Santa Claus, Contraception, and the CRCNA (Part 3)

This blog is part of a three-part series on Santa Claus, Contraception, and the CRCNA. If you wonder how Santa became part of this conversation, please check out part one in the series. 

The CRCNA has a long history of dealing with contraception/birth control. The first mention that I found is from Synod 1906. 

For all curious people, and history buffs, I will allow Synod to speak for itself in this rather long post.

CRCNA History on Birth Control

Synod 1906

In response to an overture from Grand Rapids West: 

“That Synod earnestly warn all ministers of the Word against the sin of neo-Malthusinism.”

Decided as follows: This evil is a cancer gnawing at the society and moral well being of our existence, and is also a danger for our people. Every Christian, including the minister of the Word, is called to warn against this shameful sin.

Note: The neo-Malthusian movement was different from conventional Malthusian position on two counts. First, it stressed on birth control methods. Second, it identified the working class with the problem of overpopulation. The overcrowded industrial slums were identified as sites of moral degeneration.

Grand Rapids West in 1930 requests that words against the sin of neo-Mathusinism be part of the form for marriage. Synod does not accede to this request but points out preaching against neo-Mathusinism is entirely appropriate. 

Synod 1934

An Overture comes out of Synod asking for a study committee on birth control: first, whether it is biblical that men and women in general are taught how use to conception and second, whether it's biblical that men and women seek such information.

The Committee of Advice asked Synod to adopt the following:

1. In view of the widespread practice in our day of birth control; and in view of the fact that this is undoubtedly practiced more or less also in our circles; and in view of the fact that some of our members are perplexed and genuinely concerned to know the Lord's will in the matter —Synod should decide to appoint a committee to study this matter.
2. This Committee shall include a few of our Christian physicians.
3. The mandate 'Of this committee shall be:
   1. to make a thorough study of the physical and moral and social sides of this matter in the light of the "principles and implications of the Word of God touching this matter";
   2. to report its findings on these points to the next Synod;
   3. to prepare a testimony for possible adoption by that Synod.

Adopted. (Cf. Art. 169.)

Synod 1936

BIRTH CONTROL TESTIMONY

In view of the increasing sensualizing of marriage in our day, the steady decline in the birth rate not only in the world at large but also in the Church of Jesus Christ, and the alarming prevalence of practices which are contrary to the ordinances of God and violate the Christian ideal of marriage and parenthood, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, assembled at Grand Rapids, Michigan in June 1936 feels constrained to address the following testimony to the churches.

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, marriage is a creation ordinance instituted by God with a twofold purpose: the loving companionship of husband and wife in a lifelong physical and spiritual union...and the begetting of children in and through this marital love life. Scripture expressed both these aims in Solemn words of the Almighty Himself. The form in Gen. 2:18 :and 24, where we read: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper for him... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh." And the latter in Gen. 1:28, where, following the statement that God made man male and female, we read the divine injunction: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." 

In a fallen world, the sinful inclination of the human heart is to trample upon these ordinances of God and to pervert the functions of holy wedlock to selfish and unholy ends. In this way the sacred marriage union may deteriorate, and in many cases has deteriorated, into a life of sensuality and selfish indulgence. One such form of perversion of the marriage ordinance of God is seen in the refusal on the part of physically not married people to beget children, or in their failure, when able to do so, to reproduce the race adequately. Many look upon childbearing as an incidental instead of a primary function of marriage, as well as the idea that the size of one's family is to be determined by mere considerations of personal preference, instead of the ordinances of God, is apparently making headway even among Christian people.

In the face of conditions and practices occasioned by these perverted views, Synod desires to re-assert the Christian, biblical view of marriage and parenthood. In the light of the twofold scriptural principle stated above, there can be no doubt that it is the duty as well as the privilege of normally endowed married people to produce as large a number of children as is compatible with the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the wife and mother on the one hand, and of the children on the other. To be sure, the mother may at no time be sacrificed to the production of a numerous progeny. She is a spiritual personality, and together with her Christian husband, a joint heir of the grace of life (I Peter 3:7). But it is equally true that her supreme glory as woman is in motherhood. In the words of the Apostle, she shall be saved through her childbearing (I Tim. 2 :15).

The Synod has no desire to define the specific duty on this score of any given husband and wife. This is, in the last analysis, a distinctly personal matter, which husband and wife must settle in the presence of God and in the light of the best medical advice—Christian medical advice—available. Living as we do in a world suffering from the ravages of sin, certain conditions and circumstances may demand of Christians that they forgo parenthood, or that the voluntary limiting of the number of their offspring becomes their duty before God. While making full allowance for this personal and medical angle of the matter, Synod is convinced that it is the solemn duty of the Church to bear testimony against the growing evil of a selfish birth restriction and to hold up the sacred ordinances of God and the Christian ideal of marriage and parenthood, which are increasingly being ignored and flouted in our day. Childbearing and parenthood are to be held up as a basic aim of marriage. The glory of fatherhood and motherhood, which Scripture stresses so repeatedly, should be made real upon proper occasion in the preaching and teaching of the Church, and especially in the thought, the conversation, and the life of all who name themselves after Christ. Disparaging remarks about large families as such should not be heard, among Christian people. "Lo, children are a heritage of Jehovah and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps. 127:3).

In this connection, the Synod raises its voice in protest against the growing evil of the 'indiscriminate dissemination of contraceptive information, an evil against which even the American Medical Association has in its 1936 annual session gone on record on moral grounds,(Journal of the A. M. A., May 30, 1936, pp. 1911, 1912). Let Christian married people who are genuinely perplexed as to their specific duty at a given time rather consult their pastor, and, especially, some Christian physician, of whom it may be expected that his advice will be not only medically sound but also in harmony with the demands of Christian morals in the light of the Word of God. 

Finally, the Synod would urge all Christians in the words of the Apostle: "Be sober, be watchful" (I Peter 5:8). In these days of growing worldliness, let Christian people be on their guard lest ways of ease and luxury undermine their morals. Let young people who name themselves after Christ fight manfully against the subtle temptations of our day and in the strength of God live chaste lives. As they look forward to marriage, let them cherish truly Christian ideals in the light of the twofold purpose for which marriage was instituted by God.

Let parents seek to mold the thoughts and ideals of their growing sons and daughters so that these in sex matters may think and speak and live as becomes Christian young people. Let our ministers at the opportune time and in the light of God's Word speak words of wisdom and discretion to their people on the subject of marriage and parenthood. And let those who live in the state of wedlock by the grace of God make all things, also childbearing, parenthood, and Christian nurture, subservient to the coming of the Kingdom of our God and His Christ. 

Synod 1971

Defeated Overture

II. RESTUDY BIRTH CONTROL TESTIMONY

-Defeated

A. Materials:

1. Overture 26

2. Communication from Classis Northcentral Iowa

B. Recommendation: That Synod appoint a committee to study the church's testimony on birth control in the light of biblical principles and the problems arising from increasing world population and environmental deterioration and report its findings with recommendations to synod.

Grounds:

1. The 1936 testimony of synod needs restudy and revision to relate to the specific problems of today.

2. The existence of a contemporary testimony on birth control would be helpful to the church in her witness to the world

Synod 2003

Overture 5: Declare Birth Control to Be a Private Disputable Matter

I. Historical background

In 1936, the Christian Reformed Church spoke out against birth control, stating that married people should follow the biblical mandate to be fruitful and multiply and therefore produce as many children as is compatible with the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the mother and the children.

In response to an overture from Classis Grand Rapids East, Synod 1934 appointed a committee to study the issue of birth control in view of its widespread practice and the concern of church members regarding the Lord’s will in this matter. In an era of birthrate decline, Synod 1936 appointed a special committee that wrote the “Birth Control Testimony,” which synod adopted. It called married church members to fulfill one of the purposes of marriage, which is to beget children. It also testified against the “growing evil of selfish birth restriction” and “indiscriminate dissemination of contraceptive information.”

In 1971, three individuals overtured Synod to reconsider the church’s position on birth control in light of the concern about overpopulation, the possibility of governmental population control, the use of birth control devices, and the need for a clear witness to the world. Synod defeated a recommendation to appoint a committee to study the matter but urged those with special competence in these subject areas to serve the church with published articles showing a biblical perspective. Since 1971, the issue has not come before synod, though practice regarding birth control has changed considerably (see Acts of Synod 1906, pp. 52-53; Acts of Synod 1930, p. 140; Acts of Synod 1934, pp.125-27; Acts of Synod 1936, pp. 12, 136-38; Acts of Synod 1971, pp. 55, 132, 643-46).

II. Biblical considerations

A. Genesis 1:28

The statements made to Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” were understood by Synod as commands to prohibit birth control for every human being. However, they are not commands, since the Hebrew imperative mood (normally a command) that is used within the context of a blessing describes the result of the blessing, not a command. Even if these verbs are universal commands, then people would be sinning by remaining unmarried. Thus, by this train of thought, Jesus and Paul were sinning by choosing to remain single and never to have children. Instead, both Jesus (Matthew 19:12) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7) approve of singleness for the purpose of doing God’s kingdom work.

Furthermore, the blessing was promised to Adam and Eve in their perfect state to increase the number of believers on the earth and is the Old Testament counterpart to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Therefore, a couple may devote themselves to the spread of God’s kingdom without having children and still be living in obedience to these commands.

As a result, Genesis 1:28 does not prohibit birth control, which can be an expression of human’s subduing of the earth, when it is done with God-glorifying motives in prayer for the sake of God’s kingdom and according to God’s Word.

B. Psalm 127:3-5

Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate (NIV).

The Psalm begins and ends with references to a city in the Promised Land that is being defended by an army. Certainly, children are God’s gifts to be raised to believe in him, but this passage deals with the defense of God’s people as a whole by the “arrows” in their quiver. Besides, the usual military quiver held thirty to fifty arrows. Again, Psalm 127 describes God’s blessing, not his command.

C. Genesis 38:8-10

“The sin of Onan is spilling his semen rather than having a child with his bother’s wife.” The essence of Onan’s sin did not involve his use of birth control. Rather, Onan’s selfish refusal violated the legal requirement to provide his bother’s widow with a son so that the brother’s inheritance in the Promised Land would not die out (Deuteronomy 7:13,14).

In conclusion, these and other Bible passages provide no warrant for synod’s broad pronouncement against birth control.

III. Recommendation

Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan overtures Synod (1) to declare that a married couple’s decision whether or not to use birth control to prevent the conception of a baby is a private, disputable matter; (2) to urge married couples to determine the size of their families prayerfully and biblically; and (3) to encourage couples, in their family planning, to be motivated by a desire to glorify God and to further his kingdom and not by selfish reasons or fear of the future.

Grounds:

1. No Bible passage prohibits birth control that prevents the conception of life—unlike the sin of intentional abortion.
2. A couple’s decision about the number of children they might have—or whether they have any children—is a disputable matter to be guided by the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, not a matter for synodical pronouncement.
3. The personal decision of birth control is a matter of Christian freedom to be guided by prayer and the biblical principle of 1 Corinthians 10:31: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan Durk De Jong, stated clerk

Synod moves to table the majority report to consider the minority report. (Emphasis added)

C. Recommendations

1. That synod accede to Overture 5 and its grounds with the following amendment:

Replace the phrase in the overture’s recommendation 2: “ ...to determine the size of their families prayerfully and biblically...“ with “...to consider the size of their families prayerfully before God...”

[This change recognizes that we do not determine family size]. As amended the second recommendation will read:

“to urge married couples to consider the size of their families prayerfully before God.”

Grounds:

a. The overture is sufficiently different from the decision made in1936 (Birth Control Testimony, Acts of Synod 1936, pp. 136-38). These differences need to be explicitly stated and recognized. (Emphasis added).

b. Although there may be some implicit assumptions read into the1936 decision that allow for a small measure of freedom in considering family size, the flavor of the 1936 decision is that:

1) Birth control is biblically wrong in all instances. (Emphasis added)

In view of the increasing sensualizing of marriage in our day, the steady decline in the birth rate not only in the world at large but also in the Church of Jesus Christ, and the alarming prevalence of practices which are contrary to the ordinances of God and violate the Christian ideal of marriage and parenthood.

According to the teaching of the holy writ, marriage is a creation ordinance instituted by God with a two-fold purpose; the loving companionship of husband and wife in a lifelong physical-spiritual union, and the begetting of children in and through this marital love life.

In a fallen world the sinful inclination of the human heart is to trample upon these ordinances of God and to pervert functions of holy wedlock to selfish and unholy ends.

(Acts of Synod 1936, pp. 136-37)

2) It is a God-given requirement to maximize the size of the family.

There can be no doubt that it is the duty as well as the privilege of normally endowed married people to produce as large a number of children as is compatible with the physical, mental, and spiritual well- being of the wife and mother on the one hand, and of the children on the other.

(Acts of Synod 1936, p. 137)

3) Having children is a direct command from God applicable to every married couple.

According to the teaching of the holy writ, marriage is a creation ordinance instituted by God with a two-fold purpose; the loving companionship of husband and wife in a lifelong physico-spiritual union, and the begetting of children in and through this marital love life. Scripture expresses both these aims in solemn words of the Almighty Himself.

One such form of perversion of the marriage ordinance of God is seen in the refusal on the part of physically normal married people to beget children.

But it is equally true that her supreme glory as woman lies in motherhood. (Acts of Synod 1936, pp. 136-37)

c. Contrary to the intent of the1936 decision, (emphasis added) we need to allow a husband and wife the freedom to prayerfully before God choose not to have children and instead focus all their energies and abilities toward specifically directed Kingdom work (e.g., missionaries).

—Adopted

2. In keeping with the request of Overture 5, synod

a. Declares that a married couple’s decision whether or not to use birth control to prevent the conception of a baby is a private, disputable matter;

b. Urges married couples to consider the size of their families prayerfully before God; and

c. Encourages couples, in their family planning, to be motivated by a desire to glorify God and to further his kingdom and not by selfish reasons or fear of the future.

Grounds:

1. No Bible passage prohibits birth control that prevents the conception of life—unlike the sin of intentional abortion.
2. A couple’s decision about the number of children they might have—or whether they have any children—is a disputable matter to be guided by the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, not a matter for synodical pronouncement.
3. The personal decision of birth control is a matter of Christian freedom to be guided by prayer and the biblical principle of 1 Corinthians 10:31: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

—Adopted

Next Time: Some things to wonder about...