NEP and the “Family Planning” Farce

on October 20, 2012
Family
(Photo credit: Elton McMillan, Jr.)

By Addie Darling

In its press release for and in its introduction to a new paper in support of contraceptives and family planning, the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good sought to “debunk” the myths it claims Christians have put forth about contraception. At the press release, Rev. Jennifer Crumpton summarized  the views NEP sought to promote through its paper and its other work:

1) Family Planning strengthens families, primarily by allowing women in particular to become educated and maintain stable jobs.

2) Family Planning protects the health of women.

3) Family Planning reduces the need for abortion.

Sadly, these statements only show a very narrow and selective definition of the “truth.”  While cloaked in Evangelical catchphrases, the premises of these conclusions rest upon a secular definition of sexual ethics. In turn, this worldview makes the assumption that children are a choice to serve the desires of the parent, and thus abortion must exist as an escape hatch for those who cannot accept the burden of a child. The attempt to dispel myths leaves us with a more twisted story that raises some serious questions.

Over the course of several articles, I will address each of these points more fully, but for now, I will just point out two overarching issue with NEP’s re-branding of Christian sexual ethics.

I agree with Richard Cizik that in this political and cultural climate, Christianity is often known for it prohibits, rather than for its positive teachings. Also, as a practicing Catholic and as a feminist, I agree with Cizik that there are a variety of ills that Christians need to be imaginative and forceful in addressing, among them poverty, single motherhood, abortion, and misogyny- particularly in institutions and within sexual relationships. However, the solution for this is not the gospel of sexual license, but rather the positive teaching held within the Church’s sexual ethics.

Christianity has a rich tradition, stretching through nearly two thousand years, that creates a positive vision and addresses all aspects of human sexuality,  including marriage, contraception, and abortion. As Christians we ought to work with these tools that God has given his church; what NEP proposes rejects these traditions founded in scripture, and molds its vision of “Evangelicalism” and Christianity as a whole to fit the fads of the secular world.

Instead, we Christians should not be “conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind,” and use that reformation to re-create the world and bring it more into alignment with the perfect Will of God.

  1. Comment by Marco Bell on October 21, 2012 at 8:54 am

    The planet can’t sustain a birth rate of the nonsecular kind.
    We must always have options to control our own human destiny.
    leave the mythical aspects of “God’s” desires to the remnants of the
    Archaic mindset.
    We as human inhabitants, have an obligation to manage our growth.

  2. Comment by Eric Lytle on October 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Marco, there is a truth so basic that only a liberal could not see it: people who love life create life. The happiest families I’ve ever known have been large families, and most selfish people I’ve known grew up as only children, or with just one sibling. I’m sure there are exceptions to these generalizations, but I think the basic truth still stands: people who love live, all life, especially human life, enjoy creating new human lives. We see children as ASSETS for the world, not CARBON FOOTPRINTS. My great-grandmother, who was one of ten kids, had a happy childhood, and her parents weren’t wringing their hands fretting over “sustainability.”

    However, I applaud your position: I think it would be great if liberals had no children at all. Then they can pat themselves on the back, covering their selfish, hedonist lifestyles under the label of “sustainability,” and “concern for the planet,” which makes them feel wonderful. If they don’t wish to pass on their genetic material, great – what would the world gain from Tyler and Brittani Liberal, both self-absorbed, waiting until their imid-30s to have one designer kid whom they will spoil rotten and indoctrinate him with their ideology? If they want to really reduce their carbon footprint, fine with me.

    I’ve always found it amusing that Madame Hillary is touted as a “child advocate,” which qualified her to publish It Takes a Village with her name on it. Not that I’d care to be in the same room with Hillary, but I’d still like to ask her: If you’re so into kids, why didn’t you and Cigar Man have more than one kid? Of course the answer is, We’re both narcissistic, ambitious jerks, and kids would just get in the way. So, to all those couples like the Clintons, I say: good choice – one kid, or better yet, no kid. Meanwhile, let the life-loving, human-loving people have kids and enrich the world.

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

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.