Trusting God = Keeping Your NFP, Pills, and Barriers AWAY From Your Womb (?)

I’ve recently been involved in a conversation about “birth control and the Christian woman” with a group of ladies who mainly believe that family planning usually stems from a lack of trust in God’s sovereignty.  You can read the threads here: #1, #2, #3, and some further discussion on the topic is found here.  Obviously I’ve not been getting any popularity awards for my opinions.   

Edit 8/11 to add: [Woah.  I was just asked where my comments went on links #1 and #2, and I went to show the person and...my comments have been deleted, or have somehow vanished.  Just wanted to say I'm not full of it---I really was in a conversation over there, or, at least I thought I was].   

I used to be “Quiverfull,” though of the softer variety, which is to say I viewed any amount of family planning as probably (as opposed to always) stemming from a lack of trust in God—and I have the babies to prove it.  After my third baby in that many years, we recognized that my fertility was on steriods, despite breastfeeding 24/7, and began employing some spacing methods, but even then, felt a little guilty, even nervous, about giving my body a whole entire 12 months between pregnancies.  Hence my fourth and fifth child (children I am delighted to have, might I add).  

This post here (from a couple years ago) shares part of my journey out of the QF camp, a journey which I am now completely done with (as in, reached a settled conclusion and feel perfectly comfortable), though I’m very much still on The Way.  The way being Jesus, of course. 

Below are some of my questions and thoughts for those who believe that all married Christian women (except for the .01% that have legitimage exceptions, such as that they might die, and even then some raise their eyebrows) should be engaged in having as many babies as they can. 

Note: I spend a bit of time below on the subject of attacking, because regardless of how nicely I attempted to frame my thoughts (and I do admit that I could stand to do a better job of talking about such a sensitive issue, and am striving to grow in that area), many of the readers there were positive that I was persecuting the blog owner and commented accordingly.  It sure makes for a difficult environment in which to have any sort of conversation [unless you are cheering the blog owner, that is]. 

I understand that it is difficult to have people strongly disagreeing with your own personal position, but surely communicating our way through that divide, even if we end up still disagreeing, should be something we strive to grow in, as Christ-followers, not something we seek to stamp out.  I love the example that Kathy and Collen provide towards the end of this discussion on the Pearls at Tulipgirl’s blog.  Beautiful way to handle a very emotional topic. 

Anyways, back to the topic at hand:    

Kelly,

Serious questions ahead. This will probably be taken as an attack, but before that happens: IT IS NOT AN ATTACK.

I’d like to suggest that serious questions are not the same thing as an attack. It’s called conversation and respectful debate, but not an attack. An attack is when you attack someone personally. I’m not attacking Kelly personally. I have no reason to do that. She is a sister in Christ and she has the right to her opinions. However, she’s airing said opinions on a public blog and inviting conversation (by having a comments box). So here I am.

Someone who disagrees and asks questions and presents another way to see things is NOT the same thing as persecution. I’d love to see Christian women grow in this area, where we can have good strong discussions WITHOUT everyone throwing out the p-word and claiming persecution. Persecution is when people KILL you for your faith in God, it’s not when you have a different opinion than your brother or sister.

I think it’s fair to suggest that everyone here values life and desires to be AWESOME mommies to the children that they’ve birthed. We all love Jesus. We’re on the same page, as far as that goes, and that’s GREAT.

But sisters in Christ can have strong serious conversations…and that doesn’t mean anyone is attacking anyone. It just means we’re using our brains and really thinking and praying about serious issues. In other words, I can disagree with Kelly without “attacking” her. And I should be able to ask her some serious questions without being accused of attacking, just as she has the right to do the same to me. 

Kelly,
You said you *agree* with the commenter who said,

Just as my heart weeps for those that choose eternity in hell, my heart weeps for those that choose to try and close their womb from the Lord.

I would like some clarification about this. Do you believe that engaging in family planning is equal to souls spending an eternity in Hell?

If so, can you show me where that concept is found in Scripture? If not, I’d appreciate hearing Scriptural support from the woman who originally made the comment.

Can you show me where the concept of “have more babies than the unbelievers so we’ll be bigger than they are” is found in Scripture? Is that a concept that fits with the Sermon on the Mount? Is the Christian way truly to out-populate the non-Christians?

Also, can you Scripturally explain to me why it’s okay for farmers to give their fields a Sabbath but it’s not “trusting God” (except in situations you deem exceptions) for a couple to choose to give the wife’s womb a sabbath rest?

Can you Scripturally explain to me why you feel it’s appropriate to insert God’s command to Noah *into* the commandment Jesus gave to go into all the world and preach the Gospel?

Is the commandment given to Noah found anywhere in the New Covenant?

Can you Scripturally explain to me why Jesus refrained from preaching the gospel of evangelism through out-populating those who don’t follow Christ?

Doesn’t the concept of giving birth to Christians in order to have more babies than the non-Believers seem a little like bringing the Gospel in through physical means instead of through spiritual means?

Can you Scripturally explain to me how “trusting God” is equated with not controlling the womb. It doesn’t work outside of rich countries, it seems to me, so I’m wondering if it can be a true universal principle. For example, if “trusting God” means that the womb should NOT seek to be controlled by humans, then the starving mother in Ghana isn’t “trusting God” if she doesn’t open her womb to more babies when she can’t even feed the ones she has (and they *are* dying of starvation, Christian families just as quickly as non-Christian families).

These questions are shared with respect to you as a person, but with a good deal of challenge to the position that “fully trusting God” means that the womb will be left alone. If you feel that any of these questions are ridiculous, please show me how I’ve misunderstood your position. I’ve read you say many times that “trusting God” is leaving the womb untouched (except in very exceptional circumstances), so I think I”m understanding you correctly, however if I’m not, I would love clarification so that I can understand your position better.

From a woman who believes that human souls are truly made in God’s image, and that the ones currently living on this planet are worth me living for, but who emphatically does NOT feel that it’s appropriate for sisters in Christ to tell other sisters what they should or should not do with regards to their womb,
Molly