Outer Rim Territories

photo credit: GinaMig

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod – LCMS World Relief and Human Care, specifically the Sanctity of Human Life committee has released their long-awaited document on contraception use (PDF format). From the Preface:
 

The need for a study on the issues of contraception within Christian marriage was expressed in resolution 6-10 placed before the 2004 convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. This resolution, referred to the Board for Human Care Ministries, requested a study from the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Committee that had been recently formed. The Committee is organized and conducted under the auspices of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod World Relief and Human Care Department.

Resolution 6-10 called only for an opinion and guidance concerning the possible abortifacient properties of various types of contraceptive methods. However, the Committee found that some of the language of the resolution concerning hormonal contraceptive methods might be scientifically presumptive. 

The Sanctity of Life Committee decided that there was a larger question that must be examined first. Currently, the broader topic of whether contraceptive use of any kind under certain circumstances may be ethically and scripturally considered by married Christian couples is being re-considered in Lutheran circles. The Committee felt that a comprehensive study of this broader topic would serve the church and will be forthcoming as a separate document released by the Committee. This document, however, doesn’t attempt to address this broader topic. Resolution 6-10 called only for an opinion and guidance concerning the possible abortifacient properties of various types of contraceptive methods. This document specifically seeks: 

 • To examine the topic of contraception use within the framework of Christian marriage 

•  To study the possible motive and appropriate use of contraception within the context of marriage and Christian freedom; and finally to discuss the scientific method of action for various types of contraceptive products to allow for ethical, Christian decision-making.

 It is hoped that married couples will enter into these decisions with the guidance of their personal physician and pastor. While the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Committee recognizes that not every possible situation and motive for the use (or non-use) of contraception can be addressed within this study, it is offered with the hope that this discussion can provide guidance and a framework for decision making within the marriage union.  

The document (PDF format) gives a broader look at contraception use (despite saying it would not, pointing to a future document). The medical evidence and potential abortive nature is presented for various forms of contraception, as charged by the 2004 convention. This section is largely agreeable (except perhaps the so-called “Morning After” pill.) But their brief opening and closing theological discussions are disappointing at best. Simply put, the committee is informing us that they don’t or can’t inform us whether Christians can contracept in good conscience.

You might wonder why I occasionally blog on this topic. Someday I will be called to solemnize weddings. Will I charge the bride and groom to “be fruitful and multiply” according to God’s creative will or will I tell them to use their reason to determine how and when God’s command/blessing applies to them? Pastors, young and old are seeking wisdom in this realm. This document leaves us not with answers but rather questions. 

For the Theological Ethics course, I wrote a short evaluation of two 20th century contraception texts, both printed by the LCMS publishing house and Seminary professors. I would revise this weak response today but I would still urge you to consider the following quote in light of the released document: Evaluation of LCMS Contraception Texts:

The Christian leads a messy life, caught between two realities of sinner and saint. The sinner requires a legal code to keep him in check and to point out his inability to keep God’s command. The saint receives the working of the Holy Spirit in Word and Sacrament and by this gift keeps God’s command freely and willingly. The sinner is free to his will and so is bound to disobey and sin. The saint is bound to God’s will and so is free to live in God’s holiness. This side of the resurrection God has not destroyed the sinner or restored the man completely. In faith, the Christian awaits the resurrection of the dead and the new life as saint only.

This tension challenges the ethical living of the believer. He receives justification at the cross of Christ completely but he is continually being sanctified by the Spirit. This tension of “now and not yet,” between justification and sanctification, and between Law and Gospel tests the ethical decisions of the faithful. Is the believer bound to live his life under the command of God? Is the believer free to live according to the Spirit and guided by the Word? Both statements are true as long as the tension remains. The proper ecclesiastical and pastoral approach to ethical challenges is then also a matter of both bound life to the Law and free life by the Spirit.

We challenge the notion of private and public in our postmodern context. We are fascinated with the private lives of celebrities, glorifying their successes, and failures on evening tabloid television. Reporters scrutinize criminals in print and on video, delving into their psyche to ascertain what makes them tick. Yet, it remains taboo to tell anyone how to live his life unless he has opened himself to the public as a celebrity or through wrongdoing. Marriage, family, and matters of sexuality remain hidden under this veil of privacy. Individuals determine what is acceptable behavior by following majority practice, commercial marketing, the examples of celebrities, or deliberate opposition to traditional practice.

This organized chaos presents real conflicts with the ethical life of the believer. The church avoids being ethically descriptive (“you can or can’t do”) for fear of legalism. The church also avoids being ethically silent (“all things are permissible for the believer”) for fear of antinomianism. The ethical relativism of the postmodern world prefers antinomianism. The church historically favored descriptive ethics. Yet, the believer living as both sinner and saint require either words of command (Law) and gift (Gospel.)

A Lutheran ethical response is neither legalistic nor antinomian. A Lutheran ethic proclaims both God’s Word of Law and Gospel, with proper distinction and precisely to the need of the hearer. The church must adequately contemplate the challenge of our postmodern society. God’s Word must not be molded or shaped to fit these worldly ideals. It must remain unbound to our sinful will and unpolluted from worldly wisdom. Where the Word speaks in truth and purity, the sinful are condemned by Law and justified into faith by Christ’s justifying death and resurrection. Where this World is spoken clearly, the faithful are renewed and sanctified and empowered to live in harmony with God.

Maier and Rehwinkel rely on biological, psychological, and sociological evidence and proof to establish their position. Rehwinkel uses the same argumentation as Maier to justify what Maier denounces. Rehwinkel elevates reason over command. Maier presents this evidence as reinforcement for the Scriptural argument. In both cases, there is an appeal to reason in a matter of faith. The old man doubts the promises of God and relies on his reason, skill, or a whole laundry list of exceptional circumstances prohibiting childbearing. The new man trusts in God’s promise to provide not just children but the means to support and care for them.

Where Rehwinkel argues averse to a “halfway position,” this clearly is possible since we are both sinner and saint. Where God wills the sainted man would procreate freely (Genesis 1:28), he is sinner as well. Man corrupted flesh with the original sin. Disease, malady, and deformation resulted. All men now die therefore for Adam’s disobedience. Yet, while the old man has corrupted God’s procreative purpose, the new man freely accepts procreation as God’s gift. The new man does not rely on his reason or strength to believe in the benefits bestowed by God. The new man trusts in the promise of God through faith given by the Holy Spirit.

A distinctly Lutheran ethic response to contraception uses neither prohibits their use in all circumstances nor condones their use as beneficial. It understands the divine command of Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful and multiply” as a cross to bear. This cross is a burden for the old Adam who desires not the physical, mental, or social burdens of parenting, especially in cases of deformity or disease. This cross is a gift for the new Adam who receives the blessing of children with a faithful spirit.

For more commentary, check out the Lutherans and Procreation blog.

 

Related posts:

1. Luther on Marriage I stumbled on this terrific quote from Luther on marriage...
2. thinking-out-loud: The Marriage and Family of God thinking-out-loud: The Marriage and Family of God You cannot know...
3. Abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception For your consideration: Lutherans & Contraception: Contraception Discussions Discussing contraception...
4. LCMS contraception text evaluation In his second chapter, Rehwinkel defines it thus: “planned parenthood...
5. Lutherans & Contraception: Economics, Babes, and a Bedside Ethos Lutherans & Contraception: Economics, Babes, and a Bedside Ethos In...