Why Natural Family Planning Is Not Biblical

My husband and I used to follow the Natural Family Planning (NFP) child-spacing method over the course of several years, on and off between children. But eventually, we discovered it wasn’t all we had expected it to be. Most importantly, it wasn’t even biblical.

The three main reasons couples use NFP are (1) to control the spacing and timing of pregnancies, (2) to stop having children when they already have all they feel they want, and in some cases (3) to keep the mother from becoming pregnant when her health is at risk. It’s also a way for the woman to keep track of her cycles and to know to the day when she becomes pregnant.

Those all sound like good, healthy reasons, don’t they? If you can achieve all of that without using dangerous hormonal methods, cutting off your fertility completely, or using barrier methods that “separate the unitive from the procreative,” then what’s the problem? That’s what I’m going to be talking about in this article.

Ritual vs. Relationship?

Some well-meaning Christians may view NFP as a lesser of two evils. They don’t really want to use any sort of “method,” but feel they must for the sake of difficult circumstances. In their minds the good of helping the mother, or the marriage, or the family as a whole, is a greater priority than following God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” The way they see it, the command to have compassion is higher than the command to have more children.

I have never seen anyone who believes NFP is a “personal choice before God” quote any specific Bible verses to support that idea (same with those Christians who believe other methods of preventing pregnancy are okay). Instead, they bring up the general concept of personal responsibility.

Though I understand the logic which says we should use general principles to determine how to handle specific issues, a difficulty presents itself to my mind when I ponder the question: Would God give us general principles that contradict and override clear Scriptural teachings, and if so, which ones? Satisfactorily answering this question is especially critical when we are discussing something as fundamental as marriage, sex, and human life. That is what we are going to be looking into, right now.

Though proponents of NFP will probably not quote any specific Bible verses having to do with conception, Bible passages such as Matthew 12:1-13 might be used to support their view, and at first glance this appears to make sense. Let’s carefully consider if that passage could be used in favor of NFP. We need to determine if using Natural Family Planning is or isn’t like the examples given in that section of Scripture: David eating the showbread even though it wasn’t lawful for anybody but the priests to eat, when he was fleeing from Saul; the priests profaning the Sabbath as they prepared the daily sacrifice; or pulling an animal out of a pit on the Sabbath.

All are examples of “breaking” one law in favor of a higher law. When there is a contest of laws, we must decide which one to break and which one to honor. The laws with the most priority are the ones involving “mercy” (human beings and our relationship with them) not “sacrifice” (ritual).

“But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” Matthew 12:7

One argument in favor of NFP is that by allowing couples to use NFP as birth control, we are honoring the higher law of mercy. While this sounds good, it is fundamentally different from the examples provided above. In every case mentioned from Matthew, the lower law in question involved the breaking of a ritual but did not interfere with God’s created design for human relationships. That’s an important distinction.

It becomes apparent that the issue of whether to allow human conception or disallow it cannot be categorized as ritual vs. relationship, as in other cases. There can be no “higher priority” when it comes to the issue of conception, since it IS the higher priority. More accurately, the NFP debate could be categorized as one of depravity vs. design (and the case is the same with other birth control methods). When we mess with sex, we mess with God’s design–His design for the man and woman’s body, for marriage, for family. We are at war with His Order, with Nature itself, when we tinker with sex.

There is no “general principle” which can contradict or override God’s created, natural design. His physical laws aren’t maleable. They are not remotely in the same category as loaves of bread sitting on a table, or roasting an animal or wrestling a cow out of a pit on the Sabbath. Not even close. It’s actually the other way around: The general principle is God’s design for sex, and that principle must be applied in a cohesive, consistent way to any specific situations we encounter.

Sex is meant to be both procreative and unitive. But, Natural Family Planning is actually neither.

Not Procreative

This point is obvious. Natural Family Planning is not open to life; it is only open to accidents. That’s not the same. When you are intentionally making an attempt to not concieve a baby, then you are not really, honestly open to life. If you were truly open to life, you wouldn’t be using NFP.

A rejection of life is implicated. A baby is not wanted, so the couple doesn’t have relations on the day that conceiving a baby would be most likely. They want to have sex, but they don’t want sex to lead to a baby. That’s what birth control is, call it by whatever name you will. All birth control rejects the procreative function of sex, and NFP is no exception. It’s good that you’re happy with a surpise, if it happens–but you’re still working against life. This is not being fruitful and multiplying; it’s just a safer way of not getting pregnant, since it doesn’t involve dangerous chemicals (hormonal birth control methods such as the pill).

Natural Family Planning, just as it can be used to become pregnant if the couple chooses to have sex during the wife’s fertile phase, can also be used to prevent beoming pregnant. This is in opposition to God’s stated purpose for marriage:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion . . .” Genesis 1:28 (Repeated to Noah and his sons twice in Genesis 9:1, 7; Repeated to Jacob in Genesis 35:11)

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 (Jesus re-confirms this in Mark 10:8)

“And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore [why] one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” Malachi 2:15

If there are serious health risks, the appropriate, biblical response is complete abstinence, until the time of danger has passed. This is similar to the approach prescribed by God for bleeding, whether from menstruation or from having recently given birth.

If the couple does not want to abstain, trusting in God is another completely valid, Scriptural option. Let’s not underestimate the value of having faith in God’s wisdom, timing, and power even when there are problems — faith is not truly faith if we give up on it during a trial, and trials come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, not just “economic troubles,” or “relationship troubles,” etc. If we can trust God for salvation, if we can trust Him to provide, if we can trust Him to heal a broken relationship — then can’t we trust Him in this, too? The couple can seek practical solutions to a health issue, while continuing to be completely open to life (without using NFP) and placing their trust in God’s sovereignty. It’s never foolish or irresponsible to obey God’s Word.

Not Unitive

This point is not always as obvious. Yes, Natural Family Planning involves a period of abstinence, and that can cause the couple to feel distant. But, it’s only for a short time, and while they’re waiting they can still cuddle. So, how’s NFP not unitive?

To answer that question, we have to look closely at God’s design.

Sex was supposed to happen within the bond of marriage, first of all. The man was made with the ability to have sex with his wife and fully enjoy it at any time, without going through phases like the woman. The woman can only have sex when she is not bleeding (Lev. 15:19-30; 18:19; 20:18) or has not just given birth (Lev. 12:1-8). And even though she may technically be able to perform the sex act during her non-fertile time of the month, she finds less enjoyment in it then she would during her fertile time. Therefore, she naturally seeks to have sexual relations during her fertile time, whether she is aware of this or not. (And studies show that the husband is actually more attracted to his wife at this time, too.) This is how God designed it. He obviously wants to make it easy for us to have babies!

For more information on how a woman’s hormones play an important and healthy role in sexual attraction, I cautiously recommend this book (cautiously, because it is not from a Christian perspective, and there are some bad words).

The Bible teaches that a man and wife can abstain for the sake of “fasting and prayer” (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Then, after a short, set time, they are supposed to come together again so they won’t be tempted to commit sexual sin. I think it’s very important to point out that this is not NFP; this is complete abstinence, meaning no sex at all–zero sex. And, it is ONLY for the purpose of fasting and prayer, NOT for the purpose of avoiding conception. Let’s not play games, here. Let’s be honest with what this passage actually says:

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

“Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency [lack of self control].”

1 Cor. 7:1-5

When the woman is not able to have sex during her fertile phase, the time when she most desires it, she is being “defrauded.” The Bible is being disobeyed. God’s design is being twisted. Temptation has an easy target in her life. Why? Because her need is not being met. Having sex when she doesn’t feel like it, but not having sex when she does, can’t be counted as meeting her need. Maybe she could survive this for a month, maybe two or even three. But when this becomes a pattern of life over the course of more than a few months, or even years, her sexual desire is being denied its satisfaction more than any normal married human being should be expected to bear. Her husband gets his desire satisfied, while she suffers sexual frustration month after month.

This is not the same as being temporarily separated from each other because of a job, or something. No; they continue to share the same bed, and while the man is able to relieve his sexual tension, the wife can not. This is different. This is unjust. This is preferring the husband and his needs over the wife and hers. This is cold-hearted. This is not compassionate. This is a defrauding of the woman’s marriage rights. How can we do this to women, Christians? How can we call NFP a good thing when it is making light of a woman’s need by denying her complete sexual satisfaction with her husband, the one who is supposed to provide for that need in order “to avoid fornication”?

Her body is not some enemy to be avoided. She is a whole person, and her husband married her for the whole person that she is, fertility and all. Her womb and her eggs are a part of her, of who she is as a woman. When her husband rejects this, he is really rejecting her in her totality, her in the full meaning of what it means for her to be a woman. He also rejects the full meaning of marriage and of what sex was meant to be, in marriage.

The Bible says that a woman’s body belongs to her husband. It also says that a man’s body belongs to his wife. Aha! So, his body is hers just as much as hers is his. When she has a sexual need, she should be able to go to her husband for satisfaction just as much as he should be able to go to her. That’s how God designed marriage.

Is self-restraint good? Yes, it is. But prolonged self-restraint is beyond what God intended for marriage. Marriage is for those who need it, otherwise they “burn” (1 Cor. 7:9).

I’ve heard one argument used often in support of NFP which goes along these lines: “Married couples who learn sexual self control have better marriages. Natural Family Planning helps couples learn sexual self control. Therefore, NFP helps couples have better marriages.” Well, I have something to say about that. I’ve already spoken a lot about why I think too much restraint is counter productive, since it can lead to temptation when our very strong sexual desires are not being fully satisfied by our spouse. I will acknowledge that learning self control is good in a general sense. Yes! However, is NFP the only, good way for married couples to learn how to have sexual self control? My husband and I have had to learn self control every time we have a sick child to deal with, or one or the other of us is sick, or either of us is super tired, or I’m on my period, or I’ve just had a baby, and the list goes on. There are plenty of other ways to learn self control without needing NFP.

A Friendly Challenge

Find one place, one verse, in the Bible that says it’s okay to abstain for the sake of avoiding children. I dare you. Really. (A gentle smile from me, here.) Yes, I’m that sure you won’t find a single instance. Why not? Is it because the Bible doesn’t talk about having children? Well, it does, so that’s not it.

God, I’m sure, knows all about how sex works, when the woman is fertile and when she’s not, including the dangers of becoming pregnant when there are health risks. God is not dumb. People in history weren’t dumb, either. For many, many years, people have had methods of avoiding children. Were they always successful? No. But don’t you think that if God had wanted us to be able to avoid having children for “serious exceptions” He would have told us how? And yet, He didn’t provide any information on this beyond giving us the solution of complete abstinence until the time of healing is accomplished. Maybe, it’s because avoiding conception was never His will.

Can we just be honest enough with ourselves to accept that fact?

Take a step back from our culture. This whole birth control thing, as practiced now, is fairly new when seen in the light of thousands of years of history. Let’s zoom out, and get a fair veiw of this. Modern birth control was mainly developed by godless people such as the founder of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger, along with other eugenicists with shady agendas. Birth control opened the way for all kinds of sexual immorality, including living together, one night stands, adultery, the porn business, and abortion. Yes, abortion.

Birth control is what paved the way for the acceptance of abortion. After all, birth control is just an early rest stop along the road to abortion. The mindest of child rejection and sexual fulfillment apart from God’s design for marriage naturally leads to the logical conclusion of killing the unwanted baby. Perhaps you are saying at this juncture, “But birth control and NFP are not the same.” You’re wrong. Different methods, similar mindset.

Freedom to Reject

Have you perhaps heard from some Christian leaders you respect and admire that NFP is okay? Even good? Have you read books or watched videos that proclaim it as a morally neutral, godly solution to a problem? You have the freedom to reject their opinion.

No man is God. No man is equal to the authority of God’s Word. No man has the right to tell you to do something which is contrary to the Bible. Not even me. Please do me a huge favor and check for youself what the Bible says about marriage, sex, and having children. Don’t be lazy (smile); really do your research. Only then can you be sure if you are doing the right thing, or not.

You can reject NFP and still respect and admire those Christian leaders. We are all human after all, and humans make mistakes. It takes much time, knowledge, and experience for us to understand many things. Maturity is something we’re all working toward; and, while some are closer to it than others, we all have lessons we still need to learn, ways we still need to grow.

Freedom to Accept

Trust God. He’s not stupid; He knows a lot more than you, or I, or the whole human race put together. Will He allow something bad to happen if you trust in Him? Maybe. We all live in this world, and we must live in it along with all its fallenness. God doesn’t put a bubble around us so that when we trust in Him we never suffer pain or loss. But, here is what He does do: He is with us when we suffer that pain or loss. We know that with Him, nothing is meaningless or vain.

We don’t need to use NFP. Children are beautiful gifts to be accepted, not rejected. Yes, even through hardship, even through deformity, even through miscarriage, even through special needs. When we reject babies, we reject people. Perhaps, in very extreme cases, a decision may have to be made for the life of the mother over the life of the baby. But, I think that most cases are not that extreme. We can’t know for sure if a “health risk” will turn out to be truly life threatening; it might not. And in the rare case that it is, what loving mother wouldn’t be willing to give her life for the life of her child? Some things are worth the risk.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

I hesitated before writing that sentence. I don’t want to be blamed for anyone’s problems, if after they follow my counsel to trust God things don’t turn out as they had expected. Also, I have not yet been asked by God to put my own life at risk. Believe me, I have seen how horrible life can be, and I know that not everyone has it as “easy” as I have. I sympathize very deeply with women who have had to deal with difficult life situations. And yet, I am really, honestly, doing my best to be true to what I see as making the most sense, biblically. I know that what God says in the Bible is always best, even though it may hurt for the moment. Remember: Each child is an eternal soul of inestimable value. When we receive them, it is like receiving Christ:

“And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” Mark 9:36-37

Final Thoughts

Maybe we wouldn’t bother about conserving the sacred showbread when David and his men show up with a death threat following close behind. Maybe we would forget about the holy Sabbath in order to rescue our fallen animal. But would we really think so poorly of our own flesh and blood that we wouldn’t be willing to suffer hardhip for them?

But, I hear you say, what about the other children? They’re people. What about your husband? He’s a person. What if you have to not have more children so you can care for the ones you already have? But there’s a problem with that viewpoint. What does it say about how much we truly value people, no matter who they are, when we reject the new ones? Aren’t we saying that the people already in existence are more important than those who have yet to come into existence? If you get here first, you’re more important and your needs come first? Let’s block off all future intruders? Wait a minute — there it is, we just uncovered the truth about our way of thinking: We view babies as intruders, enemies. They mess up our plans, they put us at risk, they endanger our wellbeing. For them, the hardship is not worth it. We are saying that certain people deserve more from us than others, we put people into categories, levels of priority.

We also say that we don’t really trust God to be God.

God uses blind people to bring Himself glory, people He allowed to be born blind for a reason (John 9:1-3). Every thing, every person, is here for a purpose. What if some people are supposed to be born in a certain way, at a certain time, with certain problems (or without them) to bring God glory in some way that He alone knows? Why take that away from Him? He alone knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10). Look at us: we can’t even see into tomorrow. We can project what we think will happen, but none of us knows for sure. Only God knows. And will you tell me that it’s irresponsible to trust my future to Him? Will you really say that, along with all its implications? As if God were not capable of hearing my prayers (Psalm 121:1-2), controlling my womb (1 Sam. 1:5-6 and 1:19, 27; Psalm 127:1-5), causing all things to work together for good (Rom. 8:28), or providing for all my needs? (Matt. 6:25-34). To suggest that we cannot trust God in this, is to suggest that He is less God than the Bible teaches.

We need to clarify something very important for ourselves by asking this question: Over which areas of life has God given us personal responsibility? Does this include human life? Has God biblically given us jurisdiction over conception? Over the coming-into-existence (or not) of eternal, non-repeatable, irreplaceable, unique human beings? Perhaps, there are areas of life that have not been given over to our authority as humans, that are only within the realm of God’s authority. Perhaps, pretending we have been given responsibility over conception (beyond deciding whether we will or will not marry) is the spiritual equivalent of pretending to be God.

I don’t know about you, but I would feel very uncomfortable trying to determine another human being’s destiny. There are so many unknowables and unforeseeables, so many ways my knowledge is limited. But God — is His knowledge limited?

God knows what it’s like to bear a child. He knows how hard it is, how painful, how risky. He bore the nation of Israel, along with all the problems that came along with it, and there were a great many. All those problems He foreknew and foresaw, yet He chose to “bear them” anyway for the sake of His long-term, loving plan. He took a risk for them; can we not do the same for our children? Will we take that personal step of faith and trust in God’s long-term, loving plan for our own future and that of our children?

Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.

Isaiah 46:3-4

Note: The only exception I would make to everything I have just said is for the sake of submission in the case of a husband who wants to use birth control. I would much rather see a woman use NFP than anything else. However, this is only if the husband insists, and I don’t think I would suggest it except as a last resort in order to avoid the pill or other birth control methods. Also, I wouldn’t actively suggest which day we should come together; I would keep track of my cycle and fertility signs (basal body temperature and mucus quality), and make sure the chart was in a place where my husband could easily get to it. If he wanted to have relations, I would simply ask him if he thought we should, referring him to the chart. He would need to take responsiblity for understanding how the method works. I would then live with his choice to be or not be intimate.

***

• What was an area (it doesn’t necessarily have to be related to fertility) you struggled giving control of to God? When did that change for you?
• What advice would you give to wives who are hesitant to completely surrender their wombs to the Lordship of Christ?
• Do you have a personal story you could share of an unexpected pregnancy which turned out for good?

~Jessica