9. Is BLCC Failure to Trust God?

General discussion

Is the exercise of all conception control a lack of faith? Many NCC advocates say exactly that. They claim that we must trust God to open and close the womb. However, this is a passive view of faith that contradicts almost every example of faith given in Hebrews 11:

By faith Noah… prepared an ark for the saving of his household… By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed… By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac… who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions… became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

Does the fact that God opens and closes wombs mean that man has no part in opening and closing the womb or that he has no part in planning how and when babies come? Is this not pitting divine sovereignty against human responsibility? I’ve already mentioned that in John 1:13 Jesus does not pit divine sovereignty against human responsibility when it comes to the area of conception. It might be helpful for the reader to review the theology of man’s dominion in conception that was discussed in chapter 2 before we seek to apply that theology in this chapter.

Illustration of protecting a baby

Let’s say that a wife is getting chemotherapy for cancer, and the doctor has indicated that they should not try to get pregnant during chemo since the chemo is guaranteed to either kill a child in the womb or at least do irreparable damage to that child. If the wife was sexually hungry during this time of chemo, would it be appropriate to engage in unprotected sex? I have had NCC advocates tell me that in such a situation we should “trust God to close the womb.” Would such “trust” not be tempting God in exactly the same way that Satan tried to get Jesus to “tempt” the Father in Luke 4:1-12? Satan in effect told Jesus, “You know that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot of God’s promises to become invalid. Let me give you one of God’s promises. Psalm 91 says, ‘He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you. In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ So why don’t you take God at His word? Why don’t you put your trust to the test by jumping off this temple and watch the angels carry you? Wouldn’t that be really glorifying to God?” And of course Jesus said, “No, it would not be.” It would violate the rest of the Psalm, which commanded Jesus to take responsibility in His actions.

In chapter 2 we have already seen that faith is never pitted against planning and responsible decisions. Planning for and spacing children is no more lack of faith than a farmer’s planning of his crops is lack of faith in God to prosper his crops. Many mothers have had to resort to progesterone therapy in order to maintain a pregnancy and prevent a miscarriage because their bodies are not producing enough progesterone. I suspect that most NCC proponents would allow for such therapy to save the baby’s life (though I have had one who argued that it must be progesterone intervention via natural diet and lifestyle – why, I cannot fathom). If being involved in opening or closing a womb is “lack of trust,” would not any progesterone intervention fit into the same category? I believe it illustrates the fallacy of the “lack of faith” argument.

Illustration of trying to conceive

What is true of preventing babies can just as easily be applied to conceiving babies. When medical technology can repair scarred fallopian tubes that have prevented a woman from getting pregnant for ten years, would it be a lack of “trust” to prayerfully get such a surgical procedure, and to begin conceiving children? I have heard several NCC advocates insist that this is just as sinful as conception control because it is failing to trust God to “open the womb.” They are at least consistent in their application of this faulty view of faith, but they fail to have such consistency when it comes to how they handle their crops.

We need to ask, “What makes medical intervention to enable a pregnancy to occur any different from any other kind of medical interventionism?” Why should a cancer patient have a passive trust of God to heal rather than trusting God through the means of medicine? There should be nothing wrong with applying other aspects of the dominion mandate (medicine) to this aspect of the dominion mandate (procreation) if our trust is in the Lord through those means.

Discussion questions

1. If attempting to open the womb with technology can be consistent with prayerful trust in God, why cannot attempts to close the womb temporarily with technology also be consistent with prayerful trust in God? Keep in mind that our position is BLCC (condom, rhythm) and not every form of conception control. These methods are methods that God can easily overrule and are consistent with ancient Jewish practices of conception control.
2. Though it is possible to use physicians, technology, and conception control in a way that does not trust God (see 2 Chron. 16:12), Scripture indicates that it is possible to prayerfully use physicians (Jer. 8:22; Matt. 9:12; Col. 4:14) and medicines (Prov. 17:22; Is. 38:21; Ezek. 47:12; Luke 10:34; Rev. 3:18; 22:2) in a way that trusts God. Can you see any application of this principle to conception control? It is not the technology itself that is the issue, but the heart. We believe it is very important to trust God and pray over every aspirin we take, every car ride we take, every intimate experience we have with our wives, and every attempt to either open or close the womb. It is not either/or but both/and when it comes to trusting divine sovereignty and being responsible stewards of procreation. The reason we are prayerful is that we know God can overrule and make our plans to no effect, but though God overruled many of Paul’s plans (Rom. 1:13), that did not stop Paul from continuing to “find a way by the will of God” that he could still fulfill his plans (Rom. 1:10,13; 15:22-24,29,32; 1 Cor. 4:19; 2 Cor. 1:17; etc.). Planning and faith are totally compatible.