Thanks Nick,

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings, really- the truth is, we are all idolators (especially me) and it creeps into how we think about things like this. If we do an idol check, I think we'll often find one. I'm not worried about the snark because it "bothers" me, Heather- I'm not that sensitive =-). My concern is that in trying to help people think biblically and hold "right" positions, this type of forum is leading people into sinful actions. There are (I think- and I apologize if I'm wrong) real heart issues on display in the comments that are pretty much the opposite of the fruit of the spirit. We don't get to gloss over this for the sake of searching the scriptures together. I agree with you, Nick that this is an important part of our protestant history and no, it (searching the scriptures and wresting with the things of God) should not just be left to seasoned and prepared leaders, but if those who are responsible for instituting this forum are only concerned with Christians thinking right, but not about their hearts (and what precipitates out of those hearts onto these "pages") then I don't think they're doing a very good job in shepherding and leading people into edification and away from disunity. I wasn't name calling, I was heart calling. Our hearts and the motivation of our hearts matter as much (if not more so) than what we think about this topic. I am not asking for unity at the sake of wrestling- please don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking "why can't we all just get along?" but I am concerned that one set of sins (harshness, self-righteousness, unkindness, impatience, lack of self-control) are being seen as less important than how one thinks (and communicates) on the topic of singles in the church and birth control. Now, I am all for sinful hearts (usually mine) being uncovered so that sin can be dealt with. I guess if these debates bring that about, then they're good. Carry on. (yep, that last point was made with a wee bit of sarcasm, but also wholly truthful =-)

Wow 83 comments. I can't imagine why this was even debatable. I think if a church leader is going to tell singles to use birth control then they are responsible for all the sin that results in compromising the word of God. They are supposed to guard and lead the flock. Not tell them how to make their sin seem like less than another sin. What are they supposed to say?

Oh sure I had sex out side of marriage but at least I'm not as bad as those people that had abortions.

Thank you Matt,

No defense of Joe needed- again, I like the idea of seasoned, prepared, leaders with a clear and concise platform debating these ideas- it helps us hear the reasoning behind the positions. I am thankful for that. Perhaps what I might have said instead (on the point of the ensuing discussion) is "please consider closing the comments."

Appreciatively,
Melissa

I am not sure your rephrase really changes the issue, and I think Mr. Anderson's response still applies. Saying contraception should be used "as a last resort" is still saying sex among singles is inevitable. I don't believe it is inevitable.

The context you provide still needs the gospel of grace. Jesus Christ is the answer to our own sinfulness here, too - not contraception as some sort of compromise (how can we compromise on purity or gospel faithfulness?). I guess as I was reading your second paragraph, I couldn't help but think of this:

"Encourage thieves to use better theft kits but only as a last resort when they can no longer control their desire to steal, all the while ensuring that they agree to be part of a functioning, biblical community..." Should any Christian endorse such a compromise? How then, can we be okay with anything that compromises on Biblical purity? On the contrary, the Bible says, "Let the thief no longer steal"...and the Bible details purity to the point of fornication being a certain sin. We have to rely on Christ to help us overcome our sinful desires.

Sorry about the tangent here, but your comment got me thinking about it all. :)

To me this boils down to a different (and already htly debate one, as can be seen in the Comments!)

Do you believe bc is ok for married couples? Is no, then for all the same reasons it's not ok, similiar if your answer is yes.

I know that many, including mr. Anderson say that approval of bc for non married people is condoning sin, and not addressing the root cause of not either not knowing Christ it not relying on His strength to help you resist temptation, and while I agree with this is the cause, I wonder if mr Anderson applies this concept to other areas. Would he write the same article condemning gastric bypass surgery?

Obesity is epidemic in this country, either from the sin of gluttony in overeating or from idolatry from turning to food for comfort and strength instead of the Lord. Yet I've never seen Christian pastors it theologians take the same stance with heart bypass which saves you from the natural consequences of your sin like they do on birth control. Baby the dichotomy?

Just to clarify and defend Joe a little, TGC is summarizing an existing debate. They did not request it or start it or have any input about who participated. The fact that it's Professor Paris and I that are engaging in it is strictly accidental.

Best,

matt

Thanks Nick,

I wrote my thoughts in a post below. I truly appreciate your thoughts and interaction!

I posted my thoughts on the whole thing below, including my thoughts on having a woman defend position #2. Thanks for asking =-) Do you have any thoughts on it?

I appreciate what TGC is trying to do, to get people to think biblically about an important topic facing the church today. I just don’t think that an unmoderated debate open to anyone is the proper forum. For those of us who hold to an orthodox position (the heart of TGC) the point that this is even a question is troubling, was made early on. What I see here, is a not a real debate, but a teaching tool, and position #2 is the losing position from a correct and biblical reading of scripture.

The fact that it was given to a woman (I understand why-she wrote a book on it) implicitly upholds some incorrect complementarian views on the ability and roles of a woman (disclaimer-I am a complimentarian) and does women a disservice. Again- this was implicit, not explicit. It may not have been done purposely (in fact I am certain it was not) but when you ask women to take a “losing” position on a teaching topic, you set them up to look foolish and encourage wrong thinking in some about the gifting and roles of women. I say “losing,” again, because of what TGC is and does- holds to orthodox teaching of the gospel, therefore position #2 never had a chance (and rightly so.)

Position #2 might be acceptable to some who call themselves Christ followers- for me this was an acceptable position for years, for all of the reasons that the proponents have raised… until I came to understand that my view of what was “good,” a family with 2 loving parents who get to ‘decide’ the size of their family and have plenty of money and resources to raise that family well, and have the American dream… was nothing but idolatry. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone call out the reasoning behind this position with love, kindness and grace, as what I see it for: idolatry. Again, I say this having been (and in some areas still) an idolator of the highest magnitude!

I think TGC wants to teach people, and I applaud them for it- we need sound, biblical teaching, but please don’t do it in this forum. For one, you can see how it brings out the absolute worst in people- they even seem to justify their sinful behavior because they’re ‘defending the word of God.’ Also, it seems to have taken up an awful lot of peoples’ time, as they hung out here, or came back over and over, to see who had written what, that they must then answer. If this is the case, then this forum is (I would say) probably tempting some to spend time in ways that aren’t edifying or proper. If people are doing this from work, are they working as unto the Lord? If they’re doing it from home, could the time be better spent on something truly edifying and life giving? I’m not accusing anyone of anything- I don’t know the personal circumstances of those posting here, I just am not seeing much of anything that looks like the fruit of the spirit, and I think that’s a problem. TGC I implore you to rethink this new feature in its current form.

Ali said this earlier:

"No Heather - I believe what I am saying is sex outside marriage is wrong but if you are going to do then think hard about the consequences."

Wrong, absolutely wrong thing to say. And the right thing is so clearly being overlooked.

(Yeah, black & white, I know)

The right thing to say would be:

"Sex outside marriage is wrong and so if you are going to do anyways, then you need to think hard about whether or not you intend to continue calling yourself a Christian."

Christianity is a life of repentance. Salvation depends on it. Will someone please ask those who determine that they need contraception because they will be having sex why they imagine themselves to be believers. Repentance does not including planning for sin.

Sex is not like anger. You don't lash out in a fit of sexuality and have sex. You deliberately chose it.

I must say I agree with @Nick on the "closing of comments" issue. (Though I agree with your thoughts on the blog post topic 100%) I mean, this is a flawed forum. ALL forums, in which people discuss while not being face to face, will be flawed, but I don't think we should give up the whole thing. I also hope TGC leaves the comments open.
I mean, people (and this TOTALLY includes myself) will say snarky, unhelpful, insensitive things, and perhaps if that bothers you, you shouldn't comment. But people also say quite interesting and thoughtful and provocative things, and I'd rather not give that up.

When TGC first began, I thought the point was to bring us together on the main point (the Gospel) while allowing differences on the side issues.

It's surprising how little it takes to be branded an idolater (even if you were very polite about it). I guess I'm not a "seasoned, prepared leader," either. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hope someday you'll be able to accept that Christians can differ in their opinions while still holding biblical convictions.

I'd encourage you to visit the history of protestantism: Biblical reasoning isn't just for people with a title. The protestant movement was founded on the priesthood of believers, and we all have a responsibility to search the scriptures. We should have our own convictions, but we should never rely on a blog to inform those convictions. If something we read on the internet makes us uncomfortable, I'd propose that we need to reinforce our own view by critically reading the Word of God.

Personally, I hope TGC keeps the comments open (as they have for some time), because I know I can learn from others as well as the regular contributors. Luke's next post, for example, makes a superb point. But respectful discourse means not avoiding passive-aggressive insults and calling other Christians idolaters.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean a scratch. I meant a wound, as in like...you are bleeding and going to die from it. A band-aid won't help. You need something stronger.

Having sex outside of marriage is never inevitable. We have freedom in Christ. That is freedom to not sin. We are no longer chained to our sin, and buying birth control is going back to our chains.

- Should Christian singles have sex? NO.
-Will some Christian singles fall into temptation and have premarital sex? It's not inevitable, but some will.
- Should they use birth control? NO.

+1

You are absolutely right Heather, putting a band aid on a wound won't heal that wound
However, that doesn't mean thay you should put one on.

Falling into fornication may not be inevitable for you, but eventually some (not all, but some) Christian singles will fall into fornication. Should those non-married Christians use birth control? Yes.

- Should Christian singles have sex? NO.
-Will some Christian singles fall into temptation and have premarital sex? Yes.
- Should they use birth control? yes.

There are two responses from Pro-Life OB's on whether hormone-based birth control is an abortifacient. They are shown below.

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/

I'd encourage you to read the first of these two (you agree with the second, but you should read that, too). Then consider whether you can really hold your original opinion. I think it's clear that the first paper (which references actual experimental data) makes a much stronger argument.

Personally, if the data say that hormonal birth control is not an abortifacient, I'm prone to believe that. Even if my doctor says otherwise: MD's are not researchers and do not necessarily keep up with experimental medicine.

IF they do (it's not inevitable...we aren't animals), then pregnancy could happen. Buying birth control is saying "I AM going to do this." Not buying birth control is just another way of keeping yourself in check. Along with other things. If you are having sex the problem is not that you might have a baby. The problem is you are having sex. Putting a band-aid on a wound, won't cure the wound.

And when they do? Because, guess what? you shouldn't sin either, yet, you do.

No, Position #1 is Christian singles shouldn't be fornicating. Period.

I really do not understand the reasoning of position #1,

Christian singles should not be having sex, therefore, they must have babies every time they do....?

That is the logical conclusion of position #1

It's not a "sad reality." It's a sin. We should be working with our youth so that it doesn't happen. Position #2 DOES encourage Christian singles to have premarital sex. It's setting them up for failure.

PLUS, it's great to talk about letting innocent souls "wait at the threshold" but do we know what happens to that soul? Do we know when the soul is formed? Do we absolutely KNOW we aren't preventing a life when even a condom is used? Is "waiting at the threshold" really just a euphemism for....not appearing at all?

And yet again, there are cold hard statistics that say when use of birth control increases...abortion increases, so how is this "compromise" actually a good idea again? I always think compromising with the world and with your purity is always a bad idea.

How is it that this talk of "consequences" doesn't refer to the souls of the children who have no choice in the matter? As a Christian I believe that one principle duty for our time on Earth is to assure that our children are raised in a proper manner. Are a pair of impulsive, hormone-ridden teenagers going to be adequate in raising a moral, healthy, well-educated, well-loved new Christian? I doubt it. It seems to me better to let that innocent soul wait at the threshold until it can be received into a place proper for it.

... and whatever you think about birth control pills, condoms are not abortificants.

The Churches should get it together-the logical result is that the singles will be too busy "getting it on with God" b4 marriage (therefore preparing themselves for it) to do the bad thing. X

I have to agree with Mrs. Paris. An absolutist support of position #1 ignores the fact that we are and totally depraved, sinful and fallen beings.

King David, a holy man who was after God's own heart and hand picked by God Himself to be king, fell into sexual sin.

The Church has been advocating position #1 for thousands of years. The Roman Catholic Church has also been practicing chastity for centuries, yet we see that even the "holiest" among us fall.

There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic sometimes.

Position #2 DOES NOT encourage Christian singles to have premarital sex. It is one suggestion speaking to a sad reality.

I'm with Anderson on this therefore-Contraception should Never be encouraged to single Christians. What should be encouraged however is understanding why sex b4 marriage is a Very bad idea And How they can have a deep and fulfilling relationship with The Creator of The Universe! Once they start upon That journey with Him, they will realise that nothing will blow their minds quite as much as that will!! Real Christianity is Absolutely Amazing. I wish I'd discovered it earlier.

Before this degrades in to a "I'm a better Christian because I believe x, y, or z," I wanted to try to see if we can't find some common ground.

I was thinking a lot about this tonight -- one of the luxuries of the otherwise mindless task of grocery shopping for the family -- and I wanted to clarify my thoughts on some things.

First, I don't think any of us here are saying that it's okay to have premarital sex. It's a sin and it should be avoided at all costs. Straw man arguments aren't helpful, and I don't think anyone here is advocating this view.

Second, I personally think it would be highly unusual for a teenage or single young adult Christian female to be on the pill. I can't see a justification for a prescribed, regular contraceptive program -- if premarital sex occurs, I'm hoping that the (regenerate) individual would seek help, not continue because the drugs allow a couple to do so.

To get back to the original topic, "Should churches encourage birth control?" Most of us (myself included) would probably agree that it shouldn't. It should encourage abstinence.

The converse is a much harder question: Should churches discourage individuals (particularly women) from carrying a condom?

I would have a hard time answering that in the affirmative, for reasons I have stated above. The sin of premarital sex is evil, but sinning AND spreading disease is worse. Children, while a blessing, can make life extremely complicated when the parents are teenagers or if the pregnancy is unplanned. It's hard enough when you're trying to start a family, and have the means to provide for your children.

Am I saying that it would have been better if children conceived by premarital sex never existed? No; we all value *all* human life, whether or not it was conceived in sin. However, in a real sense, there would be less sin if those children hadn't been conceived. But everyone here should agree with that, because we all would prefer there was never conception to begin with.

Would there be less sin if intercourse occurred and a child wasn't conceived, or if an STD wasn't contracted? Arguably, no. (But I don't think using a condom is sinful a priori.) So there may not be any less sin, but there is (arguably) less suffering.

Similarly, there is no more sin if an STD is contracted, or if a child is conceived. But there *is* arguably more hardship.

Is all hardship bad? No. God can use hardship in amazing ways. But God also is merciful to ease our suffering in many cases, and several times in scripture we are encouraged to avoid hardship if possible. For example, slaves are encouraged to seek freedom. We are also encouraged to show mercy as we have been shown mercy. Therefore, an attitude that seeks the prolonged suffering of others can hardly be called Christian, especially when fornicators frequently feel such incredible conviction after committing their sin.

All this is to say that I can think of good reasons not to discourage condoms among single Christians, even if an abstinence first stance is held as the ideal.

Interestingly, this issue is discussed in scripture (Deut. 22:13-21). But since our understanding of God's covenant in redemption history keeps us from enforcing Israelite civil laws, I don't think anyone would advocate stoning the fornicators. Even Paul doesn't go that far (1Co. 5:13).

That's not to say that nothing can be learned from the OT. For instance, there are a large number of laws in the old testament where God makes provision for those who sin unintentionally. I won't say that there are any scriptural commands such that "if one sins in this way, one should do this to make the sin better;" there aren't any provisions like that. But it is true that when God prohibits something, he usually makes provision for restoration or remediation when people fail. In this way, there is at least (an admittedly weak) precedent for alleviating the effects of sin in the OT.

Practically, I can see practical advantages if women carried the means for contraception: For one, in my conversations with other women (when I was single) and my own wife (presently), they are less likely to see a condom as a way to avoid conviction. Obviously not all women are this way, but if one person were to carry a condom, the guy may not be the ideal candidate.

Another advantage is the potential to avoid pregnancy and STDs from cases of rape. I don't want to pretend to understand the sickness that would incite a man to rape a woman. But the probability of a rapist using a condom if offered one, while small, would not be zero. And maybe while the rapist is fuddling with the condom the rape victim could have a chance to do some damage and flee.

It's clear from writing all this that sin makes things very complicated. It's far easier to say "don't have sex" and leave it at that. It would be my preference to do this. But I'm not content to ignore the "what if" when the "what if" happens so frequently. According to the national campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy, 74% of white conservative protestants ages 20-29 who have never been married have had sex in the past year. In my own state (MS, the poorest and most religious state), the teen pregnancy rate is the highest in the country (55 per every 1,000 teenage girls). We should do everything we can to fix this problem -- focusing on abstinence, but providing support if it fails.

Finally, I'd reiterate that I believe there is flexibility here. I (obviously) have my beliefs, and others do too, but I do believe there's Christian liberty in interpretation on this issue. I'm not about to label anyone a legalist for their opinions, and I hope no one labels me an antinomian for my views. The Westminster Confession leaves room for matters of Christian prudence in worship, and I think the same could be said for this topic. None of us is advocating for abortion. But I do think there's also a place for heated discussion (or, as one of my old pastors used to say, "vigorous fellowship.") Hopefully we can appreciate where we are each coming from and move on, away from our internet connections, motivated to show mercy because of the forgiveness we've all received at cross.

Oh my word! I'm saddened by the 60% who responded in the affirmative! 60%!?! What has become of us? And what happened to those stats that say when birth control us increases, abortions increase? And what about just telling the singles to get it together? This is so sad!

Exactly.

The Biblical Standard which St Paul teaches in the Gospels is completely clear-No sex b4 marriage- therefore to encourage singles to use contraception is of course a contradiction. The problem Firstly underpinning this debate is not the Obvious facts discussed (ie that people-even Christians keep falling into sexual sin, and therefore some kind of answer-or compromise needs to be found), it is the Fact that people just don't Why this teaching was taught and Who Jesus Christ Is!! Churches need to make the Reasons for this teaching completely clear ie that it is there to keep people safe from firstly harming themselves through engaging in an activity which is meant for a life-long covenant (not contract) And also running the risk of creating an eternal soul as a result, which they are either unprepared for thus have an abortion (further harming themselves, and the unborn child) Or keeping the child and running the risk of messing up their lives and the child's. Secondly if people are taught how Wonderful Jesus Is, that He is Really Alive and working Wonders throughout the world in healings, miracles, and lives saved and turned around from living in torment, then they will want to get to Know Him and His Marvellous Ways!! Through getting to know Jesus and a relationship with Him they will naturally turn away from a wordly life-style which will never reap a good harvest, Or not start one in the first place and remain chaste until marriage. For many of us who have had a life BC (Before Christ) the latter is not an option because we have made our mistakes in this area already and harmed ourselves and others as a result But the Good News to all is that whatever experiences people have had, they can, when they get to know Jesus- See Completely Clearly And start to make the Right choices according to the Biblical standard, not only in this area, but in all as Jesus reveals more and more to them. Jesus is Not a Legalist, He is Graceful, Beautiful, Merciful and Compassionate and He wants what is best for each of us. If people are fortunate enough to grasp this Fact early (THIS is the CRUCIAL work of the Churches,) then the teachings of St Paul will make complete sense, and they will save themselves from A lot of worldly hassle and in this area be blessed as a result, and also Be a Blessing And a Testimony to others, particularly if they are young. Any single Christian who stands against the tide of convention and shows a pure Christian life of NO sex b4 marriage is a Testimony to the world. The world will want to know Why, and therefore the door will be opened for discussion and evangelising, and sharing the Wondrous News that Jesus is REAL, and For Real, And that He offers All of us, wherever we are at in our lives- Redemption, Salvation and a New Life. 2 corinthians 5 v 17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new!"

I agree with the conclusions of the article. A more interesting question to me is should Christians support programs (government and/or non-profit) that make greater availability of contraception for society, while preaching chastity from the pulpit?

Exactly! Promoting the pill is not going to decrease abortions in the least, since the pill itself CAUSES abortions! Not to mention that the birth control pill is horrible for women's health - increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

I think it's interesting that you chose a woman to voice Position 2...

I am surprised this is even debated. At one point it took me by surprise to even see this offered in the secular world, but now it's coming in the church and it's being 'compromised' as what we've been doing till now it's not relevant or not working so might as well jump on the bandwagon of giving away contraception.

I think the main issue here is semantics. The phrase "Encourage singles to use contraception" makes it seem like contraceptives are being pushed on singles as a way to ensure they don't suffer the 'consequence'. That is wrong and unbiblical.

However, if the phrase is given proper context, then it might read: "Encourage singles to use contraception only as a last resort while they agree to be a continued part of properly functioning biblical community with a goal of sanctification from their sexual sin". IMO, this statement clarifies the context of the 'encouraging use of contraceptives'.

Indeed.

Ryan nails it, and Joe Carter: you're a champ for giving this discussion visibility. And I'm voting for Matthew Lee Anderson for whatever it is he's running for.

I like how pregnancy is the "consequence" for sex. I think this debate is framed inappropriately from the start.

Sorry Alexandra.... you couldn't be more wrong! The Lord DOES indeed require obedience... And not on our own time... when we are "ready" to let go of those pesky life consuming sins! "Deny yourself"... "Take up your cross and follow me"... If any man be in Christ he is a NEW creation".... Ring any bells?
What exactly constitutes a "fornication problem" ?? A selfish sinner who wants to indulge in his lusts, and passions? I mean we are not talking about sex addiction here ( if there is such a thing).... The article was referencing young people engaged in run of the mill pre-marital sex.....
I would encourage you to read the article by Trevin Wax that is mentioned at the end of this one.... He brings up a really interesting point... what if you replaced the word "fornication" in your post with the word "Adultery" ??? Seriously, try it! You won't believe how shocking your post will seem.... But we have all ceased to be shocked by sex before marriage.

To me these are separate issues (though with an obvious correlation): sex before/outside of marriage is wrong and we need to be faithful in our witness to the truth of what the Bible says about this - even in our twenties! Should we fail to keep this witness, the answer is not to protect us from a natural consequence (and i use that term very carefully for NO child is a "consequence") by giving birth control to those who will not control their earthly passions.
Then if one does get pregnant, we have a sanctity of life issue that needs to be addressed. An un-planned pregnancy - even out of wedlock -it not "unplanned" ultimately by our sovereign Father! Abortion and contraception are 'cousins' but not bedfellows - totally different issues there.

How is this even debatable? Permissable sex among singles? Where does it end?

[...] Debatable: Should Churches Encourage Singles to Use Contraception? – The Gospel Coalition Blog [...]

Ie Since When is it Ever ok to bring a child into the world when you're not ready, therefore could ruin your life and that of the child-who is therefore likely to be unwanted or to run the risk of getting all sorts of diseases Just Because you have an Achilles Heel in the area of relationships and fornication which God says is wrong? The problem of fornication is bad enough, let alone adding the risk of creating an eternal soul whilst you are dealing with this problem, or risk catching a terminal, or unpleasant disease?! This is Utterly Ridiculous. God wishes everyone to conform to His Uncompromising standards of course, a fornicator is no exception to this, But He is not asking people to conform unrealistically (before they are ready) by risking their own lives and those of others through not using contraception while in the stage of dealing with a fornication problem, and working through their issues!?!! Everyone has an Achilles Heel while they are Growing Up Spiritually and for each one there are pragmatic solutions to make the consequences less terrible during this time. Asking someone who has a problem in the area of fornication to stop doing so because it says so in the bible is like asking a heroin addict to come off the drugs Right Away and without any substitute, or emotional support Just Because God says so. Or someone on prescription drugs at risk of committing suicide should come off them Right Away because God Says in the Bible that prescription drugs are wrong, without any form of help while they do so, such as gradually being weaned off them. If you've already got a Serious problem Best Not make it worse by refusing a pragmatic solution while you are "putting that problem to bed" eh?!!

How tragic that something like this even needs to be discussed at a church conference. Was any mention made at all of the issue of the abortifacient effect of the birth control pill?

Many Christians understand the position of the No sex b4 marriage stance in the bible, but yet Still choose to sin in this area. The question is Why? IMO it's firstly because they do not know the Lord enough yet (getting to know Him is a journey!) and therefore have not yet developed the maturity to wish Not to grieve Him. Secondly, they do not know the Theology of Why they should Not fornicate ie that it will hurt them and the person/people they fornicate with by leaving them with emotional damage and baggage which they could otherwise escape if they practised abstinence. Sex creates a life-long bond which is meant to take place Only within the covenant of marriage and Ideally with one person in one life-time=2 virgins. The soul ties which are created when people have sex outside of marriage can be Very damaging at the time, but especially to their future marriage (if they get married) Such relationships can hold people back from the plans and purposes which the Lord has for them. The problem is one of Discipleship within the Churches and the fact that when people don't understand the reasons why they shouldn't do something and are just told Don't do it legalistically (as happens far too often) they will inevitably end up doing so!! Taking contraception or buying condoms does Indeed imply Intent to have sex, However looking a little deeper into this....Some people Know they have an Achilles heel in certain areas of sin-for some people it is relationships, for others it is excesses of food, alcohol, drugs which is anti the teaching that our bodies are a temple. These people if they Know they have a weakness in certain areas, and yet Love the Lord, they will be trying their Very Best Not to slip up and make the same old mistakes, But Until they Really get What Jesus is All About, Who He is, What He has done for us, What His Word means and How His Word protects us from harming ourselves Especially by guarding against opening doors to the Kingdom of Darkness to play havoc in our lives, then they will find it difficult not to succumb to their weaknesses, particularly if they have more than one area in which they struggle. This topic begins and ends with the need for Strong Teaching from the pulpit, Strong Discipleship and the ability to be non-judgemental and helpful towards people in our congregation who are struggling in an area in which we either don't have a struggle with ourselves Or have already overcome. The aim in Churches is to make Mature disciples who understand the teachings of the Lord in Depth and who have the maturity to reflect that in their lives. Christian Babies cannot eat meat, they can just drink milk, and will keep slipping up until they get beyond the baby stage. It is our job as more mature Christians to help and disciple them. People Need to be told Why they shouldn't have sex b4 marriage, and encouraged to seek the Lord instead of relationships, until they are spiritually mature enough to marry. Then they will hopefully make wise choices. If they don't for some reason we need to remember that love is long-suffering and patient, as well as the rest!! (1 Corinthians 13)If we bear with them in their baby stage they will grow up eventually and start making wise choices in this and every area, and be inspired by the example of Grace which they have been shown, as well as the uncompromising standards of Sexual Purity expected by God which has been exampled by their more mature Christian sister or brother. We are made in the Image of God, and our goal on this earth is to be more like Him. We are fallen beings however and will inevitably make mistakes But mud slinging and judging others doesn't help anyone. We all struggle in different areas and God is Still our Loving Father, Ever Forgiving, waiting patiently till we understand the standards He expects from us and till we Really seek His face from the bottom of our hearts. Deep Calls Unto Deep but I'm sure He understands that if someone is struggling in a certain area and is not ready to make the required changes for whatever reason, uncompromisingly as He expects, they may need to use pragmatic solutions during this stage. These solutions IMO should Not however be encouraged by the Church as they should be a last resort. If the discipleship and teaching is clear enough however there should hopefully be progress in this area for many people who are struggling, and progress quickly. For those who understood the clear teaching quicker, and were correctly discipled, there should Ideally never even be a stage of last resort!!

ok ... i'll bite. Why is that interesting?

I apologize for being snarky. It isn't my intent, and I know the internet isn't a great place for discussing controversial ideas. I'm just trying to engage with others on how to address this issue. It isn't an easy question to answer, and I believe there is some room for Christians to interpret this differently. While I'll (firmly) stand behind that, I hope you feel free to state your own opinion here.

The snark and self righteousness is so thick in here. I guess those using these reply tactics just think they're lesser sins than fornication, and therefore justifiable... like using birth control when fornicating instead of getting an abortion if unplanned pregnancy should result...

@NickF: See, this is what I don't like. People who see big families and think "Ew! They must breed like rabbits." When did that get to be a thing? Maybe that's not what you are going for, but it kind of sounds like you are saying if you DON'T limit your family you are an animal.

That's ok on the opinion thing. I don't think yours are biblical either. And no, not only would it be unhelpful to label people who limit families as "heathen," it would be sinful to do so. However, you can say the decision itself is right or wrong. I think it's wrong.

If it's impossible to limit the size of your family in a God-honoring way, what about those families that used the rhythm method for hundreds of years before the pill? Even the Catholic church allows this method.

Farther down in the comments you make the observation that human beings "aren't animals." If there is no Biblical way to limit the size of one's family, what's to distinguish us from rabbits (a species that also mates for life)?

Your convictions are not bad, and I wouldn't ask you to change them. But I don't think they're entirely biblical, either, in that I believe God gives us more freedom in these areas than you are willing to concede. After all, I have had pastors, in very conservative evangelical churches, who have limited the number of children in their family in order to support their ministry. I believe it would be unhelpful to label them as heathens for their decisions.

Oh my WORD, Ali, nice...mud slinging and passive aggressive closing so you "look better." Yes, you are correct...very little grace shown. Why don't you just add, "Well, I love Jesus and I hope you eventually love Jesus."

Well, like Nick and I closed with. We just fundamentally disagree, and we'll find out one day and by then it won't matter. I'M ok with that, but I guess YOU aren't ok with it. Suit yourself...

Well you may have stated them clearly in your mind... but you also said this whichc is what I was responding to

" It would be really good as well if we could allow other people a little bit of flexibility in the way they handle their lives and weren't so judgemental. We are all flawed in some way."

Sorry... there is no flexibility with the Lord! Bottom line. There is no flexibility to decide which little pet sins we will let flourish and which ones we will really strive to put to death. We are called to pursue holiness! Not to be flexible and non judgemental!

Oh heh....*crossed paths*

Oh sorry, you are right, I did misunderstand your first comment. I was attributing that quoted section to you but you were quoting someone else. My mistake.

Robert agrees with you, Ali. Relax. He was talking to Autumn...something you didn't read before "pinging off a reply."

Also, I don't see how my response differs from Matt's. I said the exact same thing.

@Robert: When Autumn said "But please have a backup in case you make the choice to do it anyway!" I believe she was parodying the argument that Ms. Paris made. I don't think she was arguing that herself.

Actually I think when God gave me a brain He actually expected me to use it. So I do. And having more kids would unfortunately be a bad idea for me and other women as well. And we have brains - so we use them. And when those of us who can have access to birth control we use it without guilt and shame and give thanks for it.
It is an open forum but it is not a forum in which much grace is shown. And wow - I used to be a lawyer - the way people framed their opinions in court is more gracious than some of the comments on this thread. I'm contributing to it now in a way I shouldn't so I am ducking out.
I think it's called 'fleeing temptation' - I'm sure you'll agree with me on that at least! The temptation to go for the jugular is too huge and you are my sister in Christ and I really do wish you well so I am signing off now for good. Shalom Heather.

Robert... I was pointing out the position .... I certainly do not agree with Jenell Paris.... I think you really misunerstood me....

Ali, my comment was directed to Autumn and not to you.

I was addressing Autumn's quote because she clearly does not want the church advocating birth control and yet says to "have a backup", which to me "have a backup" is fundamentally what Janell Paris is saying.

So, you would encourage them in this by suggesting they use birth control.

Your position is blindingly obvious. You can't be pro abstinence and encourage people having sex outside of marriage to use birth control. It doesn't work, Ali.

I didn't plan on learning from you Ms. Griffiths. How can I learn from someone I fundamentally disagree with and who is saying logically inconsistent things like "I think sex outside of marriage is bad. But some people will do it, so I will suggest they get birth control." Getting birth control IS intent to have sex.

I didn't call your children anything. I'm not the one who just wants sex without little people who your LIFE has to be centered around (what a drag). And....I'm unsure of what you are talking about with "a real agenda." I think you are wrong that's it. Am I supposed to worry that you think I have an agenda?

Robert - same goes for you - try reading my imperfect reply. I was hoping for a discussion of my difficulties of my position - of which I am fully aware as is Matt (try reading his response). Trouble is, on this thread at least it just turns into mud slinging and point scoring - all very unproductive and time wasting.

"But please have a backup in case you make the choice to do it anyway!"

What do you mean by this? Unless I misunderstand you it seems you are saying, "don't have sex, but if you do, use contraception".

I'm struggling to see how that is fundamentally different from Jenell Paris' argument.

I have stated VERY clearly my views on premarital sex. Have you actually read what I wrote Autumn? Try doing that before pinging off a reply.

Heather - it is blindingly obvious that some young folks have NOT managed to say 'no'! It would be ludicrous to imagine otherwise - the evidence is overwhelming! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if that wasn't the case so I really fail to see the point you are making here.

Equally I am sure that young people who fail at this particular hurdle will also manage to conduct themselves in godly ways that we failed to - maybe they are kinder, maybe they don't gossip, maybe they are more loving and maybe they love God more than we did - maybe we said 'no' to sex simply because of legalistic reasons and because we were afraid to get caught out. I don't know - I just know I am flawed married to another flawed human being and we were able to show sufficient restraint in this one area and for that we thank God.
You seem to have a real agenda to push on this - I am sorry that every discussion with you seems to be more about point scoring rather than an attempt to learn from each other. I have said my piece and I see no need to restate my case to you - it is become a pointless exercise - oh, and I have to get my 'horrid little things' off to bed now (your term for my children not mine).

Second this, Autumn!

Well Ali.... As much as we might not like it... The word of God is completely inflexible! There is no way around it! Sex outside the bounds of marriage is a sin. We should not be helping poeple to hide their sin... or make the natural consequences of their sin less serious! If an unmarried young woman who claims the name of Christ, obtains a prescription for birth control for the intended purpose of preventing pregnancy, then she is living with an intent to sin.... and probably not just to "slip up".... But to PRACTICE pre-marital sex.... If a young, unmarried man who claims the name of Christ goes out and buys a box of condoms he also is living with an intent to sin! Willfully!
There is no possible way that it could be justified for the church to be encouraging young christians/congregants to abstain from sex according to God's law, on one hand... And then tell them "But please have a backup in case you make the choice to do it anyway!" .... Ridiculous

"pregnancy can cause all sorts of health issues I really am not going to go into here but are highly unpleasant." I'm sure everything will be fine, I hear women have been doing it since the beginning of the world.

Like I said before, I'm glad God has you around to tell Him what you can handle. I bet He'd have no possible way to take care of you if you had more children.

I....don't have to tell everyone how to live their lives. I'm stating what I think is right. Last time I checked this was an open forum. Am I wrong? Are we only allowed one opinion here?

And as for "passing judgment on other people's attitudes" are you saying that I'm saying this attitude is right and this attitude is wrong? Or do you think I'm saying "This attitude will throw you into hell." Because I AM indeed doing the former. I DO think it's wrong. The latter would be sinful, and then you can say, "That's completely wrong."

Well then Nick, I guess we're in the same boat. BOTH of our "common grace" arguments don't hold water. It's just that I KNOW that birth control is not common grace, and you KNOW that it is. So, one of us is wrong. And since "common grace" is a theological term that refers to something God has given us as a blessing...I'm just glad I'm not the one making a rather preposterous statement.

I don't think "limiting your family" has ever been done in prayerful consideration. I just think it's a knee jerk reaction that has been handed over to us from the world, but again, you KNOW that it's not, and I KNOW that it is. One day we'll know who is wrong, and then it won't matter.

As far as proving to you from the bible, I feel like there is enough inference there like children being called blessings, or barrenness being used as a curse. OR the first command given to humanity to be fruitful and multiply. Seeing as almost the entire world is multiplying at a LOWER than zero population rate, I think we're all having a problem with this command. In fact, we're having SUCH a problem with this command, that the man who invented birth control is now speaking against its widespread usage.

Actually I didn't call them 'horrid little things' - you did. And it's not just that - pregnancy can cause all sorts of health issues I really am not going to go into here but are highly unpleasant. If it's not a problem for you then great - go for it. But why you feel you have to tell everyone else how exactly they should live their lives is beyond me and thinking you can pass judgement on other people's attitudes is just sad.
Incidentally it's not just about me - we can't afford more than the ones we've got and if we could then we'd adopt. Like Nick says, being a good steward of the earth is a biblical responsibility. In fact, I feel a bit guilty that we indulged by having three of the 'horrid little things' - again, your words not mine.

Thank you Matt. I think it would be very interesting indeed to find a biblical justification to say taking contraception is 'fleeing temptation'! It certainly can't be said to be walking away from temptation.

I think you are right to place this discussion in the context of discipleship as a whole. If someone is 100% committed to following Jesus then abstaining from sex is surely what follows.

One thing that bothers me is that we very rarely hear the sexual attitudes of the world being challenged in churches and teaching on premarital sex. Maybe I just go to the wrong churches!
But I have Christian friends who were amazed when they discovered that living together is frowned upon and sexual purity is expected because it is so different from the secular world that surrounds us.

We need to be clear from the pulpit what is expected and talk about these issues far more openly and with more grace than generally happens. It would be really good as well if we could allow other people a little bit of flexibility in the way they handle their lives and weren't so judgemental. We are all flawed in some way.

I believe it is neither wise nor kind to encourage sex, by encouraging the use of birth control. That IS what you are doing. There is really no possible way around that. When you purchase birth control you are saying to yourself that it is inevitable.

And how is it wise and kind to decide that these young folks are somehow less stable or less capable than you of doing the exact same thing you did? Just as you said, "but for the grace of God..." Do you think the young people don't share this grace?

I was thinking more along the lines of: "I might be in fabulous shape but keel over because of an undiagnosed congenital heart defect."

Regardless of what you think, I'm going to have to stick with scripture on what I should/should not do. If you can systematically convince me that birth control is unbiblical, I'll listen.

But your common grace argument doesn't hold water: there are lots of things that I do for self-preservation that could be interpreted as lack of trust in God. I went to college so I could have an education. I earn money to feed my family. I visit the doctor regularly. I don't believe any of this puts me at odds with having faith: I still pray for success at work, I ask for healing when I'm sick. God provides using both natural and supernatural means, and using both is not a contradiction.

In this example, it can be evidence of prayerful consideration if one decides to limit the size of one's family. At the same time, having kids without consulting the Lord can be a sign of reckless presumption.

No Heather - I believe what I am saying is sex outside marriage is wrong but if you are going to do then think hard about the consequences. What I am not going to do is encourage unwanted pregnancies for Christian women - as I said before - the consequences of that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
You are expecting a standard of behaviour from young and/or foolish people who are failing as disciples.
For the record, I went out with my husband for 2 years and then we were engaged for 2 years before we were married. I know how hard it is to abstain but we managed it. Somehow we managed it but it was very much 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Over twenty years later I am still thankful we were able to continue to say 'no' but I'm still amazed we managed it.
Since then I have watched several Christian friends get pregnant out of marriage. Some have continued in their faith, some made disastrous marriages as they were pressurised by church to legitimise their condition and others have fallen away as the standard of expectations of other Christians crushed them.
The whole area of sexual activity requires much wisdom and more grace from all of us as a Christian community and I don't think laying down the law in the way that you are doing is particularly kind or wise.

LOL! They are blessings and all, God, but PUHLEEZE don't curse me with those horrid little things for years. I want to live for ME!

Oops... a gaffe on my part:

When I said there are "no documented risks for hormonal birth control," I should have clarified the context. Of course there are documented risks: blood clots and a slight increased risk of breast cancer are two common ones. But there is no scientific evidence for an abortifacient risk to hormonal birth control. (And the fact that emryos still can implant in women on "the pill" is at least in part a counterexample.)

Ali,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. (This goes out to everyone, too. Though I can't respond to everyone, I appreciate the interaction!).

"Or the fact that taking the pill or pulling out a condom at the crucial moment indicates a certain level of intention before the passion takes over so it's the motivation that is the primary concern?"

I wouldn't use the language of "motivation," but I'd say that this is near the heart of the objection (which I pointed out in my original article). In purchasing and taking contraception we are intending something, and in that intention is a way of imagining our futures and lives in a particular way. In that sense, the person who takes contraception is imagining their future in such a way that if tempted they will be able to sin without pregnancy occurring. This is why I spoke of "creating the conditions" to sin in my original piece.

As I wrote on my blog today, I would love to hear from someone an argument that taking contraception fits the biblical exhortation to "flee temptation." If anything, it seems purchasing contraception is a way of preparing for temptation--but preparing not in such a way that we would resist and overcome, but in such a way that we could partake.

Also, you're right that we "try to cover up our other sins," which we ought to repent of as well. That fact is why I have been adamant throughout this discussion that contraception is trying to solve a discipleship problem (and doing it badly).

Best,

Matt

@Ali: That's why you as a friend, should encourage them to talk to their pastor. Instead of encouraging them to buy birth control, which effectively says, "Have sex before marriage!"

For the record, they aren't MY standards they are God's, and you are choosing to do the expedient thing rather than the right thing. You were right the first time, this is pragmatism.

Why birth control at all?
Because some of us really do not want to have lives wrapped around little people for years and years however much of a blessing they are AND we also like to have sex.
Birth control is indeed a grace given to us in recent years!

Ehhhh....not a red herring. Someone else's life as opposed to "you might pull a muscle." Not equivalent at all.

I think since the majority of Christians agree with the world that birth control is a great thing...I think THAT should be examined before "why NOT birth control."

Birth control is not common grace. But I'm glad you are in control enough to tell God what you can handle. I bet without your input He would have NO idea.

Heather, if you read Nick's comment, he used "horrible consequences" in context to AIDS.

He did not call a child a "horrible consequence".

Of course I'm with 'no sex before marriage' stance!
Since when did anyone call their pastor up beforehand? Don't be daft! That's requiring a level of maturity that most people simply don't have! If they were sensible enough to speak to a wiser counsellor about it then they probably have the maturity to say 'no!' in the first place.
We live in a fallen world in a church full of sinners who have been saved but continue to sin a variety of ways. #
It is irresponsible to expect a level of behaviour that even the most committed of Christians find difficult to say no to on many occasions. There are plenty of Christian leaders who speak frankly of their struggles in this area.
If you have the discipline to say 'no' then thank God for it but don't expect your weaker brothers and sisters to be able to live up to your high standards. Protect them and model a better way but please don't encourage stupidity. As I said before, the consequences are potentially huge. It's a sin that can result in life changing dramatic events even without pregnancy making it even worse.

To "err on the side of caution" is a red herring. If I erred on the side of caution I would never

(1) vaccinate my children
(2) take any prescription medication
(3) exercise

All of these things have small (documented) risks. They also have documented benefits. I still do them, though, because the benefits outweigh the risks. And here, I'm not just risking "a" life -- I'm risking *my own* life.

The difference here is that there are no documented risks about hormonal birth control. Just some presumptions with no data to support them. Someone could equally well say that "Birth control causes your uterus to explode! Why take a chance?" They could say any of a thousand things. I choose to wait for the data. You are free to choose otherwise.

God established the world with a definite order: He made the physical laws just like he made his Word. There is nothing wrong or sinful with trusting experimental data, because God is sovereign over every paper ever published. I'd encourage you to look at Vern Poythress' "Redeeming Science;" I know I can't convince you of my worldview, but he's far more eloquent that I.

As far as why birth control, I don't know. Couples have many reasons, some of which are probably sinful. But I could ask the question in the reverse: why not birth control? I can't find a blanket prohibition of birth control in my bible. So as long as I'm not complicit in the abortion of a fetus, and as long as I'm not sinning in other ways, my conscience is clear.

Personally, I think birth control is a means of common grace given to us in these later times to be good stewards of the earth and our personal resources. I love my kids -- you're right, they are a huge blessing -- but I couldn't support 15 children.

If you take precautions, you are allowing yourself room to fail. Just don't allow yourself room to fail.

@Ali, if you are saying "BUT I would also say to anyone having sex outside marriage - don't be stupid, use protection and not just to protect against pregnancy - there's a whole host of infections you don't want to catch." Than you are NOT with the don't have sex outside of marriage stance. You would have to say to those having sex outside of marriage "Stop! Talk to your pastor. Get counsel. How can I help you. Let me pray."

Bringing a child into the world is hardly killing someone....

I don't think anyone would answer yes to either of those scenarios. Why are you calling a child a "horrible consequence"?

So, if a Christian has sex, should he or she use contraception? I agree that maybe our churches shouldn't be teaching that contraception is a viable alternative to abstinence, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of unwanted pregnancies and (more importantly) incurable STDs like AIDS or herpes.

There seem to be two unbiblical ideas behind some of these comments:

(1) "If someone sins, we shouldn't care if there are horrible consequences like AIDS, because God doesn't care. In fact, God's probably happy that they're getting what they deserve."

I'm thankful that God disciplines those he loves, but this statement dishonors God by neglecting his mercy. Mercy that we've all received but do not deserve. We no longer live in the days of Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, or Ananias and Sapphira. The appropriate response to God's mercy is fear and trembling (and worship), not a desire to return to punishment by instant death.

2. "No Christian would ever sin in this way, so no quarter should be given."

This statement is simply self deception: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves..." I'm thankful that I never succumbed to having intercourse before marriage. But that was God's grace, and I know it was a struggle. I know that others probably struggle more than I did. People will sin -- it's inevitable (we shouldn't be surprised, because God tells us). While that's never an excuse for sinning, there's no reason why we can't try to minimize the consequences of sin.

Lots of sins have varying degrees of consequences. If I shoot someone, that would be sinful. Is it necessary to desire that I kill every person I shoot in order that I could experience the maximum consequence -- the death penalty? Similarly, if I speed on the highway, I'm sinning. Is it right for my seat belt to disengage if my car detects that I'm speeding, in order to maximize my risk of injury?

Maybe you can answer yes to these scenarios, but I cannot. God, please protect us from the consequences of our sin. Discipline us gently, and teach us to be merciful as you are merciful.

I fail to understand why Christian singles who do succumb to the temptation to have sex outside marriage shouldn't use contraception? Is it the type of contraception that is being objected to? Or the fact that taking the pill or pulling out a condom at the crucial moment indicates a certain level of intention before the passion takes over so it's the motivation that is the primary concern?

I am completely with the 'no sex outside marriage' stance but I have always thought it remarkably stupid not to take precautions if you are going to sin in this way - especially if you are female - the consequences if you get pregnant are so major. Taking the pill requires a significant level of commitment though - it's not just a momentary lapse of judgement. We try and cover up our other sins, is this any different to them?

I asked myself these questions when considering my response to this:
Would I want someone to get pregnant outside marriage? No, I wouldn't. Do I want their sin to be obvious to all? No, I don't. Not least because it's usually the woman who bears the greatest consequence if pregnancy does result.

So, I have to conclude that what worries me most is that someone is walking into a situation where they are preparing to sin which shows intention BUT I would also say to anyone having sex outside marriage - don't be stupid, use protection and not just to protect against pregnancy - there's a whole host of infections you don't want to catch.

It's a pragmatic response but bearing in mind the potential consequences, how on earth could anyone counsel someone not to protect themselves if they know they are likely to sin in this way? That would be unwise and unkind - and they're not going to be the one potentially paying the price for a long time to come.

"Personally, if the data say that hormonal birth control is not an abortifacient, I'm prone to believe that. " Uhm....you are going to risk a life on this? Really? As long as there is any question at all, I think Christians should err on the side of caution. And what about the "data" that says when birth control usage increases, abortions increase?

And...I mean, WHY are we using birth control in the first place? Because the world has decided that kids are a burden or a bother instead of the blessing that God has said they are.