Lutherans and Procreation

Excellent post at CSPP

2011-12-08T14:49:00.002-05:00

http://concordiansisters.blogspot.com/2011/12/one-of-those-comments-that-becomes-post.html

Why Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

2011-11-08T07:00:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/why-mississippis-personhood-law-could-outlaw-birth-control-212609540.html

Oh, Jesus Christ! How Bright and Fair

2011-11-07T18:09:00.000-05:00

A beautiful hymn praising God for the gift of children.

http://sword-in-hat.blogspot.com/2008/06/oh-jesus-christ-how-bright-and-fair.html

Note especially these verses:

5. O wife! the Lord has chosen you
That from your womb shall life anew
Increase the Church and build it
This wondrous work forever mounts,
The mighty word His lips pronounce:
What here you see, shall yield it
Handsome
Shall come,
Sons and daughters
To the waters
Of Salvation
Finding grace and good vocation.

6. Be of good cheer, for this decree
Is not a human father's plea:
Our Heav'nly Father gave it,
Who loves us through the coming days
And who, when grief upon us weighs,
Will give us strength to brave it;
Blest end
He'll send,
As we're doing
And pursuing,
Or conceiving,
Wise and happy children giving.

LCMS President Matt Harrison on "Be Fruitful and Multiply"

2011-11-03T12:18:00.000-04:00

For those of you who did not have time to watch the video posted below, I have transcribed President Harrison's comments about the Missouri Synod's dismal birth rate and the divine ordinance "Be fruitful and multiply."

There are three things that are really hitting the Missouri Synod as much as anything. We're doing, I mean we're doing better than a lot of churches of course. But we've had a continuous slow decline over the last 50-40 years. I think 30 years ago was the last recorded yearly increase in our membership. Forty years ago, says Larry. That's all right, he'll, as he becomes president and becomes more and more of a fundraiser he'll become less and less of a historian. [Laughter] The biggest challenge we face is the birthrate. The birthrate of the Missouri Synod that is overwhelmingly white, descendent of European people in this synod - the birthrate of our church body has simply followed, mirrored, the broader birthrate of the United States among descendants of northern Europeans. That's a fact. There's hardly a single family out there that you're related to that has more children in the latest generation than it did in the previous generation. Now, do I expect any wholesale turnaround in this phenomenon? No, I don't. There are all kinds of intense pressures upon us. However, I think it's time for us to preach "Be fruitful and multiply." That's what the Bible says. And we ought to encourage young people and families who have the ability to have families. And encourage them. The church needs to be a place... It's no time to despise family ministries. It's no time to despise those kind of diakonic efforts in the church to care for marriages and families, etc. It's time to redouble our efforts in those areas and it's time to speak clearly that it's a good thing to have a large Lutheran orthodox family. If Muslims are having an average of 4.2 children a piece and we're having 2.1 children a piece, I would say God would be really happy if we'd bump it up to at least 4.2 per family. Don't quote me on that. [Laughter]

Pres. Matthew Harrison, ACNA-LCMS Open Forum, CTS Fort Wayne, Oct. 27, 2011.

The second issue he mentioned was the attrition rate with our youth and children, and the third was missions - specifically the need for church planting.

Lutheran Witness: "Be Fruitful and Multiply"

2011-11-03T08:40:00.000-04:00

In his monthly Lutheran Witness article, President Harrison writes:

"Our LCMS birth rate mirrors that of the broader population of the U.S., which is at an all-time low. So, how do we best encourage our young people to treasure marriage and have children? How do we make the point in a freeing Gospel-oriented way? How do we encourage those capable of having more children to do so? How do we take concrete action in our congregations to care for children and encourage the adoption option? "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). It can be a God-pleasing act to have a large, loving, orthodox Lutheran family, and those who are able should not be diverted from this by any self-imposed "green" limit of 2.1 children per couple."

WELS college president poses the procreation question

2011-11-01T20:20:00.004-04:00

At a recent symposium on Lutheran schools, Rev. Mark Zarling (president of Martin Luther College) drew attention to the declining birthrate of his synod (Wisconsin) as well as others (Missouri and ELS). His data is drawn largely from a demographic study compiled by Dr. Ryan MacPherson, an ELS church historian. Zarling’s essay does not offer a definitive conclusion, but he does call for the church to examine its teaching and practice on the matter of procreation: “Has the Church watered down the Biblical testimony about the blessing of children, about the Lord as the author of life, about purpose and contentment in living a life of service to the Lord Jesus by serving another soul?” May the conversation Zarling has begun in the Wisconsin Synod continue, and may it bear fruit.

Here is an extended excerpt from Zarling’s paper (footnotes are omitted; most of them refer to MacPherson’s study):

You and I are concerned about the growth of the communion of saints, not the visible growth of an outward organization. At the same time, careful shepherds entrusted with flocks dare not overlook those statistics as a blessing from God that forces us to evaluate and analyze and PRAY. And as we turn over the data to expose some underlying causes, any minister of the gospel will be shocked at the realization that the worldview of death has infiltrated the homes and minds of so many people, including precious souls entrusted to our care.

Dr. Ryan MacPherson, a professor at Bethany Lutheran College, helps us to move the stones of the statistics around.92 His demographic study of the ELS showed a dramatic drop in birth rate during the history of that synod, from a birth rate of 3.77% in 1928 to a birth rate of 1.87% in 2008.93 Evidently other Lutherans also imbibed from the worldview that fewer children is better. The LCMS birth rate in 1961-2002 went from 3.34% to 1.33%, prompting a Missouri pastor to write, “Our church body has been complicit in its own demise by not emphasizing God's plan for procreation in marriage. We’re contracepting ourselves out of business.”94

Another partner in the old synodical conference had a similar history which resulted in a birth rate of 1.76% in the decade from 1999 through 2008.95 We WELSers are that partner.

Why such a precipitous drop in birth rates? Look at any population map and you will see birth rates plunging below replacement population in many continents. But why so among Christians, among people of the Word who believe children are precious gifts from God? They are taught that 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.96 Has the dominant cultural worldview convinced many people that an empty quiver allows one to substitute a heavier backpack of stuff for earthly life's brief journey?

One factor MacPherson identifies for this drop in birthrates is a thorny and emotional issue for many.97 I remember vividly the sometimes heated discussions in our dorm debates after a dog class that had any allusion to birth control. I commend to the reader MacPherson‟s study where he documents a clear shift among Lutheran theologians from equating birth control with sin to leaving it an open question and a matter of Christian freedom.98 His study gave me pause. Has the Church watered down the Biblical testimony about the blessing of children, about the Lord as the author of life, about purpose and contentment in living a life of service to the Lord Jesus by serving another soul? Neither time nor space allows us to explore other components of a culture of death in our country: abortion statistics that numb the mind;99 the crescendo of voices that raise the issue of euthanasia to the fore, whether discussing the terminally ill, or the weak and infirm, or simply the burden on society that a severely disabled person supposedly presents.

In an explanatory footnote (n. 97), Zarling calls for further introspection:

MacPherson outlines three possible causes for such declining rates among Lutheran bodies. First, the trend toward delaying marriage is identified. As more and more young adults aspire to college education, and then even a master’s degree, marriage and family are often postponed. Of special interest to this writer is an observation that MacPherson gleans from reading the work of Allan Carlson. “Today, college students typically graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in loan debt. The unanticipated consequences of this method for funding higher education become especially evident when we consider its effects on family formation, notably marriage and childbearing. Specifically, people assuming student loan debt tend to marry later, delay childbearing longer, and have fewer children during their lifetime.” Last May, 78.2% of the graduates from MLC graduated with debt. The average indebtedness was $22,176. This is of grave concern to me. Do we then unintentionally force our graduates into marriage and family decisions that don’t reflect the Bible’s priorities or a fourth petition attitude? Or have we unintentionally proclaimed a message to our students that the blessing of training to serve the Lord in gospel ministry is a greater or more important goal than the blessing of having and rearing children?

Thank you, President Zarling, for asking these soul-searching questions. May a renewed study of the pertinent Scripture passages bless your synod with a deeper appreciation for God's gift of children. And may the parents and pastors in your synod teach their little ones what a privilege it is to be made the children of God through Christ Jesus our Lord!

LCMS President Matt Harrison says "Be Fruitful and Multiply"

2011-11-01T19:31:00.000-04:00

Set the little ball at the bottom of this youtube video at 9 minutes and 20 seconds into this video and listen to President Matt Harrison recommend giving heed to the divine command to "Be fruitful and Multiply" and have large families in the LCMS.

What Do Marriage and Fertility Have To Do With the Economy?

2011-10-11T19:55:00.001-04:00

Find out here:

http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6464634/SDD-2011-Final.pdf

The Church is Fruitful for Christ

2011-10-10T11:00:00.003-04:00

He Her Honour and She His Glory
by Pastor Vernon S. Grieger, 1994, pages 107-109 & 120:

THE CHURCH IS FRUITFUL FOR CHRIST

"It is most obvious that the Church as the Bride of Christ, is not to remain sterile and unproductive, but is to be fruitful for Christ her Lord. This was taken for granted from the very beginning. Already before his atoning death and resurrection, when there were only relatively few disciples, Christ sent them out to proclaim his Word and gather others into the kingdom of God. Before his ascension into heaven Christ again gave his disciples the great commission to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations, “baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19f.). The church heeded this command and through the preaching of the Word, thousands were soon added to the Church (cp. Acts 2:41, 47). The apostles and numerous other Christians took the Gospel to all parts of the then-known world so that the Church grew and multiplied greatly. Throughout history the true Church has always been a missionary Church, intent on spreading the Gospel, calling people into the Kingdom of God, and nourishing them in the faith.

"In a similar way it is God’s intention that marriage, is not to be sterile but fruitful in the sense that a couple are to have children, and multiply. Already soon after their creation, the Lord blessed Adam and Eve, and said to them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Genesis 1:28). Just as the Church is to multiply because of her relationship with Christ her Lord, so the wife, because of her relationship with her husband is to be fruitful and bring forth children. This is to be seen also as a great blessing (cp. Ps. 127:3-5). The trend of so many modern couples to avoid having children, and to regard it as a cross or an affliction is quite unbiblical. Ultimately it is the result of a misguided selfishness. Of course the presence of children in the family limits the freedom of the couple in certain ways, but it also brings great joys and blessings that nothing else can bring. To be a girl is easy enough, if you are born that way. It takes no effort at all, and is certainly no accomplishment. To be truly feminine is a charming art that does take some effort, but is admired by all. To be a successful wife requires special tenderness and loving self-surrender, but is the glory of womanhood. But to be a devoted mother is the ultimate achievement of woman that makes her a blessing that will live in the hearts of her children all their life, and which ultimately shapes the nation. While it does admittedly require effort and patience to be a good mother, this is what we need to become truly mature and understanding people. Children are meant to put us through the mill, and to try us in numerous ways. It is this agitation and friction that finally polishes us to become glorious gems that sparkle and radiate understanding and tenderness. It produces a beauty and glory in woman of the deepest and most lasting nature. It is her family and motherhood that truly perfect a woman and bring her to her ultimate glory, and in doing so also bring true honour to her husband. A woman who has selfishly avoided having children in her most glamorous years, may think she has an advantage, but when she is older, and ceases to be an attraction to those around her, especially if her husband dies, she will find that she has few friends that mean much to her and that life is not rewarding, as she must sit alone in her house, no longer loved and cared about. The mother of a well-managed family, on the other hand, will find that there are new joys, and precious highlights in her life right through to the end, as her children marry, and present her with one grandchild after another. She becomes the dear, understanding and gracious queen mother that is the center of devotion and admiration for so many.

...DOES MARRIAGE AFFECT THE CHURCH?

..."It would not be at all surprising if there is a mysterious connection between all the various imperfections and faults in marriage, and corresponding faults and problems in the church or congregation. This is not the place to spell this out, but it may not be an unrelated coincidence that the decline in growth and missionary zeal of the church coincides roughly with a time in which the mind-set of the majority of members was toward very small families or zero population growth. The fruitlessness of marriage may possibly carry over into the church or congregation."

[From the back cover: "Marriage, as instituted by God, is intended to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and his Bride the Church. This is the archetype from which our marriage is derived. The proper guide to marriage is therefore its archetype - the relationship between Christ and his Church. The true remedy for all marriage problems, therefore, begins with a proper study of the relationship between Christ and his Church, and is a careful attempt to apply that to man and woman in marriage. ...Pastor Vernon S. Grieger is in the active ministry of the Australian Evangelical Lutheran Church. He is the author of the book Earthly Images of the Heavenly Bride, dealing with the role of women in the Church. Together with his wife, Joyce, he enjoyed a rich and blessed marriage with a family of seven children."]

150 children

2011-09-06T10:49:00.002-04:00

Here is science/choice/sin run amok. You can see some comment here.

One does not even know where to begin.

The "Christian wife and mother"

2011-06-14T22:32:00.000-04:00

Wisdom posted by Gauntlets over at Concordian Sisters:

Susan Fenimore Cooper, daughter of James and an accomplished author in her own right, whispers this bit of sanity to those who would hear:
"A word more on the subject of home life, as one in which the interests of the whole sex are most closely involved. It is clear that those interests are manifold, highly important to the welfare of the race, unceasing in their recurrence, urgent and imperative in their nature, requiring for their successful development such devotion of time, labor, strength, thought, feeling, that they must necessarily leave but little leisure to the person who faithfully discharges them. The comfort, health, peace, temper, recreation, general welfare, intellectual, moral, and religious training of a family make up, indeed, a charge of the very highest dignity, and one which must tax to the utmost every faculty of the individual to whom it is entrusted. The commander of a regiment at the head of his men, the member of Congress in his seat, the judge on his bench, scarcely holds a position so important, so truly honorable, as that of the intelligent, devoted, faithful American wife and mother, wisely governing her household. And what are the interests of the merchant, the manufacturer, the banker, the broker, the speculator, the selfish politician, when compared with those confided to the Christian wife and mother? They are too often simply contemptible--a wretched, feverish, maddening struggle to pile up lucre, which is any thing but clean. Where is the superior merit of such a life, that we should hanker after it, when placed beside that of the loving, unselfish, Christian wife and mother--the wife, standing at her husband's side, to cheer, to aid, to strengthen, to console, to counsel, amidst the trials of life; the mother, patiently, painfully, and prayerfully cultivating every higher faculty of her children for worthy action through time and eternity?"
While Miss Cooper's handling of the subject hits rather bluntly upon our modern sensibilities, her essay, Female Suffrage: A Letter to the Christian Women of America, is worth a perusal. Find it here.

Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance

2011-06-11T12:13:00.000-04:00

Male Birth Control Inches Closer

"100% effective for 10 years."

Americans' Declining Urge to Marry

2011-06-11T12:11:00.002-04:00

Americans' Declining Urge to Marry, Christian News

Decline and fall of the American empire | Business | The Guardian

2011-06-11T12:08:00.000-04:00

Decline and fall of the American empire | Business | The Guardian

The Evil

2011-05-27T14:43:00.003-04:00

Here is a story that pulls together, in one way or another, all kinds of evil things: fornication, celebrity culture, contraception, poor parenting, the effects of divorce on children, the sexualization of children and more. You name it, it's there.

Remember the Epistle for Rogate - "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1:27

May our Lord be gracious in keeping us unspotted from this Evil World.

Demographic Tectonics

2011-05-26T11:31:00.000-04:00

Demographic Tectonics - NYTimes.com

Rest from this world during Holy Saturday and beyond

2011-04-23T11:57:00.000-04:00

On this Great Sabbath rest of Holy Saturday, after having pondered the depths of Christ's Passion, I thought it would also good to ponder God's entire providence for us as explained in Psalm 127. The proper understanding of this psalm gives me such peaceful rest and contentment in this troublesome world that would have us worry about everything.

In the first verse of Psalm 127 Solomon puts into beautiful simplicity the most important truth upon which a marriage, family, and all that pertains to them depend: "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain."

The devil, the world, and our sinful nature does not want us to believe we can trust God to provide "all that we need to support this body and life" - as we confess in the Small Catechism regarding the First Article of the Apostle's Creed.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

What does this mean?--Answer.
I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

And again as we confess in the meaning of the Forth Petition of the Lord's Prayer:

Give us this day our daily bread.

What does this mean?--Answer.
God gives daily bread, even without our prayer, to all wicked men; but we pray in this petition that He would lead us to know it, and to receive our daily bread with thanksgiving.

What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.
Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money, goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.

This is what Christ is explaining to us in the Sermon on the Mount when He says:

“Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?

“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. "

In what follows, Luther masterfully unpacks and explains what God wants us to understand from this simple first half of verse 1 of Psalm 127. It is an even further explanation of what we as Lutherans confess we believe according the above passages from the Small Catechism. If you keep this understanding about life on this earth firmly in your mind, you will live in the faith that gives a peace that the world cannot give. Here is Luther:

Solomon composed this psalm. Not only was he enlightened by the Holy Spirit, but as he daily exercised his administrative functions and mingled with people, he learned from frequent experience how vainly unbelief burdens itself with worries about feeding the belly, when in fact everything depends on God’s blessing and protection. For where God withholds his blessing, we labor in vain; where God does not protect, our worry is futile. And he speaks thus:
1a. Unless the Lord builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
1b. Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.
2. It is vain that you rise up early,
sit up late,
and eat the bread of sorrow;
for to him who enjoys his favor,
he gives while he sleeps.
3. Lo, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
so are the children of youth.
5. Happy is the man who has
his quiver full of them;
They shall not be put to shame
when they speak with their enemies in the gate.
First we must understand that “building the house” does not refer simply to the construction of walls and roof, rooms and chambers, out of wood and stone. It refers rather to everything that goes on inside the house, which in German we call “managing the household” [haushallten]; just as Aristotle writes, “Oeconomia, ” that, is pertaining to the household economy which comprises wife and child, servant and maid, livestock and fodder. The same term is used by Moses in Exodus 1[:20–21], where he writes that God dealt well with the two midwives and “built them houses” because they feared him and did not strangle the children of the Israelites; that is, he helped them to obtain husbands, sons and daughters, and enough of whatever goes along with keeping a family. Solomon’s purpose is to describe a Christian marriage; he is instructing everyone how to conduct himself as a Christian husband and head of a household.

Reason and the world think that married life and the making of a home ought to proceed as they intend; they try to determine things by their own decisions and actions, as if their work could take care of everything. To this Solomon says No! He points us instead to God, and teaches us with a firm faith to seek and expect all such things from God. We see this in experience too. Frequently two people will marry who have hardly a shirt to their name, and yet they support themselves so quietly and well that it is a pleasure to behold. On the other hand, some bring great wealth into their marriage; yet it slips out of their hands till they can barely get along.

Again, two people marry out of passionate love; their choice and desire are realized, yet their days together are not happy. Some are very eager and anxious to have children, but they do not conceive, while others who have given the matter little thought get a house full of children. Again, some try to run the house and its servants smoothly, and it turns out that they have nothing but misfortune. And so it goes in this world; the strangest things happen.

Who is it that so disrupts marriage and household management, and turns them so strangely topsy-turvy? It is he of whom Solomon says: Unless the Lord keeps the house, household management there is a lost cause. He wishes to buttress this passage [Ps. 127:1a] and confirm its truth. This is why he permits such situations to arise in this world, as an assault on unbelief, to bring to shame the arrogance of reason with all works and cleverness, and to constrain them to believe.

This passage alone should be enough to attract people to marriage, comfort all who are now married, and sap the strength of covetousness. Young people are scared away from marriage when they see how strangely it turns out. They say, “It takes a lot to make a home”; or, “You learn a lot living with a woman.” This is because they fail to see who does this, and why He does it; and since human ingenuity and strength know no recourse and can provide no help, they hesitate to marry. As a result they fall into unchastity if they do not marry, and into covetousness and worry if they do. But here is the needed consolation: Let the Lord build the house and keep it, and do not encroach upon his work; the concern for these matters is his, not yours. For whoever is the head of the house and maintains it should be allowed to bear the burden of care. Does it take a lot to make a house? So what! God is greater than any house. He who fills heaven and earth will surely also be able to supply a house, especially since he takes the responsibility upon himself and causes it to be sung to his praise.

Why should we think it strange that it takes so much to make a home where God is not the head of the house? Because you do not see Him who is supposed to fill the house, naturally every corner must seem empty. But if you look upon Him, you will never notice whether a corner is bare; everything will appear to you to be full, and will indeed be full. And if it is not full, it is your vision which is at fault; just as it is the blind man’s fault if he fails to see the sun. For him who sees rightly, God turns the saying around and says not, “It takes a lot to make a home,” but, “How much a home contributes!” So we see that the managing of a household should and must be done in faith—then there will be enough—so that men come to acknowledge that everything depends not on our doing, but on God’s blessing and support.

We are not to understand from this that God forbids us to work. Man must and ought to work, ascribing his sustenance and the fullness of his house, however, not to his own labor but solely to the goodness and blessing of God. For where men ascribe these things to their own labor, there covetousness and anxiety quickly arise, and they hope by much labor to acquire much. But then there is this contradiction, namely, that some people labor prodigiously, yet scarcely have enough to eat, while others are slower and more relaxed in their work, and wealth pours in on them. All this is because God wants the glory, as the one who alone gives the growth [I Cor. 8:6–7]. For if you should till the soil faithfully for a hundred years and do all the work in the world, you couldn’t bring forth from the earth even a single stalk; but God without any of your labor, while you sleep, produces from that tiny kernel a stalk with as many kernels on it as he wills.

Solomon here wishes to sanction work, but to reject worry and covetousness. He does not say, “The Lord builds the house, so no one need labor at it.” He does say, “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” [Ps. 127:1a]. This is as if he were to say: Man must work, but that work is in vain if it stands alone and thinks it can sustain itself. Work cannot do this; God must do it. Therefore work in such manner that your labor is not in vain. Your labor is in vain when you worry, and rely on your own efforts to sustain yourself. It behooves you to labor, but your sustenance and the maintenance of your household belong to God alone. Therefore, you must keep these two things far apart: “to labor,” and “to maintain a household” or “to sustain”; keep them as far apart from one another as heaven and earth, or God and man.

In the Proverbs of Solomon we often read how the lazy are punished because they will not work. Solomon says, “A slack hand causes poverty, but industrious hands bring riches” [Prov. 10:4]. This and similar sayings sound as if our sustenance depended on our labor; though he says in the same passage [Prov. 10:22], as also in this psalm [127:1], that it depends on God’s blessing; or, as we say in German, “God bestows, God provides.” Thus, the meaning is this: God commanded Adam to eat his bread in the sweat of his face [Gen. 8:19]. God wills that man should work, and without work He will give him nothing. Conversely, God will not give him anything because of his labor, but solely out of His own goodness and blessing. Man’s labor is to be his discipline in this life, by which he may keep his flesh in subjection. To him who is obedient in this matter, God will give plenty, and sustain him well.

God sustains man in the same way he sustains all other living creatures. As the psalm [147:9] says, “He gives to all flesh their food, and to the young ravens which cry unto him” Again, in Psalm 104, “The eyes of all look to thee, O Lord, and thou givest them their food in due season. Thou openest thy hand, and fillest every living creature with blessings,” that is, with fullness and sufficiency. Now no animal works for its living, but each has its own task to perform, after which it seeks and finds its food. The little birds fly about and warble, make nests, and hatch their young. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. Oxen plow, horses carry their riders and have a share in battle; sheep furnish wool, milk, cheese, etc. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. It is the earth which produces grass and nourishes them through God’s blessing. Christ himself, in Matthew 6[:26], bids us look at the birds: how they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; yet they are fed by God. That is, they perform their tasks all right, but they do no work from which they gain sustenance.

Similarly, man must necessarily work and busy himself at something. At the same time, however, he must know that it is something other than his labor which furnishes him sustenance; it is the divine blessing. Because God gives him nothing unless he works, it may seem as if it is his labor which sustains him; just as the little birds neither sow nor reap, but they would certainly die of hunger if they did not fly about to seek their food. The fact that they find food, however, is not due to their own labor, but to God’s goodness. For who placed their food there where they can find it? Beyond all doubt it is God alone, as he says in Genesis 1[:29–30], “Behold, I have given to you and to all creatures every growing plant for food.” In short, even if Scripture did not teach this directly, experience would prove it to be so. For where God has not laid up a supply no one will find anything, even though they all work themselves to death searching. We can see this with our eyes, and grasp it with our hands; yet we will not believe. Again, where God does not uphold and preserve, nothing can last, even though a hundred thousand fortresses were thrown up to defend it; it will be shattered and ground to dust till no one knows what has become of it.

Tell me: who puts silver and gold in the mountains so that man might find them there? Who puts into the field that great wealth which issues in grain, wine, and all kinds of produce, from which all creatures live Does the labor of man do this? To be sure, labor no doubt finds it, but God has first to bestow it and put it there if labor is to find it. Who puts into the flesh the power to bring forth young and fill the earth with birds, beasts, fish, etc.? Is this accomplished by our labor and care? By no means. God is there first, secretly laying his blessing therein; then all things are brought forth in abundance. And so we find that all our labor is nothing more than the finding and collecting of God’s gifts; it is quite unable to create or preserve anything.

Here then we see how Solomon, in this one little verse [Ps. 127:1], has solved in short order the greatest of all problems among the children of men, about which so many books have been written, so many proverbs and approaches devised, namely, how to feed our poor stomachs. Solomon rejects them all in a body, wraps the whole matter up in faith, and says: You labor in vain when you labor for the purpose of sustaining yourself and building your own house. Indeed, you make for yourself a lot of worry, and trouble. At the same time by such arrogance and wicked unbelief you kindle God’s wrath, so that you only become all the poorer and are mined completely because you undertook to do what is his alone to do. And if with such unbelief you should succeed anyway in attaining wealth in all things, it would only bring greater ruin to you soul eternally when God lets you go blindly on in your unbelief.

If you want to earn your livelihood honorably, quietly, and well, and rightly maintain your household, give heed: Take up some occupation that will keep you busy in order that you can eat your bread in the sweat of your face [Gen. 3:19]. Then do not worry, about how you will be sustained and how such labor will build and maintain your house. Place everything in God’s keeping; let him do the worrying and the building. Entrust these things to him; he will lay before you richly and well the things which your labor is to find and bring to you. If he does not put them there, you will labor in vain and find nothing.

Thus, this wholly evangelical verse in masterful fashion sets forth faith, as against that accursed covetousness and concern for the belly which today, alas! everywhere hinders the fruit of the gospel. When this verse is fully understood, the rest of the psalm is easy. We will now briefly run through the other verses.

The rest of Luther's exposition of this psalm can be read here: http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/2010/09/luther-on-psalm-127.html

God's peace in Christ to you all on this Holy Saturday during which Christ rested in the tomb.

Condoms can be a gift from God?

2011-04-17T20:13:00.000-04:00

http://priestlyrant.com/the-gift-of-god-condoms/1674.html

Below is my comment on Rev. Kelly's post, which is awaiting moderation.

Rev. Kelly,

While there are many issues I would like to clarify, I will try to limit myself to the primary point of your post.
“Natural methods of birth control can ‘fail,’ and if in fact a spouse is genuinely concerned about the capacity of the other to care for the children already in the family, there is-like it or not-some consolation in using a method of birth control that has a statistically higher chance of preventing pregnancy.”

Therefore:

“…a condom can be a gift from God”
Of course all methods of family planning can fail, including sterilization. However, NFP is indisputably more reliable than a condom in preventing pregnancy. In fact, a well-done German study of the effectiveness of the sympto-thermal rules associated with NFP, published in 2007, found that NFP has a method effectiveness of 99.6% and a user effectiveness of 98.2%. Condoms are one of the least reliable methods of family planning, having a user effectiveness of only 82-84% (depending on the study). Even the infamous Guttmacher Institute rates NFP as more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy.

Also worth mentioning in this discussion is the option of total abstinence. This certainly should not be taken off the table in difficult cases. No, it definitely is not a perversity to want to have sexual intimacy with one’s spouse. I agree. However, just as one must control other innate hungers and passions, sometimes fasting entirely from certain activities and substances, it is certainly disordered not to adequately control one’s God-instilled human desire to be fruitful and multiply if it would likely do unusual harm to one’s spouse at any point in time.

You wrote: “He tells me that as much as he believes artificial methods of birth control to be wrong, the reality is that his wife cannot adequately care for the children that they have.”

Admitting that artificial methods of birth control are wrong, one must remember that we may not do evil that good may come. (Romans 3:8)

Therefore, the condom is most certainly NOT a gift from God.

Please, let’s also not allow discussions regarding this important issue of morality to be influenced by sensationalistic news reports on extremely rare cases of women who have supposedly been driven to murder and suicide because they had “too many children.”

"On Condoms and Convenience"

2011-04-03T07:10:00.003-04:00

Another good blog post by Rev. Ken Kelly

"On Condoms and Convenience"

"Correcting the contraceptive mentality that 'fears procreation'"

2011-03-18T23:15:00.002-04:00

Cardinal Burke

Fighting ‘contraceptive mentality’ is ‘essential’ for the culture of life

HT: Greg Laughlin

Contraception and Abortion

2011-03-10T23:12:00.001-05:00

Kirsten Powers: “Busting the Birth-control Myth“
HT: Rev. Robert Baker

Eugenics, Racism, and Planned Parenthood

2011-03-04T12:25:00.003-05:00

Nothing new to those who have been regularly reading here, but important nontheless in terms of understanding the history and practice of contraception, abortion, and especially Planned Parenthood and their founder Margaret Sanger. The purpose of this video - Sanger is now going to be on display and trumpeted for her "work and efforts" in the Smithsonian.

Too Many Babies

2011-02-22T12:55:00.002-05:00

This story showed up on my yahoo feed this morning:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/ts_alt_afp/scienceuspopulationfood

Wow! Here I've been thinking that we were looking at a decline in fertility and that world population was expected to max out in 2050 and then fall precipitously. That whole angle is missing from this story. You'd get the impression that the world population is expected to continue to increase after 2050 and ruin the world. I wondered if I was missing something, so I went to look at the UN's newest "world population prospects report" for 2010 to see if something had changed. http://esa.un.org/peps/fertility_figures/interactive-figures_TF-trajectories.htm

I haven't had time to do more than look through it, but it looks to me like there's no change in the forecast that the world population is expected to begin falling in 2050 even in the developing countries (by 2050 the populations of the United States and Europe will already have fallen so low that immigrants from the developing world will be running them.) My initial scan of the report seems to be validated by the fact that the experts in the AP story are not quoted saying anything about what happens after 2050.

If in fact the AP story really did just leave out the whole issue of the population decline following 2050, it's hard to read it as anything other than a propaganda piece. Now, what would the purpose in that be? You'd have to guess that the majority of the people reading this article are going to be Westerners, and that this article's failure to tell the whole story is just one more reason for westerners diffident about having children already to think of procreation as a morally questionable thing to do.

Natural Law

2011-02-06T17:46:00.002-05:00

This is obviously the most natural setting in which to read the latest and greatest from CPH, Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal.

January Touchstone and Issues, Etc.

2011-01-23T23:15:00.003-05:00

Check out the current issue of Touchstone: The Marital Embrace

Especially note:

Sanger's Victory
How Planned Parenthood's Founder Played the Christians, and Won
by Allan Carlson

Dr. Carlson was interviewed about this article on Issues, Etc. on January 19.

Excellent Posts Found

2011-01-23T22:40:00.002-05:00

Hat tip to Rev. Chris Gillespie for alerting me to the writing of Rev. Ken Kelly Jr.

Here are his two most recent postings readers of this blog will find of interest:

On Condoms, BCP’s & Pro-Life

On Right to Life

The Proverbs 31 Superwoman

2011-01-18T10:22:00.005-05:00

If looked at as the ideal that all wives and mothers should strive to emulate, it seems the Proverbs 31 superwoman can only make women feel inferior and/or guilty that they don't measure up. After all, "who can find such a woman? for her price is far above rubies."

What purpose would it serve for the Word of God to simply be describing a seemingly unattainable goal?

The Proverbs 31 woman also would appear to possess a few characteristics (e.g. being a land speculator and merchant) that are not necessarily consistent with other biblical descriptions of virtuous womanhood (i.e. Titus 2:3-5). At the very least we must agree that these unusual characteristics are not necessary for ideal womanly virtue.

If, on the other hand, the Proverbs 31 woman is seen as being uniquely fulfilled in the Bride of Christ (i.e. the Church), this exhaustive list of grand virtues takes on a completely different meaning.

"The heart of her husband (Christ) trusts in her (after all, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against her), and he will have no lack of gain (in making disciples of all nations). She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life."

She makes provision for those in her care, is diligence in her work, is an enterprising merchant and steward for her Husband. She also "opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy."

And how about this imagery: "She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet." What better clothing can be found than the baptismal robes which are washed clean in the scarlet blood of the Lamb? With such raiment, one can weather anything!

"Her Husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. ...Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come." (She has nothing to fear in the coming tribulations.)

Proverbs 31:10-31 is a complete stand alone proverb, and is set apart from the first nine verses by a particular poetic device. It is an "acrostic." Each line of this proverb begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, spanning the entire alphabet, in proper order. This "A to Z" type of acrostic device is likely a way of indicating that it offers complete coverage of the subject matter. I wonder if we could therefore find within its verses all seven marks of the Church identified by Luther: possession of the Word, Baptism, Sacrament of the Altar, Office of the Keys, Office of Ministry, Discipleship, and the cross (suffering on account of one's faith).

Rev. Burnell Eckardt opines: "She spends a lot of time spinning and sewing and feeding, etc. Yet 'strength and honour are her clothing.' So this is a parable: what she's sewing is a baptismal garment of righteousness; what she's feeding is the Feast of Salvation."

Of preaching and teaching: "She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue."

Luther writes:

"Thus St. Augustine, too, in the ninth chapter of his book On the Spirit and the Letter, where he treats of the statement in the last chapter of Proverbs (31:26), 'Law and kindness are on her tongue,' makes the most excellent remark: 'Therefore it is written of wisdom that she bears law and kindness on her tongue for this reason—law, in order that she may render the proud guilty; kindness, in order that she may justify the humbled.'”

[Luther's Works, vol. 27, pg. 274. Lectures on Galatians]

Law and kindness = Law and Gospel.

Ambrose writes:

"The beauty of a good thing pleases the more, if it be shown under various aspects. For those are good things, whereof the texture of the priestly robe was the token, that is to say, either the Law, or the Church, which latter hath made two garments for her spouse, as it is written* —the one of action, the other of spirit, weaving together the threads of faith and works."

*The footnote here references Proverbs XXXI

[Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. (225)]

A sermon reflecting on John 2

2011-01-17T19:43:00.001-05:00

Dear friends,
Following some correspondence with Erich Heidenreich, he suggested that I might post here a sermon of mine on the topic of marriage I preached in my parish last weekend. For what it's worth, I hope it serves to encourage you.

http://stephenvdh.blogspot.com/2011/01/epiphany-2-john-21-11-16-jan-2011.html

The Fall of Western Civilization

2010-12-04T22:26:00.005-05:00

"Read today, Spengler's forebodings have an uncanny and chilling association with our present predicaments. He was not saying Western civilization would vanish overnight in a puff of smoke. It would erode more slowly, as did some ancient civilizations—not to vanish forever but with symbols of their power and influence surviving (the Pyramids, the Aztec temples, the Parthenon), with the potential to re-emerge as civilizations many centuries later."

So we read in The Danger of a Global Double Dip Recession Is Real, a November 29 opinion piece in U.S. News and World Report by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the 73-year-old publisher and owner of the New York Daily News, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, and the 147th wealthiest man in America (at least as of 2008).¹

Zuckerman's excellent (and I believe very true) opinion piece draws upon the intellectual work of Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), a brilliant German philosopher whom I have quoted before on this blog.

What truly amazes me (and apparently Zuckerman) is the seemingly prophetic accuracy of Spengler, who wrote The Decline of the West at the time when the total fertility rate was still well above replacement level worldwide. Spengler knew that the same fate awaits all great civilizations if they last long enough to witness the ultimate triumph of materialism:

"When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point has come."

Spengler understood that a selfish attitude toward the gift of procreation not only signals the irreversible decline of civilization, but also becomes a primary cause.

At this level all Civilizations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms, and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements.

Worldview at the Heart

2010-12-04T17:18:00.002-05:00

While the following link does not exclusively address the issues of procreation, this week Rev. Jonathan Fisk does a fine job articultating a Biblical stance for the procreation of children and their natural flow from a Christian marriage. Often times, Rev. Fisk points to the culture we live in and recognizes that our current popular worldview is indeed at odds with the Biblical worldview. The real recognition of sin, its profound effects on the world, and the emphasis on personhood and most importantly that Christ cares so much for you that he suffered, died, and rose to give you forgiveness, life, and salvation. In this video Rev. Fisk gets to this topic stemmed from the question of homosexuality. He is absolutely right in speaking that this topic as well as the many other sexual sins that are prevalent in our world today are against the same commandment. Yet, for these sins has Christ died and redeemed.
If you have yet to discover this site, I highly recommend it for some comedic and yet very confessional Lutheran discussions. www.worldvieweverlasting.com

A Brave New World

2010-11-30T07:49:00.003-05:00

This is not the first time we've heard this: Do parents make the best parents?

HT: Rev. Robert Baker, Bioethike

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

2010-11-24T14:25:00.002-05:00

HT: Rev. Hoppe's "Meditations of my heart":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

Vatican clarifies pope's comments re: condoms

2010-11-24T10:44:00.001-05:00

From an AP article:

Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert on the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil.

"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told the AP. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."

He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted, and the church's teaching hadn't been clear. There is no official Vatican policy about condoms and HIV, and Vatican officials in the past have insisted that condoms not only don't help fight HIV transmission but make it worse because it gives users a false sense of security.

"This pope gave this interview. He was not foolish. It was intentional," Suaudeau said. "He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it's true that the church sometimes has not been too clear."

Lombardi said the pope didn't use the technical terminology "lesser evil" in his comments because he wanted his words to be understood by the general public. Vatican officials, however, said that was what he meant.

"The contribution the pope wanted to give is not a technical discussion with scientific language on moral problems," Lombardi said. "This is not the job of a book of this type."

The Problem is Not Too Many People

2010-11-22T22:28:00.000-05:00

An article by Thomas Storck at The Distributist Review.

Reducing Human Life to a Popularity Contest in Which Your Vote Counts

2010-11-22T13:43:00.002-05:00

On ongoing poll at Birth or Not? will determine whether Pete and Alisha keep or kill their child in the womb. From their blog:

You can vote and choose whether we abort or keep our unborn child. For the first time, your vote on the topic of abortion can make a difference.

This is their child, from a seventeen-week ultrasound:

Vote and comment here. The deadline (what an unfortunate word) is December 7. At last check, the baby was loosing by about 200,000 votes.

Kyrie, eleison.

A Lutheran Reappraisal of Natural Law

2010-11-21T07:02:00.005-05:00

Be sure to check out this new CPH book due out January 7, 2011: Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. Pre-order your copy today!

Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal presents engaging essays from contemporary Lutheran scholars, teachers, and pastors, each offering a fresh reappraisal of natural law within the context of historic Lutheran teaching and practice. Thought-provoking questions following each essay will help readers apply key Bible texts associated with natural law to their daily lives.

Why the Natural Law Is Necessary
No contemporary thinker is interested in a wooden repristination of the natural law that is tied necessarily to the particular metaphysical foundations in the Thomistic–Aristotelian synthesis. The history of natural law shows a wide variety of interpretations and applications. But they all have some elements in common. They all oppose cultural relativism, the notion that laws are mere moral conventions that vary among societies, with no transcendent ontological claim to being universally valid and binding. To the contrary; those who hold to the natural law believe that for a law to be just, it must conform to the structure of reality itself and not depend on the oscillating opinions and preferences of human beings. The law must be the same for all human beings and at all times, so that if murder is morally wrong in America, it is equally so in Asia and Africa. If torture is to be condemned as evil in Jerusalem, it must be equally so in London and Tehran. The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights formulates rules with respect to freedom and equality that are binding on all nations and peoples, not because of any majority vote, but because of an inherent correspondence between reason and nature. That is what is meant by saying that the Law is “written on the hearts” (Romans 2:25) of all human beings.
- Carl Braaten -

CONTRIBUTORS
Rev. Robert C. Baker (LCMS)
Rev. Dr. Carl E. Braaten (ELCA)
Mr. Matthew E. Cochran (LCMS)
Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver III (LCMS)
Mr. Jacob Corzine (LCMS)
Dr. Adam S. Francisco (LCMS)
Rev. Gifford A. Grobien (LCMS)
Rev. Dr. Korey D. Maas (LCMS)
Dr. Ryan C. MacPherson (ELS)
Dr. Thomas D. Pearson (ELCA)
Rev. Prof. John T. Pless (LCMS)
Rev. Dr. Carl E. Rockrohr (LCMS)
Rev. Dr. Armin Wenz (SELK)
Rev. Dr. J. Larry Yoder, STS (NALC)
Prof. Marianne Howard Yoder (NALC)
Rev. Prof. Roland Ziegler (LCMS)

What Others Are Saying

Natural law was a common idea among the Reformers and their heirs. There has been some fledgling reconsideration of this heritage in recent years in my own Reformed tradition, and it is very encouraging to see similar discussions taking place among Lutherans. Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal helpfully wrestles with natural law from various historical and theological angles and also explores its relevance for several important social and ecclesiastical controversies of the present day. These essays on natural law—some enthusiastic, some cautious, others skeptical—are a wonderful contribution to the literature and should help to stimulate important conversations about this perennial issue for years to come.
David VanDrunen
Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic
Theology and Christian Ethics
Westminster Seminary California

As a Catholic, I found it fascinating to read these fine essays and “listen in” on a conversation about natural law conducted by an outstanding group of Lutheran scholars. The authors consider such topics as whether there really is a natural human capacity to identify and affirm valid moral norms, and whether belief in a moral law accessible to unaided reason is compatible with an acknowledgment of the devastating impact of sin on the human intellect as well as the human will. Lutherans will benefit from reading these essays, but so will everybody else.
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

God's law is written in two ways and two places: Not only in the words of revelation, but in our being, for we are made in God's image. For a long time, many Christians neglected or even denied this insight because of the mistaken idea that if the image of God can be obscured by sin, then for all practical purposes there is no natural law. How ironic, and how deadly to our common witness, that this common ground among all human beings, this universal prologue to the gospel, should have become a battle ground among Christians themselves. Catholic myself, I rejoice to see the rekindling of reflection on natural law among Lutherans, and I look forward to many interesting conversations.

J. Budziszewski
Professor of Government and Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin

Pope approves condoms?

2010-11-20T15:44:00.003-05:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AJ1CC20101120

There seem to be some reports that indicate that the Pope was speaking specifically of homosexual condom use (e.g. "a male prostitute"), where conception is already impossible. The media seems determined to blow this up into a major change in Roman Catholic teaching on contraception.

Update:

Actual quoted text:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798

His [the Pope's] comments came in a series of interviews given to a German Catholic journalist, Peter Seewald, which are published in a question and answer format in a book to be launched on Tuesday.

Here is an extract of the book - entitled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times - in which the Pope refers to the use of condoms in preventing the spread of Aids:

Peter Seewald: On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican's policy on Aids once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all Aids victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church's traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church's own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Pope Benedict: The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on Aids. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim.

Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many Aids victims, especially children with Aids.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering.

In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.

That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Light of the World is to be published in English on Tuesday and available for general release from Wednesday. To order a copy of the book, or for more information, please contact the Catholic Truth Society.

Worldwide vigil for all nascent human life 11/27

2010-11-13T08:48:00.000-05:00

I recommend we join with Christians throughout the world in beginning this Advent penitential season with a solemn “Vigil for all nascent human life” on Saturday, November 27.

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/11/int-1681/

Pope Benedict XVI has issued what Catholic pro-life advocates are calling an unprecedented request for prayers worldwide from all pro-life people. The call is not limited to Catholics as the Pope is asking that “all Diocesan Bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements.” The head of the Catholic Church will begin Advent by celebrating a solemn “Vigil for all nascent human life” at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday, November 27.

Mary McClusky, the Special Projects Coordinator at the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says the call is especially important at a time when attacks on the dignity and worth of human life seem to be at an all-time high. “At this moment in history, when societies are now endorsing the killing of humans as a perceived solution to social, economic, and environmental problems, the Holy Father is reminding us of the necessity and power of prayer to protect human life,” she said. “Despite the challenge of these events being held on Thanksgiving weekend in the United States, Catholics should not miss this opportunity to pray for unborn life.” She said the Pope’s call “may help increase awareness among family and friends about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other threats to children in their earliest days and weeks of life” while women who have had abortions “may be inspired to learn more, or to begin a much-needed conversation about healing from a past abortion.”

The Wrongs of Women's Rights

2010-11-11T07:59:00.001-05:00

The Wrongs of Women’s Rights
by Thomas Fleming

(More by this author, and along these lines, can be found here: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/category/thomas-fleming/ )

The recent decision to deploy women on submarines has been hailed as a victory in the continuing struggle to liberate women from the oppression of the domineering male sex. Conservatives have generally deplored the move, citing the inevitable sexual tensions and lowering of morale that will result from putting young males and females in such close quarters for long periods of time. (And, think of all those poor male homosexuals who find the submarine service so attractive because of the lack of female competition!). Some conservatives even go so far as to declare their opposition to women serving in any military capacity, but they are a species on the endangered list: Even the great nemesis of women in uniform, James Webb, has backed off, proving once again, that no honest man can be a US senator.
What almost no decent conservative is willing to revive is the old argument that differences between men and women should be reflected in legal, social, and economic structures that encourage women to pursue their traditional role as wives and mothers under the protection and authority of the senior men in their life: fathers, husbands, or guardians. There is, it is true, a “men’s movement,” consisting mostly of disgruntled peripheral males who are forever whining about their manhood. But if we set such marginalized creatures aside, we can safely conclude that there are few defenders of what feminists like to call “the patriarchy.” Even conservative Republicans have largely adopted the feminist myth that one of the triumphs of civilization has been the liberation of women that has taken place in the past, roughly 150 years.
The “patriarchalist” counter-argument, which I have been making for over 30 years, denies the so-called facts in the case. Traditional sex roles, they say, are a function of natural differences—physical, emotional, intellectual—between the sexes. The authority of senior males over a woman is, then, a natural means of protecting her in her role as wife and mother, a role essential for the bearing and rearing of the next generation, which is, after all, the primary duty of each generation. To speak of the oppression of women is like speaking of the oppression of men whom gravity prevents from flying.
When we say that an institution or custom is “natural” (as I have indicated earlier), we mean that it is a response—sometimes quite imperfect—to natural needs. To determine the naturalness of an institution, we look first for a biological basis and then try to establish a base line by making a broad cross-cultural examination. Finally, since there can be quite a wild variation in cultural forms, we should look most closely at the highest traditions to which we are heirs—Christian, Greek, Roman, Medieval. If we determined that the subordination of women was natural, it would not follow that we should approve of clitorectomies, foot-binding, or brutality.
Then, in talking about the “liberation” of women, we shall have to be very careful about what we mean. Many people speak of women’s suffrage as a large part of the liberation movement, but the right to vote is clearly irrelevant. A French resident-alien female here in the United States cannot legally vote, but she is possessed of nearly every other civil and social right the feminist revolution has dreamed up. To make the discussion very precise, let us speak only of the liberation of married women from their husbands and look most carefully at the Anglo-American tradition.
But before beginning such an inquiry, we should also make up our minds about corporal punishment within the home. Do we think it is never to be permitted? (If so, on what grounds.) Is it permitted against children but not women? Are there limits that have been observed among civilized peoples? The most extreme case is killing an adulterous wife and/or her lover for honor. This was permitted in Italy and in several American states down into the second half of the 20th century. Are Italians and Texans simply brutes or are such customs—extremely common both in our own and in other traditions—a reasonable response under certain circumstances.
In any such discussion, we must set aside irrational convictions and all the misinformation we may have picked up in school or in popular books on either side, whether the pro-feminist inventions of modern social historians like Lawrence Stone or the simian fantasies of Lionel Tiger, followed by George Gilder.
Then let us start with some very simple propositions. To make the task easier I am going to insert a brief overview that summarizes my earlier work as a preparation for a discussion of the revolutions in English and American law that took place in the past 150 years:
“Feminists, looking back at the traditional sex roles of 19th and 20th century Europe and the Americas, have often written sneeringly of “the patriarchy,” as if the insertion of the definite article confers an academic anathema upon the word. Anti-feminists have responded by explicitly defending patriarchy or by discussing male dominance in terms of the rigid hierarchy of baboons. But human social life has little in common with that of the boorish baboon, and “patriarchy,” as the word suggests,[ refers properly not to the virtually universal human tendency toward male dominance but to societies in which the fathers and senior males rule over the family and tribal structure with sovereign authority.
Our image of patriarchy inevitably comes from Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob, who exercised a regal authority over their wives, children, and extended kinfolk. This pattern of authority is not uncommon among other pastoral peoples, but, as societies grow and develop greater complexity, much of this authority is transferred to chieftains, kings, and representative bodies. Nonetheless, in every known society, men have occupied and continue to occupy most of the highest niches of power and prestige.
Why is this so? Anyone who has taken a look, however brief, at his fellow human beings, will have noticed that members of the male sex tend to be bigger and stronger than their nearest female relatives. The difference–on an order of roughly 10%–is not so great as in some species, but it is enough to ensure that most men can physically dominate most women. This disparity is partly a function of inherent physical differences but even more of the different roles played by men and women in society. Most women in history have had to spend a good deal of their time and energy on bearing and rearing children. In primitive societies, this burden, though it might be shared with female relatives, was a good deal heavier than it is in an era of daycare and electrical appliances.
Social roles are not, however, the whole story. Organized women’s athletics are, for the most part, a recent development, but they have existed long enough and, in recent decades, with a good deal of government encouragement without really eliminating the gap between the sexes. Even today women do not often compete with men in aggressive male sports such as boxing and football, and even in sprinting men maintain a significant advantage. The fastest official score for a man running 100 meters is Usain Bolt’s 9.58 seconds, about 9% faster than Florence Joyner’s record 10.48, about which questions have been raised. At the 2008 Olympics, gold medal winner Shelly-Ann Frazier’s 10.78 seconds was beaten by the number 8 male runner’s 10.00. We can begin to believe in sexual equality in the physical sense when there is no sexual distinction in sports, that is, when men and women compete in the same leagues.
It is only natural to assume—and scientific research has gone a long way to verify this assumption—that in the evolution of mammalian, specifically primate species, males and females developed specialized roles: Men became the experts in hunting large game and fighting the enemies of family and clan. Because these specialties are associated with certain attributes of mind and spirit as well as with bodily functions, the nervous and hormonal systems of males and females develop somewhat differently. The differences, in any individual cases, may be quite slight, but overall women are more verbal, men more analytical, women more inclined to what is now called “multi-tasking,” men more prone to concentrating on problems one at a time. For a detailed survey of evidence down to the early 1980’s, see my book, The Politics of Human Nature. As human societies have grown and developed—often in strange and wonderful ways–they have always been shaped by these fundamental facts of sexual dimorphism. In a near-universal pattern of dominance, younger humans defer to their elders and females to males.
But, given the creativity of the human race, the type and extent of that power varies greatly, from the easily familiarity of pygmy husbands and wives to the rigidity of Chinese men who (down into the early 20th century) bound women’s feet to make them more dependent. Then we have to distinguish between the basic principle, the sexual differentiation of political power, and, for example, the family practices of nomadic shepherds. Wherever our search may lead us, it will not be toward the reestablishment of a patriarchal theonomy based on Old Testament law.
It is dangerous to speak too broadly, but, in general, sexual distinctions have been more marked in developed civilizations than in primitive societies. At the same time, the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome–and of Medieval Europe—developed traditions and rules that required respect for mothers and wives, sisters and daughters. Men controlled the government and the army, dominated the economy, and occupied most of the high status positions. Women who inherited power were often regarded, fairly or not, as weak rulers, and both the woman pharaoh Hatshepsut and Queen Elizabeth I were sometimes portrayed or described in terms that hinted at masculinity. Nonetheless, while men may have ruled (theoretically) their children as absolute monarchs, their authority over wives was, as Aristotle says, political rather than monarchical in the sense that it was limited by law, custom, and respect.
Ancient civilizations, as they developed more complex social, political, and liberal systems, increasingly took steps to protect wives from abusive husbands. The institutions of power were, nonetheless, dominated by men. This domination did not reduce women to slaves or chattel or even to the level of dependent children. While Athenian women were generally subject to the authority of a father, husband, or guardian, some of them were involved in commerce. Roman women were much freer to engage in business and to evade the control of a guardian. They could not, however, engage in public (that is, most legal and political) business, which must have restricted their sphere of operations. Nonetheless, Roman women had greater economic opportunities and a wider sphere of liberty than most European and American women had down to the late 19th century.”
So, to conclude this introductory argument, distinct sex roles are more or less universal in human societies and a natural adaptation of the human species to the needs of propagation and social order. Natural tendencies, however, can find almost infinite types of expression. Higher civilizations, while continuing to protect women, have also found ways of accommodating the needs of complex societies, for example by finding the ways of establishing contract rights for married women engaged in business. What the feminist movement has done is to destroy the institutional framework of marriage and society and reduced many men and women to a form of social organization more typical of non-human primates than of even the most primitive human societies.
More to come…

Newly-weds offered 'no baby' bonus

2010-11-01T00:08:00.002-04:00

If they manage two years without having children, the government of India will pay them US$110 – a decent amount of cash in rural India.

Why Don't Lutherans Like Babies?

2010-10-24T19:05:00.003-04:00

The "Blog of the week" picked by Jeff Schwartz (Issues, Etc. producer) featured this excellent post by Rev. Larry A. Peters of Grace-Clarksville, TN, on his blog, "Pastoral Meanderings".

HT: Rob Olson

Liberty and the Family

2010-10-19T17:04:00.002-04:00

Note to the wise: If you are not a subscriber to The Family in America - The Quarterly Journal of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, you need to be! Every issue is jam-packed with absolutely great articles, book reviews, and new research. Subscribe today! Here's a sample from the current issue to whet your appetite:

The Limits of the American Founding: What Our Political Fathers Didn't Teach Us
by Peter Augustine Lawler, Ph.D.

A review of:
We Still Hold These Truths:
Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future
by Matthew Spalding
ISI Books, 2009; 267 pages, $26.95

The following excerpt is taken from Dr. Lawler's review, as printed in the Summer 2010 edition of The Family in America, pages 304-307.

Liberty and the Family

"The Founders did not write much about the family,” Spalding observes, and "it is not mentioned in the Constitution and the core documents of the era.” That was because we consent to government as free individuals and not as members of classes or groups and certainly not as husbands or wives or children. But this Lockean understanding of who we are was to be limited to the national government. The Founders also assumed that the family's "centrality could be taken for granted," and its protection was reserved to the states. "State and local laws," Spalding goes on, "recognized and supported marriage, family, and the authority of parents in the upbringing and education." But they did so, he neglects to add, in ways that most Americans now believe violate the rights of adults as free individuals.

The history of our country has certainly been about the liberation of marriage from sacred and traditional duties given to us by God and nature. If the idea of marriage still depended on the confinement of sexual relations to the marriage bed, lifelong fidelity, and the almost universal expectation of multiple children, same-sex marriage would not be an issue today. But free persons, it seems, have liberated marriage from biological imperatives, and those that sign a marriage license these days are consenting to a few new rights but to no new duties. Because marriage has become a duty-free entitlement between any two autonomous individuals, the homosexuals are right to wonder why they, at this point, should be excluded. It's the Lockeanization of marriage - the reconfiguration of the social institution in terms of individual rightsthat created the context in which Lawrence v. Texas became plausible. Most of that Lockeanization did not come from the Courts but was the product of an increasingly more consistent application of the idea of individual rights to state law from a variety of sources. We consent to all government, as we see more clearly than ever now, to secure our rights and for no other reason than that, while our duties are limited to respect for the rights of other persons.

Anyone who has read Locke on marriage and the family in his Second Treatise knows the problem here: Marriage is the right of free individuals to one another's bodies. The result will often be children, and Locke recognizes the duty parents have to them. But he also says the duties of parents to each other as spouses are limited to the time required to rear the children. Locke would be all for individuals inventing their way out of that seemingly natural duty-say, through contraceptive technology. More than anything, Locke's intention was to free individuals by emptying the marriage contract of anything genuinely sacred, honorable, or even enduring. His intention was also to depend as little as possible on love, because love turns free, calculating individuals into obsessive suckers. The central individualistic or autonomous principle is the reversibility of every personal commitment according to changing conceptions of one's own interests and "lifeplan." Marriage becomes just another form of individual self-fulfillment in which individuals can switch their partners freely in their personal pursuits.

That the Founders presupposed a more traditional view of marriage is obvious. They also intended Lockean principles to have a quite limited effect on transforming marriage. They lost lots of sleep over their denial of rights to the Africans they brought over as slaves but were not particularly bothered by a world where women could not act as free and equal citizens just like men. Even a small women's liberation movement, based on applying the principle of the Declaration equally to both men and women, did not appear until after the founding generation.

The key process of change was the gradual transformation of state law in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the gradual Lockeanization of all areas of American public life. Sex, remember, was added to race in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the eleventh hour by Southerners who hoped that it would seem much more controversial, even ridiculous. But whatever controversy there was evaporated quickly, and women quickly flooded the workforce. The Lockean idea of marriage as a contract between two equally free individuals has prevailed, as did the idea, expressed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that women, just like men, are free to define themselves as they please. That means that they are free not to limit themselves by being stuck with having babies, even babies already living in their wombs. A generation of American women, the Court pointed out, has organized their lives counting on the inventions of contraception and abortion. The Court argued that even if it had erred on what liberty is in Roe, it is impossible to roll the clock back now.

I agree with Christopher Wolfe that a shortcoming of Lockean liberalism, the kind of liberty to which the Founders were primarily devoted, is its tendency to undermine the stability of the family over time. As the nation's elites become more devoted to such principled individualism, the family weakens. Well before the Progressives, Tocqueville noted the many factors that would exact a toll on the kind of devotion that produces lots of well-raised children: self-obsessive, petty materialism; the restless anxiety that accompanies democratic affluence; the theoretical denial that we're anything more than ephemeral, biological beings; and doubt that human beings share moral or social goods in common-doubt that we really are, deep down, social and relational beings. The modern democrat has more and more trouble, as he becomes both more principled and more narcissistic, thinking beyond his own, personal being toward generating biological replacements or finding loving personal compensation for his own natural finitude in his family, children, and personal accomplishments generally. From its beginning in 1776, one dimension of the nation's heritage is the thought of the Lockean individual in the state of nature that being starts and ends with me. If I don't endure, nothing endures. .

That's not to deny that modern, democratic liberty has in some ways improved family life. As Tocqueville says, the disappearance of cold aristocratic formalities has been good for love in America, maybe especially for the friendship of the father with both son and daughter. Because everyone is free to marry the one he or she loves, there 1111ell excuse than ever for the dangerous liaisons that inevitably accompany being stuck with marrying for money or property or social standing. Who can also deny that thinking of women more consistently as free, consenting individuals has done wonders in the eradication of unjust "double standards;' making us much more attentive to the various dimensions of spousal abuse, undermining arbitrary and otherwise excessive reliance on "gender roles" in excluding women from the worlds of work and politics, and even in leading fathers to share the ordinary duties of parenthood? In general, we should follow Tocqueville in resisting the temptation to romanticize what was better about even the recent past by making our nostalgia so selective that we forget the human misery and injustice people endured then and which we should be grateful not to have to endure now. Lockean progress, we have to admit, has in many ways been real progress. But that progress has not proven beneficial in every way, and it has not delivered personal benefits without imposing personal costs.

That means, as Wolfe says, that "natural law theorists should help people as well as we can to be more self-critical about aspects of our liberalism that are less attractive." Even the Founders' principled devotion to liberty points in the direction of both the noblest and the most disorienting and degrading features of American life today. So we are grateful that the Framers were more than Lockean. But we should not pretend that they had some kind of comprehensive theory that incorporated all their influences, a theory that could be the foundation of the development of only the advantages and not of the shortcomings of modern liberal democracy. Nor can we blame only or even mainly the Progressives for the way the shortcomings are displaying themselves today.

Bo Giertz on Love and Marriage

2010-10-19T10:42:00.003-04:00

Cross-posted here from Rev. Johann Caauwe's blog, A Shepherd's Story:

The fact that we can fall in love is a gift from God, but it has to be handled according to God’s will. The natural avenue to a marriage is through falling in love deeply and seriously.

Love is more than falling in love, however. Falling in love can be very powerful and overcome many obstacles. As long as it lasts all one can see is the good points of the one he loves. However, that’s not a tenable basis for marriage. Falling in love seeks its own objectives. It expects happiness by owning the object of its love. It naturally expects that happiness exists when you own each other. Then the problems come, however. The romance cools down. That’s when true love shows its worth. You see a lasting marriage isn’t built on infatuation but on love. God’s intention isn’t that you should be happy by getting something for nothing, by and through another person. God’s intention is that you experience happiness by making somebody else happy. Marriage contains the greatest mission in life: to be useful, a blessing, to be supportive and helpful to someone else, with whom God Himself united you to be able to fulfill just that mission. The idea is that we two, who now are one, should grow together in a devotion to each other that doesn’t seek its own objectives, but instead finds its happiness in being able to give and to share troubles, obligations, responsibilities, and decisions.

To Live with Christ: Daily Devotions by Bo Giertz, devotion for the Monday after the 20th Sunday after Trinity. CPH, 2008.

America's One Child Policy

2010-10-11T23:19:00.002-04:00

Highly suggested reading here. The best line was "When you meet couples with more than three children today, chances are they’re making a cultural and theological statement."

"Give us this day our daily bread"

2010-10-05T11:05:00.003-04:00

In this Issues, Etc. episode, Pr. Peter Kolb and Pr. Bart Day discuss the Lord's Prayer petition "give us this day our daily bread", providing what I believe is the best explanation of why contraception is contrary to faith. Especially note approximately the last 15 minutes of the program.

http://issuesetc.org/podcast/584092310H1.mp3

This discussion dovetails perfectly with Luther's exposition of Psalm 127 posted below, as well as Luther's words here:

Luther's Work, Vol. 5, p. 332:

Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is very difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: "Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden of poverty alone and not load myself with misery and want." But his blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God's goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God's blessing. For if you had trust in God's grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper.

Proposition 8 Update: Marriage Is about Procreation

2010-09-29T14:28:00.003-04:00

Supporters of California’s marriage amendment (Proposition 8) recently submitted more than two dozen briefs to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Several of these briefs highlight the importance of procreation to marriage.

The opening brief submitted by the attorneys representing the official Proposition 8 campaign stated, “Before the recent movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, it was commonly understood and acknowledged that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Indeed, no other purpose can plausibly explain the ubiquity of the institution” (p. 20).
A “friend of the court” brief submitted by numerous religious groups, including the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, quoted from Kretzman’s Popular Commentary and also CPH’s new Lutheran Study Bible to highlight the importance of procreation to the marital union. From Kretzman (p. 28 of the brief): “The Bible indicates plainly what the purposes of marriage is … companion[ship] … [and] lawful procreation of children..” From the study Bible (also p. 28): “Marriage is the fundamental institution of all human society. It was established by God at creation, when God created the first human beings as ‘male and female’ (Gen. 1:27) and then said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28). … Both Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5 view the ‘one flesh’ unity that occurs [i.e., consummation] as an essential part of the marriage.”
A “friend of the court,” or amicus curiae brief, from The Hausvater Project focused on parents’ rights to determine their children’s education and warned that state recognition of same-sex marriage would re-define not only marriage but also parenthood, thus weakening the legal claims of naturally procreative parents to make educational and other decisions for their biological children.
A Catholic woman named Margie Reilly, trained in the Theology of the Body, submitted another amicus brief, emphasizing that “Altering or watering down its [marriage’s] essential life-giving, self-donating nature would destroy the very fabric of our society” (p. 5).

Meanwhile, the LGBT segment of the blogosphere has criticized (apparently without actually reading) these briefs. If you compare the Box Turtle’s analysis with the briefs themselves, you’ll find that quotations are ripped out of context and misconstrued. But even sadder, the LGBT community does not hear what LCMS and other religious groups tried to say in their brief, namely, that the church loves them and wants, sincerely wants, to help them.

A recent series in Forward in Christ (WELS) illustrates how sound biblical teaching can make a positive difference. May Christ have mercy on us all, as we repent of our sins, rejoice in His forgiveness, and seek to guide others in the same.

Luther on Psalm 127

2010-09-22T12:25:00.022-04:00

EXPOSITION OF PSALM 127, FOR THE CHRISTIANS AT RIGA IN LIVONIA
1524
Translated by Walther I. Brandt
INTRODUCTION

At the opening of the sixteenth century Livonia, the territory which in modern times includes the Baltic lands of Latvia, Lithuania, and Esthonia,1 was ruled by a branch of the Teutonic Order.2 Ecclesiastical authority was exercised by the archbishop of Riga and his suffragan bishops in Dorpat and Reval.3 Lutheran ideas began to seep into Livonia quite early,4 especially among the German burghers in the towns, who eagerly read Luther’s pamphlets. The impulse toward constructive reform work in Livonia came from Pomerania, indirectly through Johann Bugenhagen,5 and directly through his colleague, Andreas Knopken.6
When Knopken had to leave Pomerania for Riga in 1521, he began to preach reformed doctrines, and succeeded in winning the support of some influential citizens. Archbishop Linde, a mild and now elderly man, does not appear to have offered any strong opposition. On June 12, 1522, under the burgomaster’s protection, Knopken disputed with the Catholic clergy in St. Peter’s Church before the whole congregation;7 a few months later the Riga city council appointed him archdeacon of St. Peter’s where his inaugural sermon was preached on October 23, 1522.

Bishop Blankenfeld of Dorpat and Reval, younger and more aggressive than his ecclesiastical superior, had the Edict of Worms (1521) proclaimed in his territories. The city council of Reval protested against this, apparently on political grounds, for at that time none of the councilmen seems to have been a follower of Luther. At the Landtag in Wolmar in June, 1522, the prelates tried to persuade the assembly to condemn Luther’s doctrines, but the knighthood and burghers insisted that such legislation should await the pronouncement of a general council. They declared that they would tolerate no mandate or ban in this or any other matter, since Livonia had been won by the secular sword, not by the ban.8 The order maintained strict neutrality in the dispute between the people and the prelates.9

Johann Lohmüller,10 who as secretary to the Wolmar Landtag was influential in blocking the prelates’ effort to have Luther’s doctrines condemned, wrote Luther on August 20, 1522, saying that Livonia was a candidate for the word of faith, that a good many of Luther’s writings were known there and eagerly read, and that Riga was taking the lead. He concluded by requesting Luther to encourage the brethren in Livonia by sending them a letter, mentioning them in his writing, or dedicating to them some devotional treatise.11 Luther apparently delayed his reply, for Lohmüller wrote him again in the fall of 1523,12 stating that he had waited more than a year for a reply, and feared that his first letter must have failed to reach Luther; he therefore renewed his request for a “godly treatise.”

Luther’s long-delayed reply to Lohmüller’s first letter took the form of a brief address To the Christians in Riga, Reval, and Dorpat, 13 written probably in September of 1523, in which there is no mention of Lohmüller. It was sent to Riga in printed form as a sort of “open letter,” and was received on November 11. Luther speaks of having learned of affairs in Livonia “from letters and by word of mouth.” “Letters” presumably refers to Lohmüller’s first letter; “by word of mouth” may refer to the messenger who delivered that letter, or it may refer to two students from Livonia who are listed in the Wittenberg University records as being in attendance in the spring and summer of 1523.14 The burgomaster and the Riga council replied promptly on the same day, thanking Luther for his letter to the Livonian Christians, mentioning that Lohmüller had previously written to him, and repeating Lohmüller’s request.15

Luther received the letter of November 11 from the Riga council shortly before February 1, 1524, and he replied by dedicating to them the present treatise on the 127th Psalm, which was probably composed in the latter half of 1524, and came from the press before the end of the year. The choice of this particular psalm probably was not dictated by anything connected with the situation in Riga—at least nothing of that sort is mentioned in the treatise—but by Luther’s general concern about the covetousness which was everywhere manifesting itself in the inadequate support being given to schools and pastors, about which Luther was constantly complaining about this time.16

Luther had already dealt with Psalm 127 in his Dictata super Psalterium 1513–1516.17 In 1534 he published a more extensive and learned interpretation of it in Latin;18 this reawakened interest in the more popular treatise of 1524, for in that year a new edition appeared which included a new translation of the psalm based upon the complete German Bible published in 1534, and a hymn—probably by Lazarus Spengler19—based on the psalm, which we have here omitted though it is included in WA 15, 378–379. [note - I have reproduced this hymn at the end of this blog post]

The following translation, the first into English, is based on the original Wittenberg printing of Lucas Cranach, Der hundert und Sieben und zwentzigst psalm ausgelegt an die Christen zu Rigen ynn Liffland, as that has been reprinted with annotations in WA 15, (348) 360–378.

EXPOSITION OF PSALM 127, FOR THE CHRISTIANS AT RIGA IN LIVONIA

Martin Luther to all his dear friends in Christ at Riga and in Livonia.

Grace and peace from God our Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. Some time ago, dear friends, I was asked to write you something in a Christian vein.2 I would gladly have done so, as was my duty, but all manner of distractions prevented me. Also, I knew of nothing special to write, since God our Father has so richly blessed you with his holy word that you yourselves can both teach and admonish, strengthen and comfort one another perhaps even better than we. However, since this has been asked of me, I have stolen time enough to quicken my own spirit and yours with a spiritual, godly song, and have undertaken an exposition of the 127th Psalm.

I selected this psalm because it so beautifully turns the heart away from covetousness and concern for temporal livelihood and possessions toward faith in God, and in a few words teaches us how Christians are to act with respect to the accumulation and ownership of this world’s goods. It is hardly to be expected that the gospel, which has now again come to the fore, will fare any better among us and among you than it did at the time of Christ and the apostles, indeed, since the beginning of the world. For not only the evangelists, but all the prophets as well, complain that covetousness and concern for this world’s goods hinder the gospel greatly from bearing fruit. Indeed, the precious word of God sometimes falls among thorns and is choked [Matt. 13:22] so that it proves unfruitful; sadly enough, our daily experience shows us this only too well. And Paul also complains that all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ [Phil. 2:21].

Now I have preached and written a great deal urging that good schools should be established in the cities3 in order that we might produce educated men and women, whence good Christian pastors and preachers might come forth so that the word of God might continue to flourish richly. But people take such an indifferent attitude toward the matter, pretending that it might cost them their whole livelihood and temporal possessions, that I fear the time will come when schoolmasters, pastors, and preachers alike will have to quit, let the word go, and turn to a trade or some other means of stilling the pangs of hunger; just as the Levites had to abandon the worship of God to till the fields, as Nehemiah writes [Neh. 13:10].

Isn’t it a crying shame? Up to now, a town with four or five hundred population could turn over to the mendicant monks4 alone the equivalent of five, six, or seven hundred gulden, besides what bishops, officials,5 and other bloodsuckers,6 together with beggars and relic hawkers,7 have already wrung from them. In addition, such a town will today probably be contributing annually five or six hundred gulden just for a biretta.8 I will not even mention the sums expended on spices, silks, gold, jewels, and similar vanities; yes, and what is squandered on beer and wine. When you lump all these together, such a town throws far more than a thousand gulden down the drain every year. Such is the miserable, wretched, hopeless state of affairs in the German lands today! But when they are asked to contribute one or two hundred gulden toward good schools and pulpits, they cry, “You would reduce us to rags and make beggars of us! We would have nothing left”; then covetousness and concern for livelihood take over, and the people think they will die of hunger.

But what will God finally say about this? He will say, “What the wicked dreads will come upon him” [Prov. 10:24]. We fear hunger; hunger will come upon us, and all our concern will not help. Like unbelieving heathen, we are so needlessly anxious that we fail to advance God’s word and work with the very means he has given us for that purpose. He will therefore allow a time to come in which we shall have plenty to worry about and our worry will nevertheless avail us nothing. Should this happen, as well it might, that there should be a terrible famine, it would serve us right; we’re asking for it.

Take those seducers, the priests and monks, who have disgraced our mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters, and made harlots of them;9 who have so oppressed us with their insolence and violence that we have to pant as if hounded by devils; who in addition have slain our bodies and souls with their poisonous doctrines, and herded them into hell. These are the very ones to whom we have in the past not only given more than enough, but we have even given them lands and people, cities and castles, and made of them greater lords than any among us.

Now that God is sending us upright, trustworthy, and learned men, who by word and deed encourage us toward self-discipline and chastity, who by godly marriage reduce the prevalence of fornication, and who in addition zealously serve us in body and soul and direct us on the right path to heaven, we simply ignore them. Those whom we should be securing at whatever expense even from the ends of the earth, we are supporting about as well as the rich man supported poor Lazarus [Luke 16:19–21]. Now we find it impossible to support three upright, learned, married preachers, where formerly we maintained in splendor a hundred of those whoremasters.

Very well; we shall soon find out how this pleases God. Nobody can tell us anything. So God in turn will stop up his ears too and refuse to listen. Just watch how things turn out once certain persons now living are gone. I can foresee nothing better than the establishment of another papacy worse than before which will do us even greater harm (if that were possible) than this one has. This must and undoubtedly will happen, unless the Last Day intervenes. After all, we want to be betrayed, seduced, disgraced, and despoiled. As Wisdom complains in Proverbs 1, “I called, and you refused to listen; I stretched out my hand, and no one heeded; you have ignored all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof. I will therefore laugh at your destruction, and mock when that which you feared comes upon you. Then they will call upon me, but I will not hear. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and be sated with their own devices.”10

For this reason I want yet to sing one little song for the benefit of such covetousness, that some might still be roused to help us ward off the wrath of God a bit longer. And that shall be this psalm which carries the superscription, “A song of Solomon in alt.”11

Why this psalm and certain others are inscribed, “Songs in alt,” I do not know. Some think it is because the priests and Levites chanted these psalms while going up the steps or stairs into the temple; therefore, they refer to them as “Graduals” or “Songs of Ascent.”12 But that is not right, for Scripture contains no evidence or suggestion of this. Moreover, they did their singing within the temple, not on the stairs. If conjecture or opinion is worth anything, my guess is that these psalms were chanted in a higher pitch, just as children’s and women’s voices are pitched higher than male voices. The meaning is the same as where some psalms are called lamnazeah, that is, “chanted in high pitch,”13 etc. Since the Levites’ style of chanting no longer exists, however, anything we might say of it is tentative. It makes little difference anyway, so long as we have a proper understanding of the psalm.

Solomon composed this psalm.14 Not only was he enlightened by the Holy Spirit, but as he daily exercised his administrative functions and mingled with people, he learned from frequent experience how vainly unbelief burdens itself with worries about feeding the belly, when in fact everything depends on God’s blessing and protection. For where God withholds his blessing, we labor in vain; where God does not protect, our worry is futile. And he speaks thus:15

1a. Unless the Lord builder the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
1b. Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.
2. It is vain that you rise up early,
sit up late,
and eat the bread of sorrow;
for to him who enjoys his favor,
he gives while he sleeps.
3. Lo, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb is a reward.16
4. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
so are the children of youth.
5. Happy is the man who has
his quiver full of them;
They shall not be put to shame
when they speak with their enemies in the gate.

First we must understand that “building the house” does not refer simply to the construction of walls and roof, rooms and chambers, out of wood and stone. It refers rather to everything that goes on inside the house, which in German we call “managing the household” [haushallten]; just as Aristotle writes, “Oeconomia, ”17 that, is pertaining to the household economy which comprises wife and child, servant and maid, livestock and fodder. The same term is used by Moses in Exodus 1[:20–21], where he writes that God dealt well with the two midwives and “built them houses”18 because they feared him and did not strangle the children of the Israelites; that is, he helped them to obtain husbands, sons and daughters, and enough of whatever goes along with keeping a family. Solomon’s purpose is to describe a Christian marriage; he is instructing everyone how to conduct himself as a Christian husband and head of a household.

Reason and the world think that married life and the making of a home ought to proceed as they intend; they try to determine things by their own decisions and actions, as if their work could take care of everything. To this Solomon says No! He points us instead to God, and teaches us with a firm faith to seek and expect all such things from God. We see this in experience too. Frequently two people will marry who have hardly a shirt to their name, and yet they support themselves so quietly and well that it is a pleasure to behold. On the other hand, some bring great wealth into their marriage; yet it slips out of their hands till they can barely get along.

Again, two people marry out of passionate love; their choice and desire are realized, yet their days together are not happy. Some are very eager and anxious to have children, but they do not conceive, while others who have given the matter little thought get a house full of children. Again, some try to run the house and its servants smoothly, and it turns out that they have nothing but misfortune. And so it goes in this world; the strangest things happen.

Who is it that so disrupts marriage and household management, and turns them so strangely topsy-turvy? It is he of whom Solomon says: Unless the Lord keeps the house, household management there is a lost cause. He wishes to buttress this passage [Ps. 127:1a] and confirm its truth. This is why he permits such situations to arise in this world, as an assault on unbelief, to bring to shame the arrogance of reason with all works and cleverness, and to constrain them to believe.

This passage alone should be enough to attract people to marriage, comfort all who are now married, and sap the strength of covetousness. Young people are scared away from marriage when they see how strangely it turns out. They say, “It takes a lot to make a home”;19 or, “You learn a lot living with a woman.” This is because they fail to see who does this, and why He does it; and since human ingenuity and strength know no recourse and can provide no help, they hesitate to marry. As a result they fall into unchastity if they do not marry, and into covetousness and worry if they do. But here is the needed consolation: Let the Lord build the house and keep it, and do not encroach upon his work; the concern for these matters is his, not yours. For whoever is the head of the house and maintains it should be allowed to bear the burden of care. Does it take a lot to make a house? So what! God is greater than any house. He who fills heaven and earth will surely also be able to supply a house, especially since he takes the responsibility upon himself and causes it to be sung to his praise.

Why should we think it strange that it takes so much to make a home where God is not the head of the house? Because you do not see Him who is supposed to fill the house, naturally every comer must seem empty. But if you look upon Him, you will never notice whether a comer is bare; everything will appear to you to be full, and will indeed be full. And if it is not full, it is your vision which is at fault; just as it is the blind man’s fault if he fails to see the sun. For him who sees rightly, God turns the saying around and says not, “It takes a lot to make a home,” but, “How much a home contributes!” So we see that the managing of a household should and must be done in faith—then there will be enough20—so that men come to acknowledge that everything depends not on our doing, but on God’s blessing and support.

We are not to understand from this that God forbids us to work. Man must and ought to work, ascribing his sustenance and the fullness of his house, however, not to his own labor but solely to the goodness and blessing of God. For where men ascribe these things to their own labor, there covetousness and anxiety quickly arise, and they hope by much labor to acquire much. But then there is this contradiction, namely, that some people labor prodigiously, yet scarcely have enough to eat, while others are slower and more relaxed in their work, and wealth pours in on them.21 All this is because God wants the glory, as the one who alone gives the growth [I Cor. 8:6–7]. For if you should till the soil faithfully for a hundred years and do all the work in the world, you couldn’t bring forth from the earth even a single stalk; but God without any of your labor, while you sleep, produces from that tiny kernel a stalk with as many kernels on it as he wills.

Solomon here wishes to sanction work, but to reject worry and covetousness. He does not say, “The Lord builds the house, so no one need labor at it.” He does say, “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” [Ps. 127:1a]. This is as if he were to say: Man must work, but that work is in vain if it stands alone and thinks it can sustain itself. Work cannot do this; God must do it. Therefore work in such manner that your labor is not in vain. Your labor is in vain when you worry, and rely on your own efforts to sustain yourself. It behooves you to labor, but your sustenance and the maintenance of your household belong to God alone. Therefore, you must keep these two things far apart: “to labor,” and “to maintain a household” or “to sustain”; keep them as far apart from one another as heaven and earth, or God and man.

In the Proverbs of Solomon we often read how the lazy are punished because they will not work.22 Solomon says, “A slack hand causes poverty, but industrious hands bring riches” [Prov. 10:4]. This and similar sayings sound as if our sustenance depended on our labor; though he says in the same passage [Prov. 10:22], as also in this psalm [127:1], that it depends on God’s blessing; or, as we say in German, “God bestows, God provides.”23 Thus, the meaning is this: God commanded Adam to eat his bread in the sweat of his face [Gen. 8:19]. God wills that man should work, and without work He will give him nothing. Conversely, God will not give him anything because of his labor, but solely out of His own goodness and blessing. Man’s labor is to be his discipline in this life, by which he may keep his flesh in subjection. To him who is obedient in this matter, God will give plenty, and sustain him well.

God sustains man in the same way he sustains all other living creatures. As the psalm [147:9] says, “He gives to all flesh their food, and to the young ravens which cry unto him” Again, in Psalm 104, 24 “The eyes of all look to thee, O Lord, and thou givest them their food in due season. Thou openest thy hand, and fillest every living creature with blessings,” that is, with fullness and sufficiency. Now no animal works for its living, but each has its own task to perform, after which it seeks and finds its food. The little birds fly about and warble, make nests, and hatch their young. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. Oxen plow, horses carry their riders and have a share in battle; sheep furnish wool, milk, cheese, etc. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. It is the earth which produces grass and nourishes them through God’s blessing. Christ himself, in Matthew 6[:26], bids us look at the birds: how they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; yet they are fed by God. That is, they perform their tasks all right, but they do no work from which they gain sustenance.

Similarly, man must necessarily work and busy himself at something. At the same time, however, he must know that it is something other than his labor which furnishes him sustenance; it is the divine blessing. Because God gives him nothing unless he works, it may seem as if it is his labor which sustains him; just as the little birds neither sow nor reap, but they would certainly die of hunger if they did not fly about to seek their food. The fact that they find food, however, is not due to their own labor, but to God’s goodness. For who placed their food there where they can find it? Beyond all doubt it is God alone, as he says in Genesis 1[:29–30], “Behold, I have given to you and to all creatures every growing plant for food.” In short, even if Scripture did not teach this directly, experience would prove it to be so. For where God has not laid up a supply no one will find anything, even though they all work themselves to death searching. We can see this with our eyes, and grasp it with our hands; yet we will not believe. Again, where God does not uphold and preserve, nothing can last, even though a hundred thousand fortresses were thrown up to defend it; it will be shattered and ground to dust till no one knows what has become of it.

Tell me: who puts silver and gold in the mountains so that man might find them there? Who puts into the field that great wealth which issues in grain, wine, and all kinds of produce, from which all creatures live Does the labor of man do this? To be sure, labor no doubt finds it, but God has first to bestow it and put it there if labor is to find it. Who puts into the flesh the power to bring forth young and fill the earth with birds, beasts, fish, etc.? Is this accomplished by our labor and care? By no means. God is there first, secretly laying his blessing therein; then all things are brought forth in abundance. And so we find that all our labor is nothing more than the finding and collecting of God’s gifts; it is quite unable to create or preserve anything.

Here then we see how Solomon, in this one little verse [Ps. 127:1], has solved in short order the greatest of all problems among the children of men, about which so many books have been written, so many proverbs and approaches devised, namely, how to feed our poor stomachs. Solomon rejects them all in a body, wraps the whole matter up in faith, and says: You labor in vain when you labor for the purpose of sustaining yourself and building your own house. Indeed, you make for yourself a lot of worry, and trouble. At the same time by such arrogance and wicked unbelief you kindle God’s wrath, so that you only become all the poorer and are mined completely because you undertook to do what is his alone to do. And if with such unbelief you should succeed anyway in attaining wealth in all things, it would only bring greater ruin to you soul eternally when God lets you go blindly on in your unbelief.

If you want to earn your livelihood honorably, quietly, and well, and rightly maintain your household, give heed: Take up some occupation that will keep you busy in order that you can eat your bread in the sweat of your face [Gen. 3:19]. Then do not worry, about how you will be sustained and how such labor will build and maintain your house. Place everything in God’s keeping; let him do the worrying and the building. Entrust these things to him; he will lay before you richly and well the things which your labor is to find and bring to you. If he does not put them there, you will labor in vain and find nothing.

Thus, this wholly evangelical verse in masterful fashion sets forth faith, as against that accursed covetousness and concern for the belly which today, alas! everywhere hinders the fruit of the gospel. When this verse is fully understood, the rest of the psalm is easy. We will now briefly run through the other verses.

Unless the Lord keeps the city,
the watchman guards in vain.

In the first verse he rebuked covetousness, worry, and unbelief in every, household in particular. In this verse25 he does the same thing for a whole community. For a whole community is nothing other than many households combined. By this term we comprehend all manner of principalities, dominions, and kingdoms, or any other grouping of people.

Now the blind world, because it does not know God and his work, concludes that it is owing to its own cleverness, reason, and strength that a community or dominion endures and thrives. Accordingly, they gather together great treasures, stuff their coffers, construct mighty towers and walls, provide suits of armor and vast supplies of provisions, enact wise laws, and conduct their affairs with courage and prudence. They just go ahead in their arrogance without even consulting God about any of it, like those who built the Tower of Babel [Gen. 11:1–9].

Meanwhile, God sits above and watches how cleverly and boldly the children of men proceed, and he causes the psalmist to sing in his praise, “God brings the counsel of the nations to naught” [Ps. 33:10]. Again, “God knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain” [Ps. 94:11]. And yet again, “He takes away the spirit of princes, and deals strongly with the kings of the earth” [Ps. 76:12]. He allows such cities and dominions to arise and to gain the ascendancy, for a little while. But before they can look around he strikes them down; and in general the greater the kingdom, the sooner. Even though they flourish for a short time, that is in the sight of God little more than a beginning. Never does one of them arrive at the point it strives to reach.

If you will look at the history of the kingdoms of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome,26 and all the rest, you will find there exactly what this verse says. All their splendor is nothing more than God’s little puppet show. He has allowed them to rise for a time, but he has invariably overthrown them, one after the other. As they gained a brief ascendancy, through human wit and arrogance, so much the more quickly did they fall again; not because they lacked manpower, money, goods, and all manner of resources, but because the true watchman had ceased to uphold them, and caused them to see what human wit and power could accomplish without his watchful care and protection. So it turned out that their cause was nothing but vain counsel and a futile undertaking which they could neither uphold nor carry out.

They themselves have felt and acknowledged this. The pagan Vergil wrote of Troy that the slain Hector appeared before Aeneas in a dream and said, “If Troy could have been defended, it would have been defended by my hand.”27 And Lucan wrote, “Magnisque negatum Stare diu”; “It is not given great kingdoms to long endure.”28 So utterly apparent is God’s work; yet men will not acknowledge him even though they bump their heads against it. Soldiers, too. acknowledge that victory does not depend on the numbers or strength of the army, but, as they say, on luck. But Scripture says it depends on God, as Psalm 24[:8] reads, “The Lord mighty in battle.” And Psalm [147:10 and] 88[:17], “His delight is not in the strength of the horse, and the horse is a vain hope for victory and by its great might it cannot save,” etc. And Ecclesiastes 9[:11], “I saw that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,” etc.

Thus, by this verse Solomon would briefly instruct all kings, princes, councilmen, and everyone in authority how to conduct and maintain a good, peaceful, and blessed government which functions well. In the first place, they should be watchful and diligent in the performance of their official duties. He does not say that they should not be watchful and diligent, just as in the preceding verse he does not forbid them to work (St. Paul, too, says in Romans 12:29 that those who are in authority over others should be careful or diligent). He wants rather that their watchfulness be not fruitless and in vain, but beneficial and worth while.

In the second place, he wants them in faith to entrust such watchful care to God and let him worry about how the watching is to be done, so they do not arrogantly presume that their own solicitude and diligence preserves the city, but are assured that God will preserve the city and protect land and people. Just take the arrogance and worry out of the watchfulness, and let it proceed in faith. For although God will preserve nothing unless we exercise diligence and care, still he does not want us to get the idea that it is our own solicitude and diligence which accomplishes that which is done by his goodness and mercy alone.

One of two things must necessarily follow when we rely on our own watchfulness: either arrogance or worry. If all goes well and is secure, we pride ourselves on our watchfulness; if things go wrong and are about to fail, we worry, lose heart, and become doubtful. Now God will tolerate neither of these, neither arrogance nor worry. We should neither worry when we are insecure, nor be proud when we are secure, but in free and true faith do our watching and perform the duties of our calling. We should no more be anxious when things go wrong than be proud when things go well.

Now none but a believing heart acts in this way. As David says when he speaks out against worry in Psalm 3[:6], “I will not be afraid though many thousands set themselves against me round about.” Again, in Psalm 27[:1, 3], “The Lord protects me; whom shall I fear? Though war arise against me, in him will I be confident.” He speaks again against arrogance in Psalm 44[:6], “I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me.”

Why, then, does he urge us to labor and watch, and want us to have walls, armor, and all manner of supplies, just as he commanded the children of Israel to put on their armor and fight against the Canaanites? Are we to provide no supplies, leave our gates and windows open, make no effort to defend ourselves but allow ourselves to be pierced through and become lifeless corpses as they did in the book of Maccabees? [I Macc. 2:34–38]. By no means. You have just heard that those in authority should be watchful and diligent, and perform all the duties of their office: bar the gates, defend the towers and walls, put on armor, and procure supplies. In general, they should proceed as if there were no God and they had to rescue themselves and manage their own affairs; just as the head of a household is supposed to work as if he were trying to sustain himself by his own labors.

But he must watch out that his heart does not come to rely on these deeds of his, and get arrogant when things go well or worried when things go wrong. He should regard all such preparation and equipment as being the work of our Lord God under a mask, as it were, beneath which he himself alone effects and accomplishes what we desire. He commands us so to equip ourselves for this reason also, that he might conceal his own work under this disguise, and allow those who boast to go their way, and strengthen those who are worried, so that men will not tempt him. In this way he conducted all the wars of King David and of the whole people of Israel in the Old Testament. He does the same thing today, wherever the authorities have such faith. In like manner, through their own labor he made Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wealthy, etc. Indeed, one could very well say that the course of the world, and especially the doing of his saints, are God’s mask, under which he conceals himself and so marvelously exercises dominion and introduces disorder in the world.

It is vain that you rise up early
and go to bed late,
and eat the bread of sorrow;
for so he gives to his beloved in sleep.

This whole verse [Ps. 127:2] is directed against arrogance and anxiety, as if he were to say: It is futile for you to rise up early and go to bed late, and think that the more you labor the more you will have. For that is something that the blessing of God has to accomplish. And even if you do succeed in acquiring more than others who are not so concerned about getting things and keeping them, still your earnings will not go as far as those of the carefree, but will slip through your fingers and disappear, as Psalm 37[:16] says, “It is better for the righteous to have a little than to have the great riches of the wicked.” And Solomon says in the Proverbs, “Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a fatted ox and hatred with it” [Prov. 15:17].

That this is his meaning, and that it is not his intent to prohibit labor or diligence, is clear from his phrase, “and eat the bread of sorrow.” This says in effect: You are making your bread and sustenance harsh and bitter; and this is not the fault of your labor, but of your anxious and unbelieving heart. It refuses to believe that God will nourish you; instead, it is importunate and demanding, wanting to fill coffers, purses, cellars, and storehouses, and refusing to rest until it is assured of having more supplies on hand than it could consume in many years. He who has faith in God, however, is not anxious about tomorrow but is content with today. He does his work with joy and with a quiet heart, and lives in accord with Christ’s injunction in the gospel, “Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have its own troubles. It is enough that each day has its own evil.”30 Lo, the livelihood of such believers will not be harsh and bitter; for although they too eat their bread in the sweat of their faces outwardly [Gen. 3:19], they do it with faith and a joyful conscience inwardly.

Thereupon, he concludes by showing how God gives all such things, saying: Sic dabit dilectis suis somno; All such things (both the building of the house and the keeping of the city) he gives to his beloved as in their sleep [Ps. 127:2]. That is, he lets them work hard and be diligent, in such a way, however, that they are neither anxious nor arrogant, but go happily along, assuming no burden of care, and committing everything to Him. They live a calm and untroubled life with tranquil hearts, as one who sleeps sweetly and securely, letting nothing trouble him, and yet continues to live and be well cared for. They have enough; indeed, they must be well supplied and protected because they have committed all to God in accordance with Psalm 55[:22], “Cast your burden on the Lord, and he will sustain you”; and I Peter 5[:7], “Cast all your anxieties on him, and know that he cares for you.” At issue is not the matter of work, but only the matter of pernicious worry, covetousness, and unbelief.

Lo, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.

All of this is spoken in typical Hebrew fashion. “Heritage from the Lord” and “reward” are one and the same thing, just as “children” and “fruit of the womb” are one and the same thing. Thus it means to say: What good does it do you to be so deeply concerned and anxious about how to procure and protect your possessions? Why even children, and whatever is born of woman, are not within your power; although they are a part of household and city alike, for if there were no children and “fruit of the womb” neither household nor city would endure. So the very reward and “heritage from the Lord,” about which you are so terribly anxious, are actually the gift and boon of God. (Even if all the whole world were to combine forces, they could not bring about the conception of a single child in any woman’s womb nor cause it to be born; that is wholly the work of God alone.) Why, then, are you concerned and anxious about acquiring and securing goods, when you do not even possess that for which you seek them? A lord, then, and the head of a household ought rightfully to say to himself: I will labor and perform my allotted tasks; but He who creates children in the home and inhabitants in the city (all of whom are “fruit of the womb”) will also sustain and preserve them. Lo, this one’s labor and that one’s watching would then not be bitter to him, but would proceed aright in faith.

Christ touched upon this (to which virtually the whole psalm is devoted) when he said in Matthew 8[:25], “Is not the body more than clothing, and the soul more than food.?” It is as if he were to say: Since children and “the fruit of the womb” are not for you to worry about, why then do you worry about the matter of securing and keeping possessions? For who can ever explain how it is that all the children of men are brought forth out of the flesh of women? Who has hidden such a multitude of men in that poor flesh, and who brings them forth in such marvelous fashion? None other than He alone, who gives children as a heritage and the fruit of the womb as a reward to his beloved [Ps. 127:3] as in sleep [Ps. 127:2]. God bestows his gifts overnight, they say; and that is literally true.

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
so are the children of one’s youth.

Here he compares children and people with the arrows in the hand of a mighty hero, who shoots his arrows whenever and withersoever he wills. Thus, we also see how God deals with us. Just look at how amazingly he matches husband and wife, in a way no one would expect; and how they attain to extraordinary stations in life for which they have not striven, so that men marvel at it. Generally, things turn out quite differently from what father, and mother, and even the person himself, had envisioned. It is as if God would confess this verse [Ps. 127:4] in deeds and say: I will bring to naught all the counsels of men and deal with the children of men according to my own will, that they may be in my hand as the arrows of a powerful giant. Of what use is a lot of worrying and planning for our future when that future will be nothing other than what he wills? The best thing to do then is to work, and let him worry, about the future.

He mentions especially “the children of youth,” meaning those who are not yet householders or guardians of the city, those whom we regard as being committed solely to the care of our own cleverness. He still guides them in their homes and in the city as he wills, and does with them what he wills, to show us that he cares for all things, and never leaves anything to us but our labor, that we may not think God governs only infants in the cradle and allows grown-ups to use their reason and free will. Indeed, he directs the grown-ups (he says here31) just as much as he does the small children; they are arrows in his hand, and must come and go as and wherever he wills. To God they are all the same: rationality and irrationality, heaven and earth, the young and those who are old, wise, and experienced.

Indeed, he deals even more strangely with those who are wise and possessed of reason. He has much more to do with them in that he turns their counsels and reason into foolishness, and directs them otherwise than they intend. Therefore, according to this verse [Ps. 127:4] it is not the children and “the fruit of the womb”—whom he calls God’s heritage and gift32—but the children of youth, who have now grown up and reached the age of discretion, whom he holds in his hand as a giant holds his arrows; though to all appearances he seems to have these in his hand least of all, allowing their reason and wit to rule them while he devotes his attention to the little children. His whole purpose is to check and take from us the whole matter of our governing and caring for ourselves, in order that we may know it is he himself who alone rules over us and cares for us, and so lets33 us go about our business and do our work.

Happy is the man who has
his quiver full of them;
They shall not be put to shame
when they speak with their enemies in the gate.

He desires that such youth, given by God, and recognized as such, may be many, for then the world would be well off. That is very true. If all manner of problems are to be dealt with successfully, then the young people who are to live and govern on this earth after us must be trained and guided accordingly. Just as the giant who has his quiver full of arrows is well prepared and equipped, so the householder and the city to whom God has granted an abundance of such youth are well supplied. For there it is God himself who keeps the house and watches over the city.

Such a great blessing however, will not be without persecution, for where things go according to God’s will there must also be onslaughts of the devil. The unbelief and covetousness of this world cannot tolerate godly life and teaching; therefore, such householders and cities will not be without enemies to revile and abuse them. But over against such attacks there stands this comfort, that they will ultimately emerge with honor and put their enemies to shame in the gate (that is, publicly) [Ps. 127:5]. He mentions no armor or weapons but only the word, saying that “they will speak with their enemies in the gate,” as if to say: By their teaching they will stand, because it is true, no matter how sharply their opponents attack it.

I wanted to write this to you, my dear friends in Christ, for your encouragement, that your hearts and ours may be yet more diligent, in order that the gospel may become rich and fruitful among us all in all manner of understanding and of good works, against which covetousness, the fruit of pernicious unbelief, fights so vigorously. Our dear Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and help us. For if we are still so weak that we cannot leave off worrying about the needs of our bellies, how shall we be able to bear the world’s fury, death, opprobrium, and all other misfortune? Yes, how shall we stand firm when the false spirits come upon us, who just now are beginning to rise? May God, the Father of all mercy, who has introduced his word and begun his work among you, preserve your minds and hearts in the simple and pure knowledge of Jesus Christ our Savior, to whom be praise and thanks in all eternity. Amen.34

Luther, M. (1999, c1962). Vol. 45: Luther's works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (45:311). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Here is a transcription of this hymn in common notation, created by Craig Sproat at the request of Rev. Mark Preus, per my request:

Here is my entirely unpoetic but literal translation of Spengler's hymn:

Lazarus Spengler hymn on Psalm 127 (transcribed from WA 15, pp 378-379)

*) LMNO haben noch folgenden Anhang (vgl. oben S. 350):
*) LMNO have the still following appendix (see above P. 350):

Folget der Psalm NISI DOMINUS EDIFICAVERIT DOMUM in ein schönes Lied verfasset.
The Psalm Nisi Dominus Aedificaverit Domum follows, composed into a beautiful hymn.

1. Vergebens ist all müh [mühe NO] und kost, wo nicht

    das haus Gott selber bawt. Den wo die

    Also ist auch der mensch troftlos, wo er

    sein eigen krefften trawt.

    stad Gott it seim rath nicht selbst erhelt

    und schützet [schützt NO], Man wach und hüt, an Got-

    tes güt, Fürwar das solchs nicht nützet.

In vain is all effort and eating, where God does not build the house. And man is also hopeless, where he in his own strength trusts. The city with its "rath" that God does not himself build and protect, man watches and guards, indeed such do not benefit from God's good.

2. Was hilffts, das wir vor tags auff stehen [stehn M],

    Und auff uns laden sorgen vil [viel NO]

    So doch all unser anschleg gehn, allein

    wie Gottes ordnung wil.

    Und ob dein brod gleich wird mit rad und komer uberkomen,

    Wenn Gott dir nit solchs segnet mit,

    Was reicht dir das zum fromen.

What help is it, that we get up before the day, and work ourselves up with much worry. Yet regardless of how all ours attempts go, God's will shall be done. And whether yours becomes alike "brod" with wheel and more comes overcome, God blesses you with what is enough to keep you pious.

3. Derhimlisch [himelisch NO] vater thuts allein, Das land

    und leut wird vol regirt [regiert NO].

    Wir sehens teglich, als ich mein. Und wenn

    nicht hütet diser hirt,

    All regiment nem bald ein end, wers noch so fest erbawet.

    Wie elend leut sein wir denn heut,

    Das wir ihm [im MO] nicht [nit MN] vertrawen.

The heavenly Father does alone the country and people govern. We seeing daily, as I mine. And if He does not guard and shepherd them, all armies would soon be taken to their end, though they be firmly built. As the miserable people we are today, we do not credit him.

4. Das Gott den menschen kindern bschert,

    Das ist allein sein gnad und güt,

    Er ists der sie erhelt und neert; wenn sich

    Der mensch am höchsten müht,

    So ists umb sonst [sonst fehlt N] on gottes gonst, Er kan ihr [jr NO] fussteig wenden,

    Gleich wie inn eil umbtreibt ein pfeil,

    ein starcker inn sein henden.

God brings people children, which alone are their grace and good, he is their preserver and "neert"; if humans strive themselves most highly, thus otherwise is around on God is missing favor, he can to it "fussteig" (footpath?) turn, directly as a rapidly carried arrow, strengthened in His hand.

5. Wie selig ist nu diese Stad,

    die von Gott selber wird regirt [regiert NO],

    Das haus, so ein vorsteher hat, den Gott

    inn seinen wegen fürt.

    Darüm [Darumb N] so schaw, das dein vertraw auff ihn [jn NO] allein wird gestellet,

    Denn on sein hand ein ides [jedes NO] land

    gewis zu poden fellet.

As now this state is blessed, if by God oneself governs, the house such a chief has, then God in his way will come. In such a way therefore show that yours acquainted on Him alone is satisfied, because on His hand falls each country surely to stand.
_______________________________________________________________________

And here is a proper poetic translation by Matthew Carver

IN VAIN is all thy toil and pain,
Unless thy house be built by God;
So, too, man’s hope is all in vain
When founded on his powers flawed.
Except thy place
By God’s good grace
Be propped up and protected,
No waking would
Do any good
For what thou hast erected.

2. What profits us ere dawn to rise,
And multiply our fruitless pains?
So all our efforts fail likewise,
And all must go as God ordains.
And though we might
Win bread despite,
And through much grief and trouble;
If God deign not
To bless this lot,
What use if it were double?

3. Alone our heav’nly Father’s might
Can bless the people, rule the plot,
This truth is daily in our sight,
For if this Shepherd kept us not,
All rule would fall
Though built so tall,
And seemingly abiding;
What misery
We people see,
For not in God confiding.

4. If God to man some children cedes
He gives them only out of grace,
He is the One who keeps and feeds,
Though much a man may sweat and pace.
Without God’s will
’Tis futile still,
All paths His pow’r may alter,
Just as by haste
The strong men waste
And make their arrows falter.

5. How blessed, then, that place must be
Which God Himself by rule sustains;
And such a house that man will see
Whom God upon his pathway trains.
Wherefore make sure
Thy trust be pure
And on Him solely grounded.
Without whose hand
The strongest land
Must surely be confounded.

Translation © Matthew Carver, 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

And here is a setting of the hymn by Senfl, if you like Renaissance choral music:

______________________________________________________________________

Footnote on the author of the hymn, Lazarus Spengler, the 9th of 21 children born to Georg and Agnes Spengler in Nuremberg on March 13, 1479. He died in Nuremberg on September 7, 1534.

He was a prominent supporter of Martin Luther and leader of the Protestant Reformation in Nuremberg, as well as a famous hymn writer.

His father was a clerk in the Imperial Court of Justice. Lazarus Spengler enrolled in the University of Leipzig in 1491. Upon the death of his father in 1496, Spengler returned to Nuremberg and obtained a position in the office of the Nuremberg town clerk (Raths Syndikus). In 1507, he became the town clerk.

Spengler met Martin Luther in 1518, when Luther passed through Nuremberg. Spengler became an ardent supporter, publishing Schutzred supporting Luther in 1519. He was active in reforming the church in Nuremberg, which drew unfavorable attention from religious conservatives. Spengler was one of Luther's supporters mentioned by name in Pope Leo X's bull Exsurge Domine, issued on June 15, 1520, threatening to excommunicate Luther and his followers if they did not submit to the pope. With the support of the Nuremberg town council, Spengler refused to submit to the pope, and was subsequently excommunicated along with Luther by the pope on January 3, 1521, by the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem. In April 1521, Nuremberg sent Spengler as a delegate to the Diet of Worms.

Spengler and the Nuremberg town council continued to reform the church in Nuremberg throughout the 1520s, and in 1525, Spengler traveled to Wittenberg to consult Luther and Philipp Melanchthon about the possibility of converting the Benedictine Ägidienstift into a Protestant gymnasium. Luther and Melanchthon looked favorably on the proposal, and the gymnasium was opened by Melanchthon on May 23, 1526. In 1528, Spengler worked with the other reformers to convince the Elector of Saxony, John the Steadfast to authorize a canonical visitation, an activity that had previously been conducted exclusively by Roman Catholic bishops. Spengler participated in the negotiations at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, where he was a vocal defender of strict Lutheranism.

Spengler was largely responsible for the design of the Luther rose, adopted by Luther at the time of the Diet of Augusburg. He is also remembered as the author of several hymns, some of which remain in Lutheran hymn books to this day. One of these, "Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt" (All Mankind Fell In Adam's Fall), is quoted in the Book of Concord [Formula of Concord: Epitome, art. i, par. 8].

This Coming Sunday's Epistle Reading

2010-09-13T17:27:00.002-04:00

The appointed epistle reading for the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost this year is 1 Timothy 2:1-15:

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

The Lutheran Confessions, to which all our pastors vow quia subscription, make specific doctrinal use of verse 15 in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, article xxiii, paragraph 32:

Likewise, “She will be saved through childbearing,” and so on (1 Timothy 2:15). If the adversaries could produce such a passage about celibacy, then certainly they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul says that woman is saved by childbearing. What more honorable thing could be said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing children and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without faith are not praised. “If they continue,” he says, “in faith.” For he speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore, he requires especially faith, through which a woman receives the forgiveness of sins and justification. Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every person a good work of a particular calling should follow faith. This work pleases God because of faith. So the duties of the woman please God because of faith, and the believing woman is saved who devoutly serves her calling in such duties.

This doctrinal statement obviously draws upon the following commentary of Luther's on 1 Timothy 2:15:

15. She will be saved. That subjection of women and domination of men have not been taken away, have they? No. The penalty remains. The blame passed over. The pain and tribulation of childbearing continue. Those penalties will continue until judgment. So also the dominion of men and the subjection of women continue. You must endure them. You will also be saved if you have also subjected yourselves and bear your children with pain. Through bearing children. It is a very great comfort that a woman can be saved by bearing children, etc. That is, she has an honorable and salutary status in life if she keeps busy having children. We ought to recommend this passage to them, etc. She is described as “saved” not for freedom, for license, but for bearing and rearing children. Is she not saved by faith? He goes on and explains himself: bearing children is a wholesome responsibility, but for believers. To bear children is acceptable to God. He does not merely say that bearing children saves; he adds: if the bearing takes place in faith and love, it is a Christian work, for “to the pure all things are pure (Titus 1:15).” Also: “All things work together,” Rom. 8:28. This is the comfort for married people in trouble: hardship and all things are salutary, for through them they are moved forward toward salvation and against adultery. If they continue. This means whatever a married woman or a mother and her children do. In faith. Paul had to add this, lest women think that they are good in the fact that they bear children. Simple childbearing does nothing, since the heathen also do this. But for Christian women their whole responsibility is salutary. So much the more salutary, then, is bearing children. I add this, therefore, that they may not feel secure when they have no faith. Rather, they should continue—along with their children—in faith, etc. But how they can take care of this as children, etc., see chapter 5, if you have done your job and instructed your children and have done what you can. Let Isaac be wicked against the training of his father, let the defeat be not in Abraham but in his son. See to it that your children do not persevere in faithlessness because of your negligence. See to it that they are not corrupted or that you do not allow them to be corrupted, if it is your fault that they have not continued “in faith.” See to it that they do not hold in contempt the Word, faith toward God, love toward neighbor, holiness toward themselves. That is, a woman ought to live in holiness, according to 1 Thess. 4:5, “not in the passion of lust.” That is, she should not befoul herself with another’s husband or unclean morals. A man should be content with his own wife, for she is his own body, and in relation to her there should be reverence and holiness. With modesty, with moderation, good common sense; sensible, well-mannered. People see modesty or a composed mind when there is modesty of body, a person who can deal with matters sensibly. I interpret it with “sensibly” (vernünftig), to be temperate in doing all other things—in speaking, in managing; that a person may sensibly and skillfully manage affairs. Thus you see how he wants Christian women to behave in public life, in the home, etc. If the Lord were to raise up a woman for us to listen to, we would allow her to rule like Huldah. This first part has spoken to husbands and wives. What follows is the description of other estates—of bishops and of deacons.

China may relax its one-child rule

2010-09-13T11:47:00.001-04:00

USA Today reports:

An aging population and the need for more workers have prompted China's Communist Party to consider relaxing the decades-long ban that restricts most couples to one child, a harsh policy marked by forced abortions, sterilizations and fines for those who have more than one.

In 2011, China will start pilot projects in five provinces, all of which have low birth rates, to allow a second birth if at least one spouse is an only child, says He Yafu, an independent demographer who is in close contact with policymakers.

Beijing, Shanghai, and four other provinces will follow suit in 2012, with nationwide implementation by 2013 or 2014, he says.

...The need for more children to care for parents, plus a gender imbalance that will leave tens of millions of men without wives, are two arguments for a relaxation of the one-child policy...

Have children or be Islamised, Europe told

2010-09-11T18:42:00.001-04:00

European Christians must have more children or face the prospect of the Continent becoming Islamised, a senior Vatican official has said.

Fr Piero Gheddo, an Italian, said that the low birth rate among indigenous Europeans combined with an unprecedented wave of Muslim immigrants with large families could see Europe becoming dominated by Islam in the space of a few generations. "The challenge must be taken seriously," said Fr Gheddo, of the Vatican's Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions.

"Certainly from a demographic point of view, as it is clear to everyone that Italians are decreasing by 120,000 or 130,000 persons a year because of abortion and broken families - while among the more than 200,000 legal immigrants a year in Italy, more than half are Muslims and Muslim families, which have a much higher level of growth. Newspapers and television programs never speak of this.

Baby Freeze

2010-09-09T21:17:00.001-04:00

Salvo Magazine: Is Population Control the New Solution to Global Warming?
.

There Goes the Neighborhood

2010-09-09T21:15:00.002-04:00

Weekly Standard: Rage against the ‘breeders.’
.

Raising children in the παιδεία of the Lord

2010-09-03T10:13:00.002-04:00

We are not just told to be fruitful and multiply, but also to raise the children we are blessed with in the παιδεία of the Lord.

Pr. Weedon wrote in a post the other day, "Pondering how Satan is so adept at getting us all worked up, hot and bothered, over the things that finally don't matter; so that we stay cooly indifferent to the things that finally do. 'We are not ignorant of his devises.' Surely majoring in the minors is one such. 'Lord, help us to love what you command and desire what you promise!’”

I responded as follows:

This point reminds me of Martha and Mary, and is so applicable to many facets of our lives. In particular, I’m thinking about the priority-setting that is so necessary for homeschool parents – especially at this time of year. What to teach, how to teach it, what other activities to participate in, etc., etc., etc…

Most importantly, I note that it is a tool of the devil to make homeschool parents feel guilty that they are not able to teach some academic subjects at the same level that the public schools often can if they have “good” teachers.

I believe Homeschool parents should try to break away from the modern public school curriculum mandates and decide what is truly good, necessary, and edifying for their children to learn, based upon their future goals in life.

We can also easily get so worried and bogged down with teaching academic subjects that are not really that important, or to a level of mastery that is not at all necessary, that we forget to focus on the priorities of teaching theology and the roles of sons and daughters in developing their understanding, learning, and practicing of their respective roles in a biblical understanding of οἰκονομία – keeping/managing the house.

How many parents wouldn’t think of allowing their child to miss a math lesson, while never even thinking to ensure that at least the primary texts of the Small Catechism have been recited daily according to the injunctions in the same. Luther writes:

“And if this were not sufficient to admonish us to read the Catechism daily, yet we should feel sufficiently constrained by the command of God alone, who solemnly enjoins in Deut. 6:6ff that we should always meditate upon His precepts, sitting, walking, standing, lying down, and rising, and have them before our eyes and in our hands as a constant mark and sign. Doubtless He did not so solemnly require and enjoin this without a purpose; but because He knows our danger and need, as well as the constant and furious assaults and temptations of devils, He wishes to warn, equip, and preserve us against them, as with a good armor against their fiery darts and with good medicine against their evil infection and suggestion. Oh, what mad, senseless fools are we that, while we must ever live and dwell among such mighty enemies as the devils are, we nevertheless despise our weapons and defense, and are too lazy to look at or think of them!”

The primary goal of homeschooling, in my opinion, should remember the biggest advantage of homeschooling: being at home with family, having time for theological discussions, and having the flexibility to teach according to the future goals and needs of each child. With few exceptions, we are raising future Christian husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. I believe preparing for the additional vocations found outside the home, while especially important for men, must remain secondary in priority to the teaching of these primary vocations.

As a homeschool father, I have found that the more we try to duplicate the entire curriculum mandates of public education, the focus of our lives moved away from the home, church, and family, and into the self-absorbed attitude of simply creating another independent individual for the state.

The same can be said for over-indulgence in extracurricular activities for each child. Parents can easily become bus drivers for independent children who have little time for family meals and edifying family leisure.

Theodore Roosevelt On Motherhood - 1905

2010-08-31T21:56:00.007-04:00

This speech is worth reading in total, but if you're short on time, I have provided a "reader's digest" version below.

Theodore Roosevelt On Motherhood - 1905

No piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy, unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency, unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not decrease.

...Just as the happiest and most honorable and most useful task that can be set any man is to earn enough for the support of his wife and family, for the bringing up and starting in life of his children, so the most important, the most honorable and desirable task which can be set any woman is to be a good and wise mother in a home marked by self-respect and mutual forbearance, by willingness to perform duty, and by refusal to sink into self-indulgence or avoid that which entails effort and self-sacrifice.

...If you mothers through weakness bring up your sons to be selfish and to think only of themselves, you will be responsible for much sadness among the women who are to be their wives in the future. If you let your daughters grow up idle, perhaps under the mistaken impression that as you yourselves have had to work hard they shall know only enjoyment, you are preparing them to be useless to others and burdens to themselves. Teach boys and girls alike that they are not to look forward to live spent in avoiding difficulties, but to lives spent in overcoming difficulties.

...There are many good people who are denied the supreme blessing of children, and for these we have the respect and sympathy always due to those who, from no fault of their own, are denied any of the other great blessings of life. But the man or woman who deliberately forego these blessings, whether from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant,--why, such a creature merits contempt as hearty as any visited upon the soldier who runs away in battle...

...The existence of women of this type forms one of the most unpleasant and unwholesome features of modern life... ...and think of the fate that would surely overcome any nation which developed its average and typical woman along such lines... ...These unpleasant tendencies in our American life are made evident by articles such as those which I actually read not long ago in a certain paper, where a clergyman was quoted, seemingly with approval, as expressing the general American attitude when he said that the ambition of any save a very rich man should be to rear two children only, so as to give his children an opportunity "to taste a few of the good things of life."

This man, whose profession and calling should have made him a moral teacher, actually set before others the ideal, not of training children to do their duty, not of sending them forth with stout hearts and ready minds to win triumphs for themselves and their country, not of allowing them the opportunity, and giving them the privilege of making their own place in the world, but, forsooth, of keeping the number of children so limited that they might "taste a few good things!"

...a race that practised such doctrine--that is, a race that practised race suicide--would thereby conclusively show that it was unfit to exist, and that it had better give place to people who had not forgotten the primary laws of their being.

...The woman's task is not easy--no task worth doing is easy--but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes, and all people who realize that her work lies at the foundation of all national happiness and greatness, shall rise up and call her blessed.

Chastity within Marriage

2010-08-29T21:12:00.007-04:00

Again, with regard to the historic teaching against an "everything goes" attitude in the sexual intimacy of husband and wife, Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent (3:32-33) writes regarding marital chastity:

Further, this reminder needs to be added, that there is some difference between the chastity of that conjugal intercourse which would have taken place before the Fall and that which now takes place in this corrupt nature after the Fall. Epiphanius says, Bk. 1, Tom. 3, Heresy 45, that appetites were implanted by God in nature, not for the purpose of unnatural conduct but for a good use and for a necessary and useful order. And he adds: “Therefore I have also said that the appetite of bodily desire is not something unnatural, for it has been given in order that children may be begotten in purity, in order that the command may be fulfilled: ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ ” Therefore the desire of one sex for the other was found in nature also when it was whole, but there it would have been without the flame and fire of lust, completely holy and pure.

Now through sin this most noble work of generating children, which is truly a creation of God, has been infected with the leprosy of lust (as Luther calls it). And when Scripture calls conjugal cohabitation chastity and holiness, this is not to be understood as if the flames of lust were sanctified in spouses so that they are a good, pure, and holy thing. For our first parents immediately after the Fall covered the organs of generation because they sensed there a disorder to which they were before unaccustomed. And God Himself provided them garments. Paul also (1 Cor. 12:23) calls them our less honorable members, which are to be honored by covering them. One must therefore distinguish between the work itself, which is per se a good creation of God, and the vice and disorderliness of lust, which came to it through sin. For Scripture ascribes to spouses both lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:5) and chastity (1 Tim. 2:15). However, that accompanying disorder is shielded and covered by the honor, sanctity, and purity of marriage on account of the institution and blessing of God, so that it is not imputed to believers; but conjugal cohabitation, even though it is not so pure as it would have been before the Fall (for it is not without the fire of lust) is nevertheless before God and in His sight chastity, holiness, and purity. For marriage is now, since the Fall, as it were an umbrella, by which many marital follies, if I may use that expression, are covered, so that they are not imputed to believers, as Luther beautifully argues on Gen. 26, fol. 382 [Luther’s Works, American Edition, 5, pp. 31–38].

In order therefore that pious spouses may preserve chastity in conjugal cohabitation, let them learn first of all to think [rightly] about the flames, tire, and ardor of lust; let them not think that these are per sea good thing and pleasing to God, but be sure that if they are confined within the limits of matrimony God does not impute them to believers but tolerates them, overlooks and ignores them, and as Luther beautifully accommodates the word used in Acts 13:18, “bears with them.” Second, spouses should also ponder what Paul says in 1 Thess. 4:4–5 [KJV]: “… that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel … not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles.” For as Peter calls the wife the weak vessel, so this passage in Paul is not ineptly explained of conjugal intercourse, that pious spouses should not indulge with the furor of beastly lust, like heathen, but should use moderation and bridle the passions of lust in order that marriage may be honorable and the couch unpolluted. And where they have overdone it, they will pray that this may not be imputed but forgiven.

The latter portion of the statement I placed in bold is obviously a reference to Hebrews 13:4 (which we have been discussing below). And here is an excerpt of the Luther reference given by Chemnitz at the end of the second paragraph above:

[Genesis 26:]8 When he had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw Isaac fondling Rebecca his wife.

To be sure, marriage is not without its own imperfection and uncleanness; but God tolerates and overlooks this. If the natural order of procreating offspring is preserved, then God overlooks and forgives, or, as Luke expresses it in Acts (13:18) with a fine word, τροποφορει̂, He bears with them. He says: “I shall bear with this way for the sake of the preservation of the human race. I know that you were conceived in sins; but I forgive you, and I permit you to have your wife as a help. In her alone you should take delight, and you should bear it patiently, even if something sad or irksome happens. I, too, shall have patience, whether you embrace her during the night, when she is naked, or during the day, when she is clothed.”

Luther's Works, Vol. 5, Page 34

Rev. Roger James on Hebrews 13:4

2010-08-29T15:53:00.006-04:00

Here is a bold and faithful law/gospel sermon delivered by my dear pastor, Rev. Roger James, on today's epistle lesson, Hebrews 13:4 τιμιος ο γαμος εν πασιν και η κοιτη αμιαντος

Sermon 8/29/10 on Hebrews 13:4

“κοιτη” – koite {N-NSF} – the marriage bed, sexual intercourse, coitus.
“αμιαντος” – amiantos {A-NSF} – undefiled, unsoiled, free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired.

Recession pushes birth rate to lowest level in at least a century

2010-08-29T13:07:00.003-04:00

The Washington Post reports: Forget the Dow and the GDP. Here's the latest economic indicator: The U.S. birth rate has fallen to its lowest level in at least a century as many people apparently decided they couldn't afford more mouths to feed.

Genesis 30:2 "Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said: 'Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?'"

Luther's commentary:

“Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is very difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: ‘Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden of poverty alone and not load myself with misery and want.’ But this blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God’s goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God’s blessing. For if you had trust in God’s grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper. [5 Luther's Works, vol. 5, page 332]

The Child Catcher

2010-08-29T08:46:00.002-04:00

Article: In Haven for Over-55 Set, Age Police Hunt Violators Who Shriek or Toddle

No, this is not some futuristic movie like "The Children of Men" - this is a very real part of our modern culture.

The NY Times reports:

As one of the hundreds of age-restricted communities nationwide, the rules are clear on one thing: no one, absolutely no one, who is a teenager, an adolescent, a toddler, a newborn, any form of child, may call Sun City home. “Visits are O.K. as long as they’re limited,” said Mr. Szentmiklosi, who describes himself as a doting grandfather and insists that he does not have an anti-child bone in his body. “You can have children visit for 90 days per year. That means if you have 10 grandchildren, each one can visit, but they can only stay nine days each.”

[Hat tip: Greg Laughlin]

CPH: Marriage by God's Design

2010-08-27T16:09:00.012-04:00

Here is the official "Marriage by God's Design" web page where you can learn all about the study. Go to the "Samples" page to download a PDF of the entire first lesson of this new Bible study. Check out the way this study seeks to get people to think in terms of God's Word. Look especially at question #12:

"God blesses and commands male and female to 'be fruitful' and 'multiply' and 'fill the earth' and 'subdue it' and 'have dominion' (Genesis 1:28, emphasis added). Take a good look at the italicized words in this passage. If God were an architect and if marriage were His blueprint, what would God be building? What does the devil do to undo God’s 'building project'?"

Of course, I wish the answer key linked this blog. ;-) Nevertheless, thanks be to God for the leadership of CPH, and especially for our friend and senior editor of adult Bible studies Rev. Robert C. Baker, in producing this study of God's Word.

Below are two videos of Rev. Baker introducing this study, including a brief appearance by our new synodical president, Rev. Matthew Harrison:

On Chastity

2010-08-27T13:05:00.002-04:00

"God wills that the light of chastity shine in our entire body and all of our members." -Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, Sixth Commandment

And how do we do this? Virtually every Christian knows the things this commandment forbids outside of marriage, including even looking with lust on someone you are not married to. However, due to a modern lack and perversion of teaching on chastity within marriage, many think that anything you do with your spouse is automatically sanctified simply by virtue of the fact that they are married. In fact, in this recent national debate about homosexual “marriage” one must ask: who redefined marriage first? If marriage is only about “love,” “mutual support” and “companionship” then why are we upset that the homosexuals think they should be able to get married too?

Hebrews 13:4 τιμιος ο γαμος εν πασιν και η κοιτη αμιαντος
“Let marriage be held in honor in all respects, and let the marriage bed be undefiled…”

Let κοιτη be αμιαντος!
“κοιτη” – koite {N-NSF} – the marriage bed, sexual intercourse, coitus.
“αμιαντος” – amiantos {A-NSF} – undefiled, unsoiled, free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired.

How is marriage honored in all respects? When we act in accordance with all of the godly purposes for which marriage was instituted, and intentionally contrary to none of them. How is the marriage bed kept undefiled? When the one-flesh union is kept free of things by which its very nature is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired.

The Large Catechism explanation of the Sixth Commandment (¶207) mirrors this verse as follows:

“Therefore, He also wishes us to honor marriage and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately, as is evident, not for lewdness, but that they should live together legitimately, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.”

Chastity within marriage is seldom kept inviolate in today’s world. Few realize that the Sixth Commandment is often violated by two persons in their own bed even if they are married. This occurs when their blessed conjugal union is perverted for selfish use contrary to nature and God’s divine ordinance and will – that is, when God’s procreative purpose is intentionally frustrated. For instance, consider the following.

Genesis 38:9-10 “But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.”

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him.” [Luther's Works, vol. 7, page 20]

Does this mean that every act of intercourse, or even every marriage, must produce a child? Certainly not. Yet we must not take it upon ourselves to intentionally separate the one-flesh union from God’s blessing of children, nor even desire to avoid such a blessing in our hearts. Let us not ignore the noble examples of chastity exemplified through the heavy cross that is carried by those whose marriage has not been blessed with children. Consider the beautiful motherly faith and chastity of Rachel and Sarah extolled in the following passages from Luther’s Lectures on Genesis regarding chapter 30, verses 1-2: “When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob: Give me children, or I shall die! Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said: ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’”

“But from this it is clear that the very saintly women were not lustful but were desirous of offspring and the blessing. For this was the cause of envy in Rachel, who, if she had been like other women whom our age has produced in large numbers, would have said: ‘What is it to me whether I bear children or not? Provided that I remain the mother of the household and have an abundance of all other things, I have enough.’ But Rachel demands offspring so much that she prefers death to remaining sterile. I do not remember reading a similar statement in any history. Therefore she is an example of a very pious and continent woman whose only zeal and burning desire is for offspring, even if it means death. Thus above (Gen. 16:2) Sarah also showed a similar desire for offspring. And in both this feeling is decidedly praiseworthy.

“. . . In the second place, they [the Papists who extol forced celibacy] do not see with what pure and maternal hearts these women ask for children. These feelings and words of Rachel show that her heart was altogether alien to lust. This they do not see. Why? Because it is written: ‘Away with the godless man, lest he see or hear what God says, what He does and works!’ They are not worthy of seeing God’s glory. Thus they hear us today as we cry out, as we teach and sing the Word of God. They see the works of God. Yet they do not see. Why? Because they are not worthy. Thus they do not see either that Rachel is set forth as an example of very beautiful and motherly affection and chastity."

And in this same context, Luther praises the faith of Jacob in Rachel’s barren condition as well, in contrast to the unbelief shown by those who put off having children due to the cares of this world:

“. . . Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is very difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: ‘Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden of poverty alone and not load myself with misery and want.’ But this blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God’s goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God’s blessing. For if you had trust in God’s grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper.”

Yes, there is an abundance of such unchastity within marriage today, due in great part to the modern church’s recent approval of contraception since the middle of the last century. Back to Chemnitz in his locus on the Sixth Commandment in Loci Theologici, pg. 414, we read a warning in this regard:

“In this commandment there is also this general rule, Romans 1:32, ‘They are worthy of death, not only those who do such things, but also those who give their approval.’ Therefore they are guilty of [violating] the Sixth Commandment who defend or aid or do not prohibit, or in other circumstances share in another’s sin, as has been said under the locus of sin, cf. Lev. 19:29; Ps. 50:18; Ecclus. 26:13, 42:11.”

Excellent Sermon on Jeremiah 23

2010-08-25T12:34:00.004-04:00

While this sermon does not mention contraception, I believe our authors and readers will resonate with its message in regard to the rampant false teaching in our churches about marriage and procreation. We heard this sermon on August 15 while vacationing at my in-laws' cottage in Port Austin, Michigan. It is delivered by the Rev. Ken Lueke of Our Savior - Bad Axe.

First, the reading from Jeremiah 23:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'"
For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD
to see and to hear his word,
or who has paid attention to his word and listened?
Behold, the storm of the LORD!
Wrath has gone forth,
a whirling tempest;
it will burst upon the head of the wicked.
The anger of the LORD will not turn back
until he has executed and accomplished
the intents of his heart.
In the latter days you will understand it clearly.
I did not send the prophets,
yet they ran;
I did not speak to them,
yet they prophesied.
But if they had stood in my council,
then they would have proclaimed my words to my people,
and they would have turned them from their evil way,
and from the evil of their deeds.

If this video player doesn't work for you, download the MP3.

Birth Rates Falling More

2010-08-24T23:52:00.003-04:00

A sign of the recession's toll: Births fall in Illinois
Economically stressed families put off having kids

By Judith Graham and Tara Malone, Chicago Tribune reporters
August 25, 2010

After the tumult of losing a job, searching for new employment and relocating to the Chicago area, the Hurleys of Naperville decided not to have any more children.

"We're done," said Tracy Hurley, a stay-at-home mom with a 3-year-old and a 1 1/2-year-old.

Their decision is apparently becoming more common. The birth rate in Illinois has dropped to its lowest level since 1933, the height of the Great Depression, in part because financially stressed couples are putting off or deciding against expanding their families.

"Many couples are strained and don't want to take on additional responsibilities," said Dr. Kishore Lakhani, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist who practices in Hoffman Estates.

"Especially people who are working, if they already have a child, they are deciding to continue taking birth control," said Dr. Vijay Arekapudi, chairwoman of the OB/GYN department at the Division Street campus of Sts. Mary and Elizabeth Medical Center.

Illinois' birth rate stands at about 13.3 for every 1,000 people in the state, down from a recent high of 17.1 per 1,000 residents in 1990, according to a Tribune analysis of Census Bureau population figures and local birth data. In 1933, the rate was 13.9. Read More

Let κοιτη be αμιαντος!

2010-08-22T17:33:00.005-04:00

"κοιτη" - koite {N-NSF} - the marriage bed, sexual intercourse, coitus.
"αμιαντος" - amiantos {A-NSF} - undefiled, unsoiled, free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired.

Hebrews 13:4 τιμιος ο γαμος εν πασιν και η κοιτη αμιαντος

"Let marriage be held in honor in all respects, and let the marriage bed be undefiled..."

Therefore, He also wishes us to honor marriage and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately, as is evident, not for lewdness, but that they should live together legitimately, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.

Who redefined marriage first? 2

2010-08-19T07:16:00.002-04:00

Another excellent essay makes the same point we've been discussing in the previous post: A Marriage Tale by Dr. Stephen J. Heaney, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Saint Thomas in Saint Paul, MN.
HT: Greg Laughlin (GL)

Who redefined marriage first?

2010-08-17T21:01:00.003-04:00

Another good post over at Meditations of My Heart. We've made the same point in discussions here before, but it is always encouraging to see more pastors coming to the same conclusions.

If male and female gender roles are all interchangeable; if marriage is all about "love," "mutual support" and "companionship"; if marriage doesn't naturally include children (at least not now, or if the "couple" ever decides to); then why are we upset that the homosexuals think they should be able to get married too?

Annual Family Retreat at Redeemer-Ft. Wayne

2010-08-09T11:08:00.003-04:00

Here are the audio files of the sectional presentation that Pr. Stuckwisch and his wife LaRena gave on The Church as the Household and Family of God; and the sermon Pr. Stuckwisch preached for the Commemoration of the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:14-17; St. John 14:23-31) at the concluding Divine Service.

There were twelve different sectionals at the retreat in addition to the plenary speaker. We also celebrated the Lord's Supper every day in addition to Matins and Vespers, hearing a total of seven sermons - each from a different pastor. And that's not all we packed into this 48 hour family-friendly retreat! Plan to attend the next one August 2-4, 2011 (noon Tuesday through noon Thursday). It is affordable for everyone, and priceless in value. Not only families attend, and not only homeschoolers. There are even singles and older couples as well, but if you don't like kids, better stay away. Several large families attend, and children are not segregated away from "adult" activities. You can just attend for a day or a partial day if you like. Check out the FAQ.

Conception After Miscarriage

2010-08-06T14:17:00.004-04:00

Another one of the false medical reasons for contraception has been shot down. I remember my wife being told by her OB/GYN after each of our miscarriages that he highly recommended contracepting for at least three months. I'm sure readers know what our response was. Now, according to CNN a new study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that after a miscarriage it's better to get pregnant sooner than later - within six months being best. Imagine that. We were actually right to trust God. Here's another article from the BBC.

Wrong god, Right Thoughts: Muslims and Infertility

2010-08-03T17:24:00.002-04:00

Pr. Philip Hoppe (St. Paul’s - Ellsworth, Kansas) comments as follows on an interesting story in Religion News, Infertile Muslim parents face tough choices, pressure:

It truly pains me when I read a story like this. First I am pained by reading about people following a god who does not exist. Especially knowing that they are likely following him out of fear of punishment rather than out of devotion. But secondly it pains me when I see these people being more thoughtful about reproductive choices than most who know the God who loves them first. This whole article borders on, if not crossing the border clearly, mocking those who who trust God with reproduction rather than trusting science.

Proverbs 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

The Child-Free Movement

2010-07-31T10:19:00.003-04:00

On Issues, Etc.

A short interview of Colleen Carroll Campbell regarding her recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The 'perfect' parenthood trap.

Amish "Baby Boom"

2010-07-31T08:43:00.009-04:00

An AP story tells us the reason the Amish population is booming:

"The remarkable growth is almost entirely due to the Amish birth rate - many Amish families have five or more children. Kraybill said the Amish retain about 85 percent of the young adults who have to decide whether to remain in the church. The Amish marry within the community, and the total number of converts nationwide is believed to be less than 100, he said.

"About half the Amish are under 18 years old, meaning the community tends to focus much of its energy on young people and schools, Kraybill said."

Another important point in the AP article: "Nearly all Amish descended from a group of about 5,000 in the early 20th century." The title of the article might make one think this "boom" is something new and perhaps short-lived (like the post-WWII baby boom). Instead, this is simply evidence of what the ongoing procreative divine ordinance of God achieves when left relatively unhindered, showing us the rate at which the rest of Christendom would have grown since the "early 20th century" if it hadn't adopted the Margaret Sanger doctrine of Planned Parenthood. (N.B.: even the Amish community has not been entirely unaffected by this. Note the second paragraph down on this page.)

The AP story points out that the "total number of [Amish] converts nationwide is believed to be less than 100."

By contrast, it seems Lutherans are now almost entirely dependent upon conversion to maintain their numbers, and we all know the minimal teaching (if any) that passes for "conversion" in most "Lutheran" churches. Here is a recent anonymous comment on L&P that is worth considering. It quotes this earlier post by Pastor Curtis.

HT: Rebekah at CSPP

C.S. LEWIS & T.S. ELIOT ON CONTRACEPTION

2010-07-20T22:02:00.003-04:00

Two Dubious Anniversaries

An article by one of our readers, Greg Laughlin, in New Oxford Review.

Kids Optional

2010-07-20T18:34:00.005-04:00

From World Magazine, July 17, 2010

Childlessness is becoming more common in the United States. A Pew Research Center study found that 18 percent of women aged 40 to 44 have never had children, compared to 10 percent in 1976. Pew's researchers said the trend is a result of a combination of less social pressure to have children and women delaying marriage to later in life, when the ability to become pregnant has declined. Changing attitudes about the purpose of marriage also seem to be playing a role: A 2007 Pew study found that 41 percent of adults said having children is very important for a successful marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990.

Also in this issue of World: To breed or not to breed

Hope for the LCMS

2010-07-13T22:28:00.002-04:00

A humble, confessional, godly man has been elected to lead our Synod. May God keep him faithful to the Truth!

Here is a video of his election and acceptance speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5W6OCHL1Yw

And here is his first interview moments later on Issues, Etc.:

http://issuesetc.org/podcast/532071310H2S1.mp3

The Idol of Choice

2010-07-06T12:17:00.001-04:00

Contraception affords people the ability to choose against children, against God-given fertility. This pro-choice mentality is the same that drives those who are pro-abortion, even if the pro-choice, pro-contraception crowd stops short of choosing to kill pre-born babies.

I was struck by the sheer bankruptcy of this thinking while hearing people recently describe themselves as “accidents,” “whoopses,” and “mistakes.” While the conversation was largely in jest, as no one of these participants in the conversation probably sees himself as still a “whoops” in the eyes of his parents, and even unintended children can be loved by their parents, it nevertheless belies the pervasiveness of this kind of thinking.

We want to be our own gods. We want the authority to choose how many children we will have. And when a child is born against our planning and desires, when we have to face the reality that there is another God who controls fertility and who gives children as gifts, we call our children “mistakes” to avoid relinquishing control of our own lives to Him who is the Author of Life.

I’m thinking about all this as my wife and I yesterday marked the 7^th anniversary of being joined together by God in marriage. Anniversaries are always bittersweet for us as the age of our marriage and the age of our children reminds us of our real mistakes, of our years of choosing against God’s gift of children.

No child is ever a mistake or an accident. Every child is always a gift. That such a conversation can happen among Christians, even Christians who rejoice in God’s gift of children, whether such gifts are in concert with our plans or not, exposes the shallowness of our thinking and the pervasiveness of our culture’s anti-child, pro-self mentality even in the church. Yuck.

Cross-posted at Hemmersphere

Baseball, Apple Pie, and Procreation

2010-06-22T08:16:00.002-04:00

http://hymn-addict.blogspot.com/2010/06/todays-laugh_22.html

"It is a fact that baseball players, especially catchers, started using metal cups --and later hard plastic-- in the 19th century. They did not use hard helmets until about WWII. They must have finally realized that your head is also important to protect."

I wonder if, instead of ignorance, this fact reflects the relative importance given to protecting a man's procreative capacity in the 19th Century compared to the 20th Century. I recall from my little league days that batting helmets were mandatory, but we never wore cups.

Are You Done?

2010-06-10T15:21:00.007-04:00

From what I understand mothers are asked this question all the time following the births of their children, sometimes even in the delivery room. Until today, I have never been asked.

This morning I went to my Doctor for a regular checkup. The Lord blessed us with our third child and first son in April, so the receptionist, nurse and doctor all greeted me with congratulations - very nice. Everyone in there knows I'm a pastor and I look like one too when I arrive, dressed in clericals and such - currently too hot for a cassock to wear 'round town.

As I was getting my blood drawn (lousy cholesterol) the nurse asked, "So, now that you have the boy are you done?"

I honestly did not know how to respond other than, "I certainly hope not. The Lord has given us these and I pray He gives us more." No reply to that.

The contraceptive mind must run like this. One has children to get what he wants. Now that I have a masculine child there be no need for anymore, right? I have the BOY, my hunting buddy, the guy to teach how to play baseball, football etc. MY little man, MY guy. There can only be so much attention and love (AND MONEY) to go around. Happy! Content! Finished! Desires Fulfilled! So, Done! Time for the snip snip appointment, or perhaps get my wifey to her doctor to get the tubes put in a knot or whatever other method the human mind has concocted to disrupt or destroy.

Note also the assumption that the Christian pastor must have the mentality of everyone else. He and his bride can only take so much - 2 girls, 1 boy, enough is enough. Done. But then why the question- "Are you done?"

I think it has to be the law written on the heart of all these people who ask. They know that they should not be saying, "I'm done." It has been put into their conscience by the Lord Himself to be fruitful and multiply. Let it be said once again, as with all posts of this nature, we are not dealing with the hard and difficult cases. And so that denial of Life must have company, not only with the spouse but with everyone else. If only we all say that we are DONE, than it will be OK. If only we all together reject the gifts that God Himself gives we will be OK. Safety in numbers; safety then in our choices. Choices that reject God's gift of the lives of human beings. Choices that say "No thanks God, I'm done with You giving me things that you call blessings. I am done with you creating life, people, human beings, children that you fearfully and wonderfully make through the means of the union of husband and wife. I'm done with your Son Jesus wishing the little children to come to Him. Done with Him putting His hands on them and blessing them at the font. I'm done with the very purpose of marriage itself, not by your choosing but by mine. No thank you God, I AM DONE."

I say no thanks to that. The Blessed Holy Trinity is the giver of Life, so let's let Him decide when we're done. No thanks to saying "no thanks" to the Father, (the Maker of Heaven and Earth) to His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, (In him was life; and the life was the light of men) and to the Holy Spirit, (the Lord and Giver of Life). Let's let it be up to the Blessed Trinity whether we are done, or not. Or whether we'll be given sick children, or healthy children. Let's let Him decide whose going to be living and who is going to be born. Let's even let Him decide when we should die. Let's let Him decide when our parents should die. Let's even let Him decide when our children should die - long after we are dead, d.v. Let's let Him be God, and us be creatures. Let's believe that He really is the one who makes children, that they really are His, and He seems not to be done yet. As of this writing, the Father has not sent His Son to return on the clouds with all His Holy angels.

Plus, who wouldn't want some more of those people up in that picture?

The Great Joy

2010-05-29T13:33:00.005-04:00

This morning I presided at the Holy Baptism of two children- twin boys. I was also able to preside over the course of the last five years at the Holy Baptism of their mother, two sisters, and one brother. Dad serves in the US Army and was in Iraq when the twins were born; now he has returned and the boys have been washed clean in the blood of Jesus Christ. What great joy, the Lord preserving the father of five, and the Lord saving the two little ones by His Name and promise. Lots of joy to go around. I pray that Our Father will give this family some more great joy in the future, and that He'll use me as His instrument to administer the salvation that is full and free in His Son.

New Synodical Resolution on Birth Control

2010-05-28T23:53:00.003-04:00

...to be considered in convention this summer!

A reader alerted us on 4/27/10 to an overture for the LCMS convention on the subject of birth control. The LCMS Reporter Online now reports that the Theology and Church Relations floor committee has declined the resolution on birth control, as was easily predicted, but surprisingly it was declined with a resolution composed by the floor committee itself, as follows:

...a final resolution declines three congregation-submitted overtures -- to end all official theological talks with the ELCA; to request the Synod president not to attend ELCA Churchwide Assemblies; and to return to a Scriptural position on birth control. The committee cited the encouragement of 2Tim: 2:25 to "correct opponents with gentleness" so that God might grant them repentance as reasons for the first two declinations. As for the third overture, the committee noted that the Synod has never had an official position on birth control."

Yes, that is true. There was that strange 1981 CTCR report on sexuality referred to the synod for "study" - but it was never adopted in convention. It is also interesting to note that the recent resolution that was submitted did not claim the LCMS had its own official position on birth control. It stated the following:

Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention declare that the LCMS still accepts the scriptural position of Martin Luther on birth control and the position long promoted in the LCMS by such ortho- dox LCMS theologians as John H. C. Fritz, Walter Maier, Martin Nauman, Theodore Laetch, and many others.

It is precisely because the Purple Palace has never officially adopted a resolution in contradiction to the longstanding teaching of the church catholic (including 400+ years of unanimous Lutheran condemnation of contraception), that the original overture was simply suggesting that this longstanding Scriptural position of the church (the one promoted on this blog) should be acknowledged by all who honor their fathers in the faith. No resolutions need to be rescinded. The truth only needs to be reaffirmed.

The "democracy of the dead" has spoken loudly and clearly for thousands of years, and its unanimous voice has only been very recently (and quite unofficially) contradicted by the chronological snobbery of "the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." False teaching on this subject has, indeed, been published by CPH and propagated in our seminaries, dismissing our fathers in the faith as ignorant and unenlightened while praising the likes of Margaret Sanger.

The Baby Conference

2010-05-18T20:03:00.007-04:00

Babies: Blessing or Burden?
a conference from Vision Forum Ministries

There are very important distinctions between "Quiverfull Lutherans" and the typical Christian Reconstructionist brand of "Quiverfilling" found amongst our Reformed brothers and sisters. As the Vision Forum is distinctively Calvinist, I wonder how hard it would be to pick the bones out of this fish. Nevertheless, I have found quite a bit of the material produced by these people and their friends to be a great blessing (for instance, this book co-authored by one of the presenters at this conference).

Thou Shalt Not Steal

2010-05-10T10:55:00.001-04:00

Ergo, Don't Have Babies

At home in the zoo

2010-05-10T10:32:00.003-04:00

They've never used these cats in a Yaz commercial, yet, but they might as well. Cats, even the ferocious, man-eating ones, are cute.

This is in the Big Cat Country at the St. Louis Zoo. In case you can't read the text, this is what it says:

"The need for contraception in zoos may seem surprising, but it is vital for successful breeding programs. The Wildlife Contraception Center helps scientists facilitate controlled pairings. This high-tech matchmaking allows individuals to live in natural social settings. To make sure only pairs recommended by the SSP breed, some cats are put on birth control. Sometimes even the same type and brand a human would use!"

Medicating against Motherhood

2010-05-10T09:53:00.002-04:00

Great article at the Hausvater Project by Rev. Robert C. Baker:

As the Pill Turns 50, a New Generation Seeks to Rediscover Marital Chastity

Growing Up to Be a Child

2010-05-10T09:07:00.003-04:00

I gave this high school baccalaureate homily yesterday in Bancroft, Nebraska. It is about being child-like and open to God’s blessings, even if we don’t expect or plan on them, because we have a true, caring Father in heaven.

You are about to take a large step. You are leaving the security of your family on the way to becoming a grown-up. I'm not going to burden you with changing the world, though. Even if it were possible, that is too much to lay on someone. Instead, my advice is to be child-like.

This may be exactly what your trying to avoid, but this is what God Himself would have you do. Adults seem to have everything planned out; they act in control. That is what you are supposed to become. So, you are told to worry about your education, career, family, and success. That is quite a lot.

If you take that route, pretty soon you are worrying about how you are going to pay for your unborn child's college tuition, before you have even started college. That doesn't sound very fun. What I am saying is don't lose that child-like wonder. Don't narrow your future based on your own limited imagination. The only thing I can promise is that your future will not turn out like you have planned it. To be a in-control, set-in-stone, perfectly planned-out adult, is not possible. You have a heavenly Father who likes to chuckle at our plans. We are all children, even if we don't admit it. And that is the only way to approach the future---without depression or psychosis. Because someone else is in control.

To children, life is a mystery. They embrace the unknown and get excited about the many possibilities. They ask questions and want to know why. They think like the words of Psalm 8: When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

We really are like grass, that is here today and gone tomorrow. Old age and forgetfulness will come to us all. If you live long enough, you will likely need someone else to dress you. Don't aim to change the world. After all, fathers set their children's goals.

You have a perfect Father, who will be a father to you. In Jesus Christ, we have forgiving God, who truly cares. "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?" [Matt 6]

Enlightened adults act like they have it all figured out. But what joy is there in knowing the end of the story? Being a dependent child is more freeing and interesting. Children are free to make mistakes. A good father might let you skin your knee, but not break your neck.

We need a perfect Father. When sins overwhelm and your plans disintegrate, be a helpless child. Then you are strong in the heavenly Father's strength. This Father sacrificed His perfect Son Jesus, so you could be His child. So be a believing child. A loved and protected child. Don't worry about your future, but trust in His fatherly care. You are very valuable to Him, whether you have a career or not. This is the only way to have true life.

Children do not aim to be successful, they instead try to please their father. In this way, let the Lord determine your success. Be open to His blessings, even if you didn't exactly choose them. Let God worry about your future. Just enjoy what He gives you. After all, life is short on earth. We would rather be with our true Father anyway.

A song-writer [Bob Dylan] once wrote: "He not busy being born is busy dying.'' To be a child, a child of God, is to be alive. Just strive for what is right and do your best. He will lay out a good path for you. He will pick you up when you fall. Even less than perfect earthly fathers do that. A child sees each day as a gift, not a burden. Never stop learning. Even if you are done with homework, you need a Good Teacher. Jesus calls and instructs by His Word. Listen and learn from Him. He will not flunk you. He will guide you to the heavenly Father.

Classes are almost over, but there is much to learn and see and do. So much, that I hope you can say this, as a child of God, about your high school years: "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. [Bob Dylan again]" Amen.

You Must vs. You Can

2010-05-09T23:03:00.006-04:00

When troubled or worried, I always used to tell myself that I'd just have to trust God. And, when trials would overwhelm those I love, I’d tell them as well: “You’ll just have to trust God.”

In recent times, I have instead learned to put it this way: I CAN trust God! (as in, God is entirely trustworthy, I can trust Him 100%!!!)

It’s amazing the difference there is between thinking "I have to” and "I can.”

This is how I can go to sleep at night and face each morning with peace: “…for into Thy hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and ALL THINGS!”

Of course, this doesn’t get us off the hook from striving with our best efforts to fulfill our vocations. However, it does free us from worry and fear. Even through all our failures and sins, God will turn all things for good. We do the best we can, and only with God’s help, knowing that we can trust Him for the results. There is tremendous comfort in this attitude toward God, because it simply looks at His attitude toward us.

Like an infant in the arms of a loving parent, we CAN trust God. An infant doesn’t think: “I have to trust mom and dad.” An infant just trusts.

The Law says: You must trust the Lord.
The Gospel, on the other hand, says: You can trust the Lord!

In the Bible story depicted in stained glass in the header of this blog, Jesus says:

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Lord, grant us all such childlike trust!

Death of a Dream

2010-05-02T16:02:00.002-04:00

Last week was National Infertility Week. With Mother's Day coming soon, and Father's Day not long beyond, with Confirmation Sunday just recently passed for many of our congregations, it is worth pausing to remember those from whom God has withheld the blessing of children and offered instead a journey of patience. More awkwardly, we also remember those who have withheld God's blessing from themselves, only to later desire it, but not find it.

The following article traces one couple's difficult quest to conceive: Death of a Dream. The article concludes with the realization that whether childless or child rich, one must wait upon the Lord who blesses in His own manner and His own timing. Sadly, however, the article begins with a recognition (though not so clearly a regret) that the couple's recent struggle for fertility had been preceded by a five-year insistence against fertility:

When my husband and I married, we made a deal: We'd wait five years before starting a family. Five years would allow us to start our careers, be on better financial footing, and have time just for us. So when the moratorium passed, with anticipation, I stopped using birth control.

After 12 months of not taking the Pill and still buying tampons, I started to research the subject. "Eight-five percent of couples trying to conceive will become pregnant within one year." Red flag. We were already past that.

It is odd how frequently pastors emphasize in pre-marital counseling that marriage takes three--the husband, the wife, and Christ who holds them together--and yet when it comes to self-imposed infertility, so many couples follow in the path of the woman writing this article: "When my husband and I married, we made a deal...." Where was Christ in that arrangement? For five years she and her husband pushed away God's gift of children, and then after one year of failed attempts to conceive, followed by some invasive procedures, they felt their dream of having a child was dying. How alive had that dream been during their first five years of marriage?

If we, as Christians, truly want our dreams to live, we must put to death the sinful flesh, drowning that Old Adam through daily contrition and repentance, asking God to forgive us for our prior attitudes and actions that have sought to thwart His will, and to give us the strength to rightfully seek and accept His current will for our lives. We must let our own dreams die, and learn to dream the dreams that He has for us. Just as those who delayed coming to the Wedding Feast had their invitations revoked, so also God's gift of fertility may only be available for a time.

Marriage and Family - Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Robert Preus - 1988

2010-05-01T19:54:00.006-04:00

In 1988 at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, the President of the Seminary Rev. Dr. Robert D. Preus and his lovely wife Donna were asked to give a presentation to the seminarians and their wives on the subject of marriage and family - especially as it relates to life in the parish. With the help of Apple's Garageband software, I have extracted and digitally remastered the audio from a VHS copy of the presentation provided to me by Rev. M. L. F. Freiberg in May of 2007.

This 94 minute presentation is a treasure trove for not only seminarians and pastors, but for all parents.

You can right click and download this MP3 and listen to it on your iPod or another MP3 player if you wish. You will want to listen to this several times to mine all of the gold nuggets contained therein. In addition, here is a PDF of the handout of Bible verses Dr. Preus mentions in the discussion.

NFP: Why We Don't Bother

2010-04-28T22:42:00.001-04:00

Excellent guest post by Pr. H. R. Curtis over at CSPP:

http://concordiansisters.blogspot.com/2010/04/guest-post-nfp-why-we-dont-bother.html

For Better Not for Worse

2010-04-28T20:59:00.000-04:00

A Manual of Christian Matrimony
by
WALTER A. MAIER, PH. D.

http://olcc.us/files/olcc.us/Maier%20-%20FBNFW/

(Birth control is covered in Chapter 27 - not scanned online yet as of this post)

The Crucible of the (Extended) Christian Family

2010-04-26T10:53:00.005-04:00

Spending this weekend with about three-dozen members of my wife's extended family (which is only about half of her side of the family) up at the family lodge (a.k.a. P&BRR), and then a post by Rebecca over at CSPP, On the setting of standards and the adjusting of expectations, got me thinking...

Experience has shown me that living as Christians in a large and extended family provides a paideia that no other institution can replace. From the youngest to the oldest, from the newborn grandchild to the aged grandparent, and from cousins to in-laws, the more we all collide, the more every member of the Christian family continues to grow every day in faith, wisdom, and love - and in repentance for the lack of faith, wisdom, and love such a crucible of life reveals daily in each of us.

This observation and experience, which has intensified over the past ten years of my life, may explain why I have gone from being an educational entrepreneur and desiring to move my family to greener pastures where the external culture at least appears better, to being a homeschool advocate who desires nothing more than for his children and grandchildren to marry fellow believers and settle down near one another, where they can contribute and partake of the blessed heat generated in this crucible of the extended Christian family living under the cross in the forgiveness of Christ.

First Things on Contra-Economics

2010-04-20T09:34:00.001-04:00

This article in the current issue of First Things is a must read. In “Bitter Pill,” economist Timothy Reichert, according to the byline, “reveals how the contraception boom has shifted wealth and power away from women.” Here’s a snippet:

With this essay, using the language and tools of modern social science, I will articulate the position that contraception is socially damaging. I will also demonstrate that contraception is in fact a sexist practice. Using straightforward microeconomic reasoning, I will unpack the behaviors engendered by artificial contraception. I will show that the contraceptive revolution has resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth and power from women and children to men.

Make sure you read the rest of this important article. If you aren’t one already, click here to become a First Things print or online subscriber.

Repenting of Jonah’s Duplicity

2010-04-13T11:51:00.002-04:00

Excellent post by the Rev. Kevin Golden of Village Lutheran Church in Ladue, Missouri.

HT: Concordian Sister Rebekah

Only Twelve?

2010-03-19T21:48:00.006-04:00

For those who might not know, clergymen of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have two documents circulated to congregations considering the sending of a Divine Call to a pastor. One is a Self-Evaluation Tool (SET). In the SET a pastor answers a series of doctrinal questions, well not really doctrinal mostly comments about pastoral practice and reactions to various synodical resolutions. This is done so that calling congregations and district presidents can ascertain, for example, if the pastor will break out his acoustic guitar as worship leader, say the black/do the red, or go cruciform on Good Friday.

The second is the Pastor's Information Form (PIF). The PIF gives the pastor's birthday, educational background, pastoral experience as well as the district president's evaluation of the pastor's conduct of the ministry.

The PIF also gives marital status of the pastor; his wife's name and birthday, their anniversary and the names and birthdays of his children. And how many numbered blank lines are there for the pastor to list his children???

TWELVE - 12 - !!!

Now this is good stuff I say. The Synod is anticipating that her pastors will be having large families. Too bad there is no room on the form if you get Duggersized. Still, I think this is great and I thought Missouri deserves a big attagirl! Attagirl Missouri! Encourage those preachers to have a dozen then maybe this whole decline in membership will be take care of itself as the old beloved synod desires (expects???) her pastors to follow the Word..."Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth...Suffer the little children to come to me...".

See brothers, those PIFs are not so bad.

Let the little children come?

2010-03-10T06:17:00.003-05:00

The 10:30 a.m. divine service had just concluded. After making the sign of the cross while blessing the congregation, Pastor Meyer made a few announcements, one being a reminder of the special “open forum” that would be held in a few minutes. He explained that it would be for getting feedback from the congregation in preparation for the next Sunday’s voters’ meeting. Generally, that was a cue for the apathetic members of the congregation to head for the parking lot. This day was different. The congregation was at a cross roads.

The meeting was packed, buzzing with several conversations simultaneously. The chairman called the assembly to order and announced the business to be decided at the following Sunday’s voters’ meeting: whether to approve the finance board’s recommendation to increase--dramatically increase--tuition at the congregation’s Lutheran elementary school. The floor opened for suggestions.

John Shoemaker, a parent of three, two of whom were enrolled already, the third of whom would start kindergarten the following year, spoke first. “I’m afraid that a lot of families, ours included, will struggle to afford Christian education if the tuition goes up. We have always appreciated the way this congregations values its children, and the support from the congregation’s budget that offsets tuition.”

Bill Bachman, a member of the finance board, spoke next. “I wish the congregation’s subsidy could continue, too, but the fact is, contributions have been down, utilities and health insurance expenses have gone up—largely beyond our control—and we’ve had to freeze salaries, but that still isn’t enough to make a balanced budget.”

Several others spoke. Some gave assurance that God would bless the congregation and the budget would balance itself. Others raised philosophical questions, debating the pros and cons of tuition vs. congregational subsidy and of charging different tuition rates for member families vs. non-member families. That last topic became an unexpected turning point in the discussion.

Ray Lindemann, a retired schoolteacher himself, raised his hand to be recognized. “Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, the issue before us is not simply a matter of meeting the budget, nor of determining the proper balance between congregational subsidies and parents’ tuition payments. The question is whether we value children, whether we say with Jesus, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them.’ And, the question is, if we do believe that, then how will our works follow our faith?”

“Some would say, that if we really value Christian education, then the congregation will subsidize as much as possible, perhaps even—as in our sister congregation, St. Timothy Lutheran—to the point of there being no tuition for member families, and just a small load of book and activity fees. Others would say such a plan is impractical, especially given our current situation here at Good Shepherd, with the number of members laid off during this economic recession.

“But let’s take a broader look, for a moment. Why do we even have a Lutheran elementary school in the first place? Why do we offer Sunday school between the 8:00 and 10:30 services? Historically, Lutherans in America regarded Sunday school primarily as an outreach ministry for non-members. It was assumed that adults who had been raised in the church could provide their own children with basic instruction in the home, through family devotions. Sunday school would supplement this, of course, but it wasn’t the main thing. Now we’ve come to the other extreme, where Christian parents enroll their children in one Vacation Bible School after another, hopping among all the congregations in town, as if VBS has become a free daycare service. Now, that’s wonderful, of course, to have the children learning God’s Word all summer long, but shouldn’t we instead be reaching out to the unchurched with our VBS and Sunday school programs? I fear we have lost the proper focus.”

“Is the Lutheran elementary school any different? Why is it that both a mother and a father should get a job, so they can earn enough money to pay for someone else’s mother or father to teach their children all day long? And why is it, that the teachers would not instead be at home raising their own children? Perhaps this is not the time or the place to mention it, but I find it scandalous that two of our teachers have children under the age of three, whom they drop off at daycare in order to serve in our school. Perhaps we need to seriously rethink what it meant when Christ said, ‘Let the little children come to me.’”

The chairman paused in silence, as murmuring cascaded across the room. Sheepishly, Karie Habeck, a woman in her early twenties, raised her hand. Just six months earlier she had accepted a call to teach the first and second grades. One month before arriving, she had gotten married. “I want to thank the gentleman for voicing his concerns. I am—I have,” pausing to swallow, she continued, “It’s just that I’ve always dreamed of being a teacher. I thought this was God’s plan for my life. I also dreamed of marriage and children. I assumed work and family would somehow fit perfectly together, and they did, in my little dream world. Of course, a little girl doesn’t stop to think through the practicalities of it all. In college, as I trained to be your Lutheran elementary teacher, the importance of the teaching ministry was instilled in me day after day. This is God’s special calling for my life. And yet, aren’t I called to be married now, too? In the capstone class at college, our professor advised us to use birth control for at least the first few years of our teaching career, to help us get established. He said then it would be easier, if we had a child later, to take a maternity leave and get right back into the classroom.”

Some of the older people in the congregation sat uncomfortably. Sex had never been the topic of discussion at a voters’ meeting before, but before anyone dared to interrupt, the teacher continued. “My husband and I love each other. We love this special time in our life, as we begin our new life together. But I feel, somehow, well, robbed. I feel like a part of marital bliss can’t be ours, if we deny ourselves the prospect of having children, just so that I can be a teacher to someone else’s children. Oh, please don’t get me wrong,” she quickly added, holding back a tear.

“I love teaching! I enjoy working with your children! But I feel lost. I’m not sure which role models to choose. I deeply appreciate the help that the experienced teachers have given me. They are wonderful mentors, as far as teaching goes. But am I to follow in their footsteps, and put my kids in daycare so I can continue teaching? Is that the way to ‘have it all’? It’s not that I ever wanted to be a ‘career woman.’ I just always thought, somehow, that being a Lutheran elementary teacher would be totally family friendly. By now listening to today’s discussion, I must admit, I’m really not so sure. In fact, I have a confession to make: my elementary education degree doesn’t really mean that much. Most if not all of you parents out there could adequately teach your children in your home. Why, then, do we even bother having children, if you’re going to put yours in school with me, and I’m going to put mine in daycare with someone else, and all of us will miss out on the cutest, most memorable moments of their lives—and they’ll miss out on ours?”

Pastor Meyer stood up. He looked out at his congregation, the sheep of Good Shepherd Lutheran. Silently, he prayed for the Holy Spirit to give him the words for such a time as this, and then he said ...

Great Article

2010-03-09T23:30:00.002-05:00

from Salvo Mag on how contraception (and subsequently abortion) has stripped women of their freedoms.

Fulfillment of the Law & 1st Article Gifts

2010-03-02T15:14:00.003-05:00

Often times when speaking with others about procreation, the issue of one's own fulfilling of God's command comes into play. They say, "But I have fulfilled the command to be fruitful, I have multiplied." Recently one such discussion then led into, "I've been fruitful, I've multiplied, and without making possessions and idol, why can't I stop having children and enjoy the finer things in life?"

I think this is the perception of most in our culture. If they are Christian, they feel that they have fulfilled God's command by having children. And the second, in regards to material possessions is the predominant view.

There are two main theological issues at hand here that I would like to address here:

1. Fulfillment of God's Law

First off, no, God does tell us how much we must multiply by, but neither does he give to us to say when we have "done enough." So you say, you've been fruitful, you have multiplied. Good for you, you Pharisee who looks to the law as yours to fulfill and earn God's grace. The reality is, God gives to us to be fruitful and multiply. And this is not only a "pre-fall command" (as I have heard others say) but one that is given again after the flood (Gen. 9). Being fruitful and multiplying, i.e. having children, is not about fulfilling God's law. We will never fully fulfill God's law, for we are sinners. For this reason, God sent his Son, to redeem us who are under the law (Gal. 4). We must stop looking to ourselves as completing God's work in us, for that is the way of the Pharisees and the Romanists and many American "Evangelicals". But God's law is fulfilled in Christ, we are recepients of his good and gracious gifts... which brings us to:

2. 1st Article Gifts
To be fruitful and to multiply is a part of God's good and gracious gifts to his people. As repeatedly discussed on this blog and elsewhere, children are gifts of God. Rarely will a Christian argue this point. But what about not having more children so that I may enjoy the finer things in life? Regardless of one's words, looking to earthly and material goods for oneself is nothing short of idolatry. You either idolize yourself in your own fulfilling of God's command or you idolize money and possessions for yourself. God has not promised that you will be provided with the finer things of life, you may never own a new car, you may never be able to eat steak and seafood on a regular basis, you may never even have an Armani suit, and you may even never get to go on that fabulous vacation you dreamed about. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with such things, but these are not yours by birth right, they are additional gifts. God "richly and daily provides me with all that I need to support this body and life." (1st Article of the Creed, Small Catechism)
In our society, the definition of needs is so highly scewed. The arguement of prohibiting children from the standpoint of gaining earthly possessions is idolatry and shows a lack of faith in the 1st Article of the Apostle's Creed, that we will provided with all that we need to support this body and life. Oh and by the way, did you notice that one's wife and children are part of these same 1st Article gifts

We should not be as fundamentalists, who hinge salvation itself on the fulfilling of God's laws, but neither are we given to reject God's gifts. No other gifts mentioned in the 1st Article of the Creed as listed in the Small Catechism, would anyone reject, except that of children. No, salvation does not depend on it entirely, but hearing God's Word on the issue, receiving God's gifts, earthly gifts as well as the gifts given to us in Christ, "for all this it is our duty that thank and praise, serve and obey Him. This is most certainly true."

Ladies, your clock really is ticking: 88% of eggs lost by age 30

2010-02-02T19:50:00.001-05:00

In the Let’s Start Encouraging Young Folks to Marry and Procreate Sooner department, we have this from The London Telegraph:

The new research by the Univeristy of St Andrews and Edinburgh University is the first to colate the actual decline of the “ovarian reserve” – the potential number of eggs women are born with – from conception to the menopause. It shows that on average women are born with 300,000 potential egg cells but this pool declines at a much faster rate than first thought. By the age of 30 there is only 12 per cent left on average and by the age of 40 just three per cent.
Dr Hamish Wallace, the co-author, said: “Our model shows that for 95 per cent of women, by the age of 30 years, only 12% of their maximum ovarian reserve is present, and by the age of 40 years only three per cent remains.”

Best to set aside the “it’s better to have kids after college and career” myth right away, don’t you think?

HT: Ladies, your clock really is ticking: 88% of eggs lost by age 30

Heather MacDonald on Reengineering the Family

2010-02-02T19:49:00.000-05:00

Heather MacDonald on Reengineering the Family

An atheist (or agnostic?) writer I find worth reading even when I disagree, since she often raises good questions and makes sharp points:

Indeed, heterosexual demand drove the medical revolution that allows gays to procreate. Infertile heterosexual couples unwilling to accept a biological limit in their lives spurred the ever-increasing array of gamete- and womb-swapping technologies that now includes sperm banks and complicated surrogacy arrangements. Unmarried middle-aged women, similarly unwilling to give up their assumed right to have it all, have also provided a market for revolutionary fertility techniques. Gays have merely piggybacked on procedures that heterosexuals created for themselves.

My question: If engineering is what we are talking about, who has the right and authority to do the reengineering?

HT: Mere Comments

Here's an excuse

2010-01-05T21:07:00.002-05:00

to subscribe to Touchstone Magazine. There's fine article by the wife of one of the L&P contributors, subtitled "on the Public Nature of Marital Privacies." (Spoiler alert: I'm going to quote the last paragraph.) "As go the banns, so go babies. Our churches must grow, but our families must be reasonably sized; our sex must be fantastic but never dutiful; our food is organic but our love is not. We sip from empty glasses and sing the expressiveness of the wine. True love waits, or if that's too hard, it can be made to appear to wait. And after the official waiting is over, love need show nothing for itself but a naughty grin."

Touchstone does ecumenism the way it ought to be done, not glossing over what has historically separated our confessions but working together in arenas where there is agreement. Check out sample articles here. If you need more convincing, give the blog a read.

Genetic Lessons from a Prolific Sperm Donor

2009-12-19T23:15:00.002-05:00

The ethical consequences of sperm donation and IVF catch up with a donor, from a recent Newsweek post.

It's a crisp fall day in Northville, Mich., a small suburb of Ann Arbor, and Kirk Maxey, a soft-spoken, graying baby boomer with a classic square jaw, is watching his 12-year-old son chase a soccer ball toward the goal. Maxey is doing what he does every Saturday, along with hundreds of other family men and women across the country, but he's not your average soccer dad. Maxey, 51, happens to be one of the most prolific sperm donors in the country. Between 1980 and 1994, he donated at a Michigan clinic twice a week. He's looked at the records of his donations, multiplied by the number of individual vials each donation produced, and estimated the success of each vial resulting in a pregnancy. By his own calculations, he concluded that he is the biological father of nearly 400 children, spread across the state and possibly the country.

When Maxey was a medical student at the University of Michigan, his first wife, a nurse at a fertility clinic, persuaded him to start donating sperm to infertile couples. Maxey became the go-to stud for the clinic because his sperm had a high success rate of making women pregnant, which brought in good money for the clinic. Maxey himself made about $20 a donation, but says he was motivated to donate more out of a strong paternal instinct and sense of altruism. "I loved having kids, and to have these women doomed to wandering around with no family didn't seem right, and it's easy to come up with a semen donation," he says. "You would get a personal phone call from a nurse saying, 'The situation is urgent! We have a woman ovulating this morning. Can you be here in a half hour?'"

Maxey, now the CEO of Cayman Chemical, a 300-person global pharmaceutical company, says back then he just "didn't think about it a lot." He didn't have to. When he began volunteering, he wasn't asked to take any genetic tests and received no psychological screening or counseling. He merely signed a waiver of anonymity, locked himself in a room with a cup and a sexy magazine, and didn't consider the emotional or genetic consequences for another 30 years. Both his cavalier attitude and the clinic's lax standards, Maxey says, explain why he may have so many offspring. But now a fierce conscience is catching with his robust procreative drive. When he's not running his company, Maxey has become a devoted advocate for better government regulation of the sperm-donor business. He is also making his genome public through Harvard's Personal Genome Project, and hopes that the information collected there might one day help his offspring and their mothers. "I think it was quite reckless that sperm banks created so many offspring without keeping track of their or my health status," he says. "Since there could be [many families] that could have to know information about my health, this is my effort to correct the wrong."

via Genetic Lessons from a Prolific Sperm Donor

The Road to Hitler Was Paved With Abortions (and Contraception)

2009-12-14T10:40:00.003-05:00

See http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1209-gardiner for the full review of Cultures of Abortion in Weimar Germany. By Cornelie Usborne. Berghahn Books. 284 pages. $90.

The following is an excerpt:

In her research for Cultures of Abortion, Cornelie Usborne examined literary works, movies, trial documents, medical records, social workers' notes, police interviews, and newspapers from the years of the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933. She consulted archives both in Protestant Prussia and Saxony and in Catholic Bavaria and the Prussian Rhineland. Although she is pro-abortion and thinks reality is "socially constructed," her research is valuable because it shows how the groundwork for Adolf Hitler's eugenic-abortion policies was laid.

But even before abortion was an issue, contraception was "big business" in Germany prior to World War I, due to "Neomalthusian propaganda." In 1913 Max Marcuse interviewed 100 women in Berlin and found that all but three used contraceptives — forty of them also admitted to having had "one or several abortions." In 1914 Oskar Polano interviewed 500 women in Würzburg and found that 81 percent of the wives of civil servants and 72 percent of the wives of workers used contraceptives. No surprise then that in 1927 the law was changed to allow contraceptives to be advertised, though some of these, like the uterine coil, were also abortifacient.

A steep decline in the population was inevitable: those who married before 1905 averaged 4.7 children per family; those who married in 1925-1929, only two. The top civil servants who married before 1905 averaged 3.5 children; those who married in 1925-1929, only 1.6. In Protestant Ohren in 1910, 389 villagers had 86 children in school; in 1925, 382 villagers had only 36. Two million men had died in the trenches in World War I, yet in 1919 a feminist hailed the decline in the birthrate as "the greatest, non-violent revolution" achieved by women, one that gave them "control of life." No wonder the Weimar Republic was distinguished by "the lowest birth rate in the Western world." With this fall in birthrate came "a new hedonism in women's sexuality."

Contraception, of course, was not foolproof, so abortions multiplied and "official disapproval" of them faltered. In 1917 new guidelines set forth by the Reich Health Council allowed abortions "on the strictest health grounds," only if approved by two doctors. In 1926 the law on abortions was mollified, and in 1927 the Supreme Court allowed doctors to perform "therapeutic" abortions. German law on abortion became "one of the most liberal in the world" because doctors could easily convince officials that any abortion was necessary for "health" reasons.

Men find it hard to look evil in the eye and call it by its true name. It was no different in early 20th-century Germany, where women spoke of the need to "curb coercive procreation" by legalizing abortion. Coercive here meant having to bear to term a child who was already in the womb.

* * *