For those who wonder about Sam and Bethany Torode, the authors of Open Embrace that argued evangelical couples should be less inclined to use contraception and more inclined to be open to the possibility of the blessing of children, Gardner notes that their web site now announces that the Torodes have three children and proclaim themselves "more mellow" about telling other people to have loads of kids.
Gardner's closing analysis, however, is this: evangelicals have really embraced a "great sex" ethic: (a) because it's your body and your choice, stay chaste before marriage for great sex after marriage; (b) contraception has a legitimate place in a marriage where great sex is a legitimate expectation. Her last word:
Some evangelicals charge that the Pill has contributed to the moral breakdown of society; perhaps, but evangelicals' embrace of the contraception culture has not helped. It may have made Christianity sexier to potential adherents but diminished a public understanding of marriage in the process. For evangelicals, this may be a bitter pill to swallow.
11 comments:
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church . . .” – St. Paul. “My body, my choice . . .” – Modern Evangelicals (as quoted by Gardner).
Gardner’s column illustrates the inconsistencies inherent in most modern evangelicals’ sex ethic. Many evangelicals are quick to use principles of natural law to support the biblical condemnation of homosexual acts (and rightly so). However, principles of natural law are quickly passed over by evangelicals when adherence to them would result in discipline and sacrifice within their own marriage bed. Natural law imposes an inseparable unitive and procreative significance on the marriage act, as recognized throughout the history of the Church and fully articulated in Humanae Vitae. As Pope Paul VI writes, “To experience the gift of married love (unitive) while respecting the laws of conception (procreative) is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.”
The evangelical sex ethic is also a fruit of evangelical theology’s over-emphasis on the individual and his relationship with the Divine. Many evangelicals, according to Gardner’s column, are quick to rationalize the use of contraception within their own marriage bed without giving much thought to broader societal implications. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognized the consequences of accepting contraception, which have largely come to fruition through the sexual revolution.
Marriage symbolizes, in the union of man and woman, the relationship of Christ to His Church. The sacrament of marriage reflects the sacred self-giving love of Christ to His people. As stated in Humanae Vitae, “Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance. . . . It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design.”
Does "be fruitful and multiply" imply "in no case should you not multiply?"
Children are a blessing no doubt, but I'd rather take the risk of defying the "law" of conception and care for a limited/planned # of children than obey this law and risk adding more responsibility than I personally can handle... which is a responsiblity that runs the risk of making the whole family dysfunctional, just for the sake of this physical (temporal?) "law." I don't think it's indicative of too little faith for me to think that 6 kids is just too many.
And I'm not sure it's entirely biblical to think that sex for the couples' sake is secondary to sex for the census' sake.
1 Cor. 7:3-5 doesn't seem to care much about societal implications or the primacy of child-bearing. It encourages sex for the sake of the couple - so that external temptation loses its power.
1. "I'd rather take the risk of defying the 'law' of conception . . . than obey this law and risk adding more responsibility than I personally can handle." The homosexual must then be free to violate the natural law because he can't personally handle it - your logic takes us there. This law is not temporal, but is an intrinsic part of body and soul as created by God.
2. The Church does not say the procreative trumps the unitive aspect of marital sex. The Church does say that they are inseparable and not to be manipulated outside of the natural creative rhythm of the body. Natural family planning is encouraged.
3. 1 Cor 7:3-5 must be read in context with all that Scripture and Tradition teach us regarding marriage.
4. Contraception may, in some instances, limit external temptation; but it's a double-edged sword. Contraception, by eliminating consequences, opens wide the way for marital infidelity. A man may also "forget the reverence due to a woman and . . . reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires."
In essence, Fiona attempts to refute the arguments of anonymous #1 against contraception as follows:
1. Natural law (which bans contraception) had its origins in Greek philosophy, therefore it's unreliable. (This is a genetic fallacy. It has the same structure as "This medicine came from a poisonous plant, therefore it's harmful.")
2. Either Scripture or natural law is correct. Scripture is correct. Therefore, natural law isn't. (This is a disjunctive fallacy. It has the same structure as "Either Harvard or Williams is in Massachusetts; Harvard is in Massachusetts; therefore, Williams isn't.")
3. Contraception is okay unless Scripture condemns it. But Scripture doesn't condemn it, so it's okay (This is a false dichotomy. It has the same structure as "Driving 100 m.p.h. is legal unless the Constitution condemns it; but the Constitution doesn't condemn it, so it's legal.")
4. My opponent is out of his mind. Therefore, he's wrong about contraception (This is an ad hominem abusive fallacy. It has the same structure as "Fiona is paranoid; therefore she's wrong about everyone disagreeing with her.")
5. My opponent's theology and logic are medieval, so we can discard them. (This is a fallacy of relevance. It has the same structure as "The Bible is old-fashioned, so we can ignore it.")
To this list of fallacies, she adds a number of unsubstantiated claims that anonymous #1 would never accept, thus, in effect, begging the question against her opponent:
1. Anyone who claims to speak for "the church" is a blowhard who ignores history.
2. Natural law is whatever one wants it to be.
3. Papal pronouncements are no more reliable than "the divine right of kings."
4. History shows that the popes were fallible.
5. The cause of the sexual revolution was independent of the pill.
6. Technology is morally neutral.
Of course, these claims may well be true, but simple assertion doesn't make them so. Anonymous #1 deserves more than knee-jerk denial in response to his comments.
Perhaps a little more attention to detail and a little less bluster might also be in order if we are to make some progress on this important issue.
Perhaps someone would like to discuss this remark from the linked article:
As Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, a professor of biblical studies at Eastern College, writes: "To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse because it undermines God's sovereignty is to underestimate God's sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve him wisely."
Glad for the traffic and the interest, we still urge gentle readers to read posts and links thoroughly before exercising their first-amendment rights all over our comment pages.
Thanks to JB in CA for the reminder that logic matters.
Fiona, I hate to say it but much of your rhetoric sounded just like that of Protestant politicians in N. Ireland to justify terrorist activity against Unionists. Of course I am not claiming that you support terrorism, lest jb in ca come after me with his Intro to Logic textbook. What I am saying is that such rhetoric begins the slippery slope into anti-catholic bigotry. A belief in the so-called "Church Invisible" or "Church Universal" is the same sort of belief that Catholics hold ("Catholic Church" literally means universal church). Consider also your statement that God has revealed himself in an inerrant way, how is this different than saying that God reveals his truth when the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra? Both are statements of belief about how God reveals himself. One last question, if the evil Catholics can open arms and hearts to "the sundered brethren," why can't Protestants do the same? Perhaps Protestants assign more importance to the Pope than Papists.
On this blog, we know who's allowed to speak ex cathedra, don't we? The rest of this ecumencial assemblage better keep to your place.
You have to laugh at Catholic, in a debate over contraception, rebuking a Protestant for falling into "the genetic fallacy". Most of the Catholic argument against contraception *depends* on the "genetic" or "guilt by association" argument. "Planned Parenthood/ Margaret Sanger support contraception! Planned Parenthood/ Margaret Sanger also support abortion!" Of course, if you turn this around and start commenting on the remarkable resemblance of most distinctive Catholic beliefs and dictrines to those of Graeco-Roman paganism -- especially remarkable given their complete non-resemblance to anything in Old Testament Judaism or New Testament Christianity -- then you're just Ian Paisley in disguise, you're appealing to prejudice, etc.
Friedrich Foresight: Just for the record, I'm not Catholic.
Fiona: Seems I've touched a nerve. By the way, jokes can be fallacious, too.
M. Swaim: So Fiona isn't going to "bore you with the details." How lucky can you get?
We thank some of our not-so-gentle commenters for proving again that the facelessness of the internet allows some people to communicate with a bitter edge that they would never countenance in face-to-face conversation.
We regret the degree to which we are contributing to the decline of civility.
Post a Comment