Fruitfulness and Marriage

DISCLAIMER: For those of you who read my blog for the purpose of reading about things related to Thailand, Burma, and the Shan, this post isn't that. As I enter this new phase of life, I hope you will occasionally walk with me on some more marriage-related posts.

_______

I basically don't like rules. Especially when people make them regarding expressions of faith. They bother my core and make me suspect insecurity more than a deep regard for their Creator.

But then again, I can't create a rule about rules either actually... I would, in fact, admit there do seem to be a few concretes in scripture that don't confuse me on cultural grounds that I do think make fairly good rules to live by: "Do not murder." is a fine example. Being faithful to one's spouse falls in that category, as well. A long with quite a few others. Some rules are okay with me.

Yet, mostly, I see exceptions everywhere, and I am bothered by blanket statements. I certainly see family planning as an impossibility for hard fast rules, which is why it surprised me so much when I was quite bothered yesterday by an article on Christianity Today's Her-Meneutics: The Fruitful Callings of the Childless by Choice. I read it, and I couldn't pinpoint what it was that bothered me, so I went to sleep.

So let's begin with admitting my own oddness: I am not very likely to take something at face value, just because someone told me so. I remember when in my senior seminar in college, my professor told all the graduating seniors that what he most wished for is that we had developed a fine-tuned "BS detector," and I thought to myself, mine might have gotten a bit hypersensitive. Basically, I am highly skeptical and approach assumptions through the back door.

Which is to say that when I first began to realize I would be getting married this year and thus needed to start thinking about birth control, I did not come in with many ready assumptions. Of course, I did the usual research about birth control methods. Pros and cons. Effectiveness. Side effects. The usual.

I could cite that stuff, but something inside me kept calling me deeper in my questioning. There was nothing wrong with birth control really. At all. But... I did not like the way it seemed to be discussed online, nor the way others were discussing it with me in person. Then, as well as last night, I could not put my finger on why right away, so I also slept on it. And slept some more on it. For weeks. And I listened to people and listened to when it was that I felt they had something beautiful to say about families and family planning and when it was they expressed something that elicited that same uncomfortable feeling inside me. 

Then I did something else quite unusual: I figured if the reason I could not express myself regarding birth control was because it was totally taken for granted in our society, I needed to go back only a hundred years in my reading to see what people were expressing when it was still new. So I began reading both defenses of and attacks against birth control dating from the 1880s through the 1920s. (Thankfully, Kindles are wonderful sources of free reading of the older sort.) I noticed something: many strong, courageous women felt that the availability of birth control was a necessity, BUT... they thought it highly unwise for a newly married couple to delay having their first child. In fact, everybody seemed to be in agreement on this one fact (I'm sure if you dig, you will find the exception, but I did not), during the era when birth control first entered our society. Those who delayed, they referred to as "voluntarily sterile," and they considered it a failure to realize the fullness of the marriage. To them, it was a terribly sad and selfish state of being.

I did not come to the same conclusion. Not entirely. But it helped me understand.

Finally, I began to verbalize to others and to my fiance (who was light years ahead of me in this area... he needed no convincing at all!) what I was feeling--that we live in a society that does not value children. We generally want "us" time, more than we want the natural blessings of married life. And we certainly do not want too many of them! They are a threat to our way of living, and birth control has become more closely related to the fear of the arrival of a child than with the excitement of planning for the arrival of a child. I do not want that. Whether we delay or not, our reasons should be more about the excitement than about the loss (and yes, every time we choose one thing, we do lose another, I realize... the honeymoon phase must change into something else eventually).

Sooo... back to the article yesterday... There was nothing I found technically wrong with it, and I appreciated the author's honesty. I would not want to apply a rule to her, which I would find unfair. But... I still question the basic presuppositions... that children might ever take us away from our purpose. Perhaps, God has not called this particular couple to have children, and that is fine, and perhaps a few who have likewise been called into a unique lifestyle will find encouragement in what she has written. Yet, I am concerned for the many, many others, who simply fear the losses. That's what bothered me: not the article itself, but that it may so easily build on the already existing cultural supposition that children are a burden upon our "deeper" purposes and desires. Are children not often the very inspiration for the additional gifts and purposes God gives us?

Admittedly, I now write as only an engaged woman, who has never yet gone through the transitions of either marriage or motherhood, but my critique is on an accepted societal view. When my chance to welcome a new child into the world comes, I want it to be exactly that: an exciting welcoming, not something I feel frustrated about because he/she showed up before I had properly planned for them. 

What do you all think?