Good info. So open to it, not doing anything in particular to stop it, but aware that you might wind up with a newborn at 47. Rare, but possible.
2 Likes
Is that right? For both the husband and the wife (ie are other forms of stimulation de facto sinful by virtue of their non-procreative telos)?
Or does intent in interaction also play a part? Without getting too Driscoll on the whole thing, Song of Solomon suggests, at the very least, more to sexuality than intercourse. I seem to remember @jtbayly making this point about blindfolds (in a totally different context, granted), that intent makes a huge difference between marital affection and 50 Shades.
And no, I donāt look at Song of Solomon as a sex manual. I see it much closer to the standard historical interpretation than the modern interpretation. But still. The language is pretty frank. About sex.
Again, Iām asking this in faith. Iām not a scoffer.
3 Likes
First, I donāt think that Onanās sin was a one-time act. I havenāt looked at the Hebrew, but a couple of translations have language like this from the NRSV: āhe spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brotherās wifeā (emphasis mine).
Second, regardless of the above, I do think that the heart and intent are material here, since although we have natural theology to consider, we do not have many explicit prohibitions or mandates. (And God is not shy from being very explicit about what is required or forbidden.) Onanās intent of not giving children to his brotherās wife mattered. Why would the intent suddenly not matter based on that story, and the takeaway be that certain actions are prohibited. The intent of those actions must still be considered at the very least, I think.
6 Likes
I think the comparison to food mentioned earlier is helpful. God gave food for the purpose of nourishing and sustaining our bodies, but also for our enjoyment. We have to be careful not to fall into an ascetic fuel-only approach to food, because God actually commands and encourages feasting and the enjoyment of sweet things (e.g., Nehemiah 8:10). Which is to say, itās okay to eat dessert. We should give our kids ice cream, and buy our wife chocolate with a big olā smile on our face.
God gave sex for the purpose of procreation, but also for our enjoyment. And just as we have freedom to enjoy food, we have freedom to enjoy sex. You can draw out the practical implications yourself in consultation with your wife, but I would say that just as not every act of eating has to be for a clearly defined purpose of physical nourishment, so not every sexual act has to be for a clearly defined purpose of procreation. Itās actually kind of ridiculous, if you think about it. (Imagine @radiohead voice) 
I must be careful not to touch my wife in any intimate way, unless I intend to finish such initiation with a suitably procreative act. Bleep-bloop.
Enjoy your wife! Be exhilarated always with her love! God is not stingy. And Heāll show His generosity by blessing your exhilaration with fruit, both physical and spiritual.
Think about 1 Corinthians 7:1ā7, which is about how husbands and wives should not ādepriveā each other. Procreation isnāt even mentioned in that section; just sexual desires and the need for married people to tend generously to those desires in one another.
11 Likes
Letās not forget to raise our sons to be husbands. Teach boys to find a wife.
A fair point to raise; but one which I thought the courtship movement tried to address? You are quite right, though, to remind us that the whole thing about fruitful marriages still requires the marriages to happen in the first place.
2 Likes
Itās striking how Puritanical even Karl Barth sounds as late as the 1960s, even with all his provisos on birth control, in comparison with todayās commonly accepted teaching in the church. Even his use of the Lambeth Conference shows a discomfort with the teleology of deliberately non-fruitful marital sex (though he maintains a place for it) and sounds remarkably more restrictive than any marriage book Iāve ever seen.
How did we lose our way so quickly?
1 Like
Well reasoned and written, Alex! @acmcneilly
1 Like