NFP

Here is my perspective on why NFP is natural: Every other form of birth control involves bringing something else into the intimate act, whether it be a physical or chemical barrier. I believe there should only be 3 parties present in the physical union: the man, the woman, and God. Artificial or unnatural birth control adds another element, and that is my objection to it in general. (I have specific objections to certain types as well, such as the Pill.)

If you bring physical or chemical barriers into the physical act, you are (in my opinion) doing exactly that: placing some sort of barrier between the husband and the wife. Our culture trivializes and scientifies the act of marriage to the point that we don't see any significance to this. However, I believe that when we, during physical intimacy, place a barrier between sperm and egg, it detracts from the intimacy. You are, in effect, saying to your spouse that you do not give yourself wholly to him/her.

I don't know of a specific scriptural reference to back this up, but obviously I think it is a godly principle because it is the only method that uses the way God created our bodies to work, rather than manipulating sperm or egg, or hormones.

Jacob, those were some good thoughts.

Don't you think that you are de-trivializing and scientifying the issue to the point where it IS something signficant? I can't see how rigororously and mechanistically marching through the various elements of birthcontrol to conclude that they put a barrier between man and women isn't the same thing in method (though not conclusion) as those who do think its ok to use birth control? It seems like the depersonalization occurs, as you seem to claim, when you analyze sex into the ground.

But that's ok, because the real issue seems to be the barrier of some kind it places between husband and wife. In avoidance of the "analyzing" method, I dont' think its going to helpful to talk about the hows and whats of the barrier, the manipulation of fluids etc. I'll leave that for the doctors.

But this "barrier" idea. How is an agreement, and choice on both your parts as husband and wife, to abstain from "marital relations" not some kind of barrier between the husband and wife? I mean, that decisions, the intimacy wall between you, I'd have a hard time seeing how, from a certain perspective, its not just that: a big wall and divide.

One final quick note: appealing to "nature" and whatnot to ground life-principles, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Though its gotten the church into trouble at one point or another (natural theology). Further, the assumptions implicit to your argument for the "naturalness" of NFP can be used to justify the virtue of scientific achievement and medicine, and on and on until you end up with the virtue of condoms and the like. One just takes a bit longer, but the assumptions are the same.

I'd suggest better word choice: "Birth control" is, of course, always wrong. Contraception, on the other hand, is at least theoretically acceptable. Abortion is birth control. Condoms are contraceptives. In other words, it's theoretically okay to prevent conception. But once the person is conceived, birth control would be murder.

This is why the pill is wrong; every "birth control" pill on the market--without exception--has a two-fold function: 1.) the prevention of conception 2.) the prevention of implantation once conception has occurred. There are pills that doctors will say only use method (1.), but if you read the fine print, they use (2.) a small percentage of the time.

But as for the condom vs. NFP debate, I just think it's plain silly. If one's okay, the other is okay. There are a multitude of practical considerations, of course, but JQ's right about the weirdness of contraceptive imperialism.

I can see your point, Nick. I do think that is an important distinction, and I'd be satisfied if Christians could agree on that point. I will concede that the dislike of any type of contraception may be a matter of my personal dislike for it.

Josiah, I still make a distinction between introducing a chemical or physical barrier into the relationship, and having a mutual agreement to abstain. Yes, it is also (typically) a mutual agreement to use contraception, but I still contend that you are introducing a third party into the relationship.

I'm not attempting analyze sex; more accurately, I would say I'm trying to put the union of man and wife in its proper place as a "mystery," not to be interfered with by chemical or physical means. NFP recognizes this, and further, it celebrates the creative nature of sexual intimacy. By treating fertility with respect, it (rightly) glorifies it as part of the intimate act. Contraception, in contrast, says that we can separate the pleasure from the procreative aspect of intimacy. Does that

Jacob, thanks for your continuing thoughts:

Personally (both philosophically and experientially) I don't see much of a distinction between some kind of materialistic "barrier" and a more ethereal barrier grounded in a non-materialistic agreement. I see them as essentially the same thing: in the created world.

But you make a good point nonetheless about the "mystery" aspect. Irregardless of the exegesis of the passage concerning "mystery" to the sex act and contreception, I still think its fair to grant that there is a certain mystery or even magical (for lack of a better term) in the sex act (and I'm looking forward to in 7 weeks finally tackling that mystery).

But again, how does this "mystery" and special thing that sex is somehow deliniate no physical or chemical conraceptives in that mystery? I'm failing to see the jump from one to the other.

Now it could be that for some, taking time to put on a condom, could kill the feeling of mystery and spontenaity in the sex act. And I'd completel grant that as justification for not using condoms for that couple. How that ends up universalized, I have a hard time seeing.

But, if there is a strength in the argument of NFP over and against all other contraceptive means, its in the argument that those means somehow seperate sex from fertility and childbirth. Which then pushes us into a completely different argument.

If marriage is a mystery, sex is a mystery. If physical/chemical contraceptives kill that sexual mystery, then it somehow kills the marriage mystery (which many would argue, that those types of contraceptives are harmful to the actual marriage union). But this argument rests on the essential nature of sex in and to marriage, and isn't then, restraining from having sex, in itself somehow harmful to the marriage? Isn't that killing an essential element of the union and marriage, just like the physical and chemical contraceptives?

It's interesting to note that NFP is the only form of birth control explicitly forbidden by scripture.

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1 Cor 7:5

Nice. Its also interesting to note that one of the most explicit reasons for getting married, that we do not "burn with passion," is pretty contrarian to NFP.

I'd have to say that I continue to Follow Josiah's line of reasoning.

Ah, but if the couple has agreed to follow NFP, then surely they are "depriving themselves" (and I put that in quotes because I don't think that something like NFP is what Paul was driving at) by mutual consent, n'est ce pas? And neither is the deprivation permanent, but only for that 7-10 day window. So I'm not really seeing how NFP could be forbidden by Scripture (at least not with that particular verse in mind).

The only exception laid out by Paul is for devotion to prayer. NFP is deprivation based on contraception, not devotion to prayer.

You are correct. I was not reading closely enough.

But who's to say that the couple is not praying while they have agreed not to have sex? ;)

On a more serious and not-so-hairsplitting note, I still don't think that Paul was really referencing something like NFP. If I recall correctly, the context of that particular verse for the Corinthian church was that wives and husbands were depriving their spouses for manipulative reasons. And Paul lays into the idea that sex can somehow be used to gain control over your spouse in the previous verses. Furthermore, given the atmosphere at Corinth, a wife or a husband witholding sex from their spouse was likely to drive said spouse into the arms of a prostitute ("lack of self-control"), which is definitely not helpful to anybody involved. So I think you could say that this injunction is directed to the particular situation at Corinth, and not to NFP or similar ideas.

Now, I suppose you could argue that we live in an equally sex-saturated culture and that the 7-10 day window could drive, say, the husband to internet porn sites or what have you. But I'm not sure that line of thought holds water. :)

I think that line of reasoning does "hold water" actually. Even Christian people can be tempted to look at things they shouldn't, and we can apply what Paul said to today about not depriving one another. There's a reason people have sex even while not intending to procreate. I think husbands could be tempted very easily and NFP leads to that.

[offtopic rant: why do I have to give out my email address to post in this forum?]

Your point is well taken. Paul states that sexual relations are a duty of each person in the marriage relationship.

However, I still do not think that the context of I Corinthians 7:1-5 (or thereabouts) can be applied to NFP. Part of the problem seems (to me, at least) to be in the usage of the word "deprive". Given my understanding of the context of that passage, I say that "deprive" is used to mean withholding (sp?) sex with the aim of making your spouse concede some point or making your spouse perform some action for you (maybe "until you get breast implants" or "until you lose 40 pounds"). It is used very negatively here and this sort of behavior is reprimanded by Paul.

I simply don't think that the context of NFP fits the idea of "deprive" as stated above. I don't think it's too hard to go from your position to something like "Well, if I go on this business trip (conference, workship, etc.), I might be depriving my wife of sex when she wants it. Which would be sin and so I should stay at home." I may (and probably am!) misrepresenting your position somehwat, so please clarify a bit.

Furthermore, to assert that NFP leads to husbands (perhaps wives, but I don't have any experience with that) to be tempted misses the point, I think. To assert the contrapositive, "not using NFP leads to husbands not being tempted" is somewhat silly and, I think, dispensed with given divorce rates nowadays. To say that sex alone will keep the husband faithful doesn't cut it.

Sure, one way of helping to ensure that a husband will not be tempted is for his wife to have sex with him regularly, but let us also call the husband to responsibilty, viz. Proverbs 5:15-19. It does not say "Be exhilarated with her love when she is having sex with you regularly." No, the husband is called to be satisfied with her and her alone *at all times*.

And lest we forget, there are other things married couples can do besides sex which are well within the bounds of Christian marriage during the "downtime" of NFP. Sure, it requires some discipline, but then what aspect of the Christian life doesn't?

[small disclaimer: I am not married yet (although I will be in less than 14 weeks, joy!) and so I do not have the perspective on sex and marriage that my married brothers and sisters do. I welcome their comments and corrections]

Nathan,

I think you are stretching my arguments to the exceptions of life. Of course I am not saying that a husband should not go on a business trip. And let's use common sense and realize I'm not saying that the husband only loves or wants his wife during sex. That would be unscriptural and in a Christian marriage that should not be the case if every other area of life is healthy.

My point however was hit home by your last paragraph. A christian couple has the God-ordained right to engage in sex whenever they please. They should not have to restrain themselves from engaging in sexual intercourse with their spouse. It is unscriptural!

Mandy,

A small clarification, because I think we're going to agree to disagree on the issue of NFP: I am not saying that you were saying that the husband only loves or wants his wife during sex. I was mostly responding to your statement "I think husbands could be tempted very easily and NFP leads to that," which I think is not very well-founded.

First off, I was wondering why my comment counter kept going up up up and I finally found out where all the hub-bub was!

Oh, and I'll work on that e-mail to post requirment thing.

Nathan, a professor of mine once said, "I guess in theory a guy could say no." Now, its not gospel of course, but I don't think its an outlandish position by any stretch to think that a guy might be more prone to sexual temptation if he is not faithfully involved in the marriage bed.

This is not a universalizable maxim. This does not mean that all men will cheat on their wives if they practice NFP. Its just a possibility of being more likely.

I also think that a majority of men who are married, not all, might be more prone to sexual temptation if they use NFP. This is not of course, reason enough not to practice NFP, its simply a cautionary fact.

Nathan,

Your contention that sex is being withheld rather than merely "depriving" is not really all that relevant. If there is a difference to be found there it makes no difference as the end result is the same. Paul is not concerned with the motivation in this situation, but rather the end result. This is an argument from Christian utilitarianism. When married couples don't have sex when they have the urge to then they become susceptible to sin and so they should not be deprived of sex with each other, or have sex withheld by one member. NFP is clearly contrary to this facet of married sexuality, and so such actions are prohibited the motivation for doing so.

Tim

Josiah,

The (greater) possibility of sexual temptation is certainly something to be aware of using NFP. I don't think promoters of NFP would say that there's no "gotchas" in the method. My main concern is that sex within the context of marriage not be held up as a be-all, end-all to sexual temptation for the happy couple (but I don't know, maybe all of my sexual frustration and temptation will immediately disappear when I am married).

Tim,

You say, "When married couples don't have sex when they have the urge to..." Please explain to me how the earlier cited example of the business trip (and let us assume for the sake of the discussion that the duration of the business trip is roughly equivalent to the 7-10 day window of NFP) is therefore not accurate. Your position seems to say:

1) Married couples should be able to have sex whenever they want.

2) Anything that prohibits married couples from having sex whenever they want to is bad ("unscriptural" as I think you said).

3) NFP *has the possibility* (close to 1 in the long run, but not necessarily in the short run) of prohibiting married couples from having sex when they want.

4) NFP is bad ("unscriptural")

I think substituting "business trip" ("pregnancy", for an even more concrete example") for "NFP" in the above argument is perfectly legitimate. I am curious what grounds you have for rejecting one, but not the other.

Nathan,

the business trip and pregnancy are necessary restrictions. There's always going to be times that you want to have sex that you don't. However, NFP are unneeded restrictions. Married people should be able to have sex whenever they want. Obviously, we're not saying all sexual frustration flies out the window, but its a lot different when you can go have sex whenever you want (or know that you can within a couple hours) versus being a virgin.
-mandy

There is certainly a point when a business trip would be sinful. However, there is much more flexiblity because of the nature of sexual desire. Being far from your lover is far less likely to spark unfulfilled desire than being close to that person and unable to do anything about it.

There is also the intrinsic difference between business trips and NFP: Business trips are not taken with the intent of depriving a wife/husband of sex, while NFP is. Deprivation is clearly an act of will in the case of NFP, while a business trip carries with it neither the intent nor the deliberation involved with NFP.

My personal understanding of NFP, from several friends that use it as well as reading their book, is that those who use it are abstaining during that time because of prayerful consideration. They have prayed and believe that for whatever reason it's not time to get pregnant, therefore they choose to abstain during the fertile time. To them, this time is a time of prayer and fasting from intercourse.

I can see how people can draw the conclusion that NFP can lead to temptation for partners. I think this is a very valid consideration. However, the people who I have talked to have said that this period of abstinence is what actually draws them closer together in their marriage. The husband learns to have respect for the way God created the wife's body and because the two have agreed to abstain, they find other ways of showing love for one another that fill in other voids that may come from being able to have sex whenever they want.

I also believe that God does want us to exercise self-control in all aspects of our marriage, sex included. I don't believe that many married couples have sex everytime either of them want to. They for many reasons may choose not to do so. For example, the wife may be feeling ill (to use that age old excuse, "honey I have a headache") or the husband may be very tired and has to get up early the next morning. In both these cases they will put off sex for the sake of the other. Well, with NFP, a couple chooses to put off sex for 7-10 days because they have decided pregnancy is not optimal at this particular time.

My main reason for being pro-NFP (although we have not yet gotten to practice it) is that I believe that God created women's bodies to work in a cycle for a reason. Some may say this is a far strech but I wonder why God did not create a woman's cycle so she could get pregnant any time of the month, rather than during the short 3-4 day period each month, if He did not want us to be aware of and utilize His design...just some thoughts.

If you read one verse farther in the Corinthians passage, you will find this: (verse 6) "I say this as a concession, not as a command." It appears, from the context, to be referring back to the previous five verses. Based on this, I question whether or not this Scripture can be considered a biblical commandment (since it seems pretty explicit that it is not a command). I am particularly interested by Paul's use of the word "concession" (I quoted from the NIV). This would seem to indicate that he is writing to those who are tempted by a specific sin. Thoughts?

As Nathan pointed out, the passage seems to be directed at those who cannot control their passions. Paul seems to indicate that not all people cannot control their passions; he himself does not suffer from such an ailment. Are we saying that, based on this passage, the only legitimate reason for getting married is to control lust? That seems to follow from a strict interpretation *of this passage alone*.
Genesis 1:28 and 2:23,24 seem to refute this view; marriage has many more dimensions than lust control.

Of course marriage has many more dimensions than simply lust control. I also don't think the "burning with passion" idea Paul talks about carries the same negative conotations that using the word "lust" carries. The two aren't the same.

My point being, Scriptural evidence encouraging marriage is scarce. It comes in two places. The first is implicitly in the command to be fruitful and multiply (gotta get married to do that), and the second is explicitly in the "burning with passion" passage.

Other than that reasons to get married I feel are pretty subjective (NOT relative, just subjective). But now we're getting off topic...sorry.

What about Song of Songs? And Proverbs has quite a bit on marriage as well.

Yes, but neither give pre-marriage reasons for why to get married. They just talk about the pleasures of marriage (physical intimacy), or give advice on what is good/bad qualities in a mate (guidelines, but not justification).

Continue reading the rest of the verse and you'll see Paul was not talking about the guidlines he had laid down earlier within marriage, but whether or not to get married.

Anyone who claims abstaining from sex makes them closer to their spouse is either lying or fooling themselves. I know this from my own experience as well as scriptural assertions.

I am failing to see where Scripture says that abstaining from sex will drive spouses apart. Could you exegete this for me?

As for personal experience, supposing I told you that my personal experience is exactly the opposite?

I wonder if we will ever agree about the intent of NFP. You seem to be viewing it as an act intended to deprive one another of physical intimacy, on the same level as a wife withholding marital intimacy in order to obtain some favor from her husband (the latter being that which Paul's advice in verse five seems to be intended to prohibit). Is this really the same thing as mutually agreeing to abstain for the purposes of prayerfully considering God's will for one's family?

NFP is not prayferfully considering what God wants for your family. It's already having made a decision and carrying it out.

I didn't say it would drive a couple apart, but that abstaining doesn't bring a couple together, sex was created exactly for that purpose. Over and over again sex is portrayed as a joining together of two people. "Now this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones", and even more strongly in 1 Cor 6:16 "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?". A single act with a prostitute adn there is a unification that has been achieved.

Over and over through out scripture sex is seen as an act of unification, one that brings together, no matter how long the actual relationship. Can you not see this at work in reality? Simply look at the obligation exerted between a couple as physical intimacy escalates. It doesn't matter if the proportion of physical intimacy is far and above that of the emotional intimacy involved, the obligation still exists.

At this point I'm working 20 hours per week and carrying a load of 21 hours. Sometimes my sex life suffers, and when it does I can tell the relationship between my wife and I is not the same as usual. Right after sex my wife will often say "I feel so close to you now".

These are the reasons why Paul forbids abstaining from sex between husband and wife for any reason except for prayer (that must be the principle reason, not simply praying during enforced absention for the purpose of contraception).

Okay, I think I am understanding what you are saying. And I completely agree with you on the scriptural view of sex within marriage (definitely unifying). I wonder, though, if it is possible that less quality time together has as much to do with struggling to connect with each other as does the lack of time and energy for sex. And I wonder, too, if from couple to couple, as the dynamics of love languages differs, how important sex is to each relationship. Certainly a healthy sex life is paramount to a healthy marriage. But what a "healthy sex life" is for each couple surely can't be standardized, especially in regard to frequency. Do you agree?

I still have some questions, though, one related to technology and how it relates to morality. 100 years ago, when birth control was not so technologically advanced, what would a couple in you and Mandy's situation have done? For that matter, what if we weren't so technologically advanced now? God is telling you to wait to have children until you are ready (not to diminish your rationale, but is anyone ever really "ready" for children? :) So, what would you be doing? Would you just suck it up and trust in God not to give you a child until you are ready?

I hope that is a valid question -- perhaps it is not, and you can feel free to ignore it.

I also would like to know more about how one defines what a necessary deprivation is. When does a business trip qualify as necessary, and when is it sinful? I have had to work on second shift before, or thirds, and not even been able to sleep with my wife, much less enjoy sexual intimacy. Is that a violation of Scripture?

I know a couple who pray every time one of them has a desire for the other, to determine whether or not God desires them to come together and possibly conceive a child. Is that wrong? Is it possible that God is pleased by such actions? And if He is, then He certainly wouldn't declare them in violation of Scripture if He led them to abstain at that time.

Oh, and I think maybe you are making too many assumptions about the motives of other couples. When you write "NFP is not prayerfully considering what God wants for your family. It's already having made a decision and carrying it out," you presume that you know how each couple is in relation to God. The couples I know who practice it go into each cycle with an attentiveness to God's leading. When God tells them it is time for children, they stop abstaining.

Do you interact with anyone (internet doesn't count) who is using NFP? Have you discussed your concerns with them? What has their response been?

When you are putting NFP into action the decision has obviously been made.

100 years ago our situation could not have occurred. I would not have been able to switch vocations so easily, nor would I have had a need for a college education in order to carve out a healhty enough career to feed a family.

The need for sex need not be standardized. Paul's use of the word "deprive" answers it quite well. You can't be deprived of something you don't want. I hate lima beans, haven't eaten them since early adolescence, but I have not been deprived of them.

Quickie to Tim:

I know Paul was talking about reasons for marriage, hence my earlier post about the only Scriptural justification I've found for marriage is a. not burning with passion and b. multiplying.

Which brought me to the point of that last post, which was that there isn't "other" Scriptural justification for getting married.

Yes, the decision has been made for that cycle -- after prayerful consideration. Again, I ask if you know anyone who is actually practicing NFP. You are very quick to call them liars and/or fools; do you know the people whom you are calling liars and/or fools? I wonder, what do you think they gain from allegedly lying to themselves or others about the quality of their relationship after using NFP? Is it to make them seem more spiritual than others? Is there some other reason that would compel people who, from my experience, are otherwise very godly people -- some of whom, I might add, are in the same position as you and Mandy, in all respects (finances, school, etc.) -- to lie or practice self-deceit?

And what about the couple who pray about it every time?

Josiah,

I haven't looked up the references, but in Ecclesiastes there is the passage about 2 being better than one because they get a good return for their work. Whether or not it was originally intended to apply specifically to the marriage relationship, Christians have traditionally applied it in that way. Also, another Genesis reference for the purpose of marriage (along these same lines) is to help one another; Eve was created to be Adam's helpmeet. Just 2 more passages that came to mind about Scripture's take on the purposes of marriage. . .Proverbs 31 expounds the helpmeet theme, too, if you want to know more about that.

human vandals suck