11. More Logical Problems With NCC

What are the logical consequences of the NCC position? It is appropriate to examine a theory based on the logical consequences of it. Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified by her children” (Luke 7:38; Matt. 11:19). Here are some of the logical fruits of at least certain versions of the NCC position.

If Provan’s defense of NCC is true, then sex is logically unethical during pregnancy, menopause, or during the first two years of consistent breastfeeding.

Some reject Provan’s extreme “no sterile sex” position and simply say that breastfeeding is God’s method of conception control. However, that concedes the whole point since the length of breastfeeding is a human choice (one of the arguments against BLCC), and man’s will would be involved in making conceptions more frequent than every 2-3 years if a mother chose to breastfeed for only a few weeks or chose to breastfeed inconsistently or chose to supplement her breastfeeding (all of which would make the estrogen inconsistent enough that pregnancy could result while breastfeeding).

If conception control shows lack of faith, then so does any natural or allopathic attempt to “open the womb.” You cannot consistently hold to one and not the other. The two positions are logically held together. If the NCC position is a mandate that flows from the doctrine that God opens and closes the womb, then of necessity it means that women who have previously gotten tubal ligations may not reverse them and men who have gotten vasectomies may not reverse them, yet many NCC have done exactly that. They have repented of their sinful attempts at sterilization and have tried to get those procedures reversed. I applaud the reversal, but I fail to see their logical consistency. If it is lack of trust in God to ever use a condom (man’s technology injected into the marital act) then it is also a lack of trust in God to try to get scarred fallopian tubes opened up in surgery in order to enable pregnancy. Passivity on the one must be translated over into passivity on the other. One should then simply trust that God will open the womb rather than using a doctor to take dominion of that part of the reproductive process. Indeed, this fallacious view of faith/dominion should be applied to every other part of the dominion mandate (which NCC people inconsistently fail to do as well).¹⁴⁰

If conception control shows lack of faith, owning an insurance policy shows exactly the same lack of faith. In fact, many NCC advocates logically refuse to have insurance on their house, or to have life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, etc. They think that is a lack of trust in God. By extension, trust in God would rule out being in Samaritan Ministries. As I have explained already, it is a faulty view of trust. If we are to judge a position’s wisdom by its fruits (Matt. 11:19), then each of these points should make us reject the NCC position.

If the NCC position is Biblical, then a person should try to get the wife pregnant even if it guarantees her death. I have actually heard NCC advocates say this. (Of course they insist that they are trusting that God can do a miracle and save the life of the mother if He wants to, but they do not consider it to be their responsibility when God fails to do so.) This brings them into conflict with other commands about endangerment and commands related to nurturing and preserving life. When people make the purpose of “having the maximum number of children possible” more important than preserving the life of their wife, then their version of fruitfulness seems to almost rise to a level of idolatry.

I recognize that death can happen to a wife through child bearing on any theory of conception control or no conception control, but the point is intent – if the intent of a sexual relationship is to get pregnant when you know that it will most likely produce death, then it is wrong. So a good point to discuss would be this: “Would you be willing to endanger your wife’s life with a pregnancy if you were told that it would almost certainly do so?” If your answer is “Yes,” consider the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the sixth commandment (see chapter 12).

The “have as many children as you can” argument flies in the face of God’s mandate of a Sabbath year of rest for the land. If we are to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, then God’s concept of “good” fruitfulness for the land should at least be transferred over to the wife once every seven years (as a minimum). The NCC position of many does not allow for this.

The “have as many children as you can” argument should cause women to stop breast feeding as soon as possible so that the estrogen produced by breastfeeding stops suppressing ovulation.¹⁴¹ (Thus, the women in the Bible who breast fed till the child was three were not being as serious about being fruitful and multiplying as they could be.)