Should Christian Couples Use Birth Control?
We have, but we feel uneasy about it, and we are not alone in evangelicalism. Check out the excerpts below. Of note is the last one from RBC, who actually state that the scriptures do NOT prohibit it, but that that the prohibition stems, not from selfishness or our desire to seprate pleasure from procreation, but that it is rooted in unbiblical asceticism. Wow.
Can Christians use birth control? (Al Mohler)
The
reality of abortion forced a reconsideration of other issues in turn.
Affirming that human life must be recognized and protected from the
moment of conception, evangelicals increasingly recognized Intrauterine
Devices [IUDs] as abortifacients, and rejected any birth control with
any abortifacient design or result. This conviction is now casting a
cloud over the Pill as well.
Thus, in an
ironic turn, American evangelicals are rethinking birth control even as
a majority of the nation’s Roman Catholics indicate a rejection of
their Church’s teaching. How should evangelicals think about the birth
control question?
First, we must start
with a rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and
children as impositions to be avoided rather than as gifts to be
received, loved, and nurtured. This contraceptive mentality is an
insidious attack upon God’s glory in creation, and the Creator’s gift
of procreation to the married couple.
Second,
we must affirm that God gave us the gift of sex for several specific
purposes, and one of those purposes is procreation. Marriage represents
a perfect network of divine gifts, including sexual pleasure, emotional
bonding, mutual support, procreation, and parenthood. We are not to
sever these "goods" of marriage and choose only those we may desire for
ourselves. Every marriage must be open to the gift of children. Even
where the ability to conceive and bear children may be absent, the will
to receive children must be present. To demand sexual pleasure without
openness to children is to violate a sacred trust.
Third,
we should look closely at the Catholic moral argument as found in
Humanae Vitae. Evangelicals will find themselves in surprising
agreement with much of the encyclical’s argument.
Should Christian married couples use birth control? (Today’s Christian Woman)
I
don’t believe Christians should use artificial birth control. God
created sexual intercourse both as an expression of love and unity for
a married couple and as a means of procreation. Interfering with these
purposes is an insult to God.
Make Love and Babies (CT Library)
The contraceptive mentality says children are something to be avoided. We’re not buying it.
A Hard Pill to Swallow: How the tiny tablet upset my soul. (CT)
Being
pro-life isn’t only about opposing surgical abortion. It’s about
opening ourselves to the risk and mess and uncertainty that accompany
any God-sent guest we allow into our lives. The least we can do is
leave our doors unlocked. (also see commentary)
Young Protestant Couples Rejecting “Contraception Revolution” (LifeSite)
The
previous generation’s acceptance of a secular understanding of
sexuality and marriage is no longer satisfactory to young people, Dr.
Mohler said, who are challenging the separation between fertility and
sexuality in the popular mindset.
COUNTERPOINT: Should Christians use birth control? (RBC)
But
there are couples who are unable to conceive or who are past their
child-bearing years. If it is impossible for them to have children,
should they abstain from sex? The Bible doesn’t even hint that this is
the case. Nothing in Scripture implies that it is sinful for married
persons to have sexual intercourse without the possibility of bearing
children. Sex within marriage is pure and honorable, even when
conception cannot occur. This is because marriage is an expression of
the deepest intimacy possible between two people, an intimacy so deep
that Paul uses it as a symbol for the love of Christ for His church.Why,
then, would there be any question about the use of artificial
contraception within marriage? Isn’t all sexual intercourse between a
husband and wife made honorable and pure by the nature of their
matrimonial commitment? Isn’t the position of the Roman Catholic Church
regarding artificial contraception and the reluctance of many sensitive
couples to use it based upon an unbiblical asceticism and an unhealthy
if not morbid view of the body and sexual function?
Young Christian women are being taught that sexual activity should be nothing more than a baby-making procedure. Woe is them. Sex can be enjoyed in multiple ways, and if God was insistent that sex makes babies, then s/he was just as clear that sex produces orgasms. Orgasms rule. Always getting pregnant immediately after doesn't.
Be sure to tell your daughter that when she's 12 and the boys start pushing for sex.
Yes, Sam, be certain to tell your daughter that orgasms are awesome. You know, just in case she hasn't managed to figure that bit of brilliant, deductive reasoning for herself. In the absence of religious guilt over sexuality, there's no reason to think that orgasms aren't awesome. But tell her anyway, just to make sure.
And Seeker, make sure you tell your 12-year-old daughter that sex is all about baby-making. Make sure she knows that, regardless of what she wants, and regardless of whether she has access to birth control, the only way she's allowed to have sex is if she wants to have a child directly afterward. When the 12-year-old boys start pushing her for sex (I'm glad I didn't know you in middle-school) tell her that it's alright to say yes, as long as she's willing to give birth before she reaches her teens.
Re: the Al Mohler article above, the fragment of it posted by Seeker seems to lead the reader in a different direction than the REST of that article, including:
1. preventing conception is NOT the same as conceiving, then preventing implantation of the fertilized egg
2. just because you can biologically have X number of children, doesn't mean you should…
PS – If you research why the Catholic church (which BTW is not a Christian church, so why are Christians following their reasons, any more than why should Bible-believing Christians follow arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?) you'll find that before "sanctity of life" there was this labeling of sex (yes, in marriage) as carnal & sinful by the Catholic church.
Good info on BC for Christians: http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/biology/birth…
You know Seeker, my daughter will start having sexual desires around age 12, not because of the media, and not because of contraception, but because such things occur naturally. Not within Christianity, mind you, but within humanity as a group. It's called adolescence.
Sure, but what you tell her to do with it is critical. Will you teach her self-control and virtue, or will you teach her she should explore sex as long as it is safe? Will you be glad when sex-ed teachers teach her about blow jobs?
Sex is intended for the marriage bed, that's the christian teaching – nothing mysterious or weird about it. Waiting until marriage is a lost virtue called chastity, something many of us (including myself) had wished we had observed.
Waiting until marriage is a lost virtue called chastity, something many of us (including myself) had wished we had observed.
Why? Was it a bad experience? How could it be? Did you get her pregnant? If that's the case, you should have known to use a rubber.
"Sex is intended for the marriage bed, that's the christian teaching"
Sam is not a Christian. Presumably his daughter, at age twelve (and hopefully beyond) will not be a Christian either. The most fundamental reason for which you oppose pre-marital sex is entirely unconvincing for people like us. There are plenty good arguments for avoiding sex at such an early age, but the writings of long-dead Jews aren't among them.
If a twelve-year-old was able to engage in responsibly safe sex with someone who wasn't taking advantage or abusing them them (e.g. an adult), there wouldn't be anything intrinsically wrong with that. That's assuming a lot, though, so typically I would agree that a twelve-year-old would be better off waiting to have sex. But waiting for what? Not marriage. Just a few years and some education from parents and teachers.
The hypocrisy of Christian teachings on this issue is intense. Most of the women in your bible — and up until recent history — would have been married and having children shortly after reaching adolescence. But I guess that's OK with you, because they all had God's permission to have sex with their creepy, older, often-polygamous husbands. On the other hand, if two unmarried, thirty-year-olds want to have sex with each other without going to a chapel first… SIN, SIN, SIN!
Off-topic, I know, but kind of fun. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/21/ancien…
I'm sorry. I meant to say that I would never tell a married couple they should (or should not) use bc.
Sam is not a Christian. Presumably his daughter, at age twelve (and hopefully beyond) will not be a Christian either. The most fundamental reason for which you oppose pre-marital sex is entirely unconvincing for people like us. There are plenty good arguments for avoiding sex at such an early age, but the writings of long-dead Jews aren't among them.
Agreed. I was trying to respond to the accusation that my ideas were somehow strange or unusual.
If a twelve-year-old was able to engage in responsibly safe sex with someone who wasn't taking advantage or abusing them them (e.g. an adult), there wouldn't be anything intrinsically wrong with that. That's assuming a lot, though, so typically I would agree that a twelve-year-old would be better off waiting to have sex. But waiting for what? Not marriage.
Well, that's where we part ways. I think there are good reasons for waiting until marriage, which I outlined in The Benefits of Sex Within Marriage
The hypocrisy of Christian teachings on this issue is intense. Most of the women in your bible — and up until recent history — would have been married and having children shortly after reaching adolescence. But I guess that's OK with you, because they all had God's permission to have sex with their creepy, older, often-polygamous husbands.
Strictly speaking, polygamy is not Christian, that is, not New Testament. And I have no problem with people younger than 18 marrying, though I think it unwise to marry before 25! If their ages differ by too much, that is also inadvisable. But I don't think that Christianity has a lot of teaching one way or the other on this.
Lawanda,
I agree with you completely, some of the more strict approaches to birth control are a little irritating, though their underlying points are worth considering.
We have two kids, and are currently using bc (the pill), but my wife doesn't like it. We are limiting ourselves to two kids, and we are sending me to the vet ;) to get fixed in a couple of months. Interestingly, more than half of my male, secular co-workers have had the surgery as well, after two or three kids.
The only thing that makes me hesitate, which sounds funny, is that in order to grow our population, each couple needs to contribute 2.1 kids (that is, more than 2), and I haven't done that yet. However, my brother has 6 kids (4 natural, 2 adopted), so maybe he makes up for me ;)
I wish Kevin would get fixed, since he says he doesnt want any more kids. :-p
I thought you all might get a kick out of Loretta Lynn's song The Pill. She is such an awesome woman. Simply amazing. She got married at 13 (right before she turned 14) and had 4 babies by the time she was 17. You can read all about her li'l ole controversial self at wikipedia :)
But here are the lyrics:
The Pill
You wined me and dined me
When I was your girl
Promised if I'd be your wife
You'd show me the world
But all I've seen of this old world
Is a bed and a doctor bill
I'm tearin' down your brooder house
'Cause now I've got the pill
All these years I've stayed at home
While you had all your fun
And every year that's gone by
Another baby's come
There's a gonna be some changes made
Right here on nursery hill
You've set this chicken your last time
'Cause now I've got the pill
This old maternity dress I've got
Is goin' in the garbage
The clothes I'm wearin' from now on
Won't take up so much yardage
Miniskirts, hot pants and a few little fancy frills
Yeah I'm makin' up for all those years
Since I've got the pill
I'm tired of all your crowin'
How you and your hens play
While holdin' a couple in my arms
Another's on the way
This chicken's done tore up her nest
And I'm ready to make a deal
And ya can't afford to turn it down
'Cause you know I've got the pill
This incubator is overused
Because you've kept it filled
The feelin' good comes easy now
Since I've got the pill
It's gettin' dark it's roostin' time
Tonight's too good to be real
Oh but daddy don't you worry none
'Cause mama's got the pill
Oh daddy don't you worry none
'Cause mama's got the pill
Stewart, you said to seeker so typically I would agree that a twelve-year-old would be better off waiting to have sex. But waiting for what? Not marriage. Just a few years and some education from parents and teachers.
I have a personal theory that each and every time you have sex, you are emotionally vulnerable. Whatever situation you put yourself into, leads to what type of life you are going to have. It all adds up to whether you are an emotional vulnerable person, or an emotionally stable person.
A twelve year old is not emotionally stable (or mature) enough to be having sex with anyone. And most likely if left to their own devices, most 12 year olds would always say no to sex. But we all know that not many 12 year olds (or even 13-16 years olds) are strong enough to follow their own instincts when "everyone else is doing it". Peer pressure usually interferes.
And then you end up seeing 14 year olds, as an employee of the state, who are pregnant and want to keep their babies, but are not ready for the responsibility of a baby AT ALL. And these are the same people who keep making the same mistakes, in spite of all the wide availability of "education" and bc. And hence, my theory. :)
You can say it isnt so all you want, but the fact is if you are married and having sex that is a much more stable environment than if you are not married and having sex. And more stable environments lead to healthier self-esteem and healthier lifestyles.
So married at 15 is better than single at 30?
Sex within marriage is better (wiser, moral, ethical) than sex without, at 15 or 30.
Seeker,
I'll encourage my daughter to do whatever she damn well pleases. I'll encourage my daughter to abstain from sex until she feels that she is ready, and I'll encourage her to use protection if she decides to make that decision. What I won't do is threaten her with hell and damnation for making decisions that aren't what the Bible instructs, primarily because by then, she hopefully understand that the Bible is nothing more than ridiculous stories told by power-hungry people hell bent on controlling the decisions of third parties. The point is that like all humans, my daughter will or won't make decisions for her own reasons. Some will be good, and some will be bad, but all will be hers. As her father, I'll help her as best I can. The rest will happen as it does.
Now, on to other business: what should people being doing before they're married? Up to the age of 25 or whatever?
Chances are if you are married in this day and age by 15 you'll be divorced long before 30. But the same chances are if you grow up having sex with whoever you want, whenever you want; you'll also be divorced by the time you are 30. Prolly a couple of times, as the trends show.
It is the same problem really.
I was married at 19, my dh was 18. And if it wasnt for wise counsel of our parents we'd prolly have got married before he graduated high school, at ages 18 and 17. We'd never have made it financially if it wasnt for my parents and his parents help, either. And I'd say half the problems in a marriage start with the finances.
So I am of seeker's opinion: Sex within marriage is better (wiser, moral, ethical) than sex without, at 15 or 30.
And children need their parents to teach them that it is good and even admirable to wait. They do not need the "abstinance program" at school or where ever. They need their parents.
Unfortunately the parents of this generation do not have a very good record on abstaining from ANYTHING. Because the popular culture says "If you like it: TAKE IT" and it has been that way for a good 40 years, and getting worse all the time (hence the continual rise of obesity, crime, teenage sex, abortion, std's, divorce, pedophilia and other lovely stuff)
So of course the parents will teach their children to do whatever they please, if nothing else by example.
It is obvious when you hang out with kids for very long that their parents start this program of "whatever you please" fairly early too. When you see young kids who are severely overweight and get soda pop in a bottle. UGH. Or you are stuck in a classroom with them for an hour, while they scream the entire time. More UGH. But that is another rant. :)
What I won't do is threaten her with hell and damnation for making decisions that aren't what the Bible instructs,
Well, that makes two of us. If you think that's the biblical approach, you are, again, mistaken.
The point is that like all humans, my daughter will or won't make decisions for her own reasons.
True, but the wiser her decisions, the better her life will be. I can't control my daughter at that age, nor would I want to. But I *am* going to tell her about the possible and probably results of each path she takes, including warning her against sex outside of marriage – not merely because the bible says so, but because, as I said, there are good practical and emotional reasons to wait. Any smart and loving father would do the same.
As with all moral issues ,education is the key to making responsible decisions . With the story of Abraham and Isaac comes a good example of Christian morality. It is good because God commands it, to do otherwise is to sin against Gods will. God defines what is good by divine fiat. This is also present in the moral teachings of Jesus, the command to love him over family and self if one is to be his disciple. Christian morality is entirely athoritarian in nature .
The big three Abrahamic religions have always had a morbid preoccupation with sex. Controlling the reproduction of the host is vital to the survival of any religious group that relies on memetic transmission of a schema from cradle to grave as a propagating force for its own survival. The big three ARE products of memetic evolution !
Being Christians I suppose you probably don`t understand evolutionary science yet so I won`t get into that anymore here, onto sex!
On the subject of birth control, well, how many children did people have 500 years ago ? How many survived to adulthood? ,and why. Now ,what is different today and why?
Modern science has eliminated most causes of child death since the enlightenment with the development of modern medicine. Modern medicine is based on an understanding of biology . The cornerstone of modern biology is evolutionary science. Unless your one of those Christians that doesn`t believe in healthcare of the sick and injured, prayer only , it is the will of God, then you need to be aware of this fact !
In the last few hundred years the world population has expanded to almost 6 billion ,with a projected population of 9 billion by 2050. There is a mass extinction in progress as you read this of species of animals and plants worldwide because of this unchecked expansion. Where do you think this is going?
So it comes to the subject of birth control. As a secular person I would consider it irresponsible not to use it. It all comes down to personal responsibility . I think teens should have a complete understanding of the risks to them posed by unprotected sex .
What most people value is not the pornstar lifestyle I would think . Most people truly want a partner for life ,someone to love and share a life of experience with. This has nothing to do with the Bible or any other holy book for that matter .
May I remind you , divorce rates are roughly 28 percent for Christian marriages and 21 percent for Atheist/Agnostic marriages…. A cord of three strands indeed?
Modern science has eliminated most causes of child death since the enlightenment with the development of modern medicine.
Historian Rodney Stark argues well in his book that it was not really the enlightenment that led to the birth of modern science, but rather, Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. You should read his stuff to see his reasoning.
The cornerstone of modern biology is evolutionary science.
Bzzt, baloney alert. Much useful science, biological and otherwise was done (a) before evolution, and (b) since Darwin, most valuable biological discoveries have occurred without the need for evolutionary suppositions at all. In some notable cases, evolutionary thinking has actually hindered science.
Unless your one of those Christians that doesn`t believe in healthcare of the sick and injured, prayer only , it is the will of God, then you need to be aware of this fact !
Bzzt. Non sequitur. Belief in healthcare has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in evolution, nor does it have anything to do with biblical morality, though biblical morality does lead to health. I mean, if people weren't so promiscuous, would we have half the AIDS problem we have today? No. QED
Controlling the reproduction of the host is vital to the survival of any religious group that relies on memetic transmission of a schema from cradle to grave as a propagating force for its own survival. The big three ARE products of memetic evolution !
You know, you could force that rubric onto religion, but there are plenty of other good reasons for any system of ethics or morality to include sexual practice. As I said, it is unhealthy, and therefore, might be considered unethical or immoral to be promiscuous, or to have sex with animals, etc.
I think teens should have a complete understanding of the risks to them posed by unprotected sex .
As well as the risks of "protected" sex, and extramarital sex (before or during marriage).
May I remind you , divorce rates are roughly 28 percent for Christian marriages and 21 percent for Atheist/Agnostic marriages…. A cord of three strands indeed?
Firstly, one of the problems with these kinds of surveys is that the definition of "Christian" is usually very loose – I'm not surprised when worldly, unbiblical, social Christians get divorced as much as the world, because they don't think or act like Christians at all. You might want to get a better sampling.
Second, your numbers sound low – my understanding is that among evangelicals, divorce rates are even higher than you mentioned. Again, this is often due to the "scandal of the evangelical mind," which is to say that even among conservative xians, biblical literacy and character are found wanting. Your assumption that this has to do with the evangelical approach to sex is an interesting one, but whatever correlation you are claiming, you have yet to show any causation. But it is an intriguing theory.
InvitationToVisit: http://christian-birthcontrol.angelcities.com/ind…
Christians have always had the freedom to use birth control under Biblical mandates of personal liberty. http://christian-newcovenant.angelcities.com/inde…
Online Examination Of What The New Covenant of Christ did for personal liberty for men and women.
Hi Seeker:
IMO Mohler's notions about the "contraceptive mentality" is ridiculous. A married couple that doesn't want to have children (right now) are doing nothing wrong by having sex and taking actions to prevent pregnancy–I would ask you to cite the part of the Bible that says otherwise. You seem to mock Stewart's observation that orgasms are great–are you going to tell your daughter that, you ask? Why do you even ask that question? Orgasms ARE great and since sex with your wife for pleasure is not sinful then what's your beef? Babies are gifts from God, not things to be avoided? I'm sorry but my wife has had 9th grade students who are young mothers and in their case pregnancy was DEFINITELY something to be avoided. I don't want to get sidetracked on the sex ed tangent. The issue here is contraception for married couples and IMO Mohler's objection to it is actually very silly.
your friend
keith
KEITH: A married couple that doesn't want to have children (right now) are doing nothing wrong by having sex and taking actions to prevent pregnancy–I would ask you to cite the part of the Bible that says otherwise.
Mohler is referring to our culture's devaluing of children and over-emphasis on self-fullfillment. While family planning is fine, in this view, planning to NOT have a family is not fine, biblically speaking, esp. if we harbor anti-child sentiments.
>> KEITH: You seem to mock Stewart's observation that orgasms are great–are you going to tell your daughter that, you ask?
I'm not sure what comment of mine made you think this, perhaps you could reference it. I said nothing of orgasms. I'm going to tell my daughter to wait until she is married. If she wants to self-pleasure herself, I'm not sure how I will address that. Maybe I'll leave that to her mother ;).
>> KEITH: Orgasms ARE great and since sex with your wife for pleasure is not sinful then what's your beef?
Because sex with anyone other than my wife is wrong. What's YOUR beef? :D
>> KEITH: I'm sorry but my wife has had 9th grade students who are young mothers and in their case pregnancy was DEFINITELY something to be avoided.
Yes, but in actuality, it is PREMARITAL SEX which should be avoided. One can avoid pregnancy with abortion, so 'avoiding pregnancy' is not the bottom line. I am not preaching against birth control here, but making sure we address issues at the root.
>> KEITH: The issue here is contraception for married couples and IMO Mohler's objection to it is actually very silly.
I don't entirely agree with Mohler, but I think that there IS merit to the idea that chemical birth control, except for medical reasons, is probably trying to avoid natural law (just like artificial sweeteners ;), and we all know that those are dangerous.
While we may not make a central dogma of it, I think there is merit to the argument that the use of chemical birth control, as well as the selfish and low views of the value of children ARE sinful and wordly, and Christians who desire to do what is right may want to avoid these.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: A married couple that doesn’t want to have children (right now) are doing nothing wrong by having sex and taking actions to prevent pregnancy–I would ask you to cite the part of the Bible that says otherwise.
Mohler is referring to our culture’s devaluing of children and over-emphasis on self-fullfillment. While family planning is fine, in this view, planning to NOT have a family is not fine, biblically speaking, esp. if we harbor anti-child sentiments.
I got no beef with pointing out the problem with OVER emphasing SELF-fullfilment. The question is: what COUNTS as OVER emphasis. Assuming a married couple wanted to limit their reproduction to say 1 or 2 kids, what Biblical passages would you claim teaches they should not use artificial birth control. Also please cite Bible passages that say planning not to have a family at all is not fine.
KEITH: You seem to mock Stewart’s observation that orgasms are great–are you going to tell your daughter that, you ask?
I’m not sure what comment of mine made you think this, perhaps you could reference it. I said nothing of orgasms…
When Stewart said orgasms are great you responded “Yes, Sam, be certain to tell your daughter that orgasms are awesome. You know, just in case she hasn’t managed to figure that bit of brilliant, deductive reasoning for herself. In the absence of religious guilt over sexuality, there’s no reason to think that orgasms aren’t awesome. But tell her anyway, just to make sure”. What you wrote was dripping with sarcasm it seemed to me, that’s what I took to be mocking. Stewart’s claim was that young Christian were being taught that they have to be baby factories, that sex for pleasure was sinful. You could have argued that Christians do not teach any such thing, or you could have argued that what Christians object to is sex outside of marriage, but that sex for pleasure within a marriage is perfectly OK, or you could have argued that unless sex is ALSO for procreation it’s not OK. It seemed to me that you instead just mocked him.
I’m going to tell my daughter to wait until she is married. If she wants to self-pleasure herself, I’m not sure how I will address that. Maybe I’ll leave that to her mother ;).
fair enough. Stewart posted later his view that he would tell her not to have sex until she was ready for it, presumably he is not opposed to premarital sex. You can argue that point with him but it seemed to me that by responding with sarcasm you are missing an opportunity to dialog.
>> KEITH: Orgasms ARE great and since sex with your wife for pleasure is not sinful then what’s your beef?
Because sex with anyone other than my wife is wrong. What’s YOUR beef? :D
My beef with Mohler is with his argument about contraception. It seems to me that there is nothing at all wrong with you having sex with your wife JUST because it’s enjoyable to you both. If you don’t want kids (or more kids) then that’s fine. In fact, if you ask me, a couple that doesn’t want kids actually ought NOT have kids. Children are a tremendous commitment and it’d be wrong to have them if you aren’t committed.
KEITH: I’m sorry but my wife has had 9th grade students who are young mothers and in their case pregnancy was DEFINITELY something to be avoided.
Yes, but in actuality, it is PREMARITAL SEX which should be avoided. One can avoid pregnancy with abortion, so ‘avoiding pregnancy’ is not the bottom line. I am not preaching against birth control here, but making sure we address issues at the root.
There are a lot of reasons to avoid premarital sex, but one of those reasons is that it’d be better if children didn’t become mothers. Pregancy is DEFINITELY something to be avoided. Not having premarital sex is a very effective avoidance strategy.
KEITH: The issue here is contraception for married couples and IMO Mohler’s objection to it is actually very silly.
I don’t entirely agree with Mohler, but I think that there IS merit to the idea that chemical birth control, except for medical reasons, is probably trying to avoid natural law (just like artificial sweeteners ;), and we all know that those are dangerous.
I would disagree completely. Natural law? It’s a law of nature that those chemicals help reduce the probability of pregnancy, there is no way to avoid natural law (you can’t refuse to obey the law of gravity for example:-)
While we may not make a central dogma of it, I think there is merit to the argument that the use of chemical birth control, as well as the selfish and low views of the value of children ARE sinful and wordly, and Christians who desire to do what is right may want to avoid these.
The argument seems to be that even if you are married, you are being sinfully selfish and undervalue children if you want to have sex with your wife for pleasure while at the same time reducing the likelihood of procreation. I think that argument is very, very wrong, and as far as I can see there is no biblical support for the argument. I cannot see any situation where a person is morally wrong NOT to want to have kids. On the other hand, it happens far too often that people HAVE children for selfish reasons. Maybe using birth control is the moral default position, and NOT using it is the thing that requires justification.
your friend
Keith
>>KEITH: When Stewart said orgasms are great you responded "Yes, Sam, be certain to tell your daughter that orgasms are awesome.
Actually, Cin said orgasms are great, and STEWART gave the reply above. So Stewart can answer your query :D.
>> KEITH: The question is: what COUNTS as OVER emphasis.
Again, that's a heart attitude that we need to each examine ourselves for, not a hard and fast rule. Some childless couples may do so out of biology, financial necessity, or selfishness. Mohler argues that the selfish individualism of humanistic culture, as seen in the plummeting birth rates in liberal western countries, is evidence of this. While I can not tell by looking at you if you share this increasingly common unbiblical view, I CAN recognize the trends in culture, and ASK or CHALLENGE you on what your positions are.
>>KEITH: Assuming a married couple wanted to limit their reproduction to say 1 or 2 kids, what Biblical passages would you claim teaches they should not use artificial birth control.
The word 'artificial' is a bit ambiguous, but I would say that, again, the Noahic Covenant commands us to multiply and fill the earth. I understand that we are under the New Covenant, but that has no rescinded, for example, the moral law. I know that's not the strongest argument, but to not ADD to the popululation beyond replacing yourself seems to fall short of this.
And again, the question is, what motive? That's the crucial question. Why are you limiting the number of children, and is THAT perspective biblical?
Can you, for instance, provide scripture for LIMITING them or USING birth control?
>>KEITH: Also please cite Bible passages that say planning not to have a family at all is not fine.
Without extenuating circumstances (like living in a war zone or poverty stricken area), what possible motive could you have for NOT wanting a family? What is more important than accepting the blessings of God?
And again, when we try to sow and not reap, I believe that we are trying to do an end run around nature, which is essentially doing an end run around God.
>> KEITH: It seems to me that there is nothing at all wrong with you having sex with your wife JUST because it's enjoyable to you both. If you don't want kids (or more kids) then that's fine.
I agree with your first statement, and so would Mohler. But the second one does not follow, it's just an independent idea that you have not justified biblically.
>>KEITH: In fact, if you ask me, a couple that doesn't want kids actually ought NOT have kids.
While some couples might not want to have kids, except in the mitigating circumstances above, I can't think of what value proposition would be more important. If it's that important, they probably should not have sex, or should have not gotten married.
I think that Mohler correctly identifies one of our modern ungodly idols – that of pleasure separated from consequences, and more specifically, our desire to divorce sex from marriage and procreation. This is wordly thinking, to focus on the pleasures of the flesh.
>>KEITH: Children are a tremendous commitment and it'd be wrong to have them if you aren't committed.
Again, if they are waiting until they get a few years under their belts, then their decision is at least in the gray zone (but the laws of sowing and reaping, not to mention the risks of chemical birth control, may still make them wrong).
But never have kids? I'd say they are harboring some ungodly logic in their minds.
>>KEITH: It's a law of nature that those chemicals help reduce the probability of pregnancy, there is no way to avoid natural law
When we use artificial means to subvert the NATURAL processes, like we do with, for example, natural sweeteners, I believe that we just put ourselves at risk for other consequences. Better to exercise self control than to lack it and use chemical means to avoid the consequences – those consequences may be less in the short run, but in the long, they may be bad or worse.
>>KEITH: The argument seems to be that even if you are married, you are being sinfully selfish and undervalue children if you want to have sex with your wife for pleasure while at the same time reducing the likelihood of procreation.
Yes, IF you are preventing yourself from having less than 3 children ;) and esp. if you are trying to avoid it completely so that you can have your DINK lifestyle.
>>KEITH: I cannot see any situation where a person is morally wrong NOT to want to have kids.
Can you give me a godly, biblical motive for not wanting to have kids? How about for birth control? I'm sure chemical and herbal methods were around even back then.
>> DANIEL: This is wordly thinking, to focus on the pleasures of the flesh.
And btw, I would append to this sentence "without considering the responsibilities that attend such pleasures – rights do not exist without responsibility, though we want it to be so."
Hi Daniel:
1. You offer as Biblical support for a prohibition against birth control (except for the cases you specified) the Noahic Covenant. But there is a difference in circumstance between an earth just destroyed by flood, that NEEDS to be filled, and the present day where we have 6 billion people already. What Biblical reason would you have for insisting that we are supposed to massively procreate now?
2. You ask me to provide biblical support for the idea that it's OK for a married couple to choose not have kids for no other reason than that they don't want to have kids. IMO there is no biblical support for the contrary. So if the Bible doesn't support the "no kids" option, then the Bible is permissive on that issue–it gives no direction either way. Given that, it would be up to the individual Christian couple to decide for themselves what they'd prefer. That's no more selfish than it is selfish when a Christian decides to wear cotton socks because he likes the way they feel.
3. You seem to see a problem with pleasure separated from consequences. Certainly there is a problem with seeking pleasure without regard for the harm your pleasure seeking will cause, but there is no harm caused by a couple that doesn't want kids remaining childless. On the contrary.
4. You say that a couple that doesn't want to have kids is harboring some ungodly logic. But unless you can cite a specific biblical injunction that says that all people should have kids, then the only thing you have to support your charge is your vague feeling that married couples ought to want kids. It doesn't come from the Bible and I don't see why a Christian ought to think it's true. The logic they use is no less godly than the logic a couple would use if they chose to live here instead of there–they didn't want children. If they routinely ignored their neighbors in need, then they'd be wrongly selfish, but choosing to be married, sexual but childless is not AFAICS prohibited in the bible.
5. Nothing I have said above conflicts with the notion that rights come with responsibilities.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: You offer as Biblical support for a prohibition against birth control (except for the cases you specified) the Noahic Covenant.
I offer not just that, but the *heart attitudes* that would lead us to have children rather than not. While I admit, even in my article The Christian duty to bear children, that we have the freedom of conscience in this matter, and you can't make it a hard rule, there are still good arguments to be made in FAVOR of having children.
In such a case, the best you can do is argue for the right heart attitudes, and allow for exceptions based on the individual. But as a general rule, if a couple does not want children, my first guess would be that they harbor unbiblical views towards children, and God's ability to help them raise them.
>> KEITH: But there is a difference in circumstance between an earth just destroyed by flood, that NEEDS to be filled, and the present day where we have 6 billion people already.
Yes, that is a good argument. Noah was in a unique situation, and perhaps that command was ONLY to him (arguable).
However, I would not fall into the Malthusian trap of the overpopulation myth – we are not in any danger of running out of resources globally, despite preditions of doom.
Also, you could argue, as I alluded, that we are under the New Covenant, and all of the old covenants are superceded. However, the theology of the covenants is not always so cut and dry.
On a related note, check out the 2008 book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits.
>>KEITH: IMO there is no biblical support for the contrary.
What about my indirect evidence that having children is a blessing? And that I can hardly think of a godly motivation for NOT having children, except perhaps to secure more time for devotion to God? I don't think you can just make an argument from silence for liberty in this matter, though that is not an unthinkable approach. I think my deduction is inferred from scripture, even if not commanded outright.
That is why I suggest that, while we do have liberty in these matters, scripture is not entirely silent on the issue, though it is also not explicit.
>> KEITH: You seem to see a problem with pleasure separated from consequences.
Yes, I believe that this is hedonism, something warned against in the scriptures.
Proverbs 21:17
He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich.
>>KEITH: You say that a couple that doesn't want to have kids is harboring some ungodly logic.
I would suppose so, and would challenge them to examine themselves. Again, what positive, godly world view could one have that would cause one to NOT want to have the responsibility of children, while allowing the privilege of sex and marriage?
>>KEITH: But unless you can cite a specific biblical injunction that says that all people should have kids, then the only thing you have to support your charge is your vague feeling that married couples ought to want kids…It doesn't come from the Bible and I don't see why a Christian ought to think it's true.
It's not a 'vague feeling,' it's deduction from biblical attitudes and principles regarding sex, children, and the will of God revealed in the covenental history of the bible.
I'm getting late to this party, but I wanted to throw some stuff out there.
On orgasms and the enjoyability of sex:
First off, I think Christians have done a horrible job of this. Instead of teaching young people that sex is BAD, BAD, BAD, we should teach them that it is enjoyable, but it is most enjoyable and fulfilling when we engage in it God's way – in a lifelong marriage.
The perception is obviously out there that Christians think sex is bad. While that is unbiblical, it is probably right about most Christians. According to Christianity, God created sex. He could have designed reproduction in a myriad of ways, but he chose to make it very enjoyable for humans. Many Scriptures, especially in the Song of Solomon, speak of the joy of sex – not solely for the sake of child bearing, but for the mutual enjoyment of the couple. A right Christian understanding results in a better sexual experience.
To back that up: A study in U of NY at Stony Brook and U of Chicago found that of all sexually active people, married people reported being the most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied. Sex in America reported that married women had much higher rates of usually or always having an orgasm (75 to 62%). That same study found that "physical and emotional satisfaction starts to decline when people have had more than one sexual partner."
That doesn't even delve into STD's, which if society (including Christians) actually lived out the biblical standards, STD's would be eliminated in one generation.
On divorce:
Yes, you have very similar divorce rates between self proclaimed Christians and non-Christians, but that is not the most telling statistic. The one that is most accurate and most applicable to this discussion would be the divorce rate between two virgins – it is statistically non-existent.
You can also look at the divorce rate among those that live together before they get married. Marriages preceded by cohabitation are 50 to 100 times more likely to break up than others.
Marriage in general:
Study after study show that it increases physical, mental and emotional health. It decreases the likelihood of physical aggression between the couple (it is twice as likely among cohabitors as married couples).
Personal:
I don't expect non-Christians to live a Christian lifestyle because Jesus said so. Sam, Stewart, Cin, Louis etc. don't care one bit what Jesus said or did. That's fine.
However, study after study illustrate that following the example set forth by the Bible will result in a healthier more satisfying life. You may not want to do it because Jesus said so, but people may want to consider it if they want to decrease their likelihood of divorce and increase their long term sexual satisfaction.
I am thankful that both my wife and I were able to wait until marriage. That was a gift we were able to give each other and I have no regrets now about waiting those years. Sometimes (most of the time?) delayed pleasure is much better than instant gratification.
On the topic of birth control:
My wife has a very strong conviction about this – her own personal conviction. She believes if one is pro-life then you should not take birth control that has the chance (however remote) of ended a pregnancy that has started. If you read the fine print most contraceptives will prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall. So we don't use any of the oral medication or the patches.
That being said, we aren't exactly trying to go out and have number three right now, so we use condoms.
While many may not hold that conviction, I would think that everyone can at least appreciate the consistency in the belief. It's not a matter of "it's okay for me but not for you." If nothing else, there can be no charge of hypocrisy for standing against abortion, since you are practicing what you preach in your own life and making choices that back up your beliefs. Should that be offensive to anyone?
Hi Daniel:
Thanks BTW for the discussion. I am still on vacation and have a wee bit of free time to fill. I suppose I could be doing chores around the house:-) Anyway, continuing the discussion.
1. I don't see how Christian heart attitudes imply a default position of married people ought to procreate if they are having sex. I don't even see how the heart attitudes suggest any ungodliness in the attitudes of married people who just don't want to have kids. I don't see how the heart attitudes suggest anything negative about married couples who would prefer to enjoy sexual pleasure with their spouses and never have children at all. It seems to me the heart attitudes you refer to can be summed up this way: we are to love God, our neighbors, even our enemies. It seems to me that a person could do all three of those without feeling any obligation to have children, and if said person is married he and his wife could properly enjoy sexual pleasure with each other, hoping not to have children, while at the same time exemplifying God-love, neighbor-love, enemy-love.
2. I am not saying that we are at a Malthusian point where our population is too big. My point is that it's not too small. Instructions given during underpopulation don't seem to be applicable to contrary times.
3. You cite the biblical statement that having children is a blessing. Sure, but I'm not convinced that this means all married couples ought to want to have children. I know of people who have suffered great adversity, but would tell you that their suffering was actually a blessing because it helped them grow spiritually. As Paul wrote in Romans, God works everything for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose. But this doesn't mean people should seek out these "blessed adversities". A child born from a sinful sexual encounter is also a blessing, but this doesn't count in favor of sexual sin. God's in charge of dispensing blessings IMO and what we Christians need to do is recognize the blessings when OUR plans fail–it doesn't mean we shouldn't have had the plan in the first place.
4. About pleasure separated from consequences. One thing, it is not possible to separate anything from the consequences of that thing. If your chemical birth control prevents a pregnancy then pregnancy WASN'T a consequence of the sexual encounter. Also, you cite Proverbs as saying that he who loves pleasure will become poor. But everybody DOES love pleasure, that's why they call it pleasurable. It wouldn't BE pleasure otherwise. It seems to me that what the proverb means is that those who pursue short term selfish gratification will neglect their responsibilities and long term interests. I don't think it is an indictment of doing something simply because you enjoy it.
5. You asked this question of me:
Again, what positive, godly world view could one have that would cause one to NOT want to have the responsibility of children, while allowing the privilege of sex and marriage?
I'm sorry but I guess the question doesn't make any sense to me. You could just as well ask what godly world view would cause one to want to eat a peach. All I could say is that God granted us the ability to experience pleasure and that as long as our pleasure seeking doesn't conflict with God-love, neighbor-love, or enemy-love then it is a blessing for us. I don't see how married couples wanting to remain childless while enjoying sex with their spouses conflicts with the 3-love principle I just mentioned, thus for those who do not feel called to have children, it is a blessing.
your friend
Keith