Archive for March, 2012

The Public Library of Science recently printed an article that showed the contraceptives we use directly reduced frogs’ ability to mate. Viewed through an environmental lens, contraception is a disaster for the frogs. That’s an interesting fact to me, not so much because of the direct harm to the environment, but moreso because it is such an unintended consequence. All technologies invented by man have effects – if they didn’t, we wouldn’t use them. But most affect us in ways we can’t always grasp – and as such, everything we do should be examined.

When in the last few weeks, the President of the United States (POTUS) decreed that the Catholic church must pay for contraception in opposition to its own teachings, he too found that there were unintended consequences to his actions. From a health perspective, we can debate if he was right or wrong, but viewed from a religious liberty perspective, it’s pretty clear this decision was an unmitigated disaster. Catholics and Baptists are often at odds theologically, but when it comes to the government forcing someone to violate their conscience, there is no disagreement.

Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not prohibit the church from interfering in matters of state – it is rather the opposite – that the Congress “may not pass any law respecting the establishment of a church” (in this case a term referring to setting up a state-sponsored church) or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. When the state meddles in the affairs of the church, bad things are bound to happen, and so it was here.

One could argue that the state makes religious laws all the time. As the Economist said in its 2/7/12 issue, Muslims can only take one wife, for instance. In the cited case of polygamy, secular law is merely a curb to a freedom afforded by religion. In the case of contraception, the secular law is forcing adherents to give material assistance to a practice that is completely prohibited. Polygamy is like your dad saying you can have ice cream, but your mom saying you’ve had too many sweets already. What the President is proposing is akin to saying that you, as an animal-rights vegan, are required to butcher the family pet and serve it for dinner to the rest of the family. One prohibits something you could do, the other compels you to do that which you ought not.

As an Episcopalian, I have a natural bent for seeking out the “via media,” the Middle Way. Generously speaking, we often seek to find theological positions that take from the best of the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. Less generously, we’re usually stuck in the middle of the road, getting hit on both sides. When it comes to contraception, Episcopalians are far more likely to be using it, and far less likely to think anything’s wrong with it – but perhaps we should. Viewed through the lens of health, I can see the President’s logic. But the Via Media teaches us to see through multiple lenses, and as such I have to look at it from the unintended angles as well. From a religious liberty perspective, it was a flop.

And, as a Christian, I also try to look at any issue through the ultimate lens – the lens of a God who is bigger than I can imagine, but who has given me as much as I can handle – in Scripture.

In the very first chapter of our bible (okay, second – but its pretty early), we believe that God gave us a simple command: “Be fruitful, and multiply.” God gave us a big, blue planet, and he wanted us to fill it. He made sex quite pleasurable in order to goad us in the right direction. For centuries, we had the desire for sex, but it was always tempered with the knowledge that it could have very drastic consequences.

To be sure, we’ve always found ways around it. As early as Genesis 38, we find Onan trying to have sex, but not children. Sheepskin condoms go back a long way and for years, we’ve tried to substitute a calendar and a rhythm for getting our groove on. But it wasn’t until the 20th Century that we found a method that was easy, safe, and really, really effective. We could finally separate sex from responsibility.

But have we? I find it funny that every birth control pill has to come with a warning: “Note: Contraceptives do not stop sexually transmitted diseases.” (Did anyone really think they did?) But see what’s happening – people forget that unwanted pregnancy is not the only danger of sex.

We also live in an age where people are more alienated from each other than ever before. In marriage, sex is supposed to bring people closer together. When two people have a child together, they are bound for life by a third. But sex without consequences provides alternative options. In a bad relationship, these are good. But in a good relationship, the mere presence of these alternatives can lead to even innocent speculation about “what else is out there.” Again, I’m not saying that it is unmitigated bad thing that there are “out clauses” but realize that the unintended consequence is the pitfall.

In the end, the warning of the frog is simply this: Contraception is bigger than you think. If its just a personal freedom issue, look outside your lens to religious liberty. If religious liberty is your lens, look up to what God is doing. You might be surprised at how big this really is.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) has an unusual structure. Although we have a hierarchical or episcopal polity, our doctrinal statements are worked out by a legislative body of delegates known as the General Conference, made up of equal numbers of clergy and laity, which meets every fourth year to examine our doctrines and amend or clarify them if needed. Once the General Conference has met and voted, the doctrines are published in the Book of Discipline.

These doctrines  are not made in a vacuum. All United Methodists are called to prayerfully reflect on the teachings of Scripture as understood through the filters of tradition, experience, and reason. General Conference brings together United Methodists from around the world to share their experiences and work together to reach an agreement.

Although the Book of Discipline discusses many subjects, it does not explicitly mention this month’s blog topic: contraception. However, contraception is related to a host of other subjects that are mentioned in the Book of Discipline, including family finances, global population, abortion, women’s health, children’s rights, and the nature of the marriage covenant.

In ¶ 161.B of the Book of Discipline, the United Methodist church affirms “the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union.”

The purpose of marriage is not merely to produce offspring. Couples who are unable to have children or who choose not to, for whatever reason, should not be made to feel like their marriage is inferior to those who do have children.

There are many reasons a couple might decide not to raise children or have more than a predetermined number.

For example, if parents are not financially able to meet the needs of a growing family, they may want to consider postponing having a family until they are able. The Book of Discipline ¶ 162.C affirms that “children have the rights to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and emotional well-being,” and that they “must be protected from economic, physical, emotional, and sexual exploitation and abuse.” Parenthood means more than the mere physical act of producing a child; it is a long-term commitment that should not be taken lightly.

Unplanned pregnancies are the leading reason for abortions. The Book of Discipline, ¶ 161.J states, “We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control,” therefore it is better for a couple to take precautions to avoid unplanned pregnancies than to conceive and then terminate the pregnancy.

Other considerations may lead a couple to decide not to bring another child into today’s world. In ancient times, when many children died before reaching adulthood and the rest went to work in their early teens, it made sense for couples to have several children. In the modern Western world, where childhood diseases have mostly been controlled or eradicated, and children spend approximately two decades receiving an education before they set off on their own, parenting is a much larger commitment. Parents need to devote more of their time and resources to each child, and thus may want to limit the size of their family.

Another consideration unique to today’s world is the reality of meeting a growing population’s needs in a world with finite resources. In the ancient world, where the largest cities measured their populations in the hundreds of thousands, large families were not a threat to the earth’s resources. Today the global population is about seven billion and we are using the earth’s resources in unsustainable ways. In taking seriously our responsibility as stewards of this earth, couples may choose not to add further to the world’s population. The Book of Discipline, ¶ 162.K, affirms this as the right and responsibility of the couple, and opposes it as government policy:

People have the duty to consider the impact on the total world community of their decisions regarding childbearing and should have access to information and appropriate means to limit their fertility, including voluntary sterilization. We affirm that programs to achieve a stabilized population should be placed in a context of total economic and social development, including an equitable use and control of resources; improvement in the status of women in all cultures; a human level of economic security, health care, and literacy for all. We oppose any policy of forced abortion or forced sterilization.

Other couples may choose not to have children due to their own health concerns. A woman with a chronic condition that could cause severe complications in a pregnancy may choose to have a tubal ligation rather than risk a pregnancy that could kill her. A 55-year-old man with high blood pressure and a family history of heart disease may be physically capable of siring a child, but may choose to have a vasectomy to guard against bringing into the world a child that he may not live long enough to raise. One partner may have a sexually transmitted disease and not want to pass it on to the other partner; the couple may choose to use a form of protection to limit the risk.

Even with the most careful of plans, a couple may conceive a child they cannot take care of. The United Methodist Church supports adoption, recognizing that it is never an easy decision to give up a child, and that it is not a lightly-made decision for a couple to raise a child they did not give birth to. The Book of Discipline ¶ 161.K states:

We affirm and support the birth parent(s) whose choice it is to allow the child to be adopted. We recognize the agony, strength, and courage of the birth parent(s) who choose(s) in hope, love, and prayer to offer the child for adoption. In addition, we also recognize the anxiety, strength, and courage of those who choose in hope, love, and prayer to be able to care for a child. We affirm and support the adoptive parent(s)’ desire to rear an adopted child as they would a biological child.

(As a side note, my wife and I have recently been certified to become adoptive parents.)

And sometimes complications arise in a pregnancy that threaten the mother’s life or health. While the United Methodist Church does not support abortion as a method of birth control, the Book of Discipline ¶ 161.J affirms that “we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.” In such situations, decisions relating to the pregnancy should be made by the couple and not a government agency, including the decision whether to terminate the pregnancy.

Finally, in order to make the best decisions, it is important for the couple to have the best information and resources available. Therefore, the Book of Discipline, ¶ 162.V states:

We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services that will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Access to information and resources should not be limited by government policy, but should be available to couples to assist them in making wise and loving choices in raising a family.

---

Next week Michael Hollinger (aka Affable Geek) will give us an Episcopalian “Via Media” point of view about contraception.

This is the Eschewmenical blog so in the spirit of Eschewmenism, I won’t be mincing any words. What I seek to present is an authentic Catholic stance on what said church teaches on the role of contraception in the family. I am a lay Catholic and not even remotely a theologian, so what I write is my opinion. But it is the opinion of one who both seeks to learn what his faith teaches and be obedient to it.

---

What is the Catholic Church’s position on Contraception?

No.

In practice, many priests will instruct people to follow their consciences, but a well formed conscience, a well formed Catholic conscience, a properly catechized and well formed Catholic conscience, an obedient and properly catechized well formed Catholic conscience will eschew adding anything to sexual relations to prevent conception as a means to regulate birth.

This is one of those hard teachings, like eating the Flesh of Christ. Surprisingly, it is not one of those teachings that makes people leave the Catholic Church.

only 16 percent [leave the Catholic Church] because of the church’s teaching on birth control.

The Hidden Exodus – National Catholic Reporter, Apr 2011

For a multitude of reasons, only one being conscious disobedience, a majority of Catholic women have used some form of contraception in their lifetime.  As a Catholic catechist, I find it hard to slip in teaching about contraception while talking to 7th, 8th and 9th graders.  But, fortunately, the United States government has given me ample opportunity to do so!

I can say something like, “right now kids, you get a chance to be martyrs, ain’t that great?” and they say, “what’s a martyr?” and I say “a witness for Christ”.

How does one be a martyr today? Rejecting the world’s teaching on contraception is a start.  This may bring down the world’s hatred, but that is a good thing.

But, how does the Catholic HHS secretary’s decision to force (as an end result) all Catholic institutions to violate their consciences make martyrs out of faithful Catholics?  Well, within marriage, we witness what we know to be true:

1. That every marital act is a renewing of the marital vows. A total gift of self.
2. That the intent of no marital act is to have as its end anything lower or different than the first. Not bonding on Fridays and babies on Tuesdays.
3. That the love between the spouses reflects the love of Christ for His Church. A total gift of self (which bears repeating).

One must not cave in to moral relativism, even if one does so in practice.  It is not difficult to tell that a few of the parents of the kids in my Catechism class either contracept or are sterilized.   I also know that some of the kids in my class rarely attend Sunday Mass.  However, I am proud of them for listening intently to me teaching the truths of the Church at this critical moment and caring about the fact that their church is being attacked. I hope they can go home and explain these things to their parents. I pray that they’ll all have a conversion of heart.

---

What is the Catholic Church’s position on Birth Control?

Yes, maybe.

If birth control ceases to be used as a euphemism for contraception. 

The name of Birth-Control, for instance, is sheer nonsense. Everybody has always exercised birth-control; even when they were so paradoxical as to permit the process to end in a birth. Everybody has always known about birth-control, even if it took the wild and unthinkable form of self-control. The question at issue concerns different forms of birth-prevention;

G.K. Chesterton – On Evil Euphemisms

Birth control, properly stated, is “Responsible Parenthood”. Not contraception, which is literally doing something to stop conception. That term is somewhere in Humane Vitae and it’s a shame it didn’t catch on.   Clearly all Catholic parents should be responsible ones, not having 19+ children out of a desire to be on television, or machismo, or a desire to cream thy enemy at the gates.  If little ones are to be continually added to the family, it must be done out of a desire to do God’s work.  God’s work, since the beginning of time, has been creating things and people.

The Catholic understanding of it is that if, for whatever reason, a grave reason, a couple can’t add to their family, they may continue having sex, but in a way that effectively does nothing to confound God’s work.  One may put up no artificial barriers to having children.

• No condoms or “onanism”, because they prevent the sperm from hitting its mark.
• No hormonal birth control, because they confuse the body into thinking it is pregnant.
• No Intrauterine Device (IUD) because of the abortifacient¹ effect in stopping implantation.
• No Plan-B (without an ovulation test) because it is an early abortion.
• No complete abstinence, without a good reason, because marriage is for the union of the sexes to create babies.

So, that leaves two choices.

• Make love often and leave everything up to God and nature.
• Plan when to make love following the scientific principles of ovulation (and breastfeed a lot after giving birth). (CCC 2270)

The last option is not called the Rhythm Method nor is it called the Calendar Method; it is Natural Family Planning. It is extremely effective if used properly, has no side effects, and its practitioners have an uncannily low divorce rate².

Natural family planning consists of charting signs of fertility:

And it’s wonderful fun.  It really puts the couple in control of their fertility, and as a man that may sound ironic (even deranged, stupid or misogynistic) but it’s male fertility too!  I don’t want this blog post to seem too much like an advertisement for NFP. But, if ads for hormonal birth control say they treat symptoms of PMS, it should be noted that the above NFP chart gives men an accurate indicator of the onset of PMS. Men who practice NFP can be ready with calming poultices and be loving husbands before the first signs of PMS!

---

---

Next week Bruce Alderman will write about the Methodist take on contraception. I’ve got a feeling it’ll be a tad more pragmatic than the Catholic stance, but I learned from asking on Christianity.SE that Calvin may have been more or less against birth control so maybe I’ll be surprised!

_{1. IUD kills a fertilized egg (i.e. a tiny human person)}

_{2. Love, Sex and Babies, Jason Evert, Catholic Answers 2004}

_{3. and mark one off on your coitus record for me}

For my first post to the Eschewmenical blog, I have two goals: define my tradition (Evangelical) and explain our position on contraception.  But the second task will require extensive work, so I will simply point to the definition supplied by the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College:

British historian David Bebbington … notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and “crucicentrism,” a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

For my purposes, “biblicism” stands out.  My approach follows the (unofficial) motto of The Evangelical Covenant Church: “Where is it written?”

When it comes to contraception, we Bible-thumping Evangelicals are at a disadvantage.   Until recently, contraception was unreliable, unscientific, and (among the ancient Hebrews at least) rare. Hence, there aren’t a lot of texts that address the issue. Men and women typically wanted children. (See Genesis 29-30.)  The story of Onan might provide some insight, but interpreters are uncertain about why God condemned him.

Thankfully, however, we can apply Biblical principles to the problem at hand.  For instance, we know that sex outside of marriage is forbidden by many texts, so contraception for unmarried people just doesn’t accord with the Bible’s way of thinking.  As I shared with the high school group at our church recently, the Bible warns us to avoid pre-marital sex:

   I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
        by the gazelles or the does of the field,
    that you not stir up or awaken love
        until it pleases.
        —Song of Solomon 2:7 (ESV)

I think we sometimes justify our actions by imagining the Bible didn’t really foresee reliable birth-control or social conventions that do not shame coming to the marriage bed as a non-virgin.  But in Hebrew, this verse is an oath (repeated three times in the poem) with consequences so severe that the bride dares not say them.  Given the delight the couple finds in enjoying each other, the bride seems intent on warning against premature sexual relations.  God isn’t in the business of stealing our fun; He wants us to avoid ruining the good things He’s provided us.  And that includes the deepening pleasures of sex within marriage.

When the Bible was written, the most common form of birth control (or more accurately, population control) was infanticide.  Unwanted newborns were regularly exposed to the elements, sacrificed to blood-thirsty gods, or sold into slavery.  What a brutal world it must have been when the most merciful option was involuntary slavery!  But both Judaism and Christianity reject infanticide because of the high value the Bible places on human life and its prohibitions against child sacrifice.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed for his role in the German plot to assassinate Hitler, was not the first to extend the principle to the pre-born:

Marriage involves acknowledgement of the right of life that is to come into being, a right which is not subject to the disposal of the married couple. Unless this right is acknowledged as a matter of principle, marriage ceases to be marriage and becomes a mere liaison. Acknowledgement of this right means making way for the free creative power of God which can cause new life to proceed from this marriage according to His will. Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life.  And that is nothing but murder.—Ethics (p.173-174)

For this reason, even Evangelical Christians who accept other forms of birth control, usually avoid any sort of abortifacient.  Since some forms of contraception could act upon a fertilized egg rather than by preventing the sperm and egg from meeting, I’ve known Christians, who are otherwise uninterested in science, do serious literature reviews about how these medical interventions work at a cellular level.

Christians from other traditions might find it strange that Evangelical denominations don’t usually have an official position on birth control.  The reason is simple: according to Genesis 2, the marriage covenant was instituted by God.  The role of the church and of the state, therefore, is merely to stand witness to the agreement made between the couple before God.  Thus, the church may advise, but not proscribe marriage practice.  Each couple must be free to act on their own convictions when it comes to having children, which means anything from not limiting family size to refusing to have children at all.

The first two chapters of Genesis provide us with two important considerations:

1. The first command God gives humanity is: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”—Genesis 1:28b (ESV) Since marriage is the only institution that allows that command to be fulfilled, it’s hard to justify purposefully childless marriages as a general pattern.
2. Sexual intercourse is not just allowed, but assumed to be a normal part of marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”—Genesis 2:24-25 (ESV) Except for limited periods of time and by mutual consent, abstinence is no more a natural form of birth control than the most invasive contraception.

Personally, this is not an empty, academic topic to mull over. Even before we were married, friends from all sides counselled my wife and I about whether and how we ought to manage our family’s size. Issues of ethics, medicine, church authority, finances, career, and so on entered into our discussions. Ultimately, we found ourselves in agreement with Bonhoeffer:

Human reproduction is a matter of the will to have a child of one’s own, and for precisely this reason it would not be right for blind impulse simply to run its course as it pleases and then go on to claim to be particularly pleasing in the eyes of God; responsible reason must have a share in this decision. There can, in fact, be weighty reasons which in a particular concrete instance will call for a limitation of the number of children. If precisely during the past hundred years birth control has become such a burning question, and if very wide circles of men of all religious denominations have expressed agreement with the principle of birth control, this is not to be interpreted simply as a falling away from the faith or as a lack of trust in God. It is undoubtedly connected with the technology in all fields of life and with the incontestable triumphs of technical science in the widest sense over the facts of nature, for example in the reduction of infant mortality and in the considerable raising of the average age of the population.—Ethics (p. 175)

In the end, it didn’t matter: our birth control method failed and we found ourselves with a son, who we love dearly, just 10 months after our wedding. God is in control! Since then, we’ve agonized, consoled, comforted, and rejoiced with our friends who have faced decisions about infertility, adoption, birth control, and raising children. Having children can entail both deep disappointments and pure joy, but it has been one of the most fulfilling experiences in my life.

---

Next week, we’ll hear from Peter Turner on the Catholic Church’s view on contraception. I disagree with that view for the most part, but I (and many other Evangelicals) stand with the Catholic Church against any mandate by the US government requiring religious institutions to pay for contraceptives.  Even when there is a clear and compelling public good requiring citizens to compromise their beliefs (such as drafting pacifists), the government must make reasonable exemptions for religious, ethical and moral convictions (such as conscientious objector status).  The United States may have many problems, but access to affordable contraception simply is not among them.  Unaccountably, the Federal government appears to hold that when it comes to healthcare, the First Amendment does not apply.

Welcome to Eschewmenical, the blog for Christianity.StackExchange.com. This is a blog where we will explore different doctrinal perspectives on a variety of topics. Rather than trying to reconcile those perspectives into a single theology we will present each perspective separately so that the reader may fairly evaluate each position.

We will devote each month to a topic and each week will offer a different doctrinal perspective on that topic. This month’s topic is Contraception. This is a rather on point subject as it has been the subject of much political debate in the United States recently. And has been a repeated topic around the Christianity StackExchange.

Christianity has a rich tradition of doctrinal diversity and disagreement and we are seeking to highlight some of that richness and celebrate the doctrinal diversity of our community. Our blog’s goal is not to try to reconcile the different views that exist between Christian groups, but to present several different points of view by each taking a different perspective on the topic. This month’s contributors are:

• 3/5: Jon Ericson (Evangelical—limited contraception within marriage)
• 3/12 Peter Turner (Catholic—Natural Family Planning, if necessary)
• 3/19: Bruce Alderman (United Methodist—Contraception as a tool for family planning)
• 3/26: Michael Hollinger (aka Affable Geek) (Episcopalian — Via Media – ‘The Middle Way’)

Please feel free to interact with our contributors through the blog comments, by asking questions on our main site or in our site’s  chat room.