Rachel Held Evans Dodges “the Pill” Discussion

on February 1, 2014

Rachel Held Evan’s communication skills need work. The popular blogger acted as a mouth-piece for the Evangelical Left, yet again. Only this time, she blogged without regard for the well-being of her female readership.

Rachel was hesitant to approach the contraception conversation, despite being a self-proclaimed “Jesus Feminist” and asserting that she cares about the issues Christian women face. What’s more, she merely tossed in the Evangelical Left’s talking points before quickly retreating, only to leave the real questions Christian women face when considering contraception totally unanswered.

Upon first glance at Rachel’s piece, I briefly thought to myself, great! It was exciting to see that another Christian woman was joining the contraception conversation. We need more of this. But after reading on, disappointment quickly started to sink in.

In her blog, Rachel alleges that, “after reading multiple blog posts and articles this week from Christian men about women and contraception, I decided to add my two cents as a pro-life woman of faith who supports affordable access to birth control for women. Just to offer another perspective.” (Emphasis mine)

I will admit that I have tired of reading of birth control opinions from prominent male figure heads on both the Religious Right and Religious Left (Jim Wallis, Richard Cizik, David Gushee and Brian McLaren have each thrust their views on women’s issues onto Christian women). Do not get me wrong, I am thankful for men like Jacob Lupfer, Al Mohler, Andrew Walker, and Denny Burk, who have recently tried to start an evangelical birth control narrative. But these men must face it, they can really only speak so far into this issue (Gentlemen, it is  time to pass the torch to the women in the room). Which is why I, and other Christian women, have written so authentically regarding the birth control issue.

For the past few months evangelical young women have been honestly talking about contraception in the public realm. In Christianity Today, 25-year old mom, Brianna Meade, writes a personal account that shows the need for greater spiritual and moral consideration by Christians — as well as great discussion in the Church at large —  before embracing contraception types. In my Christian Post article, I bypassed the traditional “just say no” lingo by opting to provide scientific reasoning and social science data — in conjunction with Scripture — that provide women with the serious physical, emotional, socio-economic, and spiritual impacts that preclude many evangelicals from endorsing the Pill.

These issues are all where the discussion lies among young Christian women. Yet, Rachel clearly chose to ignore our responses (even after I tweeted the multiple times to the Twitter junkie).

After explaining that the problems with the Pill center around economic and male privilege,  Rachel writes, “As we discuss contraception, Christians especially must be committed to telling the truth and getting our facts straight, or else we risk losing credibility in the conversation and leading the faithful astray.” Too bad she did not actually offer women any facts on the spiritual, social and emotion and physical impacts of the Pill. 

Brianna Meade and I may not even see eye-to-eye on this issue, but we are able to acknowledge one another. We have complemented each other on bringing various arguments “to the table.” We appreciate each other for being honest, vulnerable, and authentic when speaking to the birth control issue.

Isn’t this what liberal Christians like Rachel want? Real authentic conversation and vulnerability work both ways. Christian women are discussing contraception. Our views may not always align, but instead of pretending like each other does not exist, we must still acknowledge one another. This is what it means to truly care about other Christian women and the issues we all confront at some point in our lives.

Dialogue – without evading the physical, social, and moral issues at hand- is healthy and extremely important when discussing the Pill. Because offering misinformation and bad facts to women just to save face with your partisan ideology, could have heartbreaking, life-altering consequences.

  1. Comment by Marco Bell on February 2, 2014 at 10:21 am

    What is it about contraception that requires conversation, that hasn’t already been discussed?

    Since 1972, when my participation in the realm of sex went beyond just myself, I knew that protection from pregnancy was paramount. Not just for the female but also for the mutually obligated male partner. In the day, it was called, the responsible way to engage.

    I understand that there will always be those, that for one reason or another, (religious, cultural, or personal), sex, and contraception will not be something that comes without extreme trepidation.

    Back in the seventies it seemed that Catholics had preferred the “rhythm” method. If anything, that may have put people more in touch with their physiological self, ie: menstrual cycle etc. but that ostensibly put most men outside the equation when it came to knowing the female body. Ergo, more burdens on women, and more unlicensed liberty for men. NOT a level playing field!

    So I guess we DO need more conversation on this subject after all.

    However, I’m still not sure where Rachel Held-Evans dropped the ball, or evaded the subject?

    Please advise.

  2. Comment by CKG on February 13, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    You don’t really say why “protection from pregnancy was paramount”; I mean, if you were married to your sexual partner, it might be inconvenient for this, that, or another reason, but I don’t quite see how it’s of ‘paramount’ importance.

    But if you’re not married, then yeah, things look quite a bit different. For one thing, you’re putting yourself at cross-purposes with the 6th commandment, and two millennia of Christian teaching and practice. But we are talking about specifically Christian approaches to contraception here, so I’ll presume that’s not the case. . .

    You seem to conflate the ‘Rhythm Method’ with the vastly more sophisticated forms of Natural Family Planning available today. It’s true that, in the course of tracking the natural fertility of a woman’s body, both she and her – let’s just call him her husband, shall we? – together become more aware of her body in all its earthy, creature-ly splendor. But, it wouldn’t be true in general (certainly not of my wife and me, nor, as near as I can tell from conversations we’ve had, of other couples we know who practice NFP) that it “ostensibly put[s] most men outside the equation when it [comes] to knowing the female body”. A wise husband will make darn sure that he’s an active and involved participant in the process, and that his wife perceives him so. In marriage, sex, fertility, and the begetting of children are most definitely mutual, shared concerns.

    But again, if you’re not married, then, yeah, the male probably isn’t gonna be as involved in the process as the female is; he’s got less at stake than she does. But then, that’s no different than The Pill, or any other form of contraception, for that matter, is it?.

  3. Comment by John Lomperis on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Actually, Marco, when a married Christian couple practices Natural Family Planning (NFP) and the husband shares responsibility for charting, it helps her to know and appreciate his wife’s body a lot MORE than he may have otherwise.

  4. Comment by Kay Glines on February 2, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    I find it interesting that Evans calls herself a “Jesus feminist.” I have a hunch this is one of those combinations where one part overpowers the other, and judging from her writings, Jesus has taken a back seat to feminism. I think at some point in every Christian’s life he or she has to toss everything else aside and say “Jesus, YOU are the big thing in my life, and I will not take your name in vain by claiming your authority and blessing for my own transitory opinions and causes.” I wish Evans would mature enough to figure this out, because she and her fans are adhering to one of the shallowest forms of “spiritual but not religious.”

  5. Comment by Marco Bell on February 3, 2014 at 8:21 am

    There is a distinction between Religious and Spiritual. It’s not just lexical semantics, so don’t diminish her scope by your limited measure.

  6. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on February 3, 2014 at 10:43 am

    Kay, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

    While the modern left yields to it much more frequently, it is always a temptation for politically active people, regardless of ideology, to assert that Jesus would endorse their politics. But which came first, Jesus or their politics? The more central question, however, is do they endorse Jesus’ agenda (which transcends politics).

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.