(Editor’s note: The following are Chelsen Vicari’s remarks on November 7, 2015 at the Springtime of Faith Foundation Summit in Rome, Italy.)
In 1971, a Southern Baptist Convention resolution encouraging congregants to “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” This sentiment wasn’t isolated to Baptists.
Today, faithful Evangelicals humbly admit we got abortion wrong back then. So, is it far-fetched to consider we are getting contraception wrong too?
Evangelicals often get a bad rap for not thinking through tough theological disputes deeply enough. Perhaps it’s time to prove the stereotype wrong and commit to thoughtfully reconsidering our contraception mentality.
Contraception is a touchy subject that many Evangelicals find extremely difficult to discuss. Growing up within an Evangelical Protestant denomination, I assumed that when I married I would take the Pill and control the number of children my husband and I planned. Never once did I stop to consider how this mindset conflicted with my convictions. Never was this mindset questioned, at least not out loud, by the women in my family, the women in my church, or the ministry leaders I knew. It was almost as if Protestants were sworn to secrecy when it came to discussions about chemical and hormonal contraception.
In 2011, I began to question why all the secrecy. Through a course of experiences I’ll explain in a bit, I started to wonder why a disconnect lay between Protestants and Catholics on such an important ethical, physical, and spiritual matter. The closer I ventured to marriage, the more I sought an answer to these question.
After a bit of research I was surprised to learn that up until 1930, Catholics and Protestants shared the same concerns over contraception. Then during the 1930 Council of Lambeth, the Anglican Church passed a resolution permitting married couples in grave danger to use contraception upon necessity. However, something seems to have gotten lost in translation because Protestants eventually swallowed this “hook, line, and sinker” acceptance of a contraception — especially the Pill – mindset. I humbly submit that it is time for serious reexamination by Evangelicals.
I hope that my contribution will offer you a glimpse into the ingrained mindset of an Evangelical young woman and what messages helped me to recognize the social, spiritual and physical consequences of the Pill.
Catholic friends, perhaps by sharing my story you will be encouraged and equipped to guide your Evangelical neighbors toward thinking deeply and getting to the spiritual, social and physical roots of contraception’s problems.
Evangelicals must not simply reject the issue as “Catholic” but consider what the Bible, social science and medical science have to say. And then, as a Protestant friend advised me, we must be consistent in our approach.
Contraception mentalities are not easily altered, even with all the data available to us. But please don’t give up on us. Evangelical Protestants need our Catholic brothers’ and sisters’ guidance when it comes to reexamining our use of chemical contraception (a.k.a., the Pill).
While I was still in the early stages of questioning chemical contraception, I attended a pro-life gathering of Evangelical leaders in Washington D.C. I was blessed to attend and so I took the opportunity to raise the ethical and spiritual issues with oral contraception. I asked the host, a prominent Evangelical leader, if Evangelicals’ contraception mentality is a contributor to the abortion mentality.
“In other words, should Evangelicals reconsider our contraception mentality,” I asked. Sadly, the Evangelical leader’s answer motioned around “not conflating issues;” – meaning, “We’re talking about abortion so don’t bring up contraception, Chelsen.”
But in the realm of pro-life matters, this related and essential question matters to millions of Christian women and their spouses. To be fair, maybe during a one-on-one conversation this respected Evangelical leader would directly address my concerns. Perhaps he simply hesitated to make an off-the-cuff statement on contraception in public. But therein lies the problem.
Unfortunately, this Evangelical leader’s attitude towards contraception tends to represent the overall consensus among Evangelicals. Just don’t talk about it.
But praise God, what some younger Evangelicals (and many secular women and men) are slowly starting to recognize, is that the so-called “benefits” of birth control do not outweigh the enormous risks involved – including spiritual, health safety and social risks.
There are three Ss which helped remove the scales from my eyes, when it came to the Pill. And I’d like to briefly go over the reality surrounding the Pill’s spiritual, safety, and social impacts.
Safety
Many Evangelical women just do not know that some methods of artificial contraception can be harmful.
Health safety is a key issue of concern that we all share. We know how important it is to eat right, exercise routinely, and prevent toxins from entering our body. Writer Chrissy Wing in her article for Ethika Politika comically points out that many of us obsess over our health, yet aren’t concerned over chemical contraception’s impact on our health. She writes:
It is possibly the most common paradox I have seen. Eat the meat of a cow that has consumed synthetic hormones? No! Take them yourself via a highly concentrated white pill? Yes, please, but I can only wash them down with organic juice. Chemical free…The recent storm against GMOs are enough to make me think that if birth control didn’t fall within the boundaries of ‘women’s reproductive rights,’ it would have been banned long ago.
While in graduate school at Regent University, I first realized how many of my single Evangelical girlfriends were on the Pill. Over dinner at a Buffalo Wild Wings, several of girlfriends spoke candidly of the different brands available and which ones made them feel sick or emotionally ill. I was especially struck by how each young 22-23 year old woman casually acknowledged all the physical side-effects with the various brands they tried and how they skipped over to the next brand until they found one that didn’t cause as many problems.
One of my friends would casually say, oh that brand made me sick to my stomach and gave me migraines. Another would say, while taking this brand she felt depressed and had serious mood swings. She didn’t like the woman she was while taking chemical contraception. But each young woman was determined to continue bouncing from brand to brand searching for “the right Pill for them.” It was that moment that a lightbulb went off in my head, and I knew something was off.
The medical and pharmaceutical communities aren’t helping. They make light of chemical contraception’s serious side effects and pressure young girls as young as 12-years-old to take birth control with lame excuses like acne clear-ups.
In reality, feeding the Pill to young girls before their bodies have fully developed is known to cause breast cancer. This fact alone should send a chill through every Evangelical.
Chemical contraception’s link to breast cancer isn’t the only physical side effect. Add to the list:
- Increased risk of heart attack
- Strokes
- More susceptible to growths, cysts and malignancies including:
- Ovarian cancer
- Liver cancer
- Skin cancer
- Increased risk of diabetes
- Urinary tract infections
- Epilepsy
- Asthma
- Pleurisy
- Arthritis
- Eczema
- Urticarial
- Chloasma
- Ulcers
Believe it or not, that’s not the end of the list. “Regular” side effects include:
- Depression
- Nausea
- Fatigue
- Skin rashes
- Inflammation of the gums
- Breast tenderness
- Irregular menstruation complications
- Migraine headaches
There do exist some women with medical conditions requiring them to take the Pill in order to survive. For example, my friend Lisa would hemorrhage to death if she did not take the Pill. However, Lisa will tell you her condition is extremely rare. She is the exception, not the rule.
What’s frustrating for me is how the medical community pressures young women to take birth control when totally unnecessary.
When I visited a gynecologist for the first time last year, during the initial consultation my new doctor asked me:
“Are you sexually active?” No.
“Do you have a boyfriend?” I told her I did not. She gave me a very distrustful look and then asked, “Are you on birth control?”
Really? I just expressed to this medical professional that I am not sexually active. Surely she understand by that logic, surely she can deduce that I do not need birth control. But alas she didn’t get it. So I told her “No.”
She told me, “Don’t you think you should consider your options?
I told her, “No, thank you.”
Society
Have you heard of Tinder? Or how about the more unheard of hook-up apps like Bleep, the forthcoming “Thrinder,” which is the “Tinder for threesomes,” and “Pure” which is described as the “Uber of dating apps.” Blame the Pill.
Devout Anglican C.S. Lewis wrote, “Contraceptives have made sexual indulgences far less costly within marriage and far softer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since pagan times.”
Lewis makes a great point. Champions of the Pill aren’t progressive. They are moving backwards, leading society back towards Pagan times.
The author of Grand Illusions, George Grant, wrote that early feminist heroine Margaret Sanger was on the ground floor of modern chemical contraception formulations during the 20s and 30s, she helped to fund a number of research projects. In 1950 she met a biologist named Gregory Pincus and Margaret invested over 2 million dollars over ten years into his work. By 1960 the Pill was given pharmaceutical approval by the FDA, after of course, “unprecedented media blitz and political lobbying campaign.”
What’s important to know about Margaret Sanger is that her priority was not women’s health or reproductive “justice.” Sanger was an admitted racist eugenicists. She founded Planned Parenthood in 1922 in order to regulate the reproduction of minorities, or what she called, “benign imbeciles who encourage the defective and diseased elements of humanity in their reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning.”
Fast-forward to today, and the Pill still presents a harmful social agenda. Responsible for birthing the sexual revolution, chemical contraception altered society’s moral standards and diminished women’s value by men. Mary Eberstadt, author of Adam and Eve After the Pill, explained that the sexual revolution “destigmatized and demystified” birth control, making it easier for money-hungry businessmen to objectify women’s once-cherished sexuality.
Soon our photo-shopped bodies were plastered on the front pages of Cosmopolitan and Hustler, pornography became a $10-billion-dollar industry, and emergency contraception became a sex trafficker’s best friend and out the door went men’s accountability.
After reading Eberstadt’s book, denouncing the Pill became a social justice issue for me. What Evangelical wants to adopt something that perpetuates the objectification or sex trafficking of women? Not this one.
Spiritual
By hook-line-and-sinker swallowing the Pill, Evangelical women and men are buying the lie that children are a nuisance, something to be avoided and that women’s value is based on her job title, paycheck, and body image and the Pill can help her achieve all this. But the Pill directly conflicts with God’s very first commandment given to man: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)
The principle behind the Genesis passage declares family a vital part of humanity.
Southern Baptist leader Dr. Albert Mohler acknowledged this truth when he wrote, “We must start with a rejection of the contraception mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositions…this contraceptive mentality is an insidious attack upon God’s glory in creation, and the Creator’s gift of procreation to married couples.”
Here’s what Evangelicals have missed: a strongly pushed, top-down effort among Evangelical church leaders to tell all pastors that they have an absolute moral duty to inform all couples to whom they give pre-marital counseling that they have a moral obligation to do their research, to avoid abortifacient birth control methods, seriously consider Natural Family Planning or Fertility Awareness Monitoring, and to also (down the road) avoid embryo-destructive fertility treatments like IVF – and that for any Christian couple to do anything else would be unacceptably sinful. But I’d bet that at least 90 percent of pre-marital counseling by Evangelical pastors really drops that ball by never mentioning NFP as an option.
NFP is an option that many Evangelicals do not understand and some have never even heard about it. In fact, I was 25-years-old before a Catholic friend told me about this alternative to contraception.
Here is ground on which we can truly build an Evangelical-Catholic partnership, because if more married couples understood the benefits to natural family planning, then their uninhibited acceptance of chemical contraception might be reconsidered.
I’m not alone. Some younger Evangelicals are realizing key problems with contraception that we overlooked in the past. What I hope you, my dear Catholic neighbors, realize is that now is not the time to dismiss your Evangelical brothers and sisters as sold-out supporters of the Pill. We are learning, have more to learn, and it is you who can help teach us.
I have presented the common ground. Now, with continued research, discussion, and advocacy, together Evangelicals alongside Catholics can shed light on a contraception mentality that is damaging the lives of men, women and children everywhere.
Thank you.
Comment by Orter T. on November 11, 2015 at 11:13 am
The discussion needs to be broadened to a man getting a vasectomy; is this “natural birth control”?
Reality is, much has been lost to the evangelical movement because, as you stated, they do not tend to be deep thinkers–as someone else stated, they tend to embrace Christianity of the moment and therefore lose the lessons of the past. And I say that with all the love and respect of one whose life was changed by an evangelical pastor. He is very much Christianity of the moment whereas I was steeped in Christianity of the ages–it needs to be a balance of both. I have found it a very powerful experience to walk in the company of persons from the communion of saints past and present!
Comment by jjgrndisland on November 11, 2015 at 11:30 am
Overflowing with humility.
Comment by RooforLife on November 11, 2015 at 1:25 pm
If you use the Creighton Model Fertility Care System it can help diagnose & treat female problems ie PMS, PCOD aka PCOS, endometriosis and even treat possible dangerous future pregnancy complications that happen because of PCOD check out the links below for more info. Also if you have twitter #NaproTechnology is the hashtag.
Is the Pill Medically Necessary? — An Introduction to Natural Procreative(NaPro) Technology
uses fertility cycle charting, timed bloodwork, and cooperative hormonal therapy to address a number of women’s health issues including infertility, ovarian cysts, premenstrual syndrome(PMS),
and irregular cycles http://youtu.be/DGLW9pKb1YA?t=3m7s
The Creighton model Creighton Model Fertility Care System is 99.5 effective at avoiding pregnancy 3:36 Pope Paul VI Institute: The NaProTechnology Revolution ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwvQzfM6WJw
Endometriosis and PCOD is linked also to infertility which includes multiple miscarriages.
Millions of women have PCOS/PCOD, pregnancy complications
which I hope by sharing this they will know about treatments for them that could save their lives and the lives of their children.
Excerpt from Dr Hilgers book “The NaProTechnology Revolution: Unleashing the Power in a Woman’s Cycle”~
Chapter 13~ Progesterone Support During Pregnancy
“Patients who have a previous history of spontaneous abortions,
stillbirth, preterm delivery, premature rupture of the membranes,
pregnancy-related induced hypertension or toxemia, or abruption of the placenta are considered candidates for the use of progesterone in pregnancy through the Pope Paul VI Institute protocol for progesterone support.”
Also ~ On page 291 of Dr Hilgers book it says “A threefold increase risk in postmenopausal breast cancer has been observed in women with polycystic ovaries.18 It also has been observed that breast cancer risk is increased in women with elevated male hormones. 19,20”
~
The new women’s health science of NaProTechnology is based
on the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System, which is a natural fertility tracking that generates standardized information about women’s reproductive health and enables couples to achieve or avoid pregnancy effectively. It is the only system that can be used with NaProTechnology to help diagnose and treat reproductive health problems…. http://www.unleashingthepower.info/
PCOD …Successful Surgical NaProTechnology A number of women
reading this right now might have polycystic ovaries. Polycystic ovaries are present in about 14 percent of otherwise healthy women and full-blown polycystic ovarian disease, or PCOD, afflicts approximately 6 percent of women. While many women who have PCOD do not exhibit any of the common symptoms, frequent indicators of PCOD may include amenorrhea (which is the absence of a menstrual period), obesity, facial hair (also called hirsuitism), and high blood pressure………Having polycystic ovaries puts women at risk for infertility, abnormal cholesterol levels, diabetes, high blood pressure,cardiovascular disease, thrombosis, and cancers including endometrial, ovarian and breast cancers…….
http://bit.ly/wcEs3H
In the below pdf on Medical Risks of Infertility it says”
In women who have PCOD, the incidence of gestational diabetes & pregnancy-induced hypertension is increased significantly.”
What are the Medical Risks of Infertility?
Infertility is associated with a group of diseases that affect not only the reproductive status of women but also their very health…..In women, one of the main difficulties with infertility and the organic diseases and hormonal dysfunctions that are associated with it is that these same diseases can alsocause both short- and long-term disability, impairment of one’s quality of life and even potentially the shortening of one’s life…….
Polycystic Ovarian Disease…p5, Metabolic Effects of PCOD…p7, PCOD, Dysfunctional Bleeding, and Hirsutism..p8, The most commonly cited pre-existing linkage with endometrial cancer is PCOD because it is often associated with long & irregular menstrual cycles & prolonged periods of anovulation…p9,
In women who have PCOD, the incidence of gestational diabetes & pregnancy-induced hypertension is increased significantly.106-107 In fact, even the pre-existing diagnosis of infertility will increase the risk of
pregnancy- induced hypertension in a subsequent pregnancy…p12……
In women, one of the main difficulties with infertility and the organic diseases and hormonal dysfunctions that are associated with it is that these same diseases can also cause both short- and long-term disability, impairment of one’s quality of life and even potentially the shortening of one’s life…….
Endometriosis is notorious for causing such problems as severe pelvic pain, menstrual cramps, and pain with intercourse. But it is also associated with irritable bowel syndrome, hormonal
dysfunctions, and a variety of cancers.page 2…………,
In women who have polycystic ovaries, the condition is associated with long and irregular menstrual cycles. These ovaries do not respond normally and so these women are chronically anovulatory or oligoovulatory.
Much of their infertility is due to the fact that they are not ovulating regularly and, of course, treatment is aimed at trying to assist
them with this.
Polycystic ovarian disease is often associated with a variety of different metabolic abnormalities (see later) and the increased risk of endometrial cancer is significant. These cancers are preventable with adequate evaluation and treatment and, more and more, the metabolic
abnormalities are also treatable as well.
Pelvic Pain, Dysmenorrhea, and Dyspareunia
The long-established associations between endometriosis and
pelvic pain and between endometriosis in general and infertility have been confirmed.16 The frequency of symptoms in association with
women with endometriosis are identified in Table 1. In a survey
conducted by the Endometriosis Association, 72% of patients had symptoms for six or more years before they eventually obtained adequate evaluation and treatment. Furthermore, 60% of women saw more than three physicians and 32% saw five or more physicians. This data suggests that women with endometriosis continue to
experience significant delays in the diagnosis and treatment
of this condition and they suffer considerable disruption in their
life.page5…….. http://bit.ly/zPfck2
Spirit Catholic Radio “Your Fertility CareConsult”
with Dr. Thomas Hilgers, founder of the Pope Paul VI Institute for The Study of Human Reproduction
23 Shows covering Naprotechnology, Disturbing Trends in the
Health Care 4 Women, Children & Families, Contraception, abortion, Show 13 Artifical Reproduction Technology , Women Healed (WH) of Infertility, (WH) Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion (miscarriages), (WH) Endometriosis, Show 17 (WH) Polycystic Ovarian Disease (PCOD), (WH) Premenstrual Syndrome, Postpartum Depression, Prematurity & one show Calling Young Doctors & Physicians http://bit.ly/wevEZW
Comment by guest on November 12, 2015 at 7:40 pm
By the time your generation figures out how bad contraception and abortion are physically (and okay, maybe spiritually as well) harming women, it will be too late.
People like the pope, Jeffrey Sachs, Obama, Stephen Pinker, WHO, ET al, will have mandated regulations put in place, in the name of global warming and “maternal and child health” and there will be limits on not only the number and most particularly, the spacing of children. It will effectively be enforced through taxation, non-insurance coverage for a child conceived in between the proscribed period (pay up or abort), and perhaps the biggest hammer — threats to take away existing children as another child during the interconception period is harming the mental and physical health of that child. Studies are (and have been, especially using minority women, by giving them financial incentives to participate and thus fix the stats) to create the data for “evidence based research” which will be the justification to implement the mandate.
First you mandate “free” birth control and abortions, then you mandate the womb.
Stupid, stupid, women–falling for the “it’s my right” –it’s going to come back and bite you.
Comment by Richard Kurtz on November 20, 2015 at 10:45 pm
You are an idiot.
Comment by Craig Galer on November 21, 2015 at 11:26 pm
Good argument, Richard. . .
Comment by ThereseZ on November 13, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Did I miss the discussion point where you are closing the door to Jesus when you say “we will unite our bodies, but we will stop the natural outcome of that uniting. It’s not up to the Lord whether we prevent conception, it’s up to us!” Trusting the Lord and preventing conception by abstinence, as best as possible, makes for a very intimate marriage.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm
How is it “closing the door to Jesus” by wanting to space children and properly plan your family? Show from Scripture where contraception is wrong. I’m not talking about harmful drugs or abortifacients – even “rhythm” method is contraception.
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 13, 2015 at 4:12 pm
This is a lonely voice in evangelicalism, and that is a tragedy. When I got married many years ago my wife and I bought into the birth control hook, line and sinker. Although committed to the Reformed evangelical faith, I’m full-on Catholic when it comes to birth control. Keep speaking out, Chelsen.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 2:51 pm
How about being full “biblical” rather than full Catholic? Nothing in scripture forbids contraception.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-contraception-unbiblical-ie-sinful.html
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 21, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Glenn, A lot of what is in this article is why I’m not a Catholic because a lot of this is simply not biblical, as is much of what the Catholic Church teaches, as they would agree. The Magisterium is every bit as authoritative for them as the Bible. And you are right, nothing in Scripture forbids contraception per se. But we can infer from the whole of scripture that children are not an option. I believe Christians who marry and decide to not have children are doing something profoundly unbiblical. There is nothing in the Bible that says “thout shalt have children,” but whoever would make such an argument is guilty of a biblical literalism that obscures what the Bible actually teaches. And that is that life is a gift, a blessing from God, one to be sought and embraced. Children are the only blessing of God people seem to want less of! Although I wouldn’t agree with the rationale for the Catholic position, I’m definitely at one with the spirit of it. And it has the extra added benefit of being profoundly counter cultural in the 21st Century West. Let us err if anything on the side of life!
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 3:51 pm
I have not defended the idea of no children (although I see nothing unbiblical about not having children as long as there is not a sinful reason behind it), I am only defending the right to contraception in general (within marriage of course, since no one should have to consider contraception if they aren’t fornicating). Such as just planning when to have children and how many to have. There is no where in Scripture which says we can’t space our children for better care, nor is there any requirement for minimum numbers (I’ve seen hardships in families who believe God decides how many children and they end up with 10- or more which they are unable to properly take care of, etc).
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Yeah, Glenn, I agree. But I think NOT having children is sinful, or wrong, or not how God ordained the family to be. We don’t need chapter and verse to know that.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 6:27 pm
So if woman is unable to have children except at the risk of her like, tough bananas? If the couple has a very high risk of genetic defects causing extreme retardation (I know a couple that had this problem with first 2 and decided to call it quits), tough bananas? You see, making a general statement that it is sinful or wrong is in itself wrong.
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm
I am not doing that AT ALL! All things being equal, etc. You’re the one who bring is bringing up “tough bananas.” Christians should default to having children, period. If there are extenuating circumstances, prayer and wisdom will lead the way. If you are saying that married Christian couples have the sovereign choice to have children or not, you are wrong. That is what I am saying. You can disagree with me, but I will believe based on my knowledge of the whole scope of redemptive history, that you are wrong.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 7:21 pm
No, YOU said, “NOT having children is sinful, or wrong, or not how God ordained the family to be. We don’t need chapter and verse to know that.” So you are saying that in the examples I gave these people would be sinning to not have children, which is nothing less than “tough bananas – you’re sinning.” You don’t need “prayer” to have the wisdom to not have children in circumstances I gave. And you assert, without any biblical evidence, that married couples should not have the sovereign choice to have children or not. Your declaration is just that – a non-bible based assertion. You have no more “knowledge of the whole scope of redemptive history” than do I.
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 22, 2015 at 10:05 am
Wow, Glenn. You are impressively obstinate. And contentious. What do you not understand about, “I believe you are wrong”? I could even prove you wrong to someone with half an open mind, but I’m afraid there is not enough room here in a little old comment box. Enjoy your sovereignty!
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 22, 2015 at 10:09 am
So I’m “impressively obstinate. And contentious” and you aren’t? I defend the truth – the actual facts of what the Bible says vs. tradition. You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture any facts to back up your assertions and yet you have the audacity to criticize me without facts. You cannot prove me wrong — did you even look at my article?
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 22, 2015 at 10:50 am
In fact I’m not. Go back and look at my first comment. I used the word “agree.”
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 22, 2015 at 3:37 pm
But then you began contending for your opinion as fact, saying that it is sinful to not have children, regardless of what righteous reason someone could have, and that I am wrong to suggest people have the sovereign right of not having children if the reasons are sound – you were “impressively obstinate” in your demand that your belief is the correct one. Then you had an ad hominem attack that I didn’t have a “half open mind,” to which I COULD respond applies to you. Saying you “agree” and then still obstinately contend against me by claiming you have the truth sort of says you really didn’t agree, doesn’t it?
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 23, 2015 at 4:59 pm
No, Glenn, I didn’t say you had “half an open mind.” I may have implied it, but that was not my intent. Actually, your mind is shut like a trap door. And that is not ad hominem, that is just how you come across. It appears to me you are a fundamentalist, and unless the Bible says something explicitly that settles it. The reason there is nothing in the Bible, Glenn, about contraception and commands to have children is to ancient Hebrews and Jews that would have been incomprehensible! That would have been like being commanded to breath. Not having children, Glenn, was seen as a curse. So your argument that it doesn’t say it, that settles it, is absurd, and totally and completely unpersuasive to anybody, yes, with half an open mind. I did agree with a lot of what that article said, but since you don’t do nuance, it seems I’m spitting into the wind.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 23, 2015 at 7:23 pm
And I’d say it is YOUR mind which is closed because you refuse to accept something which contradicts your tradition. And yes, I’m a fundamentalist Christian, in that I believe in and practice the fundamentals of the faith. You use the word disparagingly but if I’m in an airliner, I’d want a fundamentalist pilot, and I’d want a fundamentalist CPA doing my taxes. And no, contraception WOULDN’T be incomprehensible to the ancient Jews – find that in writings before the 2nd or 3rd century rather than just making assertions. Again, contraception as I have discussed it has nothing to do with NOT having children (with particular exceptions as noted), rather it is just about spacing them or limiting to a practical number.
Comment by Mike D'Virgilio on November 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Oh, and no need to reply because I think we’ve each had our say, and there is nothing to be gained by wasting either of our time.
Comment by Byrom on November 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Interesting discussion! I’m an “old” guy of 72 and a widower after an abundantly blessed marriage. When my wife I and got engaged, we talked about having a family, when we wanted to start, and how many children we wanted. There were at least two considerations. First, we were starting on a new adventure in life together and needed to get used to being a husband and wife. Second, with my job, we were going to be financially comfortable as a couple, but not as parents. The pill was a viable option for us in that planning, because our hormones were definitely raging. The only thing that kept us from having intercourse whenever the mood hit – which was very often – was her periods. After we had been married for two years, we started on having a family and then ran into fertility issues. My wife never took the pill again after that, and we went the adoption route.
Comment by Craig Galer on November 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm
“While in graduate school at Regent University, I first realized how many of my single Evangelical girlfriends were on the Pill.”
Why were single Christian women on the Pill? Even among serious Christians, it seems, separating sex from its natural consequences tempts us to take God’s moral law less seriously. Which is another (maybe even the main) spiritual consequence of contraception. . .
Chelsen, thank you for this. I have long maintained that contraception was never a ‘Catholic thing’ – that its effects on us are fundamentally human, not merely sectarian. But, as you say, once it was labeled as a ‘Catholic thing’, it gave too many Evangelicals a free pass to accept it uncritically.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 21, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Contraception being forbidden is indeed a “Catholic thing,” since it was the Catholic church which began teaching against it. Funny, that they approve of “rhythm” method, which is in itself contraception.
Comment by Craig Galer on November 21, 2015 at 11:23 pm
No Christians anywhere in the world allowed contraception until the Anglican Lambeth conference of 1930, as Chelsen points out in the article. So even by that account, teaching against contraception was, for 19 centuries of Christian history, a ‘Christian thing’, not just a ‘Catholic thing’. Unless you’re counting those centuries before the Reformation as specifically ‘Catholic’. . .
My point, though, was that contraception violates God’s law (and us) at the level of our created human nature, and not just on some ‘doctrinal’ level.
And I could explain to you the difference between Natural Family Planning and contraception, but you’d probably just find it tedious. . .
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 22, 2015 at 10:06 am
Nice assertions; 19 centuries? Where do you find in the Bible or early Christian writers any discussion about contraception? And, yes, it was brought into the church through the teachings of Augustine, and it was from then on a “Catholic thing.” It became tradition. Tradition is NOT “God’s law.” There is no difference between “Natural Family Planning” and “contraception.” It is just a method of contraception. DUH.
Comment by Glenn Chatfield on November 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm
This article really only address the use of the “Pill” for contraception, but contraception can be by many other ways. I agree that the Pill is dangerous and should not be used.
Just because Protestants sided with Catholics in regards to contraception in general, that doesn’t make the “doctrine” correct. There is absolutely NO biblical warrant to deny contraception unless it is because of sinful reasons. Properly planning a family by spacing out children is not a sin.
The history of denying contraception is something I examine as I demonstrate the FACT that there is nothing unbiblical or against the Christian faith by practicing contraception within marriage (all sex should be within the confines of marriage).
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-contraception-unbiblical-ie-sinful.html
Comment by Byrom on November 20, 2015 at 7:41 pm
Yes! Finally, someone making some sense of this discussion from a Biblical perspective. That was sort of my point in talking about how my late wife and I used the pill within the context of marriage. She was not on the pill during our engagement period, until an appropriate time before we married. We abstained from intercourse until after we were married – not at all an easy thing to do, but well worth it.
Comment by Lord Voldemort on November 21, 2015 at 11:05 am
I sympathize with this author to a point: I do think we as a society have misused and overused contraception. I do think that a mindset has developed that sees children as a nuisance rather than as a blessing — even within marriage. And we as a society have used the pill to rationalize casual sex that has done great harm.
That does not, however, add up to a rationale for a prohibition on the use of artificial birth control. None of these attitudes are entirely new. The desire to avoid the conception of children goes back at least to the days of Onan.
That does add up to us needing to rethink contraception though. I think it’s premature to talk about adopting an across-the-board ban. But I do think it’s time we think this through and lay down some principles for responsible use.
Ultimately the issue is larger than the pill, but the pill has become a problem. If Chelsen wants a prohibition, I think that’s premature. If she wants a rethink, and some principles for responsible use, I think we’re overdue.
Comment by Michael Bullock on November 21, 2015 at 4:48 pm
I do not believe she is asking for legal action for the pill. She is raising the question as to wether or not a Christian can use the pill. I am 74 years old and bought into birth control because it took the risk out of having fun. My wife could not deliver a child without the risk of death, so she used the pill. In retrospect I miss the children that might have been. I urge you as I urge other young people, question what you have been taught as others will sell you a bill of goods. As a Christian I fully support her position. I am not even sure we should use what used to be called the “rhythm method.”