Veritas Forum

Very Sir Lord Nathanael the Antediluvian of Praze-an-Beeble

Sure, the two creeds work as a good starting point, but even there we see a wide disparity in interpretation of meaning. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is largely based on interpretation/exegesis from the creeds, yet there are many things in these part of the Catechism (and its compendium) which would be contested by, say, the Baptists or Fundamentalists. This question in general may be worth a few blog posts, but I think I can't wade into it too much just yet (finals week here!).

Not to go too far on this tangent, but last night I was thinking about this issue and Nathanael's feeling that even if contraceptives aren't inherently wrong, they have caused a great deal of trouble in our society. It occurred to me that you could say the same about evolution. While (macro) evolution may or may not exist and may or may not be damaging to one's faith in God, the belief in it has served as the basis for many to "lose" their Christian faith and also helped strengthen non-believers' atheistic convictions. I personally find macro evolution to be nonsense and, to my knowledge, Nathanael believes the opposite. However, (as with contraceptives) our personal beliefs aside, I bet we can both agree that the theory of evolution (or more specifically, many of its proponents) has done great harm to the furthering of the Gospel. Just some thoughts; I'm sure there are holes in this comparison.

This is for Celebrate Life, also known as "the day job."

Well, I'd say the creeds (Apostles and Nicene) would be places to start (excepting the disagreement over the institutional nature of the holy, apostolic catholic church).

Who are you reviewing it for, Human Events or First Things? I subscribe to FT, so if you are reviewing for them, then I'm good :-)

I can't think of any, though I suppose it all depends on your definition of "orthodox." :B More seriously, I'm not sure that I know of any particularly orthodox theologians who defend contraception in theological terms. Granted, I am a bit biased on that point, as I tend to read Catholic theologians, and (as you well know) opposition to contraception is a mark of Catholic orthodoxy. However, none of the non-Catholic theologians whom I've read have really made any particularly good defenses of contraception (at least, not from a philosophical or theological standpoint). I'll let you know if I find any, and would (for the sake of intellectual curiosity) be somewhat interested if you find one. That being said, your post raises a very interesting side question: how orthodox is orthodox? Within Catholicism, the answer is a bit more obvious (though, again, there is a sort of spectrum, it's just more well defined). But what, within Christianity at large, what would you consider to be orthodoxy?

I think it might just be published in the print magazine and not online...might have to e-mail it to you.

Oooo, that sounds like a good one. Where will we access your review?

(continued...sorry, something in my post is causing an error)
This warped view has been enabled by the legalization of abortion and the invention of effective contraceptives. If we change that way of thinking (the cause, the use of contraceptives (the effect) would likely be decreased as well. But even if not, the anti-child worldview is much more damaging than the method used in its implementation. It's similar to the left claiming that banning guns will stop violence; we have to change the heart.

(continued)
From the macro view that the global population is too large to the micro view that more than three kids will break a family's bank, our mindset has been twisted to the point that we no longer believe that God calls us to "be fruitful and multiply" as much as to be stewards of the earth and our pocketbook.

hmm... can't seem to post my reply Personally, what I find much more offensive is how many people, including some of my Christian friends, imply that more than 2 or 3 children are too many. While contraceptives may be a factor in their (and our culture's) view of child-rearing, I don't think it's the primary cause. It may in fact be quite the opposite: birth control pills and the like are possibly an effect of our hedonistic society choosing to make children a burden.

I just found out that this exact topic is being discussed over at the Boundless blog. It provides much food for thought on both sides of the issue. You can check it out at http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/05/fertility_and_t.html

Teichrod - I agree that in the arenas of public debate and the formulation of public policy it is difficult, though not impossible, to argue the appeal of abstinence from contraceptives. To those whose minds and hearts stand in opposition to God, His higher wisdom will almost always appear foolish. Nevertheless, since Christians have a responsibility to the greater good of society to uphold truth, what choice do we have but to saddle ourselves with an argument that appears old-fashioned, inconvenient and distasteful?

I just finished a very good book I'm reviewing here at the day job.

The Soul of the Embryo: An enquiry into the status of the human embryo in the Christian tradition
By David Albert Jones

I agree that this my position is far from mainstream, even among fellow evangelicals, let alone in the culture at large. I don't plan on mounting any political campaigns over it, and you'll note that I'm discussing it on this small group blog rather than on Human Events. Right now, it's something to discuss among friends who are interested in trying to figure these issues out. In the future I might try more agressively to get folks to think about and discuss this issue.

I agree with all five of your points. Unfortunately, I think we are beyond turning back the cultural clock on contraceptives (at least of the kind that prevents fertilization). It is extremely difficult to make the argument against the use of contraceptives appealing to the unsaved. In our culture, it's primarily a matter of faith to believe that contraceptives are bad. Just look at your 5 points. While I agree completely with them, most of your reasoning is unlikely to appeal to a someone who doesn't believe in the Bible. #1, #4, and #5 are based on the necessity of a Judeo-Christian worldview and the belief that life at its basest form is still valuable and that sex removed from responsibility is wrong.

It is much easier to explain to a secular liberal how there is no physical difference between killing a pre-term, yet "viable," baby outside of the womb than killing that same child in utero. They really have to make a decision; either both are ok or both are evil. Of course, if we get to the point where society believes that children under, say, 3 years old have limited worth, then that argument is thrown to the wayside.

I don't have a completely firm position on contraception right now and am still thinking it through. The reason is that while I've come to see it as a net negative, I haven't quite come to agree with the Catholic view that it is intrinsically immoral. Some of my reasons for generally opposing it are:

1. Many contraceptives sometimes work by preventing the implantation of a human embryo into the uterus. Look up the mechanism for most hormonal contraceptives, and you'll see this listed as the third means by which they work. Thus, those who are going to use contraceptives should check to make sure that they are using methods that work only by preventing fertilization.

2. Without doubt, easy access to contraceptives has increased rates of adultery and fornication.

3. Hormonal contraceptives aren't good for women's health, sometimes catastrophically so.

4. Divorcing sex from children through artificial means is extremely harmful as it relates to societal attitudes about marriage, family, and the like.

5. Natural family planning (think of it as a much more sophisticated and accurate version of your grandma’s rhythm method) seems more appropriate as a means for avoiding childbirth if a couple has legitimate reasons for not having children at a certain time.


As stated before, I haven’t formed a complete theory of contraception that condemns it as always immoral. I do have reasons for disliking it, thinking that it has had pernicious effects on society, and is certainly not ideal.

So what is your position on contraception? I've never heard a very convincing argument against it on moral grounds. I am in agreement that it is likely harmful to society as a whole, whatever the type of contraceptive. My wife has had to use birth control pills (mostly of out of medical necessity) from time to time, but even though she was on them at the time, we had a baby. Since we're in our early to mid-twenties, we had hoped to be married a couple years before getting pregnant, but if God chooses you to have a baby, no human methods, beyond abstinence (except for the One case), can stop Him. I know of a couple who both had surgery to keep them from having more kids and still became pregnant afterward.

You will no doubt be gratified to learn (provided you weren't already aware) that many evangelical Protestants have never accepted contraception as a viable alternative. Such people certainly did not reflect majority opinion, but in light of the obvious negative effects of the sexual revolution on society, their stance is now causing many evangelical Protestants to re-examine their prior acceptance of contraceptives. I can speak for those of us who’ve departed from traditional structures in order to more faithfully follow scriptural precedent in saying that we teach authoritatively from scripture that control of the womb causes one to undermine one of God's primary methods of sanctification and settle for less than God’s ideal for the family, the heart of civilization. Not only that, but our leadership is first among us in teaching this truth by example -- practicing what they preach, in other words.

In a culture in which Protestant and Catholics have found themselves sometimes reluctant allies in the battle against the violent proselytizing of Islam, we would do well to take heed to something Islam has understood for years: He who has the most kids wins :D

I would like to note that Olbermann did distort my words. Anyway, I'm now quite tired of this issue, but what I have written, I have written.