Parchment and Pen » Birth Control and the Christian

Birth Control and the Christian

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

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?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

122 Responses to “Birth Control and the Christian”

Samson Covatch on 20 Jan 2010 at 4:56 pm #

My wife and I have thought about this a lot. We chose to use coitus interuptus as opposed to the pill. The idea of there being a chance of causing an abortion has lead us to this decision.

In November of 2008 I did a radio interview on the topic of the theology of Abortion with an OB/GYN friend of mine. Depending on your anthropology, it seems that everyone will come to a different conclusion.

Here’s another dimension to consider as Christians. Is it okay for us to mutilate our bodies until they no long function properly? Is a vasectomy or tubal ligation just a form of voluntary sterilization? If so, how is this justified?
C Michael Patton on 20 Jan 2010 at 5:07 pm #

Vasectomy: No problem here…ain’t gonna do it, ain’t gonna do it!
MikeB on 20 Jan 2010 at 5:24 pm #

To some degree we do (or can) take control of when/if we get pregnant. That is we (and by we I mean a married couple) are not going to get pregnant if we don’t have sex. Also there is a fair amount of timing that can be done to prevent pregnancy.

So if we are able to do things that lower the chances of getting pregnant (including abstinence, timing method, coitus interuptus) why not use other techniques like the pill (assuming it does not cause abortion), or a vasectomy?

@jntowers
—-
We’ll use birth control, and if God wants us to have another child, He’ll make it happen.” Can that same logic not be applied the other way? “We won’t use birth control, and if God wants us to be pregnant again, it’ll happen and He’ll provide what we need; if not, He’ll not allow it.
—–

Depends on how your theology handles cause-effect and logical consequences from our actions. Without denying God’s hand in the matter (ie sovereignty) could your having a child be a result of God letting the natural laws be carried out rather than God did/did not want you to have a child?
Chance on 20 Jan 2010 at 5:30 pm #

I think the whole “Im not going to use birth control, because I want God to be sovereign” is ludicrous! Why dont we apply this same type of logic to other parts of our lives? “Well, I dont brush my teeth because God is control of my cavities” or “I dont need to eat healthy. I trust God with my health.” This is silly thinking. God decrees both the ends and the means. If you want a healthy mouth, then brush your teeth. Same applies to pregnancy; if your not in a position to have a child, use birth control.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Jan 2010 at 5:45 pm #

CMP from a previous post: “Is birth control sin?

Not when it is practiced responsibly and for the right reasons.”

There might be discussion about what constitutes birth control “practiced responsibly” and for “right reasons” (assuming that the anti-birth control Christians could and would even stipulate that it could ever be practiced responsibly and motivated from “right reasons”).
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 20 Jan 2010 at 5:59 pm #

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the position that all methods of birth control are illicit—just artificial means. However, for serious reasons, married couple can delay or postpone (even indefinitely) having children using Natural Family Planning. Nonetheless, married couples are always supposed to be open to children. Not being willing to have children is considered an impediment to valid marriage.

There might be some Catholics who believe in an absolute prohibition, but that is not the official teaching of the Church.
Rachel Vruggink on 20 Jan 2010 at 6:16 pm #

Just posted on this today: http://vrugginks.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-about-all-birth-control-pills.html

Whether a woman is taking an “abortive” or “ovulation preventing” pill, the chemicals in every birth control pill thin the lining of a woman’s uterus. Women taking birth control pills notice this thinning in that their monthly periods are lighter (or in some rare instances disappear all together). Why is this such a big deal? Let’s have a mini-science lesson.

When a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm combine, they form what most Christians consider to be a baby. This baby then travels to mommy’s uterus and attempts to embed in the lining of her uterus. The baby must embed into mommy’s uterus in order to survive. If the baby does not embed in mommy’s uterus then the baby dies and is flushed out with the monthly period.

So – I came to realize that in taking ANY oral contraceptive I was thinning the lining of my uterus hence creating a hostile environment for my baby. As a mommy, it is my God given responsibility to do my best to create a safe, loving environment for my children. What kind of mother would I be if I knowingly took a drug that thinned the lining of my uterus making it very difficult for my accidentally conceived baby to implant?

I understand that the point of ovulation prevention birth control pills is to cause a sperm and egg never to meet, BUT almost all of us know women who got pregnant while taking birth control pills. How is this possible? Because ovulation prevention birth control pills do not prevent ovulation perfectly, there are times when even a woman taking birth control ovulates and conceives a baby. Sometimes these precious little babies are able to implant in their mommy’s thinned uterus (hence a pregnancy even while taking birth control), but most of the time those precious little babies are not strong enough to implant in their mommy’s thinned uterus and they die.

After discovering the truth about all birth control pills, the choice has been obvious for me – I will not take any oral contraceptives (i.e. birth control pills) because they would thin the lining of my uterus thus create a hostile environment for any baby accidentally conceived.
bethyada on 20 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm #

The most useful link is the Poupard part 3. What is relevant here is that the contraceptive pill (COC) prevents ovulation and thins the endometrium, but if COC fails to prevent ovulation, then the body will prepare the lining despite ongoing use of COC. He mentions the amounts of hormone produced by the corpus luteum is greater than the COC. While true for progesterone (which is the relevant hormone in this phase), I don’t know if it is the case for oestrogen.

What Poupard doesn’t mention is that high dose oestrogen (say 4 COC at once) works to prevent implantation, so it can at some level, the question is what level?
Jermayn on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:08 pm #

Are we majoring on the minor with this issue?

I have heard Mark Driscoll’s on this (his new book) and so far I have yet to hear anyone who can give a true non bias opinion on this matter. I will download your notes but again I ask, are we majoring on the minor??
Michael on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:13 pm #

Man this discussion would is one large can of worms. Too many dimensions to even begin to have a full discussio. In order to fully come to an answer on this one would have to come argue and come to conclusions on everything from when a human being is a human being (some argue fertilization, others argue implantation, still others viability, or we could even use the historical method of quickening as the measure) to what exactly constitutes interfering with the will of God or natural law (or even if the will of God can be thwarted for that matter or if what is perceived as natural law is “biblical law). It’s almost too complex of an issue for a blog post.

However, having gone to a Catholic Law School and having some professors who were strongly anti-contraception I had a number of discussions concerning this issue outside of class. To be honest the thing that surprised me the most was how little the Bible actually has to say on the issue of when a human is a human (perhaps because it’s not a scientific textbook). Most of what we believe, regardless of what we believe, is made from inferences from Scripture and not clear mandates (as with homosexuality for instance).

My personal conclusions on the matter is that until the egg is implanted in the mothers womb there is simply no pregnancy to abort. Yes the fertilized egg “could” implant, but in many cases en in healthy women not taking the pill the egg simply fails to implant and passes out of the female in the menstrual fluid to be discarded unnoticed. Should we consider the act of discarding the fertilized egg an “abortion” as well?? To me personally, and people are welcome to disagree, to consider a simple fertilized egg a human being with a soul is absurd. Until the egg is implanted and there is a pregnancy there is nothing but a mass of cells which may implant or may just pass through the system and out of the woman’s body completely unnoticed. I highly doubt we will find those who would’ve come from the eggs which never implanted in heaven.

On the other hand I get where the other side is coming from. No one wants to be the cause of the death of human being and where the line is is hard to draw as the Bible is mostly silent on these matters. The Bible simply doesn’t address the scientific knowledge we possess today and some of the questions it raises. So it just makes the most sense to draw the line at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid even the possibility of killing a human being.
Hodge on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:24 pm #

This, of course, is never discussed in churches, Bible studies, families, etc. anymore; but I wrote the following to help people think through the issues:

Bryan C. Hodge, “The Christian Case against Contraception: Making the Case from Historical, Biblical, Systematic, and Practical Theology & Ethics” (Eugene, Or: Wipf & Stock, 2010).

The issue is a little more involved than just the sovereignty of God issue. I encourage people, including Mark Driscoll, to really think about the “other side” before concluding one way on the matter too quickly. Most people I meet don’t even realize there are arguments for the other side. They just think it’s a bunch of crazy people who don’t believe in what is obviously perfectly acceptable. Assumption, of course, is the death of all inquiry.
Jason Chamberlain on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:44 pm #

We used birth control for a long time, partly to help regulate my wife’s irregular cycle. After the birth of our second child we decided that we had enough and I made an appointment with a urologist. I can tell you that it is really not a difficult procedure at all. I really wasn’t even that sore. I had to stop running for a couple of weeks, but that was it.
Jermayn on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:56 pm #

I am reminded of an episode of CSI where Grissom has the discussion with some religious people and he quotes a scripture in Leviticus where it talks “about life is in the blood” and says that going on from that, life begins on the 15th day (I think), when the fetus develops blood.
melissa f-b on 21 Jan 2010 at 7:13 am #

I don’t think this comes up for Protestants mostly to avoid the possibility of having to ditch the pill. We are Mennonites and we wrote about our experience using the Fertility Awareness Method at the beginning of our marriage. Now that we have a toddler, we’re using a barrier method. We don’t think about it in Catholic terms, more along the lines that you mention. Even if there is a relatively small chance of causing an abortive event, we wanted to take seriously the roll of hospitality we want to be a cornerstone in the married life. We wanted to make our lives, my womb, our finances, our plans and our expectations available to whatever gifts (children or otherwise) we may never have expected. I can say it radically altered the way we thought about the sovereignty we held over our lives. It wasn’t “caution to the wind,” Duggar-style. But it did realign how we perceived the place of sexuality in our relationship.

http://signonthewindow.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/baby-talk/
Susanne on 21 Jan 2010 at 7:17 am #

My husband and I chose to not have children. Otherwise we are fairly typical conservative Christian types. When people hint at that whole “be fruitful and multiply” command of God, I like to think He was speaking to Adam and Eve NOT Susanne and Andrew. Because, frankly, there are enough people born now so I think the fruitful command was fulfilled. God also told Adam to name the animals and I don’t see people running around trying to do this task.

I’m one who grew up confused by Calvinist and non-Calvinist types. I grew up the latter, but on the chance that the former were true then why would I purposefully bring precious children into this world whom I would love and cherish only to have God possibly elect them for eternal damnation? I’m not that cruel!

And, really, if God is all sovereign and powerful, He’d make me have children regardless of whether or not I intended to have them.
jim on 21 Jan 2010 at 8:21 am #

Interesting stuff!! I tend to agree with Chance(#5) If I get sick , I take medicine ! If the kids have exams , I recommend study!
I guess I don’t get bent out of shape with interfering with the sovereign will of God ( How can I even do that, unless his sovereign will is not etched in stone but a purpose ) So be disciples, witness and love one another. search for truth. Is this not his purpose for us, why try to narrow it down to whether Birth Control is permitted, then why buy insurance, why pray over anything , if it really doesn’t matter!

I’m saying God gives us wisdom to make choices , In Iraq, the average family consists of 7.7 members……Canada and USA don’t even make the top ten countries. I wonder who’s getting it right?

I have 3 wonderful boys….the youngest(11) had a seizure during the holidays…talk about scary!! Along with alot of prayer was a lot of doctors consultations and exams…..God expects this of a loving parent. Why do we make if so difficult and unreasonable in our pursuit of truth and faith, be open to his leading and use what he has given us!!!!
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 8:58 am #

@Chance and others that think not using birth control and trusting God’s sovereignty is “ludicrous”…

You’re making the false assumption that NOT using birth control automatically leads to pregnancy. This is nothing like buying insurance or studying for a test or brushing your teeth. You’re making the assumption that YOU have any control over when you get pregnant.
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:14 am #

I don’t think we can do anything to “thwart the sovereign will of God.” Given His track record with barren women and virgins, I don’t think a little artificial birth control is much of a challenge.

However, like all gifts, the gift of sexuality can be used appropriately or inappropriately. In addition, appetites are geared toward a purpose (or multiple purposes in the case of sexuality). If we treat them according to our own whims without consideration of their purpose, we can suffer the physical, emotional, and moral consequences.
C Skiles on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:24 am #

Someone earlier said the pill prevents pregnancy by not allowing the egg to be fertalized. I disagree. It prevents pregnancy by killing a woman’s sex drive!

On a more serious note. My wife stopped using the pill because she just simply did not feel “right” on it. She felt bad. My opinion has always been that any thing that tricks your body into thinking it is already pregnant and therefore you don’t get pregnant (I have read medical explanations of how the pill works that read this way) can’t be healthy. For her it was simply a health issue and a “feeling better off of it” issue. Anyway, it is no longer an issue for us either way , she just had a hysterechtomy. I’m with you Michael, never been fond of the idea of the big “V”.
Steve in Toronto on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:25 am #

My wife and I just had our third (and I hope last kid) we are both in our mid 40’s and we are just getting too old for this kind of thing. Her gynecologist is suggesting an IUD but for the obvious reasons we are both very uncomfortable about going this solution. Since my wife does not want to take birth control pills while she is breast feeding the only other options are clumsily (condoms or a diaphragm) or too drastic (I can’t bring my self to get surgery). I can’t believe that we are the only christen couple in that spot does anyone have any suggestions?
Cheers
Steve in Toronto
#John1453 on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:29 am #

Re Michael (#11)

Michael’s comment regarding implantation is neither logical nor scientific. The single cell zygote / fertilized egg is a complete human organism. Period. Of what relevance is the environment of that organism? Are babies (humans at a much later, multicellular level of development) no longer human when they leave the womb?

If one is a dualist, then it is of course relevant to decide when the biological organism has a spirit/soul. In the absence of evidence, the relevant principle would be the precautionary principle, which seems in line with Biblical morality.

regards,
#John
Jugulum on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:43 am #

Michael,

From #11

My personal conclusions on the matter is that until the egg is implanted in the mothers womb there is simply no pregnancy to abort. Yes the fertilized egg “could” implant, but in many cases en in healthy women not taking the pill the egg simply fails to implant and passes out of the female in the menstrual fluid to be discarded unnoticed. Should we consider the act of discarding the fertilized egg an “abortion” as well??

No, the failure to implant would be like “miscarriage”. Frequent miscarriages that go unnoticed.

How exactly does that demonstrate anything about the status of the zygote?

Note: I think you’re probably right that it makes sense to say, “Pregnancy starts at implantation.” ‘Pregnancy’ is the word describing the mother’s condition–and if the mother’s body starts changing at implantation, then it makes sense to say she isn’t pregnant until then. But fertilization is still when a new human organism begins to exist.
Jugulum on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:54 am #

Regarding birth control & God’s sovereignty.

If you think that using birth control is inherently an attempt to overrule God’s sovereignty, then can you explain why locking your car door is different? (“If God wants your car to stay yours, he’ll prevent anyone from stealing it.”)
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:10 am #

@Jugulum – having a baby and having your car broken into are two completely different things, conceptually and scripturally. Your method of comparing the locked car to using birth control might feel the same logically, but it’s not. Birth control prevents something that is scripturally considered a blessing. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “don’t have kids”. It does, however, say not to steal.
MikeB on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:15 am #

@ confused in #18

You’re making the false assumption that NOT using birth control automatically leads to pregnancy.

I am not sure I am making that assumption at all. No one is saying that pregnancy is automatic without BC. But I would say we do have some control over getting pregnant… abstinence will certainly prevent pregnancy. I am also working on the natural way God created our bodies and will assume that having sex without birth control – especially if timed with the women’s cycle will certainly increase the chances of having a child. This view does not deny the ability for God to open/close wombs as He chooses but it does allow God to allow your choices to have their natural and intended effect.
Jugulum on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:49 am #

confused,

First, change the question to, “Do you tie up your horse?” (If God wants you to keep your horse, he’ll keep it from wandering away.)

Second, please notice that I wasn’t arguing that birth control is fine. I was critiquing one particular argument against birth control—the argument, “It’s wrong because it attempts to violate God’s sovereignty in your life.” I’m talking about the argument against “trying to take control from God”. (Maybe you’re not making that argument. But even if you’re right about birth control, that doesn’t mean every argument is a good one.)

“It’s wrong because it rejects something that God calls a blessing” is a different argument. I do see a point there—at the very least, it has to affect how we view & use birth control. (For instance, it means that if you just don’t want to have kids, then you have the wrong motivation.) But if it means that birth control is always wrong, then I think it also means that all attempts to avoid pregnancy are wrong—including abstinence during the fertile period.
Nick on 21 Jan 2010 at 1:44 pm #

This to me is an abundantly clear sign that the Sola Scriptura “choose your own morality” path is extremely dangerous and cannot be the plan Jesus had in mind. Even the “conservative” Christians who oppose stuff like homosexuality still advocate divorce and contraception.

The Christian – especially a pastor and/or scholar – should never be wondering if such things are a sin. If they are a sin, then you’re leading people astray. These issues are not irrelevant and in fact directly related to Christian morality, the very things Christians need to be on the right side of.

Further, contraception was virtually universally condemned until the early 1900’s when the Anglicans opened the door a tiny bit, and eventually all the way. So, clearly, at one time contraception was a sin for all Christendom, and only the Catholic side has held it’s ground.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:05 pm #

Nick: “So, clearly, at one time contraception was a sin for all Christendom, and only the Catholic side has held it’s ground.”

CMP from a prior post: “Is birth control sin?

Not when it is practiced responsibly and for the right reasons.”

Nick, there’s a claim that birth control is not a sin when it’s “practiced responsibly and for the right reasons.”

Do you allow that it can be practiced responsibly and for the right reasons?
jim on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:16 pm #

Confused!

I am blessed with my children I have. However , My wife now has MS and for her to have another child would be pushing the limit. Even as a Dad, I find 3 is enough! So while it is true , that they are a blessing, try to tell that to a starving child in Africia, or as I mentioned befoe …the average household in Iraq where 7.7 is the norm…….God given wisdom is what we need!!

You cited “You’re making the false assumption that NOT using birth control automatically leads to pregnancy. ” I think probably the facts would prove that , not always, but for the bigger % , that is exactly what will happen.

As MikeB has stated we certainly can improve or hamper the odds.

I hope your not teaching “health issues in our schools for today’s society.
Regards
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:29 pm #

@Jim – ha! no I’m definitely not teaching that I was somewhat playing devil’s advocate simply b/c it is an issue on which we have deliberated before. I think balance is key, as with everything, and obviously you and MikeB bring up good points (and Jugulum).

I think, and this is obviously another issue completely, that we live in a very selfish society (in and outside of the church), and that too often birth control is used as a means to keep our lives more comfortable, or more in our control. Is that to say birth control is wrong? No, of course not. If my wife was guaranteed to have some major health risk by getting pregnant again, rest assured I’d choose birth control.
Nick on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:36 pm #

Truth Unites: Do you allow that it can be practiced responsibly and for the right reasons?

Nick: No, anymore than adultery can be practiced ‘responsibly’ and ‘for the right reasons’.
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:41 pm #

@Nick – would you allow for abstinence as a form of birth control for, say, two weeks out of the month? What would you say to Jim’s situation where his wife has MS? I’m very curious as it sounds like you strongly oppose b.c.
Nick on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:48 pm #

Confused,

The periodic abstinence method is allowable under certain conditions, and that includes heath-risks to the wife.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Jan 2010 at 3:10 pm #

CMP: “Is birth control sin?

Not when it is practiced responsibly and for the right reasons.”

Nick: “No, anymore than adultery can be practiced ‘responsibly’ and ‘for the right reasons’.”

Thanks for the reply, Nick. You regard birth control as sin. Just wanted to see if the gap between you and CMP (as proxy for others) could be bridged. It doesn’t look like it.
#John1453 on 21 Jan 2010 at 3:29 pm #

yes, what Jugulum (#23) said. I was focussing on the life of the organism, because that is what is morally relevant. Pregnancy per se is not morally relevant. Moreover, typically “pregnancy” is usually intentionally misused as a circumlocution for human/ baby / “living human organism” so as to abstracta nd depersonalize the act of abortion and to take focus off the fact that an abortion kills a living human.

regards,
#John
Chris on 21 Jan 2010 at 3:35 pm #

Another Question — Fertility Treatments? Good solid Christian couples have helped create, unintended I am sure, the embryo/stem cell controversy.

I had the surgery. The upside is you have an excuse to do nothing but lay around and read or watch movies all day for three days. And, the frozen peas thing, but still three days of nothing answers the need for “Serenity Now!”
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 4:13 pm #

Jug,

Unless tying up a horse is said to be a direct act of God to create the result, and could not occur without Him, then all of these analogies are false. The reason why issues like this changed in the twentieth century for Christians is because Christians adopted a philosophic naturalism as an assumption when viewing the issue of conception, even though theoretically they adopt the supernatural view of the Scripture that God makes children. I think the morality of this issue goes far beyond the issue of God’s moral will (note, not His decretive will, which allow for murder, rape, and every other evil thing to be practiced by Christians) in relation to His sovereignty. The exaltation of the self is only one aspect of the issue. There are legion of issues here.
The Church has historically argued that the practice (whether by chemicals or “naturally”) of contraception is an anti-creational sin that is of the same kind as murder and sexual immorality (such as that found at the base of homosexuality). It is no coincidence that Christians struggle now with the issue of homosexuality because their view of the primary purpose of the sexual act is the same as the culture’s. The Church is, therefore, following the flow of the culture. This, of course, does not make it wrong. It just needs to be thought through biblically. I think once this is done, and the bad arguments are taken out of the way, a Christian will come to the right on the matter.

BTW, for those who want to pit the RCC position as the historic one, I would think again on that one. The historic position does not believe that any kind of contraception, including RM or NFP methods, are acceptable.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 4:22 pm #

People really need help on this issue. Please read up on it before you come down on one side, especially on an issue that is confused with so many bad arguments.
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 21 Jan 2010 at 4:44 pm #

“BTW, for those who want to pit the RCC position as the historic one, I would think again on that one. The historic position does not believe that any kind of contraception, including RM or NFP methods, are acceptable.”

Can you point to your sources for this claim? Periodic abstinence has been the only acceptable form for spacing out births. RM and NFP didn’t exist before 1930, so they could hardly be condemned. What has always been condemned is the use of sex with the intent to render procreation impossible (for example, the various forms of artifical birth control, coitus interruptus and masurbation, which are still illicit). Can you show some doctrinal statement by a Church-wide council prior to 1900 that forbids periodic abstinence? They could hardly condemn RM or NFP since they didn’t exist, and since they didn’t condemn them after they came into existence, then it doesn’t sound like you have grounds for this statement.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 4:57 pm #

“Can you show some doctrinal statement by a Church-wide council prior to 1900 that forbids periodic abstinence?”

If you want a council on the matter, then you’re only going to find minor comments in some of the medieval councils. If you want the statements of Christians, which is more of a guide during the Church’s two thousand years of existence, then I think that is more important. I’ll give you one, but I’m not going to reproduce everything in my book here.

Augustine comments on the use of the rhythm method against a Manichean sect which employed it as follows:

Is it not you who used to warn us to ardently look for the period following purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and during that time refrain from intercourse, so that a soul would not be entangled in the flesh? From this it follows that you do not think marriage is to procreate children, but to satisfy carnal pleasure. Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, unites male and female for the procreation of children . . . he [who practices the rhythm method of the Manichees] ceases to make the woman a wife, and turns her into a prostitute, who when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to a man in order to satisfy his lust.

Noonan comments on the irony of Augustine’s statement when he says:

In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters should be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful. History has made doctrine take a topsy-turvy course.

BTW, from Augustine’s quote, we can see that it obviously did exist. In fact, I document in my book that pretty much every form of contraception we use today has been used in the past. Our technology, of course, is better in some cases, but our methodologies are quite similar.
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 5:02 pm #

Hodge – thank you for verbalizing what wasn’t connecting in my head… the idea that God deliberately causes a pregnancy to happen. That’s the difference between becoming pregnant and all of these other analogies. If you believe that pregnancy is a simply a consequence of natural occurrences, and it’s just the luck of the draw on any given month when the sperm finds the egg… etc etc… then I can see how any non-abortive birth control would feel ok. However, if you believe that God directly influences each and every pregnancy (or lack thereof), then that would change how we approach birth control, significantly I would think.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Jan 2010 at 5:39 pm #

Hi Hodge,

With regards to the question that CMP addressed in an earlier post, “Is Birth Control Sin?”

How would you answer?
Sprockett on 21 Jan 2010 at 5:42 pm #

I really don’t understand how we say on the one hand that God is really Sovereign, and then on the other be concerned that our decisions somehow effect that?

Either he is or he isn’t regardless of what we do, we are the creation, not the creator.

I had the big V surgery a number of years ago because the pill was causing health problems for my wife and apples just don’t cut it as an alternative, it wasn’t as bad as I expected and it was important for her health.

To be honest I’d do it again if needed, because another child while always a blessing would cause so many health problems for her that she or the baby may not make it. So to prevent that situation, I did the manly thing

-Paul-
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:07 pm #

Truth,

I appreciate the question, and I think I’ve already showed by hand, but I would really rather people just read up on the issue from both sides first (although I do think most people already have the one side down pretty well). The reason why I say this is that it is one thing for people to say, “Those anti-abortion people are all a bunch of religious nuts” once they hear our stated position on abortion. It’s a completely different thing to read a book like “Politically Correct Death” by Frank Beckwith and have people come out with a completely different perspective on the matter. I do think you can glean from what said what I would answer concerning that question though.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:11 pm #

Hi Hodge,

If I hazard a guess as to your answer to that question, and I guess wrong, would you grant me the courtesy of letting me know that I was wrong, and what your real position is?
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:13 pm #

Yes, every form was used, and the Church forbade the use of anything artificial, or more specifically, anything that violated the nature of the marital act. Does any bishop other than St. Augustine (speaking to the Manichaeans) say anything? Does St. A outright condemn periodic abstinence (your bracketed interpolation notwisthstanding)? St. Augustine’s main point is not to use your spouse solely as a sex object, not that you should never have sex during infertile periods (although he admittedly viewed procreation as the only redeeming aspect of sexual activity).

In addition, one view by one bishop does not equal Catholic teaching (which is why I asked for proof of a conciliar statement). St. A’s views on marriage were hardly canonical and he in fact had to clarify them to avoid accusations of heresy. Whether individual Christians might’ve felt the same is also not proof that the entire Church taught the view as doctrine. Even a minor comment in a Medieval council is not necessarily authoritative since the whole point of a council is to air each side of an argument. What matters is the canons that define the Church’s position at the end of the council and whether those are approved by the college of bishops and the pope. What the Catholic Church taught and still teaches is that procreation is the primary intent of the marital act and that thwarting the natural process is sinful. Abstaining is not thwarting a natural process, whether for long periods or short.

In 1930, Pius XI wrote Casti Connubi, in which he states: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” (CC 59). Note that this was written during the same year when the rhythmn method was developed. Unless Pius XI was stunningly aware of advances in reproductive science (and unless the RM were already a doctrinal question, which would have been far faster than any other doctrinal issue had perhaps ever brought a pope into the fray), I’d say he was referring to periodic abstinence.

The point is, from the position of the Catholic Church, if you don’t want children, don’t get married and have sex. If you have sex, be open to having children and don’t do anything that violates the nature of the act. (BTW, RCC only refers to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and not to the 30 other Catholic Churches in the communion–Melkite, Marionite, Greek, and so on.)
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:40 pm #

“Does St. A outright condemn periodic abstinence”

Of course not. But he doesn’t see planning pregnancies a reason for periodic abstinence, nor would abstinence for Augustine include abstaining so that one could have sex during infertile periods.

“St. Augustine’s main point is not to use your spouse solely as a sex object, not that you should never have sex during infertile periods (although he admittedly viewed procreation as the only redeeming aspect of sexual activity).”

I would take this as a typical re-wording of Augustine in order to justify a position. Augustine did, in fact, believe that the sexual act was primarily for procreation (as you admit), but he also believed to engage in an infertile act was a sin. He thought there was minor sin in not intending the sexual act to be procreative, as long as you did participate in an unproductive sexual act, but if you did, then it was in fact a sin.

I’m not going to sit here and list people. You can get my book. The only other person I’m going to mention for now is Gregory:

“Husbands and wives are to be admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring; and, when, giving themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure, to consider that, though they go not outside wedlock yet in wedlock itself they exceed the just dues of wedlock”

No more freebies.

“In addition, one view by one bishop does not equal Catholic teaching (which is why I asked for proof of a conciliar statement).”

I said the RCC position is not the historical position. To me, that means what Christian teachers (i.e., the ones who make up the councils) say to the matter throughout history. I didn’t say that the modern RCC position can’t be held because it contradicts a council. My point is that the Fathers would have condemned the Pope for suggesting that a natural form of family planning is morally acceptable for Christians to practice.

“What the Catholic Church taught and still teaches is that procreation is the primary intent of the marital act and that thwarting the natural process is sinful. Abstaining is not thwarting a natural process, whether for long periods or short.”

Agreed. This is what the RCC teaches. The change from the historic position concerns the primary purpose of the sexual act. In the NFP position, one is engaging in a known infertile sexual act in order to prevent the fertile sexual act from being productive. The historic position would have disagreed with this because the primary argument does not stem from lex naturalis. The modern RC argument stems from lex naturalis, which really stems from Aquinas’ argument. The lex naturalis, of course, is fine as a supplemental argument, but the RCC has made that it’s primary argument, and thus, lost the more important part of it that we find in the historical position.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:42 pm #

“For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

And this is the change from the historic position. The secondary ends are actually lifted up to be possible primary ends, and therefore, the act can be performed during known infertile periods. This is not what the Fathers believed.
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 6:45 pm #

Hmmm, if we are going to quote St. Augustine on this subject maybe we should have a wider discussion about his views on sex and the relation it has to original sin as well as his views on marriage and other subjects. I don’t think you would find to many people outside the RC Church who would be willing to go along with his theology on these matters (which leads to the natural conclusion that all unbaptized infants are going to hell). Suffice to say I don’t think in a full discussion about Augustine’s views on sex marriage and a whole lot of other subjects his views would be considered Biblical by many Christians today and in fact were questioned by many at the time he wrote them.

From a purely pragmatic perspective I believe contraception is necessary. Face it people are not going to be able to control their sex drive. Some may, but the majority are unable to and in fact Paul tells us this in the Bible imploring those who are unable to control their sex drive to get married. The fact of the matter is that if everyone had kids like they do in countries that don’t widely practice contraceptive use the Earth would run out of resources very quickly. In an agrarian society where there is a abundance of physical labor to be done and many children die in childbirth or youth having a large number of kids is proper and necessary. In a modern urbanized and increasingly crowded society having a large number of kids is inadvisable at best, harmful at worst. Now that view is probably considered unbiblical by most (I think incorrectly so), but doesn’t change the reality of what happens with rapid population growth.

Would those of you who advocate no birth control agree with this movement which has lead to family’s like the Duggar’s (seen on TLC) which have 19 kids? Do you think regularly having families with 19 kids is a good thing for society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
#John1453 on 21 Jan 2010 at 7:09 pm #

Not that I necessarily disagree with contraception, but the question for Christians is not “good thing for society” (however that may be defined or structured) but has God commanded anything in this regard or left it up to us? If the former, then it is a moral issue of obedience, if the latter, then as Paul said “some celebrate the new moon, some don’t” and “all things are lawful but not all things are profitable”.

regards,
#John
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 21 Jan 2010 at 7:15 pm #

So you’re saying that St. Thomas’s argument during the Medieval period (in which they were probably more suspicious about sex than they were earlier in Christian history) was in line with what the Catholic Church teaches? And that’s not a historic position?

And which Gregory do you mean? Gregory the Great? Of Nyssa? Nanzianzus? Have you looked at the Eastern and Latin Fathers?
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 7:29 pm #

John 1453,
Not going to have this discussion here, but there are (IMO) somethings in the Bible which are commanded, but clearly culturally conditioned. I think the prime examples of this is Paul’s command for women to not wear “Braided hair”. Thus is the case with people in the “quiverfull” movement when they take Psalm 127:5 which reads “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them [children].” they are taking something that is a blessing in the context of ANE culture and making it normative. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that God would command something which would in modern society ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity through scarcity and depletion of resources. This in turn leads me to further suspect the verses cited in support of the anti-contraception crowd are culturally specific and not normative.

Also when I say “good for society” I don’t mean it in the sense that some people might use it as the accumulation of more riches. I mean more the minimization of suffering (i.e. we shouldn’t do things which are going to directly cause deaths of other humans through famine, starvation, lack of potable water, inadequate medical care, etc.).
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 8:21 pm #

Just happened across this article from John Piper. For once I can say I agree with the guy 100%.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1440_Does_the_Bible_permit_birth_control/
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 8:50 pm #

“I really don’t understand how we say on the one hand that God is really Sovereign, and then on the other be concerned that our decisions somehow effect that?”

The issue is whether it conflicts with His moral will, not His decretive will.

Michael,

I have a discussion on the Father’s view, which includes Augustine’s view, of the sexual act. I actually think that most evangelicals would agree with the view of the Fathers once it is known. It’s really not any different than their view. The problem is that evangelicals don’t consistently apply their view to the point that their naturalistic assumptions are sufficiently countered.

I deal with all of these arguments in the book. They are not good objections. I also deal with Piper’s/Piper’s Ministry’s comments in the link you provided. I also try to show why these arguments are not good ones either. Piper’s a smart theologian, but it is clear that this subject has not been given adequate reflection.

“From a purely pragmatic perspective I believe contraception is necessary. Face it people are not going to be able to control their sex drive.”

Is this an argument? So if the condition of people not being able to control themselves causes an action to be morally acceptable, do you think that all sexual issues should be handled this way? Or is it really that you a priori think that contraception isn’t really wrong, so there is no reason to argue against it?

Bill,
It’s clear that you have commitments to the modern NFP position. Since that is the case, nothing I say can convince you otherwise, since your position thrives on supposedly being right on this issue. Unfortunately, it’s just not. If you want to find out why, then you can get my book.

“So you’re saying that St. Thomas’s argument during the Medieval period (in which they were probably more suspicious about sex than they were earlier in Christian history) was in line with what the Catholic Church teaches? And that’s not a historic position?”

No, I’m saying that Aquinas is one of the first theologians who begins to use the lex naturalis as his primary argument. He wouldn’t have agreed with the modern RC position either. The RC position can really be traced back to certain lines of thinking that began in the fifteenth century in RC thought. It did not come to fruition in any mainline sense, however, until the twentieth century.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:03 pm #

that should be “Fathers’” not “Father’s.” No human Pope in my theology.
confused on 21 Jan 2010 at 9:21 pm #

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the main issue here (outside of the Catholic discussions) whether or not one believes that God makes a pregnancy happen, rather than basically watching a pregnancy to happen as a “natural process” of life?
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:23 pm #

Hmm a book endorsed by the same R.C. Sproul Jr. discussed here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/taking-calvinism-too-far-rc-sproul-jr%E2%80%99s-evil-creating-deity/

I’m sold.

On a more serious note does it matter what the Church Father’s thought? In the absence of a clear Biblical mandate one way or the other (which there simply isn’t) it falls into the category of freedom in Christ. Attempts to make it other is pure legalism. If you feel lead to believe that it is wrong to use contraception then so be it, but don’t try to make your convictions normative unless you have some type of mandate from the Bible on the order of “neither drunkards or fornicators or people who use contraception shall enter the kingdom of God”.

On a earlier discussion are those who use birth control unsaved in your opinion Hodge since they are unrepentant sinners?
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 10:47 pm #

Is this an argument? So if the condition of people not being able to control themselves causes an action to be morally acceptable, do you think that all sexual issues should be handled this way?

They should be when the issue is directly addressed by Scripture in 1 Cor 7. Apparently Paul knew that what I stated is true and thus gave the following teaching.

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:07 pm #

Michael,

Feel free not to read anything anymore, since any given book may have been endorsed by someone with whom you don’t agree. Sounds like a good way to prepare the way for illiteracy to me.

“On a more serious note does it matter what the Church Father’s thought? In the absence of a clear Biblical mandate one way or the other (which there simply isn’t) it falls into the category of freedom in Christ. Attempts to make it other is pure legalism. If you feel lead to believe that it is wrong to use contraception then so be it, but don’t try to make your convictions normative unless you have some type of mandate from the Bible on the order of “neither drunkards or fornicators or people who use contraception shall enter the kingdom of God”.”

Of course, this is all negated by the fact that I do have a Biblical mandate, as I argue in the book. So, No, it’s not legalistic to opt for producing life together with God and following the Scripture. That’s a cop out. I find it funny that I challenged you to read something new that might present arguments you haven’t heard before, and your defense mode goes into overdrive with insults galore.

“They should be when the issue is directly addressed by Scripture in 1 Cor 7. Apparently Paul knew that what I stated is true and thus gave the following teaching.”

I’ll tell the pedofiles, adulterers, etc. that they’re good to go since “not being able to control your sexual desires” justifies any use of the sexual act. Or are you talking within marriage? Do you want me to bring up all of the horrible sexual practices that can be done in marriage? Or do you think Paul is talking about practicing sexual morality within marriage (i.e., using the sexual desire/act for God’s purposes to create family through the sexual burning of the individual) rather than misusing it? There is no mention of children in the context, but isn’t he really talking about directing them for God given purposes, and wouldn’t we know those God given purposes from the rest of Scripture? I see no reason to assume that Paul would take a different stance here than he takes elsewhere.

I won’t bring up my other arguments with this passage, because once again, they’re in the book.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:13 pm #

BTW, Are you really saying that every Christian that we know of before the twentieth century was a legalist?
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:16 pm #

Hodge, actually, I’m not wedded to the NFP proposition, and I’m even willing to concede that many Fathers of the Church held similar positions to Augustine’s. I have a particular issue with people claiming to know what historical Christianity taught when they won’t be clear on their sources and also seemingly don’t accept many other things that historical Christianity taught (which is a separate issue, and I won’t belabor the point here). Some positions even held widely were condemned, so the fact that “some Christians” held a position is not a convincing argument to me that it was a universally held doctrine. Arianism is a case in point.

In addition, the preference for celibacy even for lay people in the early Church was also very common, as St. Paul and others noted. So we can’t even say the earliest teaching is necessarily the correct one. However, I will concede that numerous early Church Fathers (and probably most or all) held the position that procreation was the primary purpose of sex (with no reference to a secondary purpose). However, even in the quotations I read, the two extremes were sex for procreation versus sex for the purpose of satisfying lust. There was no mention of any middle ground. However, I doubt the question first arose with Aquinas in the 13th century.

Again, it also helps to identify your Patristic sources precisely. I suspect you were referring to Gregory of Nyssa, but there’s no way of knowing. Lots of important Gregorys back then.

For a rundown of Fathers’ statements on contraception: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM.
Hodge on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:24 pm #

“Some positions even held widely were condemned, so the fact that “some Christians” held a position is not a convincing argument to me that it was a universally held doctrine.”

Which is why I go through history and show that all Christian teachers who spoke to the subject, fell on one side and not the other. The sources are in the book. As I said, I’m not going to reproduce arguments here.

The Fathers actually have a much more balanced view than they are often accused of. I also pursue that to some degree in an appendix.

No, not Nyssa. I do quote Gregory Nyssa in the book, but the quote I gave you is Gregory the Great.
Michael on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:36 pm #

“Feel free not to read anything anymore, since any given book may have been endorsed by someone with whom you don’t agree. Sounds like a good way to prepare the way for illiteracy to me.”

I didn’t say that I wouldn’t read books endorsed by people I don’t like. However, I am well aware of the extremist Calvinist position taken by the likes of yourself (in other forum posts) and R.C. Sproul Jr. Thus since I have already rejected these underlying presuppositions the book is likely to lack credibility. Beyond that your plug for us to all go buy “your book” is pretty shameless. It has nothing to do with you personally but I really have better things to read then a few hundred page book which simply doesn’t concern me right now since I am unmarried and not going to be married anytime in the near future. Call it willful ignorance if you like, but if John Piper (who is very intelligent, but I consider borderline extremist with the comments he makes sometimes – i.e. the MN bridge collapse and Minneapolis Tornado) says it’s acceptable and your more extremist then him you just don’t have very much credibility to speak on much of anything because your presuppositions are so vastly divergent from me and Evangelicalism in general that it’s like reading French.

I also like that you didn’t answer my bottom line. If I get married tomorrow and me and my wife use birth control am I an unrepentant sinner going to hell??? Come on you know you want to answer it. Show your true colors.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:36 am #

Michael,

If Piper is an extremist, why do you accept his position on this? This is simply a convenient way for you to dismiss an argument. You may find ad hominem appealing, but no thinking individual will join you.
I’m not sure why it’s shameless for me to tell people that I’ve provided a resource for them to think through this issue on a blog that is discussing what Christians think about this issue. I wrote the book primarily for my children when they grow up, but thought that it could also help others as well.

And, here’s the big shocker for you, I don’t think people are condemned automatically over the issue. It’s God’s domain to judge, not mine. I do think willful ignorance/rebellion is the underlying sin that condemns an individual in any sin they commit, but I support great patience on this issue as people learn and think through it. Most people don’t even know that this is an issue, so why would I condemn them when they neither think about it, nor are they taught otherwise?

I admit that the book is really for those who are thinking through the issue. No arguments, regardless of how strong they may be, will convince those who have already made up their minds. And of course, you have to accept the underlying assumptions of the Bible, logic, and the Church, and since you’ve rejected those, you probably would just dismiss the book by looking at the back cover.

Cheers.
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:54 am #

“If Piper’s an extremist, why do you accept his position on this?”

I didn’t say I did simply because it was his opinion, rather his opinion reflects the majority opinion in Evangelicalism despite being on the conservative theological fringes of Evangelicalism. Even most of those Evangelicals who do reject “the pill” do so because of the (perceived) risk of causing an abortion through lack of egg implantation, not because of some Biblical mandate opposing all birth control.

“and of course, you have to accept the underlying assumptions of the Bible, logic, and the Church, and since you’ve rejected those…”

Oh I do – just not your reading of them (with the possible exception of the Church). Of course I’m sure all those out there (like John Piper) who disagree with your position are just unreflective idiots who are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness and leading everyone else astray. Or perhaps they don’t think their arguments are as weak as you think they are. Of course I’m sure you’re just smarter, better read, better reasoned and more holy then they are.

“Most people don’t even know that this is an issue, so why would I condemn them when they neither think about it, nor are they taught otherwise?”

So are you saying that someone has to understand that something is wrong and not just have some Church tell them it is wrong before they are condemned for unrepentantly practicing the wrong in question?
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:20 am #

BTW one final question.

R.C. Sproul Jr. who endorses your book I believe has seven children. Do you think it would be healthy or advisable for every family in America to have seven children? Or how about every family in the world? and then compound that over the next 100 years and see where it gets us. Your position is not only questionable Biblically (given the high number of well educated scholars who reject your position) but would be disastrous if actually practiced on a wide basis. Of course who gives a rat’s rear end if a theological position would lead to famine, disease and poverty just as long as you’re sure you’re right. Forget other possible interpretations

If I seem a little disturbed and angry by your suggestions with regards to this matter it’s because I have seen first hand the ludicrousness of this position. In my town we had a family who believed in the “quiverfull” philosophy and had 13 children. The mother (keeping with Biblical views of manhood and womenhood of course) was a stay at home mom while the father was a construction worker. They didn’t make enough money to feed four children much less 13. Many of the kids were forced to sleep on mattresses strung out around the house because the house was too small to support that many people. As a result the church essentially supported this family with money taken from all of those families who had a responsibly sized family that was within their means. But would they stop having kids??? Of course not – that would be interfering with God’s plan and so they just kept popping them out. Today the kids of this family have grown up to be the most dysfunctional bunch of people I have ever seen. Few if any have a college education, most have left the faith and live day to day off whatever they can make.

Of course that’s just experiential nonsense – who cares about practical matters like how many kids a family can afford to feed? God will provide I’m sure…

Bottom Line. Either it’s we shouldn’t consider anything practical in having kids (health of mother, income, ability to give kids the attention required, etc. etc.) and should just freely have sex and how many ever we end up with is what we have. Or your position on 1 Corinthians 7 makes no sense since practical implications against having children would require abstention from sex thus making the passage unintelligible as people not being able to suppress their desires was the problem in the first place.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:23 am #

“I didn’t say I did simply because it was his opinion, rather his opinion reflects the majority opinion in Evangelicalism despite being on the conservative theological fringes of Evangelicalism. Even most of those Evangelicals who do reject “the pill” do so because of the (perceived) risk of causing an abortion through lack of egg implantation, not because of some Biblical mandate opposing all birth control.”

This is what I would call reverse ecclesiology. It looks for orthodoxy through the majority opinion in the present, rather than throughout the past. In other words, this assumes that modern evangelicalism is right and the rest of the Church has been wrong.

“Oh I do – just not your reading of them (with the possible exception of the Church). Of course I’m sure all those out there (like John Piper) who disagree with your position are just unreflective idiots who are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness and leading everyone else astray. Or perhaps they don’t think their arguments are as weak as you think they are. Of course I’m sure you’re just smarter, better read, better reasoned and more holy then they are.”

Michael, how can you say this. You haven’t read what I wrote. You’re speaking from ignorance, and rather hostilely I might add. You mentioned not getting married any time soon, and your language and grammar evidence something to me, so at the risk of an ad hominem, how old are you?

“So are you saying that someone has to understand that something is wrong and not just have some Church tell them it is wrong before they are condemned for unrepentantly practicing the wrong in question?”

No, I said that we don’t condemn anyone. That’s God’s domain. The Church needs to explain its position on the Bible to them, help them understand it, etc. before it takes any disciplinary action (as has always been the practice of the Church concerning this issue). You may think what Christians have believed and practiced concerning this issue for the breadth of the Church’s existence, but I choose to take a more humble approach in my historic ecclesiology, so I don’t replace it with a cultural one.

Let me suggest to you, as someone who is most likely much older than you are, that you may want to approach people with whom you disagree by understanding what they believe and why they believe it first. You seem to be charging at Sproul, Piper, and Myself personally, simply because you don’t like our positions (“extreme” compared to what? The secular culture, the historic church culture, or evangelicalism that is made up of both?). Rather than labeling things as extreme or “on the fringe,” why not simply deal with what is said, and if you don’t know what is said, go and find out? I think that will give YOU more credibility in the long run.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:27 am #

Hodge, et al,

If the husband wears a condom, have both the husband and the wife committed a sin?

Anyways, here’s an article that I just found:

Does Bible permit using birth control methods such as
pills and condoms to prevent pregnancy?
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:31 am #

“Bottom Line. Either it’s we shouldn’t consider anything practical in having kids (health of mother, income, ability to give kids the attention required, etc. etc.) and should just freely have sex and how many ever we end up with is what we have.”

Here’s my question: “Are you saying that these scenarios, based on what is practical, should dictate what is moral? In other words, why stop at contraception. These people already have too many children in your view. Why not cause the mother to get an abortion if she’s pregnant? Why not kill the children, since they should not have been born in the first place?

You see, to each of these questions you would no doubt respond, “But that’s immoral.” To which, I would respond, so is practicing contraception. You just don’t think so. So forgive me if I’m not persuaded by your “practical” argument, as it begs the question, and you would not apply it yourself to any other immoral behavior. Ergo, you have to first assume that there is nothing wrong with practicing contraception.

Now, of course, my book is addressing Christians, not the whole world; but will we have trouble in this world in our attempt to follow Christ? Of course we will. I would not put an extra burden on anyone, since we will have enough as it is. But if this is a much more serious issue than evangelicals realize, and I argue that it is, then it should not be dismissed by such situational ethics.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:37 am #

Truth,

As Aquinas argues, sin is in the intent, so it depends on who’s intentions are being carried out.

I address the article’s argument in the book as well. The leap in logic it makes fails when one considers all of the issues. I also think that most people approach the issue with the usual evangelical disease of falsedichotomiosis, to which I often refer. Sex is primarily for procreation. It has secondary benefits to it, so it carries with it intimacy and pleasure. The secondary just should not replace the primary. You’re not going to find a Biblical author pitting them against each other as modern evangelicals often do.
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:41 am #

Hodge, I’m not trying to be credible to you because it doesn’t matter. Rather I’m just mocking you for the ridiculousness of what you propose. The arguments I have seen rage on the whole host of issues indicate to me that being credible doesn’t matter one iota. Everyone’s mind is already made up. Yours is, as is mine. How often do people actually change their minds?? How often does a fundamentalist Calvinist become an outspoken Arminian, or vice versa??? It happens but is exceptionally rare. I quite frankly don’t have the time to search the internet to refute every argument you make nor do I personally have the Seminary education needed to refute said arguments. When someone like yourself arrogantly walks in and accuses virtually all of Evanglicalism and Protestantism of being in mortal sin on a collateral issue that is a matter of conscience I’m going to get take offense. This is especially so when so many reputable sources all across the Protestant spectrum disagree with you and you set yourself and your reading of the Bible and your understanding of Church History and your logic as the final arbiter of Truth. Of course to you they just all have “bad arguments”.

It’s been said that a good pastor majors on the majors and minors on the minors. You just major on everything and wrote an entire 300 page book on a minor matter. Of course you don’t think it is a minor issue which just proves my point.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:42 am #

Me: “If the husband wears a condom, have both the husband and the wife committed a sin?”

Hodge: “As Aquinas argues, sin is in the intent, so it depends on who’s intentions are being carried out.”

Let’s attempt to remove the “it depends on” waffle. Let’s say that neither husband, nor wife intend to commit sin when the husband wears a condom. The question is then re-asked: If the husband wears a condom, have both the husband and the wife committed a sin?
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:46 am #

Here’s my question: “Are you saying that these scenarios, based on what is practical, should dictate what is moral? In other words, why stop at contraception. These people already have too many children in your view. Why not cause the mother to get an abortion if she’s pregnant? Why not kill the children, since they should not have been born in the first place?

Very simple. We have a clear Biblical mandate which forbids this and is not subject to any interpretation which would possibly allow such an action. In the case of contraception we have possible alternative interpretations. Now you may assert they are just bad interpretations or wrongly reasoned or whatever, but that is apparently a minority opinion. Of course I forgot again “Hodge right….everyone else wrong….”.

As for my age education etc. – I’m a 26 year old attorney. Yeah shocking I know.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:55 am #

“When someone like yourself arrogantly walks in and accuses virtually all of Evanglicalism and Protestantism of being in mortal sin on a collateral issue that is a matter of conscience I’m going to get take offense.”

1. The Historic Church has accused it. I’m simply voicing it.
2. It’s simply a matter of begging the question to say that it is a collateral issue and a matter of conscience.

But I know these won’t be corrected in you because you won’t bother reading the other side. So be it.

BTW, I did change my mind on this issue, and I’ve seen many people change their minds on this issue, once they settled down and listened to the arguments. “Anger does not produce the righteousness of God,” and that is most likely because it does not allow a person to be “quick to listen.”

“This is especially so when so many reputable sources all across the Protestant spectrum disagree with you and you set yourself and your reading of the Bible and your understanding of Church History and your logic as the final arbiter of Truth. Of course to you they just all have “bad arguments”.”

I’m sorry, Michael, who else has dealt with this issue from an indepth perspective in your mind? I see a few pages here and there in larger volumes concerning Christian ethics. I don’t see lengthy treatments by scholars. Perhaps you can point them out to me.

This is the last I’ll address you, as I don’t want to inflame your rage at the suggestion to study an issue, that affects most Christians, more deeply than you have anymore than necessary.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:55 am #

Michael: “It’s been said that a good pastor majors on the majors and minors on the minors. You just major on everything and wrote an entire 300 page book on a minor matter. Of course you don’t think it is a minor issue which just proves my point.”

Lisa Robinson recently wrote a post titled “The Theological Serenity Prayer”:

“Lord, grant me the serenity to humbly accept the theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference

The courage to graciously challenge the ones that do

And the wisdom and knowledge to know the difference”

Excerpting a part of my comment #15 from that thread:

“My suggestion is that for the folks who think that something is non-essential, then why don’t you, as a general rule of thumb, defer to the Christian brother or sister who regards it as an essential. For example, if you believe inerrancy of Scripture is a non-essential, then defer to those who proclaim that Scripture is inerrant. After all, it’s not essential to you. Another example, if you believe that complementarianism is a non-essential, then defer to your complementarian brothers and sisters.

But don’t claim that something’s non-essential, and then argue like the dickens for the doctrinal position that you want. Because your behavior then shows that you think it IS essential.”

And thus… you’re being inconsistent!

P.S. FWIW, I oftentimes think there’s far too much emphasis on the “tonal quality” of blog comments. I really just care about the substance of an argument. But if I were forced to make a subjective judgment between the tone of Michael’s comments to Hodge and Hodge’s comments back to Michael…

I’d have to say Michael has an angrier tone. Whether that’s good or appropriate, I leave it to the other readers of this thread.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:00 am #

Michael: “Of course I forgot again “Hodge right….everyone else wrong….”.”

That’s not good argumentation. In fact, it’s poor and not befitting of an attorney who should know what’s acceptable rhetoric.

You can, and should do better Michael.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:01 am #

“Very simple. We have a clear Biblical mandate which forbids this and is not subject to any interpretation which would possibly allow such an action.”

Wait, I had to comment on this before I go. Where’s the mandate against abortion? Are you saying that the bulk of evangelicals in the early seventies, who were for Roe vs. Wade, were wrong and YOU are right? We can all play this game. The difference is that you’re led by your presupps given to you by your contemporary culture (both in and outside the church), and others try to think beyond it with the ENTIRE Church as their interpretive guide.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:12 am #

Hodge,

Don’t go just yet. Have a reply for #73?
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:14 am #

Truth,

To answer your question, I discuss this in the book. I hate to have that as an answer to everything, but I really don’t want to reproduce it. I will, however, say that I make a distinction between intent and “how one perceives what he or she is doing.” One may not think that what he is doing is wrong, but it is still wrong nonetheless. The intent has to do what the person is doing, as well as why the person is practicing it (and I mean by that the assumptions of the person, not so much what is in the forefront of their minds while practicing it).

To give an example:

I walk into a store and pick up a candy bar and eat it. If you ask me what I did, I would say, “I ate a candy bar.” If you asked me why I did it, I might say, “Because I was hungry.” That’s the way I was thinking about it, but the intent was for me to do an immoral act in order to bring about that result. I stole a candy bar. Whether I was thinking about the immoral act of stealing it, while doing so, or the thinking of the end goal (i.e., to quench my hunger) for why I stole it, is really not a part of the intent. Either way, I intended to steal it in order to accomplish my goal, regardless of my thought process.
I seriously doubt most people actually think that they are sinning when they do so. In fact, most people make excuses for why it is OK to do action X in situation Y, precisely so they don’t think they are sinning and feel guilty about it.
Now, I would say there is a difference between willful sin and transgression, where one is known (whether accepted or not) and the other is unknown (i.e., no one has told them that this is wrong and why); but I would still say that some kind of sin still exists in the act and intent of a practice.
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:29 am #

Wait, I had to comment on this before I go. Where’s the mandate against abortion? Are you saying that the bulk of evangelicals in the early seventies, who were for Roe vs. Wade, were wrong and YOU are right?

You assumed I was necessarily talking about the abortion part, I could be simply talking about the forced portion of the statement you made ala Old Testament Law about causing a women to miscarry. I don’t think the Bible actually does give us a clear mandate on abortion. It gives us verses which allow us to make some inferences, but nothing certain concerning at what moment a human being has a soul. As such I would NOT allow for abortion simply out of extreme caution as we are dealing with the possibility of taking a human life, rather than clear Biblical evidence that there is in fact human life present.

“others try to think beyond it with the ENTIRE Church as their interpretive guide”

In other words you’re RC without being RC. Can Church Tradition be wrong just out of curiosity?? Are there any things you believe which are not in keeping with general Church Tradition? If I were a betting man I’d willing to wager that there are.
confused on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:07 am #

@Michael – your question awhile back about RC Sproul Jr… again, you’re making the assumption that someone that does not use birth control will have 7 kids. I know of at least a few examples of families that went this route and only had 2 or 3, and claim God used this as a means to trust Him more in their lives.
jim on 22 Jan 2010 at 8:01 am #

confused & Hodge:

Thanks for the comments, you too Michael.

Confused: Thank you for your consideration of my wife and her disease. And I understand your viewpoint. I guess I want to get back to the question of is sex simply for pro-creation.

Though you quote lots of bibical verses supporting this I still go back to Genesis when God said That it is not Good for Man to be alone. That he simply needed a helpmate , he goes on to say they should be of one flesh. Granted , for everyone to have a helpmate there has to be babies produced. However, I too , as mentioned by Michael, seen starving families , the latest case a mother of eight who is now seperated from her husband. He told me that he wanted to stop at four children but his wife believed tn the whole quiver thing and refused any form of birth control (him or her) The result was a broken marriage and who suffers the worst is the KIDS. This holly mother even threw them onto the streets one day and because I had been helping the family out with different needs they had, the kids called my house and I took them in for a couple of days. It broke my heart when I called the mother about taking them back and she said “Well, If I really have to!!! I kept them another day ( 3 kids; ages 11-14) prayed and talked to my pastor, before calling Social Serivces. It broke my heart, not so much for the parents but for those little ones who had no choice in this matter. This was a year ago , still bothers me today, so you have to understand the practical application this has on one’’s theology. Sometimes we need to have God given WIDSOM!!
Regards as Always,
confused on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:20 am #

Jim, that’s a very good point. In the same way I can think of examples of families that used no birth control and trusted God and DIDN’T have huge families, there are plenty of examples like yours.

Knowing only the details you mentioned, I have to think that the problem in your friend’s(?) case is not the fact that they had a large family and went the “full quiver” route, but the fact that he and his wife were not at all on the same page… I can’t imagine the resentment that he must have built up inside of him. If there’s one thing about the families with whom I’ve had contact that decided NOT to use birth control, it’s the fact that both the husband and the wife were on the same page and felt the same persuasion from the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I struggle being bent towards the birth control camp because I see our society using it for selfish/convenient reasons more often than not (which is an issue in and of itself because obviously we don’t know the details of everyone’s situation). So maybe the problem, then, lies not in birth control itself in our culture, but in our motivations for using it. Heck, even John Piper (who is no stranger to going to the accurate extremes of biblical commands!) preempts his church’s claims with “Any attitude which fails to see that children are a good gift from the Lord is wrong” in the article referenced above.
jim on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:40 am #

Confused

I really appreciate your sensitivity in these area. I too see a society , even a culture bent on personal pleasure and you are correct in that regard, especially with the abortion issue being so convenient for most people.

I have read some of John Piper and watched him on youtube and at times I really get what he is preaching, then he flings himself to such a extreme left or right that I lose touch with his message.

“Any attitude which fails to see that children are a good gift from the Lord is wrong” in the article referenced above.” I would like to read this article where could I find it”

Thanks,
In Christ
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:53 am #

Michael and Hodge,

Please gentlemen, both of you. I can’t help but wonder what any unbelievers reading this thread have thought about the tone of the conversation here.

And Hodge, seriously, if you want to make a point, it seems to me that the way to do it is to simply state your opinion and/or research and not just keep referring to the book you have written on the subject.

I’m sorry, but this has been a very disturbing conversation to read.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:06 am #

Cherylu,

I don’t think dumping a three hundred page book in the comments is appropriate, and I don’t think I’ve said anything that is out of norm by suggesting people refer to the book.

I also don’t think it’s appropriate to lump me in with Michael. He was clearly verbally abusive and accusatory, but can you show me where I was to him? If I was, I will certainly apologize for any comments that I see are out of bounds.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:24 am #

Hodge,

How about this one to Michael, “And of course, you have to accept the underlying assumptions of the Bible, logic, and the Church, and since you’ve rejected those, you probably would just dismiss the book by looking at the back cover.”

It sounds just a WEE bit inflammotry to me.

And I am not going to comment on this anymore. No sense in getting into an argument regarding an argument!
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:29 am #

Cherylu,

I apologize if that came off the wrong way. That was a reference to what Michael said about rejecting underlying assumptions in the previous comment. My point was that those were the underlying assumptions I used. Michael, a priori, said he would reject my underlying assumptions without knowing what they were. Hence, I came back with the fact that he would be rejecting the Bible, logic, and the Church.

And the comment about dismissing the book was a joke because that is obviously what Michael did.

I also don’t want to enter a discussion about a discussion, as such claims often derail the focus and importance of a topic.
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:46 am #

I don’t think anything Hodge has said is overtly inflammatory. Despite a few reservations about the unanimity of the voice of the early Church, I’m largely in agreement with his position. Hodge, I may even pick up your book, although I think a few more details might’ve been good–may even have been good advertising. I understand that Dr. Patrick Riley also has a book coming out on the very topic of contraception in the ancient world and the Church’s stance. Of course, I also have stacks of other theology texts in competition for my time as well.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:04 am #

Thanks Bill. I’ll have to pick that one up myself. I know what you mean. There are so many books to read and so little time in which to read them. Take care.
confused on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:15 am #

Jim, if you click the word “article” in my previous post (in the last sentence), it should take you to it. If that doesn’t work, it’s here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1440_Does_the_Bible_permit_birth_control/

He takes a pretty balanced approach to it, with that disclaimer at the beginning. The balanced approach he had was what surprised me, b/c (as we both said), he tends to go very strongly in one direction or another on a lot of issues.
Sandra Glahn on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:22 am #

A related question is this: “Does the pill cause abortion?” As coauthor of Zondervan/Christian Med Assn’s book, The Contraception Guidebook, I had an interesting discussion with Randy Alcorn on this subject before we submitted our manuscript. I love the man and his passion for life, but (very) respectfully disagree with his sources and conclusions on this question. Here’s a blog post I wrote about it for bible.org’s women’s leadership blog:

http://blog.bible.org/tapestry/content/taking-pill-%3D-abortion%3F
Lutya on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:54 am #

I find it interesting in all this theological discussion that nobody has said anything about the science of various birth control methods related to the concern of it causing an abortion. Or even the science of menstruation and how pregnancy occurs… I don’t think a person can come to a conclusion on this issue unless they understand both.

In addition, there are also medical situations where birth control prevents more serious medical problems for a woman, for example PCOS.

So, i guess for me this isn’t a black and white issue. There’s quite a bit of grey.
jim on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:16 pm #

Confused, Thanks for the link, I actually was in consent for all of the article, I too was surprised!!!

I see balance and God given wisdom in alot of the discussions we have on this blog, although at times we all need to keep Christ centered with our responses.

This has been a pleasure to converse with you over this topic, God bless you till me “talk” again

Yours in Christian love
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:57 pm #

Those of you who think I took a strong tone with Hodge are correct and if I offended any of you I apologize, however this strong tone was by design. People who claim to be Christians that run around spouting legalistic doctrines which I consider no better than those of the Pharisee’s should be mocked and condemned in no uncertain terms. Hodge has come in here and basically said “contraception use is sin and if you want to know why read my $25 300+ page long book”. When asked to specifically give Bible quotes which lead to the inescapable conclusion that contraception is wrong he has balked instead telling us again to “read his book” or relying on the quotes of theologians in Church History.

Now I don’t know about anyone else but it would take me less than a page to explain why the vast majority of things Christians believe are sin are in fact sin. I could explain why murder is sin in one sentence. Something that takes a 300 page scholarly book to explain why that something is sin should give us all pause by the mere fact that it requires that much explanation. If God had wanted to condemn contraception He would have done so in the Bible, yet I have yet to see the other side put forth any verse which is not EASILY discounted to prove this. Until someone does in fact put forth a Biblical passage which proves that contraception is sin it falls into the category of freedom in Christ and any attempt to say otherwise is legalism which should be condemned by all.
Michael L on 22 Jan 2010 at 2:53 pm #

Wow !

So.. where on the “concentric circle of essentials” do we put this one ?

For those that are not familiar with what I’m talking about, you can see it Here

I can tell there’s some that are trying to push it in the center circle. There’s some that don’t even want it on the chart.

I’m probably more likely to let it go more towards one of the middle circles, but not center. A sin ? Sure. Just like eating unhealthy food which is going to kill you sooner or later, or smoking, or being lazy, or a million other things that will shorten your life and one could therefore call “slow murder”.

I think it depends on the situation. As long as it is done within a marriage, and husband and wife agree for whatever reasons (financial, medical, …) I think you can argue either way.
If it’s for convenience and as a mechanism to be able to live a lewd lifestyle, it’s probably a bigger challenge.

Perhaps an analogue example ? I can have a beer and enjoy it. It’s part of my cultural heritage (Belgium), I like the flavor and I enjoy it. Some argue against with “don’t make a brother stumble” (1Cor 8:13). Others go even further. And therefor catalog it as a sin since it violates scripture. I personally don’t see it that way and might enjoy a good trappist tonight on my patio. So who’s right and who’s wrong ? Middle circle somewhere. Definitely not center.

Should we take the same attitude here ?

In Him
Mick
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 5:35 pm #

For those interested:

I’m actually discussing the historic Church’s claim, that contraception is a form of murder, sexual immorality, and idolatry–and to a minor degree, that it is contrary to Christian discipleship, which is based in Luther’s theology of the family. The reason why I don’t give proof texts here is because I try not to use proof texts in the book. Instead, I approach things from both a Biblical theology of individual books/passages, as well as from a canonical perspective. I also answer the claim that it is Pharisaical with ironically the same claim for those who make the claim. If the case of the Church cannot be made through the Biblical, Systematic, and Practical (not pragmatic), then legalism would be a good charge. If it can be made, then labeling someone who argues against murder, sexual immorality and idolatry a legalist is a bit absurd. It must also be understood that the claim that someone is not a Christian, but instead a legalist, needs to be made for the entire Church before the twentieth century (i.e., the entire church up until about 35-60 years ago). Otherwise, it is disingenuous to suggest that one should be labeled this today, but not place the same label on others in history, who say the exact same thing (and in fact are harsher about the issue than those today are) simply because they happen to be heroes of the faith. Which is it?
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 5:39 pm #

Michael L,

I would probably put it toward the center circles, not the center circle. I wouldn’t put any sort of work/practice in the center.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Jan 2010 at 5:47 pm #

Michael, #96,

Thanks for explicating the reasons for your vehemence towards Hodge. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but it does help me understand where you’re coming from. For example, you hold that Hodge is a legalistic Pharisee, seeking to bind the consciences of all who read this thread that birth control is a sin, a sin without exception or qualifier. And because you see him as a legalistic Pharisee, you treat him as one. This explains much to me.

“When asked to specifically give Bible quotes which lead to the inescapable conclusion that contraception is wrong he has balked instead telling us again to “read his book” or relying on the quotes of theologians in Church History.”

On blogs elsewhere, I’ve seen the anti-contraception argument based on the bible story of the Sin of Onan. I think it’s a bit thin (there’s dispute as to what was the sin), but that is the biblical argument that I’ve seen set forth.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 5:50 pm #

Hodge,

If you expect anyone to understand why you believe what you do, I think you will have to tell us why you believe it is a form of murder, sexual immorality and idolatry.

And telling us to go and buy the book and read it just isn’t going to cut it I am afraid. You have argued long and hard here and I don’t remember you really addressing these questions at all. Granted, it has been a long discussion, but I certainly don’t remember it if you have. If you have and I have forgotten, could you please point me to the correct comments?
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 5:59 pm #

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.
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:25 pm #

“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.
#John1453 on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:35 pm #

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
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:48 pm #

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.
Steve D on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:51 pm #

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?
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm #

“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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:01 pm #

John,
You haven’t seen that in my comments because I haven’t argued the case here.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:02 pm #

Hodge,

We are not in a more liberal European culture–try the short version on us!
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:07 pm #

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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:14 pm #

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.
Bill B (AKA Theocoid) on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:45 pm #

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).
Michael on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:47 pm #

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.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:26 pm #

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.
C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:35 pm #

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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:30 pm #

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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:34 pm #

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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:42 pm #

“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.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:48 pm #

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?
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:01 pm #

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.
Hodge on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:06 pm #

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.
cherylu on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:37 pm #

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?
C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:38 pm #

Cheryl. Very good point. I agree. With that, let us close this one down.