Wednesday, June 29, 2005

...and trusting God

My friend Jessica pointed out that my argument (in the second to last paragraph) breaks down if you consider that our bodies are fallen bodies. I agree…that fact makes the logic less convincing. The trouble is that, even when there are some logical leaps in the argument, I can’t get away from the feeling that God is telling me to trust him. Lack of trust is my most besetting sin, in almost all areas of my life. And so when I feel so strongly that God is saying “no, Emily, you need to trust me and do this my way”…chances are that he really is saying just that. And so I’m trying. Pray for me, please.


Gabe said...

I wouldn't concede to the "fallen bodies" argument so easily. Delivery is certainly painful because of the fall... but more frequent? Why think that the rate at which we have babies is related to the fall, and not to God's design that we "be fruitful and multiply"? I smell gnosticism.

Heather said...

I would agree. You'd have to work pretty hard to make any kind of biblical argument for that. I think it's hilarious (and good), though, Em, that you're arguing this side, now, remembering our discussions of it BEFORE you got married. :-)

Jessica said...

Oh boo, I'm no gnostic, I just wish I were. :D

anyway, it could be of the same frequency, but more dangerous. And if more dangerous, than less frequency would lessen the danger. Also, our bodies could be less good at handling the frequency than an unfallen body would be - what didn't used to wear out now does, what didn't used to break (tear, bleed, become unelastic, need to heal, etc.) now does, what didn't need time to heal now does . . . making it a proper place for medical intervention.

but, that aside, if God's telling you to trust Him, Em, you don't need to answer the fallen bodies argument, or any other. You don't need the argument at all; that's a place to obey, not to argue (though of course still a place to think). I by no means am trying to say that this is not the path that God wants you to follow - he sends some of us on special assignment sometimes.

and it sure is a subject worth thinking about, much more than our branch of Christianity usually does, I think.


Amber said...

I wanted to chime in here too (lots of comments tonight!) and just second what Jessica said - really, it doesn't matter what the arguments are, for or against - if you (and Gabe!) feel that God is telling you to trust him on this issue, then by all means do so.

Personally, I've been feeling like I've been getting a strong message that we should have a couple more children, then adopt a couple more from the foster system. This idea is taking a fair bit of digesting, but it is certainly something I'm thinking and praying about. I'll pray for you too.

Emily said...

Amber, adopting foster children is a neat idea. That takes a special calling, certainly.

Amber said...

Yes, and that's why I'm kind of freaked out about it! *grin* At this point I'm glad that this feels like a calling for the future, rather than one for right now. At least I have some time to prepare myself and get used to the idea... (not to mention giving my husband lots of time for that too!)

Linds said...

Of course if He's asking you to trust Him, you should do it, but make certain He is before you do something so serious or (as the last pregnancy was) risky. I see several large holes in your argument against birth control, and you use the word 'feel' more than I remember you doing in sessions. :)

Emily said...

What are the "several large holes"?

The reason I use "feel" is because there is more to me than my head. ;)

And we had an airtight argument for why we SHOULD use birth control...and then God said no. Not in so many words...but in some rather incredibly clear "feelings", (that both of us experienced simultaneously) and a lot of coincidences that just can't all have been coincidences. All of which adds up, as best I understand it, to God speaking.

Linds said...

Well, the two holes in the argument that pop right out to me are first, the one Jess introduced about the body being in a fallen state (which I think bears more merit than your husband does, but I'm just a history nerd so what do I know? :)), but second and (I think) more importantly, the argument that procreation is the only legitimate end to sex and that preventing it is somehow thwarting God's plan.

First, though we are capable of wicked things, I would hardly call using any form of birth control effectively thwarting His plan. If you use it improperly (i.e. when you know it's wrong which goes back to your trust argument), of course it can be the equivalent to thwarting His plan, but just because it can be used improperly and against His will doesn't mean it always is.

Second, just because something can sometimes be a means to an end doesn't mean it always must be. For example, my body produces fat cells when I eat certain foods. That doesn't mean that I should always eat with the intent to produce fat cells, does it? I know the analogy's rough, but it seems you're making a leap that's a bit ill-advised in the argument.

Finally, I found the 'barrier in my heart' argument a bit peculiar. It could be argued that if you're only thinking about babies when you express your love to Gabe, you're not really expressing love to him but rather using his expression as a means to an end. Okay, I know that's icky and not my business, but that's what your argument sounds like! :)

So yeah... some holes. It just seems as though you make several leaps that aren't justified from your argument. It could be that I read you wrong or you didn't fully express what you meant, but that's what I get from it. And yes, I know you're more than your brain... but feelings aren't enough to base huge decisions on. They're certainly a huge chunk of decision-making, but good reasons should have a place there too. And it's not that I'm saying God never asks you to do something that seems unreasonable. He quite often does! I'm just saying that it's always best to make sure. :)