Search

Birth Control: A Christian Perspective – Part 1

CMC’s vision to mature and multiply churches includes learning to think critically and biblically about issues in our culture. When we eagerly seek for God’s Word to speak to every aspect of life, we learn, we grow, and our gospel witness expands. -BH

What Is God’s Purpose for Sex as It Relates to Birth Control?

The Old and New Testament
Two reasons given in the Scripture for marriage and sex are unity and procreation. For example, Jesus, quoting directly from Genesis, states (emphasis mine): 

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife [marriage], and the two shall become one flesh [sex]”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6 ESV).

Note the first “therefore” in Matthew 19:5. Why marriage and sex? Because he made us male and female. Marriage and sex are heterosexual by design. Furthermore, immediately after creating Adam and Eve, the first commandment God gave the couple was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), and the Bible consistently refers to children as a “blessing.”

First Two Centuries AD
For the first two centuries, the writings of the church fathers continue to teach that God’s purpose for marriage and sex is two-fold, without either having precedence: unity and procreation. This is evidenced in the writings of Ignatius (c. 105), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195), and others. 

The [Roman Catholic Church] accurately predicted that by separating the purpose of procreation from the purpose of intimacy, a cultural sea change would follow.

Beginning of the Third Century through the Middle Ages
Citing Paul’s praise of celibacy in First Corinthians, the church began to move in an extreme direction, viewing marriage as inferior to celibacy and viewing marital sex as a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation; furthermore, any passionate procreative act, even between a married couple, was considered sinful.  By the fifth century, clergy were prohibited from marrying. A division among Christians was established between the “religious,” referring to the clergy, nuns, and monks, who took vows of celibacy, and the “profane,” referring to the laity who were permitted to marry as a concession to the need to propagate the human race. 

The Reformation
Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin challenged this negative view of marriage and sex by allowing clergy to marry. Yet, surprisingly, it is the Puritans who are most credited with changing the view of the church at large.  Quoting such Scriptures as Genesis 2:18, 1 Timothy 4:1-4, Hebrews 3:4, and Proverbs 5:18-19, the Puritans won the day on this issue.  Marital sex, they argued, was not a necessary evil, nor was it solely for procreation. Rather, sex within marriage was also for pleasure, delight, relationship, and essentially romance, returning the church to an understanding of “twin purposes,” each equally important. 

The 1960s
This view prevailed until the 1960s, when the first oral contraceptive came on the market. For many Protestants, Evangelicals, and the culture at large, children became optional, but not for the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The RCC accurately predicted that by separating the purpose of procreation from the purpose of intimacy, a cultural sea change would follow which would result in social acceptance of cohabitation, abortion on demand, rampant sexual promiscuity and immorality of all sorts, and corresponding increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

Sociologist Anthony Giddens made the argument that relegating procreation as optional in the purpose for sex results in a logical support for homosexuality, and predicted that we would see a rising tide of social acceptance, because, as he saw it, if procreation is optional regarding the purpose for sex, so is male and female.1

Today
Today, no one thinks sex is solely for procreation. However, the church seems to split into two main camps: those who believe God’s purpose for sex is two-fold (equally for marital intimacy and for procreation), and those who believe that God’s purpose for sex is primarily for marital intimacy and procreation is secondary.

Stay tuned for Part 2 next month: How to answer the next question will depend entirely on how one answers this first question. In Part 2, we will discuss the following questions: Is birth control fundamentally opposed to God’s purpose for sex or can birth control be incorporated into God’s purpose for sex? And, what are the various mechanisms of action of birth control and their theological implications.

_________________________

1 Hollinger, D. P. (2009). The meaning of sex: Christian ethics and the moral life. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

3 Responses

  1. Thank you for covering a topic that might normally be seen as practical and not spiritual. Looking forward to part 2!

  2. This is very interesting! Thank you for sharing all of your historical research.

Archives