Mongrel Ethics: John Piper Vs. David Bayly

Few things are more compelling to me than a good old-fashioned theological dispute between solid Reformed preachers. So grab a tub of popcorn, turn on your satellite pay-per-view TV, and enjoy the match.

We do "do ethics" here at the Horde, so I thought we should tackle a sticky, contraversial topic that the Reformed community struggles with. "Is it sinful to use birth control?" is an issue that has no concensus within Reformed circles. To represent the "yea" side of this question, I have selected an article by David Bayly. For the "nay" side I've selected an article by John Piper. I have oodles of respect for both of these fine pastor/theologians, so I thought that even though their articles don't directly address the others', it would still make an effective matchup. OK, guys, I want a good, clean fight. No biting, no eye gouging, no hitting below the belt. All right, touch gloves and come out at the bell. DING DING!

David Bayly comes out swinging with three implicit biblical arguments. First, he points out that the Bible calls children and unequivocal blessing. No Christian who has skimmed his Bible more than once can dispute this. He also points out that the Bible never indicates that we should seek to limit God's blessings, except in regard to material possessions. Piper blocks this initial jab with the following:

In response, it can be pointed out that the Scriptures also say that a wife is a
gift from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22), but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to
stay single (1 Corinthians 7:8). Just because something is a gift from the Lord
does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come
into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift
from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a
world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the
fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And
for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and
to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive.

Bayly goes on to the biblical mandate to "fill the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28), which by implication entails the mandate to procreate. This is something everyone in the Reformed camp should agree on - whether Dominionist, theonomic, Southern Presbyterian, or even Reformed baptist. It is to Evangelicalism's shame that materialism and decadence has led to the widespread and manifest de-prioritization of raising offspring in the Lord. Piper, however, qualifies this by asking "how a farmer...knows how much land he should cultivate. The answer, of course, is that a farmer seeks to cultivate what he believes he can reasonably handle. He doesn't take this command to mean that he needs to make his farm be as large as is naturally possible. Likewise, then, it is right for a couple to seek to have the number of children that they believe they can reasonably nurture in light of the other callings they may also have on their lives."

The third implicit argument Bayly provides is from the Levitical laws concerning a woman's ritual impurity during and after menstruation, implying God's desire for sexual relations during the time of maximal fertility. Piper has no counter-argument on this point, but the counter-argument is obvious. Sexual relations are not prohibited by levitical law or any other Scripture during times of non-existent fertility, such as during pregnancy or after menopause. The Bible sets apart sexual relations as a means of building and maintaining marital intimacy, not just for procreating.

David Bayly's explicit argument comes from the case of Onan in Genesis 38. Piper does not address this passage, so Piper and I have arranged an illegal tag-team so that I can jump into the ring and address Bayly's exegetical argument here.

God smote Onan for spilling his seed and failing to impregnate his sister-in-law, Tamar, after his brother's death. Bayly contends that the sin for which Onan was punished was specifically the use of birth control. He argues that the sin for which he died could not have been the failure of his duty to provide an heir for his brother. The Mosaic law that required this duty (Deut. 25:5-6) did not exist during Genesis 38, the time of the patriarchs. Bayly writes:

All law prior to the giving of the written law to Moses was moral law. None of
it was ceremonial or civil. Ceremonial and civil law came down from the mountain
with Moses. If God held a man guilty of lawbreaking prior to giving His written
law to Moses, it was not for violating ceremonial law or civil law, but for
violating the moral law which He had written upon the human heart.

Thus, he argues, Onan's sin was a sin against the moral law and applies to New Covenant members as well. This is a very powerful argument. However, I think the above quotation contains the flawed assumption on which his argument turns. That is, I think it is a mistake to assume that all law before the Mosaic law is necessarily moral law "written on our hearts". Civil or ceremonial law in some form must have existed before the Mosaic law. The proof of this is in God's disdain for Cain's sacrifice, where he clearly violated a form of ceremonial law that Abel had not. The only precondition of non-moral law is special revelation, not necessarily written or Mosaic revelation. Therefore, we can conclude that Onan could have known that it was his duty to provide an heir for his brother before the Mosaic commandment was given. This is why Judah could expect of Onan that he "go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."

I don't know if this match was exactly a TKO, but now that the dust has settled I conclude that it is an error to make a blanket condemnation of all uses of birth control in the Christian church.

Now the reader should not read into my conclusion, about my own feelings concerning having a large or small family. For now, this is an intellectual exercise for me that I can enjoy from my detached ivory tower on the internet, as I am not married. By God's grace my quiver will overfloweth one day, but I do feel compelled to urge my Reformed brethren not to put undue burdens on other brethren when I do not believe the Scriptures have done so.

Category: Theoblogia