I remember back in seminary, there was a small yet militant movement of students who were evangelists of the anti-birth control movement. They were not against it because the believed it was an attempt to control God’s plan, but because they believed that all birth control, save “fertility awareness” and condoms, caused abortions.
This put a great deal of fear into me and my wife as we certainly did not want to be responsible for unknowingly aborting one of our children. For the next six months I researched this. Randy Alcorn was the primary apologist against “the pill,” Depo-Provera, and most all other types of hormonal methods of birth control as he believed that they often caused abortions of fertilized eggs.
However, I was surprised that this was the first time I was hearing about this. I wondered how this information could be so secret, even among the most conservative of the Christian family ministries and anti-abortion advocates. This gave me a great deal of skepticism.
Others are against birth control because they believe, like Catholics, that it is nothing more than neglecting the sovereign will of God in favor of your own will. This group believes that if it is God’s will then we should not attempt to stand in the way. Therefore, this group does not advocate any sort of birth control at all.
Concerning whether the pill causes abortions:
Pro: Randy Alcorn
Con: Rich Poupard part 1; part 2; part 3
Anyway, enough of an introduction. Birth control and the Christian—thoughts? Do you use birth control? Why or why not?
123 replies to "Birth Control and the Christian"
Cherylu,
I’m discussing the historic Church’s claim, not my own. It took me a 300 page book to explain it, and frankly, despite what some may claim, many who read it will surely want me to have gone further in depth than I did at certain points. When we discuss something that has such a cultural cloud of confusion and pull to believe according to unquestioned presupps, then it simply cannot be addressed here in a few comments. I’ve simply tried to address things here in order to try and express to people that this issue isn’t quite the slam dunk that most evangelicals think it is. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I think if someone were to get the book, then they would see what I am saying.
“It took me a 300 page book to explain it, and frankly, despite what some may claim, many who read it will surely want me to have gone further in depth than I did at certain points.”
So it takes three hundred pages to make the logical and philosophical leap to equate contraception to murder? This makes my point perfectly. Murder is a pretty darn serious offense. If God considered birth control (of which there were forms in ancient times) to be equivalent to murder why didn’t He just say so in no uncertain terms rather than making it such that we need a separate 300 page book on the subject in order to reach that conclusion. Where is the “Thou shall not use birth control” or “people who use birth control shall not enter the Kingdom of God”?? I have read through the entire Bible numerous times and have no clue where these verses are, but perhaps I missed them.
I think Cheryl and all of us here deserve some Biblical proof if you are going to assert that those in this forum and in general who use birth control are sinning, not just a “go read my book”. At the end of the day we must base our beliefs about right and wrong on what is clear from Scripture. If it takes 300 pages of philosophical, historical, and ethical writings to come to the conclusion about the morality of something, and you are unable to even begin to explain or support your position in a forum such as this then it is highly unlikely that Scripture is any clearer on this subject then it is on the End Times. If it were clear it wouldn’t take 300 pages to explain.
I’ve seen nothing in Hodge’s replies to indicate that procreation is the primary purpose of sex. I would disagree, and argue that procreation is merely a collateral benefit or a secondary purpose and that the primary purpose of sex is union.
And, Hodge, if you’re gonna respond that the answer is in your book, you can save your fingers the effort of typing it. I’m only interested in replies from people that are actually going to contribute in this thread and not constantly refer to something I don’t have access to.
regards,
#John
Hodge,
No possible summaries, main points or ideas, no Scripture verses at all, general outline of points–nothing?? We are to just abosolutely take your word for all of this because you say so and you have written a book?? Or if we want to know more, we have to go and buy your book?
I’m sorry, but it certainly seems to me that you ought to be able to do better than that.
If it is truly so complicated that it takes a 300 page book to explain it and even that doesn’t do it justice, it certainly makes me wonder. Makes me wonder if the theology of birth control is just as complicated as the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate! And please folks–let’s not even think of going there in this thread.
I have been trying to fathom how one makes the leap from contraception to murder. I cannot. After over 100 posts, I have not seen an effective argument being presented to sway me to believe that contraception is murder.
I believe that God was pretty explicit in what He defined as sin. He spelled it out in the Ten Commandments and in some other places in the Bible. I don’t seem to recall contraception in any list of sins. If contraception is sin, why was God not explicit in describing it as such?
“So it takes three hundred pages to make the logical and philosophical leap to equate contraception to murder? This makes my point perfectly. Murder is a pretty darn serious offense. If God considered birth control (of which there were forms in ancient times) to be equivalent to murder why didn’t He just say so in no uncertain terms rather than making it such that we need a separate 300 page book on the subject in order to reach that conclusion. Where is the “Thou shall not use birth control” or “people who use birth control shall not enter the Kingdom of God”?? I have read through the entire Bible numerous times and have no clue where these verses are, but perhaps I missed them.”
So it takes three hundred pages to make the logical and philosophical leap to equate abortion to murder? This makes my point perfectly. Murder is a pretty darn serious offense. If God considered abortion (of which there were forms in ancient times) to be equivalent to murder why didn’t He just say so in no uncertain terms rather than making it such that we need a separate 300 page book on the subject in order to reach that conclusion. Where is the “Thou shall not use abortion” or “people who use abortion shall not enter the Kingdom of God”?? I have read through the entire Bible numerous times and have no clue where these verses are, but perhaps I missed them.
Try arguing that abortion is wrong in one of the more liberal European cultures, and maybe you’ll see why more than three hundred pages is probably needed.
John,
You haven’t seen that in my comments because I haven’t argued the case here.
Hodge,
We are not in a more liberal European culture–try the short version on us!
Cherylu,
There’s simply so much deconstruction that has to take place that the case cannot be made in summary, especially on an issue like this, where summaries can be easily dismissed. I simply posted that I have this available for people who want to think through the issue. If you look at my original comments, I did not post to argue over whether it was a sin. I simply asked people to think more deeply, and read up on the other side of things. Apparently, that is horrible suggestion when messing with evangelical comforts. (And of course, this is the type of reaction this issue always gets when people leap to conclusions.) I’m just asking you to be informed, People. If you reject what I say in the end, Great. Do so informed, so that you have a choice. Otherwise, you’re left to the determinism of your unquestioned assumptions.
Cherylu,
On this issue, we are. My point is that when a culture so assumes one position and never questions the other (and to question it is to be labeled “extreme” or “radical”), then a few paragraphs of summary is simply not enough. It would not be enough for those arguing against abortion in a more liberal European country, and it is not enough in arguing against contraception in ours.
Furthermore, I use the entire book of Genesis as a foundation. You want me to go through the entire book of Genesis? It’s background? It’s literary structure and argument? I go through Church History to discuss how interpreters have interpreted the texts of Scripture concerning this issue. I go through various passages exegetically in detail. I go through Evangelical arguments, which takes up about half of the book, that are presented as the case from the other side. It is simply not feasible for me to summarize the case here. I hope you understand. If not, I can’t really do much else.
In defense of Hodge, the problem of posting a simple set of texts from scripture on this subject is that scripture isn’t as “perspicuous” in all its forms as you would perhaps like it to be. Hodge could sit here an tell you that Galatians 5:20 has a reference to contraceptive practices in the word pharmakeia (the root for pharmacy, but typically translated “sorcery” or “witchcraft,” but grouped with those items typically realted to sexual immorality), but without the cultural context, that explanation is easily waved off because we don’t know what sorcerors and witches did in the days of Paul and prior.
The same goes for the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:8). Unless you know how the people of the time interpreted that passage (based on the Talmudic tradition, then later based on interpretations by Jerome and Clement of Alexandria), you would have no clue what their objections were. In addition, if you aren’t looking at the overall context of scripture which is, by and large, and expression of the goodness of life, the intent of fruitfulness in marriage, and the repudiation of using things unnaturally, then you won’t get what the stories are about.
And if you want to claim that moral and doctrinal teachings have to be clearly worded in scripture, then show me an absoultely clear indication of the trinity (or your doctrine of sola scriptura) clearly worded there. It isn’t by mistake that Phillip in Acts 8:31 has to explain to the Ethiopian eunuch what the scripture means. Or that Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21 warns against personal interpretation. Whether you buy the belief in a single visible authority guided by the Holy Spirit (as I do), you at least have to accept that not all Christian doctrine is expressed in absolute clarity in scripture. Why would moral teaching be any different?
Here’s my brief takedown of the three issue Cherylu suggested:
Murder – historically, artificial contraception was abortifacient and caused a miscarriage. There are indications that many oral contraceptives have as a secondary effect the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg. Prior to the 1970s, conception was defined as the union of egg and sperm and has only recently been “redefined” as implantation in the uterine wall. You’re not going to find that detail in scripture.
Sexual immorality – if you’re contracepting so you can engage in sex without consequences, without the obligations to your partner that are entailed in that, then you are using your spouse as an object, and that is immoral.
Idolatry – if you’re refusing to look into the subject of contraception more than enough to fully understand all of the issues for and against (which was Hodge’s original point), it might be because you don’t really want to know. You’ve already raised sex up to be more important that the greatest good (God).
As for sex being the primary purpose of sex, that’s simply a biological fact. Look up C.S. Lewis and the appetites (Mere Christianity).
I bet I could, in this context, explain why abortion shouldn’t be practiced in 5 sentences or less. You aren’t dealing with a liberal European culture here. You are dealing with people who already believe the Bible is true and if it speaks clearly on an issue should be followed. None of us have seen that it speaks clearly on this subject and in fact your own assertions seem to indicate that it is very complicated.
1. Killing human beings is sin according to the Bible.
2. At some point either either at conception or before birth the fetus becomes a human being.
3. The exact moment of becoming human is not completely clear from the Bible though some evidence such as the Law’s punishment for causing a woman to miscarry indicate that it is almost certainly before birth and likely closer to conception.
4. Because we do not and cannot know the exact moment in a pregnancy the developing child becomes a human abortion should not be practiced less we kill another human being.
For the record, and for the reasons Michael asserted in his last comments directed at abortion, I very much believe that any form of birth control that destroys a child from conception onward to be wrong.
It has been brought to my attention that this post has spiraled out of control and people are not handling themselve maturely. I have not had access the the internet for a while so I am not sure.
I may have time later to check it out.
Please, go out of your way to be respectful and respectable. If not, we will have to ban you from posting.
Well, sure, someone can summarize the position against abortion in a few sentences. That wasn’t my point. My point is that in a culture that does not think abortion is wrong, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise (as it is in the more liberal European cultures), this summary can be easily dismissed without consideration.
1. Killing human beings is sin according to the Bible.
They would say they agree.
2. At some point either either at conception or before birth the fetus becomes a human being.
This is your opinion. Some people don’t view the baby as human until the birth. So if I were one of those people, I would dismiss your point already.
3. The exact moment of becoming human is not completely clear from the Bible though some evidence such as the Law’s punishment for causing a woman to miscarry indicate that it is almost certainly before birth and likely closer to conception.
Actually, the economic justice of the Deuteronomic law code only indicates that the family has lost a possible future economic benefit to it in the loss of a pregnancy. This says nothing to the issue of when a fetus becomes a human. Economic justice is also imposed for those who’s bodily members are harmed. This does not mean that bodily members are human beings.
4. Because we do not and cannot know the exact moment in a pregnancy the developing child becomes a human abortion should not be practiced less we kill another human being.
Because we do not and cannot know the exact moment in a pregnancy the developing fetus becomes a human, and God didn’t care enough to speak against abortion when we would need to know if it was wrong due to our limited knowledge, no one should bind others with his or her personal view of when a fetus becomes a human. Ergo, no one should speak absolutely about abortion being wrong for any reason.
Now, you can argue with these; but I think it proves my point that anything can be easily dismissed. I think another interesting discussion is the one concerning pedophilia, as this has become a growing issue in some cultures. I would argue similarly against it with much of the same arguments I’ve used against contraceptive practices, but I’m not sure how a culture that adopts all of the views concerning the uses of the sexual act can forever stay the hand of a growing depravity, unless the underlying assumptions are answered sufficiently.
Just to clarify on the “form of murder” issue:
The Fathers, as well as the Scripture from which they draw, views anti-creational sins as forms of murder. In other words, things that flow toward chaos and hinder or reverse the flow of creation and order (i.e., human life) are considered forms of murder because they do not work with God toward the procreation, perpetuation and preservation of human life. This is why John says that not saving the life of a fellow Christian who is in need (i.e., that which he needs to preserve his life) is murder, and the one who does not love his brother as to give to him life-preserving supplies is a murderer like Cain. I just wanted to make clear that their view of the act is not as absurd as it may first sound.
“I believe that God was pretty explicit in what He defined as sin. He spelled it out in the Ten Commandments and in some other places in the Bible. I don’t seem to recall contraception in any list of sins. If contraception is sin, why was God not explicit in describing it as such?”
Steve,
Do you believe any actions that are not explicitly prescribed in the Bible are sins?
BTW, the Ten Commandments don’t contain everything that is moral or immoral in their explicit statements. I think our Lord draws out the implications of the law in His hermeneutic in Matt 5-7 in order to teach us that we are to expand the Word of God to reign over every area of our lives. The Pharisees did not do this. Hence, they thought they were without sin in these specific areas because they did not explicitly break these commandments. Christ points out that there is a morality behind the explicit statements of the law that reaches into every aspect of our theology and ethics.
Hodge,
Where does John say that not to give to a brother in need is murder and that person is a murder like Cain?
And are there other Scriptures that this idea comes from also?
Bill B,
You said, “Sexual immorality – if you’re contracepting so you can engage in sex without consequences, without the obligations to your partner that are entailed in that, then you are using your spouse as an object, and that is immoral.”
I assume you are speaking of married people here. It seems to me that I Corinthians 7:1-9 directly contradicts this idea.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not as Cain , [who] was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.
Notice that love is in laying down one’s life that another might be preserved, giving physical supplies to those who are in need. Remember that the word “hate” refers to apathy in Scripture, not always hostility (and John seems to be playing off that here), so the one who is apathetic toward his brother’s needy condition is a murderer like Cain.
My point, of course, is that murder in God’s eyes is not always in the same form that we often imagine it. We usually limit it to a specific deed, but there is a greater morality that dictates the evil of the act that lay behind it.
Hodge,
Even if I were to accept the interpretation of the verses in I John above, which I am not sure that I do, it would still seem a pretty big leap to me to think that birth control is committing murder. Unless, of course, it is one of the types that acts as an abortificant. After all, how does one kill a person that does not even exist yet?
Cheryl. Very good point. I agree. With that, let us close this one down.
[…] of all, I linked to the discussion on Parchment and Pen. The fact of the matter is, the discussion got shut down. That should tell you something right […]