(RNS) Is evangelical unease about contraception really just a cover for conservative white male evangelical leaders to keep women out of pulpits? Evidently some think so, or fear so, or perhaps even hope so.

That was made clear in a recent Religion News Service op-ed by Jacob Lupfer, raising a key question about the controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate: Are evangelical protests rooted in concern about religious liberty or about birth control? The answer is yes.

Lupfer argues that while the concerns are ostensibly about religious liberty, evangelical leaders are actually “attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control itself.” On that count, he understates his own case.

A good many evangelicals hope to do far more than sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control. Our concern is to raise an alarm about the entire edifice of modern sexual morality and to acknowledge that millions of evangelicals have unwittingly aided and abetted that moral revolution by an unreflective and unfaithful embrace of the contraceptive revolution.

Lupfer observes that the embrace of contraception “has become a fact of life in America.” Thus, those who push back against the contraceptive revolution are the standouts in this cultural moment, and Lupfer clearly asserts that something other than concern about birth control must really lie behind the evangelical urgency.

What would that be? According to Lupfer, “the intended effect of bemoaning contraception is to idealize pre-feminist conceptions of marriage and family.” Futhermore, he says, the concerns about contraception are “a mere skirmish in a larger theological and ideological battle.”

According to Lupfer, those larger theological and ideological battles include an evangelical ambition to increase “market share” by out-breeding those with other worldviews. He also suggests that male evangelical leaders operate out of a logic that comes down to simple arithmetic — the more children a woman has, the less likely she is to work outside of the home or to follow the modern feminist dream. But Lupfer does not stop there. He goes on to argue that keeping women out of the pulpit is the real issue, part of maintaining male control over women and their ambitions.

Wow. That is a lot to handle. Evangelical (white, male) leaders are accused of launching a moral, cultural, theological and ideological revolt against women, using the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate as pretext.

The problem with that accusation, however, is embedded in Lupfer’s own essay.

The references he cites all predate the current debate over the contraception mandate, and most long predate the election of President Obama. This is not a recent development, but a long-term evangelical reconsideration of birth control and the place of contraception within larger understandings of marriage, the family and human sexuality.

Is the current evangelical concern about the contraception mandate about religious liberty or birth control? Unavoidably, the answer is both. The issues are inextricable, and religious liberty is at stake because explicitly Christian concerns about contraception are at stake. This is not a concern about an antibiotic mandate, after all.

Is the evangelical concern about birth control part of a larger worldview? Of course it is. As a matter of fact, evangelicals did not come to the conversation about birth control until a host of other moral issues forced the question. Lupfer states that evangelical leaders “will tell you that the Protestant embrace of birth control lacked adequate theological reflection.” We will tell you that because it is true — demonstrably true. In the words of historian Kathleen Tobin, “all major denominations in the Judeo-Christian world condemned contraception” until the 20th century. As she points out, it was the liberal and mainline Protestant groups driving the acceptance of birth control, with conservative Protestants solidly against it at least until World War II. As for theology — it hardly played a part in the debates among liberal Protestants.

For evangelicals, everything changed with the advent of The Pill. And evangelical acceptance of the oral contraceptives (and, beyond that, other forms of birth control) also happened without any adequate theological reflection. Today’s generation of evangelicals is indeed reconsidering birth control, and theological concerns are driving that reconsideration.

So Lupfer is absolutely right when he asserts that far more than birth control is at stake in this debate. He is also quite right that evangelical leaders hope for a far more comprehensive embrace of human sexuality, marriage and family that is fully accountable to Scripture and the Christian worldview. As a matter of fact, he greatly underestimates this ambition.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Photo courtesy of Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Photo courtesy of SBTS.


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

But what about his accusation that male evangelical leaders are really just using all this as a pretext for patriarchy? “As with most debates in evangelical life,” he writes, “women themselves are largely excluded from the discussion.” Well, whose fault is that? Where does he cite the evangelical women who are rejecting the contraceptive revolution?

A few of those conversations might be quite enough to convince even Mr. Lupfer that the shift of the evangelical conscience on birth control — and the rise of a new urgency to recover a more biblical understanding of sex, gender roles, marriage and reproduction — represents a far more formidable challenge to modernity than his column warns his readers to fear.

(The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.)

KRE/MG END MOHLER

70 Comments

  1. Dear. Dr. Mohler:

    I am thoroughly enjoying your posts. Thank you for applying the Christian worldview to this issue. After the birth of my second child, my husband and I (he is not a believer) went round and round on the issue of contraception. After reading a great deal about oral contraceptives, the IUD, and even a tubal ligation it became very clear to me that these attempts amount to little more than humans playing God. Moreover, in most of these cases, the likelihood of aborting a fetus (albeit unknowingly) was frighteningly high. In the end, it was the theological view that God is sovereign and alone is the Author of life (not me) that caused me to put my foot down and refuse to acquiesce. I have never regretted it.

    • Sorry, Dawn. Your comment scares me to death.
      There is no need to consult barbaric customs to determine whether or not to use contraception. You were capable of making your decision completely without invoking a sky god.

  2. Dr. Mohler, thank you for the insightful commentary. Unfortunately, the article by Lupfer will be consumed without thought or discussion by our culture. I wonder how we can make our ambition part of the debate over the bully pulpits of media and politicians. Thank you for being a consistent and strong voice.

    • Serving Kids in Japan

      “A strong and consistent voice”? If only his voice were this strong when it comes to C.J. Mahaney. In spite of everything that man has admitted to, and been accused of, Mohler has still signed a glowing statement of support for Mahaney and apparently OK’d his participation at the SEBTS 20/20 Collegiate Conference next month.

      Mohler gets up in arms about the evils of birth control and the need for “biblical families”, yet supports a man who has admitted to blackmail and stands accused of shielding sexual predators. So much for courage and consistency. Maybe Mahaney just has the “right” views on marriage and sexuality?

      Those interested can read more here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/10/10/ignoring-sbc-child-sex-abuse-resolution-sebts-welcomes-cj-mahaney/

  3. Thanks for a helpful article. As a further rejoinder to Lupfer’s original article, it is worth noting that clergy and lay people in the Catholic tradition have developed and promoted forms of “natural family planning” that allow couples to space children or avoid pregnancy for periods of time without using artificial methods of contraception. These methods are based on periodic abstinence during parts of the woman’s monthly cycle and some have a very high level of effectiveness when used correctly. This undercuts the suggestion that forgoing contraception will necessarily lead to large families or draw women out of the workforce and into more traditional roles. In this regard, it will be interesting to see how natural family planning movement is received in the evangelical Protestant community.

  4. “That is a lot to handle. Evangelical (white, male) leaders are accused of launching a moral, cultural, theological and ideological revolt against women, using the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate as pretext.”

    And rightly so, despite feeble appeal to incredulity. Evangelicals frequently extol patriarchy (Quiverfull movement for example). Women are excluded from religious authority in all Evangelical Christian sects. The discussion takes on a patronizing tone of Dr. Mohler telling women what to do for their own good. Much of the discussion on the subject by Evangelicals is rife with such arrogance. Insulting and attacking women for choosing to use contraception, “slut shaming” are frequently employed arguments used by them. As if the “superior moral standing” of the Christian speaker should override any consideration of the private concerns of a person.

    What is missing from the discussion and cloaked in holier than though phony moralizing is the notion that decisions concerning contraception belong in the hands of people who are intending or not intending to use them. Nobody is attacking the right to forgo contraceptives due to their religious belief. It is the idea that one is making decisions for others on the subject which is truly objectionable.

    A “Christian worldview” does not give one the right to make determinations as to the choices others make concerning how they chose or do not chose to form families. Such choices are deeply personal and do not belong as the subject for discussion among uninvolved parties.

    If you don’t like contraception, don’t use it. Just don’t get the idea that you have any right to force others to follow along. Religious liberty is not compelling others to follow in your religious beliefs. The very opposite. It is that our laws have to ignore purely religious appeals which have no rational or secular motive.

    • You got one thing right….

      “decisions concerning contraception belong in the hands of people who are intending or not intending to use them”

      and the decision to pay for them as well.

      The rest of what you wrote is easily ignored.

      • Kinda like Mohler ignored the issue of patriarchy? Yes, evangelicals like you and Mohler are very adept at ignoring things that don’t fit your “worldview.” Like facts and reality.

        • He didn’t ignore it and neither do I. Men and women are created differently. Having a complimentarian view is accepting the truth.

          If you want to label it as something negative it is you that is ignoring facts and truth.

          • Proof that this ‘separate but equal’ is true, please. And given your name am I right in assuming you are male? Because then you won’t have experienced the silencing that comes with being female and doing or saying anything that doesn’t fit within the supposed parameters of being female. I can tell you it’s incredibly insulting to be infantilised and talked down to simply because I have XX chromosomes, to be told that my own abilities are irrelevant because my biology supposedly condemns me to one role and one role only.

          • Pam I am sorry you have experienced that. Don’t make the same mistake made towards you by dismissing views just because they come from a man.

        • Making the not-big-leap that secularists are also political liberals, I’ll ask whether liberal politicians ignore facts about the utter failure of their social programs to accomplish anything more than to add unionized federal workers to the Democrat Party voters. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent of taxpayers’ money just to launch a laughable Obamacare website. Etc. Etc. Yep, facts and reality, Eric.

      • Frank, I am fully convinced you are some kind of religious wingut trolling algorithm and not a sentient human being capable of understanding written words and concepts.

      • Religion is not only MAN made – it is MALE-made.

        Women are an afterthought to the religious people.
        I would hate for my daughter to grow up believing in Jesus or Muhammed.
        Such barbaric paternalism cannot be healthy.

        May religion fade. And may women learn to escape its absurdist clutches.

    • @Larry: you stated, “What is missing from the discussion and cloaked in holier than though phony moralizing is the notion that decisions concerning contraception belong in the hands of people who are intending or not intending to use them. Nobody is attacking the right to forgo contraceptives due to their religious belief. It is the idea that one is making decisions for others on the subject which is truly objectionable.”

      Perhaps you have not given this enough thought but you are mistaken. The discussion about contraceptives about more than whether one chooses to use them or not use them. This has been thrust upon Christians by legislation that forces people to participate in funding contraceptives using tax dollars. This law, with very narrow exceptions, forces even religious organizations to participate either directly or indirectly in something that violates not just our conscience but deeply held religious views.

      Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor issued a stay on this aspect of the law just last week. She would not have done so if she did not believe the emergency request was likely to prevail on the merits of the filing. There can be little doubt that supporters of ACA are angry with Sotomayor for issuing a stay on this part of the new law taking affect.

      Christians did not place themselves in the individual decision-making process of people choosing to (or not to) use contraceptives. Those who would force Christians to fund others’ use of contraceptives did that of their own accord. Christians are rightly opposing such a mandate.

      • Thrust upon Christians? Hardly.

        Christians are trying to throw their weight around and make decisions for everyone based on their personal peccadillos. One’s religious views does not grant privilege to apply them to the rights and privileges of others. Being an employer means having to assent to things for the sake of employees that they don’t necessarily agree with like legal wages, hours and proper forms of compensation. Just because you claim its part of your religious beliefs, doesn’t mean it can be ignored. Your religious rights end when it attacks the rights of others.

        There is no such thing as organization religious belief. People set up business entities to separate their personal lives from that of a business. If they are willing to accept such separation when it benefits them, they have to accept it when it does not.

    • Larry, if you don’t want to be branded as a socialist, you might clarify your remarks or “amend” them.

      That’s right, the decision regarding contraception belongs in the hands of the potential user. You believe that government should mandate public support (payment) of service. We do not believe this is the province of government, certainly not the federal government.

      It is not a matter of “If you don’t like contraception, dont use it.” It is a matter of government telling insurers and employers that they must provide it–despite the FACT that anyone so desiring contraception has been able to get it for decades by purchasing it.

      And then there’s the matter of public funding of contraception that is incorrectly used by those receiving it and still ending up pregnant.

      If you want to pay for your employees’ contraception, you should be able to do so without any government say in the matter. If you don’t want to pay for it and a few dependency-minded employees want it, you can tell the to buy it where they buy their bread and coffee or where they pick up their hand lotion and wart removal.

      Your posts to date tell us what you fail to say directly and I challenge you to do: “I am a socialist who believes in strong central government and more control over people’s lives.” No socialist, however, comes close to stating plainly what he believes in.

      • Ah, throwing around the “S”-word as a term of opprobrium. “If’n you likes people gettin’ the health care they needs, then you and yours ain’t nuthin’ but big gummit socialists, dag blame it!!” Awesome. Oh, and nice conspiracy baiting, too: “I knows what you really thinks in your mind thoughts–you loved up big gummit but is too fraidy-cat to say it!!!”

        Seriously, groupthink cliches like this are quite tired and, of course, do nothing to bolster your arguments. Nor does the silly claim that if people want birth control they can simply go buy it because it’s already in stories. The mandate doesn’t provide access to birth control. It provides *affordable* access to it. Because birth control is part of health care, especially women’s health care. And that’s the problem of course: how dare insurance companies be required to treat women as full persons and citizens when it comes to their health care needs. But why should female employees be denied affordable medical products just because their employers get an uncomfortable tingling in their conscience parts when they think about sex? I mean those employers could just avoid the whole mess by refusing to hire women, but that would be discrimination, right? How is refusing to provide female employees needed health care coverage not a form of discrimination, too?

          • What you understand about contraception and women’s health could fit in thimble with room to spare.

          • People have latex allergies and can’t use them. Other women use hormonal birth control for health issues outside of contraception, such as endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and to relieve severe cramps that otherwise leave them bedridden for days. These are all very serious medical conditions, with the first two having the potential when untreated to lead to infertility, depression, heart disease, strokes, and liver disease, among others. And these things don’t affect only a tiny number of women – up to 10% of women suffer PCOS. And it isn’t a case of just going out and buying the cheapest birth control pill – it needs to be the right pill for the woman in question, and that can get very expensive.
            This is about so much more than you feeling squicky that someone might be using birth control pills so they can have sex without getting pregnant. This is also about the reproductive health of many, many women who suffer from serious illnesses.

          • Pam if your doctor prescribes medication for a medical condition it should be covered. Family planning however is the responsibility of the family.

          • Frank, that could be a compromise, but I have concerns about how well that would work practically – there’s probably going to be a lot of complexity and paperwork involved in working out which gynecological services are covered and which aren’t, and it may end up still being financially out of reach for some women. If it’s all covered, then it will be cheaper.

          • That’s what insurance companies do…. Figure out what to pay for.

            Let’s do the work needed. It’s the only solution as neither side is going to give in.

        • Oh, no, contraception is not health care. It prevents the female body from operating as it was designed to operate. Pregnancy is the natural state for women’s bodies.

        • Eric, then come right out and proudly proclaim your love for socialism. Your reply exhibits what is common among the left: their refusal to acknowledge who they are. Happy Hour Ted Kennedy and Pretty Boy of the Wealthy Wives John Kerry are on record stating that they don’t know what a liberal is?

          I enjoy seeing Bob Bechel and Juan Williams on Fox because they don’t shy away from their beliefs.

        • Eric you buy the notion that contraception is “healthcare.” Most of the liberal gaggle also call abortion “women’s heath” even though it has nothing to do with health except if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s health or life.

          That’s the “progressive” view of language: change the meaning of words to accommodate your cultural or political agenda.

          The rest of your silly, emotion-based response is a hoot! It rests on your contested notion that the federal government has a Constitutional right to force employers and insurers to provide contraception. Conservatives believe that employers and insurers have a right to offer contraception as part of their insurance coverage, and we would argue that the feds have no business denying them this choice. We argue that the Constitution forbids the federal government to mandate this.

          Don’t tell us about the SCOTUS ruling, either. Conservatives argue that the judiciary, all the way to the top, is heavily weighted with judges who think they have the power to turn language on its head (the Constitution) in order to justify their rulings. You, it appears, also accept the notion of an “expansive reading” of the Document. Taken to its logical conclusions, though, this renders language itself useless as the basic tool of communication.

          Now, why not state boldly that you believe in the liberal approach to language. You could then follow up your statement by reprinting some of what you’ve written as posts to prove your belief.

        • Groupthink. Eric, does this term apply to the entire Democrat caucus in DC that voted for Obamacare without even reading the bill and without accepting any amendments to the bill offered by the GOP?

          Introspection, or even recognizing their own faces in a mirror, is not a strong suit among the liberal gaggle. Perhaps characterizing criticism of socialism as “groupthink” is not an intellectual journey down the path of political discourse.

          • Duane, you are quickly becoming a parody of the “I’m-rubber, you’re-glue” school of debate. Not as bad as Frank, but there can only be one true Troll I suppose. Keep trying though. It’s almost funny.

          • Does anyone expect logic, reason, truth or reality from Eric? I guess only those not paying attention.

          • Frank, if you reviewed the “dialog” between Eric and me, you’d find that he never takes on anything I state but merely goes for the ad hominem. For instance: He accused me of “groupthink” in promoting conservative positions. When I asked him whether “groupthink” can explain the Democrats’ actions in passing Obamacare, he didn’t respond.

            Give a liberal an opportunity to defend his positions and he’ll run away every time. “There’s no there there” in liberal philosophy or we’d get defenses of it based on philosophical principles.

            Oh, the “principles” are there alright, but the liberals dare not state flat out their concept of government because it is anti-Constitutional.

      • If wanting the full range of healthcare services to be cheaply available to all people makes me a socialist, call me socialist, then. Of course, I live in a country with a comprehensive public health system so I don’t have to pay when I go to the doctor. It is a wonderful thing. People don’t have to worry about going bankrupt for minor surgeries like they do in the USA.
        I’d also suggest familiarising yourself with all that the Bible says about caring for the poor. I’d start with the parable of the sheep and the goats, and ask where denying healthcare to the vulnerable places you.

  5. Lot of passion out there on this issue. A question about natural family planning methods. If part of the objection to other forms of contraception is that trying to control fertility is usurping God’s power, why wouldn’t that also be the case for practicing the rhythm method?

    If anyone can walk me thru the theology behind this, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

    • Maria José Vilaça

      When you use the NFP you::
      - are using your own body as God gave you and you are not “fixing it” in order to make it steril
      - are not turning intercourse into a steril act which means you don’t separate the 2 dimensions of intercourse: unitive and procreative
      - keep your heart open to the will of God instead of playing God
      - you are keeping the possibility of seeng the mistery of your spouse, You don’t cancel the reverence for the spouse which is the best way to look at him or her, being, as they are, a gift from God to you
      - when you are having sex with your spouse you say “I give you my life and my being”. You don’t say “Except my fertility”

      once I heard that it is the difference between killing grandma ou letting her die… the result can be the same – grandma is dead – but you are not the lord of life…

      Anyway, when you use NFP as if it was just another contraceptive method, it is also wrong. It is designed to be used as a way to “procreate”, create as God’s partner, according to your generosity and your possibility of having children. It is not designed to close yourself to the gift of life. It shows you the beauty of the body as God created it and helps you be in communion with your spouse and with God, which is the purpose and the foundation of Marriage.

    • The theology goes something like this:

      Every sperm is sacred.
      Every sperm is good.
      If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

      There was a famous treatise on the subject by Mr. Michael Palin and Mr. Terry Jones in 1983 something…something…Meaning of Life

  6. Perspective from a 28 year old Evangelical Christian woman: my choice to avoid hormonal birth control and iuds has had nothing to do with religious patriarchy. I married young-not because of religious pressure, in fact, against the wishes/advice of Christian family members. We got married because we were in love and felt it was the right next step for us in our relationship. And we don’t use hormonal birth control, but it has nothing to do with church leaders either. In fact, most of the Christians we know think using birth control is the right thing to do! I used the pill for a time before and after my first child and then quit, turning to NFP instead. My reasons? First because of health reasons. The WHO organization has listed hormonal contraceptives high on the list of known carcinogens. Even before this went public, I had my own doubts about their safety. As time went on I learned about the possibility of the Pill to act as an abortifacient. This is not being alarmist-it is right on the packaging if you read the fine print! In fact, I still remember every month I opened a new set of pills I would read the insert and it said that one way it can work is by not allowing a fertilized egg to implant into the uterus. As a young woman I never caught onto that phrase “fertilized egg.” And then one day I did. That is a new person. And thinking that I may have killed one of my babies devastated me. And that’s why I can never go back. My husband has always put my feelings first in the things that matter. He never thought we’d have four kids as we do now, never thought he’d even want that many. But he’s always left the matter of birth control up to me. Let me tell you life is easier with the pill-you can be selfish, you can do what you want without worries. But I knew when I “signed up” to be a Christian that life wasn’t going to be easy. I certainly don’t choose this way of life because my husband is forcing me and we don’t walk it together because of outside pressure, in fact the opposite is true. We walk it in spite of pressure not to, because we feel it is what is right given the facts. And I have begun to understand marriage and family form a Biblical standpoint better because of it. And yes,I also stay home with my kids, not because I’m forced to or even because it is the fashionable thing to do-I do it because I want to. Life would be easier if I worked and could bring in extra money. But then, all the PRICELESS lessons I have learned from having to scrimp and save, to exercise self control while out shopping and learning to plan ahead and keep the kitchen clean so we wouldn’t be eating out all the time-I am thankful to have learned these things because they will be even more of a blessing to us in the future. And all that’s just two cents from a rebel who lives life the hard way.

      • Pam, respectfully, whether they CAN act as an abortifacient or not depends on your opinion of WHEN life begins. (Some believe it is at the moment of conception and others at the time of implantation.) The pill will not cause a fertilized egg that has implanted to the uterine wall to be dislodged and cast out but it can prevent a fertilized egg to not implant. Why? Because one way in which hormonal birth control works is by keeping the uterine lining thin, thus making it hostile to a fertilized egg to implant, thus causing an abortion. But you would never even know if it happened because you would have your period as normal. Yes, the pill is also supposed to thicken the cervical mucous to keep sperm out and prevent ovulation. But as people do get pregnant on the pill, obviously sometimes breakthrough ovulation occurs and the cervical mucous is not made thick enough (and in the case of pregnancy the uterine wall is thick enough to allow the egg to implant). But don’t take my word on it, read the Insert that comes with a monthly dose of pills-Its in the fine print. All this said, who knows what the rate of abortion is from woman to woman while on the Pill. It would be a very complicated, if not highly impossible study to conduct. But in the words of a very honest pro-life doctor, we just don’t know if the Pill causes abortions or not because there is no concrete scientific data available. So what is a Christian to do? For me, it is to at all costs avoid the possible murder of one of my children, knowing I will one day stand accountable before my God. This is between me and my husband and God. Everyone must come to terms with their own consciences on this matter, as it is obviously a very serious, life altering matter.

  7. Every denomination (that means all of them) were against contraception, carrying on a tradition going back thousands of years, until Margaret Sanger (planned parent hood founder) cunningly framed the argument to evangelicals, preaching that contraception was a Roman Catholic issue. Protestants were beguiled to minimize contraception as being “Catholic” ever since.
    Even Redbook, a non-Christian publication, once talked against the evils of contraception and how it would lead to the problems we have today – and they did it long before the 1960′s sexual revolution. Why don’t your preachers preach against use of contraception as a tool of convenience? There spiritual ancestors did.

  8. Up to 1930, all of Christendom said that artificial birth control was a sin. Even sects like JW’s and Mormons agreed with this. Such agreement among 19 centuries shows this doctrine was Holy Spirit approved.

    Then in 1930 the Anglicans said it was OK, then church after church capitulated and accepted the new doctrine. Today only one church remained which held to the Apostolic Doctrine on this.

    So, when did the Bible change? Oh wait, it didn’t.

    • “So, when did the Bible change? Oh wait, it didn’t.” And the Bible says what about contraception?

      “Such agreement among 19 centuries shows this doctrine was Holy Spirit approved.” So when will you call for slavery to be legalized, in the name of “religious freedom” of course?

      • Eric, your reply to me on 10 January exhibits the very sort of liberal m.o. that makes “proponents” of such a “philosophy” laughable in political discourse. You coompletely ignored what I said in prior posts and opted instead for a generalized “slam” that means absolutely nothing.

        When you do this, Eric, you merely confirm that you’re “outta gas,” have no response, can’t actually defend your positions, and have pulled from your quiver your most potent weapon: I’m a troll.

        What every you have to say, it seems, is cannot stand rational debate. Try adopting an organized political philosophy that’s not based on emotions.

        Care to actually address something–anything– I wrote? We might both profit from this.

    • Serving Kids in Japan

      “Such agreement among 19 centuries shows this doctrine was Holy Spirit approved.”

      No, it just shows that they agreed. Not that God approved. They could still very well have been wrong.

    • At the moment, I don’t remember if it was Anglican or Presbyterian, but there is a paper outlining their decent into planned parenthood’s mindset. It listed their convention or meeting notes/resolutions over several decades. It also compared the number of children ministered had in their family during their census taking. The oldest records lined up with historical biblical Christianity regarding the issue. However, as feminism of the late 19th and early 20th century pounded on the issue, coupled with the invention of a latex product, the records showed that the number of children the ministers had decreased, even though the official message remained the same. However, the message eventually waned to the point of adopting Margret Sanger’s unbiblical philosophy or “at least the children being born are wanted”, someone someone later in these post echoed. You are correct, the Bible and the philosophy that springs from it did not change. The amount of faith, trust, and commitment has, and it began in the lives of the ones most accountable with preaching it. (BeeKay, you might like my link.)

  9. The Bible doesn’t say anything either way about birth control. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. As for me, while I’d like to have a couple of kids, I’m more than the walking uterus that a denial of access to and acceptance of birth would reduce me to.

    • Wow-”walking uterus”-really? “Reduce me to”? Please stop the denigration of your own sex. Some of us happily choose motherhood and embrace it like the high calling it is. Others want badly to become mothers and can’t. If women everywhere suddenly thought they were all too good to “lower” themselves to being a mother than the human race would go extinct. Be thankful your own mother chose to give her body to you for nine months so that you could be here today.

      • In your rush to give us a self-righteous, but painfully ironic, sermon on true womanhood, I guess you didn’t have time to read what she actually wrote. You know, where she actually says she wants kids? Maybe you should thank a feminist for demanding that women be educated and have a right to speak their minds so that you could spout off on the internet today.

      • It’s highly unlikely that suddenly “all” women will decline motherhood. Are we going through a relatively short phase of time where more women make that choice? Yes, looks like it. The fact that it will make the future look different than the past is not in and of itself a tragic thing.

        I suspect that as nature runs its course, the pendulum will swing back in the direction of more traditional looking families and more women opting back in for motherhood. For those of us who were always quite sure and quite serious that we weren’t interested, I see no value personally or socially to make a go of something that feels so unnatural.

      • The human race isn’t about to go extinct, people will always want to have children. They always will have children. That some women who don’t want to have children or only want one or two limit their families is actually a good thing. Birth control means that the children that are born are truly wanted.
        And I personally would like children. In fact I had expected to have kids by the age I am now, but instead I’m single. So good for you that you’re fulfilling this high calling – did you finish reading my comment? Did you stop to think that I am one of the women you mention wants to have kids? Did you bother to think that maybe I’m one of those women who sometimes feels heartbroken to not have kids? At the same time, I’m not sitting around just waiting until a relationship appears – I also enjoy my education and want to have a good career. Given my life circumstances, that’s pretty much my only choice right now.
        As for my own mother, firstly your comment was a horribly low blow. I am thankful for her; she’s a wonderful mother. One of the greatest gifts my mother gave me was that she’s an incredibly talented and hard-working person who’s had an amazing career and shown me that I’m only limited by my abilities. My mother achieved in a field that is still very male-dominated, and was one of only a couple of female students in her classes at university. I am thankful for my mother and don’t you dare imply that I’m not.

    • At the moment, I don’t remember if it was Anglican or Presbyterian, but there is a paper outlining their decent into planned parenthood’s mindset. It listed their convention or meeting notes/resolutions over several decades. It also compared the number of children ministeres had in their family during their census taking. The oldest records lined up with historical biblical Christianity regarding the issue. However, as feminism of the late 19th and early 20th century pounded on the issue, coupled with the invention of a latex product, the records showed that the number of children the ministers had decreased, even though the official message remained the same. However, the message eventually waned to the point of adopting Margret Sanger’s unbiblical philosophy of “at least the children being born are wanted”, something someone later in these post echoed. You are correct, the Bible and the philosophy that springs from it did not change. The amount of faith, trust, and commitment to the Bible has, and it began in the lives of the ones most accountable with preaching it. (BeeKay, you might like my link.)

      For the folks that say, “the Bible doesn’t say anything about contraception,” you really did not take in the design God built into huma racce, the family unit, and all the other factors that are involved in something the Spirit calls His heritage. Prior to this great falling away from the faith once delivered to the saints, only paganism was known to undercut God’s heritage and distinguish some children as being wanted and others as unwanted. For example, the Egyptians used to use a plant suppository that fermented inside the body to produce a chemical that is the same used today as a spermicide. Widespread use of contraception by the Egyptian culture would cause a population decline, just as it is doing now. The Hebrews did not practice such. In fact, they had a ancestral relative known by oral history to have been slain by God for defrauding his wife of the opportunity of conceiving a child during intercourse (coitus interuptus). Simple math would eventually have the Hebrews growing while the Egyptian population either grew stagnant or began to shrink. Hey, sounds a little like the story of Moses. Hmmmm. There really isn’t anything new under the sun. Unfortunately, many Christians today have more in common with the pagans of old than the saints of old.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.