Posted on 07/27/2010 6:07:29 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
July 23, 2010
(RNS) Is contraception a sin? The very suggestion made Bryan Hodge and his classmates at Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute laugh.
As his friends scoffed and began rebutting the oddball idea, Hodge found himself on the other side, poking holes in their arguments. He finished a bachelor’s degree in biblical theology at Moody and earned a master’s degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Now, more than a decade later, he is trying to drive a hole the size of the ark through what has become conventional wisdom among many Christians: that contraception is perfectly moral.
His book, “The Christian Case Against Contraception,” was published in November. Hodge, a former Presbyterian pastor who is now a layman in the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church, realizes his mission is quixotic.
In the 50 years since the birth-control pill hit the market, contraception in all its forms has become as ubiquitous as the minivan, and dramatically changed social mores as it opened the possibilities for women.
No less than other Americans, Christians were caught up in the cultural conflagration. In a nation where 77 percent of the population claims to be Christian, 98 percent of women who have ever had sexual intercourse say they’ve used at least one method of birth control.
The pill is the most preferred method, followed closely by female sterilization (usually tying off fallopian tubes).
“People are no longer ... thinking about it,” says Hodge, 36, who had to agree with a Christian publisher who rejected his book on grounds that contraception is a nonstarter, a settled issue.
“People don’t even ask if there is anything possibly morally wrong about it.”
For more than 19 centuries, every Christian church opposed contraception.
Under pressure from social reformers such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, the Anglican Communion (and its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church) became the first to allow married couples with grave reasons to use birth control.
That decision cracked a door that, four decades later, was thrown wide open with the relatively safe, effective birth-control pill, which went on the market in this country in the summer of 1960. Virtually every Protestant denomination had lifted the ban by the mid-1960s.
Even evangelicals within mainline Protestant and nondenominational churches embraced the pill as a way that married couples could enjoy their God-given sexuality without fear of untimely pregnancy.
“It was a reaction to that whole Victorian thing where sex was seen as dirty,” says Hodge, who lives in Pennsylvania.
(BEGIN FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM)
Official Mormon teaching through the late 1960s was against birth control. But by 1998, the church’s General Handbook of Instructions made it clear that only a couple can decide how many children to have and no one else is to judge.
(END FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM)
There remains one massive holdout among major Christian churches—the Roman Catholic Church, which expressed its opposition in no uncertain terms in Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
To separate the two functions of marital intimacy—the life-transmitting from the bonding—is to reject God’s design, Paul VI wrote.
“The fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman,” Humanae Vitae proclaimed.
Janet Smith, a Catholic seminary professor whose writing and talks have been influential for two decades, puts it this way: “God himself is love, and it’s the very nature of love to overflow into new life. Take the baby-making power out of sex, and it doesn’t express love. All it expresses is physical attraction.”
The church’s ban on contraception stunned many, including one of the doctors who created the pill, Harvard’s John Rock, a Catholic. By and large, Catholics went with the culture rather than the church.
A 2005 Harris Poll found 90 percent of adult Catholics support contraception, just 3 percentage points lower than the general adult population.
(BEGIN SECOND OPTIONAL TRIM)
“The ban on contraception is completely irrelevant to Catholics,” said Jon O’Brien, president of the group Catholics for Choice. “We know the position the hierarchy has on contraception is fundamentally flawed, and that’s why it’s ignored en masse.”
The Rev. Ken Vialpando, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Ogden, Utah, places much of the blame for Catholics’ disobedience on priests who are reticent to talk about church teachings on marriage and sex, or who bought into the 1960s notion that one’s conscience was a sufficient guide.
“What if our consciences are not fully informed?” Vialpando asked. “How can we fault the people if they haven’t heard about it and recognize the purpose or meaning of marriage?”
Smith, whose recorded 1994 talk “Contraception, Why Not?” has sold more than 1 million copies, says young adult evangelicals and Catholics, including men studying for the priesthood, seem more open to the possibility that contraception is a sin.
The pendulum may yet swing, she said.
“They are going to have a huge impact,” says Smith, who holds an ethics chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. “They already are.”
(END SECOND OPTIONAL TRIM)
The Rev. Greg Johnson of Sandy, Utah, who is on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals, says most evangelicals remain firmly in the contraceptive camp, even if some stress that it should not be used frivolously or to avoid children altogether.
A recent Gallup poll of the association, and another of its board, found 90 percent support for contraception.
Such statistics are disheartening for evangelicals such as Hodge and James Tour, a renowned chemist specializing in nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston, who believe contraception is not biblical.
Rather than heeding Christian theology to be “agents of life in the world,” Christians have largely adopted culture’s philosophic naturalism, which considers sex an itch to be scratched, Hodge said.
“They have the same view of conception that atheists have.”
Evangelicals’ dearth of understanding about sexuality and marriage explains why they have trouble arguing against gay marriage, he contends. Contracepted sex, in his view, is no different from gay sex: It’s not life-giving either way.
Tour, a Jew who converted to evangelical Christianity as a teenager, like Catholics endorses “natural family planning”—avoiding intercourse during the woman’s monthly fertile cycle—but wonders if Christians ought to forgo even that measure of family planning.
He says young lustful men who have had unfettered access to their wives actually welcome a message of self-restraint.
“The women are looking for relief. The men are looking for relief,” Tour says. “They’re like, `I want that. I want to live in peace. I want to live in fulfillment.’”
Throwing out contraception “is more trusting in God. It ultimately lets him decide what is the right number (of children),” Tour said.
“Protestants in 30 or 50 years are going to say, `My God. What were we thinking in those generations?’?”
I'm equating acting like an adult with accepting responsibility for our actions. Saying that we don't have to worry about consequences and should let God decide is childish.
It's a dangerous idea to refuse to plan or take action because we put something in God's hands. We do the best we can and then put the rest into God's hands.
But if we consider children outside of our planning or action, then fertility treatment and adoption should be rejected as well.
Actually, those Christians who are consistent with Natural Law also reject artificial insemination.
Adoption is consistent with Natural Law.
Saying that we don't have to worry about consequences and should let God decide is childish.
Believing in Divine Providence is childish? Maybe in one regard:
"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 18:3
I agree with you about fertility treatment since I agree with Catholic teaching on that subject.
I suggest you read Humanae Vitae. To me it is astounding how prophetic that encyclical is.
The purpose of marital sex is both unitive and procreative. There are times when in a marriage that continence is advisable for either health or other reasons, including the spacing of children. For this reason the Catholic Church permits Natural Family Planning, with the caveat that couples are to remain open to life.
The prevalent cultural attitude (not yours) is that pregnancy is an error that must either be prevented or when that fails aborted. I am convinced that the widespread acceptance of artificial contraceptives has lead to this attitude.
There are other fruits of separating the unitive and procreative aspects of married love. The ones which we Christians are most concerned with is the view amongst too many that homosexual behavior and abortion are no longer always sinful.
If sterility (not that cause by medical condition)is a good and positive outcome to be sought in sexual relations. And if the chief purpose of sex is solely unitive. How can we argue against committed homosexual unions without resorting to strictly Biblical truths that too many in this society is nonsense.
Or does the teaching that is expounded upon in the Bible a Truth that is universal? I think it is.
But for Christians the main argument remains Scriptural and what we learn about marriage from Scripture. From that I believe that Christian marriage is a reflection of the Trinity and its life giving constant love.
I think you can find non Catholic sources on this aspect of Christian marriage. All we do is for the Glory of God. How does the use of artificial birth control glorify God? Or does it reflect a stubborn desire to serve our own will instead of His? Remember that the outcome of fertile sex is a child. A child which we are called to rear up for a crown in heaven.
Thank God for His free gift of the individual's Christian conscience which is to lead us when Scripture does not directly address a subject. As the pastor you are quoting notes...
"The Bible does not, as far as I can tell, give us any proscription or prohibition with reference to contraception."
This is one man's opinion. I agree with that opinion. Apparently the OPC is taking great pains to differentiate between barrier contraception and abortion and the immoral "morning-after pill."
I find your incessant interest in birth control to be somewhat prurient. You post quite a lot about women's health issues.
But you're not an obstetrician. You're not even a M.D. from what I can tell.
You are a podiatrist.
Therefore don't expect me to chime in on the many missives you post.
Abortion is a sin. The morning-after pill is certainly morally questionable. And barrier contraception is not against God's law.
To say a woman must have a child every year of her marriage goes right along with the inherent distaste Rome has for all women except one.
I meant to ping you to post 24
But you're not an obstetrician. You're not even a M.D. from what I can tell.
You are a podiatrist.."
The Religion Moderator has consistently required we not "make it personal."
This bolded area is indeed "making it personal."
My interest in this subject it twofold: 1) Theological and 2)global economic.
The contraceptive mentality has caused a global recession/depression; there has never been a case in human history of economic growth in the context of collapsing populations. The west has a collapsing population base, and that collapse is due to the cultural embrace of contraception.
Therefore, this is a discussion that is vital to a Free Republic and a conservative news forum.
It is not in any way "prurient."
From your OCP website:
It is therefore highly significant that the church down through the centuries—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike—held one view on contraception with remarkable unanimity until just recently. It was condemned in strong terms, and contraception was often made a criminal act.
The OCP is addressing this issue. Are they "prurient"?
And yes, I'm only a lowly DPM, who has taught NFP for many years, BTW. As such, I know more about this subject than most MDs I know.
Not according to John Calvin:
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
Does the thinking of John Calvin have any role in the modern OCP?
Where does ANYONE say that, pray tell?
British Medical Journal 1993 Sep 18;307(6906):723-6.
Department of Endocrinology, Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham.
Comment in:
During 20-22 September Manchester is to host the 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro. At that summit the threat posed by world overpopulation received considerable attention. Catholicism was perceived as opposed to birth control and therefore as a particular threat. This was based on the notion that the only method of birth control approved by the church--natural family planning--is unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. In the 20 years since E L Billings and colleagues first described the cervical mucus symptoms associated with ovulation natural family planning has incorporated these symptoms and advanced considerably. Ultrasonography shows that the symptoms identify ovulation precisely. According to the World Health Organisation, 93% of women everywhere can identify the symptoms, which distinguish adequately between the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle. Most pregnancies during trials of natural family planning occur after intercourse at times recognised by couples as fertile. Thus pregnancy rates have depended on the motivation of couples. Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved in the developed and developing worlds. Indeed, a study of 19,843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, effective, without side effects, and may be particularly acceptable to the efficacious among people in areas of poverty.
PIP: The Catholic Church approves the use of natural family planning (NFP) methods. Many people think only of the rhythm method when they hear NFP so they perceive NFP methods to be unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. They interpret the Catholic Church's approval of these methods as its opposition to birth control. The Billings or cervical mucus method is quite reliable and effective. Rising estrogen levels coincide with increased secretion of cervical mucus, which during ovulation is relatively thin and contains glycoprotein fibrils in a micelle like structure aiding sperm migration. Ultrasonography confirms that the day of most abundant secretion of fertile-type eggs white mucus is the day of ovulation. Once progesterone begins to be secreted, cervical mucus becomes thick and rubbery and acts like a plug in the cervix. Other symptoms associated with ovulation include periovulatory pain and postovulatory rise in basal body temperature. A WHO study of 869 fertile women from Australia, India, Ireland, the Philippines, and El Salvador found 93% could accurately interpret the ovulatory mucus pattern, regardless of education and culture. The probability of pregnancy among women using the cervical mucus method and having intercourse outside the fertile period was .004. The probability of conception increased the closer couples were to the fertile period when they had intercourse (.546 on -3 to -1 peak day and .667 on peak day 0), regardless of education and culture. The failure rate of NFP among mainly poor women in Calcutta, India, equal that of the combined oral contraceptive (0.2/100 women users yearly). Poverty was the motivating factor. NFP costs nothing, is effective (particularly in poverty stricken areas), has no side effects, and grants couples considerable power to control their fertility, indicating the NFP may be the preferred family planning method in developing countries. Prejudices about NFP should be dropped and worldwide dissemination of NFP information should occur.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And if they are honest, they will find that scripturally, this is at best a false distinction.
However, I think there are members of the OPC who truly are honest and are earnestly seeking God's Will in this regard, so I suspect that they will listen to Calvin's wisdom on this issue and become fully pro-life in this regard.
Do you think Calvin shared that contempt?
The penalty for Esau was death? The penalty for refusing to obey the levirate law was death?
No, no Christian has believed this down through history.
Onan's sin was exactly what the Protestant Reformers said it was:
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Esau’s penalty was profound, God hated him, it reverberates throughout history and into today. For the full story read the bible
Thank you for your informative reply....
I think you have to believe that sex is dirty to wrap your head around some of these edicts.
Personally, I think sex between married adults is a gift from God, as it is CERTAINLY more fulfilling than any of the sex I had when I was single/shacking up...
God does not 'hate.'
From BIRTH CONTROL AND GENESIS 38:
We can look at Genesis 38 itself to see that the argument that Onan was killed because of his refusing to fulfill the obligation to raise up children is insufficient. This theory that God is punishing Onan merely because he failed to fulfill the Levirate rule makes God capricious. For example, in this very chapter of Genesis, not only does Judah not get punished for doing the very same thing as Onan did, (withholding his son Selah from her), but Selah himself withholds himself from her. Given that Judah himself compounds the problem by making her a harlot, Onan's specific act of destroying seed takes a larger picture. Judah had promised to give Tamar his son to her (v.11), when he was older. Judah himself is deceitful, and he himself, when caught, admits that he is a worse sinner than herself (v. 26). Shelah himself, who was now grown up, (v. 14), also was deceitful, should have taken her as her husband, and raised up children. He did not. Tamar notices this, but no deaths of either Judah or Shelah. Thus, they were all in a sense rebellious, and did not do what they should have. So, what is the difference between Judah, Onan, and Shelah? The only substantive fact is that Onan went into her lawfully as he married her (unlike Judah who went into her unlawfully), but only Onan destroyed the seed. Ultimately any attempt to exclude this as the principle grounds of Onan's death, is a pure attempt at expediency.
I studied medical ethics under the Reformed prol-life scholar, H.O.J. Brown (founder of the largest association of crises pregnancy clinics). In it we focused on the Christian adoptation of the Hypocratic Oath as a natural-law basis of medical ethics...as it has been used throughout Christian history, from the early Middle Ages until now.
The fundamental Hypocratic principle of “do no harm” applies, I believe to natural, life-giving processes too, which especially include reproduction and childbirth. Therefore to “do no harm” to the natural, normal, healthy processes of the human body is, logically, not to prevent them....as in contraception of any kind.
Another principle, this one straight from scripture...not through general revelation (or natural law), is that the children of godly people are ALWAYS seen as a blessing, never a burden. While it is true in pre-modern cultures, as in bible times, children were the primary pension system...still it is significant that children to God’s people are never seen to be “inconvenient” or “too many.” (Children of people who are NOT godly, well, that’s a different question.)
It’s also true (and a look at family trees will confirm this) that a normal woman will usually only have 5 or 6 kids...without using birth control, not the imagined 15 or 20....which numbers are, and always have been, exceptional.
I believe the Roman Church is right on this....and other Christians have been way too glib and shallow on this point.
I can also say this...there would be no Social Security crises, nor a demand for illegal alien labor...had America had the children they denied themselves for “convenience” sake due to contraception.
I can also say this...there would be no Social Security crises, nor a demand for illegal alien labor...had America had the children they denied themselves for “convenience” sake due to contraception.
Amen.
Related thread:
The Case for Economic Depression: Demographic trends portend decade-long depression
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.