to be "open" several days each month. The exception would be if she’s ill or breastfeeding, but even then it may remain open.

Of course, I’m well aware that not every conception makes it to birth. But this fact does not affect my main point.

A parting question: Does the fact that a woman has an open womb mean that she is to accept its maximum potential fruitfulness (in marriage), regardless of other considerations?


Part II: "From Whence Shall My Help Come?" to follow.

edited for readability 10/7/04