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?’?”
you’re welcome dear Doctor
Excellent post!
I think the final portion of the evil agenda is probably totally eugenics-based reproduction involving cloning and other methods, but I may be wrong about that. I believe that part of this will also include the “designing” humans for the SOLE PURPOSE of killing them for organs and cells.
You thought more deeply about this than I did, Wags, and I think you're on the money.
Organ farming, clone slavery, eugenics unlimited.
Give a human the idea that he/she is in charge of the beginning and end of life, and you'll get anything from Jeffrey Dahmer, to Margaret Sanger, to Dr. Mengele.
Honestly, that's not why I post about it, xzins. To us, its just a normal, integral part of basic pro-life work.
It was the overturning of the Comstock laws in Griswold Vs Connecticut, laws written by protestant legislators in the late 1800s outlawing the sale/distribution of contraceptives, that formed the legal groundwork, the so-called right to privacy, that is the foundation of Roe Vs Wade.
Its no secret that the legal construct in Roe Vs Wade is directly drawn from Griswold Vs Connecticut.
Likewise, for anyone with eyes to see, its no secret that societal acceptance of contraception is directly responsible for legalized abortion.
The US Supreme Court understood this perfectly:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, “in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back–ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close.” Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.
So working to raise awareness of the inherent sinfulness of contraception is simply the most basic and most desperately needed and foundational pro-life work in our world today.
Abortion follows contraception as night follows day, without exception.
I think the apostasy on birth control was the beginning of the Great Apostasy that has been foretold.
All the arguments over justification, salvation, faith and works, faith alone, etc., these are just human games of semantics. We all believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, on both sides of the aisle, and we see different facets of the infinite gem that is the Grace of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So Christianity can persevere indefinitely with these human limitations of understanding, all of which represent various facets of the Truth of our salvation in Jesus Christ. One group just overemphasizes one facet to the detriment of others, and those who prefer other seemingly opposing facets anathematize their perceived enemies.
Enemies? We're all followers of Jesus Christ!
But there comes a point where moral theology is involved at which we're no longer talking about semantics and hermeneutics.
We're talking about calling good, evil, and calling evil, good.
And that's where we are with contraception and Christianity.
Well, at least I was close. :>)
Probably the strongest argument—and one rejected out of hand by many if not most Protestants, especially evangelical ones unfortunately, is the fact that the very much settled opinion of the Church universal, Roman, Protestant, and Orthodox, before the 1960s was that birth control was immoral.
This is based on 1900 years of experience in interpreting the bible—and was rejected by the same people who now are foisting active homosexual ministers on their congregations. No, the Church universal is not infallible, but, as someone said above, the unanimous opinion of 1900 years of Christians should be departed from ONLY if the Bible forces you to...and other than general freedom and responsibility arguments, I’ve yet to hear a biblical argument FOR birth control.
Pregnancy as part of the essential purpose of marriage is NOT a straw man either. Every Christian ethicist from at least Augustine has believed the same thing, that reproduction is a primary purpose in marriage—but not in a wooden, digital sense...that is that sterile persons can still marry of course, but, that’s the exception not the rule.
Overall—children are a part of the great blessing of marriage, and purposely refusing that blessing is the same as turning down any gift from God—it is wrong.
I hate to beat such an obviously dead horse which you still think is alive, but pregnancy from sex is not an accident, an illness, or something undesirable.... it is by design, God’s design. To subvert it, like Onan did, is to subvert God Himself.
Very.
Don't worry, this was 100% correct:
artificial birth control would give humans the impression that secular humans controlled the origin of life. They called it a slippery slope, and I agree. Unrestricted abortion was the next stop down that slide, and the final stop will be (is?) euthanasia.
One more thing. Martin Luther called birth control "marital sodomy." In other words, what makes one form of non-procreative sex any better or worse than any other?
There are commentators that have made the point that those practicing "marital sodomy" have no moral standing to condemn any other form of sodomy, and that this is ultimately the reason that some Christian efforts against same sex marriage have fallen flat.
I read something similar on another article today...something like “5 answers opposing same sex marriage.”
When there was the admission on the intentional act to prevent pregnancy, the author suggested that gave an inroad to same-sex marriage advocates to argue that marriage isn’t about procreation.
While I agree with the point that it did give an opening in the debate, I don’t believe it is a persuasive opening in that male/female sexual relationships are always potentially procreative while same-sex relationships never have that potential.
Agreed, but from a Natural Law perspective, this is not a minor point.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church will welcome home all those protestants who see the terrible consequences of artificial contraception. This was precisely the issue that inspired me to leave the Presbyterian church I was confirmed in and convert to the Catholic Church. After researching this issue, I was shocked to discover that nearly all of the protestant denominations had made this dramatic change in doctrine in only a few decades. Unless God Himself abruptly changed His mind, these churches were either wrong before the mid-twentieth century or after. Their moral relativism is apparent in how they twist and distort the clear meaning of scripture in order to place human expediency and convenience above traditional biblical teaching and natural law.
It should also be noted that the problem of contraception, like most other sin's against God's natural law, is ultimately self-correcting. The coming demographic winter of Europe and much of northwestern Asia is sad evidence of the societal poison of artificial contraception. By and large those churches which preach permissiveness toward artificial contraception are already surcoming to a similar fate in their membership. God's divine will can never be ignored for long.
Obviously that coincided with new birth control methods.
And barrier contraception is not "a sin against God's natural law."
But you keep right on preaching that lie, and more and more RCs will leave Rome to find God elsewhere.
As God wills.
Hardly. As the article describes, medicinal contraception has been in existence for thousands of years. In addition, condoms have been used for over 400 years and diaphragms have been sold in the U.S. since the 1860's. None of these methods were new when the vast majority of protestant denominations radically changed their views toward artificial contraception in the 1930's.
Following this tortured logic however, surgical abortion, in vitro fertilization, and even human-animal hybrids weren't possible in previous centuries. These morally abhorrent processes might also eventually be deemed to be morally permissible in these protestant denominations in the same way that artificial contraception has. This is the problem of moral relativism when defining one's values according to contemporary technology and popular opinion.
And barrier contraception is not "a sin against God's natural law."
The funniest thing about sola scriptora types is how they are willing to grossly distort the scriptures they supposedly adhere to in order to justify their own particular sinful desires. Many of the posters here have already presented an unassailable case as to why the sin of Onan was specifically related to physical barrier contraception. The fact that every major Christian denomination condemned barrier contraception makes this interpretation seem rather novel. The fact that not one major Christian denomination holds your view today makes this unique interpretation of yours seem rather foolish.
But you keep right on preaching that lie, and more and more RCs will leave Rome to find God elsewhere.
I'm just "preaching" what every major protestant denomination did until just eighty years ago before they sold out their previous convictions. Although I imagine some protestant denominations may be able to lure former Catholics in with their lowered moral standards, I believe the long term trend will be a continued decline in the population of congregations which permit artificial contraception. This being due to their reduced birth rates and because of the converts like me the Catholic Church gains due to it's consistent and reliable adherence to God's revealed truth.
As God wills.
God's will in the form of his Natural Law will not be thwarted by false scriptural interpretations nor by appeals to moral relativism. Those religions which permit and defend the use of artificial contraception will continue to decline.
Keep preaching your erroneous Scriptural opinions against barrier contraception (as you have been shown multiple times on this thread.)
Your churches will empty even faster than they are now.
You have yet to even muster a meaningful response to those on this thread who put forth a well reasoned argument against barrier protection based on the sin of Onan. I have merely pointed out that every major protestant denomination was either wrong eighty years ago or is wrong now. I have also pointed out that you are apparently alone in your false distinction of barrier contraception somehow being singularly licit. You have offered no evidence to the contrary to support your case other than repeating your tired and unsubstantiated assertions.
...(as you have been shown multiple times on this thread.)
I agree that it is interesting that it is the Catholic position which has used the vast majority of scriptural quotations on this thread while the contemporary protestant statements have been little more that stubborn but vacuous assertions. Your side seems to be either ignoring the quoted scripture or projecting completely unsubstantiated meanings on it without any biblical support. It is usually the side that runs from the debate that has the weaker position.
Your churches will empty even faster than they are now.
Now that's funny! The Catholic Church is growing in this country and around the world while the artificial contraception-supporting protestant denominations whither. Since your scriptural interpretations seem to be independent of any established religion, I can only assume that you must either belong to some small breakaway church or your church has a population of one. Which is it? Of all the positions taken on this thread, your singular support of barrier based artificial contraception is the least supported in scripture or in population. It must be lonely.
The Catholic Church is growing in this country
The Roman Catholic church is declining in this country. If it weren't for Latin America, it would be on its way to history.
Evangelical Christianity has become the largest religious tradition in this country, supplanting Roman Catholicism, which is slowly bleeding members, according to a survey released yesterday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life...
And here...
While the ranks of the unaffiliated have grown the most due to changes in religious affiliation, the Catholic Church has lost the most members in the same process...Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. Overall, one-in-ten American adults (10.1%) have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised something other than Catholic...
Ha! This is just another cowardly attempt at refusing to defend your false and lonely position. Again, every major protestant denomination was either wrong eighty years ago or is wrong now, but none of them takes your indefensible view. It's a shame that you won't even try to stand up for your own position and instead try to change the subject solely to religious populations. You have now effectively ceded the scriptural debate on this thread.
The Roman Catholic church is declining in this country. If it weren't for Latin America, it would be on its way to history.
Now you are just being silly. A few Catholics may get stolen away, but overall the Catholic Church in the U.S. just passed 68 million and the total world population of Catholics just passed a billion while the total number of protestants in the U.S. is declining. You probably know this, though, or you wouldn't have cleverly substituted the nebulously defined protestant subset of "evangelical" for the more objective "protestant" delineation. That's a pretty desperate trick in a religious discussion like this one. Either way it's just reorganizing the deck chairs on the Titanic. Particular denominations may grow or fall while the overall number of artificial contraception-lovin' protestants unceasingly shrinks.
You never answered the question, though. What religion are you and does that religion hold your wacky support of only certain kinds of artificial contraception? You seem to like throwing stones at other people's religions while hiding your own religious identity. That looks pretty cowardly.
You've just lost any credibility you may have hoped to convince us of.
The term "Evangelical" is a subset of Protestant. Not the other way around.
There are more Protestants than Evangelicals. And there are more Evangelicals than Roman Catholics. Therefore there are MANY more Protestants than Roman Catholics.
You lose.
your wacky support of only certain kinds of artificial contraception?
Some methods are harmless. Some are not.
I don't usually post on these idiotic contraception threads. I think it's prurient for men to sit around and muse about women's fertility. There is nothing anti-Scriptural about barrier contraception. Doctrinaire Roman Catholics, usually either over the age of 80 or under the age of 30, and often celibate themselves, jump on this foolish bandwagon and harp about men's prerogative to impregnate a woman as many times as they please.
I don't seek these threads out and I'd prefer not to be pinged to them.
Too many nutjobs.
If your argument is that "artificial birth control would give humans the impression that secular humans controlled the origin of life", then what is the moral distinction between barrier contraception and NFP? (That is, how is the control issue different?) If you see no difference, then is it your position that all sex within marriage, but not specifically for reproductive purposes is sinful?
All sex within marriage is potentially reproductive, because (1) healthy sexuality strengthens and builds desire for one’s partner, and (2) there is no doubt that random fertility is a reality, plotting of fertily cycles notwithstanding.
I make no distinction between forms of actual preventive contraception and abortion. I do not recognize abortion as a means of contraception but rather as the ending of life rather than the prevention of life.
Contraception does give the impression that we are the masters of life. (And the Islamicazation of Europe due to birth rates gives an example of one of its effects.)
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.