Protestants & Contraception

First Things ^ | January 2018 | Evan Lenow

[Ransomed]

As far as I can figure, these groups still prohibit birth control within marriage: Old order Mennonites, the Amish, some independent Christian types, and Catholics. Not sure if the ‘quiver full’ thing is a group or philosophy. I don’t know of any nonChristian groups, at least to my understanding, but heck I’m no expert. It seems like a pretty uniquely Christian thing at this point, unless some of the other faiths also changed on the issue.

Freegards

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Great and pro-birth control Christians find themselves in great company: including Planned Parenthood, the LGBTQ community, should we keep naming more?

[Tax-chick]

Quiverfull is a subculture as well as a philosophy, and it includes a lot more elements than simply natural reproduction.

[daniel1212]

There is one teaching that most Protestants readily recognize as Catholic, and it is usually received with derision: the prohibition of artificial means of birth control. The Protestants in my circles often disparage this teaching with little knowledge of Humanae Vitae, perhaps the most significant document to address birth control over the last one hundred years.

Yet evangelical (the only class that should be called "Protestant") families average the same number of children as Catholic ones.

[daniel1212]

And other potentially hot question to think about, is whether to reject the concepts behind Humanae Vitae just because they were espoused by a Catholic Pope?

Then why would Bible Christians be foremost defenders of core Truths such as re affirmed in the Apostle's Creed? Rather, it is because Prot. leadership overall did not lool at the issue deep enough and failed to see contraceptives in contrast with Scriptural teaching, and espoused as counsel what Catholics did in practice in going along with the sexual revolution.

• 73 percent of Catholics rejected Catholic teaching artificial methods of birth control. Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut

• Just 15% of U.S. Catholics say that using contraceptives is morally wrong. 41% say that using contraceptives is morally acceptable, while 36% say it is not a moral issue. 37% of Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week say using contraceptives is morally wrong while 33% say it is morally acceptable and 30% say it is not a moral issue. — http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/u-s-catholics-key-data-from-pew-research/#abortion

• 74% of Evangelicals, 73% of Mainline Protestants, and 68% of sexually active Catholics women use birth control. 3% of the Catholics rely on natural family planning. Attendance at religious services and importance of religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of highly effective contraceptive methods. ^

• 88% of Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good Catholics. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%

• 98% of self-identified Catholic women ages 15-44 who have ever had sexual relations have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives. .” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker

• 40% of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.” http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

• 59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%). Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States:

• 58% of Catholics 52% if they are voters) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception;

• 50% of white Catholics support this requirement, versus 47% who oppose it, along with 38% of white evangelical Protestants an 50% of white mainline Protestants. Public Religion Research Institute, February 2012 http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

  - https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/

[daniel1212]

There are those who plan to have all they can:

The United States birth rate is rising and Evangelical families in the Quiverfull movement (named after a verse of Psalm 127) are playing their part in the trend -- to the alarm of the greens, no doubt. A few weeks after the New York Times looked at the subject of large families, National Public Radio has run a feature on the movement, which comprises about 10,000 families, mainly in the Midwest and South of the United States.

NPR interviewed some families in Michigan. Kelly Swanson and husband Jeff say they didn't want any children when they first married, but then began to notice that the Bible gave special value to big families. Now they have seven children and would like more. They are leaving it up to God to decide how many they can handle. The average family at their church has 8.5 kids, which compares with a national total fertility rate of 2.2 children per woman. (In 1976, 20 per cent of American women had five or more children, but by 2006 that figure had fallen to 4 per cent.) - https://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/4846

[daniel1212]

“1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The Bible is clearer on this than it is regarding birth control. MUCH clearer. Having a kid every few years easily could force a man to engage in sin, i.e., not provide.

Sorry, but that is plainly wrong. The condemnation of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that of a man who refuses to provide for his own, not someone who cannot, which Scripture teaches to help, and which builds community.

Large families also tend to better teach tolerance, sharing, conflict resolving and community, versus the easily offended snowflakes so much turned out by the 1.5 (typically spoiled) child households that The Pill has fostered.

And in America, actual poverty is very rare, and having large families usually ensure someone will care for you when you get old.

The only birth control that is Scripture is not being married, and temperance if they are, and if evangelicals had more children then the demographics would not be in such a bad condition as regards electing conservatives.

[unlearner]

“What of age as a factor, when people live longer than before?
A 50yo may be virile & healthy & economically sound, but the prospect of offspring leaving home at age 70 is daunting.”

A wife in this age range is not likely to get pregnant. A younger wife is likely to desire children because it is the nature of being female.

And the apostles gave instructions that are relevant when it comes to marriage and having children. For example:

1 Timothy 5:14
Therefore I desire that the younger women marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

I can certainly understand someone who is older wanting to marry for companionship, but God attached sex with responsibility. Not everyone can have children, but those who can and are married should at least be open to having them.

There are always reasons to fearful of what might happen to our children if we follow the will of God. The Israelites were afraid to obey God and go into the promised land because they said their children would become prey to the inhabitants who were giants. As a result God let the adults wander in the desert for 40 years until they were all dead and then led these same children into the promised land as He promised He would.

Parents cannot know if something might happen to them even if they are young and healthy, and that could result in children having to grow up without one or both of their parents. But God promised to be the Father to the fatherless. He cares for the orphan and widow.

Bottom line is that a willingness to have children can be an act of faith. Unwillingness is a symptom of not trusting God or not seeking His will first.

[Truthoverpower]

All forms of contraception are evil

Especially condoms and the pill

[b4me]

“when people live longer than before?” ???

How old was Abraham when he had Ishmael or Isaac?

How long did many people in the early part of the bible live to? Many other nonbiblical people lived plenty long. In recent centuries they skew numbers to make it seem people in older times lived shorter and somehow our modern time people are living longer, but it’s not true.

Especially when you factor in all the abortions - which obviously current statisticians don’t count as real people needed to be acounted for in the longevity numbers..

[CondoleezzaProtege]

It’s 2019 and all too easy to dismiss or even mock women in bonnets and men with colonial wardrobes. And don’t get me wrong the “Quiverfull” movement is replete with problems and corruptions.

But perhaps the joke is on us, in mainstream society. That perhaps: Amish types really do, not only have bigger families — but better and more happening sex lives.

That perhaps: one of the main reasons why mainstream America is at its most emotionally unhealthy it’s ever been (as opioid addiction and other evidences point to) has to do with failure to pursue, achieve, and experience genuine, INTIMACY on GOD’S terms. Not just between opposite sexes within marriage, but intimacy and connection in general.

Too many things contracepting and getting in the way. And when you literally INVITE such instruments of blockage into what is supposed to be the most intimate and ‘sexy’ relationship of all...how much more will all other relational interactions suffer?

[Ransomed]

I think a big component of the problem is the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, smart phones and social media. It’s hard for me to imagine someone looking back in the year 2060 and thinking that these things were really great for society.

Freegards

[MayflowerMadam]

“The condemnation of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that of a man who refuses to provide for his own, not someone who cannot”

That’s not what the Bible says. You’ve added “refuses”. It’s a sin to add to the Word of God.

“having large families usually ensure someone will care for you when you get old.”

That’s sort of hilarious. The stories my husband, a Hospice volunteer, tell would curl your hair. Large families living within 25 miles of the nursing home — they never visit their parents. They generally do show up for the funerals, though.

“The only birth control that is Scripture is not being married, and temperance if they are,”

“Temperance if they are”? Isn’t “temperance” in this context birth control?

[CondoleezzaProtege]

It doesn’t require a lot of theological exposition or scientific evidence. America is at its most emotionally unhealthy and unsexy state in ages. More people are into opioids and pornography than they are in meaningful, anxiety-free, and artificial device free sex. It’s not just sexual intimacy that has suffered, but all kinds of relationships. As someone suggested above, more people are into their smartphones than say...going fishing with their grandparents.

The Catholic Church is not saying have a school full of kids. It is saying put God and the natural rhythms of our bodies (that He created!) first. Not romance-killing economics and other preferences shaped by the soul-numbing culture. Put God first and let the economics fall into place. Rather than put economy before God and play constant catch up with the culture...which is more driven but Satan than we would care to admit.

[TianaHighrider]

+1.

But we all better start having a house full of children if we want our values, religion, Country, families, etc. To carry on.

And this has been known for a very long time.

[MayflowerMadam]

“It is saying put God and the natural rhythms of our bodies (that He created!) first.”

It sounds good and logical, and would be wonderful if true (and maybe it is; I don’t know). But too many families have given in to their natural (horny) rhythms of their bodies. The result is a passel of urchins that they can’t feed, clothe, or care for medically.

Dad was a minister and I can’t even count the (Christian) families who we became involved with who were absolutely, positively, guilty of child neglect. They put their “natural rhythms” before the economy and their kids suffered.

I think it is sad that financially healthy Christians and conservatives are having so few children. I am one of them, and am guilty. But in “those” years, we had no idea where our finances would take us. The thought of me raising kids the way I was raised terrified me. Turns out, we’d have done OK. But who knew?

God created everything, including sexuality. However, He gave Satan free rein to walk the earth, and power, to influence and control us. Always the spiritual warfare happening all around us.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Romance-killing economics. Put God first and let the economics fall into place. Rather than put economy before God and play constant catch up with the culture...which is more driven by Satan than we would care to admit.

Just re-iterating to future generations: It’s not God that is anti-sex and killing pleasure.

If enough Christians followed suit, the culture will be forced to adjust. Not the other way around. Instead as I said earlier, everything from insurance set-ups, to inane work schedules, revolves around the default presumption of contraception. Birth control is arguably the basis of our economy. And we wonder why there is so much misery.

[ealgeone]

8But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 5:8 NASB

*****

“d1212: The condemnation of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that of a man who refuses to provide for his own, not someone who cannot”

mfm: That’s not what the Bible says. You’ve added “refuses”. It’s a sin to add to the Word of God.

I don't see a problem with daniel1212's understanding of the passage in question.

There are some who simply do not have the means to provide for their family. We see the poor in Scripture a great deal.

[ealgeone]

God created everything, including sexuality. However, He gave Satan free rein to walk the earth, and power, to influence and control us. Always the spiritual warfare happening all around us.

Satan does not have "free reign" to do as he pleases.

His power is limited by God though it may seem his power is unlimited....it is not.

And you were accusing daniel1212 of adding to Scripture.

[daniel1212]

“The condemnation of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that of a man who refuses to provide for his own, not someone who cannot”

That’s not what the Bible says. You’ve added “refuses”. It’s a sin to add to the Word of God.

Wrong, and slander is a sin. I did not add to the word of God but interpreted its meaning, as you presumed to do by making this text speak of those who found it "impossible for the husband to follow the teachings of the Bible" in providing for his family.

However, damning souls who finds it impossible to provide for their own is nowhere justifiable in the light of the rest of Scripture, which instead instructs us to have compassion on the genuinely poor and commends those who do so, (Deuteronomy 15:7-11; Proverbs 19:17; 28:27; Isaiah 58:7,8) and condemns those who treat them harshly. (Job 22:7; Ezekiel 16:49)

And rather then being a denial of faith, some of those in the Heb. 11 "hall of faith" "wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented." (Hebrews 11:37)

Yet you relegate those who find it "impossible" to provide for their own (because they went too much obeyed "be fruitful and multiply") as being men who deny the faith, and are "worse than an infidel!

But which additional condemnation was not because a man became poor, but one who refused to provide for his very own family, for even infidels recognized their familial obligations and did so,

Moreover, Robertson's word study indicates that the Greek indicates this failure to provide was a willfull choice:

Provideth not for his own (tōn idiōn ou pronoei). Condition of first class with ei and present active (or middle pronoeitai) indicative of pronoeō, old verb, to think beforehand.

“having large families usually ensure someone will care for you when you get old.” That’s sort of hilarious. The stories my husband, a Hospice volunteer, tell would curl your hair. Large families living within 25 miles of the nursing home — they never visit their parents.

That surely does happen, as do abortions, and neither justify not having children, and nursing home warehousing is a modern phenom that coincides with the lack of children.

In any case, you are militating against what Scripture commends in general.

“Temperance if they are”? Isn’t “temperance” in this context birth control?

Are you serious? Taking a pill is self-control? Rather, it enables indulgence without the normal God-ordained results. Might as well argue that using Olestra to eat copious amounts of food is temperance.

In conclusion, while singleness with continence is a Scriptural alternative to bearing children, being joined together in marriage goes together with "be fruitful and multiply." It is contrary to faith to believe otherwise.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)