Children are a blessing

Perhaps an area where Lutherans and Reformed men and women can agree is on Luther's interpretation of the essence of Onan's sin.

Luther writes:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into 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.

Calvin writes of the same passage,

And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 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. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses' mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthy cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman, ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly. Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as a inhabitant of the earth. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

It's not just Luther and Calvin who were firmly convinced that birth control is a violation of God's creation order. Augustine, Wesley and others joined in viewing the story of Onan as a warning against the sin of birth control.

To download a PDF document on the sin of Onan and its relationship to the modern practice of birth control, click here.

Or for the same content in less legible format, continue on to the remainder of the post containing a Sunday evening sermon on the sin of Onan.

Although I'm not a Limbaugh listener, I'm sad to hear of another failure in his life and hope there will many praying for him. Meanwhile, his pending divorce is the occasion for another wise piece on the harm birth control causes to family life, and particularly marriage.

Contra the author of this piece (and most orthodox Roman Catholics), I am not of the opinion that NFP (natural family planning) is categorically different than other forms of birth control, although I can appreciate the sincerity of some of the arguments in that direction. Still, this piece does a good job bringing to the fore several aspects of the debate over birth control that ought to be considered.

Reading the book reviews in the latest (June 2004) issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, I came across a review of a recent issue by InterVarsity Press titled, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, by Stassen and Gushee. Here is a quote from the work:

...limiting family size not to what the family can afford but to what the world can afford is a clear moral duty.... Ethically appropriate birth control and practices of sexual responsibility are needed ecological practices in our age.

To speak of the use of birth control as "ethically appropriate" is to claim it to be a spiritual duty, and this is wicked, setting on its head the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply," as well as His command to His Church to "propagage a godly seed."

But much less, does anyone at IVP know or care how boring they are, now that they hawk stuff that was on the op-ed pages of the New York Times years ago--stuff that the Times has long since left behind now producing pieces on the dire straits the world is in due to the birth-shortage that prevails across the western world and is quickly overtaking the southern hemisphere, also?

I mean, you'd think that a 500 page volume on evangelical ethics could at least have checked with the secular demographers before writing such nonsense, not to mention checking with the Word of God and the Author of that Word, the Holy Spirit.

Here's a suggestion that I've been following for years, although not absolutely consistently: Only buy from publishers that honor God and His Word, unless you're buying the books used or remaindered.

Yes, IVP has a good back list and occasionally issues a good new work, but God-fearing Christians ought not to patronize them given their worldliness. I have no problem patronizing Marriott properties owned by Mormons, but I will not make common cause with men who claim to be under the authority of God's Word, yet call evil good and good evil.

(I might mention that my dad, Joe Bayly, was director of IVP from 1951 to 1960, so I take IVP's unfaithfulness to Scripture quite personally, viewing it as an attack upon my patrimony--not to mention our Patrimony.)

So now Slate runs a piece informing us that professional women who are hesitant to derail their high-octane careers for the sake of motherhood will be able to pay to have good eggs from their young ovaries set aside in the freezer, to be used later when they decide it's safe to take a break for (sort of) motherhood.

As every Christian should know, in vitro fertilization (IVF) normally involves, in Jerome Lejeune's apt phrase, keeping little babies in the fridge awaiting implantation in the mother's womb; and then, eventually, disposing of those babies who turn out to be extraneous.

For this reason I am opposed to IVF. Why would followers of Jesus create multiple living babies, keeping them in the fridge, so that one or two of them could win the lottery and be implanted in their mother's womb (while their siblings who lose that lottery are killed)?

But take IVF and add to it sodomite marriage and national health care and you produce a witches brew.

It's reported in The London Observer that there's a growing debate in the UK over whether the national health care system must provide these new sodomite couples with the same fertility assistance provided heterosexual couples already; and specifically, whether the old criterion of an IVF child having both mother and father in the home has now been rendered obsolete? Suzi Leather, head of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, says, "The debate over whether IVF children need a father is controversial, with the British Medical Association's ethics committee understood to be divided."

Smartdykes.com reports:

Campaigner Ben Summerskill...said, "There is no evidence that this legislation (requiring the presence of a father) ... has actually protected anyone from anything, and there is a range of US research which suggests that children who grow up in gay families are just as well balanced and developed as children who grow up in heterosexual families."

...Professor Alison Murdoch said, "We have to stand back from it and say, what is the evidence that there is any harm to anybody from them having a child? Children need to be brought up in a loving, caring environment: it's the loving care that is important, not the sexuality of the parent," she said.

I do wonder whether PCA teaching elders who publicly called for the repeal of anti-sodomy laws have arrived at remorse yet? Sadly, I bet not. Rather, they're likely denying any necessary connection between...

the legalization of sodomy, and

the legalization of sodomite marriages, and

the necessary provision of IVF to sodomite couples, and

the intentional and state-sanctioned robbing of children of their father?

This poem came from a little, battered volume owned by a friend. Edgar Guest was known as the "People's Poet." His poems were sentimental, but this one rings forever true...

Rich

Who has a troop of romping youth
About his parlor floor,
Who nightly hears a round of cheers,
When he is at the door,
Who is attacked on every side
By eager little hands
That reach to tug his grizzled mug,
The wealth of earth commands.

Who knows the joys of girls and boys,
His lads and lassies, too,
Who's pounced upon and bounced upon
When his day's work is through,
Whose trousers know the gentle tug
Of some glad little tot,
The baby of his crew of love,
Is wealthier than a lot.

Oh, be he poor and sore distressed
And weary with the fight,
If with a whoop his healthy troop
Run, welcoming at night,
And kisses greet him at the end
Of all his toiling grim,
With what is best in life he's blest
And rich men envy him.

...Edgar Guest

Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.

Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, (and will) fight against us...." ...so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites. (Exodus 1:8-10a,12b)

The Egyptians were afraid of the Israelite's fecundity and their leader, Pharaoh, came up with an idea which he thought would solve the problem. This solution was intended to protect the wealth and privilege of his subjects from what he perceived to be the serious threat of the burgeoning population of Hebrew slaves. Though, like Herod's slaughter of the innocents, Pharoah's final solution has since become a symbol throughout Judeo-Christian culture of pagan cruelty and oppression, today his solution bears a striking resemblance to the strategies International Planned Parenthood Federation (I.P.P.F.) and the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (R.C.A.R.) propose to hold off what they refer to as "the population crisis."

What was Pharaoh's solution?

He ordered all male children born to the poor Hebrew slave women to be killed immediately. At first this was to be the duty of their midwives but when the godly midwives subverted his strategy, Pharaoh proclaimed that this responsibility was now on the shoulders of all Egyptians.

The connection between our world and the world of Pharaoh, the Egyptians, and the Hebrews of Old Testament times is obvious when we take a look at the attitudes and political solutions put forward by our own ruling elite...

In a recent post titled, "Birth control; from the mouths of babes...," I told of my daughter Hannah's wise observation that since Satan is completely evil, he can't have children. Then I wrote of the precious promises God gives to those who belong to Him--specifically that "He'll bless us with fruitful wombs..." And as just one among many hundreds of such promises strewn liberally throughout God's Word, I quoted Deuteronomy 28:

The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will be afraid of you.

The LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground, in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. (Deuteronomy 28:9-11)

To which a reader responded:

Tim Bayly's point, after all the math is done, is that bearing children serves as a defining mark of somebody's membership in the Covenant. I know Tim Bayly personally and doubt that he believes the above, but his post seems to indicate this. Furthermore, I don't see how Tim's scripture citation serves to establish his point.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it's hard for me to understand how the above statement has any connection to what I wrote. I simply stated a truism, that God promises to bless the godly with the fruitfulness of their crops, cattle, wives, and lives. I stated nothing even remotely approaching the statement that bearing children is the defining mark of membership in the Covenant.

The promise of God is His promise--not ours. And His promise is not that every single individual believer will give proof of their membership in the Covenant by bearing children, but rather that He will bless the righteous with fruitfulness...

From my wife, Mary Lee: On Friday night I read the blasphemous article by Mark Morford from SFGate.com that David links to on his Oct 28 post "America's Fertility Hatred." Then Saturday morning I attended a wedding shower for a young couple in our church. If Mr. Morford thinks Christians are asexual, it's clear he's never attended a bridal shower full of healthy, fun-loving Christian women. The jokes, laughter and frivolity are infectious, but no doubt Mr Morford would be disgusted by a blushing young bride, so obviously a virgin.

Here are some more adjectives that Mr Morford uses to describe Christians; creepy, unhinged, sad, lost, troubling, bizarre, weird, pathological, homophobic, wanton breeders, neoconservative and environmentally destructive. Would all of you who resemble this description please stand up?

Genesis 38:9. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.

10. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him also.

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him.

And this is what I meant when I said that the probity of those who kept this law was outstanding. For it is a great burden to serve another by raising up and preserving descendants and heirs, to beget children for others, to rear and nourish them, and to leave them a patrimony--and all this in the name of a dead brother. The world knows nothing at all of such love. It is a great annoyance to be only a guardian and tutor of wards, which customarily takes place nowadays according to Roman law. How many complaints and what perfidy are found there throughout the whole world! For it is a difficult task and a mark of outstanding love to be faithful and diligent in protecting the goods of others. Accordingly, this law includes the most ardent love. That worthless fellow refused to exercise it. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.

Luther, M. (1999, c1965). Vol. 7: Luther's works, vol. 7 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Here's an excellent piece pointing to the contempt for motherhood so pervasive within our culture. May the Church be free of such contempt, instead honoring those godly women who follow their mothers-in-Israel in giving themselves to their husbands, children, and homes, presenting their "bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is (our) spiritual service of worship" (Romans 12:1).

(Thanks, Kevin.)

Genesis 38:8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

And why has Paul said: 'If he cannot control himself, let him marry?' Surely, to prevent incontinence from constraining him to adultery. If, then, he practices continence, neither let him marry nor beget children. However, if he does not control himself, let him enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse. There are some lawfully wedded couples who resort to this last, for intercourse, even with one's lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, whenever the conception of offspring is avoided. Onan, the son of Judah, did this very thing, and the Lord slew him on that account. Therefore, the procreation of children is itself the primary, natural, legitimate purpose of marriage. Whence it follows that those who marry because of their inability to remain continent ought not to so temper their vice that they preclude the good of marriage, which is the procreation of children.

Augustine of Hippo, De adulterinis coniugiis ad Pollentium 1b.II c.12 (PL 40 [1887] 479B). Quoted from Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930)

We whites of northern european extraction have chosen money over babies, drugging our marital beds into sterility. We've aborted some forty million or so of our children. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic hispanics make fruitful love and our nation is becoming their nation. Graciously, though, they reassure their elderly Protestant friends who are dying out, "We speak English."

Almost, I don't mind.

I know "illegal aliens" is a retro expression, but it's nevertheless correct. And Pat Buchanan has just written a book on the subject titled State of Emergency. The book is currently ranked number one at Amazon.com and Joe Sobran reviews the book here. When Buchanan and Sobran agree, it's worth noting.

Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house,
Your children like olive plants around your table.
Behold, for thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD. (Psalm 128:3,4)

Dad used to say, "God is no man's debtor." We give ourselves to Him; we take up our cross; we sacrifice for His Kingdom; we obey His Word: It's never wasted--absolutely never.

God's people were being unfaithful in their tithing and He sent them this message:

"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.

Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the LORD of hosts. All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land," says the LORD of hosts." (Malachi 3:9-12)

We're to run the numbers, aren't we? God Himself demands, "Test Me now in this."

Some of us have taken the challenge. We've brought the whole tithe to the Lord, we've run the numbers, and we've found--what?

That God is no man's debtor. Whatever we give to Him He gives back in spades. Unbelievable blessings pressed down and running over.

I'm guessing this truth (and likely even this text) have been preached in your church in the past year or two. It's a perennial favorite with pastors working to meet the budget. We're thankful for Malachi's crispness and clarity when we approach the financial needs of our congregations but we seem blind to its application elsewhere.

If God blesses those who honor Him with their money, won't He also bless those who honor Him with other treasures He's placed under their stewardship? Do we honor God with our land? Our home? Our cars? What about our academic degree or administrative ability? Our children? Does God receive His rightful portion of everything He's given us, or are we penurious, tight-fisted, stingy, and sterile?

Take sex.

Note: This afternoon, I received the following E-mail from a young man in Church of the Good Shepherd. I've changed the text of his letter, slightly, to protect his and others' privacy. Following his question is my response.

Dear Tim,

Recently, I was speaking to a believer who does not currently share with his wife a desire to have children. I cited Malachi 2:15, where God joins man and wife so that they produce a godly seed. Surprisingly, I found there is a discrepancy in translations. The New American Standard Bible reads:

But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.

Compare the New International Version:

Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

There are major differences here in meaning, and I am perplexed. In the NASB, the rebellious man desires the godly seed, not God. The NASB then footnotes the standard translation. Can you shed any light on this?

In Christ,

John Doe

* * *

Dear John,

The translation of Malachi 2:15 by the New American Standard Bible and its updated version, the New American Standard Version Updated (1995), is poor. The Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, and the New King James Version all follow the King James Version which reads:

And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

To defend the NASB95's choice, some lines of thinking from Jewish times believed this text to be a reference to Abraham's taking of Sarai's servant, Hagar, in order to gain the offspring Sarai was not providing him. Thus it would be Abraham who was desiring "a godly offspring" and becoming a polygamist to that end. So then Abraham is here reproved by the prophet, Malachi, for violating God's universal law that "two should become one," not three.

Historically, though, John Calvin is typical of the understanding of this Hebrew text shared by our church fathers:

Add this potential bit of natural revelation to the arguments against birth control from the Word.

A young father of four, not in our congregation, sent me this picture to announce that he and his wife are now expecting their fifth. He added the following comments:

The bedside table just as I found it (okay, I turned the book around so I could read the cover) the day (my wife) phoned me with the news. God moves in mysterious ways.

Bayly Grace Ummel was born earlier this afternoon to our daughter, Heather, and her husband, Doug Ummel. She weighs 9 pounds, 15 ounces, and is 21 inches long. She joins three brothers--Jonathan, Nathan, and Josiah.

Bayly was born at home with Heather's sister, Hannah (in picture holding Bayly), and my dear wife, Mary Lee, in attendance. Heather was herself born at home, so Bayly is a second generation home birth. Join us in praising God for this, His latest blessing.

Our delightful second-born has reached age 16. Happy birthday, Elizabeth.

(by Tim) A woman named Liz left this comment under our post, Be Fruitful and Evaporate, and I'd like to ask our kind readers to respond. What she says is perfectly in tune with the thinking across the church today and I'm hopeful some of you would be able to provide helpful direction to Liz, as well as the many others who, like her, are in churches where pastors, elders, and older women are equally confused on these matters. Here's what Liz wrote...

To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. -G. K. Chesterton in What's Wrong with the World

(by Tim) If you want to be delighted, again, at the divine beauty of a mother and her children fending their way through this thing called LIFE, read this Ebay Item Description of a set of Pokemon cards being sold by a mother of six. Then check out her blog.

(Thanks, Heather and Hannah.)

(Tim) On the way to Spokane, it's my third flight of the day, but we're delayed due to some thingamabobber on the front of the wing that's not responding to the watchamacallit. So more interesting tidbits from the Times.

In the business section, there's a short piece on singles in the corporate world who are whining about how unfair it is that parents get perks they don't get. If working mothers get time off or flex time to care for sick children and to give birth, why shouldn't they get time off to go to Jamaica?

Family friendly benefits are starting to generate a backlash among those people who do not have children. Childless singles feel put upon, taken for granted and exploited…by married and childrearing co-workers.

The article tells us "a growing number of childless workers are answering 'no' to questions like… 'Is it fair to offer a working mother a flexible schedule but not provide the same option to a woman without children?'"

Anyone care to answer their question?

For myself, I'd start by saying one of the great injustices of our country is the terrible burden working mothers are forced to bear, particularly those who are single...