Albert Mohler on Contraception

[PaulGH]

I came across the following article by Albert Mohler recently:

Can Christians Use Birth Control?

I don’t know much about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that in this article, he articulates a theological position on birth control which has many points of agreement with Catholic teaching (though he does not agree 100% with Catholic teaching on this issue).

For example, here is an excerpt:

Thus, in an ironic turn, American evangelicals are rethinking birth control even as a majority of the nation’s Roman Catholics indicate a rejection of their Church’s teaching. How should evangelicals think about the birth control question?

First, we must start with a rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositions to be avoided rather than as gifts to be received, loved, and nurtured. This contraceptive mentality is an insidious attack upon God’s glory in creation, and the Creator’s gift of procreation to the married couple.

Second, we must affirm that God gave us the gift of sex for several specific purposes, and one of those purposes is procreation. Marriage represents a perfect network of divine gifts, including sexual pleasure, emotional bonding, mutual support, procreation, and parenthood. We are not to sever these “goods” of marriage and choose only those we may desire for ourselves. Every marriage must be open to the gift of children. Even where the ability to conceive and bear children may be absent, the will to receive children must be present. To demand sexual pleasure without openness to children is to violate a sacred trust.

Third, we should look closely at the Catholic moral argument as found in Humanae Vitae. Evangelicals will find themselves in surprising agreement with much of the encyclical’s argument. As the Pope warned, widespread use of the Pill has led to “serious consequences” including marital infidelity and rampant sexual immorality. In reality, the Pill allowed a near-total abandonment of Christian sexual morality in the larger culture. Once the sex act was severed from the likelihood of childbearing, the traditional structure of sexual morality collapsed.

Now, he does go on to disagree with the Catholic teaching that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the possibility of life, and this disagreement seems to result in his overall position being inconsistent. So while I think that he ultimately does not go far enough in his “rethinking” of birth control, I was quite surprised to see a leading Evangelical theologian write the words I quoted above, which are so close to Catholic teaching on this issue. This article gives me hope that perhaps more Evangelicals will begin to embrace the traditional Christian teaching on birth control and openness to life. (And now if we could only get more Catholics to embrace it too…)

Your thoughts? If any Evangelicals are reading this, what do you think of Dr. Mohler’s position?

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

I just wanted to bump this thread one time, since it got moved here from the Moral Theology sub-forum, and I’m not sure if everyone here had a chance to see it.

 

[Contarini]

Now, he does go on to disagree with the Catholic teaching that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the possibility of life, and this disagreement seems to result in his overall position being inconsistent.

How do you find it inconsistent? I find it completely consistent. In fact, it’s arguably more coherent than the Catholic position (I say “coherent” rather than “consistent” because I don’t think the Catholic position is inconsistent; it just makes a distinction whose value is somewhat dubious and thus draws the line in a place that makes the overall position harder to defend). Mohler is saying, if I read him correctly, that the marital relationship as a whole must be open to life and that any form of birth control (natural or artificial) must be used for a specific, morally justifiable reason. I would be willing to go a step beyond Mohler and say that methods that respect rather than blocking the natural rhythms are preferable. But I think Mohler is right that the sharp distinction between natural and artificial methods puts the emphasis on the wrong place.

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

I came across the following article by Albert Mohler recently:

Can Christians Use Birth Control?

I don’t know much about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that in this article, he articulates a theological position on birth control which has many points of agreement with Catholic teaching (though he does not agree 100% with Catholic teaching on this issue).

For example, here is an excerpt:

Now, he does go on to disagree with the Catholic teaching that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the possibility of life, and this disagreement seems to result in his overall position being inconsistent. So while I think that he ultimately does not go far enough in his “rethinking” of birth control, I was quite surprised to see a leading Evangelical theologian write the words I quoted above, which are so close to Catholic teaching on this issue. This article gives me hope that perhaps more Evangelicals will begin to embrace the traditional Christian teaching on birth control and openness to life. (And now if we could only get more Catholics to embrace it too…)

Your thoughts? If any Evangelicals are reading this, what do you think of Dr. Mohler’s position?

Paul

Besides the few Protestant big guns here who actually have a clue to Catholic teaching, I predict this thread will get a whole lot of Evangelical avoidance.

No matter how you slice it, he’s still offering a view that’s more Catholic than anything else.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Now, he does go on to disagree with the Catholic teaching that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the possibility of life…

Is that really a disagreement with Catholic teaching?

The Catholic Church teaches and encourages Natural Family Planning, and I think you’ll find alot of Catholics who boast that NFP is the best way to avoid pregnancy - even better than contraception.

Contraception is not just about avoiding pregnancy; It’s about not giving your body completely to your spouse, like the way the bridegroom Jesus gave his body completely for his bride, The Church. :twocents:

 

[ForeverAdam]

Is that really a disagreement with Catholic teaching?

The Catholic Church teaches and encourages Natural Family Planning, and I think you’ll find alot of Catholics who boast that NFP is the best way to avoid pregnancy - even better than contraception.

Contraception is not just about avoiding pregnancy; It’s about not giving your body completely to your spouse, like the way the bridegroom Jesus gave his body completely for his bride, The Church. :twocents:

Non-abortive contraception would only cease to give the body completely to the spouse in the sense that the fertility of one or both of the spouses would be withheld. NFP withholds the fertility of the man through its arrangement of the marital act at a time when the man’s fertility will be wasted.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

How do you find it inconsistent? I find it completely consistent. In fact, it’s arguably more coherent than the Catholic position (I say “coherent” rather than “consistent” because I don’t think the Catholic position is inconsistent; it just makes a distinction whose value is somewhat dubious and thus draws the line in a place that makes the overall position harder to defend). Mohler is saying, if I read him correctly, that the marital relationship as a whole must be open to life and that any form of birth control (natural or artificial) must be used for a specific, morally justifiable reason. I would be willing to go a step beyond Mohler and say that methods that respect rather than blocking the natural rhythms are preferable. But I think Mohler is right that the sharp distinction between natural and artificial methods puts the emphasis on the wrong place.

Edwin

Excellent point, Edwin. If the problem with non-abortive contraception is that it deliberately keeps the marital act from being procreative, then NFP does the same by deliberately planning the act for a time when it won’t be procreative.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Loren_1of6]

And compare this “those Catholics might be on the right track” ideas of Mohler with the “those Catholics don’t go far enough” ideas of the Quiverfull movement:

We exalt Jesus Christ as Lord, and acknowledge His headship in all areas of our lives, including fertility. We exist to serve those believers who trust the Lord for family size, and to answer the questions of those seeking truth in this critical area of marriage.

I have known people who wean their babies early just because “God might want us to have another baby right now.” Some of them don’t seem to realize that there can be good valid reasons for postponing pregnancy.

 

[mark_a]

Excellent point, Edwin. If the problem with non-abortive contraception is that it deliberately keeps the marital act from being procreative, then NFP does the same by deliberately planning the act for a time when it won’t be procreative.

God bless,

Adam

Are you new here?

 

[PaulGH]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response. You asked the following:

How do you find it inconsistent? I find it completely consistent. In fact, it’s arguably more coherent than the Catholic position (I say “coherent” rather than “consistent” because I don’t think the Catholic position is inconsistent; it just makes a distinction whose value is somewhat dubious and thus draws the line in a place that makes the overall position harder to defend).

Well, first of all, let me qualify my original statement by saying that from my point of view, or in my opinion, his view is inconsistent. There are at least two reasons why I say this:

(1) Catholic teaching, as I have heard it articulated, says that there is a unitive (bonding) and a procreative aspect to the marital act, and that these two aspects should not be severed. Thus a married couple should not try to experience the unitive aspect of the act, while at the same time trying to stifle the procreative aspect. I don’t mean to sound extreme by saying this, but quite honestly, this seems to me very similar to an eating disorder where a person “binges and purges” in order to get the pleasure of eating without the nourishment that goes along with it.

And Dr. Mohler seems to come very close to agreeing that the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act should not be severed, for example, when he says the following:

Marriage represents a perfect network of divine gifts, including sexual pleasure, emotional bonding, mutual support, procreation, and parenthood. We are not to sever these “goods” of marriage and choose only those we may desire for ourselves.

However, if these goods of marriage, for example bonding and procreation, are not to be severed in the marriage as a whole (which is what Mohler argues), then how can we justify severing them within marriage at all, even temporarily? For example, if a married couple discerns that they have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy during the next year, how can one morally justify that it is OK for them to sever the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act during the course of that year, as long as they don’t sever them during other times in their marriage? You may (and probably do) see it differently, but to me this approach just doesn’t quite add up.

(2) Consider the following quote from Dr. Mohler’s article:

The focus on “each and every act” of sexual intercourse within a faithful marriage that is open to the gift of children goes beyond the biblical demand.

Dr. Mohler’s view, if I understand it correctly, is that artificial contraception can be justified in some cases within marriage, as long as the marriage as a whole is open to life, and as long as there is a serious reason for using contraception to avoid conception at a given time. However, isn’t this almost exactly what the Anglican Church said in the 1930 Lambeth Conference? And many Catholics would argue that this position, while seemingly not all that radically different than Catholic teaching as expressed in Humanae Vitae, is what opened the door to the gradual acceptance of contraception by Protestants – an acceptance that often went beyond the strict parameters set by the Lambeth Conference. Therefore, historically speaking, it just appears to me that when some theological leeway is allowed on severing the procreative and unitive aspects of contraception in some cases, it is difficult to prevent “some cases” from becoming “many or most cases.”

However, I still want to re-iterate that I am very glad to see that there is some hope of increasing agreement on this issue between Catholics and Evangelicals, even if that agreement might not reach 100% any time soon.

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

Is that really a disagreement with Catholic teaching?

The Catholic Church teaches and encourages Natural Family Planning, and I think you’ll find alot of Catholics who boast that NFP is the best way to avoid pregnancy - even better than contraception.

Yes, but aren’t we really saying the same thing? When I say that the Catholic Church teaches that each and every marriage act must be open to the possibility of procreation, I don’t mean that a couple must somehow try to become fertile when they are not, or that they can only have intercourse when or if they are both fertile. What I mean is that we should not be putting up artificial barriers to block either the husband’s or the wife’s fertility. But if a husband and wife work with the wife’s natural cycle of fertility and infertility that God designed, and if they make the sacrifice of abstaining during the fertile times for a serious reason, I don’t see this as going against the requirement that each and every act be open to procreation.

To me, the easiest way to see the distinction between contraception and natural family planning is that NFP (when used to avoid pregnancy) requires sacrifice in the form of periodic abstinence. Thus there is no severing of the fertility from the other aspects of the act, because the act does not take place during the times when fertility is most likely to be present. With contraception, on the other hand, no sacrifice is involved. The husband and wife can engage in relations any time they want without procreation being involved, because they have actively severed the procreative aspect from the act.

But of course, NFP can be misused too. If a couple used NFP to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, such as wanting to buy an extravagant new car instead of spending money on raising another child, then that would (in my opinion) be just as bad as using contraception, because the same lack of openness to life is there either way.

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

And compare this “those Catholics might be on the right track” ideas of Mohler with the “those Catholics don’t go far enough” ideas of the Quiverfull movement:

Yes, I’ve heard of them, and I have to say that I admire their convictions, even if I think that they take things further than required.

I have known people who wean their babies early just because “God might want us to have another baby right now.” Some of them don’t seem to realize that there can be good valid reasons for postponing pregnancy.

Something about that just doesn’t seem quite right to me. It seems to me that if the mother’s fertility hasn’t returned yet because of breastfeeding, then maybe this is God’s way of saying that her attention and resources are needed for the current baby for now, and that having another baby at this time would be a bit too much. There will be time for a new baby soon enough.

My wife nursed our two boys using the “ecological breastfeeding” model promoted by the Couple to Couple League, which really just means that the mom is home full time and breastfeeds the “natural” way – with no pumps, no artificial schedules, no pacifiers, and no other food or drink for the baby for the first six months (though she did have to pump for a few weeks with our first son, because of some latch-on problems, but that finally got straightened out). And with both boys, her fertility did not return until the baby was about 14 months old. (CCL says that for women using ecological breastfeeding, the return of fertility can range from six months to about two years, with 14 months being about average.) This “natural child spacing” as a result of breastfeeding is something that I knew nothing about until shortly before we had our first child, and I think that it is a really neat part of God’s design for us – especially because the ecological breastfeeding also proved to have so many other benefits, primarily mother-child attachment, but also convenience and simplicity (e.g., no bottles to mess with, especially when traveling).

For more information on ecological breastfeeding:

ccli.org/nfp/ebf/index.php

Sorry, I didn’t mean to get off on such a side-track on my own thread.

Paul

 

[Good_Daughter]

NFP withholds the fertility of the man through its arrangement of the marital act at a time when the man’s fertility will be wasted.

God bless,

Adam

I’m struggling to understand you here. How does NFP(used to avoid pregnancy) withhold a man’s fertility? If he ejaculates inside his wife, where he is meant to ejaculate, and there is no egg available to be fertilized, what has he withheld? The only thing missing is the egg and that is by God’s design during the better part of a woman’s cycle.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What I mean is that we should not be putting up artificial barriers to block either the husband’s or the wife’s fertility.

I just want to note that natural barriers (withdrawl, oral sex, etc.) that block a husband’s or wife’s fertility are also out of line with Church teaching on human sexuality. I think the key word here is barrier, whether natural or artificial.

Thanks for a very good post.

 

[Loren_1of6]

Yes, I’ve heard of them, and I have to say that I admire their convictions, even if I think that they take things further than required.

Paul, I agree with you. I think it is a wonderful gift to be able to allow God complete control of your fertility as a couple. If more of us were willing to take that step in faith, ours would be a much richer Church.

We wound up doing the ecological bf thing by accident, but it still worked the way God intended.

 

[GOP]

I came across the following article by Albert Mohler recently:

Can Christians Use Birth Control?

I don’t know much about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that in this article, he articulates a theological position on birth control which has many points of agreement with Catholic teaching (though he does not agree 100% with Catholic teaching on this issue).

For example, here is an excerpt:

Now, he does go on to disagree with the Catholic teaching that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the possibility of life, and this disagreement seems to result in his overall position being inconsistent. So while I think that he ultimately does not go far enough in his “rethinking” of birth control, I was quite surprised to see a leading Evangelical theologian write the words I quoted above, which are so close to Catholic teaching on this issue. This article gives me hope that perhaps more Evangelicals will begin to embrace the traditional Christian teaching on birth control and openness to life. (And now if we could only get more Catholics to embrace it too…)

Your thoughts? If any Evangelicals are reading this, what do you think of Dr. Mohler’s position?

Paul

Albert Mohler is a wise man!