Birth Control: A Christian Perspective – Part 2

Last month in Part 1 we looked at God’s purpose for sex as it relates to birth control. Here we consider:

Is Birth Control Fundamentally Opposed to God’s Purpose for Sex or Can Birth Control be Incorporated into God’s Purpose for Sex?

Camp 1: God’s Purpose for Sex is Two-Fold

This camp holds the conviction that procreation is as equally important to God’s purpose for sex as is marital intimacy. This camp further divides itself into two subgroups:

Subgroup 1: This group concludes that every act of coitus must be open to procreation. Thus, this subgroup believes birth control is fundamentally opposed to God’s purpose for sex. From here, Subgroup 1 divides even further. Some say natural family planning (NFP) is acceptable because it is cooperating with nature. The Roman Catholic Church falls into this group. Others say even NFP is not acceptable because it is not so “natural” (must avoid sex when fertile, which is when female libido is high) and it boasts a 98% effectiveness rate when used properly. Thus, much motivation and effort are employed to assure coitus occurs only when there is almost no chance of conception, which, they reason, makes it the same as any other birth control. Some in the “full quiver movement” hold to this view.

Subgroup 2: While believing procreation is equally important to God’s purpose for sex, this group argues that not every conjugal act must be open to children, but rather the sexual relationship of the married couple must be open to and welcoming of children. Thus, this group concludes that birth control can be incorporated into God’s purpose for sex, with some restrictions:

1. Both husband and wife must come to a mutual agreement.
2. Abortive means of birth control are not acceptable.
3. The couple must continually submit their fertility to God.
4. Children must be welcomed and seen as a blessing.

Those in this group make no allowance for the life goal of DINK (“double income no kids”). However, they consider some reasons legitimate. For example, a married couple who highly values children might prayerfully conclude they would exercise better parenting skills if their children were not spaced too closely together; a married couple called to be missionaries might prayerfully conclude spacing out children would be wise; or if, due to a medical condition, pregnancy would put the wife’s health at serious risk, a married couple might prayerfully conclude the Lord would not ask them to take such a risk at this time (while they wait for healing, medical advancements, God’s call to take such a risk, or menopause).

Kevin DeYoung, Mark Yarhouse, Dennis Hollinger, and Denny Burk are some prominent Evangelicals in this subgroup. However, like Subgroup 1, Subgroup 2 also further divides, but this time over sterilization. Most find the likely permanence of sterilization contrary to the principle of continually submitting one’s fertility to God and maintaining openness to his leading in a new direction. The idea is to not be willfully infertile. However, some find sterilization an option under certain circumstances.

Camp 2: God’s Purpose for Sex is Primarily for Intimacy; Procreation Is Secondary or Optional

Those in this group argue God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply no longer applies, either due to the Fall or because we have “already filled the Earth.” They believe birth control can be incorporated into God’s purpose for sex, and sterilization is not an issue. Dan Allender is a prominent Evangelical in this camp. Most in this camp still object to methods of birth control that are abortive.

What are the Mechanisms of Action of Birth Control and What are the Theological Implications?

Many forms of birth control are abortive, and the marketing of them is opaque. In the 1960s, with the introduction of the pill, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists adopted a new understanding of “conception” to be synonymous with implantation and a new definition of “pregnancy” to mean once implantation has occurred, thus shrouding the abortive effects of birth control.^1,2,3

If a method of birth control acts after fertilization, the method is called an abortifacient. No barrier methods (such as condoms and diaphragms) are abortifacients. However, the IUD is an abortifacient, and many forms of hormonal birth control are abortifacients. All hormonal forms of birth control have three mechanisms of action, and they are: 1) anovulation (inhibits ovulation), 2) thickening of cervical mucus (inhibits sperm passage), and 3) thinning the uterine wall such that if conception were to occur, the newly conceived child could not implant and would be expelled with the next menstrual cycle (early abortion).

Regarding many, if not all, hormonal forms of birth control, what we do know is that women still ovulate sometimes (anovulation fails). What we do not know is how often and how these methods still maintain a 98-99% effectiveness rating. Estimates of how often ovulation still occurs are anywhere from 2% to 60% of the time, depending on method used and expert cited.

When ovulation does occur, the concern is that one of the other mechanisms of action acts as a “failsafe.” While thick cervical mucus may be helpful, most would not be confident in thick mucus alone as an effective form of birth control. But a thin uterine lining such that the newly conceived child could not implant? Seems more likely.

One will not find any definitive answers. Unfortunately, for those outside of Camp 1, Subgroup 1, the question becomes, how much ambiguity about the abortive potential of one’s birth control is acceptable? For more specifics, check the following link: https://media.focusonthefamily.com/topicinfo/position_statement-birth_control_pills_and_other_hormonal_contraception.pdf

¹ American College of Obstetricians Gynecologist. (2021). reVITALize: Gynecology Data Definitions. ACOG. https://www.acog.org/practice-management/health-it-and-clinical-informatics/revitalize-gynecology-data-definitions.

² Grens, K. (2011, November 17). When does pregnancy begin? Doctors disagree. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin/when-does-pregnancy-begin-doctors-disagree-idUSTRE7AG24B20111117.

³ Issues of Conscience. (2012). Clearing Rhetorical Minefields: Abortifacient vs. Contraception. Pamphlets: Minefields. https://www.consciencelaws.org/publications/pamphlets/pamphlet-minefields.pdf.