Is Birth Control a Sin?
8 March 2007Classic church doctrine since the time of Saint Augustine and before has condemned contraceptive practices as sinful. Is contraception really a sin, and if not, what types of birth control are acceptable for the Christian? This debate has taken on even greater significance with the recent controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic denunciation of contraceptives in poverty-stricken Africa, which some fear contributes to overpopulation, sexually transmitted disease, and perennially poor families.
Biblical Verses Used to Prohibit Contraceptives
By far the most common biblical story used to support the anti-contraceptive stance is account of Onan in the book of Genesis. According to the account:
“At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and lay with her; she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” [Genesis 38:1-10]
Many seem to consider this a knock-down case for the anti-contraception stance, but does this verse really demonstrate that contraception is sinful? It seems to me almost embarrassingly obvious that, in context, Onan’s sin was deliberately refusing to birth a son for his brother and his brother’s wife. There is no good reason to consider this passage as evidence that God explicitly condones contraceptive practices per se.
It is important also to realize the cultural context in which this story took place. After all, this story may seem strange to us in modern society, who would be shocked at the implication that we should have sex with our brother’s wife if she was without a child. But in ancient times, maintaining a family line was essential for survival (children took care of their parents in old age) and important to maintain honor. This is why Biblical characters are often disgraced and ashamed of being barren, and rejoice and praise God when He gives them a child (see Luke 1:24-25, Genesis 30: 22-24, and Genesis 21:1-7 for examples). Sons were needed to maintain the family line. This is why Onan had such a duty to fulfill in the first place.
Thus, it is quite clear that Onan’s sin was refusing to birth a son for his deceased brother. It remains possible that contraceptive practices are sinful, but the story of Onan certainly doesn’t prove such a thing.
Some will argue that the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ found in Genesis 1:28 argues against the use of contraceptives. However, at best this demonstrates that we have an obligation to have children, it does not prove that we should have as many kids as possible or that we should never use contraceptives. This is simply inconclusive.
Thus, it seems apparent that there are no clear instances where contraceptive practices are condemned in the Bible, and we should therefore be very skeptical of those who want to make the universal claim that birth control is wrong.
Other Arguments Against Contraceptives
Some claim that use of birth control is inherently disrespectful to the marriage union, it fails to take into account the fact that children are a blessing from God, and it separates procreation from sex (which is supposedly sinful). In addition to being speculative, these objections fail to show that contraception is always wrong. After all, some may decide to use birth control to stop from having more kids for the time being due to a financial situation or some other factor. Birth control does not necessarily entail that a couple never has kids, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to stop having kids. Obviously, a couple who use birth control within the confines of marriage are not implicitly demonstrating that they don’t believe children are a blessing from God. They may just not be ready yet, or they may already have ten children and be unable to support more.
Probably one of the most common arguments against birth control is that the Church has almost unanimously condemned it throughout history. However, this point only holds sway for Catholics who believe that church tradition is authoritative. Without such a prior commitment to church tradition, the unanimity of opposition to contraceptives is no argument against them, though we should take the views of the church’s leaders, and the evidence offered for them, into account.
There are also a slew of claims that birth control is bad for society. Supposedly, it increases abortion frequency, encourages premarital sex, leads to the spread of STDs, etc. I’m willing to grant all of this, but it clearly has no bearing on whether or not, at the foundational level, birth control is wrong. I am only contending that birth control is acceptable when it does not involve abortion and it is within the confines of a marriage. The fact that contraceptives have been misused outside of this context does not prove that contraceptives are wrong in and of themselves.
Finally, many claim that we should not use birth control because we should let God decide when we have children. Using contraceptives might interfere with His perfect will for us. Furthermore, it is better for us to trust God, and believe that he will provide for us financially and emotionally to handle as many children as we have naturally.
This objection makes the mistake of believing that God’s will is only achieved through natural causes, but can be ruined by human choices. In reality, God works through our choices to accomplish His will. Moreover, in most other areas of our life we recognize the need to make responsible choices rather than sitting back and relying on God to take care of us. Nobody waits around at home believing that God will just provide them with the amount of food that they need- they go to work, get a paycheck, and buy enough food to survive. In reality, God gives us the ability to make responsible choices for ourselves.
Arguments for Contraceptives in the Bible
Can we adduce any evidence in favor of birth control in the Bible? There are no direct verses in support, but, I believe that the Biblical testimony argues against the claim made by many opponents of birth control that it is inherently sinful to separate sex from procreation.
For example, Paul wrote;
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” [1 Corinthians 7:3-5]
This verse clearly demonstrates that the purpose of marriage is not only for procreation. Paul tells us that we should not withhold from our spouses. Thus, it is not merely ok to have sex within marriage for pleasure, it is actually mandatory.
Moreover, I would argue that the entire book Song of Solomon argues against the idea that procreation is the only purpose of sex. I don’t think one could fairly read the book and conclude that God only gave us the gift of sex so that we can produce children.
Other Arguments in Favor of Contraceptives
There is another major problem with claiming that it is sinful to separate procreation from marital sex- what about couples who are infertile, either by old age or by physical limitations? Is it wrong for people who are infertile to have sex? Is it wrong for old people to have sex? Almost everyone has to admit that there is nothing morally wrong with infertile sex; in fact, most would think it morally repulsive to claim that such people should never have sex. Moreover, this would also conflict with Paul’s teaching about fulfilling marital duties.
Finally, sometimes there are very good moral reasons to use birth control. A couple who wants to limit the number of children they have because they can’t support more, either for financial reasons or because they want to be able to spend enough individual time with each child, should use birth control. Doing otherwise could harm the family as a whole or the current children in particular. This is not to say that all couples should limit themselves to a few children- this must be considered on a case by case basis. I have nothing against large families- in fact, I would probably be perfectly happy having 9 or 10 kids. Obviously, however, this isn’t for everyone, so for those couples who can’t support so many children, contraceptive use may be morally justified and even morally good.
This point becomes particularly relevant when we consider the case in Africa, where some Catholics discourage use of birth control. Many argue that this has worsened problems like the spread of STDs (especially AIDS) and created families with too many children to be supported with even bare minimal needs. While the specific cases may be debatable, these problems help highlight the possible relevance of the discussion of birth control for alleviating worldwide suffering.
Conclusion
There are no sound Biblical arguments against the use of birth control, nor are there any convincing extra-Biblical reasons to prohibit their use. The story of Onan, frequently used to demonstrate that birth control is immoral, must be ripped wildly out of context to be thought to have any relevance to the debate. The primary natural reasoning for avoiding birth control- that we should trust God to provide for our needs and decide the number of children we have- is based on the misconception that God cannot work His will through human choices (a point which we recognize in almost all other areas of our lives).
Since I believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, any birth control methods which involve or have a risk of abortion of any kind is immoral. Yet, there are several responsible forms of birth control that can reasonably be used within the context of marriage. Couples should therefore feel free to decide for themselves whether, and when, use of contraceptives is appropriate and desirable.
——————————————————————————————————————
Very well done.
— Jayme Mar 10, 04:38 PM #
/nod
— Kathy Apr 19, 04:03 AM #
Are you saying that a child destined to suffer a miserable life and death does not have the right to live at all because of his parents’ misfortune? Are big families only for the rich? If every mother new prior to conception that her child would suffer greatly in life and that she would have to witness that suffering, would you recommend that she not have the child? Thank God that a 14 year old Jewish girl out of wedlock, who was soon to be married to a poor Jewish carpenter, in a war torn land, did not choose to wait till things got better before she was generous enough to trust in God and bring our savior into this world or the very suffering that we are trying to avoid would have fallen on all mankind. God bless those women that know these are God’s children that he will provide for, for all eternity, not our children that we have only in time.
— Craig May 7, 02:56 PM #
Craig,
I never said that a child ‘destined to suffer’ does not have the right to live. There is a clear difference between an actual child, which deserves protection and should not be aborted, and a ‘potential’ child that does not even exist. Moreover, if you are attempting to make an analogy between Mary’s obedience to God and the moral status of birth control, I think the connection is extremely weak. Mary was directly called to birth Jesus, whereas, presumably, this is not the case with the vast majority of women. God gives us the ability to make prudent decisions, including when it is best to have children.
— Kyle Deming May 7, 09:57 PM #
Also, Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin She couldn’t decide whether or not she wanted to have the baby since it was in God’s plan.. Since everything happens for a reason, if God wanted us women to have children, then he would take that 1% chance that birth control doesn’t work, and use it to make us pregnant. I don’t believe abortions are right, but certainly birth control is. Without birth control in Africa many babies are born with AIDS and are destined to suffer and die.
— GG Jun 14, 03:28 PM #
Psalm 127:3
Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him.
or in the ESV:
Psalm 127:3-5Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
Clearly these verses say nothing of a child’s inherent value being conditional. Especially if one considers the terms under which and the conditions into which children of the day were born, it is laughable to knowingly prevent Almighty God from blessing one with children. Were one’s employer to come to them and say “Sir/Ma’am, I want to give you a raise and increases your position to one much more fruitful and advantageous amongst your peers”, would one ever consider saying to that man or woman; “Thank you, but I decline.” In the same way, how do we as insolent and endlessly depraved human beings claim right to gauge when we will receive what the Psalmist clearly states is a blessing from God. The greatest sins of man occur when he witlessly twists the Word of God or interprets it in his own light, giving the words there in (and by extension God Himself) the inclinations, ideals, thoughts, intentions, or personality which comes about through the sinful imagination of man, instead of simply viewing God’s Words on their own and paying heed to what they clearly state, before being subjected to the sinfully resourceful desires of our own hardened hearts.
Great areas of Europe and even America (though to a lesser extent) are quickly becoming overrun by secularists, atheists, and new age false deists because firstly, Christian parenting is disgustingly lacking and between 75 and 88 percent of Christian youth have renounced it by their sophomore year in college, and secondly because Christian parents have accepted the common hatred of children, which has led even those who would claim true Christian belief to scorn the parents of a family with more than 2 or (on the condition that the first two children were the same gender and you wanted to try one more time) 3 children, while Muslims, for example, maintain a steady rate of an average five children per family, and given enough time will literally have bred them selves into the majority, while Christians will have continued to have an average 1.8 children per family; not even enough to replace the generation before, much less “be fruitful and multiply.” Oddly enough (sarcasm intended), these large families end up doing just fine because they are willing to make some of the selfless decisions required to raise a larger family. Namely, these sacrifices come in terms of the financial gains and material possessions of the parents. When two able bodied middle class Americans justify their decision to use birth control to prevent the blessing of children by saying that they simply “could not afford a child”. What they are really saying is, “we are unwilling to assume a certain level of material worth and gain which might be below what is regularly accepted as the “deserved” amount of personal possessions, and as a result we wish to tell God when and under what conditions He may provide this blessing in our life.”
The self-justification of God’s Word continues on in this light, but I leave the reader to reevaluate the Words of the Spirit so kindly granted us by a loving God, and through prayer and close study of the untainted selfless Scripture consider their current state of mind.
— Frank Aug 16, 10:03 PM #
Frank,
I agree with you that the value of a child’s life is not conditional, and I hope you don’t think that is what I’m arguing.
You lament the idea of Christians twisting God’s Word and using it to mean what they want it to mean, and rightly so. Yet, it appears to me that if anyone is guilty of such a thing, it is you. The verses you cite have absolutely nothing to do with the ethics of birth control; it is only by making certain inferences that you are able to justify your position. That’s all fine, there is nothing wrong with trying to justify a position on the basis of reasonable inferences. But you can’t claim that I am “witlessly twisting” the Word of God to support birth control within the confines of marriage, since the texts you cite do not demonstrate that birth control is, by nature, immoral.
Moreover, I agree with you that Christian families who can reasonably support many children probably should have many children (though I think it is too strong to claim that, biblically, they are morally required to do so.) Indeed, I hope to have a large family. But these points do nothing to reverse the arguments I offered for the permissibility of birth control.
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Aug 17, 12:29 AM #
When referring to 1 Cor. 7:3-5, you said it was mandatory for the man to please his wife. In verse 6, Apostle Paul clearly says it is a concession, not a command…
Let’s hear what the protestant fathers have to say about Onan.
Luther:
” Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. [Genesis 38:9, 10].This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, Yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates; and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment … He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him…” (Luther, Martin Luthers Works, Volume Seven)
Calvin:
“Besides [Onan] ... preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother’s name….It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. ...Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, (contraception) then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, ....” (Calvin, John Commentary on Genesis)
Wesley:
“Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, ... he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord—And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls. ” (Wesley, John Commentary on Genesis)
— James Nov 1, 04:40 PM #
James,
Paul’s statement that he is offering a ‘concession, not a command’ is probably referring to the whole discussion of marriage in the passage. Paul clearly prefers singleness, so he is pointing out that he does not ‘command’ marriage and all that goes along with it. But this does not mean that we are free to follow or not follow the directive to please our spouse once we are inside the covenant of marriage. But even if you are correct and the directive to sexually please one’s spouse is “optional” (according to Paul), then clearly it is still morally good for us to do it. Otherwise, why would Paul say it at all?
The Protestant fathers you quote are all guilty of extrapolating beyond the text to meet their conclusions.
Wesley seems to make the correct conclusion when he says,
“Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, ... he refused to raise up seed unto his brother.”
The key point here is that Onan’s action was abusive to his wife (who wanted a son) and his brother (who needed a son to carry on his line). Nothing that any of these men say justifies inferring from the account that contraception is immoral.
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Nov 7, 04:16 PM #
There is a short book by Randy Alcorn addressing the issue of the pill being used as a contraceptive that also enters into the ethical debate. The book is titled: “Does the Birth Control Pill cause Abortions?”. What this book adds to the debate is not merely if contraceptives are used, but also what type of contraceptives are ethical. Alcorn, a pastor who did pre-marital counseling had been instructing couples to use the pill, but in a pursuit to be better informed about the scientific evidence about the pill, he researched and wrote this short book.
Essentially he found that in order to avoid evidence that the pill causes abortions, the pharmaceutical companies and doctors in the 70’s changed the definition of when life starts: is it when the egg is fertilized, or is it when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus?
The ethical issue to be discussed is the use of this form of contraceptive. One of the functions of the pill is to make the uterus a hostile environment for a fertilized egg to implant. If life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then one of the purposes of the pill is to abort a fertilized life-given egg.
Anyways, it is worth a read to enter into the ethics of the use of contraceptives.
Byron
— byron Dec 23, 11:57 PM #
Kyle,
Very well written and informative. I recently had questions on this topic, and you seem to have answered them very well. It just doesn’t seem right to me that birth control would be wrong, but I didn’t feel I had a way to argue that logically. God bless.
— Jon May 17, 03:16 AM #
Got a question regarding Onan – my Catholic brother maintains that he was struck down not for disobedience to God – but rather for the spilling of semen (in arguing against contraception). He points to the fact that not taking your brothers widow was public humiliation (not death) see Deut 25:7-10 which clearly states just that. What would you say to this?
— Chris Trulin Jun 26, 11:02 AM #
There are some great points here. I’m still undecided about where I stand on this issue, but I’m grateful for your input, Kyle.
I especially like what you said here:
“This objection makes the mistake of believing that God’s will is only achieved through natural causes, but can be ruined by human choices. In reality, God works through our choices to accomplish His will.
That’s a powerful argument that I haven’t heard applied to this issue.
Still, I’d be interested in finding a response to the question in the quote above by Chris.
Thanks for taking on these discussions.
— Marshall Jun 26, 06:51 PM #
God has everything happen for a reason. If He did not want a baby born, He would make it so. Great article, by the way.
— Mikel Oct 28, 01:33 PM #
I’ve left this alone for a long time, but I have returned after my frustrations with this past election dealing with life issues. Do you find it odd that no orthodox Christian supported any type of artificial birth control before the 1900’s?
The core of the issue comes down to the beliefs on the purpose of sex: procreation vrs pleasure.
Pope John Paul II actually went to the point to say if a husband looks at his wife with a lustful eye, he has committed adultery. Having sex for pleasure, while eliminating the possibility of life, is reacting to the physical feeling only, while eliminating the consequences.
While using a combination between Bonhoeffer’s teaching on “the departure of the origin” and a CS Lewis’ analogy I will attempt to show how JPII was right on.
Sex is necessary for survival, just as food is. If one eats beyond the point of being full, he is considered a glutton because the purpose of the act was fulfilled. He was full, therefore, he should stop eating or he is departing from the origin of the act.
The purpose of sex is for two to become one flesh. Two cannot become one if you eliminate the most essential part of the act. Ergo, if people have sex while eliminating the possibility of life, they are committing adultery.
— james Nov 22, 12:55 PM #
InvitationToVisit:
http://christian-birthcontrol.angelcities.com/index.html
The Christian freedom to use birth control –
Online Bible Examination Of The Subject
http://christian-birthcontrol.angelcities.com/page2.html
A Look At Onan And Birth Control
InvitationToVisit:
http://christian-newcovenant.angelcities.com/index.html
Explores – What The New Covenant of Christ did for personal liberty.
— Manning Jan 13, 05:37 AM #
Dear Friend,
Onan died because he wasted his ejaculation, for he reserved the right to refuse impregnating Shuah (see Deuteronomy 25:7).
— tyrone ferrara Feb 20, 10:33 PM #
Chris –
“my Catholic brother maintains that he was struck down not for disobedience to God – but rather for the spilling of semen (in arguing against contraception).”
This is not correct. Onan was put to death because of disobedience. However, the catalyst for his death was the spilling of his seed, which was the means in which he was disobedient.
— james Jun 4, 11:39 PM #
This article is very one sided. You never once mention that in biblical times there was no birth control. Thus when a couple did not want children, they didn’t have sex. This is God’s way. Anything else is exploiting procreation for pleasure instead of it’s true purpose.
Birth control now destroys our environment, the pill is found in our water supply, meaning we are now preventing ANIMALS from reproducing and destroying species/environments. The pill destroys women’s bodies as well, many get older to have bone loss deficiency. In the mean time birth control has made it even easier to cheat, be promiscuous, and causes strains in marriages when one side wishes to abstain. If the birth control fails a child is created which makes the opportunity for abortions or emergency pills. It causes strain on the relationship when a child was not wanted. Then if the woman decides to have the children it makes for an unstable environment for that child. Sometimes the mother will neglect that child because “it was a mistake” which is so untrue since sex = procreation. There are no mistakes if you are participating in the act.
Before birth control couples would abstain when they did not want children. If you truly love your spouse then you could go without sex. However if you demand it and say you “need” it then it shows you are simply doing it because you are selfish. You are using their body for yourself which is immoral. This once again puts a strain on the relationship. I have seen husbands who demand their wives have sex with them and thus the wife does so in order to please him. She does not want to but she feels if she does not she will lose her husband to another.You think you ‘religious’ people would follow Jesus and love unconditionally but no, you have your demands to make YOU happy. You have to EXPLOIT sex and you call it “love.” Disgraceful. And all you need to say is “if i did not have birth control would i have sex?” Chance’s are most would not take the risk.
Birth control in Eden would be the fig/apple. It’s merely a temptation leading into sin, you either take it or you don’t.
You can disagree but at least say it is just because you want to get off, not because it’s “okay to do.” Stop doing your own will, do God’s.
One final thing, if God REALLY wanted you to have sex for recreation he would have made it so NATURALLY from day one. But guess what? He did not. There is no kids: on/off switch.
I think it is well known on Earth more people are concerned about their own selfish pleasures and not about their salvation. Thus most of you will never enter the gates. Mathematically speaking only 2% will ever enter. How sad but that is what is deserved.
— christina Jul 12, 04:00 PM #
Wow Christina, I really feel sorry for you.
— Stew Jul 16, 01:00 AM #
Christina –
In your reply, you assume that not having sex in order to avoid having children is “God’s way,” but you provide no reason to think that’s true. Do you have any Biblical support for this position?
A large portion of your reply deals with the negative consequences of the birth control pill. However, the pill is only one method of birth control – what about condoms? It may be the case that the pill is harmful to society and our environment, but at best this means we should not use or advocate the use of this particular form on birth control.
You also reiterate the incorrect assumption that sex is “for” procreation and not “for” pleasure. This is a mistake that I addressed in the article, with specific verses that support my position. Moreover, your response reveals, in my opinion, a very low view of sex and the place of sex within a healthy marriage. It is true that we should not force our spouse into having sex by claiming that we “need” it and exploit them – that’s not the point at all. Reread Paul, who’s quoted in the article, and you’ll see that sex is about mutual giving, not mutual taking. In a healthy marriage, spouses want to have sex with their partner not just because it feels good, but because the spouse wants to make the other fulfilled. And if you really think sex for pleasure is so bad, then your real beef is with St. Paul, who declared in God’s Word that spouses should not withhold sex from one another, except by mutual consent for prayer.
Finally, in your reply you seem to be pointing the finger at me a bit, saying things like “it is just because you want to get off.” I am not sure if you are attempting to personalize this, but I can assure you that such statements do not apply to me. I am an unmarried virgin, and if my true goal was to “get off” the last thing I’d be doing is writing an article about the permissibility of birth control on my Christian apologetics website.
James –
You wrote this a while ago, but I would like to say a few words in response. Once again, your reply makes the mistake of assuming that sex ‘just for pleasure’ is a bad thing. What verse in the Bible even implies this, let alone states this position? Looking at your own wife with a ‘lustful eye’ simply means looking at your wife and having a desire to engage in sex. There is simply no way this is a sin at all, and calling it adultery is just an abuse of the term. Having sexual desire for your spouse is a great good, and turning it into a perverse act is seriously misguided. Again, I would challenge anyone to find such a view of marriage or sex mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Moreover, this view seems to have a lot of ridiculous consequences. Do couples who are infertile sin by having sex, or by “lusting” after one another? Are we allowed to have sex with our spouses while they are pregnant? After all, there is zero chance of a baby being produced when a woman is in the middle of her pregnancy. According to your view (and against Paul’s) we should withhold from sex for the nine months of pregnancy. That your view implies this absurdity is further confirmed when we take a close look at your “gluttony” analogy – in exactly the same way, once your wife is pregnant, the “purpose of the act has been fulfilled” (according to you) and to engage in sex further is sin. Finally, even most Catholics, to my knowledge, affirm that ‘family planning’ is ok – which basically involves withholding from sex when you are most likely to have a child. Why wouldn’t this classify as adulterous?
Lastly, I just don’t see the justification for your claim that “Two cannot become one if you eliminate the most essential part of the act.” Who said that having babies is the most essential part of the act? I certainly grant that it is a major component, but you have not even argued for this strong stance. Given the fact that the vast majority of sexual encounters DON’T produce a baby, perhaps we should be a bit more cautious claiming that this is the primary or only reason God created sex? Even if it was the essential component, how do you know that birth control eliminates the possibility of two becoming one flesh? And once again I must press the point – what about older couples or infertile couples? Can they become one flesh by joining together in the sexual act?
Once again, I would like to clarify that I love kids, and in fact most people think I’m crazy because I want at least 5 or 6. Indeed, children are one of God’s greatest blessings and gifts and we should certainly be thankful for them. However, the fact remains that there is no clear Biblical condemnation of non-abortive birth control, and so I think we do no justice to the Word of God by pretending that it does.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Jul 17, 11:27 PM #
Hi there,
Great article!
I am getting married in less than a month and so far have considered birth control that doesn’t kill life like the pill as legitimate.
However, my greatest struggle currently has mainly to do with the attitude behind birth control.
And just so there is no misunderstanding, I do believe that sex is a wonderful blessing of God belonging exlusively into marriage and that recreation and procreation are both vital reasons behind it.
However, what I currently struggle with is that at least in my mind, I am saying to God: I can’t wait to experience this great gift of sex in marriage and while I do want to have the pleasure, I do not want to have the child. At least not for right now. I love your design for sex in marriage but I’d love to stick with the pleasure aspect and not deal with the possible child aspect for now. Thus – at least in my mind – I rebel against God’s original design, which I take to be pleasure plus the possibility of a child.
I am not worried about frustrating God’s plans and I do believe that God works through means – we might even get pregnant while being on birth control like so many other couples – but God’s sovereignty hardly is an argument for the legitimacy of my actions. God accomplishes his purposes even IN SPITE of my sin and not because of it.
Again my main hesitation at this point is the motivation and attitude behind using birth control.
Using an aspirin against head aches or building a bridge in order to cross a lake somehow don’t make for a convincing analogies as pertaining to birth control – at least not in my eyes.
Any thoughts on this issue would be greatly appreciated – from both sides! Thank you.
Alex
— Alex Jul 23, 12:50 PM #
Why not embrace the Biblical doctrine of surrender. Childbearing is an issue of faith vs faithlessness.How dare we assume the right to reject any gift God offers. How dare we to asume we might even begin to understand ourselves or God’s plan better than He.
What is your position on masturbation? Based on the authors arguments, matsurbation would also be very acceptable. So let’s enjoy.
Your logic effectively removes all boundaries that are Holy and Good. Be careful.
Ask God for his will and guidance.Then submit to His plan.
— Charles Aug 3, 01:32 AM #
Wow, this is certainly a controversial article! Before continuing to respond to some objections here, I would like to say straightforward that I am by no means hard-line committed to this view. As a matter of personal preference, I don’t know if I even will ever want to use birth control – after all, I’d like to have at least 6 kids! As far as the moral import goes, I think this issue pales in comparison to other issues of the day, particularly abortion. However, I do believe that many people are falsely claiming that the Bible condemns birth control. This is simply false in my view, and we do an injustice to God and His word when we pretend otherwise.
Charles,
What exactly is the “Biblical doctrine of surrender?” That sounds like it was made up. I think I know what you mean…you are saying that we should surrender to God’s will and have a child if that’s what happens. I already addressed this objection in some detail in the article and you haven’t responded – ‘surrendering’ to God’s will does not mean that we make no proactive decisions. God accomplishes His purposes in part through our proactive actions.
You claim that childbearing is an issue of “faith vs. faithlessness.’ To be honest, you are really stretching here. In my defense of the permissibility of birth control, I offered very specific Biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments that I think support my position. In response, the vast majority of critics have failed to even address these arguments, and have instead relied upon vague statements like “it’s an issue of faith vs. faithlessness.” Such speculations hardly stand up in the face of a Biblical and theological case, such as the one I’ve tried to build.
Just admit it, there isn’t any direct Biblical evidence that birth control is morally wrong. Now, that doesn’t mean the issue is case closed, we still have to consider other arguments. But it does mean that we should be careful before slinging around claims that users of birth control are being “faithless,” “sinful,” or “self-centered.” This strikes me as repeating the fault of the Pharisees, who actually ADDED ON to God’s law and condemned those who didn’t follow their man-made rules. Why shouldn’t I conclude that you too are simply adding on to God’s Word?
Concerning masturbation, the problem here is that it usually (perhaps invariably) involves lust. Masturbation is wrong because of the lust aspect in my opinion.
You claim that my “logic effectively removes all boundaries that are Holy and Good.” Wow, strong statement! Especially considering that I endorse sex only within a monogamous marital union – is that not a “Holy and Good” boundary?
Alex,
You raise a good point here. Intention has a lot to do with morality, and even if something is technically “ok” it can still be a sin if we do it for the wrong motives.
Here, I would take a look at the motivations you have for considering the use of birth control. Is it for entirely selfish purposes like growing your wealth (kids are expensive!). That probably wouldn’t be a justified reason. Is it because you want to wait till you are financially able to raise children effectively? That could actually be a good motive. Perhaps your goal is to take a few years growing closer to your wife before raising kids? I don’t see how that is a sinful motivation, after all, it might actually improve your parenting ability a bit later in life.
I’m no pastor, but I suppose that is my best advice. Good luck in your marriage!
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Aug 4, 08:19 PM #
Kyle,
Thanks for the article. I appreciate your open and loving attitude.
I agree with you that we cannot say definitively say that scripture prohibits the use of contraception. However, I don’t see how your sex during pregnancy or sex in old age analogies can be considered in your argument because they are both examples of natural means where God and/or nature does not allow conception. They are not artificial means by which we are choosing not to allow conception. Thus, having sex in these examples (within marriage) is perfectly reasonable and not sinful. It seems to me that the pleasure of sex is secondary to producing new life. I don’t think the two should be pitted against each other. The pleasure and the oneness aspects are like the icing on the cake and the actual cake (or substance) is procreation or the openness to the possibility of life. I liked your comments to Alex about the motivations behind the use of birth control. The Catholic Church validates these health and financial motivations for preventing pregnancy while endorsing natural means via Natural Family Planning.
The real issue or fear for my wife and I is the risk of conception in later stages of life where birth defects or endangerment to the life of the mother becomes a legitimate concern.
Also, I haven’t seen you respond to the two comments about Deut 25…why?
— Ramiro Aug 8, 05:33 PM #
I like what Kyle said about the Pharisees. Catholics like to add rules as well, they also disobey what the word says.
Maybe we should read the bible and ask God about what we should do.
— Casey (I'm a guy) Sep 21, 09:12 AM #
What a general, uncharitable and ignorant thing to say Casey. At least try to be a little more respectful and maybe give some back up to what you’re trying to assert.
— Ramiro Oct 14, 09:48 AM #
I got married at the age of 19 with the attitude that God controls birth and it is a sin to use any forms of birth control. Well nine months later my beautiful daughter was born…she turned a year and 5 months old and my second daughter was born. During this time I lost 20 lbs (I weighed 90 lbs) and suffered deadly migraines to the point that I could not care for my babies. I have no family that lives near by so I was on my own. I finally got really angry at the God and that His will can be so horrible for me. I couldn’t enjoy my kids because just taking care of their basic needs was taking up all my time and energy. When will I teach them to about Daniel and the lions or Samson and his strength? How will I put them on the right path while they are young so they will never be swayed away? My pastor says that our goal is to multiply Gods kingdom but if I have 17 kids and they are all not Christian because I didn’t have time to teach them anything well I guess I just multiplied the wrong kingdom! I want to use the Natural Family Planning just to have some space between kids to enjoy them and teach them how to be in the world but not of it. My pastor calls that “out-smarting God”.
1. Example #1: There is a wife in our church that has two kids, first was born at 8 months and the second was born at 6 months. Can it be Gods will for her to give birth every year to premature children?
2. Example #2: My friend Amanda has two children as well. After each child she has post-pardum depression to the point that she had to be hospitalized for attempting to hurt the children. She ended up having her tubes tied. Is she sinning? Is it God’s will for her to keep having kids and possible hurting them?
3. Example #3: An elderly woman that recently passed away was diagnosed with epilepsy when she first got married. She has seizure 4-6 times a day. She gave birth to 8 kids. All have been dropped from her arms as tiny infants because she doesn’t know when she will have an attack. Thank God all of them survived and are perfectly healthy. But she told me that she was not allowed to hold any of them unless she was on the bed.
Yes, every family has a different situation so that is why God did not make it a commandment to have kids until you either die or get too old. Kids are a result of sex. Just like God gives us wisdom how to plant a garden and reap vegetables he gives us wisdom when to have sex to either get pregnant or when to avoid sex to not get pregnant.
— Alyssa Nov 22, 10:42 PM #
Sensible, well written article. I agree on most everything you said. I quote Ellen White: (well-known Adventist author) “Before increasing their family, they should take into consideration whether God would be glorified or dishonored by their bringing children into the world. They should seek to glorify God by their union from the first, and during every year of their married life. God has given you reason, and He requires you to use it. In view of the responsibility that devolves upon parents, it should be carefully considered whether it is best to bring children into the family. Has the mother sufficient strength to care for her children? And can the father give such advantages as will rightly mold and educate the child? How little is the destiny of the child considered! The gratification of passion is the only thought, and burdens are brought upon the wife and mother which undermine her vitality and paralyze her spiritual power. In broken health and with discouraged spirits she finds herself surrounded by a little flock whom she cannot care for as she should. They have no right to bring children into the world to be a burden to others. Have they a business that they can rely upon to sustain a family so that they need not become a burden to others? If they have not, they commit a crime in bringing children into the world to suffer for want of proper care, food, and clothing.”
-The Adventist Home
— Azzi Dec 17, 07:53 PM #
I would actually expect a cult to have distorted views of the sexual act and its purpose, so no surprise there. I would challenge you to think about this issue a little further. Here’s a great book on the subject I just got done reading: Bryan C. Hodge, “The Christian Case against Contraception: Making the Case from Historical, Biblical, Systematic and Practical Theology and Ethics” (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010).
— Joe Dec 28, 04:10 PM #
If we agree that sex has two main purposes, unitive and procreative, or babies and bonding, then an over indulgence in the act of sex while abandoning a core purpose is morally disordered. This is why the parallel to eating is so effective. When an act is outside of its natural intention it is simply disordered.
What verse in the Bible says that everything about our Christian lives should be in the Bible? Could you show me a verse that says married couples can use contraceptives?
Could you explain how the lustful eyes of the married man are different to that of the single man? Because a man is married to a woman he is then allowed to think of her as an object???
The problem with contraceptives are that it is against natural law. Natural defects such as infertility or understanding the rhythm of a woman’s cycle is in no way a disorder to Gods intentions. Contraception is using an unnatural method to prevent the natural from happening. Also, the Catholic Church is very clear that NFP is not intended to be a substitution for procreation, but a natural means to be responsible parents without abandoning the nature of sex.
To comment further on Deut. 25: (Taken from www.scripturecatholic.com)
Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Gen. 38:11-26 – Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 – the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.
Here are two two quotes from a second century Christian:“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).
“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).
— James Jan 10, 04:24 PM #